Posted on 08/22/2006 12:19:08 PM PDT by Pyro7480
"I agree that the 2nd item is illogical. It was simply the natural conclusion based on the argument made by the other poster"
I would like to note that I made no such argument. I certainly did not imply that "any deliberate act that could reasonably be anticipated to terminate a human life would be murder."
*Some* deliberate acts that can reasonably be anticipated to terminate a human life are murder. Where the analogy really fails, though, is that driving cannot reasonably be anticipated to terminate a human life. While the risk exists, far and away the huge majority of drivers never kill anyone.
The false analogy was just another of CharlesWayneCT's failed attempts to justify the deliberate killing of innocent human beings.
Because in this case the people who have made "rigid" and "dogmatic" "loaded" are those who think it is bad to have a firm, rigid, dogmatic set of beliefs. So in fact there is no way of describing someone as being set in their beliefs that hasn't been vilified by the popular culture. Certainly you have noticed that, given your position on issues.
Most of the rest of your post was assuming as fact the thing we are arguing. Your view of what is murder is in fact a "narrow" view, held by a minority, probably even a minority within the pro-life culture. The view that killing the innocent is wrong is of course a widely supported view, held by most of those who oppose your position -- they simply disagree with your view of what "killing" is.
In the face of the fact that such drugs cause the deaths of human beings, whatever else they do is completely beside the point.
Beyond this I think there is no further hope of understanding. Driving will cause the death of innocent humans, but you choose to do so, and will not consider yourself a murderer if while driving you have an accident which kills an innocent person, even though it is a certainty that SOMEONE will today do so while driving, and we could stop driving.
We in fact take drugs that kill people. We administer vaccines to our innocent children, knowing full well that the vaccine will KILL a few of them, and we don't feel we've MURDERED them, nor do we think that giving the drug is itself immoral (actually a few people do, and maybe you are one of those people).
The difference is that you don't accept the desire to NOT get pregnant as having ANY merit (or you seem not to). Therefore, any attempt to NOT get pregnant that has the side effect of ending a life you find immoral and reprehensible. Which again is a FINE position, except carried to the LOGICAL CONCLUSION should cause you to also not engage in other activities that are known to kill some innocent people, like driving, or having a pool built in your back yard.
You have not addressed your basis for making a moral judgment about women who refuse to allow fertilized eggs to implant on their uterus, or why that choice is immoral but the choice to prevent a sperm from fertilizing the egg is not immoral. I presume that you define "life" as starting when the sperm fertilizes the egg, although the egg itself has living cells, and the sperm has living cells, and the natural result of sex is for those to get together and form an embryo, and preventing that prevents that life from continuing.
You merely assert that once there is this baby in the form of an embryo travelling in the woman's body that the woman is responsible for ensuring that embryo implants, but have not provided moral authority for why the woman should be required to allow that action while you should not be required to allow a person into your house who might otherwise be killed.
My position is simply that it is easier within the human moral and ethical framework to define responsibility based on acceptance -- once the woman accepts responsibility for the nurture of the human being by allowing implantation, she cannot later reject that responsibility.
I think we would have an argument over many examples where one human decides to take an action which leads to the death of another human being, but I can't get you to acknowledge ANY other instance where that would be true other than a woman having an embryo in her womb looking for food and shelter.
I found particularly funny your attempt to show I didn't understand a "position" by taking my statement of your "position", breaking it into TWO statements, and claiming the first half was not a position, but the 2nd half was, and somehow that makes me irrational. But at least you acknowledge I got your position correct -- and I think stating the FACTS that you used to support your position was helpful to those following the argument, even if you didn't seem to understand that form of expression.
To repeat: You think "plan b" should be banned, but you also think all contraceptive pills should be banned. That is helpful to people who might be mislead by your other statements and think "plan b" is different from "the pill" and that they should be treated differently. My argument all along has been that there is a large segment of the "pro-life" population that does NOT object to "the pill", and that if that same group takes the same position on "plan b" it is not illogical for them to do so. You may feel free to argue that they were already illogical for accepting the pill, but at least we will truthfully know what your position is.
As to the rest, you don't understand that the woman's refusal to allow an egg to implant is NOT the same as "hunting down and killing" the egg, even though most of us can clearly see that distinction. I tried several inapt analogies all of which were useless. I'll just state it plainly one more time, so everybody reading will understand our point of contention -- you think that refusing to allow implantation is the same as actively destroying the egg, and I don't.
"Plan b" is a woman using a drug to effect her own body (her uterine wall) to make that wall incapable of accepting the embryo(baby). When the baby/embryo passes the wall, the baby/embryo's life is identical both before and after it passes. However, without the life-giving nutrients and shelter which it could have received from the uterine wall, the baby/embryo will, and does, die.
I've enjoyed (almost) this conversation, it's not often I'm accused of being in league with Satan.
“True belief is both rigid and dogmatic.”
Another slur. My position is in no way a reflection of “true belief.” It is an informed opinion, grounded in reason, and tested in the crucible of vigorous debate. It is strong but not rigid, clear but not dogmatic.
“Most of the rest of your post was assuming as fact the thing we are arguing.”
Nonsense. I used fact and reason to demonstrate that your position is utterly groundless. As you are in a state of denial, you shut all that out.
“Your view of what is murder is in fact a "narrow" view”
Once again you waste time on consensual validation, and worse, support it only with erroneous assertions.
“Beyond this I think there is no further hope of understanding.”
Where you go wrong is in thinking that it is I who needs to understand. It is you who completely fails to comprehend the issue.
“Driving will cause the death of innocent humans, but you choose to do so”
My stars and garters, how many times does that argument have to get its guts ripped out before you finally begin to suspect that it won’t hold water? Hundreds? Thousands? Are you totally and permanently impervious to reason? There’s the stench of Satan again, blinding you to the obvious.
Even in this pathetic, mewling attempt to support the insupportable you use the word “accident.” Are you even reading what you write? Are you incapable of seeing the difference between an accident and a deliberate action that you know will kill any innocent human being present?
We drive in the reasonable expectation that due care and expertise will allow us to avoid killing anyone, and, indeed, that is true of the huge majority of us. Women take Plan B in the reasonable expectation that it will kill any baby they are carrying. To equate the two is so unreasonable as to flirt with insanity.
“We in fact take drugs that kill people. We administer vaccines to our innocent children, knowing full well that the vaccine will KILL a few of them, and we don't feel we've MURDERED them”
Arrant sophistry. We administer the vaccines in the belief, demonstrated to be valid, that the vaccines will save immensely more lives than adverse reactions will take. Polio and smallpox vaccines, to take just two, have probably saved several million lives for every adverse reaction. Further, we continue to make vaccines safer, and adverse reactions continue to decline in number.
Plan B, on the other hand, is not a life-saving vaccine. It is designed to kill any human being present. Any effort to “improve” it would focus not on making it less likely to kill, but more likely.
“The difference is that you don't accept the desire to NOT get pregnant as having ANY merit (or you seem not to).”
Why would it be meritorious? If it’s meritorious, why stop there? Why not call it heroic?
It is possible that a woman might have a valid reason to avoid pregnancy. This is accomplished by refraining from sexual congress.
“Therefore, any attempt to NOT get pregnant that has the side effect of ending a life you find immoral and reprehensible.”
Woah. Is this an exercise in how much error you can cram into one sentence?
1. “Ending a life,” which is to say “killing a person,” is a **side effect**? That is sick. Spiritually and philosophically.
2. If the woman is “ending a life,” then she is not preventing pregnancy, but ending an existing pregnancy.
3. How could the fact that a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant confer on her the right to kill an innocent human being?
That said, I am gob-smacked that you would actually think a person needs a reason to find killing an innocent person immoral and reprehensible. That is the default position of all civilization.
“Which again is a FINE position, except carried to the LOGICAL CONCLUSION should cause you to also not engage in other activities that are known to kill some innocent people, like driving, or having a pool built in your back yard.”
Again you drag out that same, eviscerated, false moral equivalence. Our every moment carries a slim risk of accident. Carrying on in the face of that inescapable reality is not the equivalent of deliberate killing.
“You have not addressed your basis for making a moral judgment about women who refuse to allow fertilized eggs to implant on their uterus”
Of course I have, and at some length. If I were you, I would be deeply concerned by my failure to notice that.
“or why that choice is immoral but the choice to prevent a sperm from fertilizing the egg is not immoral.”
I would also be concerned by the consistency with which you get people’s statements exactly backwards.
“although the egg itself has living cells”
Don’t even go there. You’re not equipped to understand that issue.
“You merely assert that once there is this baby in the form of an embryo travelling in the woman's body that the woman is responsible for ensuring that embryo implants”
Utter nonsense. What I have said all along is this: neither the mother nor anyone else has any right to kill that baby. I guess that is too clear a position for you to deal with, because you continue to attempt to distort it into something unrecognizable.
“but have not provided moral authority for why the woman should be required to allow that action”
So, you reject the moral proposition that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings? You need some “moral authority” for that proposition? How evil and corrupt is your position on this matter.
“while you should not be required to allow a person into your house who might otherwise be killed.”
Oh, I think I would be held to account for such a failure.
“My position is simply that it is easier”
Yes, Satan often uses that line of reason to persuade us that evil is good.
“once the woman accepts responsibility for the nurture of the human being by allowing implantation, she cannot later reject that responsibility.”
There is no question of “acceptance” or “responsibility.”
There can be no “right” to kill an innocent human being. Ever. Period. No matter how badly you want consequence-free promiscuity.
“but I can't get you to acknowledge ANY other instance where that would be true"
That is because you keep trying to draw false moral equivalences, invalid analogies. Reason is the lodestone; if you would make an argument, it must conform to the mandates of reason applied to fact. What Plan B does is deliberately kill an innocent human being. If you would raise another “instance,” it must be one in which a person deliberately kills an innocent human being. Accidents, omissions, all the nonsense you have raised simply fails to meet the required standard.
"other than a woman having an embryo in her womb looking for food and shelter.”
It is utterly ridiculous to represent an embryo as "looking for" anything. Fertilized eggs naturally implant, with no question of volition involved. That is the natural progression of of a pregnancy, unless baby-killers interfere.
“I found particularly funny your attempt to show I didn't understand a "position" by taking my statement of your "position", breaking it into TWO statements, and claiming the first half was not a position, but the 2nd half was, and somehow that makes me irrational.”
Good grief, do you mean to say you didn’t get that even after I explained it? You’re starting to scare me. I suggested there that you learn the difference between a statement of fact and a position. Perhaps that might be too advanced a place to start.
“But at least you acknowledge I got your position correct”
No, that’s just one more thing you got wrong. You have misunderstood my every argument – usually with totality, but at least to some degree.
“That is helpful to people who might be mislead by your other statements and think "plan b" is different from "the pill" and that they should be treated differently.”
If Plan B is identical to “the pill,” then why was it invented? Why is it wanted? Why would women who already have “the pill” pay for it?
To say that they are the same is transparently false. That couldn't be more obvious.
“My argument all along has been that there is a large segment of the "pro-life" population that does NOT object to "the pill", and that if that same group takes the same position on "plan b" it is not illogical for them to do so.”
Such people are laboring under the false impression that “the pill” only prevents conception; they are ignorant of – or deceived regarding – the abortifascient properties of “the pill.” If they do not object to Plan B, this will also be because they are ignorant or deceived. Logically consistent, perhaps, but still morally abominable.
“You may feel free to argue that they were already illogical for accepting the pill"
Every time you try to anticipate my argument about something, you miss by a mile. You ought to give that a good deal of thought.
"but at least we will truthfully know what your position is.”
I have done my best to state my position openly, and I’ll bet anyone who has read this exchange – except you – has a clear idea of that position by now.
“As to the rest, you don't understand that the woman's refusal to allow an egg to implant is NOT the same as "hunting down and killing" the egg, even though most of us can clearly see that distinction.”
By “most of us,” of course, you mean “the people that agree with me.” However, they, and you, are not seeing clearly at all, but rather energetically denying the obvious to allow you to maintain true belief in a dogma precious to you.
“I tried several inapt analogies”
Yes, you certainly did.
“I'll just state it plainly one more time, so everybody reading will understand our point of contention”
I’m pretty confident that you were the last to understand that.
“you think that refusing to allow implantation is the same as actively destroying the egg, and I don't.”
You assert that, but there is no rational support for your position, any more than for the proposition that leprechauns are responsible for the extinction of the dodo.
“"Plan b" is a woman using a drug to effect her own body (her uterine wall) to make that wall incapable of accepting the embryo(baby). When the baby/embryo passes the wall, the baby/embryo's life is identical both before and after it passes. However, without the life-giving nutrients and shelter which it could have received from the uterine wall, the baby/embryo will, and does, die.”
I don’t think I need to address that again. Rational people will immediately see the fatal flaws.
“it's not often I'm accused of being in league with Satan.”
Don’t flatter yourself. Satan doesn’t need to be “in league” with you. You’re just one of the easy marks that he can flim-flam till the cows come home, with no additional effort.
On the mechanisms of action of short-term levonorgestrel administration in emergency contraceptionContraception 64 (2001) 227–234
Marta Durand, Ma. del Carmen Cravioto, Elizabeth G. Raymond, Ofelia Duran-Sanchez, Ma. De la Luz Cruz-Hinojosa, Andre´s Castell-Rodrıguez, Raffaela Schiavond, Fernando Larrea, Department of Reproductive Biology, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Me´dicas y Nutricio´n Salvador Zubiran, Mexico City, Mexico Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA Department of Cellular Biology, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Mexico City, Mexico Reproductive Health Service, Instituto Nacional de Pediatrı´a, Mexico City, Mexico
Abstract
The effects of short-term administration of levonorgestrel (LNG) at different stages of the ovarian cycle on the pituitary-ovarian axis, corpus luteum function, and endometrium were investigated. Forty-five surgically sterilized women were studied during two menstrual cycles. In the second cycle, each women received two doses of 0.75 mg LNG taken 12 h apart on day 10 of the cycle (Group A), at the time of serum luteinizing hormone (LH) surge (Group B), 48 h after positive detection of urinary LH (Group C), or late follicular phase (Group D). In both cycles, transvaginal ultrasound and serum LH were performed from the detection of urinary LH until ovulation. Serum estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4) were measured during the complete luteal phase. In addition, an endometrial biopsy was taken at day LH _ 9. Eighty percent of participants in Group A were anovulatory, the remaining (three participants) presented significant shortness of the luteal phase with notably lower luteal P4 serum concentrations. In Groups B and C, no significant differences on either cycle length or luteal P4 and E2 serum concentrations were observed between the untreated and treated cycles. Participants in Group D had normal cycle length but significantly lower luteal P4 serum concentrations. Endometrial histology was normal in all ovulatory-treated cycles. It is suggested that interference of LNG with the mechanisms initiating the LH preovulatory surge depends on the stage of follicle development. Thus, anovulation results from disrupting the normal development and/or the hormonal activity of the growing follicle only when LNG is given preovulatory. In addition, peri- and post-ovulatory administration of LNG did not impair corpus luteum function or endometrial morphology.
. . .
(From the conclusion)
Our results may offer a plausible explanation for the contraceptive effects of LNG given postcoitally prior to LH surge or the mechanism involving corpus luteum development. In addition, this study does not support an anti-implantation contraceptive effect of LNG in EC; however, additional targets, besides those described herein, should also be considered and further investigated for the contraceptive effects of LNG.
I think I see the problem. You think that preventing attachment to the uterus is a deliberate act of this pill. It is not. The manufacturer predicts that it could happen, and lists it as a possibility. But studies show that there is no real effect on the uterine wall.
I've always argued that if the pill COULD have a side-effect, we whould treat it as if it does. But that doesn't mean the side effect isn't an "accident".
But if you think we are purposely trying to prevent implantation as a normal course of business, than of course nothing I say makes sense to you, and your conclusions are inevitable if I still say someone rigid in application.
I won't bother you any more. The post after your post references the study that concluded the plan b pill did not prevent implantation of the embryo, see the last sentence. For some reason that poster thought it said it didn't prevent conception, but it did.
Is Plan B only allowed to be sold to women, not to men?
How are the pharmacists to assure that the Plan B pills are consumed by the purchaser? Should they have to take them onsite?
I guess I watch too many shows like Desperate Housewives and can imagine a myriad of sinister possibilities.
Actually, one of the articles I read (probably in the Wall Street Journal, so no link) mentioned men picking up the Plan B ...OTC... and I was thinking... excuse me? Great - so the 15-year-old girls with 19-year-old lovers can get Plan B. Way to go for keeping the kids safe!
Anonymous said... It may be that the price will make girls think twice but to be able to purchase high concentrations of hormones -which are NOT innocuous--when the lower level birth control pills require a prescriptions seems stupid. Here is one thing--this way the girls do not have to see a physician and with STDs running rampant, theirs might as well leading to a future sterility or cancer.
You cannot tell me that some mother who is 3 months pregnant or something will not try to take this to abort! And what happens then?
It further encourages promiscuity. For a feminist to think this is some sort of freedom is twisted. This license is demeaning and women have never been so used and disrespected as they are now. And motherhood is also disrespected by men and women alike in many cases.
Make no mistake, this is another battle won by evil.
http://johnlowellblog.blogspot.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.