The pill can prevent that. That's one of the ways it works. But not always. Sometimes it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, which would be murder.
And conception is the very first division of the cells. Life does not begin, by any criteria you wish to apply, until the single-cell has divided. Until that point the egg is benign and the only life in there is the spermatozoa. The sperm fertilizes the egg to set the conditions for life to begin, but it doesn't begin until that first division. Many fertilized eggs never divide.
No, because the pill is a progestin hormone (synthetic progesterone) that is already present in the body. Taking the pill simply elevates the levels of progesterone for a short period of time (back to normal levels, actually). The levels of progesterone in the body rises and falls regularly (levels rise when ovulation doesn't produce a fertilized egg, and falls just before ovulation), but taking the pill allows one to keep it high to prevent conception. When the levels of progesterone naturally fall just before ovulation, the uterine wall lining is altered to allow a fertilized egg to implant itself in the wall, and raising the levels of progesterone reverse the uterine lining back to a normal, pre-ovulation state.
You have more confidence in the FDA than I do, apparently, but in any case, the FDA and every other medical agency around the world has studied the Morning After Pill (more commonly known as Plan B) quite extensively, since progestin is the same hormone in birth control pills. There has never been any evidence that The Pill causes birth defects, even when taken accidentally during pregnancy.
That's right - in fact, "life" doesn't begin at all - it continues ... eventually in a new, unique form ...
While you might hold that as a religious or philosophical view - which is perfectly fine of course - it wasn't anything that the Founding Fathers addressed as far as I know ...
Well, unfortunately at this point, the issue/question that you are trying to address is one of a ethical nature - and is one which requires knowledge of certain things which are outside of our present scientific knowledge ... meaning that it exists largely in the area of opinion, superstition, and religious belief.
If you die in your sleep without action from others, that's a natural death. If someone takes action, like injecting you with something that interferes with your body processes causing death, that's murder.
Without doubt, RU-486 is murder. When Plan B causes a fertilized egg to fail to implant and be expelled, that's also murder.
Obviously false, considering that a new soul that didn't exist before now exists.
That's not important. There are many beliefs of Judaism that are false. There are perceived doctrines of Christianity that are false.
It's not a man, no. It's mankind.
Irrelevant.
You're right. They're not the same. Unborn isn't the same as born, quite obviously. But they're equivalent in status. A child isn't the same a an adult; a man isn't the same as a woman. They're equivalent though, in that they're mankind, human beings.
Right. It being so is what makes it so, and it being so is why I say it.
In many, maybe even most cases, you might be right. But I can think of several scenarios where that would not be the case at all. You're trying to create a context of a false dichotomy where it's either/or, one or the other, where there can only be one of two causes of death. Reality says otherwise.
In some cases, yeah, sure, but in many cases, no. You can't simply redefine "murder" to make it mean whatever you want it to mean, to make it fit with your beliefs or agenda, any more than you can redefine other terms for the same purposes. People who do that are quite literally disturbing the condition, function and actions of the meanings of words. The term for disturbing the condition of, the function of, or the actions of something is.... deranged.
It doesn't get any less ridiculous when you repeat it.
This again? This is about the 50th time you're raised this bogus argument. In Chicago, there were about 532 murders last year. That I oppose them doesn't mean that I should open my home to 532 people, or tell the murderer, "I'm not going to take in your victim, so go ahead and kill him."
No, it's those who are conceiving the children who must support them. Funny thing, scientists know what causes pregnancy now, and when couple have sex, they're taking a chance on conceiving a child. Those are the consequences, for good or bad, of the sex act. If you or some other they do or don't want to be involved in a pregnancy, you know what to do or not do. Once the egg is fertilized, it has been done. To terminate any fertilized egg is no different than murdering your 5-year-old child because you're tired of being a parent.
No, it's those who are conceiving the children who must support them. Funny thing, scientists know what causes pregnancy now, and when couple have sex, they're taking a chance on conceiving a child. Those are the consequences, for good or bad, of the sex act. If you or some other they do or don't want to be involved in a pregnancy, you know what to do or not do. Once the egg is fertilized, it has been done. To terminate any fertilized egg is no different than murdering your 5-year-old child because you're tired of being a parent.[/QUOTE]
No, one is just decriminalized. Murder can never be made legal.
You don't see how ridiculous your argument is? What if a hit man says, "You don't approve of murder? Don't commit one. Just leave me alone." Both treat murder as if it's a choice of music, or ice cream. Ridiculous.
The same could have been said for slavery. Was it right? Could you defend it on that basis?
My plan is to shut off the means of avoiding the consequences of one's procreative actions. Prenatal infantacide had done that, and look where it's gotten us: a hypersexual society in which 1/3 of adults have herpes, babies being murdered by abortionists after botched abortions, babies being murdered or abandoned right after birth by teen mothers, etc.
OR, if the egg is already fertilized, it prevents implantation in the uterine wall i.e. murders the baby when the egg is flushed out.
Thank you for opening the door ... I will now walk through it.
Of course it's important - the very foundation of Western civilization and the moral codes which inform our law spring out of that well.
As objective fact ... or just according to your own personal belief system as a matter of faith ?
Semantics (man is synonym for mankind) but be that as it may: no ... it's potential mankind ...
Actually, I would say that it's highly relevant ...
Yes, I know ...
Evidently not, at least under the law here in this country ... and that's a holding that has a foundation dating all the way back to the Old Testament.
A cell (human zygote, fertilized egg) is not a human being ... it might eventually become one if given the chance ... but at the point of fertilization it isn't ... at least not as that term is commonly understood by those who are not theocratically inclined ....
Well, that's about as flaccid an argument as I can possibly imagine ...
Except when it doesn't. As has been pointed out repeatedly, if the egg is already fertilized, it prevents implantation in the uterine wall. Not the same as preventing the process from the beginning.
I don't know those people. That isn't a Christian doctrine. I know Catholics believe that, but if Catholics are Christians, they certainly aren't most of us.
You might want to exercise some caution in regards to grabbing onto that premise and swinging it around much ... unintended consequences being what they are ...
Thanks for that explanation Turtle...seems reasonable enough to me.
:thumbup:
Is "because you can" sufficient reason for asshattery? I would argue that doing something inconsiderate just because you can is a major, perhaps the prime, indicator of that very thing.Thanks for that explanation Turtle...seems reasonable enough to me.
BTW: Amonger, I quoted ALL of his reply because... I CAN