Support NeoGAF

[NullPointer]

It's not withing people's control to have sex without potentially getting pregnant.

Pretty much.

 

[pigeon]

Ummm....what? A miscarriage is not intentional. Nobody did anything to cause a miscarriage. By definition, a miscarriage is spontaneous.

This is woefully ignorant of the vast variety of things people can do, and indeed avoid doing, because they make miscarriages more likely. Shall we send women who drink while pregnant to jail?

I also note you didn't respond to my last post. Am I right in understanding that you favor jailing soldiers for manslaughter when they return from wars?

 

[Veezy]

Ummm....what? A miscarriage is not intentional. Nobody did anything to cause a miscarriage. By definition, a miscarriage is spontaneous. Your description of my argument highlighted the fact that I was all about INTENT. How you arrived at such a conclusion....I have no idea.

Neither is an accident where a mother gets in a wreck with her child in a car and it dies. However, it will be thoroughly investigated to see what happened and charges may be issued.

You mentally can separate a fetus from a baby. You can do that, because you don't consider a miscarriage manslaughter. Should a woman eat improperly, or trip, or get stressed, or work out incorrectly, or have one of the many things that can cause her body to miscarry, you don't believe that to be wrong because of intent.

Here's why that's important. You consider abortion to be murder. You take no consideration for the mother's circumstance, outside of rape, on this. You consider it murder, first degree because it's premeditated, because you consider a fertilized embryo a life (what this means for all the ones we have frozen to the anti-abortion argument is curious). If you consider it life, how come you're not consistent with your feelings on miscarriage? Shouldn't we verify that in all cases of miscarriage there wasn't a mistake made by the mother to properly take care of the fetus? Why or why not?

If abortion is murder than a miscarriage is either child neglect or manslaughter. If you don't feel that way, because you believe that a woman doesn't need to be penalized for what she does to her body while pregnant that could bring fault to the pregnancy, then you must understand that the idea of considering abortion murder, and not just immoral to you, is preposterous, yes?

 

[Jenov]

Neither is an accident where a mother gets in a wreck with her child in a car and it dies. However, it will be thoroughly investigated to see what happened and charges may be issued.

You mentally can separate a fetus from a baby. You can do that, because you don't consider a miscarriage manslaughter. Should a woman eat improperly, or trip, or get stressed, or work out incorrectly, or have one of the many things that can cause her body to miscarry, you don't believe that to be wrong because of intent.

Here's why that's important. You consider abortion to be murder. You take no consideration for the mother's circumstance, outside of rape, on this. You consider it murder, first degree because it's premeditated, because you consider a fertilized embryo a life (what this means for all the ones we have frozen to the anti-abortion argument is curious). If you consider it life, how come you're not consistent with your feelings on miscarriage? Shouldn't we verify that in all cases of miscarriage there wasn't a mistake made by the mother to properly take care of the fetus? Why or why not?

If abortion is murder than a miscarriage is either child neglect or manslaughter. If you don't feel that way, because you believe that a woman doesn't need to be penalized for what she does to her body while pregnant that could bring fault to the pregnancy, then you must understand that the idea of considering abortion murder, and not just immoral to you, is preposterous, yes?

Thread ending truth bombs here.

 

[MIMIC]

This is woefully ignorant of the vast variety of things people can do, and indeed avoid doing, because they make miscarriages more likely. Shall we send women who drink while pregnant to jail?

Oh, so being negligent during pregnancy? I wasn't including that in my definition of a spontaneous miscarriage. I elaborate in my response to Veezy.

I also note you didn't respond to my last post. Am I right in understanding that you favor jailing soldiers for manslaughter when they return from wars?

If they kill unarmed civilians? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Did I mention yes? Any more red herrings need addressing?

Neither is an accident where a mother gets in a wreck with her child in a car and it dies. However, it will be thoroughly investigated to see what happened and charges may be issued.

You mentally can separate a fetus from a baby. You can do that, because you don't consider a miscarriage manslaughter. Should a woman eat improperly, or trip, or get stressed, or work out incorrectly, or have one of the many things that can cause her body to miscarry, you don't believe that to be wrong because of intent.

If a woman does something with the INTENT of killing her unborn child, then I obviously don't consider that a blameless miscarriage. I was speaking of miscarriage in terms of something that happened due to natural causes.

Here's why that's important. You consider abortion to be murder. You take no consideration for the mother's circumstance, outside of rape, on this. You consider it murder, first degree because it's premeditated, because you consider a fertilized embryo a life (what this means for all the ones we have frozen to the anti-abortion argument is curious). If you consider it life, how come you're not consistent with your feelings on miscarriage? Shouldn't we verify that in all cases of miscarriage there wasn't a mistake made by the mother to properly take care of the fetus? Why or why not?

Explained above.

If abortion is murder than a miscarriage is either child neglect or manslaughter If you don't feel that way, because you believe that a woman doesn't need to be penalized for what she does to her body while pregnant that could bring fault to the pregnancy, then you must understand that the idea of considering abortion murder, and not just immoral to you, is preposterous, yes?

Bingo.

I was under the impression that we were talking about miscarriages where, I dunno, there was a chromosomal abnormality, or after the mom became chronically ill, or something out of her control. NOT doing crack in the bathroom or punching herself in the stomach. THOSE are reasons for which I consider a miscarriage to be due to the negligent actions of a woman who should be held liable.

Thread ending truth bombs here.

High-five!

 

[FyreWulff]

I was under the impression that we were talking about miscarriages where, I dunno, there was a chromosomal abnormality, or after the mom became chronically ill, or something out of her control. NOT doing crack in the bathroom or punching herself in the stomach. THOSE are reasons for which I consider a miscarriage to be due to the negligent actions of a woman who should be held liable.

You really don't understand miscarriages. They can literally happen for any reason. What are you going to do, autopsy every miscarriage? Don't you see the very bad road that starts sending women down? We really do not need to be associating miscarriage as a failure on the woman's part.

 

[Veezy]

If a woman does something with the INTENT of killing her unborn child, then I obviously don't consider that a blameless miscarriage. I was speaking of miscarriage in terms of something that happened due to natural causes.



Explained above.



Bingo.

I was under the impression that we were talking about miscarriages where, I dunno, there was a chromosomal abnormality, or after the mom became chronically ill, or something out of her control. NOT doing crack in the bathroom or punching herself in the stomach. THOSE are reasons for which I consider a miscarriage to be due to the negligent actions of a woman who should be held liable.



High-five!

I'm not even talking intentionally trying to miscarry. I'm talking intentionally or by accident.

If that's the case, and understand I'm not trying to be a dick here, you're asking for the legislation that every sexually active woman in America is constantly checked to be pregnant so we can verify that none of her actions are causing a loss in any and all pregnancies. We would need women to come in whenever a period is missed to begin tallying children. We would need to adjust the tax code. The entire way this country functions would need to be reworked.

Again, I'm not trying to be a dick. If you feel a woman works out too hard, puts her body under stress, and looses the pregnancy as manslaughter then you believe that women, truly, have zero control over their body for any reason when pregnant. Work, diet, activity, environment, etc. All these things can effect pregnancy.

If that really is the case, than your opinion on women is depressing. However, if you only feel that it's manslaughter if it's intentionally done, then my point still stands. If you don't, then you should be crippled with grief over the millions of lost "children" that are flushed down the toilet when a woman pees or throws out a tampon because a fertilized egg didn't attach.

 

[Devolution]

Because there's only around a 30% chance of getting pregnant each menstrual cycle even when you're having regular sex, researchers speculate that fertilized eggs often fail to implant, usually with the woman unaware that conception occurred. Laboratory studies on IVF patients have found that a very large percentage of eggs harbor chromosome abnormalities (the leading cause of miscarriage), and another study found that in natural cycles, about 22% of all conceptions never complete implantation. Considering such evidence, some scientists have speculated that if you factor in fertilized eggs that don't implant along with pregnancies that end in miscarriage, around 70-75% of conceptions end up miscarrying.

Our bodies were basically built to reject eggs.

 

[NullPointer]

Here's the thing Mimic and Duffyside. I can truly, honestly empathize with you at heart, but not in mind.

Do both of you put the rights of an unborn child above those of a mother or not? Would you have it that a woman should be obligated to carry her pregnancy to term by law?

Our bodies were basically built to reject eggs.

What an irony that some of the best and most intense experiences in life can be poisonous. There is a poetic lesson in that realization I think.

 

[pigeon]

Oh, so being negligent during pregnancy? I wasn't including that in my definition of a spontaneous miscarriage. I elaborate in my response to Veezy.



If they kill unarmed civilians? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Did I mention yes? Any more red herrings need addressing?

What do you mean, unarmed civilians? What about soldiers? It's an unjust war, remember. But even if it isn't, how can we ever fight an offensive war at all, given the sanctity of life?

 

[Timedog]

Hysterectomy? Vasectomy? These are guaranteed ways to have sex and not have a baby.

Having a baby without passing along a hereditary disease? Now that's a real head scratcher......

Besides, there are some genetic disorders that 1) that cannot be cured by harvesting organs (like color blindness) and 2) do not cause deadly situations...like color blindness. In ALL cases, a fetus is using the mother to survive. Such is not the case with all hereditary diseases.

Adoption? This is a guaranteed way to not have a baby with a hereditary disease.
Abstinence? This is a guaranteed way to not have a baby with a hereditary disease.

Hysterectomy and vasectomy not only require you to put yourself at surgical risk, but to assume the risk of never being able to have children again.

If they got a hereditary disease that you could not help them with by donation, then you wouldn't be required to donate anything. That's ridiculously obvious.

BECAUSE THE TWO ARE INCOMPARABLE (falsely equated)

How? Do I have to go through it AGAIN?

1) Because "using the internals" of her body is the ONLY way to sustain the life of the baby. Organ harvesting from one individual is NOT the only way to help keep a person alive. We don't do it because, unlike the mother, there are other methods to keep people alive (thanks to modern-day technology).

Then you went: "What if it's a the only option (shortage of donors, etc)?"

Give me a plausible scenario where helping to SAVE THE LIFE of an individual (in this instance) would not kill the donor. Like you said:

1. You're using your body to save some one who is in immediate "mortal danger" (like the mother is "saving" the fetus)
2. It's the only option (like how the mother is the only option)
3. Nobody dies* (just like how the mother doesn't die)

*the statistics have to match. If the person has a chance of dying then it has to be at a comparable rate of maternal deaths.

Provide an example and we'll go with it. If it's valid, of course. I'm trying to see even if this scenario even exists.

2) Under most circumstances (let me say that again....UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES), the mother's body goes back to normal (or what a doctor would consider normal or perfectly OK) after 9 months. This does not hold up for the scenario in which someone is helping to save someone's life with their own body. Again, if you believe it can happen, then provide an example.

First I'm going to respond to one of your points, then I'll give you an example.

1. You're using your body to save some one who is in immediate "mortal danger" (like the mother is "saving" the fetus)

In order to keep the "mortal danger" requirement, logically you will have to give women the legal ability to induce labor at the point of viability for the child, so that she does not have to use her body any longer than is necessary. This is cruel and irresponsible of the mother, as preemies generally have more problems, but it follows your logic. My example assumes that you agree with giving women the right to induce at viability.


Example: you cause a car accident and the other motorist suffers severe renal damage and needs a kidney. You give your kidney and your "long-term survival rate, quality of life, general health status and risk of kidney failure are about the same as that for people in the general population who aren't kidney donors."

Or replace the above with blood (of an amount that would not be fatal). If the hospital does not have sufficient blood of the blood type of your victim for whatever reason, and you match that blood type, mandatory blood donation.

Or you have a child with a hereditary disease

1) That's not realistic
2) Even if it were, do you really think that it 50 people are going to let themselves DIE simply because one man doesn't have enough organs to go around?

The 50 babies don't have a choice. That is the important distinction that I think you keep missing.

My example is ridiculous, and so is your 50 people getting poisoned, and so is this line of conversation. It in no way even begins to invalidate anything I'm saying. It does not, or at least you have not show how it reveals a "hole" in my argument having to do with responsibility or whatever you were talking about. I refuse to respond to this point anymore unless you can give a logical (from point a to point b to point c) train of thought on how exactly it invalidates something I have presented.

 

[MIMIC]

I'm not even talking intentionally trying to miscarry. I'm talking intentionally or by accident.

Intentional? Murder. Accidental? Could be negligence. The fault of no one. Well, the law usually doesn't punish people for that.

Again, I'm not trying to be a dick. If you feel a woman works out too hard, puts her body under stress, and looses the pregnancy as manslaughter then you believe that women, truly, have zero control over their body for any reason when pregnant. Work, diet, activity, environment, etc. All these things can effect pregnancy.

Here's the Planned Parenthood website about things that lead to miscarriages.

Let's let the doctors determine what caused a miscarriage. Smiling instead of frowning isn't going to cause a miscarriage.

If that really is the case, than your opinion on women is depressing. However, if you only feel that it's manslaughter if it's intentionally done, then my point still stands.

No, it most certainly does not stand. You earlier said, "If you consider it life, how come you're not consistent with your feelings on miscarriage?"

No one is ever responsible for a death that occurs from natural causes. I mean seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

If you don't, then you should be crippled with grief over the millions of lost "children" that are flushed down the toilet when a woman pees or throws out a tampon because a fertilized egg didn't attach.

Yeah, it's sad but no one is at fault.

What do you mean, unarmed civilians? What about soldiers? It's an unjust war, remember. But even if it isn't, how can we ever fight an offensive war at all, given the sanctity of life?

Uhhhh...the unarmed civilians YOU BROUGHT UP: "it's not ideal to kill them if they are, say, unarmed civilians, but it's not generally going to get you tried for murder."

Now you're moving away from unarmed civilians and on to soldiers? Oh, I get it. Get one question answered, time to move to the next one. "That one failed; let's see if MIMIC can answer this one".

I'm done with the red herrings. We're talking about ABORTION. You should be satisfied with the fact that I even entertained your side subjects even once.

 

[Devolution]

Potential life huh? I've had at least 140 periods. That's 140 potential people down the drain. Guess I'm fuckin' up.

 

[Dany]

Potential life huh? I've had at least 140 periods. That's 140 potential people down the drain. Guess I'm fuckin' up.

That's life.

 

[Dilly]

Potential life huh? I've had at least 140 periods. That's 140 potential people down the drain. Guess I'm fuckin' up.

Manslaughter.

 

[Timedog]

I'm done with the red herrings. We're talking about ABORTION. You should be satisfied with the fact that I even entertained your side subjects even once.

Abortion is extinguishing a "life". Other instances where lives are extinguished should be logically consistent, so examples like civilians in war do make sense to bring up in the discussion, depending on the view being argued against.

 

[Yaboosh]

What is the GOP's intended route to make abortion illegal anyway? Supreme Court or Constitutional Amendment?

 

[GhaleonEB]

What is the GOP's intended route to make abortion illegal anyway? Supreme Court or Constitutional Amendment?

Both.

 

[Devolution]

I can't wait for the Uterus (or should it be Fetus) Task Force to be implemented.

 

[Veezy]

Intentional? Murder. Accidental? Could be negligence. The fault of no one. Well, the law usually doesn't punish people for that.



Here's the Planned Parenthood website about things that lead to miscarriages.

Let's let the doctors determine what caused a miscarriage. Smiling instead of frowning isn't going to cause a miscarriage.



No, it most certainly does not stand. You earlier said, "If you consider it life, how come you're not consistent with your feelings on miscarriage?"

No one is ever responsible for a death that occurs from natural causes. I mean seriously, what the hell are you talking about?



Yeah, it's sad but no one is at fault. .

Here we go:

Smoking, the use of alcohol or cocaine, and heavy caffeine use have all been tied to miscarriage.
Women who are underweight or overweight have a greater risk of miscarriage than other women.
Women who have had two or more miscarriages in a row are at a greater risk of having future miscarriages.

So, you believe that if a woman has a miscarriage due to smoking, alchol, or cocaine use that's manslaughter? What if she's old? What if she's had problems carrying a baby to term before and had unprotected sex and got preggers? I just want to make sure you're suggesting that if a doctor realizes a woman might have caused a miscarriage by her activities or negligence that you'd say she should be tried for manslaughter.

Look, I get it, you wanna make the debate about a woman having consensual sex, getting in her car with a friend, going to a clinic, giving the doctor some money, having the surgery done, and having her friend drive her back home. You wanna make it about that activity being the death of a human being with all the same rights as you or me and it being off the books as a legal activity. You don't want to discuss consequences of it being legal. You don't want to discuss the reasons a woman might have one, because you don't care because it doesn't matter. You don't want to have your logic drawn out and explained because you don't feel it's relevant.

Well, guess what? You're never going to have an abortion. You're never going to be in a situation where you'll have to consider the consequences of taking a baby to term. Of losing your highly physical job, or buying new clothing, or of changing your habits, or of your stomach growing, or arranging the adoption, or finding space for the kid, or figuring out who the dad is because it was a one night stand with somebody at the club who's number you didn't get, or telling your husband when he just got a new job and things are gonna be tight already. That will never happen to you. Life's more complicated than this black and white scenario you paint things as, especially for something that doesn't affect you.

The reason why abortion is legal is because the rights of the fetus are not more important than the rights of the living human being that it's inside. Do you know why? Because the woman's body is her sovereign space, she's the one that has to carry it, and if she wants to have an embryo removed that's her business.

This idea that the billions of embryos that get pissed in a toilet is a sad thing is just silly. It's nature. You know what else is nature? Uninitiated abortions that the woman's body does on its own. You know what else is nature? A woman wanting to not have a kid because she feels that she's not ready and wants to have one when she's in a better situation in life, or because she might die if she has one, or because she's older and doesn't want more kids, or because the child will life for seconds it's born, or because the fetus will have a debilitating disease that will give it weeks of pain, or because it has a cleft face during it's last month of development, or because her and her husband aren't ready to have a family. And instead of panicking, instead of freaking out, instead of reaching for a coat hanger (which happened a lot) they can go to a doctor, have a safe procedure done, and get back to their life.

But you know what's not a reason for having one? Bothering you, because it's not your problem and society isn't affected by it. So fine, no more "red herrings" you got it. Keep telling yourself that you're the morally superior one and the rest of us are justifying first degree murder when you want to set women back decades so you don't feel so bad.

 

[Emitan]

I don't have anything clever to say or add to that.

I agree 100% with that entire post.

 

[Timedog]

If someone enacts a law or makes a societal decision that demonstrably leads to more miscarriages, such as allowing companies to pollute the environment or adding fluoride to the drinking water or just some sort of decision that leads to more miscarriages, should they be prosecuted as a mass murderer? At the very least, mass manslaughter.

There have been studies linking environmental pollution to miscarriage. Better stop driving your car, Mimic, you are implicit in manslaughter.

 

[Devolution]

If someone enacts a law or makes a societal decision that demonstrably leads to more miscarriages, such as allowing companies to pollute the environment or adding fluoride to the drinking water or just some sort of decision that leads to more miscarriages, should they be prosecuted as a mass murderer? At the very least, mass manslaughter.

There have been studies linking environmental pollution to miscarriage. Better stop driving your car, Mimic.

There was a high incidence of miscarriage in the middle ages. They just shut women up in houses while preggers. Wouldn't that be wonderful for the economy?

Woman: I missed my period.
UTF (Uterus Task Force) Member: Please keep inside of your house ma'am.

 

[sonicmj1]

If the direct consequences of sex lead to someone dying 70% of the time, the only moral thing to do would be to never have sex. Why would we value the life of the surviving embryo over the two before him who didn't make it?

 

[Timedog]

If the direct consequences of sex lead to someone dying 70% of the time, the only moral thing to do would be to never have sex. Why would we value the life of the surviving embryo over the two before him who didn't make it?

Yes, if you know that you're likely to kill people with your action, even if it is not your intent to kill them, you should not do it, unless it is necessary. Sex and attempting to have a child are unnecessary actions. Instead, our selfish needs get in the way.

 

[Yagharek]

Hysterectomy? Vasectomy? These are guaranteed ways to have sex and not have a baby..

Dude.

One of those things is not like the other.

 

[Jintor]

Samantha Bee's RNC segment for the Daily Show is the funniest, most depressing thing I've ever seen

If anybody knows I way I can link this to people outside of the US that would be nice. I'm using a mozilla workaround but that's probably not suited for everybody.

 

[Veezy]

Multiple members of the GOP? One idiot said something really stupid, and another idiot said something almost as stupid, and the rest of the party has completely abandoned the two of them. Romney insisted that Akin, the guy who said the really stupid thing, drop out, and he has stated that he in no way agrees with him. Even people like Limbaugh and Coulter want this idiot out.

And you are right, pro-life is a part of their platform. But not these ridiculous rape claims, and not to the extreme that leftist attack dogs would claim. When you see Republicans actually trying to push pro-life bills, it is more along the lines of judicial or parental consent for minors, and no abortions past 5 months of pregnancy. It is nothing close to the extreme label that is placed on them.

But sadly yes, they do cater to certain dumb demographics just as the democrats do. There is a percentage of the population that votes on single issues that the rest of us could give a damn about, and each party has chopped those people up into blocks and throws them a verbal bone. At the end of the day, they still do nothing about it. If Romney wins, he is not going to try and create an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage or abortion. On the other side, Obama is not going to make an amendment legalizing drugs or granting asylum to every single illegal immigrant that enters the country. It is bull shit posturing from both sides.

Hey, bro, btw. Current GOP platform. Human life amendment. You were wrong. Gonna apologize for saying people were jumping the gun or that it was a think tank or that it was just one lone kook?

 

[MIMIC]

Adoption? This is a guaranteed way to not have a baby with a hereditary disease.
Abstinence? This is a guaranteed way to not have a baby with a hereditary disease.

Oh, Timedog.

Timedog, Timedog, Timedog.

I'm a little disappointed in you right now because you are being extraordinarily disingenuous. You brought adoption and abstinence into the debate when we were explicitly talking about CONCEIVING AND BIRTHING children and controlling which genetic material gets passed along? Wow. Now I know what kind of debater I'm dealing with. I really, really hope didn't think you could just change it up like that without me noticing. But since you apparently thought you could, let me rephrase the question and outline the argument so you don't "misunderstand":

-You suggested that a parent is responsible for their child's hereditary disease. Right?
-I said that you cannot be responsible for something that you have no control over. Right?
-You said that in order to "exact control" over preventing a hereditary disease from being passed along to a child, you don't have sex. Right?
-I countered by referring to parents who BIRTH children without passing along a hereditary disease and asked how these parents somehow managed to control the disease from being passed along. I asked how this happens. Right?
-You then completely dodged the question (and I see why now) and responded that it's impossible to control whether or not a pregnancy results from sex.

*I indisputably refuted your claim and referred to a hysterectomy and vasectomy as ways to control whether or not a pregnancy can result from sex.
*I then went BACK to my question and asked how a woman can control the BIRTH of a child being born without a hereditary disease. Because, like you said, the disease is "caused". I wanted to know what happens when a child is BIRTHED and the disease is "not caused". Right?

....and you said adoption and abstinence. 0_o. That sooooooooooooo didn't even touch my question.

So I'll ask again: what does a woman do to NOT CAUSE her biological child to be birthed with a hereditary disease? What did they do differently than the ones who apparently "caused" their children to inherit a hereditary disease?

Hysterectomy and vasectomy not only require you to put yourself at surgical risk, but to assume the risk of never being able to have children again.

You asked how to have sex without getting pregnant....and you got your answer. It's a real thing. I'm not making those two terms up. Whether or not you are satisfied with the answer is irrelevant. It demonstrates a real and popular method to completely eliminate the chance of getting pregnant from sex, does it not? Yes? No? Maybe?

I think it does.

And BTW, a vasectomy is reversible. So there's a chance you can have babies again.

If they got a hereditary disease that you could not help them with by donation, then you wouldn't be required to donate anything. That's ridiculously obvious.

But moms don't have this option.

In order to keep the "mortal danger" requirement, logically you will have to give women the legal ability to induce labor at the point of viability for the child, so that she does not have to use her body any longer than is necessary. This is cruel and irresponsible of the mother, as preemies generally have more problems, but it follows your logic. My example assumes that you agree with giving women the right to induce at viability.

Ummm...what? You're changing your own argument.

The "mortal danger" requirement was assigned by YOU. Wanna know why? Because as soon as the mother (organ donor) detaches herself from her fetus (person whose life needs saving), the fetus dies. MEANING that the fetus is in "mortal danger" if not for the mother. So it would follow that the person whose life needs saving is in "mortal danger" if not for the organ donor.

The "mortal danger" aspect is ALWAYS present. And frankly, I don't even understand what you just said or what you even mean. I'm assuming mortal danger is being applied only to the fetus.

Example: you cause a car accident and the other motorist suffers severe renal damage and needs a kidney. You give your kidney and your "long-term survival rate, quality of life, general health status and risk of kidney failure are about the same as that for people in the general population who aren't kidney donors."

Umm, where's the part about me being the only one capable of providing a kidney? Just like how the mother is the only one capable of biologically supporting the fetus?

Like I said earlier: The mother is keeping the baby alive because it's the only way the baby will survive. If they could transport the baby to an artificial uterus that could be born from that (instead of having to give birth to it/kill it), I'd be all for that. In those other examples, a person is only exploring a single option among the MYRIAD that exist. When it comes to pro-life, only 1 option exists.

Besides, like I already said before: a woman is not giving away organs during her pregnancy. She's allowing an organism to use her entire body, and not necessarily one particular thing, to keep it alive. And after 9 months, for all intents and purposes considering the average pregnancy, she's back to normal. Lose a kidney and....you've lost a kidney. That's not average for a person to be without a kidney.

Or replace the above with blood (of an amount that would not be fatal). If the hospital does not have sufficient blood of the blood type of your victim for whatever reason, and you match that blood type, mandatory blood donation.

Unless you're the only living person on Earth capable of such a thing (much like the mother and her fetus), it's not analogous.

But if you're literally the only person on Earth who causes such a car accident, then yes: you're obligated to give blood because the mother is a also not only the only person the fetus must depend on, but also the only person the fetus CAN depend on.

The criteria of need, immediacy and exclusive capability have been met. So yes...last man on Earth is forced to do such a thing

My example is ridiculous, and so is your 50 people getting poisoned, and so is this line of conversation. It in no way even begins to invalidate anything I'm saying. It does not, or at least you have not show how it reveals a "hole" in my argument having to do with responsibility or whatever you were talking about. I refuse to respond to this point anymore unless you can give a logical (from point a to point b to point c) train of thought on how exactly it invalidates something I have presented.

Yes, 50 people being poisoned is ridiculous. It only happened on a cruise ship earlier this year. -__- And it wasn't just 50. There were HUNDREDS of poisoned people.

Has a woman EVER had 50 children at once?

And WHOSE the one coming up with ridiculous scenarios?

So, you believe that if a woman has a miscarriage due to smoking, alchol, or cocaine use that's manslaughter? What if she's old? What if she's had problems carrying a baby to term before and had unprotected sex and got preggers? I just want to make sure you're suggesting that if a doctor realizes a woman might have caused a miscarriage by her activities or negligence that you'd say she should be tried for manslaughter.

It would be a case by case basis. Like the application of the law in real life.

Well, guess what? You're never going to have an abortion. You're never going to be in a situation where you'll have to consider the consequences of taking a baby to term. Of losing your highly physical job, or buying new clothing, or of changing your habits, or of your stomach growing, or arranging the adoption, or finding space for the kid, or figuring out who the dad is because it was a one night stand with somebody at the club who's number you didn't get, or telling your husband when he just got a new job and things are gonna be tight already. That will never happen to you. Life's more complicated than this black and white scenario you paint things as, especially for something that doesn't affect you.

What if a woman I have sex with wants to have an abortion but I want to keep the baby? I don't get a say just because it's not IN me? She didn't get pregnant on her own. Do the rights of a father exist?

This idea that the billions of embryos that get pissed in a toilet is a sad thing is just silly. It's nature. You know what else is nature? Uninitiated abortions that the woman's body does on its own. You know what else is nature? A woman wanting to not have a kid because she feels that she's not ready and wants to have one when she's in a better situation in life, or because she might die if she has one, or because she's older and doesn't want more kids, or because the child will life for seconds it's born, or because the fetus will have a debilitating disease that will give it weeks of pain, or because it has a cleft face during it's last month of development, or because her and her husband aren't ready to have a family. And instead of panicking, instead of freaking out, instead of reaching for a coat hanger (which happened a lot) they can go to a doctor, have a safe procedure done, and get back to their life.

Getting back to life. Hmmm. There's some irony in that statement.....

But you know what's not a reason for having one? Bothering you, because it's not your problem and society isn't affected by it. So fine, no more "red herrings" you got it. Keep telling yourself that you're the morally superior one and the rest of us are justifying first degree murder when you want to set women back decades so you don't feel so bad.

What about my example from earlier? If I knock a girl up, it IS my problem then. I eventually want to have kids one day. What then?

And I don't think I'm morally superior than anybody...only those who think that a freaking viable, on the cusp of birth baby is legitimately up for abortion. THOSE are the morally bankrupt ones, IMO.

Abortion is extinguishing a "life". Other instances where lives are extinguished should be logically consistent, so examples like civilians in war do make sense to bring up in the discussion, depending on the view being argued against.

Should people be this logically consistent on all subject, or just abortion? Just curious as to whether you're holding everyone to the same standards or not.

 

[Timedog]

Oh, Timedog.

Timedog, Timedog, Timedog.

I'm a little disappointed in you right now because you are being extraordinarily disingenuous. You brought adoption and abstinence into the debate when we were explicitly talking about CONCEIVING AND BIRTHING children and controlling which genetic material gets passed along? Wow. Now I know what kind of debater I'm dealing with. I really, really hope didn't think you could just change it up like that without me noticing. But since you apparently thought you could, let me rephrase the question and outline the argument so you don't "misunderstand":

-You suggested that a parent is responsible for their child's hereditary disease. Right?
-I said that you cannot be responsible for something that you have no control over. Right?
-You said that in order to "exact control" over preventing a hereditary disease from being passed along to a child, you don't have sex. Right?
-I countered by referring to parents who BIRTH children without passing along a hereditary disease and asked how these parents somehow managed to control the disease from being passed along. I asked how this happens. Right?
-You then completely dodged the question (and I see why now) and responded that it's impossible to control whether or not a pregnancy results from sex.

*I indisputably refuted your claim and referred to a hysterectomy and vasectomy as ways to control whether or not a pregnancy can result from sex.
*I then went BACK to my question and asked how a woman can control the BIRTH of a child being born without a hereditary disease. Because, like you said, the disease is "caused". I wanted to know what happens when a child is BIRTHED and the disease is "not caused". Right?

....and you said adoption and abstinence. 0_o. That sooooooooooooo didn't even touch my question.

So I'll ask again: what does a woman do to NOT CAUSE her biological child to be birthed with a hereditary disease? What did they do differently than the ones who apparently "caused" their children to inherit a hereditary disease?

You can cause a situation to happen without having intent. I think you are trying to argue intent here but arguing cause. Yes you caused the hereditary disease. Not having the child at all destroys the causal link. If it did not, you there would be children that didn't exist that have hereditary diseases, which is illogical.

If you want to argue intent, please do so. But you are absolutely wrong about cause.

You asked how to have sex without getting pregnant....and you got your answer. It's a real thing. I'm not making those two terms up. Whether or not you are satisfied with the answer is irrelevant. It demonstrates a real and popular method to completely eliminate the chance of getting pregnant from sex, does it not? Yes? No? Maybe?

I think it does.

And BTW, a vasectomy is reversible. So there's a chance you can have babies again.

It's obvious you're asking for a 1:1 analogy in order for all my logic not not be completely thrown out the window, which is ridiculous as it is not how you or I or anyone compares scenarios and makes decisions, or else we'd have to rethink every single situation that ever happened in life from the logical ground up. You can say any two similar situations are "not comparable" if you break it down enough. Again, it's ridiculous, and a common argumentative deflection but I'm trying to placate you here anyway, if only to see where it goes.

But you really shouldn't argue on one hand about how someone losing a kidney because of their actions is not okay--the reason being that if a doctor took an x-ray he'd say they're not normal (despite living normal lives), and then on the other hand argue that people should get operations done that would make a good percentage of them permanently sterile.

Punish women who don't want a pregnancy right now with possible sterility, but the drunk driver who fucked up some other person--they can't be without their kidney!!! It's obvious where your priorities lie.

But yes, there are ways to make sure you don't get pregnant. Vasectomies aren't really relevant except in actual relationships, though. You can't tell a single woman who enjoys hooking up to have every partner get snipped, it's not possible. So really, you're talking about hysterectomies--punishing women.

Ummm...what? You're changing your own argument.

The "mortal danger" requirement was assigned by YOU. Wanna know why? Because as soon as the mother (organ donor) detaches herself from her fetus (person whose life needs saving), the fetus dies. MEANING that the fetus is in "mortal danger" if not for the mother. So it would follow that the person whose life needs saving is in "mortal danger" if not for the organ donor.

The "mortal danger" aspect is ALWAYS present. And frankly, I don't even understand what you just said or what you even mean. I'm assuming mortal danger is being applied only to the fetus.[/QUOTE]
My "mortal danger" assignment was at your behest, because I am using your logic to argue against you. I'm not taking it back, I'm adding an extra stipulation that logically arises from the argument. Who brought it up is irrelevant anyway. "Who brought it up" is not an argument.

Once the fetus is viable the mother should have the option to prematurely induce labor. This is logically consistent your arguments about the child needing the mother. Once the child does not need the mother to survive, the mother should no longer be forced to use her body to house it.

Umm, where's the part about me being the only one capable of providing a kidney? Just like how the mother is the only one capable of biologically supporting the fetus?

Like I said earlier: The mother is keeping the baby alive because it's the only way the baby will survive. If they could transport the baby to an artificial uterus that could be born from that (instead of having to give birth to it/kill it), I'd be all for that. In those other examples, a person is only exploring a single option among the MYRIAD that exist. When it comes to pro-life, only 1 option exists.

Besides, like I already said before: a woman is not giving away organs during her pregnancy. She's allowing an organism to use her entire body, and not necessarily one particular thing, to keep it alive. And after 9 months, for all intents and purposes considering the average pregnancy, she's back to normal. Lose a kidney and....you've lost a kidney. That's not average for a person to be without a kidney.

It's also not average for people to be with all the things I listed from pregnancy. It's not average for people to undergo the emotional turmoil of being forced to have something grow for almost a year inside of their body against their will. There are permanent changes to both situations, but both are completely livable.

*cue you pedantically whining about how it's not a 1:1 analogy*

Unless you're the only living person on Earth capable of such a thing (much like the mother and her fetus), it's not analogous.

But if you're literally the only person on Earth who causes such a car accident, then yes: you're obligated to give blood because the mother is a also not only the only person the fetus must depend on, but also the only person the fetus CAN depend on.

The criteria of need, immediacy and exclusive capability have been met. So yes...last man on Earth is forced to do such a thing

It does not require you to be the only person on earth capable of such a thing, it requires you to have the only available parts needed in the sphere of availability for said parts with respect to time.

Yes, 50 people being poisoned is ridiculous. It only happened on a cruise ship earlier this year. -__- And it wasn't just 50. There were HUNDREDS of poisoned people.

Has a woman EVER had 50 children at once?

And WHOSE the one coming up with ridiculous scenarios?

Again, I'm not responding to that line of argumentation until you can logically show how your 50 people poisoned example invalidates something I've said.

And no, 50 people were not poisoned on a cruise ship where they all needed non-vital organ transplants and/or non-vital bodily fluid transfusions in order to survive.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Umm, where's the part about me being the only one capable of providing a kidney? Just like how the mother is the only one capable of biologically supporting the fetus?

You are one irritating dude on this argument. I've watched you two go back and forth on this over and over and over. Even if Timedog hasn't spelled it out exactly how you want, you must understand what he's getting at.

Here we go:

Please read this paragraph and answer the question below.

You run a red light while your child is in the car. An accident (that is entirely your fault) occurs. You are fine but your son is badly injured. His liver is completely destroyed and he needs a new one immediately. There is no time to put him on the donor list. You are a perfect match for a transplant and are the only one he can get a liver from. They will take half of your liver and give it to your son and he will be fine. You won't die or suffer any long term effects once you heal. If you don't do this your son will die in a matter of hours.

Should you be forced, by law, to donate part of you liver to your son to save his life?

 

[Christine]

Reason? It's a definition. Either you agree with it or you're divorcing yourself from reality.

I'm afraid you're making the mistake of treating two distinct and non-overlapping definitions of the word "definition" as equivalent when they are not. One may not substitute for the other in an argument based in reason or logic.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defining?show=0&t=1346312622

Definition of DEFINE

transitive verb
1
a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of <whatever defines us as human>
b : to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word)

Saying that a fetus is a person is a definition of type "a", because you are arguing for a moral imperative to apply because a fetus has the essential quality of being a person.

Dictionaries are never authoritative sources of type "a" definitions.

By attempting to cite a dictionary as the establishing authority of this type "a" definition, you're in effect claiming that dictionaries are your source of moral authority.

English dictionaries aren't even an unquestioned authority on type "b" definitions.

Whichever type of definition is in use, disagreeing with it never represents a "divorce from reality". Disagreements concerning definitions of type "a" are a perfectly normal occurrence and constitute much of what we call politics or philosophy.

Disagreements concerning definitions of type "b" can become an impediment to mutual understanding, but this is purely a matter of semantics rather than ontology. If I were to cede to your type "b" definition of person, it would have no effect on the concepts or logic of my arguments--I would simply be rephrasing them in terms of your preferred vocabulary.

However, I don't think that it's very purposeful to do so. I don't see much reason to prefer your definition of person; you've demonstrated that you don't really understand what a "definition" is, severely undermining your claim to have a superior understanding of what a "person" is.

I'm certain that you don't understand what an English dictionary is or what it does.

You didn't even notice that your dictionary.reference.com definition doesn't support your semantic definition in the way that you claim:

Because it's defined that way

human being
&#8194;
noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

When a dictionary definition provides a list of alternatives, not all of them are necessarily relevant to a given occurrence of a word or phrase. In some cases, they are mutually incompatible and the application of one alternative means that the other definitions cannot apply. At any rate, there's never any imperative to apply all of them at once.

In this particular case, all I have to do is say that I am using definition 1., and reiterate that I have not been presented with a reason to believe that a moral obligation exists due to the fact that an entity is "a member of the species Homo sapiens."

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that your faith in your moral conclusions is so certain that it makes you believe that any rationalization supporting them must therefore be valid. Otherwise you wouldn't be claiming to have settled one of the central questions of philosophy by appealing to the authority of Merriam-Webster's List of Words and Their Common Uses.

 

[daedalius]

How is this thread still going, and how are we still equating a person with a zygote?


ffs mimic

 

[Charoncaori]

MIMIC, women who don't want to have kids anymore don't get a hysterectomy. That is removing the entire uterus. They get their fallopian tubes tied instead. Equating a vasectomy to a hysterectomy is ridiculously uninformed and quite frankly insulting. It shows exactly how much thought you give to how a woman's reproductive system works: none at all. Please go educate yourself on the reproductive system a little and come back.

Saying women can get hysterectomies is like saying guys can just get their balls chopped off.

 

[MIMIC]

You can cause a situation to happen without having intent. I think you are trying to argue intent here but arguing cause. Yes you caused the hereditary disease. Not having the child at all destroys the causal link. If it did not, you there would be children that didn't exist that have hereditary diseases, which is illogical.

If you want to argue intent, please do so. But you are absolutely wrong about cause.

The main issue was control (which was explicitly referred to). Control suggests intent AND methodology.

You said "It's not withing people's control to have sex without potentially getting pregnant. But you are telling them they must deal with the consequences of their actions. I am doing the exact same thing."

And that exact same thing would mean punishing parents for hereditary diseases even though it's not within their control.

But you really shouldn't argue on one hand about how someone losing a kidney because of their actions is not okay--the reason being that if a doctor took an x-ray he'd say they're not normal (despite living normal lives), and then on the other hand argue that people should get operations done that would make a good percentage of them permanently sterile.

Those are two different arguments completely. Please don't attempt to merge them.

Punish women who don't want a pregnancy right now with possible sterility, but the drunk driver who fucked up some other person--they can't be without their kidney!!! It's obvious where your priorities lie.

It's funny how you only refer to a hysterectomy when I mentioned BOTH procedures. But for the purpose of my argument, let's forget hysterectomies all together and simply focus on "punishing the man"

But yes, there are ways to make sure you don't get pregnant. Vasectomies aren't really relevant except in actual relationships, though. You can't tell a single woman who enjoys hooking up to have every partner get snipped, it's not possible. So really, you're talking about hysterectomies--punishing women.

The logistics are irrelevant. How you feel about it (whether or not it's "punishing" women) is also irrelevant. It exists in the real world. It is a method of controlling the result of sex.

It's possible to quibble about the details of any method of control. Doesn't make the method of control any less real.

Furthermore, there are ways to decrease the overall likelihood of having sex and not having a baby. There are NO WAYS to increase or decrease the overall likelihood of passing along (through birth) a hereditary disease. This further strengthens the assertion that one can be controlled while the other can't.

Once the fetus is viable the mother should have the option to prematurely induce labor. This is logically consistent your arguments about the child needing the mother. Once the child does not need the mother to survive, the mother should no longer be forced to use her body to house it.

OK.

It's also not average for people to be with all the things I listed from pregnancy. It's not average for people to undergo the emotional turmoil of being forced to have something grow for almost a year inside of their body against their will. There are permanent changes to both situations, but both are completely livable.

*cue you pedantically whining about how it's not a 1:1 analogy*

Forget all of that. My main point of contention is that a woman is "forced" to undergo pregnancy because she is the only conceivable option. Once again, if the woman could be replaced by something else, I'd be all for that. But that option does not exist. This option DOES exist for a person who becomes injured.

My position of pro-life does not include the idea of "punishing women" for having sex; it is merely utilizing the *only option available* to support a life which I feel shouldn't be arbitrarily destroyed.

When a dictionary definition provides a list of alternatives, not all of them are necessarily relevant to a given occurrence of a word or phrase. In some cases, they are mutually incompatible and the application of one alternative means that the other definitions cannot apply. At any rate, there's never any imperative to apply all of them at once.

And there is usually some sort of indicator which would preclude someone from using them all at once.

Take the definition of bill for example.

1. a statement of money owed for goods or services supplied: He paid the hotel bill when he checked out.
2. a piece of paper money worth a specified amount: a ten-dollar bill.
3. Government . a form or draft of a proposed statute presented to a legislature, but not yet enacted or passed and made law.

If I say, "The waiter handed me the bill for dinner," I am limited to only the 1st definition because of the context in which the word was used (dinner = good or service supplied). I CANNOT, therefore, state that "bill" means piece of money in this case; they are separate meanings.

What indicator precludes someone from using "person" to mean all human beings?

If I say "The fetus is a human being," NOTHING precludes me from using the 1st definition (ANY individual of the genus Homo) or the 2nd (human fetus = representing the human species)

In this particular case, all I have to do is say that I am using definition 1., and reiterate that I have not been presented with a reason to believe that a moral obligation exists due to the fact that an entity is "a member of the species Homo sapiens."

Definition 1 and 2 are the same, in that the fetus ALSO qualifies as a member of the genus Homo ("the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms"). The definition said that ANY individual of the genus Homo is satisfactory. A human fetus represents the earliest biological form of homo.

 

[Brian Griffin]

My position of pro-life does not include the idea of "punishing women" for having sex; it is merely utilizing the *only option available* to support a life which I feel shouldn't be arbitrarily destroyed.

Do you realized that weather or not your idea or pro-life includes punishing women, that actual women will feel punished because of your position?

All that matters is the reality of the situation. You can feel like you aren't punishing women for having sex in your own head, but in real life women are punished for having sex by anti-abortion laws. Say 100 million women organize to tell you that they feel punished for having sex by these laws. What would you tell them? Would you tell them their feelings about the situation are wrong? That you know better?

It's just like voter ID laws that the GOP are pushing. They can feel like they are fighting fraud all they want, but the reality is that those laws will make it so non-white and poor people will have a harder time voting. That's the real effect.

How you feel about your position doesn't change the effects your position has on the real world and real people.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to please answer my question in my last post.

 

[Devolution]

My position of pro-life does not include the idea of "punishing women" for having sex; it is merely utilizing the *only option available* to support a life which I feel shouldn't be arbitrarily destroyed.

Mimic, it does. Just stop. When you argue for the rights of the fetus you diminish the rights of the mother. Pure and simple. Fetuses are not developed in vacuums. I come across this line of shit constantly. There is a person whom you are forcing to remain pregnant, you cannot absolve yourself of this based on your position. Sorry. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. What you propose and what other "pro-lifers" propose is to force women to bear and birth children against their will. Fucking deal with it.

 

[Charoncaori]

It's funny how you only refer to a hysterectomy when I mentioned BOTH procedures. But for the purpose of my argument, let's forget hysterectomies all together and simply focus on "punishing the man"

Why must I correct you twice? Go look up what a hysterectomy is. Women don't get them for the purposes of birth control. Getting your tubes tied is a completely different procedure. And YES, THIS IS IMPORTANT.

 

[Brian Griffin]

He's approaching GOP levels of ignorance with regards to the female anatomy.

MIMIC, I strongly suggest you confirm that you actually know what a hysterectomy is and that it's (hopefully) not what you meant to say. Any credibility you have left in this argument depends on it.

 

[Christine]

And there is usually some sort of indicator which would preclude someone from using them all at once.

Take the definition of bill for example.

1. a statement of money owed for goods or services supplied: He paid the hotel bill when he checked out.
2. a piece of paper money worth a specified amount: a ten-dollar bill.
3. Government . a form or draft of a proposed statute presented to a legislature, but not yet enacted or passed and made law.

If I say, "The waiter handed me the bill for dinner," I am limited to only the 1st definition because of the context in which the word was used (dinner = good or service supplied). I CANNOT, therefore, state that "bill" means piece of money in this case; they are separate meanings.

What indicator precludes someone from using "person" to mean all human beings?

Please try to avoid getting distracted. I did not claim that one was precluded from using both definitions in that instance; that comment was made to illustrate the point that not all definitions necessarily apply to a given use. Usually only one is meant, even if more than one may theoretically apply.

Even if no definitions are precluded, there is no requirement that all definitions must be relevant. You have given no particular reason to establish that definition 2. must apply here.

If I say "The fetus is a human being," NOTHING precludes me from using the 1st definition (ANY individual of the genus Homo) or the 2nd (human fetus = representing the human species)

Definition 1 and 2 are the same, in that the fetus ALSO qualifies as a member of the genus Homo ("the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms"). The definition said that ANY individual of the genus Homo is satisfactory. A human fetus represents the earliest biological form of homo.

Definitions 1 and 2 are not the same, even if they have the potential to apply simultaneously.

This is the third time that I've said that I do not contest that a human fetus is homo sapiens, a human being, etc.

You have still not addressed the objection that I have not been presented with a reason to believe that a moral obligation towards an entity exists due to the fact that it is "a member of the species Homo sapiens."

The only remaining point of substance in our discussion is the ontological definition of the philosophical concept of personhood, and you've abandoned it entirely in favor of a completely semantic objection concerning the dictionary definition of the word "person".

You're in effect claiming that vocabulary conventions define both reality and morality.

This isn't to say that your semantic objections are relevant or correct, either. For example, your first link to Merriam-Webster can only support the claim that "all persons are by definition human"; it does not and cannot support the claim that "all humans are by definition persons".

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

MIMIC, are you for or against abortion pills, or more softly known as the 'morning after pills'?

 

[Brian Griffin]

MIMIC, are you for or against abortion pills, or more softly known as the 'morning after pills'?

Those are different things. Plan B is the "morning after pill" and works like a massive birth control pill to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Abortion pills actually trigger an abortion of an already implanted egg. Maybe MIMIC sees no difference in them morally but they are different pills.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Those are different things. Plan B is the "morning after pill" and works like a massive birth control pill to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Abortion pills actually trigger an abortion of an already implanted egg. Maybe MIMIC sees no difference in them morally but they are different pills.

Oh, sorry, they were called abortion pill in this here article that I was sort of happy about, when I heard about it, this morning.

Clearly, I am not well-versed. Thank you for the clarification

 

[Timedog]

OK.

Oh wow, so you agree that a woman should be able to eject the child early once the baby is viable? I was not expecting you to agree with that. With that, and with the fact that I've all but ruined your ability to construct an analogy on NeoGAF, I am happy with the results of this exercise.

Now, do you drive a car or willingly ride in motor vehicles? You really should stop.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Oh, sorry, they were called abortion pill in this here article that I was sort of happy about, when I heard about it, this morning.

Clearly, I am not well-versed. Thank you for the clarification

Yeah RU486 is the abortion pill. Not the morning after pill.

http://contraception.about.com/b/2009/02/02/ru486-vs-plan-b.htm

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

^

Thank you for link and explanation.

 

[MIMIC]

OK, before I respond to anything, i just want to say that I just realized my mistake when I referred to a "hysterectomy". I was confusing that with the procedure women get to have their tubes tied.

My bad

 

[Demon Ice]

OK, before I respond to anything, i just want to say that I just realized my mistake when I referred to a "hysterectomy". I was confusing that with the procedure women get to have their tubes tied.

I hope you're not under the impression that's the only mistake you've made in this thread.

 

[MIMIC]

I hope you're not under the impression that's the only mistake you've made in this thread.

You have the floor. Point them out.

 

[Charoncaori]

OK, before I respond to anything, i just want to say that I just realized my mistake when I referred to a "hysterectomy". I was confusing that with the procedure women get to have their tubes tied.

My bad

Thank you.