The anti-abortion groups are equally anti-contraception so they keep pushing the envelope as to when an embryo becomes a human being. If they ever succeed in banning abortion, they will target all contraception. That is what the author makes a point of, these groups have pushed it so far back that at some point a menstruating woman could be accused of abortion. Or as said, a woman who breast feeds as that is a "natural" contraceptive.

It drives me nuts when they rail against the "morning after pill" as an abortion and people buy into it. That pill acts in the same way birth control pills do. So if taken to the logical conclusion, if you are a nut who believes that the embryo is a person as soon as a sperm fertilizes it, is that contraception is an abortion. That is absurd of course.

Now you know why I just say I support the KILLING of BABIES as long as said BABY is inside the mother.

Why? Because the 'time line' POV is a complete joke. As you noted the Christians are NOT OK with the morning after pill since that is the taking of POTENTIAL babies.

So to end the debate I just agree with them that YES, it is POTENTIAL life AND I'm willing to let the POTENTIAL have the right to KILL IT!

This ends the debate very quickly.

PS: I have faith that women will make the right choice and even if they don't it should still be their choice. This is the reason for my political stance.

Datdamwuf:

The anti-abortion groups are equally anti-contraception so they keep pushing the envelope as to when an embryo becomes a human being. If they ever succeed in banning abortion, they will target all contraception. That is what the author makes a point of, these groups have pushed it so far back that at some point a menstruating woman could be accused of abortion. Or as said, a woman who breast feeds as that is a "natural" contraceptive.

It drives me nuts when they rail against the "morning after pill" as an abortion and people buy into it. That pill acts in the same way birth control pills do. So if taken to the logical conclusion, if you are a nut who believes that the embryo is a person as soon as a sperm fertilizes it, is that contraception is an abortion. That is absurd of course.

If there is a truly unavoidable auto accident and someone dies, there are no criminal charges filed. There was no intent to harm. If you deliberately run over someone - you go to jail.

Similarly, if you take a morning after pill when you think you are pregnant, your *intent* is to stop the pregnancy, right? OTOH, no one who exercises is thinking, "If I work out today, I'll have an abortion from last night's unprotected sex."

It's about intent.

According to the GUI the last reply was by Bondman BUT I don't see any reply. Is this the result of the revised Slate system???

So this is a test post.

First there is a time delay between 'last reply' and being able to see the actual post. Well that is Slate for you!

Anyhow, are you saying that the definition of an 'abortion' is that the intent of the women was to stop the pregancy?

It doesn't matter WHAT was aborted? So when I wear a condom did I have an abortion? Well my intent was to NOT get her pregrant!

Datdamwuf:

The anti-abortion groups are equally anti-contraception... If they ever succeed in banning abortion, they will target all contraception. That is what the author makes a point of...

Firstly, calm down. To characterize all pro-lifers as equally anti-contraception is akin to saying all abortionists are in favor of late term abortions. Your rage is blinding you to the fact that most people's views, on either side, can be much more nuanced and varied. In fact, I would wager that plenty of people on both sides of this debate have not systematically thought through their respective positions. This of course makes it easy for one who has to point out inconsistencies and absurdities.

Mainly, Saletan's point was less about abortion and more about legislation that protects employees from doing their jobs. This is something I can agree with. It would be like legislation that prohibits video store employers from firing workers who refuse to rent pornography. I detest pornography personally, but if an employee objects to renting it, they should use other means to avoid it. Perhaps they can talk to their employer and reach an agreement whereby someone else handles the pornography, or the employee could look for a new job.

This piece by Saletan is in contrast to others in which he gives a quasi-defense for the right of employers to make their own decisions in these matters. If restaurant owners want to offer only caffeine free drinks, that would be their right. If a gym wants to only offer low impact exercises that would reduce the risk of unintended abortions, that is their right.

Saletan is being the libertarian and saying that such accommodations should be worked out in the free market by the parties involved, not foisted on one or the other by the government.

jazzguitarman:

First there is a time delay between 'last reply' and being able to see the actual post. Well that is Slate for you!

Anyhow, are you saying that the definition of an 'abortion' is that the intent of the women was to stop the pregancy?

It doesn't matter WHAT was aborted? So when I wear a condom did I have an abortion? Well my intent was to NOT get her pregrant!

No, not really. the trouble is there are like 8 points floating around. There is, however, a big difference between a condom, which prevents a pregnancy from occuring, and RU 486 which is a progestrone antagonist (stops progesterone from doing its job) and reverses development of the uterus, causing the body to expel an implanted, developing embryo. (or causes an embryo to have nowhere to implant onto, dying and being expelled).

Yes, and if you take the Plan B pill, your intent is to prevent a pregnancy: not to abort a fertilized egg, but to prevent the egg from being fertilized.

The point of the article is that some women do prolong breastfeeding to protect against pregnancy...how is the service provider to know which ones show "intent" and which don't?

Your definition of "a big difference" and mine differ greatly. I do not see that big of a difference between preventing fertilization and preventing implantation and preventing the further development of a newly-implanted blastocyst.

Perhaps it is because I am aware of the precarious and long-term nature of what we consider "conception" or becoming pregnant. There are far more ejaculations in the ovulatory period than there are fertilizations. And there are far more fertilizations than there are implantations. And there are far more implantations than there are early clinical pregnancies with a fetal pole. And there are far more clinical pregnancies than there are live births.

A fertilized egg may be unique, but it's not really that special, and it's not even close to a microscopically tiny and perfectly formed infant floating around trying to find a place to land and grow big enough to come out.

I love the unborn daughter who is currently poking me in the bladder, but her reality was something that grew and continues to grow even now when she lurks on the edge of viability. It was not something that popped into existence at the moment of fertilization. I would mourn much harder if I lost her now than if I had lost her at the chemical pregnancy stage or shortly thereafter.

You're welcome, like the ladies on my TTC and pregnancy message boards, to think of every chemical pregnancy as an "angel baby waiting for you in heaven". You are not welcome to enforce this unscientific, overly emotional, unrealistic view onto my legal rights.

"the morning after pill prevents a fertilized egg from getting the chance to develop, it does not other than theoretically prevent fertilization."

This is untrue. The morning after pill functions like birth control - it suppresses ovulation, prevents fertilization, and may prevent implantation.

Sperm, if you are unaware, can survive 3-5 days in the female reproductive system. The egg has a much shorter shelf life.

If you have unprotected sex once and become pregnant, therefore, it is highly likely that you actually ovulated well after the deed - days even. The goal of emergency contraception is to prevent these conceptions by supressing the coming ovulation and/or preventing fertilization - in the exact same manner that ordinary contraceptive pills do, with the same low risk of possibly preventing the implantation of an already fertilized egg.

RU486 - which is not the same thing - is used in the US as a chemical abortifacient, post-implantation. It can also be used in lower doses, earlier on, in the same capacity as the morning-after pills - in which case it is being used as emergency contraception, again attempting to prevent ovulation and fertilization, not development or even implantation. It is not approved for this use in the US, but even if it were, it simply is a drug with two different applications.