Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
indydave

Abortion and morning-after pills (Plan B)

Recommended Posts

Response carried over from the other thread:

3 hours ago, indydave said:

Should employers who are opposed to abortion and who agree with the FDA about Plan B be forced to pay for that? You are basically accusing pro-life people of wanting all or nothing, but the same could be said for your side. Eliminate from ACA those forms of birth control which are arguably destroying a fertilized zygote and then let those who want to contribute to pay into some kind of fund for the others. If you truly want to make abortion rare and get more birth control funded, then you would agree to that instead of cramming down the throats of others something they believe is immoral. Catholic organizations should not have to fund any birth control if they regard it as against their religion. Should they?

I don't think any health care should be at the whims of employers, so I don't think my answer is going to meaningfully answer any of your questions.  In general, I have a pretty dim view of any religion based exceptions to the requirements to take care of employees, but that's largely outside the scope of this discussion.

2 hours ago, indydave said:

So what is the horrible hidden motive in your opinion if it is not their religious conviction that human life is being destroyed? For now rule out the Catholics.

My suspicion is that the higher echelon folks are mainly interested in having an issue that commands the absolute loyalty of a large number of single-issue voters.  At the lower levels it may be somewhat genuinely motivated, but a lot of that is hopelessly mired in the same kind of misconceptions you started this thread under.  That and a lot of people probably just want to punish women who are misbehaving according to their standards.

2 hours ago, indydave said:

You have no idea whether she was counseled to give birth and have an adoption do you?

No, but apparently they didn't make a very convincing case if she was.

2 hours ago, indydave said:

Let's hear how consistent YOU are.

Nah, I've said at least a few times that I'm not interested in having that discussion when the differences are irreconcilable.  Nobody's going to convince anybody about abortion itself.  The only thing that's likely to happen is that one of you decides to use it as an excuse to quit the thread.

2 hours ago, indydave said:

I think I have kept track of him quite well. If you think he is opposed to all forms of contraception like Catholics, then I think YOU are the one who can't keep track of him. If he is, then I will stand beside you to oppose that. But ALL he is opposed to (I think) are those forms of what you call contraception which are actually destruction of fertilized eggs which he and many others regard to be the earliest form of human life.

It's hard to tell what he thinks about contraception, because the only position he seems interested in advocating on the subject is to put women who have abortions and the doctors who provided them in jail for 20 years.

2 hours ago, indydave said:

It's possible that some of those methods he thinks do that, actually don't.

Given the scientific acumen he's displayed on other subjects I'd say that's nearly certain.

2 hours ago, indydave said:

I think the jury is still out on that even regarding Plan B. But I think the Ella pill and of course ru-486 do indeed destroy the new life after fertilization and he is right to oppose those even if you give them the euphemistic name of contraception.

As a service, I went back and found the only reference I recall making to either of those drugs:

On 1/29/2020 at 2:04 AM, popoi said:

RU-486 (Mifepristone) is legitimately an abortifacient

I've almost entirely talked about Plan B because that's the one I'm most familiar with, and the one you were most wrong about.  As best I can tell Ella is capable of doing so at larger than usual doses, but not at the recommended dose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might change my mind but I don't intend to try to keep two discussions going regarding this. My purpose was simply to help others who might be interested in this subject to find our other discussion. I have about completed my participation anyway because it was a side topic that was brought up by BK, because we were talking about Trump and his Supreme Court nominees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, you should have dignified what I presented regarding evidence in favor of your own position. I found an article which settled the matter in my mind and instead of expressing appreciation to me for my honesty, all you wanted to do was to trash me for not already taking your position...bragging about how smart you are and how dumb I am on the subject. And you never admitted you were wrong about the copper IUD. But I showed my personal integrity by giving you what you were not able to present yourself. So how about getting off your high horse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, popoi said:

Response carried over from the other thread:

I don't think any health care should be at the whims of employers, so I don't think my answer is going to meaningfully answer any of your questions.  In general, I have a pretty dim view of any religion based exceptions to the requirements to take care of employees, but that's largely outside the scope of this discussion.

My suspicion is that the higher echelon folks are mainly interested in having an issue that commands the absolute loyalty of a large number of single-issue voters.  At the lower levels it may be somewhat genuinely motivated, but a lot of that is hopelessly mired in the same kind of misconceptions you started this thread under.  That and a lot of people probably just want to punish women who are misbehaving according to their standards.

No, but apparently they didn't make a very convincing case if she was.

Nah, I've said at least a few times that I'm not interested in having that discussion when the differences are irreconcilable.  Nobody's going to convince anybody about abortion itself.  The only thing that's likely to happen is that one of you decides to use it as an excuse to quit the thread.

It's hard to tell what he thinks about contraception, because the only position he seems interested in advocating on the subject is to put women who have abortions and the doctors who provided them in jail for 20 years.

Given the scientific acumen he's displayed on other subjects I'd say that's nearly certain.

As a service, I went back and found the only reference I recall making to either of those drugs:

I've almost entirely talked about Plan B because that's the one I'm most familiar with, and the one you were most wrong about.  As best I can tell Ella is capable of doing so at larger than usual doses, but not at the recommended dose.

"That and a lot of people probably just want to punish women who are misbehaving according to their standards."

Only an Atheist could consider the heinous act of murdering helpless innocent young humans for convenience "misbehaving"..

"It's hard to tell what he thinks about contraception, because the only position he seems interested in advocating on the subject is to put women who have abortions and the doctors who provided them in jail for 20 years."

Yeah, or at least be CONSISTENT and stop punishing people who pay hired assasins to murder people OTHER than helpless innocent defenseless humans.. 

"Given the scientific acumen he's displayed on other subjects I'd say that's nearly certain."

The only other subject I've discussed on this thread (FOR MOST PART) is Evolutionism..  Surely you aren't suggesting that the Fairytale is part of science.. I even started a thread asking ALL COMERS to provide scientific evidence to support the crazy fairytale that man slowly descended from a microbe... Instead of you putting me in my place for my lack of "science acumen", you took the cowards way out and dodged it completely while throwing out snide little comments like this wherever you can... 

Here is your chance to "Put up or shut up" and impress me with YOUR "Science Acumen" for our audience and put me in my place regarding the "Theory of Evolution" .....  Should be easy pickings for a smart scientist like yourself against little old uneducated me!!.. Bring it on sport.. What's your best shot? ERVs? Or maybe you can show us something I havent seen before to pull the wool over my eyes!

OUT

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blitzking said:

"That and a lot of people probably just want to punish women who are misbehaving according to their standards."

Only an Atheist could consider the heinous act of murdering helpless innocent young humans for convenience "misbehaving"..

It doesn't start at abortion though.  I think a lot of people see a pregnancy and its inherent difficulties as deserved punishment for s*xually immoral women.  So the idea of preventing that pregnancy in the first place doesn't strike them as good, because even though it may be preventing a murder in their view, the woman is somehow getting away with her bad behavior.

I think you can see some of that in Dave's response to the idea that Tina Jessen may have needed more help than she got.  Even as someone who claims to support contraception as an option, the only explanations he seems willing to consider for why she wasn't able to prevent a pregnancy she clearly didn't want is that she must have chosen poorly.  Anything more that could have been done would be enabling those bad choices, and is therefore bad, even though a little enabling might have ultimately prevented a murder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, popoi said:

It doesn't start at abortion though.  I think a lot of people see a pregnancy and its inherent difficulties as deserved punishment for s*xually immoral women.  So the idea of preventing that pregnancy in the first place doesn't strike them as good, because even though it may be preventing a murder in their view, the woman is somehow getting away with her bad behavior.

I think you can see some of that in Dave's response to the idea that Tina Jessen may have needed more help than she got.  Even as someone who claims to support contraception as an option, the only explanations he seems willing to consider for why she wasn't able to prevent a pregnancy she clearly didn't want is that she must have chosen poorly.  Anything more that could have been done would be enabling those bad choices, and is therefore bad, even though a little enabling might have ultimately prevented a murder.

 

I think a lot of people see a pregnancy and its inherent difficulties as deserved punishment for s*xually immoral women. "

I dont know anyone in the Christian (Born Again) Pro Life community that thinks that way.. I will ask around and see if I can find someone who does..

Aren't venereal diseases enough for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, popoi said:

It doesn't start at abortion though.  I think a lot of people see a pregnancy and its inherent difficulties as deserved punishment for s*xually immoral women.  So the idea of preventing that pregnancy in the first place doesn't strike them as good, because even though it may be preventing a murder in their view, the woman is somehow getting away with her bad behavior.

I think you can see some of that in Dave's response to the idea that Tina Jessen may have needed more help than she got.  Even as someone who claims to support contraception as an option, the only explanations he seems willing to consider for why she wasn't able to prevent a pregnancy she clearly didn't want is that she must have chosen poorly.  Anything more that could have been done would be enabling those bad choices, and is therefore bad, even though a little enabling might have ultimately prevented a murder.

 

"I think you can see some of that in Dave's response to the idea that Tina Jessen may have needed more help than she got."

So I guess we have government funded "Planned Parenthood" to the rescue to give her "help" right? By lying to women and telling them that abortion is OK..  IT ISN'T 

There are plenty of means for allowing for adoption instead of murdering the young human.. 

If Tina lived knowing that the punishment for murdering ALL humans instead of just the ones who can defend themselves is 20 years in prison the chance of her attempting to murder Gianna would drop by 99%. The reason why there are laws to begin with is to create a DETERRENCE.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blitzking said:

So I guess we have government funded "Planned Parenthood" to the rescue to give her "help" right? By lying to women and telling them that abortion is OK..  IT ISN'T 

On balance, they'd be more likely to help a 17-year old not have an abortion by providing contraception than you are spending decades waiting for the Supreme Court to be stacked the right way to overturn the precedent you need to have them banned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, popoi said:

On balance, they'd be more likely to help a 17-year old not have an abortion by providing contraception than you are spending decades waiting for the Supreme Court to be stacked the right way to overturn the precedent you need to have them banned.

 

"On balance, they'd be more likely to help a 17-year old not have an abortion by providing contraception than you are spending decades waiting for the Supreme Court to be stacked the right way to overturn the precedent you need to have them banned."

"Providing contraception" is not what PP is known for.. Kind of like the fox guarding the hen house..  They dont make any money by STOPPING pregnancies, they make money by murdering babies.. They have been caught on tape bragging about selling baby organs for enough to buy Lamborghinis..

"Helping her" by lying to her and coercing  her to commit a murder which will (and should) haunt her for the rest of her life is "helping her"? Not just any murder I'll have you, but the murder of her helpless defenseless innocent young child that God created in her.. And violating her God given Maternal instincts for convenience, the ultimate in narcissism, betrayal and treachery.. Only an Atheist can possibly think like this is "help" ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Blitzking said:

"Providing contraception" is not what PP is known for..

I wasn't talking about what they were known for, especially not from your wildly skewed perspective.  They provide way more contraception than they do abortion.  Take that away, and not only do a lot of women lose access to important health services that have nothing to do with reproduction, a lot of women suddenly have a harder time getting contraception.  And when you make contraception harder to get, there will inevitably be more abortions.

47 minutes ago, Blitzking said:

Kind of like the fox guarding the hen house..  They dont make any money by STOPPING pregnancies, they make money by murdering babies.. They have been caught on tape bragging about selling baby organs for enough to buy Lamborghinis..

Sure sounds like it might be beneficial for contraception to be provided by some entity that doesn't have to worry about making money to sustain its operations then!

47 minutes ago, Blitzking said:

"Helping her" by lying to her and coercing  her to commit a murder which will (and should) haunt her for the rest of her life is "helping her"? Not just any murder I'll have you, but the murder of her helpless defenseless innocent young child that God created in her.. And violating her God given Maternal instincts for convenience, the ultimate in narcissism, betrayal and treachery.. Only an Atheist can possibly think like this is "help" ...

We were talking about contraception, please try to stay focused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

"Providing contraception" is not what PP is known for..

That's because it's abortion that gets all the attention.

According to their 2017-2018 annual report (pg 25): They performed some 9.7 million services.   Of those, 333,000 were abortions and another 630,000 "Emergency Contraception  Kits" were given out for about 10% of the total.   On the other hand, there were 4.7 million visits for "STI Testing and Treatment."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, popoi said:

I wasn't talking about what they were known for, especially not from your wildly skewed perspective.  They provide way more contraception than they do abortion.  Take that away, and not only do a lot of women lose access to important health services that have nothing to do with reproduction, a lot of women suddenly have a harder time getting contraception.  And when you make contraception harder to get, there will inevitably be more abortions.

Sure sounds like it might be beneficial for contraception to be provided by some entity that doesn't have to worry about making money to sustain its operations then!

We were talking about contraception, please try to stay focused.

"I wasn't talking about what they were known for, especially not from your wildly skewed perspective"

Yeah, Planned Parenthood has murdered 7.6 MILLION helpless defenseless young humans, but I am the one with the "skewed perceptive" to point it out right? 

https://californiafamily.org/2018/planned-parenthood-killed-321384-babies-last-year-bringing-total-killed-to-over-7-6-million/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 2:37 AM, popoi said:

 

I think you can see some of that in Dave's response to the idea that Tina Jessen may have needed more help than she got.  Even as someone who claims to support contraception as an option, the only explanations he seems willing to consider for why she wasn't able to prevent a pregnancy she clearly didn't want is that she must have chosen poorly.  Anything more that could have been done would be enabling those bad choices, and is therefore bad, even though a little enabling might have ultimately prevented a murder.

 

Huh??? I have not in any way suggested that Tina, the mother of the failed abortion child was somehow failing regarding contraception. it is possible that she used contraception and it didn't work or she may have actually decided in the early stages that she might have wanted to become a mother but then later she changed her mind. I have not been critical of her regarding contraception, or getting pregnant outside of marriage, but once you get pregnant, I am critical if you decide to kill your child instead of allowing it to be born and adopted. If you regarded this fetus, or embryo or zygote or whatever dehumanizing term you want to use, as being truly a living human being, then what I have postulated is entirely reasonable. And if you are going to be consistent then it would be reasonable if you were to allow a full-term baby inside her mother after 9 months to be murdered. In the past it seems that the line was drawn at whether it was old enough to be viable outside the womb. But if you paid attention to the State of the Union address, when Trump spoke about ending late-term abortions, not a single Democrat stood up to applaud. So it appears that they have upped the ante and no longer are drawing the line at viability inside the womb. They want to grant to women the right to abort the child right up to minutes before it would have been born! And apparently you have no problem with that at all! Or do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 2:37 AM, popoi said:

 

I think you can see some of that in Dave's response to the idea that Tina Jessen may have needed more help than she got.  

And while I'm at it, maybe you could tell us your position and your reasoning about whether or not abortion for gender selection should be legal. If it's not really a human than you would have to be in favor of that, right? in India and China there are tens of millions of baby girls who are aborted totally because of their gender. Or what if there is a gene that can predict whether someone is going to be a h*mos*xual? Or have red hair? Or dwarfism? All of those would be fine with you to kill, if that is not what you wanted your baby to be like, right? I will accept the extremity of my own position. I'm curious if you will accept yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, indydave said:

And while I'm at it, maybe you could tell us your position and your reasoning about whether or not abortion for gender selection should be legal. If it's not really a human than you would have to be in favor of that, right? in India and China there are tens of millions of baby girls who are aborted totally because of their gender. Or what if there is a gene that can predict whether someone is going to be a h*mos*xual? Or have red hair? Or dwarfism? All of those would be fine with you to kill, if that is not what you wanted your baby to be like, right? I will accept the extremity of my own position. I'm curious if you will accept yours.

I've given up debating infanticide with Atheists... If God doesnt exist then there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with infanticide or murder at any age actually.. We are all just parasites fighting over the same limited natural resources and any and all means that would help assure one's supply is not threatened by other terrestrial parasites is justified and in fact it would be the height of folly to think otherwise 

HOWEVER

If God exists, then infanticide is the greatest of possible abominations that can be imagined...

 

#1 God DOESN'T  exist.   Infanticide is good and justified and logical...

#2. God DOES exist.     Infanticide is the worst and a vile despicable act..

Good luck.. You are going to need it... Get ready for a serious dose of "Buffet Atheism"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, indydave said:

And while I'm at it, maybe you could tell us your position and your reasoning about whether or not abortion for gender selection should be legal. If it's not really a human than you would have to be in favor of that, right? in India and China there are tens of millions of baby girls who are aborted totally because of their gender. Or what if there is a gene that can predict whether someone is going to be a h*mos*xual? Or have red hair? Or dwarfism? All of those would be fine with you to kill, if that is not what you wanted your baby to be like, right? I will accept the extremity of my own position. I'm curious if you will accept yours.

I'm certainly not going to accept your made up position as my own, but I guess if you want to join Blitzking in making strawmen to get mad at, feel free.  I've said quite a few times that I'm not interested in banging my head against the wall of fundamentally irreconcilable disagreements about when a human starts, which is why I haven't tried to talk you out of anything in that regard.  The only things I'm interested in talking about here are where common cause is (at least theoretically) possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms