Abortion still under control in Poland

TommyG,I would be for a ban to use it under those circumstances.

Sperm are not a whole life. They are just a catalyst, and provide half the person. So, before they have met the egg they are just an ingredient, in the same way that the egg is.

When they come together and fertilisation occurs, at that moment they cease to be separate ingredients and become a real living whole being who is at the very start of their human existence as a unique entity.

I just don't understand what is so hard to get about that, and how anybody could argue otherwise. Call me stupid.

(and thank you, p3, by the way, for not thinking what I said rubbish : )

Okay.
My complete take:
I don't know.

What I was getting at is it appears that just might be more people's take on abortion whether they're admitting it or not.

Foreigner4,Thanks for the honesty,I believe you.

so you would be against the "morning after pill" as well?
Some contraceptive devices work by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the uterus..

The thing about the morning after pill is that you have no way of knowing whether fertilisation has occurred. With abortion, you know it has occurred. That is a big difference.

However, yes, I agree, the morning after pill could constitute termination of a life.

I'm uncomfortable about the morning after pill, precisely because you don't know whether you are terminating a life or not. I don't like it and personally wouldn't want to take it. However, it doesn't feel as clearly wrong as an abortion, because you don't know if you're pregnant or not. Which in itself is completely unsatisfactory.

The point about abortion is that it is the knowing decision to terminate a life. The morning after pill is more of an 'erm - ok - just in case I'd better make sure that if I have created a life, it can't develop into a stable pregnancy'. But that is still not OK.

It is all horrible, and should all be avoided. That is what I will tell my daughter.

Really, natasia? Do you even know how things you write about work?

then, really, we should not have sex unless we're procreating.
But if zygote is a life, then so should be an egg, or a sperm, or every living cell.

Yes ... fertilisation occurs usually in the fallopian tube ... the fertilised egg moves down into the main body of the uterus, and implants ... the morning after pill makes the uterine lining unreceptive, so the fertilised egg can't implant, so dies ...

There are morning after pills (emergency contraceptives) and abortion pills. Two different things.

pgtx,what is the difference?

you'd think, the end result is the same but I'm no expert either ;-)

4eigner,true;I'm just wondering how they work.

The 72 hours pill doesn't allow the egg to "stic" in uterus.The second one makes women's body to get rid of already nested egg.

There're some herbs that women can use to do the same thing with available products.

it sounds like a better option.

It's the same thing just done by other means.And actually it's not women because it may lead to severe blood loss.

The Morning After Pill does three possible things:
1. delays ovulation by affecting the menstrual cycle,
2. inhibits the release of egg, or
3. irritates the uterine lining, thereby not allowing fertilized egg (a human life) to implant, in other words a chemical abortion.

Obviously, the woman wouldn't know which of the three is happening.

Depending on which abortion drug you're talking about, they block the development of the lining of the uterus thereby starving the developing human being (the RU-486); there is another drug that actual attacks and destroys the baby's cells; some used in later trimesters cause premature contractions, that often times crush the baby before the baby is aborted from the womb; or another later trimester method is the use of salt that poisons the baby dehydrates, causes convulsions, hemorrhaging, skin and tissue burning.

if people had discussions like this 1 on a daily basis, we wouldn't have to worry about abortions. Who would even want to have sex after hearing all this? LOL

I've been trying to figure out at how many weeks of a development, a human embryo has as many brain cells, or neurons, as a common fruit fly. Which is about 100,000. Can anyone help?

fstop,good question.

Why is it a good question? We could grow an endless amount of any type of cell in a lab. It's a completely pointless question. I don't even understand why it's being asked to be honest.

Why are we attempting to draw parallels between the human brain to that of a fruit fly?

Why are we trying to compare a small functioning brain of a completely different animal to a quite frankly small number of human brain cells which are completely non-functional? Are we going to start counting heart cells in petri dishes?

A fully developed human brain contains 100 billion FUNCTIONING neurons. WTF have fruit flies got to do with it?

A bunch of cells does or the number of them does not equate to life. Its the interaction which they have with other cells and in turn the outside world which is important.

Ridiculous.

Babies are born with all the brain cells theye are going to have, the same number as an adult.

A fully developed fruit fly's brain contains 0.0001% of the cells of a fully developed human brain (in numbers). But here's the rub..... It's a fruit fly.

I think you missed the point. There is ample info available about the state of a child's brain when it is BORN. The information I'm looking for is the brain development BEFORE is it BORN.

Most of the arguments I hear against abortion is that the fetus can feel, or that it has a "soul", so it all seems to point to those brain cells.

Couln't find the info either?
The most I found is that at 4-6 weeks a neural plate of a developing human fetus is one cell wide.

why are we trying to compareresponsible, children loving moms with some thoughtless, irresponsible, party dolls who don't don't give a damn about the lives of their unborn babies?

why compare? It seems to me that most of the disagreement centers around when potential life can be morally stopped.
Church is out of this discussion, because according to them, we should be impregnating every egg, for them, even contraception is a no-no. For the rest of the world, neither having 12 children or obstaining from sex is a viable solution.

So, when?
My fence posts are: chopping a fetus up and removing the pieces from the uterus is not OK.
On the other side, disabling a zygote from the attaching itself to the wall is perfectly OK.
So, in order to narrow that down, I think I need to know the neural stages of the pre-birth development, week by week.

What do you base your criteria on?

On Sunday church group meetings? ;)

ok! Is contraception still a sin, or are the rules adapting to current times?

But if fertilisation has occurred, that is when the unique fusion of elements have come together - that is the point of creation of life. Sperm swimming hopefully along on their own do not constitute a life. An egg waiting and hoping is nothing until it gets the vital ingredient of the other half. Ask all the people trying to conceive about that ...

I know I keep saying this, but 6-7 days after conception, or even earlier, if one is listening, one is aware one is pregnant - one is aware that 'something' has happened. However minuscule that life, it is there, in all its uniqueness.

Think of it like this. I get a pen. I have a blank piece of paper. My pen is hovering over the paper, but the paper is still blank. Then I draw a tiny dot. That dot is there, whatever anyone says. I can make it bigger, or I can try to rub it out - but it is still an event and an existence.

Personally I think discussion about 'the point at which abortion is ok' is silly - it isn't ok at any point, because the ease of doing it, and the smallness/earliness of stage of development shouldn't come into it - actually quite the opposite - we should be more protective of life in its very early stages.

And it gets back to the same old thing ... justifying getting rid of an inconvenient life by getting rid of it quick when it is tiny and you can pretend it barely exists anyhow.

I can't see how that is morally defensible, and never will. And that is not a taught religious opinion - that is gut instinct.

Jeez Louise people,
I thought we had made some progress in this discussion and in a couple of posts it's been knocked right back to the stone ages again.

Posts like this are what I'm talking about:


Are those really the only two alternatives you can imagine?

Open question:
If you believe abortion is "wrong" in some sense then please state how wrong it is and if you're doing nothing to prevent it. Why/why not?


That's your luxury but your inability to imagine a completely ********* situation and not wanting to bring another innocent person into that is something you should at least entertain. I think you should also consider that some people don't look at that form of life the same way you do, maybe they're not being immoral, they just don't understand things like you do and you don't understand things like they do.

Maybe people try to make the best decisions they can at the time and sometimes they just don't know any different. Maybe some people are just scared and they make some decisions out of fear, it doesn't mean they're immoral, it means they were afraid at the time and their judgment was off.

Open question:
What is "morally" defensible? Do you really want to go there?

The reason I ask is that you might be very surprised at how morally indefensible most people's lives are, including your own.
Buying stuff made from slave labour, is that morally defensible? Production facilities and mining operations are the places where much of our "stuff" comes from and people working there are treated...terribly, simply terribly. How can we buy anything made at such a cost to people's health and freedom?

Not taking care of your fellow brothers and sisters who have no home, is that morally defensible? Not helping to raise the children who either don't have parents or don't have good parents, is that morally defensible? How environmentally responsible are you? How much do you eat, more than you have to? You know there are starving people by the billions right?

Maybe some think it morally defensible not to bring a child into the world for whatever reasons they have. Maybe they're wrong but maybe they believe that have reasons, what makes you so sure your reasoning is right and theirs isn't?

Your basic paradigms represent an intellectual spiral death trap from which neither you nor your civilization can possibly hope to escape. Learn to embrace the doom because it is guaranteed.

actually, his paradigms reflect life.
It's the conflicting religious dogmas that are leading us to self destruction.