A secular debate about abortion

[Seth]

We have combined pills, progestogen-only pills, hormonal coils, copper coils, depo provera injections, progestogen implants, diaphragms and sponges with spermicide, and male and female condoms?

Edit: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraceptio ... ption.aspx

As for female condoms, though, I'm reliably told that they do leave quite a bit to be desired in convenience and effectiveness, not to mention, cost. On the bright side, though - they can be sterilised and reused! ( )

The most effective form of contraception is to keep your knees firmly together... Had to be mentioned...

[Seth]

To my mind the idea for developing male hormonal contraception was to produce an implant, similar to the contraceptive implant women use - which doesn't entail having to take pills daily. Males are both continuously fertile, and their fertility is kind of "backdated" - due to the time it takes sperm to mature and eventually exit the body. If they went on hormonal contraception it would be kinda like getting a vasectomy in that they'd have to wait for so long before they would be "clean" - and if they forget a few pills one week, fertility resumes in the crevices of their balls, and surfaces so many days/weeks down the line. Implant is a better way to roll, there.

Also worth noting is that save for vasectomy, they'll never be completely infertile - they can only reduce their sperm-count and motile sperm to something considered effectively negligible. EFFECTIVELY infertile. More options are always good, though. For all concerned.

Not to mention that researchers have discovered that sperm cells are extremely hardy little buggers and are actually pretty hard to kill...

[Gallstones]

We have combined pills, progestogen-only pills, hormonal coils, copper coils, depo provera injections, progestogen implants, diaphragms and sponges with spermicide, and male and female condoms?

Edit: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraceptio ... ption.aspx

As for female condoms, though, I'm reliably told that they do leave quite a bit to be desired in convenience and effectiveness, not to mention, cost. On the bright side, though - they can be sterilised and reused! ( )

The most effective form of contraception is to keep your knees firmly together... Had to be mentioned...

Or keep it in your pants....which has equal validity and needed mentioning as well.

[lordpasternack]

I dunno Seth - there are a few simple sex positions I can imagine where full vaginal penetration would be possible even with my knees firmly together…

[Beatsong]

Male chemical contraception has been tried in stallions.

Well that oughta work for me then.

[hadespussercats]

Besides which, there are many abortions that are done without an invasive procedure. I suppose you could liken that to shooting a load of medication into grandma's IV-- though grandma's existence poses no curtailment on my rights, so the situations are not exactly parallel. Plus, some contraceptives work by keeping a fertilized egg from being able to implant in the first place-- i.e.- no cord. Since they work after fertilization occurs, are they abortions?

That is a key point that I think Seth's side fails to acknowledge.

Comparing zygotes and embryos and fetuses to post-birth humans fails in a number of ways, not the least of which is the key difference that in the case of pre-birth, the entity is either (a) part of the woman, not entirely separate from the woman, or (b) placing the woman in servitude (or both). Old folks aren't that, and that difference makes a lot of difference.

Word.

Word up.

This song always reminds me of "40-year-old Virgin".

[hadespussercats]

We have combined pills, progestogen-only pills, hormonal coils, copper coils, depo provera injections, progestogen implants, diaphragms and sponges with spermicide, and male and female condoms?

Edit: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraceptio ... ption.aspx

As for female condoms, though, I'm reliably told that they do leave quite a bit to be desired in convenience and effectiveness, not to mention, cost. On the bright side, though - they can be sterilised and reused! ( )

The most effective form of contraception is to keep your knees firmly together... Had to be mentioned...

Aw, Seth, sex can be pretty freaking wonderful. What's so bad about having sex? Why are women who like sex so questionable in your book?

[hadespussercats]

I dunno Seth - there are a few simple sex positions I can imagine where full vaginal penetration would be possible even with my knees firmly together…

Yeah, fun ones. Maybe you should try them, sometime, Seth-- get to see what all the fuss is about...

[hadespussercats]

Why isn't abortion an example of the withdrawing of life support? Cutting the cord, as opposed to pulling the plug?

Obviously it's not a "withdrawal of support," it's an invasive and dangerous medical procedure that kills the fetus, just like shooting a load of medication into grandma's IV tube would be.

Dangerous to the fetus? Sure. Dangerous to the woman? In the U.S. at least, abortions are far less dangerous to women than carrying a pregnancy to term.

Besides which, there are many abortions that are done without an invasive procedure. I suppose you could liken that to shooting a load of medication into grandma's IV-- though grandma's existence poses no curtailment on my rights, so the situations are not exactly parallel. Plus, some contraceptives work by keeping a fertilized egg from being able to implant in the first place-- i.e.- no cord. Since they work after fertilization occurs, are they abortions?

Depends on how you define "abortion." Anti-abortion advocates view any artificial interference with the natural course of pregnancy, including interfering with the implantation of the fertilized egg, to be an "abortion." I don't agree. And you make a rational argument. A fertilized egg floating down the fallopian tube prior to implantation is in a sort of "limbo" in this regard. Is "preventing implantation" the same as "abortion?" Nope, not in my book. I expressly approve of RU-487 and the practice of taking a "morning after pill" to prevent implantation as a reasonable course of action. Indeed, it's about the only exercise of reproductive responsibility post-insemination that I unreservedly approve of. Scientifically, the fertilized egg is NOT a human being, and the zygote is not formed for 22 to 26 hours after fertilization. Fertilization may take up to several days after insemination. Anything done to interrupt the cycle between insemination and the formation of the zygote does not affect a living human being, it affects the component parts of the mother and father. At the moment that the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the common spindle apparatus, the zygote is formed and a new living human being comes into existence.

The zygote remains in transit and continues to develop into a blastocyst over the next five days, at which point it attaches to the uterine wall:

When the blastocyst emerges from the pellucid zone on the 5th day (3), it comes into contact with the maternal uterine mucosa in that it embeds itself in the endometrium with its embryonic pole.

I have no particular objection to interfering with that attachment, as distinguished from terminating that attachment at a later stage of development. This "in transit" period is one of the most common times for spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, which is a natural process that affects as many as 50 percent or more of developing zygotes/blastocysts. Making the uterine wall inhospitable to attachment prior to implantation seems to me to be a reasonable moral demarcation, although I cannot express any strong argument to favor that time over any other.

So you support the morning-after pill. Well that's something, at least. Doesn't that view somewhat temper your general "She should've thought of that before having sex" attitude, though?

[Seth]

We have combined pills, progestogen-only pills, hormonal coils, copper coils, depo provera injections, progestogen implants, diaphragms and sponges with spermicide, and male and female condoms?

Edit: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraceptio ... ption.aspx

As for female condoms, though, I'm reliably told that they do leave quite a bit to be desired in convenience and effectiveness, not to mention, cost. On the bright side, though - they can be sterilised and reused! ( )

The most effective form of contraception is to keep your knees firmly together... Had to be mentioned...

Aw, Seth, sex can be pretty freaking wonderful. What's so bad about having sex? Why are women who like sex so questionable in your book?

They aren't. I love sex. This discussion is not about the propriety of having sex, it's about a woman's responsibility for her reproductive organs when she chooses to have sex. The thread title is "a secular debate about abortion," and the decisions that lead up to needing or desiring an abortion are pertinent. With proper reproductive organ operation on everyone's part, abortions would never be necessary. The need for an abortion indicates that something went wrong in the decision making process.

I'm taking the position, for the purposes of this debate, that since women have attained legal reproductive freedom and plenary control of their reproductive organs, which I happen to believe is a very good thing, they have also attained absolute personal responsibility for the maintenance and operation of them, and that therefore men are absolved of liability for what goes on within the sovereign space inside a woman. With liberty comes responsibility.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that any of this reflects my personal beliefs about women, sex, abortion or anything else. This is an abstract philosophical debate, nothing more.

[Seth]

Why isn't abortion an example of the withdrawing of life support? Cutting the cord, as opposed to pulling the plug?

Obviously it's not a "withdrawal of support," it's an invasive and dangerous medical procedure that kills the fetus, just like shooting a load of medication into grandma's IV tube would be.

Dangerous to the fetus? Sure. Dangerous to the woman? In the U.S. at least, abortions are far less dangerous to women than carrying a pregnancy to term.

Besides which, there are many abortions that are done without an invasive procedure. I suppose you could liken that to shooting a load of medication into grandma's IV-- though grandma's existence poses no curtailment on my rights, so the situations are not exactly parallel. Plus, some contraceptives work by keeping a fertilized egg from being able to implant in the first place-- i.e.- no cord. Since they work after fertilization occurs, are they abortions?

Depends on how you define "abortion." Anti-abortion advocates view any artificial interference with the natural course of pregnancy, including interfering with the implantation of the fertilized egg, to be an "abortion." I don't agree. And you make a rational argument. A fertilized egg floating down the fallopian tube prior to implantation is in a sort of "limbo" in this regard. Is "preventing implantation" the same as "abortion?" Nope, not in my book. I expressly approve of RU-487 and the practice of taking a "morning after pill" to prevent implantation as a reasonable course of action. Indeed, it's about the only exercise of reproductive responsibility post-insemination that I unreservedly approve of. Scientifically, the fertilized egg is NOT a human being, and the zygote is not formed for 22 to 26 hours after fertilization. Fertilization may take up to several days after insemination. Anything done to interrupt the cycle between insemination and the formation of the zygote does not affect a living human being, it affects the component parts of the mother and father. At the moment that the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the common spindle apparatus, the zygote is formed and a new living human being comes into existence.

The zygote remains in transit and continues to develop into a blastocyst over the next five days, at which point it attaches to the uterine wall:

When the blastocyst emerges from the pellucid zone on the 5th day (3), it comes into contact with the maternal uterine mucosa in that it embeds itself in the endometrium with its embryonic pole.

I have no particular objection to interfering with that attachment, as distinguished from terminating that attachment at a later stage of development. This "in transit" period is one of the most common times for spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, which is a natural process that affects as many as 50 percent or more of developing zygotes/blastocysts. Making the uterine wall inhospitable to attachment prior to implantation seems to me to be a reasonable moral demarcation, although I cannot express any strong argument to favor that time over any other.

So you support the morning-after pill. Well that's something, at least. Doesn't that view somewhat temper your general "She should've thought of that before having sex" attitude, though?

Not really. If part of her reproductive control plan is to use a "morning after" pill as an adjunct to other forms of contraception, I'm fine with that, particularly since a pregnancy cannot be detected in the period of time when RU-487 is effective, which is within 72 hours of fertilization. Thus, RU-487 is a "just in case" plan (Plan B) or backup in the event of failure of other contraception plans. I fully approve of that sort of responsible management of reproduction.

[Feck]

I'm taking the position, for the purposes of this debate, that since women have attained legal reproductive freedom and plenary control of their reproductive organs, which I happen to believe is a very good thing, they have also attained absolute personal responsibility for the maintenance and operation of them, and that therefore men are absolved of liability for what goes on within the sovereign space inside a woman. With liberty comes responsibility.

Consent to sex constitutes consent to the implied contract, which may include compulsory gestation. If you don't want to consent to that contract, don't have sex. It's just that simple.

I do wish I knew what your position was because in one statement you say Having sex is a contract to have a man's children even if you don't want them ,and in the other you say a woman has a sovereign space that men are absolved from responsibility of anything in it .

[Gallstones]

All our lonely kicks are getting harder to find
We'll play nuns versus priests until somebody cries
All our lonely kicks that make us saintly and thin
We'll play nuns versus priests until somebody wins

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Warren Dew]

I expressly approve of RU-487 and the practice of taking a "morning after pill" to prevent implantation as a reasonable course of action.

Wait ... are we talking about RU-486, or are we talking about the "morning after pill", or are we talking about a drug I don't know about called RU-487, and if it's the last, what is RU-487?

The "morning after pill" is an overdose of birth control pills that prevents implantation. RU-486 is a progesterone receptor antagonist that causes the woman to spontaneously miscarry, or abort, an implanted embryo/fetus up to about 7 weeks pregnancy, allowing it to be used earlier than physical - "surgical" forms of abortion. I put "surgical" in quotes because a lot of physical abortions don't actually involve any cutting, so they're only technically surgery.

[Coito ergo sum]

We have combined pills, progestogen-only pills, hormonal coils, copper coils, depo provera injections, progestogen implants, diaphragms and sponges with spermicide, and male and female condoms?

Edit: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraceptio ... ption.aspx

As for female condoms, though, I'm reliably told that they do leave quite a bit to be desired in convenience and effectiveness, not to mention, cost. On the bright side, though - they can be sterilised and reused! ( )

The most effective form of contraception is to keep your knees firmly together... Had to be mentioned...

Aw, Seth, sex can be pretty freaking wonderful. What's so bad about having sex? Why are women who like sex so questionable in your book?

They aren't. I love sex. This discussion is not about the propriety of having sex, it's about a woman's responsibility for her reproductive organs when she chooses to have sex.

It seems to be about the propriety of having sex, sometimes, when you arbitrarily find it to be relevant. Need we revisit your posts wherein you refer specifically to promiscuity being "bad behavior" and arguing that society has an interest in prohibiting or discouraging it? The bad behavior? If the argument is not about the propriety of having sex, then why did you base part of your argument on the propriety of having sex and society's interest in limiting it?

The thread title is "a secular debate about abortion," and the decisions that lead up to needing or desiring an abortion are pertinent. With proper reproductive organ operation on everyone's part, abortions would never be necessary. The need for an abortion indicates that something went wrong in the decision making process.

Abortions are never absolutely, objectively, indisputably "necessary." They are merely more desirable than other alternatives in one or more persons' opinions. All pregnancies pose health and medical risks to the mother. When do those risks rise to the level of warranting an abortion? That depends on who's opining, doesn't it? The woman bearing the child may well have a lower threshold of what constitutes an acceptable risk than you or me. The question then becomes, whose opinion matters?

So, the decisions that lead up to needing or desiring an abortion are pertinent TO YOU. In a given situation, however, those decisions may be of minimal or no importance TO THE PREGNANT WOMAN. For example, you may think that a woman is not properly managing her uterus because she engages in group sex on a regular basis allowing up to 10 men ejaculate into her uterus at any given evening. You may find that irresponsible. She gets pregnant and discovers that due to a particular medical condition associated with her pregnancy, her risk of dying during the pregnancy is double the normal risk. She decides to abort and she doesn't care at all about whether other people think she didn't manage access to her uterus in an acceptable fashion.

I'm taking the position, for the purposes of this debate, that since women have attained legal reproductive freedom and plenary control of their reproductive organs, which I happen to believe is a very good thing, they have also attained absolute personal responsibility for the maintenance and operation of them, and that therefore men are absolved of liability for what goes on within the sovereign space inside a woman. With liberty comes responsibility.

That's the position you have taken, but you've also taken the position that men are absolved of liability for some things that go on outside of the woman - you specifically stated that the "woman" should not be able to demand "child support." Yet, it's not legally the woman claiming child support. it's the child. And, you have specifically stated that the child is a SEPARATE HUMAN BEING. As such, doesn't the child have his or her own rights? And, since the child has not waived anything, it's not the child's concern whether mom was a weak negotiator and purported to sign away the separate human being's rights, right? Should the child's entitlement to child support depend on the intelligence, negotiating savvy, gullibility, or education of the mother?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that any of this reflects my personal beliefs about women, sex, abortion or anything else. This is an abstract philosophical debate, nothing more.

Your personal beliefs about women are irrelevant to me.