Oddly enough, since it seems that in some cases, breastfeeding may prevent implantation (though it usually prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation), that makes breastfeeding an act of abortion. Or something.
Does this mean that chemo will be viewed as abortion as well?
They don't seem to be drawing a line between terminating a pregnancy vs. preventing one. What's next? Saying that rape ok and/or flat out forcing people to have sex to have a pregnancy regardless of their choice or will?
Ironically, these people would also probably advocate against IVF and other infertility treatments. Oh...and their taxes to be raised to care for the unwanted children that end up getting born because people can't do the honorable thing and abort children they don't really want to have to care for. It'd be nice if they also saw a life beyond the pregnancy itself.
So, I have a question. Implantation make for a nice definition of pregnancy, but as far as ethics go, it seems to me that stopping implantation isn't all that different from kicking out a zygote that has implanted. Do you see a big difference between the two?
i guess if you believe life begins at conception defined as fertilization, then there's not really much of a difference... what about if you had a form of birth control that let the sperm enter the egg, but somehow prevented the forming of a zygote? is it the actual merging of the gametes' chromosomes that is believed to be the point of conception?
I don't know what life-begins-at-conception people would say. I don't claim I can find a sharp, clear dividing line.
But morally, implantation seems like a sorta funny dividing line, to me, at least. Medically, it makes sense. Do you feel it's really wrong to move the definition of pregnancy from implantation to conception, or are you worried that defining things this way may reduce access to birth control?
personally, i don't think the question of when "life" begins should really be involved, and i believe it's wrong to move the definition of pregnancy to conception defined as fertilization. (conception is also sometimes defined as implantation.) and yes, the main realize i believe it's wrong is that it would reduce access to methods of birth control which i think should remain perfectly legal and available to anyone who needs them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 02:42 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 03:32 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 04:10 am (UTC)From:They don't seem to be drawing a line between terminating a pregnancy vs. preventing one. What's next? Saying that rape ok and/or flat out forcing people to have sex to have a pregnancy regardless of their choice or will?
Ironically, these people would also probably advocate against IVF and other infertility treatments. Oh...and their taxes to be raised to care for the unwanted children that end up getting born because people can't do the honorable thing and abort children they don't really want to have to care for. It'd be nice if they also saw a life beyond the pregnancy itself.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 04:43 am (UTC)From:Handmaid's Tale, here we come...
no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 11:43 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 06:50 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 06:58 pm (UTC)From:But morally, implantation seems like a sorta funny dividing line, to me, at least. Medically, it makes sense. Do you feel it's really wrong to move the definition of pregnancy from implantation to conception, or are you worried that defining things this way may reduce access to birth control?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 07:06 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 07:52 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 09:34 pm (UTC)From: