BoatShoes;1847909 wrote:It is a third mechanism of action for all oral contraceptives. They all materially reduce the endometrium and we know from in vitro that a reduced endometrium greatly reduces the likelihood of implantation.

http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/womens-health/female-contraception/
"While endometrial thinning does occur, there is no evidence that prevention of implantation is a contraceptive effect, and these agents do not act as abortifacients."

sleeper;1847851 wrote:I guess women who have been raped are responsible then. I guess victims of incest are irresponsible and should be punished accordingly.

Ahh, here it is.The old emotionally charged spaghetti noodle stuck to a wall. 75-85% of rape victims choose against having an abortion. Where is that number in your statements?
Oh, that's right. You wouldn't want to provide anything to back up your self-righteousness. Not to mention the fact that altogether, the number of women who opt to have an abortion because of rape/incest is so comparably small that it's laughable.
And let's not forget one valuable fact: Abortions are not a magical timey-wimey procedure to use in order to travel back in time to become unpregnant.

C'mon, Sleeper, you can do better than this. Get to it!

CenterBHSFan;1847924 wrote:Ahh, here it is.The old emotionally charged spaghetti noodle stuck to a wall. 75-85% of rape victims choose against having an abortion. Where is that number in your statements?
Oh, that's right. You wouldn't want to provide anything to back up your self-righteousness. Not to mention the fact that altogether, the number of women who opt to have an abortion because of rape/incest is so comparably small that it's laughable.
And let's not forget one valuable fact: Abortions are not a magical timey-wimey procedure to use in order to travel back in time to become unpregnant.

C'mon, Sleeper, you can do better than this. Get to it!

The rape argument is lazy at best.

CenterBHSFan;1847924 wrote: Abortions are not a magical timey-wimey procedure to use in order to travel back in time to become unpregnant.

Unplanned Parenthood would disagree.

Both China and Russia have sent naval vessels to track the US Strike Force group off the Korean Peninsula.

"...The dispatch of the intelligence-gathering vessels appears to be partly aimed at sending a warning signal to the United States...."

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5183435-155/china-russia-send-ships-after-us

These seem reasonable.
[FONT=&quot]
Curbing costly regs
Easing regs on small businesses
Reviewing existing regs
Making Congress a regulatory gatekeeper
Stretching out the regulatory process

http://thehill.com/regulation/328934-gop-lays-out-regulatory-reform-wish-list



[/FONT]

CenterBHSFan;1847924 wrote:Ahh, here it is.The old emotionally charged spaghetti noodle stuck to a wall. 75-85% of rape victims choose against having an abortion. Where is that number in your statements?
Oh, that's right. You wouldn't want to provide anything to back up your self-righteousness. Not to mention the fact that altogether, the number of women who opt to have an abortion because of rape/incest is so comparably small that it's laughable.
And let's not forget one valuable fact: Abortions are not a magical timey-wimey procedure to use in order to travel back in time to become unpregnant.

C'mon, Sleeper, you can do better than this. Get to it!

Abortion rights doesn't need a rape/incest clause to survive. It's only there to use when conservatives start spouting off that the Pope, a non-doctor/scientist, says "Life begins at conception".

I also don't really understand how your statistic is relevant here. The whole point of being pro-choice is to give women the option to chose their own destiny in life; if a woman is raped and wants to keep the baby, that is not a problem.

sleeper;1848191 wrote:Abortion rights doesn't need a rape/incest clause to survive. It's only there to use when conservatives start spouting off that the Pope, a non-doctor/scientist, says "Life begins at conception".

I also don't really understand how your statistic is relevant here. The whole point of being pro-choice is to give women the option to chose their own destiny in life; if a woman is raped and wants to keep the baby, that is not a problem.

The issue here is that they are not only choosing their own destiny, but choosing whether another human being lives or dies......

wkfan;1848198 wrote:The issue here is that they are not only choosing their own destiny, but choosing whether another human being lives or dies......

Right, and not everyone believes that a fetus is a human life.

How do you feel about miscarriages?

sleeper;1848191 wrote:Abortion rights doesn't need a rape/incest clause to survive. It's only there to use when conservatives start spouting off that the Pope, a non-doctor/scientist, says "Life begins at conception".

I also don't really understand how your statistic is relevant here. The whole point of being pro-choice is to give women the option to chose their own destiny in life; if a woman is raped and wants to keep the baby, that is not a problem.

The problem is not about a women's choice, the problem is down to our 3 "inalienable rights" as described in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

Over the year's our court system has determined that someone's right to life is valued more than someone else's right to liberty or their pursuit of happiness. I have the right to pursue my dreams (happiness) but not at the expense of someone else's life or liberty.

So, as soon as we realize it is about the life of the baby, then it just comes down to the science of when is it a life, and when is it not a life.

That's it, once we determine and can agree on that, then by our own past history of SCOTUS decisions on Life/Liberty/PoH, abortions should be illegal after that point in time when the fetus/baby is considered a life. It is already illegal after birth (aka murdering a baby) and there are some grey areas before that.

For instance, if the mother wants to keep the baby and someone murders her, the perpetrator can be charged, tried, and convicted for double homicide.
If the mother doesn't want the same baby (same developmental stage) she can have it killed at a clinic with no repercussions.

We can not have both of those situations be allowed, it is either a life or it is not a life. That should be determined scientifically even if I, as a pro life person who believes in life at conception/implantation, don't agree with the final answer. Once that time during development is determined that the fetus/baby is a life then no abortions should be legal and any time someone assaults a pregnant woman they can be charged with crimes against the baby as well.

The mother does not have the scientific knowledge to determine if that is a life or not a life, just like I do not.

jmog;1848202 wrote:The problem is not about a women's choice, the problem is down to our 3 "inalienable rights" as described in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

Over the year's our court system has determined that someone's right to life is valued more than someone else's right to liberty or their pursuit of happiness. I have the right to pursue my dreams (happiness) but not at the expense of someone else's life or liberty.

So, as soon as we realize it is about the life of the baby, then it just comes down to the science of when is it a life, and when is it not a life.

That's it, once we determine and can agree on that, then by our own past history of SCOTUS decisions on Life/Liberty/PoH, abortions should be illegal after that point in time when the fetus/baby is considered a life. It is already illegal after birth (aka murdering a baby) and there are some grey areas before that.

For instance, if the mother wants to keep the baby and someone murders her, the perpetrator can be charged, tried, and convicted for double homicide.
If the mother doesn't want the same baby (same developmental stage) she can have it killed at a clinic with no repercussions.

We can not have both of those situations be allowed, it is either a life or it is not a life. That should be determined scientifically even if I, as a pro life person who believes in life at conception/implantation, don't agree with the final answer. Once that time during development is determined that the fetus/baby is a life then no abortions should be legal and any time someone assaults a pregnant woman they can be charged with crimes against the baby as well.

The mother does not have the scientific knowledge to determine if that is a life or not a life, just like I do not.

Okay then don't have an abortion.

Problem solved.

I don't think abortion should be illegal. I just think that it should not be used as some method of birth control. Particularly when there are so many ways to get cheap/free preventions. Women should be every bit as accountable as men, and vice versa. There's no sense in it.

sleeper;1848201 wrote:Right, and not everyone believes that a fetus is a human life.

How do you feel about miscarriages?

Not too sure how anyone cannot consider something with heartbeat and blood coursing through growing veins to be a human being.....

Miscarriage is waaaay different....unintentional act vs. intentional act.

CenterBHSFan;1848204 wrote:I don't think abortion should be illegal. I just think that it should not be used as some method of birth control. Particularly when there are so many ways to get cheap/free preventions. Women should be every bit as accountable as men, and vice versa. There's no sense in it.

Well considering abortions are pretty expensive, I can tell its not being used as "birth control". It's usually used when birth control fails as an option of last resort.

It's the responsible thing to do especially if you don't have the means to raise a baby.

wkfan;1848206 wrote:Not too sure how anyone cannot consider something with heartbeat and blood coursing through growing veins to be a human being.....

Miscarriage is waaaay different....unintentional act vs. intentional act.

Google involuntary manslaughter.

And can the baby survive without the use of the mother's body?

sleeper;1848203 wrote:Okay then don't have an abortion.

Problem solved.

Proof that you didn't actually read my post.

sleeper;1848208 wrote:Google involuntary manslaughter.

And can the baby survive without the use of the mother's body?

After 25 weeks (15 weeks premature) infant survival rates are above 50%.

So yes, by the time the second trimester is almost over (just after 5 months) the baby can survive even statistically.

Even the rare cases can survive at 23 weeks (17% survival rate) or only a couple weeks past half term.

wkfan;1848206 wrote:Not too sure how anyone cannot consider something with heartbeat and blood coursing through growing veins to be a human being.....

Easy. We can build the necessary parts to do this It doesn't make what we create a "person."

If we're going to make this topic about what makes something a "person" (and I would assert that it doesn't need to be that way), then we should get down to the bare minimum of what is a "person." A mindless (or even headless) body that has blood pumping through it wouldn't be a person, would it? I certainly wouldn't think so.

sleeper;1848208 wrote:Google involuntary manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter still requires some level of culpability, which isn't a prerequisite for a miscarriage.

jmog;1848210 wrote:Proof that you didn't actually read my post.

Why would I honestly? I already understand your position quite clearly; women should have no control over their own destiny in life because your fairy tale religious beliefs tell you that a cluster of cells is life because the Pope said so. Women should not be having sex at all unless for procreation and only if she has the money to afford to pay for every child without government assistance. If not, she's irresponsible and a welfare queen and she should be punished for life.

Sorry, I don't believe in 1500's dogma in year 2017. Keep your backwards beliefs to yourself.

Involuntary manslaughter still requires some level of culpability, which isn't a prerequisite for a miscarriage.

Good. Then expect a lot of miscarriages to take place if abortion is ever outlawed. Who cares if they aren't safe? If a woman dies during a miscarriage, it was God's will.

Theocracy for the win!

jmog;1848212 wrote:After 25 weeks (15 weeks premature) infant survival rates are above 50%.

So yes, by the time the second trimester is almost over (just after 5 months) the baby can survive even statistically.

Even the rare cases can survive at 23 weeks (17% survival rate) or only a couple weeks past half term.

Okay, so 25 weeks would be a good cut off. Sounds good to me!

sleeper;1848208 wrote:Google involuntary manslaughter.

And can the baby survive without the use of the mother's body?

Both are irrelevant to the question......

Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as a DUI).

The vast majority of the miscarriages that have happened to people that I know just happen.

As far as the life being sustained without the mother...again that is irrelevant. My opinion of life has nothing to do with the vessel that it is contained in.

sleeper;1848215 wrote:Good. Then expect a lot of miscarriages to take place if abortion is ever outlawed. Who cares if they aren't safe? If a woman dies during a miscarriage, it was God's will.

Theocracy for the win!

I wasn't arguing for any sort of theocracy. I wasn't even arguing against the legality of abortion. Merely that your comparison between miscarriages and involuntary manslaughter was not an apt one.

O-Trap;1848218 wrote:I wasn't arguing for any sort of theocracy. I wasn't even arguing against the legality of abortion. Merely that your comparison between miscarriages and involuntary manslaughter was not an apt one.

Good. Then expect plenty of "miscarriages" to take place if abortion is ever outlawed. That's how it was pre-Roe V. Wade; lots of women having "miscarriages" usually at their own demise so Republicans can jerk off to controlling women and their individual bodies.

Say it with me now, Misogyny; the Republican way. Just like being "Pro-life" but fuck that baby once it's born and shaming single mothers for not choosing "god" or whatever else bullshit they believe in the name of "personal responsibility".

sleeper;1848207 wrote:Well considering abortions are pretty expensive, I can tell its not being used as "birth control". It's usually used when birth control fails as an option of last resort.

It's the responsible thing to do especially if you don't have the means to raise a baby.

It's only function is birth control.