Morning After Pill: Now Without A Perscription!

I agree that its bullshit. I "took the bullets out of the gun" because my wife brought my 2 sons into the world. I didn't think it was fair for her to go through the childbirth process twice and then have a tubal ligation. We don't want anymore kids (sometimes I want to give away the ones we have ) and I figured this was the least I could do. I know someone is going to say its not even comparable, and their right.

Because I do not think it is possible to have a rational discussion with a person who can not understand the difference between a 10 year old child and a second trimester fetus.

the only difference is 10 years

It's the definition of worthy that's arbitrary. The developmental changes between conception and birth are not.

I respect you for the choice you made. My husband is in the process of getting approval from doctors for the operation but didn't require my permission to do it (even though I was required to obtain his, heh!)

varies by state I guess

And a flaming crapload of neurological and physical development, not to mention the ability to live outside the womb.

you seem to have forgotten what 10 year olds are like



yeah I know, bad joke given the topic.

I say they're fair game until they can get a job

Actually, it varies by doctor, I think.

So explain the difference. If you can.

Frankly I don't think you can come up with a logical explaination.

/me waits for the teengrid refugee to ask about lemonade stands

And frankly, you're starting to remind me of Kevn, and nothing anyone says about the subject will deter you from saying the same thing over and over again.

You conveniently ignored MY post on the subject because I gave reasons--you just want to vent and troll. Either listen to people's arguments or STFU!

So destroying a virus that is killing you is wrong? Stomping on the spider that just bit you? Should we pass a law banning killing ANY cell of any type anywhere because of the potential that cell may have? Or are we making the god like decision that some cells are worth far far more than others? If I had to sacrifice one child to save 5 people, I'd do it in an instant. We have passed laws protecting cells that do not have consciousness, so that we can watch people die of horrific diseases that those cells could have prevented.

Oddly, even before you posted there were answers.




But I think you were trolling for an answer to this question:

First: I fixed a typo in your post above.

Second: both are bad, but only one is okay.
A common misconception is that those who oppose an abortion ban want people to have abortions. I have never met anyone who wants people to have abortions.

So back to the question: why is it okay in one case?
When a woman is pregnant it is her burden to care for the fetus and there is only a limited amount of things that others can do to help her. If this is a pregnancy she does not want there is only one way to remove the fetus from her (at least until viability is reached). Even once viability is reached forcing a premature birth could have legal implications and I'm not sure how availabe that alternative is. Certainly I doubt a doctor would induce labor at the very start of the third trimester, although closer to full term it is something that I've heard people talking about. Once a child is born there are many safe and legal ways to remove it from the mother without causing the death of the child.

Why is it okay in one case and not the other? In short its because in one case there is no other technique available to remove it from the mother, at least to my knowlege.

She certainly was. That's why I posted the silly "Beautiful Beasley! Lee press-on pants. Warning Will Robinson, my arms are flailing wildly. Troll bait! Troll bait!" The only error I had in the post was using the word "warning" instead of "danger".

We were talking about the morning after pill and she suddenly turns it into Roe vs. Wade, but in a Kevn sort of way.

No, the OP was talking about restricting late term abortions.

And talking about the morning after pill as the reason.

I think you mistook my post as something it wasn't

my "the only difference is 10 years" actually supports Vares some. I was in a semi-joking manner showing that the only difference between a fetus and a child is time. Both are children.

Why do you feel it necessary to be derogatory with your answer? Do you think that helps to prove your point in any way?

I understand the logic of what you and Chip are saying. But everyone keeps using words like “about” and “around”. You can't write laws with those kinds of words. What I am saying is that you need to pick a specific time point and then give a logical and scientifically valid reason for choosing that time point.

Otherwise you are just picking an arbitrary time at random.

So I am asking if you can tell me when, exactly, should the cut off time be and what are the reasons to pick that specific time?

It's not trolling, it's a legitimate question that is relevant to the topic at hand.

And yet...



Why not surgical abortions for all?

Simply responding in kind. Or do you think that

is not condescending? Do you think that it helps to prove your point in any way?


Why do you have a problem with words like “about” and “around”? It is the nature of things, because there is no cut and dry boundary. You are correct that you can't legistate to something like that, which is why it is neccesary to slect a *somewhat* arbitrary, but specific time. Of course, depending on your goals it isn't entirely arbitarary, because you have to choose it with a specific goal in mind.

For example:
You might say "no abortions after the start of the third trimester because some fetus are able to survive outside the womb at that point." Not all are, so by the viability argument it should be ok to abort at that point. Similarly you could choose a later date, but at that point you could allow some potentially viable fetus to be aborted. The exact choice becomes a trade-off between erring to aborting a viable fetus and denying abortion of a non-viable fetus. In a way it is arbitrary, since you have to choose which side to err toward, but it is also done in a scientifically valid way.

Perhaps the simplest cut-off to choose is birth, it eliminates the guesswork about determination of the conception date.

You can always argue the "but what about 1 second beyond the cutoff", however that argument is disingenuous because it ignores the reasons for the choice of the cutoff date and fails to understand the reasons for it (i.e. practicality).

And here I was thinking you were the one not making any logical sense.

Briana Dawson

Conception. Because it would be killing a human being after that time.