Morning After Pill: Now Without A Perscription!

No chance Kiamat, views are far too polarised on the subject. You either regard every embryo as life and anthropomorphise by giving it names such as 'Bob' or you regard your body as a vessel that you can do anything you want to it.

Petgirl, since you seem to be the most vocal female in this thread, I am curious what your opinion is on this

I think the morning after pill is a good thing. However, as a mother of 2, I am opposed to third trimester abortions.

In the third trimester you can feel the baby move and kick (unlike 1 & 2), you can feel that the baby is alive. Aborting at this point is murder, plain and simple - unless it is to save the mothers life.

Briana Dawson

Billybob, my take on this is "if you don't know each other well enough that your communication doesn't need to be legislated, you shouldn't be fucking in the first place".

Well, the ultimate decision belongs to the woman. We have to carry the baby for 9 months, not the potential father. The potential father does not have to deal with morning sickness, swelling ankles, back aches, horomone overloads, and more...Need I mention actual child birth?? Which is a pain no man could ever bear.

Briana Dawson

I have never actually heard of a third-trimester abortion being done when the mother's life wasn't at risk, Briana - at least outside of propagandic horror stories by the forced-birth movement.

Read post No 7.

And we have lots of narrow minded people in our land to.

/Tina

Yet if you murder a pregnant woman, it is a double homicide.

I'm thrilled that this contraceptive will be available to the general public soon. It means more choice for citizens who wish to exercise their reproductive freedoms.

The sane plan is as follows: women should have access to birth control, morning after pills, medical abortion pills, surgical abortion up to the end of the second trimester, and surgical abortion in the third trimester in the event the mother's life is at risk. The State has no place mandating what people do with their bodies and instead should focus on providing education and subsidized birth control.

Bah! Chances are pretty damned good that any given person does not know his/her partner that well. Otherwise I think the divorce rate would be significantly lower.

I have four children. When I made my appointment to get a vasectomy, and the doctor was explaining the process and giving me the forms to fill out, he explained that they required my then-wife's signature and permission to give me a vasectomy. I ended up not being able to get the operation performed

She, however, was not required to get my permission when she later had tubal ligation performed.

It's worse. When we divorced and I got permanent custody of two of the children, I was told by the Dept. of Social Security that I absolutely could not get the social security number and card for my own daughter, despite the fact that I had proof that I was the father and had custody. Why? Because I'm a man, and we don't trust men. I might be trying to kidnap my daughter or some shit. I actually had to have a friend's mother that worked for SS get me the required paperwork and walk me through the process.

In my state, until just a few years ago, there was a law that required me to pay child support on a step child even though the mother was also recieving child support from the biological father. It was called "step-parent liability".

While it might be nice for men to at least have some notification, the current system is quite heavily stacked against men, who have far fewer legal rights wrt children. We don't get to choose when we have children, we don't get to choose when we don't (wrt abortion), in many cases we have next to no rights after divorce regarding those children.

Wonderful idea, Billybob, but it'll never happen. Wish that were not the case.

I know how bad it is, I was there every step of the way for both of my children. I did everything in my power to make it easier on my wife. However the potential father, in a stable relationship, develops an emotional attachment to the unborn child during the pregancy. Call me an old sentimental fool or whatever but its true. In a loving relationship the burden of pregancy is carried by both parties.

The concept of equitable emotional investment is a fallacy. In fact the majority of the physical burden and the majority of the emotional burden/investment is the female's. Stating that men are equally invested emotionally is a ploy to gain control over their body.

I didn't say it was shared equally, however are you denying that men are incapable of having an emotional attachment to their potential child?

I'm saying that the argument of equal emotional attachment is fallacious and a poor criteria to override reproductive rights.

yet again, who said its was equally shared? There is absolutely no way possible for it be equally shared. However to say that the male has zero attachment is also false. Now who said override?

The “my body, my choice” argument doesn't hold up. Logically it just doesn't work. It's not like we are talking about breast implants here. It's not just your body in question. The baby has a body as well. Following your logic it should be ok for a mother to kill her 10 year old child any time she likes. After all, under your definition it's her body so it's her choice.




Why do you say that? Is it only a serious discusion if I agree with you? It's a legitimate question. How is a fetus that is 89 days 23 hours and 59 minutes old any different from a fetus that is 90 days and 1 second old?

If you are going to ban abortions of any kind, then logically you have to ban them all. It's illogical to say you can kill a baby this way but not this way. Dead is dead.

If you are going to allow abortion, then you have to allow them all.

Setting totally arbitrary limits doesn't make any sense at all. Religion and emotion have nothing to do with it. It's simple logic. Can you give me a logical explanation for arbitrary limits?




No logic in this statement at all.




Why the limit in the third trimester? Does something magical happen to the baby on the first day of it's seventh month that makes it wrong to abort it?



Again, the statement that it's only the woman's body involved is not logical. The baby has a body as well. Does the fact that it's tiny change that fact?

Bye...

/Tina

You're arguing from the position that a one week old fetus is the same as a ten year old child. That's only true in the sense that both are on the human developmental path, but it ignores the fact that there are huge changes along the way, like having a brain comprised of a few thousand cells and a few billion, being dependant on the host body for oxygen or breathing independantly, and on and on. When you compare a one month old fetus to a newborn, they're different in almost every way. Ignoring all that doesn't strike me as particularly logical.

Personally I'm fine with any and all abortion up to the point where the fetus becomes consciously self aware.

The problem is how do you determine when the fetus becomes consciously self aware. Some medical evidence would suggest that we don't become truly self aware until we develop language skills, which doesn't happen until something like 2 years after birth.

How are you going to define when the fetus becomes a person? What criteria can you use that isn't arbitrary?

In a perfect world, sure. But I do not agree with you. I don't think the "burden of pregnancy" a man carries is enough to grant him rights over my body.

Briana Dawson

But its ok that I had to have spousal permission to get my vasectomy?

I had to receive spousal permission for a tubal ligation and even with that, the doctor refused to provide one to me.

It's frequently a CYA thing for doctors - they don't want to be sued by either you after you develop a case of "snipper's regret", or by your spouse.

I think it's a lot of bullshit, personally.

I don't think self-awareness is arbitrary, but if it doesn't happen until well after birth, then I'd think drawing the line at birth would be fine. Surely a line between still in the womb and out of the womb isn't arbitrary?

Of course it's arbitrary. How is a baby that is 10 minutes from birth less worthy of life than a baby that is 10 minutes after birth?

There is no logic to it.