Morning after pill and abortion

Post Reply New Topic

I'm wondering, is there anyone else here who opposes abortion, but supports the use of the morning after pill?

My reasoning is that, until the embryo reaches the primitive streak stage, 10-14 days after conception, it is not a unique human being, but a ball of undifferentiated cells which could give rise to 0, 1, 2 or more human individuals. There is nothing about it to suggest it should be accorded the status of a human being, instead being similar to many, many cells found all over the human body - if we are to accord personhood to the early embryo, why not to those cells?

On the other hand, I use inductive reasoning, working backwards from birth, to search for a point at which it may be morally acceptable to terminate the fetus. The only such points I've found are ones where there is a significant change in the development, so the induction breaks down. The primitive streak is one such point, and there are possibly others, but I'm sticking with the primitive streak for now. Got to be on the safe side.

So whilst it may annoy the Catholics and many Protestants, I'm going to advocate for the morning after pill. Yes, I know it's not 100% effective. But abortion seems to be pretty effective at stopping pregnancy, so maybe by applying stuff from that some safe means could be devised by which a woman who has had sexual intercourse could prevent herself from becoming pregnant in the first week.

Or maybe we can figure some safe any easy means that has very few if any side effects that allow people to reversibly render themselves sterile, and then people can have it as standard. That whooshing noise you hear is the birthrate.

I have no issues with the morning after pill or contraceptives in general.

I have come to this conclusion as well. If my memory of science serves me correct, after the zygote stages, a human starts to form. So for me, I would agree with you. That is when a piece of tissue turns from tissue that would be flushed down, to something more than that, something that is animated. So yes, support that. I also support any medication based on a right to ingest into your body what you so please. So if you want to drink draino, be my guest, although it is stupid. So if there are medicines after zygote stage, yes, but a abortion, no. But overall, I think we should try to advance technology to the point where we need no worry about it, and we could actually put a partially developed child in an incubator like device, and grow the child outside the womb. This would solve both sides the issues, and a human life could come into the world with minimum fuss. We should focus on tech to solve these issues.

Whatever your view on the matter is, the taxpayer should not be the one getting the bill.

I would think most women know that they've had sex, however. Or that it is likely that they did.

An unconscious person is also less aware than a bird. Your point?

You know that the morning after pill is simply an contraception, so only preventing an conceivement like pill and condom? (No thats not happening instantly during the sex....thats why the little guys get called "swimmers" in some countries. And if you eat the pill early enough the goal of the little swimmers, simply gets snipped away, while they are still swimming, so no conceivement. Thats as well the cause why it needs to be taken as fast as possible, because the more times passes, the more chance, that a swimmer already reached his goal.)

So yes, you are absolutely right not to compare the morning after pill, condoms, normal pills and UIDs not with abortions.

A fetus will gain consciousness when it is born. Why does previously being conscious give an entity a different moral status? It won't be aware of dying if you kill it in it's sleep...

A fetus is not comparable to skin cells. A very early stage embryo is, yes.

So human beings have worth due to their dreams and relationships?

^in part, yes.

I'm checking both but I'm adding a but.

I don't support abortion, but I don't think it should be banned.