Plan B available "over the counter"

[SEVERUSMAX]

For the sake of the argument:
Why then draw the line at a zygote? The zygote is just one of many steps in the process to what might be a great man or woman some day. It might or it might not. Not all zygotes develop into fetuses, but circle the drain instead naturally. So it's just a possibility, not an inevitability.
An earlier step and possibility would be the moment or conception.
An earlier one would be the moment of ejaculation.
And before that, we have the moment of penetration.
Or what about the moment of sexual attraction?
They're all just steps in the natural process. Why are some ok to stop and others not?

Ah, you've found it! The perfect line for a Catholic boy (or Protestant, for that matter) to use to get a girlfriend to put out! Can't stop the natural process now, can we? I'd be cool with that, too, if it wasn't pressuring people to go against their own principles and wishes. As much as I'm not into waiting for marriage, others have that idea and shouldn't be pressured into it.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

In Islam, of course, procreation is encouraged and marriage as well. Abortion, not so much. The whole child murder thing is going a bit far for the sake of freedom, don't you think? Not that I'm exactly in line with the bulk of the Koran, but they have a point in regard to killing babies. Of course, I can understand the argument that a zyogte isn't a soul, but still, it could be one very soon. Why stop the natural process? Who knows, it could be a great man or woman some day. And what about sex-selection abortions and such.

Now, I don't care for marriage quite so much. I have no qualms about "bastardy". That being so, I have even less reason to oppose birth and support abortion. Not shocking perhaps that many prudes support abortion. Couldn't follow their own damned rules, so they have to resort to murder to cover it up. Pah!

Having an abortion isn't the same thing as "killing a child" or "murdering a baby". It's getting rid of a cluster of cells that you don't want to have inside your body - kind of like operating away a tumour.

(OK, stop throwing things at me! I'm NOT comparing having a baby to having cancer! I'm trying to explain that I don't want neither inside my body!)

Why stop the natural process? Because I don't want it. And it's MY body, so I decide what to do with it, thank you very much.

 

[S-Des]

Having an abortion isn't the same thing as "killing a child" or "murdering a baby". It's getting rid of a cluster of cells that you don't want to have inside your body - kind of like operating away a tumour.

(OK, stop throwing things at me! I'm NOT comparing having a baby to having cancer! I'm trying to explain that I don't want neither inside my body!)

Why stop the natural process? Because I don't want it. And it's MY body, so I decide what to do with it, thank you very much.

So are you saying that any woman who has a miscarriage and mourns the loss of her "child" should just stop whining and get on with it (it's just a cluster of cells...geez!), no matter how far along she is? Does a father have a right to mourn (oh that's right, he's not a father until it's born, so he has no right to feel anything...I forgot).

The problem with this debate is that people get so caught up in proving that they're right that they don't bother to care about anyone else's feelings. Being a guy, I'm not going to enforce my personal opinions on any woman (although that doesn't stop me from having opinions). However, I know people who fervently believe it is a baby from the moment of conception. That doesn't make them Nazis or any of the other hateful names used to describe them. They can't stand the thought of a child being harmed (sounds kind of liberal when you think of it).

It is your body and I won't tell you what to do with it (and I'll defend you against people who would). At the same time, is it really necessary to attack everyone who doesn't think exactly the way you do?

 

[Darkniciad]

I just feel there's a point where "cluster of cells" ceases to be true, and the pro-choice camp is just as intractable with that as the pro-life camp is in their stance ( the larger, overall movement, not related to any individual's opinion in both cases )

Partial birth abortion is an extreme example, but anyone who has been pregnant knows that, quite some time before birth, there is an independant being floating around in there. There does come a point, in my mind, where it stops being just an inconveniant growth and becomes a person. At that point, abortion is wrong as far as I'm concerned. ( Barring those rare conditions of mother's health, rape, etc. )

"Slippery slope" is a very poor argument for defending barbarism, and that includes people in both camps. Forcing a rape victim to carry a child to term is abhorrant, as is forcing a mother to bear a child that is known will be horribly deformed. Killing a baby that, through modern medicine, could quite possibly survive outside the womb and be put up for adoption is an affront to human decency. ( Barring those extremely rare conditions where a C-section will be more dangerous to the mother than whatever method of abortion is performed )

There are people who actually believe in things like that, and it boggles my mind how they could feel that way and not be nauseus the whole time.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

So are you saying that any woman who has a miscarriage and mourns the loss of her "child" should just stop whining and get on with it (it's just a cluster of cells...geez!), no matter how far along she is? Does a father have a right to mourn (oh that's right, he's not a father until it's born, so he has no right to feel anything...I forgot).

The problem with this debate is that people get so caught up in proving that they're right that they don't bother to care about anyone else's feelings. Being a guy, I'm not going to enforce my personal opinions on any woman (although that doesn't stop me from having opinions). However, I know people who fervently believe it is a baby from the moment of conception. That doesn't make them Nazis or any of the other hateful names used to describe them. They can't stand the thought of a child being harmed (sounds kind of liberal when you think of it).

It is your body and I won't tell you what to do with it (and I'll defend you against people who would). At the same time, is it really necessary to attack everyone who doesn't think exactly the way you do?

I don't think I've used the word "nazi" anywhere in THIS thread..?

I don't think that an expecting couple is a couple of morons if they think of the fetus as their child - it IS going to become their child. If they like to think of it as a real child before it's even born, I'm not gonna smack their fingers and say that they mustn't do that. That's up to them. But in return, I'll demand that they show me the respect of not saying that if I have an abortion, I'm a murderer. To ME, it's nothing but a cluster of cells. Removing them is not murder in MY eyes.

It sounds coldhearted and unromantic when I call what they think of as their soon-to-be-born son or daughter "a bunch of cells".

But it sounds even worse when I get called a "child murderer" when I stand up for my right to choose to not have a baby that I don't want.

 

[SesameStreet]

I am not Catholic but I believe that a human being is created at the moment of conception. Every bit of DNA that that person will ever have is present at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. To do anything to kill this tiny person is wrong. Abortion, morning after pill, makes no difference. if these young people are smart enough to go to a pharmacy and buy this morning after pill then they should be smart enough to buy condoms and spermacide and keep that around all the time.

 

[Guest]

I am not Catholic but I believe that a human being is created at the moment of conception. Every bit of DNA that that person will ever have is present at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. To do anything to kill this tiny person is wrong. Abortion, morning after pill, makes no difference. if these young people are smart enough to go to a pharmacy and buy this morning after pill then they should be smart enough to buy condoms and spermacide and keep that around all the time.

Not Catholic, but deeply religious, and after following a few of your political links on your web page I'm not surprised at your point of view.

You can believe whatever you wish but it does seem that you are placing blame for an unplanned pregnancy without regard to accidental contraceptive failure (or rape or incest).

Additionally, many low-income young people cannot afford condoms and spermicide. Our conservative moralistic government is constantly working against groups such as Planned Parenthood which does provide information and contraceptives for young people in need.

 

[CharleyH]

If it were up to me, I'd like to see dispensers stocked with these things on every street corner and in every high school. Now there's my tax dollars at work. 300,000 unwanted kids are born each year to 14-18 year olds. I'd rather have my tax dollars up front, as opposed to the outrageous costs of foster care, juvenile detention, prison.

Personally? I would rather see young people being smarter and more parents being open with them and telling them the truth about sex from a younger age than this gawd awful semi-Victorian one we live in ... Morning after pill? If one needs it, then I am happy they can get it as their personal CHOICE dictates and why not in dispensers?

Edit to add: I still think they should have been smarter to begin with and not simply because they might get pregnant. There's AIDS, herpes, warts, the big G, and syphallis still out there. There are many better reasons to still use a condom.

 

[arienette]

I am not Catholic but I believe that a human being is created at the moment of conception. Every bit of DNA that that person will ever have is present at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. To do anything to kill this tiny person is wrong. Abortion, morning after pill, makes no difference. if these young people are smart enough to go to a pharmacy and buy this morning after pill then they should be smart enough to buy condoms and spermacide and keep that around all the time.

Condoms break and rape/incest sadly happens. Women are people, not incubators and shouldn't be treated as baby machines.

 

[CharleyH]

I am not Catholic but I believe that a human being is created at the moment of conception. Every bit of DNA that that person will ever have is present at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. To do anything to kill this tiny person is wrong. Abortion, morning after pill, makes no difference. if these young people are smart enough to go to a pharmacy and buy this morning after pill then they should be smart enough to buy condoms and spermacide and keep that around all the time.

On one hand I agree that young persons should be better informed. Yet, do you eat meat? Plants? Are you not aborting their lives when you do? What is the difference between a human life and other life forms? Why is the fetus, barely conceived, more important than the seedling in a field?

 

[Lisa Denton]

I am not Catholic but I believe that a human being is created at the moment of conception. Every bit of DNA that that person will ever have is present at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. To do anything to kill this tiny person is wrong. Abortion, morning after pill, makes no difference. if these young people are smart enough to go to a pharmacy and buy this morning after pill then they should be smart enough to buy condoms and spermacide and keep that around all the time.

I can see your point of view, however, some more radical types use that same argument to say that a woman, or girl, who is the victim of rape or incest should be forced to deliver the child which could only remind her of a brutal assault, and a forced nine month sentence out of her life to deliver this child.

I would understand your views better if you stated them to ONE woman who was pregnant, urged her to deliver the child, and you promised to love and care for that child for the following eighteen years.

Thats what I think of when I hear "bear the responsibility."

It works both ways, caring for an unborn child shouldn't end when the child is born.

Who will be responsible after birth?

 

[arienette]

I can see your point of view, however, some more radical types use that same argument to say that a woman, or girl, who is the victim of rape or incest should be forced to deliver the child which could only remind her of a brutal assault, and a forced nine month sentence out of her life to deliver this child.

I would understand your views better if you stated them to ONE woman who was pregnant, urged her to deliver the child, and you promised to love and care for that child for the following eighteen years.

Thats what I think of when I hear "bear the responsibility."

It works both ways, caring for an unborn child shouldn't end when the child is born.

Who will be responsible after birth?

That's the problem with all of the pro-lifers out there. They tell women to deliver children, but who will give them the money to care for it for the next 18 years?

We always care about the unborn children but not so much the children we already have living in poverty.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I think on this one, I'm more with Sweetnpetite. The professionals are there for a reason, several of them in this case. If there are genuine concerns in terms of the useage of the MAP, then perhaps it is best to allow the doctors to examine the circumstances before offering anyone the pills out of mere want. No, not all doctors will make the best decisions, but their medical training does put them in fair position to be better informed than most of us, and people who know the topics are usually not the ones making the decisions.

As for the topic of abortion, my stance hasn't changed any in recent days. So long as it's performed in cases when a) it's within the time frame (first trimester) or b) the risk is notable enough to the mother's life and health that performing it past that time is understandable. Abortions performed merely for unwanted pregnancies shouldn't be allowed in the later trimesters, and are sadly, performed then far too often.

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I can see your point of view, however, some more radical types use that same argument to say that a woman, or girl, who is the victim of rape or incest should be forced to deliver the child which could only remind her of a brutal assault, and a forced nine month sentence out of her life to deliver this child.

I would understand your views better if you stated them to ONE woman who was pregnant, urged her to deliver the child, and you promised to love and care for that child for the following eighteen years.

Thats what I think of when I hear "bear the responsibility."

It works both ways, caring for an unborn child shouldn't end when the child is born.

Who will be responsible after birth?

Good points. However, I don't think they quite apply to much of the Pro-Life argument. In cases like this, and many other cases in life, you have to look at things in the perspective of "lesser of two evils." If it's a life to you, then taking it is wrong. If you deliver it, the child could have no chance, or could fall into favorable conditions in some unforseen manner.

If you look at it from a perspective similar to the one many Pro-Lifers have, that there is definitely a life, then the 9 months and 18 years of raising the child, and the options that are sacrificed in that process, is hardly the greater of the two evils in question.

Q_C

 

[CharleyH]

Good points. However, I don't think they quite apply to much of the Pro-Life argument. In cases like this, and many other cases in life, you have to look at things in the perspective of "lesser of two evils." If it's a life to you, then taking it is wrong.
Q_C

Excuse me, and apologies as I never got this was a pro-life thread. Bowing out.

 

[SesameStreet]

If a woman becomes pregnant because of forced incest or rape and she feels financilly unable to care for the child then putting the child up for adoption is always available. That aside, I stand behind my statement that knowing that this pill is available OTC will cause many younger teens who are naive enough to think that catching STDs always happens to someone else to stop using condoms.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Excuse me, and apologies as I never got this was a pro-life thread. Bowing out.

What did what you just said have to do with my post?

Q_C

 

[Guest]

If a woman becomes pregnant because of forced incest or rape and she feels financilly unable to care for the child then putting the child up for adoption is always available. That aside, I stand behind my statement that knowing that this pill is available OTC will cause many younger teens who are naive enough to think that catching STDs always happens to someone else to stop using condoms.

If a woman or child becomes pregnant because of forced incest or rape she should NOT be forced to continue the pregnancy.

Would you?

 

[CharleyH]

If a woman becomes pregnant because of forced incest or rape and she feels financilly unable to care for the child then putting the child up for adoption is always available. That aside, I stand behind my statement that knowing that this pill is available OTC will cause many younger teens who are naive enough to think that catching STDs always happens to someone else to stop using condoms.

No offence, as I did try to back you up in some way Sesame Street (oh so appropriate name), but you are naive, my 'male' friend. You have nothing to do with my body and what I choose to do with it IS MY business and is just as important as your right to choose what you do with your body. PEOPLE MUST BE CAREFUL, not just younger teen girls, but young men. who cannot get pregnant, but males are at much higher risk for disease than girls. Do you want to keep your disease? Why should a girl keep what she thinks is her ruin? Possibly a disease depending on the guy or her view of him as a disease?

 

[Darkniciad]

If a woman becomes pregnant because of forced incest or rape and she feels financilly unable to care for the child then putting the child up for adoption is always available. That aside, I stand behind my statement that knowing that this pill is available OTC will cause many younger teens who are naive enough to think that catching STDs always happens to someone else to stop using condoms.

For the sake of a cluster of cells, resembling nothing, feeling nothing, you would sacrifice the mother to additional torment, after already having been through a traumatic experience the likes of which you cannot begin to comprehend. You would subject her to the financial burden of a child that was forced upon her through a rape, dealing with the pre-natel care necessary for her health. You would submit her entire family to the horror of watching a loved one swell with child, and have the joy that should be present in that sight turned to ashes because it is the seed of a rapist she is nourishing against her will in her womb. You would subject her to the rumor mill of everyone who encounters her, the whispers of "Bastard child of a rapist."

I'm sorry, that's barbaric.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Good points. However, I don't think they quite apply to much of the Pro-Life argument. In cases like this, and many other cases in life, you have to look at things in the perspective of "lesser of two evils." If it's a life to you, then taking it is wrong. If you deliver it, the child could have no chance, or could fall into favorable conditions in some unforseen manner.

If you look at it from a perspective similar to the one many Pro-Lifers have, that there is definitely a life, then the 9 months and 18 years of raising the child, and the options that are sacrificed in that process, is hardly the greater of the two evils in question.

Q_C

I know they don't apply Quiet, thats why I was saying they should.

And I can't figure out how anyone could say 18 years and 9 months is hardly the greater evil in question .................. unless it is someone willing to say "I WILL SPEND 9 MONTHS PREGNANT AND 18 YEARS LOVING AND CARING FOR THIS CHILD IN MY HOME" and at that point that person will have my undivided attention.

The people who say "I have decided you must have this child" and immediately after delivery say "just keep that lil brat away from me" do not have my respect as I don't think they grasp the concept of RESPONSIBILITY.

But then, thats just my lil opinion.

 

[CharleyH]

I know they don't apply Quiet, thats why I was saying they should.

And I can't figure out how anyone could say 18 years and 9 months is hardly the greater evil in question .................. unless it is someone willing to say "I WILL SPEND 9 MONTHS PREGNANT AND 18 YEARS LOVING AND CARING FOR THIS CHILD IN MY HOME" and at that point that person will have my undivided attention.

The people who say "I have decided you must have this child" and immediately after delivery say "just keep that lil brat away from me" do not have my respect as I don't think they grasp the concept of RESPONSIBILITY.

But then, thats just my lil opinion.

Your L'il ole opinion is always amazing, LisaD. Thank you!

 

[Liar]

That aside, I stand behind my statement that knowing that this pill is available OTC will cause many younger teens who are naive enough to think that catching STDs always happens to someone else to stop using condoms.

Feh. I'll bet my shoes that the general availability and legality of this-or-that method of birth control has only a marginal effect on whether kids use condoms or not.

Stupid teenagers will always be stupid teenagers. And they don't use condoms anyway.

Best birth control on the market: Talk some sense into them stupid kids. Tell 'em it's ok to fuck, if they do it right.

But oh no, we can't do that. That would be, like, immoral. Better teach them abstinence. Because that'll hit the spot.

 

[Liar]

The people who say "I have decided you must have this child" and immediately after delivery say "just keep that lil brat away from me" do not have my respect as I don't think they grasp the concept of RESPONSIBILITY.

But then, thats just my lil opinion.

And a mighty fine one it is.

 

[S-Des]

I don't think I've used the word "nazi" anywhere in THIS thread..?

I never said you did??? All I said was that I thought your tone was very provacative, even though I didn't see anyone attacking you. What I said was that people who genuinely believe that the "cluster of cells" is a baby, shouldn't be called horrific names for caring (and despite the ludicrous attacks, I know many people who give freely of their time, energy, and money to help those less fortunate).

This whole thread is a minefield to try to talk about. I like these discussions because I honestly want to know what you (and others) think about the situation. I'm one of those people who doesn't have a problem with listening to all sides of an argument. I try not to get so emotionally tied into it that I have to "make everyone see that I'm right." Not saying that anyone on this thread did that (although Charley's post about leaving was less than I expected of someone of her intellect), just trying to find a way to explain why I think the debate is important.

To me, anyone name-calling is wrong (on either side of the issue). I won't wade back into the topic because it's just too hard to get a reasonable discussion without the insanity that accompanies it. I wish it was possible to have an even debate (in general, please don't think I'm singling you out...I just wanted you to know I wasn't accusing you of any specific attacks). I could see something like this being used very effectively in a story, and having everyone actually contribute rather than beat each other over the heads would be helpful. Despite what someone may think my opinion on the subject is (and they'd probably be mistaken), I always listen to the opinions offered with passion and grace. As writers, I would like to think we could all accomplish that small feat.