Jump to content

Menu

Not trying to be controversial .... just a question


Home'scool
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Actually, I've always read that the opposite is true; that is, that life had generally been understood to begin when the sperm and egg meet until about the time the birth control pill started to be prescribed.

In 1965 ACOG published a paper that redefined the term "conception" to mean the implantation of a egg rather than the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Interesting timing, considering that the birth control pill had just been approved by the FDA several years prior. Many women wouldn't want to take a pill that might potentially interfere with conception, so the redefined term was very convenient. 

In spite of ACOG's efforts, there is still not universal agreement on the term. I did a quick google search on "conception" and the first several results including WedMD and Cleveland Clinic used the word conception to mean fertilization. 

I’ll be honest that I don’t fully understand that.   My understanding has always been that many fertilized eggs are flushed out with periods before they ever have a chance to implant.  Defining that as a full life seems odd.  There’s no way to tell it even happened in the vast majority of cases.  

Even more so when the majority of Protestants didn’t care much about abortion until after Roe v Wade.  Since Protestants have always been a majority in the US, it would have been a small minority that really gave it a much thought at all at the time that BC came on the scene.  

Edited by Heartstrings
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

58 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I am a religious person but I am not anti choice.  That is political.  And I don’t protest. 

I know this is your official stance, but no matter how much you say it doesn’t make it true. It seems like a cop out to avoid any responsibility for your choices of action or inaction to say “not political”. Not taking a stance on something political is still a political opinion, even if you don’t want it to be. And in this case you’re strongly arguing on opinion on a political matter, so whether you intend to or not, you are participating in political discourse.

46 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I am curious how the people who believe that life begins at conception feel about that line being moved to fertilization recently?  

I have always understood conception to be interchangeable with fertilization. Fertilization/conception occurs, followed by implantation. It’s actually new news to me that some people interpret conception to mean implantation. I thought it was the definition of pregnancy that some people started at conception and other people started at the point of implantation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

I know this is your official stance, but no matter how much you say it doesn’t make it true. It seems like a cop out to avoid any responsibility for your choices of action or inaction to say “not political”. Not taking a stance on something political is still a political opinion, even if you don’t want it to be. And in this case you’re strongly arguing on opinion on a political matter, so whether you intend to or not, you are participating in political discourse.

 

Abortion is not a political issue. Whether it is legal or illegal is the political issue.  I am absolutely not discussing whether it should be legal or illegal.  My posts have been about whether I believe it is right or wrong.  I am not trying to force anyone to do anything or to change any law either before or after R v W. 

It is true other people turn every discussion about abortion into a political one. Even though SWB has a no politics rule on this forum.
 

I take 100% responsibility for my choices.  Not sure why you are saying I don’t. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Breathing humans are autonomous, even those who artificially breathe. That’s the distinction I draw. 

Born infants are not autonomous. Neither are toddlers, or a lot of elderly people, or some disabled people. That's why I don't see this as a good basis for determining who gets to live and doesn't.

1 hour ago, KSera said:

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the fact that it's a minority of cases. 

[...]

I think the more accurate terms would be pro-choice/anti-abortion. Each side wants to couch the other in their own terms (pro-choice/anti-choice and pro-abortion/anti-abortion), but neither opposing term is really accurate. Pro-choice/anti-abortion seems most accurate to me.

Re: minority cases. I bring them up because they are the ones used over (and over and over) to justify legalized abortion.

I'm fine with being called anti-abortion. I *am* anti-abortion. But I do think it's polite in discourse to call people by their preferred terms. That is why I use the term "pro-choice" here even though the word "choice" is very euphemistic and avoids the actual choice being discussed, which is killing a living human being. 

52 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

At what point a fertilized egg acquires a "soul" is a religious question.

I haven't seen anyone here mention that. I don't think I ever have, except when someone asked me in a private message what I thought about it. My answer was "I don't know."

I don't think religious beliefs should be legislated. I *do* think protections for human life should be. 

36 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You keep saying this stuff with no evidence to back it up. PROVE that when a woman’s life is at risk, she, her doctors, and her family can decide whether she lives or dies and what care is provided. Provide ANY evidence that the care you say she should receive is provided in affected states. Do you have any links? At all?

I meant they should be able to decide. 

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Links? Documentation that this reflects current medical consensus?

I don't think there is medical consensus when ACOG and the Cleveland Clinic seem to have differing views on it. 

The ACOG bulletin was called Terms Used in Relation to the Fetus and was published in Sept. 1965. I can't find a link to the paper right now. Sorry, I'm trying to keep up.

No hard feelings about the hell in a handbasket comment. 😉 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Abortion is not a political issue. Whether it is legal or illegal is the political issue.  I am absolutely not discussing whether it should be legal or illegal.

I do think that’s a distinction worth making.  Right vs. wrong is not the same as legal vs illegal. 

I would most likely not ever get abortion.  I don’t feel like it would be the right thing for me, in most circumstances.  I’m still pro-choice though because I want it to be a safe, available option for other women, either as a decision they make for themselves or with their doctors. It’s 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...