Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GlyphGryph]

There is no such thing and never can be such a thing as a contraceptive that causes abortion, because contraceptive means preventing conception.

Well, that is certainly a thing you've said. I mean, it's a blatant, egregiously stupid argument, that "thing that does a can never do b because it does unrelated thing a", but you've certainly gone and made it.

Many of these devices can prevent fertilization. Others can also prevent implantation. Others may even do both of the above *and* make post-implantation termination of the pregnancy significantly more likely.

Just because something does one thing does not mean it cannot also do some other thing. Unless you have actual evidence to present here, your argument is worthless, since the "logic" doesn't hold.

[LordSlowpoke]

my nonexistent sex ed classes are failing me, is there a reason to be using contraceptives when you're already pregnant other than std protection maybe perhaps

[GavJ]

Well yes I suppose that if you argue that pregnancy begins at fertilization, then it would make sense to separate out those three methods.

However, this seems like a really dumb argument to me, since fertilization could happen anywhere and doesn't even require a human body. Fertilization can happen in a test tube. So when it does, who is pregnant? The test tube? The woman it will be put into? What if it isn't? What if there are several options of women that haven't been decided yet, are they all pregnant?

Implantation clearly requires a body and makes far more sense as a cutoff.


edit: to be clear, I think of conception of a pregnancy AS implantation. If you don't, or if the term definitely means fertilization, then fine I got a term wrong maybe, but for the purposes of legality with regard to this court case, it doesn't really matter. Whatever you call it, the point remains that implantation is a far more enforceable, tangible, one-person-specific beginning point of pregnancy than fertilization is. And all those devices prevent it, from IUDs to condoms.

[GlyphGryph]

my nonexistent sex ed classes are failing me, is there a reason to be using contraceptives when you're already pregnant other than std protection maybe perhaps

You might not know. Most of them aren't 100% effective, so if you become pregnant anyways they might still manage to end the pregnancy early on (if they do at all, it would be early enough that you'd probably never even know). Assuming you think pregnancy begins at fertilization and not at implantation, anyway.

[Lord Shonus]

The anti-abortion crowd consider destroying a viable embryo, no matter where it is or what it's stuck to, to be murder, because it becomes a human being the instant that the two cells come together. Thus, most consider contraceptives that block fertilization (such as condoms) or alter hormone balance to prevent ovulation, to be perfectly acceptable as there's no embryo to harm. Anti-implantation methods, or drugs that directly attack the embryo, are not, because the abort a viable embryo.

It is only a "dumb argument" if  you refuse to consider the point of view of those making it.

[palsch]

my nonexistent sex ed classes are failing me, is there a reason to be using contraceptives when you're already pregnant other than std protection maybe perhaps

The contraceptives in questions are those that might work to reduce the odds of a fertilised egg from implanting or being recognised as a pregnancy. For absolutist, life begins at fertilisation anti-abortion types that counts as an abortion.

However, the primary goal of all of these methods is preventing fertilisation in the first place and there is little to no evidence that they act against implantation of fertilised eggs (maybe fractionally more for IUDs). I'd say there is more evidence of the rhythm method being unethical under this reasoning than Plan B or ella.

I'm also trying to process some more developments on the legal side. Looks like the slope is actually slippery if what I'm reading is right, but want to find the decision concerned first.

[GavJ]

The anti-abortion crowd consider destroying a viable embryo, no matter where it is or what it's stuck to, to be murder, because it becomes a human being the instant that the two cells come together. Thus, most consider contraceptives that block fertilization (such as condoms) or alter hormone balance to prevent ovulation, to be perfectly acceptable as there's no embryo to harm. Anti-implantation methods, or drugs that directly attack the embryo, are not, because the abort a viable embryo.

It is only a "dumb argument" if  you refuse to consider the point of view of those making it.

I'm not saying it's a dumb argument to think that viable embryos are sacrosanct.
I'm saying it's a dumb argument to define pregnancy based on viable embryos, because viable embryos can obviously happen without pregnancy. As stated previously, for example, in a test tube.

If you care about pregnancy itself, then implantation is the only thing that makes sense to worry about, because it is the only guaranteed, universal beginning of pregnancies. Whereas if you care about viable embryos, then it makes sense to single out IUDs, HOWEVER you should also be obligated to legislate against killing the cells in fertilized test tubes, etc. Yet that didn't come up in the case AFAIK. Are companies also allowed to not give insurance money for in vitro fertilization techniques, if and when such techniques generate fertilized zygotes in test tubes that are later destroyed? It doesn't seem like they are allowed to deny that on religious grounds, and if not, it is inconsistent isn't it?

[Descan]

I'll give the 'pro-life'/'anti-choice' crowd one thing, I can certainly see the whole "a potential human life is a human life!" thing. I just thing that it can be stretched to absurd degrees (♪Every sperm is sacred♪). Just like "A potential human life is not a human life, not yet" can be stretched to babies not being humans because they're dumb blobs of flesh that are more like sacks of potatoes than human being.

Of course, where that crowd goes loses me is when they start railing against people that get abortions as contraceptive, or people who go and get them "for fun" or bullshit like that. While I'm sure it happens, I'm also sure that "welfare queens" exist, and people who use food-stamps for drugs and such exist. I just don't think they're even one percent of one percent of people getting abortions, on welfare, or on food-stamps, and that trying to stamp those 5 people and their dog out will waste time, effort, money, and adversely affect the vast vast majority who actually use the service responsibly.

Almost certainly that every person who gets an abortion does it after long, hard thinking, and it's usually the best of a REALLY bad set of options. And whether it's legal or illegal, they'll get an abortion somehow, just it'll be way more dangerous if it's illegal. It's the same thing as gay kids coming out to their parents, it's not something you do *lightly*, they've had a long, long time to think about it (less so with abortions, as there is an inherent time-limit) so any claim that it's a whimsical fancy or a passing phase is laughable.

So for me, I'm pro-choice because a) they're gonna do it anyway, so make it so that even if you think a pregnancy is a human life, you're only putting one "person" at risk instead of two by making it safe, effective, and legal, and b) human beings are so vastly different in their circumstances, that for the most part, only they and their close relations/friends can know what needs to be done in a situation, so a top-down solution in such detail as this is destined to fail. It's why I'm all for basic income as welfare instead of the hodge-podge most governments seem to go for, as only the person actually living the life can know for sure how to best and efficiently use the money to better their situation and actually survive, instead of a "You must use THIS money for housing, and THIS money for food, and you CANNOT use it to [for example] get a library card, get a swim-pass, get a bike to get to work, etc etc." Same here, there's no way to know why or if someone is getting an abortion, so leave the decision up to them with resources to make a best-practices decision. People don't need their hand-held, they just need the options that are closed to them to be opened.

[palsch]

If you care about pregnancy itself, then implantation is the only thing that makes sense to worry about, because it is the only guaranteed, universal beginning of pregnancies. Whereas if you care about viable embryos, then it makes sense to single out IUDs, HOWEVER you should also be obligated to legislate against killing the cells in fertilized test tubes, etc. Yet that didn't come up in the case AFAIK. Are companies also allowed to not give insurance money for in vitro fertilization techniques, if and when such techniques generate fertilized zygotes in test tubes that are later destroyed? It doesn't seem like they are allowed to deny that on religious grounds, and if not, it is inconsistent isn't it?

The problem here is that it's nothing to do with the reality of the situation. It's what the challenger holds as a sincere religious belief. If the law creates an unreasonable burden on the practice of that belief then there is a problem, regardless of the rationality or consistency of that belief.



As for that slippery slope, two preliminary injunctions against the non-profit exemption, one of them explicitly citing the Hobby Lobby case. The second link seems to be broken but the opinion can be found here.

This is a problem. These are cases where religious non-profits are challenging the accommodations made for them by the government as still being too restrictive. Of particular note is the 26 page concurrence in the second link. Quick outline of the case;

A Catholic (by nature not affiliation; started by a nun but not associated with the Vatican) broadcaster has a religious opposition to all artificial contraceptives. As a non-profit they quality for the exemptions written into the ACA. However, they view part of the procedure required to achieve that exemption - notably the signing and handing of a form to an administrator who is then responsible for securing contraceptive coverage for their employees - as unethically facilitating such coverage and so against their religious beliefs.

The judge applies the reasoning of the majority in Hobby Lobby exactly as far as I can tell. And he is using it to strike down the 'less restrictive' approach cited by Kennedy as evidence that the approach taken by the government was not the least restrictive method. Also the only approach I'm aware of that Obama might use by executive fiat and which doesn't require an additional bill passed by congress.

These are just preliminary injunctions, but that's a strong indication of how the lower courts are reading yesterday's decision. And that's scary.

[Lord Shonus]

Unfortunately, Descan, that isn't true. I know 12 people that have had abortions, and eight or nine men that have forced their girlfriends to have one. Of the dozen, ONE put any thought into it at all. Seven refuse to use any form of contraceptive on the grounds that they're too much work, while four were pressured into it by the fathers.

[Descan]

And that would still fall under the "one percent of one percent", as America (and the world) has vastly more people than 12 women. That's why anecdotal evidence is not evidence as any single person only sees a small facet of the whole group and statistical improbabilities happen all the time. (and the fact that anecdotal evidence can be just sheer lies because it has no objective backing, but I don't think yer lying) I'd have to actually see a survey or result of some kind, along the lines of those drug-testing programs in Florida(?) that found only one or two percent of those on Floridan food-stamps (or some kind of welfare) were on drugs, and that they wasted more money doing the tests than they saved from those drug-users being kicked off the program (not that I agree with kicking them off in the first place, but still, even economically it was insane)

So no, you can't say it's not true if you only have 12 people to make your counter-argument.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Seven refuse to use any form of contraceptive on the grounds that they're too much work, while four were pressured into it by the fathers.

If only they would've used contraceptives instead of having to turn to abortion

Thanks media

[GavJ]

people who use food-stamps for drugs and such exist.

Nitpick: These people do not exist, because you can't use food stamps for anything except food. Hence the name food stamps.
In fact, you can't even use them for all foods. Nothing freshly prepared qualifies, for example

But otherwise, yes point taken about it being a "religious belief" even if patently not internally consistent. That makes my objection less relevant but of course raises a much larger scarier objection of complete capricious out-of-control-ness of the whole situation, potentially.

[palsch]

A slightly cutesy take on the morning-after-pill-as-abortion argument.

[Darvi]

Pretty sure that a dealer could accept food stamps if they needed food themselves.