I am not sure if you are just giving me information or making a point. If you are just giving information, thanks.
If you are saying that the baby might not be attached, anyway, so the morning after pill is okay then by that argument, abortion is okay because sometimes (about a fourth of the time) the mother miscarries, often before she even knows she is pregnant. I don't agree with the logic.
But I like you.
Ok, I'm not going to get into how babies are made because I assume by this time in your life you know. Now, with that being said, if you have 2 humans conceiving of a baby, the liklihood that the baby is going to turn out to be a human is, well, 100%. Therefore, when the baby is born it is human. Ergo, 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 days, or 39 weeks before it is born, it is human. As I said before, it isn't a babboon until birth. There is no arbitrary point during the pregnancy that it suddenly becomes a human. It either is a human or it isn't and I havent heard of one documented case of a human giving birth to a crow.Where have you found that it's scientifically proven that it's a human before actual birth? Because I've been researching this topic for years & have yet to find ANYTHING to be proven.
You didn't read my post carefully enough. I never said it was murder but that millions and millions of people feel that it is. I said I am pro-choice but I am willing to accept the fact that the unborn child is human. I'm not making excuses or trying to rationalize my pro-choice stance. I believe there are times when abortion is acceptible. By the same token, my opinion is that there is a point in the pregnancy when the baby shouldn't be aborted unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so. I absolutely respect the opinions of the pro-lifers and I absolutely respect the opinions of the pro-abortionists as long as they are willing to call it what it is - the ending of a human life.If it's murder then why in your opinion is it okay to have an abortion after a few weeks? It makes no sense what you're saying.
I also absolutely believe that because the opinions on both sides are so deep and emotional, it isn't a decision that can be made nationally. It must be made at the state level to account for moral and philosophical differences between regions of the country.
That's good for you and I am fine with that. I believe there are far too many people who think the unborn baby is just some mass of atoms inside the woman and isn't alive. The ultrasound at least makes them stop and think about what they are doing. Many on the pro-choice side have used the cost of the ultrasound as a reason to not require the parents to see the ultrasound. Think of the extra $150 as the cost of playing the baby game.I had no problem viewing the ultrasound so not ALL of us are outraged by it. And why wouldn't the cost of it be a viable reason for not wanting it? Mine costed $150. Before I wouldn't have had to have it & I wouldn't have had to dish out an extra $150.
True.
But some, like me, make the responsible decision to terminate the pregnancy instead of having a child who we can't raise properly.
And I won't put a child into an adoption ring when there's already tons who never get adopted.
I WILL terminate a pregnancy, like I have, because it's responsible in my opinion.
Here's some information from about RU486, this is a morning after pill. There are
probably others.
Mifeprex (Mifepristone (RU486)) Drug Information: Uses, Side Effects, Drug
Interactions and Warnings at RxList
But older children aren't aborted and you said one of the reasons you aborted was because you didn't want your child to be one of the ones who wasn't adopted.
Fact is, people will go overseas to get a baby even if older American kids are available. Most older kids come through foster care and are often abused and a mess. God knows they need homes but they have been through hell and have their own sets of issues, poor darlings. Moreover, foster kids have very high standards for who can adopt and people with even small problems in their background are often denied, by law, to adopt foster care kids. There is much more leeway in a private adoption.
Exactly, I don't. What if it came out with a health problem or something like that? I'm sure it would be a turn off when people went to adopt.
I also care about the older children who never get adopted. I don't think it's fair to add more children to the list.
I understand that people go overseas to adopt babies & new borns. But I've personally known people who wanted a new born, but it was too difficult for them to get one so they adopted an older child instead.
Plan B, the "morning after pill" and RU486 are not the same drug.
Plan B is used as an emergency contraceptive. RU486 is the "abortion" pill, which is sometimes used in early pregnancy instead of a surgical abortion. It does have side effects and can have serious side effects. The Plan B pill is pretty much just hopped up birth control.
The Abortion Pill vs. The Morning-After Pill... Are they the same thing?
Still corrupting young minds
I just read on Mayoclinic.com that Plan B is being phased out by the
manufacturer.
Does anyone know why?
And, for both Prune and Penny, from that Mayo Clinic article:
It's always a good idea to make a decision about birth control before having sex. However, the morning-after pill can help prevent pregnancy if you've had unprotected sex — whether you didn't use birth control, you missed a birth control pill or your method of birth control failed.
Conception typically doesn't occur immediately after sex. Instead, it may happen up to several days later. During the time between sex and conception, sperm travel through the fallopian tubes until they potentially meet up with an egg. As a result, taking emergency birth control soon after unprotected sex isn't too late to prevent pregnancy.
It's safe to use the morning-after pill during breast-feeding.
Keep in mind that the morning-after pill isn't the same as mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486 or the abortion pill. The morning-after pill can prevent pregnancy. If you're already pregnant when you take the morning-after pill, the treatment will be ineffective and won't harm the developing baby. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one in which the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop.
Still corrupting young minds
But we've also known probably more people who, when they can't get a newborn, don't adopt at all. For the most part, the two groups are not competing for the same parents. Older kids frequently go to single parents or their foster parents who decide they want to adopt them.
For what it is worth - and let there be no question that I am ardently pro life - if someone is going to have an abortion, I would rather it be by medication than surgery. At least from what I know.
And I wish they would anesthetize the fetuses. It's heartless to not do so. I know, I know that is ridiculous but if they are going to kill them, anyway, at least don't torture them.
I realized that after reading all of it.
Tone is hard to decipher on a message board! I would be interested in knowing the answer. Maybe it's just not being used?
Still corrupting young minds
Well, when we're talking the first few weeks of life, I think you'd have to do a local because it would be so tiny I'm not sure you could anesthetize it. Nor am I sure if there are nerves to feel pain; there isn't a brain at that point, yet. I'll have to do some reading on a fresh mind tomorrow.
Still corrupting young minds
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Bookmarks