The Day After Pill

[Spuzzell]

This is a really odd argument for me as an Englishman. I suppose we don't pay as much attention to the religious right here. (And while I'm a regular church-goer, I have to say that the religious right is usually neither.)

I honestly don't understand how an enlightned society can have a problem with preventative medicine.

The morning after pill is the same as using a condom or being on the pill, and I think people who have a problem with others using either of those have something not quite right in the head.

Sex is a human drive, people ARE going to have sex, and anything that can make having sex have less of a negative impact should be freely available. Hell, you should be able to buy the morning after pill from dispensors, just like condoms.

[jay_a2j]

But the choice should be mine, not my neighbors.

nor the public school system

[Nikolai]

qeee1: Ummm... you should never fly unless you're willing to accept a crash. Like driving... like boating... like most of life. Don't do it unless you're willing to accept negative consequences. Most of us go ahead and live life because we either a) accept the possibility of negative consequences as a reasonable possibility - and generally we don't think it'll happen to us - or b) we're stupid and don't think about it.
Sex works that way too - which is why all of the concern over teen sex. Adults can say okay, I'm willing to take the chance that there'll be a kid (or STD or whatever.) Kids don't understand enough to make that choice. So you either gotta side with Kylie and argue for more education so that they make an educated choice - and assume that they'll actually think about it once they're educated - or you gotta go with those Christian groups that argue for blind abstinence. Either choice has pitfalls.

Back on topic... Spuzzell (and all others who assume people have the same amount of self-control as animals), as a side point, you are wrong. People can make decisions against instinct, unlike animals. That's why it's a mistake to assume that people will have sex. To the main point: it's not always preventative in nature. Caleb has a scientific reason to compare the morning after pill to an abortion. It uses a (or, in some cases, several) steroid to provoke one (or more) of three reactions in a woman: inhibited ovulation, alteration of the menstrual cycle to delay ovulation, and/or irritation of the uterine lining so that no fertilized egg can attach itself to the lining, essentially starving any fertilized egg/embryo/conceived child (however you choose to look at it) to death. (And before you yell, by death I am referring to a particular scientific definition of life - I'm not saying human life or not.) So, in some cases, the morning after pill actually performs a chemical abortion. With proper use, this will only happen 5-10% of the time, but it still happens - and, of course, we all know better than to expect everyone to use it properly 100% of the time.

All of this to say that there are several possible reasons to oppose non-prescription use of the morning after pill. Some are moral reasons: others are practical in nature. Personally, I'm not a fan of non-prescription use, although my reasons tend to stem more from the practical aspects than the moral. You make your own decisions; but don't deceive yourself with baloney rhetoric - either way.

Oh, my apologies for the blunt nature of the anatomical language in this post.

[Spuzzell]

Nikolai:

I'm not saying that when I decide to have sex it's because whoever I'm with is in season or my self-control is over-ruled by my instincts. I choose to have sex because it's a natural drive, because I enjoy it and because sex, the act of giving yourself, is as close as you can get to another person. I'd imagine its the same for most normal people.

If teens don't understand the consequences of unprotected sex (oh and by the way, I'm 24, I've been active for 10 years.. let me tell you, most teenage girls know EXACTLY what they want their lovers to be wearing ) then we have to make sure that they are ingrained on our psyches from before puberty.

Contraception is the only smart way to deal with the natural sexual drive. Sex is great, kids know it, adults know it, it WILL happen, and science has provided us with the means to avoid life destroying consequences.

I'm really sorry if this offends anyone, and I am a believing Christian, but any sect that gives a higher regard to a non-sentient clutch of cells than the entire future of the person carrying it, is, in my opinion, every bit as backwards and offensively sexist as the tribes in Africa who castrate their women to ensure they can't enjoy sex.

The morning after pill is preventative. It prevents life being started, it prevents lives, both existing and potential, being ruined.

[Nikolai]

I suspect I misunderstood your point about sex as a drive in the previous post. My apologies. I think what you're saying is fair enough, as long as you don't try to use the "It will happen, so make sure it happens right" argument to justify your other points. That's a blatant endorsement of the idea that humans are animals.

Regarding the question of teens understanding what they are doing: this is a little bit more Kylie's field than mine, but I will venture to point out a logical flaw in your argument. You are only offering one option: early education. And the premises for your argument that this is the only option seem to contain one of two major assumptions.
1. Teens will have sex because their nature demands it. This, of course, is a throwback to the previously answered question of whether humans are animals, and since you've said you disagree with that point, I'll assume that the assumption you make is...
2. Teens and pre-teens are mature enough to make the right decisions when given the proper information. ... Think about it a bit. Are you sure that's a safe assumption? My personal conclusion has been "No", especially when you consider two things. First, neurological studies have proven that the rational part of the brain, particularly the section that deals with decision-making, is one of the last areas of the brain to develop and mature, often not reaching full developement until the early twenties. And second, even fully grown and matured adults don't always make the right decision when given the proper information.
And, with that interjection, I'll leave the rest of this particular argument to Kylie... unless you have questions about this point.

Contraception is the only smart way to deal with the natural sexual drive.

Dangerous ground. First, you must make sure (again) that you aren't assuming that humans are animals. The natural sexual drive does not subdue reason, although it may make the reasonable choice a difficult one. Second, you have to remember that, while you are talking about "life destroying consequences", you aren't just talking about pregnancy - in fact, pregnancy is one of the lesser - and less likely - negative results of sexual activity. If you want, I can throw a whole host of information about STDs at you, but this is getting really long already, so I'll just say this: congratulations. You're four years older and ten years longer active than me. I, however, am absolutely sure that I haven't fathered any kids or contracted any STDs. (And for the record: condoms only protect you from about 1/3 of known STDs.) Can you say the same? And considering your answer, let me ask you another question: which of us is more likely to have avoided "life destroying consequences"?

As far as your whole abortion point... my position, as a scientist, is that an individual and complete human DNA chain, with available mechanisms to develop into an individual and complete human being, is a human life. I'm not sure about synthesized DNA, or faulty human DNA, so I won't claim to have all the answers: but I do think you might be getting ahead of yourself in assuming that "a non-sentient clutch of cells" takes priority over the future of the person carrying it - especially since sentience is a pretty weak standard of life. After all, which is more important: the future of a life that will, in any case, go on; or the existence of a life? (Additionally, I'd be happy to provide data indicating that, contrary to your assumptions, a woman who has had an abortion is actually likely to have a more difficult future than a woman who carries and bears a child.)

As far as the preventative nature of the morning after pill... see my above post.

Please, feel free to post questions. However, be warned that you might not like the answers.

[rocksolid]

I really think the whole question is symptomatic of the larger problem. The fact that society is organized in a way that any young couple is likely to find a pregnancy a huge burden is really pretty crazy if you think about it. I think we're just so used and attached to the underlying principles that produce this absurdity - relentless individualism, an absence of any local community entity or supportive network - that we've resigned ourselves to the outriding lunacy that they generate around the edges.

I've lived in communities where the attitude to kids was a bit of a shock to me (having grown up in a milieu where pregnancy in the absence of 20-year financing plans could be considered as "life-destroying" or jeopardizing "the entire future of the person carrying it"): kids were simply funny little things that ran around and made you laugh, and consumed food now and again. Who their parents were was often a bit of an open question, but not really an important one. The idea of not wanting them was an odd one. People liked having sex, and they liked having little people around, and the two kind of went hand in hand.

I'm afraid I can't quite nail down the esotericism behind this, but I don't really think you should be having sex with someone you can't see yourself having a child with. I didn't think this way in my teens or even early twenties, but maybe as I get older it just seems to be the equivalent of masturbation (which, incidentally, seems to be just as "smart" a way of dealing with the natural sex drive, and slightly cheaper, to boot). If you don't want to start something enduring with this person, what are you doing? Getting off. Feeding your self-esteem, maybe. But I can't believe that you're really joining with the person... If you tell me you do want to be with this person forever, but you just don't want to have kids...well, my reaction to that again fails for its esotericism...but it's hard to imagine not being curious about what a person that was half-them and half-you would be like.

[Caleb the Cruel]

science has provided us with the means to avoid life destroying consequences ... and I am a believing Christian.

No. Science has provided us with an easy and direct path to life destroying consequences, the baby's. Since you say you are a Christian you would know that life begins at the very moment the sperm hits the egg.

[HighBorn]

agian as with abortion womans choice..NOBODY elses.. the womans.... nuff said

[qeee1]

My contributions up to this point in the conversation have been... shit.

Honestly I thought this would be just a spammer debate, or else one against the far right, so I wasn't really bothered, but it has turned out to be quite interesting.

As for my accepting the consequences point regarding planes and such... it seems like it's been rebutted twice, so please stop doing so, it was a stupid point, and not all that relevent to the conversation anyway.

Anyway, Rock's points were interesting. I think it does have a lot to do with the way society is structured. Sometimes I wonder if the family really is a good unit upon which to base society.

Honestly I think the real problem in society today is that a lot of peoples' lives are based around a mindless hedonism.

But... as regards it being purely getting off, that's an odd way of looking at it. As long as the act is not committed in a purely selfish fashion, then surely it amounts to more. Kids are not the be all and end all of sex.


I've completely ignored nikolai and spuzzels arguments in my post, but oh well.

[reverend_kyle]

qee ur all wrong if we encouraged teens to go out and have sex we would have another baby boom era

fixes teh social security problem.. more people to pay for the youth of todays..

[Spuzzell]

Nikolai:

First up, thanks for an extremely well written post

Secondly, and before I get started, I think you and I have an extreme divergence of opinion on the nature of humanity. I've always been happy to accept that we are, basically, mammals, subject to the same biological imperative to procreate as any other species.

The fact that we can develop the mental acuity to mostly over-rule these urges doesn't mean they don't exist. They do, in all of us, and it takes very little to bring them to the fore. In my case, for example, about a pint.

If that's hard for you to accept then I can see why you are slightly missing the point about teenagers and contraception. It's not my position that teens are rational when it comes to sex.. almost exactly opposite.

neurological studies have proven that the rational part of the brain, particularly the section that deals with decision-making, is one of the last areas of the brain to develop and mature, often not reaching full developement until the early twenties.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Add into the mix raging hormones, peer pressure, experimentation with drugs and alcohol and a desire to rebel and you've got bad-idea-shag soup. I think you have to accept the idea that most teens will make sexual mistakes as a given, and with that being the case then the solution is to make the use of contraception as ingrained as looking both ways before crossing the road.

Lets get back to the topic for a second. Certainly in my sexual experience, (which, by the way, I didn't mean to imply is huge. OK, ten years active, but not, y'know, CONSTANTLY) most people have the best of intentions when it comes to safe sex. But sometimes things go wrong, or perhaps in the heat of the moment it doesn't seem quite so important to stop what you're doing and head down to the all night garage for some condoms, or maybe your girlfriend forgot to bring her pills on holiday.. in those situations, as well as simple carelessness, the morning after pill is essential. Because now and then everyone just steps off the kerb without looking.

I, however, am absolutely sure that I haven't fathered any kids or contracted any STDs. Can you say the same? And considering your answer, let me ask you another question: which of us is more likely to have avoided "life destroying consequences"?

STD's, then. Well, OK, I'm more likely to have syphillis than Mother Teresa, but I get regular check-ups, I don't have unprotected sex outside of a relationship, and I don't let the possibility of salmonella stop me eating decently cooked chicken.

I'm as certain as I can be I've never fathered a child, and I'm totally certain that the fear that that might happen is not a valid reason to deny anyone a sensible and healthy sex life.

And now we come to abortion. Highborn nailed it, it's the womans choice. I actually talked about this with my girlfriend and her mother over dinner tonight, and I came to the conclusion that this is a topic that men really don't deserve to have an opinion on. I'm not sure when a human gains a soul, but for me if a lifeform lacks consciousness and the ability to feel pain then whatever a woman decides to do with her concious and living body is morally and spiritually right. Womans body, womans call. Religion can, with all respect, get stuffed.

So here we are.. if I were to ask you questions, they'd go something like this:

Why would you deny the morning after pill to anyone who wants it?

Why do you feel that anyone has more of a right to decide when it's right to bring a life into this world than its mother?

Do you think that a simple mistake while drunk is a sound basis to force a 16 year old girl to change her body for ever and give up the next 16 years of her life for a child she doesn't want and can't properly care for?

[Spuzzell]

science has provided us with the means to avoid life destroying consequences ... and I am a believing Christian.

No. Science has provided us with an easy and direct path to life destroying consequences, the baby's. Since you say you are a Christian you would know that life begins at the very moment the sperm hits the egg.

OK.. here, have a look at this.

For most of the history of the Catholic Church, its thinkers viewed immediate animation/ensoulment as impossible, and under the traditional Catholic doctrine, a male fetus became animated—infused with a soul at forty days after conception, and the female fetus became animated at eighty days after conception.

n 1588, Pope Sixtus V mandated that the penalty for abortion (or contraception) was excommunication from the Church. However, his successor, Pope Gregory IX, returned the Church to the view that abortion of an unformed embryo was not homicide. This was largely the view until 1869, when Pope Pius IX again declared that the punishment for abortion was excommunication.

So there we go. Come back to me in 100 years and tell me what, as a Christian, I should know then. Because it'll be different. Fact is, as far as Catholicism is concerned, abortion has been the womans right for almost 2000 years, and a mortal sin for just 150.

Besides, I'm Anglican. We believe in common sense.

[Spuzzell]

I've completely ignored nikolai and spuzzels arguments in my post, but oh well.

yeah you did. Git

I want to reply to you though, but its 5am so it'll have to wait till tomorrow. Huzzah!

[jay_a2j]

agian as with abortion womans choice..NOBODY elses.. the womans.... nuff said

Highborn would a mother of a two month old have the "choice" to kill her child? If the baby is living when it comes out of the womb why is it NOT living months , weeks or days before its born? The child in the mothers woumb is NOT her body...the child has a body of its own. And people need to stop playing God in deciding who lives and who dies.

[reverend_kyle]

If life begins at conception then I am 9 months older than I really am.

[carl]

I totally agree with jay on this point. I'm not one to argue, and it's quite late at night (or early in the morning i suppose ) so i'll just say my point and you guys can ignore it.

i'm not very knowledgeable in the realm of abortions, but i can understand it being a womans choice. i don't know that i understand why the man should have no input though, are his chromosomes not as prevelent as the woman's? the child is made by a sperm AND an egg, it is not a mother's property over the father. now before you get upset, just remember that i support it being a woman's choice. i myself am against abortions however (as you can see on pg 1) and do view it as killing the child. like jay said, the child in a mother's womb is not just a part of that mother, she can't toy with it's life just because she doesn't like it. it's not a haircut that a mother can have her way with and just cut off if she isn't pleased. it is it's own being, and it's a living being that is being killed.

and on the pill, i understand what spuzzell is saying, but i myself believe in something called self-control. sure there are urges that everyone has, but that's not an excuse for sex. i think if you are going to succumb to these feelings, you should deal with the consequences. why kill innocent children, whether by the pill or through abortions, just so that you can get yourself off? sex is fun, sure, but it also requires responsibility. the safety net that this morning after pill provides only lowers the moral standards of our society farther than they are (if possible).

now if you'll excuse me, it's off to bed for me. (to sleep, nothing more)

[Spuzzell]

agian as with abortion womans choice..NOBODY elses.. the womans.... nuff said

Highborn would a mother of a two month old have the "choice" to kill her child? If the baby is living when it comes out of the womb why is it NOT living months , weeks or days before its born? The child in the mothers woumb is NOT her body...the child has a body of its own. And people need to stop playing God in deciding who lives and who dies.

No, of course not. Killing a living child is murder, the taking of existing life.

Abortion is preventing life from starting. Until conciousness is attained a foetus is just a growth in the mother. If she judges that she can't or won't give the potential child the support it deserves then stopping gestation before it's any more than a growth is absolutely her decision, and morally necessary.

[Spuzzell]

As for my accepting the consequences point regarding planes and such... it seems like it's been rebutted twice, so please stop doing so, it was a stupid point, and not all that relevent to the conversation anyway.

I thought that made sense, actually. Most people don't go on a plane with the intention of crashing, the same way most people don't have sex with the intention of having a baby. We can even stretch the metaphor further, huzzah! If you did go on a plane, and if it did crash without you intending it to, and before it hit the ground someone offered you a parachute, you'd take it, right? You could take Nikolai's, I'm sure he'd stay, since he knew the risks before he boarded. Morning after pill = parachute, thank-you and goodnight

Honestly I think the real problem in society today is that a lot of peoples' lives are based around a mindless hedonism.

Yep. Go to Ibiza or Faliraki and you'll see the chavs shag everywhere, it's mindless and a bit disturbing. Now imagine that there's no contraception or abortion, and one in five of those shags means yet another unloved, unwanted single-parent chav baby for the state to support. We'd be in BIG trouble.

But... as regards it being purely getting off, that's an odd way of looking at it. As long as the act is not committed in a purely selfish fashion, then surely it amounts to more. Kids are not the be all and end all of sex.

Absolutely right.. sex is sex, it can mean hedonistic pleasure, an expression of love, comfort.. or it can be for the purpose of creating life. The fact that humanity has elevated sex beyond simple procreation and turned it into something more should be celebrated. We're not just animals any more, we can use sex as a way to connect with another person in the most personal and fundamental level. Or just to have fun

This means pregnancy is not the only reason to have sex anymore. Which means that if it accidently occurs and wasn't intended then termination is the best thing to do for everyone concerned.

[heavycola]

The sooner we can get on with deciding our own ethical boundaries without interference from these fucking godbotherers and their instruction manual, the better.

[jay_a2j]

agian as with abortion womans choice..NOBODY elses.. the womans.... nuff said

Highborn would a mother of a two month old have the "choice" to kill her child? If the baby is living when it comes out of the womb why is it NOT living months , weeks or days before its born? The child in the mothers woumb is NOT her body...the child has a body of its own. And people need to stop playing God in deciding who lives and who dies.

No, of course not. Killing a living child is murder, the taking of existing life.

Abortion is preventing life from starting. Until conciousness is attained a foetus is just a growth in the mother. If she judges that she can't or won't give the potential child the support it deserves then stopping gestation before it's any more than a growth is absolutely her decision, and morally necessary.

If its a life when it leaves the womb its a life before it leaves. Its not just a mass of tissue that springs to life once out of the womb. LIFE has started the moment that determined little sperm breaks through the eggs outer layer. Who lives and dies is Gods decision alone anything else is morally wrong.

[heavycola]

Who lives and dies is Gods decision alone anything else is morally wrong.

CASE IN POINT. It's not about when life actually begins or viability. It's all about your god. I decide what is morally right all by myself. It's incredible.


By the way - Leviticus says man laying down with man is a sin, right? BUt it also says in levitivus 19 that you should not put on garments made of differing threads. So which one is more important? Does wearing jeans and a wool sweater make you as much a sinner as a gay man? And why/why not?

[Spuzzell]

agian as with abortion womans choice..NOBODY elses.. the womans.... nuff said

Highborn would a mother of a two month old have the "choice" to kill her child? If the baby is living when it comes out of the womb why is it NOT living months , weeks or days before its born? The child in the mothers woumb is NOT her body...the child has a body of its own. And people need to stop playing God in deciding who lives and who dies.

No, of course not. Killing a living child is murder, the taking of existing life.

Abortion is preventing life from starting. Until conciousness is attained a foetus is just a growth in the mother. If she judges that she can't or won't give the potential child the support it deserves then stopping gestation before it's any more than a growth is absolutely her decision, and morally necessary.

If its a life when it leaves the womb its a life before it leaves. Its not just a mass of tissue that springs to life once out of the womb. LIFE has started the moment that determined little sperm breaks through the eggs outer layer. Who lives and dies is Gods decision alone anything else is morally wrong.

You're missing the point. No-one is saying that once the baby is self-aware in the womb it should be killed, but before it is it's part of the mothers body, nothing more, nothing less.

And I'm sorry, but the God I worship gave us self-determination. Excusing yourself tough decisions with "oh, lets just leave it to God" isn't what He intended.

Like I posted yesterday, abortion in Catholicism has been the mothers decision for 95% of the churches existance. When outside extremist pressure is off the church, the default position of Christianity is that the mother's wishes take precedence, which is exactly as it should be.

[jay_a2j]

Who lives and dies is Gods decision alone anything else is morally wrong.

CASE IN POINT. It's not about when life actually begins or viability. It's all about your god. I decide what is morally right all by myself. It's incredible.


By the way - Leviticus says man laying down with man is a sin, right? BUt it also says in levitivus 19 that you should not put on garments made of differing threads. So which one is more important? Does wearing jeans and a wool sweater make you as much a sinner as a gay man? And why/why not?

Well first of all the OT law differs from the NT law Jesus came to fulfill. And whereas homosexuality is condemed in the OT it is also condemed in the NT. As far as garment made of differing threads I am unsure. But if it was mentioned in the NT I'd throw out all my muti-threaded clothing.


You decide what is morally right and wrong? You then put yourself in the place of God. Who can determine right and wrong but God?

[heavycola]

So you accept the story in Genesis but can disregard the main rulebook? How?


And yes, i do. It's called humanism. I put myself in the place of god because the time when humans needed to believe in him has come to an end. The idea got us through some rough times but it was only ever a survival mechanism. The humanist age is dawning. Church attendances are falling - in wonderful, enlightened europe at least - people are embracing humanism and there hasn't been a single thunderbolt.

[jay_a2j]

agian as with abortion womans choice..NOBODY elses.. the womans.... nuff said

Highborn would a mother of a two month old have the "choice" to kill her child? If the baby is living when it comes out of the womb why is it NOT living months , weeks or days before its born? The child in the mothers woumb is NOT her body...the child has a body of its own. And people need to stop playing God in deciding who lives and who dies.

No, of course not. Killing a living child is murder, the taking of existing life.

Abortion is preventing life from starting. Until conciousness is attained a foetus is just a growth in the mother. If she judges that she can't or won't give the potential child the support it deserves then stopping gestation before it's any more than a growth is absolutely her decision, and morally necessary.

If its a life when it leaves the womb its a life before it leaves. Its not just a mass of tissue that springs to life once out of the womb. LIFE has started the moment that determined little sperm breaks through the eggs outer layer. Who lives and dies is Gods decision alone anything else is morally wrong.

You're missing the point. No-one is saying that once the baby is self-aware in the womb it should be killed, but before it is it's part of the mothers body, nothing more, nothing less.

And I'm sorry, but the God I worship gave us self-determination. Excusing yourself tough decisions with "oh, lets just leave it to God" isn't what He intended.

Like I posted yesterday, abortion in Catholicism has been the mothers decision for 95% of the churches existance. When outside extremist pressure is off the church, the default position of Christianity is that the mother's wishes take precedence, which is exactly as it should be.

Ya know you pro-deathers can never agree on when life begins. (and I have never heard the "self-awareness" theory) And its NOT part of the mothers body, its IN the mothers body. This discussion will go nowhere, the God-fearing people will remain pro-life and the others will remain pro-death. But do something when you have time...google "abortion pictures" One of the linc's that come up is a video of an abortion...and as you see the tiny hands and feet fall out of the vagina sit there and say "It is God's will".