Originally posted by Rogue JediYou could use that argument against contraception aswell, but I bet you're for that aren't you?
its a pointless argument, because neither side will admit that the other has a point. usually the prochoice are worse about this.
bottom line is that if she doesnt want a baby, she should have kept her legs closed.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
its a pointless argument, because neither side will admit that the other has a point. usually the prochoice are worse about this.
bottom line is that if she doesnt want a baby, she should have kept her legs closed.
Bottom line is that if she doesn't want the baby she can abort it.
Originally posted by Rogue JediThe zealots of either side will not admit that the other is right or has any points to their view, that is the problem with zealots. As for which is worse at it I have found the pro-life is worse IMO, I don't see pro-choice killing anyone over it.
its a pointless argument, because neither side will admit that the other has a point. usually the prochoice are worse about this.
bottom line is that if she doesnt want a baby, she should have kept her legs closed.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I like this thread, it's funny how those against abortion are for things that do the exact same thing, but are a way of prevention, not stopping.
Why is that funny? Can you not see the difference between an abortion where life is extinguished and using birth control where life is not allowed to ever begin in the first place? Using a condom is not the same thing as an abortion, not even close.
Originally posted by RobtardWhy? The argument for Abortion is your eliminating life. Contraception does the same, the morning after pill does the same. Yes, if mum had an abortion I wouldn't exist, but if she used contraception, morning after, became sterile, I still wouldn't exist.
Why is that funny? Can you not see the difference between an abortion where life is extinguished and using birth control where life is not allowed to ever begin in the first place? Using a condom is not the same thing as an abortion, not even close.
If you're against one, you should be against them all.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Why? The argument for Abortion is your eliminating life. Contraception does the same, the morning after pill does the same. Yes, if mum had an abortion I wouldn't exist, but if she used contraception, morning after, became sterile, I still wouldn't exist.If you're against one, you should be against them all.
Correct, abortions do "eliminate life"... Contraception prevents the possiblity of life from ever starting. A huge difference.
Originally posted by RobtardYes but the argument could stand for both. I have athsma, and their is two inhailers, a blue and a brown.
Correct, abortions do "eliminate life"... Contraception prevents the possiblity of life from ever starting. A huge difference.
Brown: Prevents me from haivng an asthma attack (Taken daily).
Blue: To be used when having an asthma attack to stop it.
If your argument is I should have asthma attacks, you can't just be against the Blue because it stops the attack, you have to be against the Brown aswell, other-wise your argument isn't for asthma it's against the Blue inhaler because it's the blue inhaler, which is absurd.
Disclaimer: I don't know if it's athsma or asthma, most likely athsma.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes but the argument could stand for both. I have athsma, and their is two inhailers, a blue and a brown.Brown: Prevents me from haivng an asthma attack (Taken daily).
Blue: To be used when having an asthma attack to stop it.If your argument is I should have asthma attacks, you can't just be against the Blue because it stops the attack, you have to be against the Brown aswell, other-wise your argument isn't for asthma it's against the Blue inhaler because it's the blue inhaler, which is absurd.
Disclaimer: I don't know if it's athsma or asthma, most likely athsma.
No. You already have asthma, that is the difference in your analogy between an abortion vs. birth contraception. Just as an abortion will essentially kill life that has begun, using a condom will not kill life as it has yet to begin.
Originally posted by RobtardI'll admit my analogy wasn't the best. You also raise up a good point. Abortion = murder. But that's not what I meant, the argument that Abortion is stopping life therefore it's bad is not the same argument as abortion is murder.
No. You already have asthma, that is the difference in your analogy between an abortion vs. birth contraception. Just as an abortion will essentially kill life that has begun, using a condom will not kill life as it has yet to begin.
Originally posted by RobtardA presumed mechanism of action of the emergency birth control pill is the prevention of implantation of a fertilised zygote. Pregnancy medically begins at implantation, and the EBC is consequently medically contraception.
Correct, abortions do "eliminate life"... Contraception prevents the possiblity of life from ever starting. A huge difference.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I'll admit my analogy wasn't the best. You also raise up a good point. Abortion = murder. But that's not what I meant, the argument that Abortion is stopping life therefore it's bad is not the same argument as abortion is murder.
I never said "Abortion = murder"... You had said that people who are against abortions because it is killing should also be against contraception as it too kills. I disagree and have stated why. Abortions kill life contraception does not.
Originally posted by Robtard
I never said "Abortion = murder"... You had said that people who are against abortions because it is killing should also be against contraception as it to kills. I disagree and have stated why. Abortions kill life contraception does not.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotAnything that occurs to prevent pregnancy i.e. preimplantation to the fundus of the uterus is contraception, regardless of whether the ovum has been fertilised.
A presumed mechanism of action of the emergency birth control pill is the prevention of implantation of a fertilised zygote. Pregnancy medically begins at implantation, and the EBC is consequently medically contraception.
Ova and spermatozoa are technically "life" regardless.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A presumed mechanism of action of the emergency birth control pill is the prevention of implantation of a fertilised zygote. Pregnancy medically begins at implantation, and the EBC is consequently medically contraception.
And your point as it relates to "is contraception the equivalent of an abortion" is?
If the EBC prevents pregnancy from ever beginning, it is then equivalent to a condom, diaphragm, BCP etc.
Originally posted by RobtardPregnancy is medically defined as of the fertilised zygote from implantation. Anything that prevents this implantation is contraception. I.e. your argument that abortion kills life while contraception does not is inaccurate. It would be inaccurate regardless as spermatozoa and ova are life, haploid cells, but alive nonetheless.
And your point as it relates to "is contraception the equivalent of an abortion" is?If the EBC prevents pregnancy from ever beginning, it is then equivalent to a condom, diaphragm, BCP etc.
The emergency birth control is thought to have one mechanism of action as prevention of implantation of the fertilised zygote.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Anything that occurs to prevent pregnancy i.e. preimplantation to the fundus of the uterus is contraception, regardless of whether the ovum has been fertilised.Ova and spermatozoa are technically "life" regardless.
Okay?
Yes, they are technically life, but in the big picture, separately they are each but 1/2 of the necessary ingredient to make a complete human life. I do not see sperm dying in a condom as "killing life" nor do I see the menstrual flushing of an unfertilized egg as "killing life" either.