What if you are using birth control, but it fails?

Yes, blaim the contraceptive in stead of standing up to the
responsibility
of informed consent.

In this
scenario, the couple DID take responsibility by using birth control
because
they wanted to have fun and not produce a baby. But the birth control
didn't
work. I say an abortion is in order.

You're not adding information or arguments.

You _will_ find more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

Sorry, but that infringes on our right to have sex for fun.

You think you have a right to kill?

What if you are using birth control, but it fails?

Yes, blaim the contraceptive in stead of standing up to the
responsibility
of informed consent.

In this
scenario, the couple DID take responsibility by using birth control
because
they wanted to have fun and not produce a baby. But the birth control
didn't
work. I say an abortion is in order.

You're not adding information or arguments.

You _will_ find more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

Sorry, but that infringes on our right to have sex for fun.

You think you have a right to kill?

What if you are using birth control, but it fails?

Yes, blaim the contraceptive in stead of standing up to the
responsibility
of informed consent.

In this
scenario, the couple DID take responsibility by using birth control
because
they wanted to have fun and not produce a baby. But the birth control
didn't
work. I say an abortion is in order.

You're not adding information or arguments.

You _will_ find more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

Sorry, but that infringes on our right to have sex for fun.

You think you have a right to kill?

Yes, blaim the contraceptive in stead of standing up to the
responsibility of informed consent.

There is no such thing as creating life by accident. You are well aware
of the risks. Depriving someone the potential of life seems horrific to
me.

Aren't you then engaging in a horrific act by typing messages on your
computer and not impregnating someone *right now*?

Rephrase:
Depriving a human being from potential life experiences seems horrific to
me.

Your statement might be a subconcious thought-pattern in the male species.

Every sperm is sacred

On sperm:
"[..] It is carried in fluid called semen, and is capable of fertilising
an egg cell to form a zygote. A zygote can grow into a new organism, such
as a human. Sperm cells contain half of the genetic information needed to
create life."

It's not (human) life.

Every sperm is sacred

On sperm:
"[..] It is carried in fluid called semen, and is capable of

egg cell to form a zygote. A zygote can grow into a new organism,

human. Sperm cells contain half of the genetic information needed to

life."

It's not (human) life.

"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114721676.912970.120770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Mark Stahl wrote:

"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114634776.842131.286170@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Niels van der Linden wrote:

<snip>
Abortion: what about: if it's from consent sex: no. Otherwise:

yes,

if you

have 'good' reasons. I mean, creating life or 'granting one the

great

experience of life' is something you can't take away from

Look at

it this way: if you would let one grow up and ask them 'would

want to

have lived'? The answer will always be yes, even in the worst

circumstances. I admit, this is no easy ethical theory. My

feelings

now go

for: if you knowingly take the risk, you'll have to live with

Niels

I agree with you here, but I'm probably the only other atheist

that point of view. It's not like you have to keep a child that

you

conceive. Adoption is possible. I know more people who are

to

adopt than kids who live in orphanages (at least in the US). In
countries where there are many kids without parents, usually

control is not an option. Of course I believe in birth control,

even

including the morning after pill, but abortion should not be

as

birth control.

Besides the fact that it's a surgical procedure and is therefore

somewhat

risky.... why not?

I do not believe that there is a difference between a sixth month

and a baby that was born three months early. I don't feel that my
opinion on this should be law, but I don't think people should

to terminate a fetus beyond a certain point. What point, you ask?
Well, where the line is drawn is tricky. For myself, it's after
implantation. I think adortion is immoral and unethical, but I

think it should be illegal. I do question the ethics of people who
think it's OK to kill a fetus that would be viable out of the

I think it's hypocritical that people are shocked by the desperate
young woman who kills her newborn, but don't mind her having an
abortion at eight months. That's the difference in the baby?

except the baby in the former case left the uterus.

I think there are very few people who don't mind 8 month abortions.

are *exceedingly* rare, you know.

In the case of abortion, there isn't a clear-cut logical answer, so

opinions on the topic will be somewhat emotional. I do not, of

base my opinion on religion.

I agree that the "line" for abortion is a tricky one; after all, the

point of gestation is to go from something which is not "human" to

which is. Embryology is a continuum. If I may, however, I'd like to

suggestion to clarify it. In medicine, we commonly declare "death" to

the point where there are no brain waves, understanding that the seat

humanity-- what makes us, "us"-- is our brain. We generally allow

be harvested and such after brain death.

During human development, the human brain is not wired and

until the 25th-27th week. Before that, there is no "coordinated"

activity. Observations to date have led to the conclusion that 25

gestation is required for the formation of synapses needed for

neural activity. At this point in development, the recognizable

exist only as intermittent bursts that interrupt periods of random

(Morowitz and Trefil 1992). By analogy with brain death, I suggest

reasonable point to begin to be concerned with the fetus as an

being. This is philosophically satisfying (to me) because it reflects
symmetry in our medical treatment of life and death. It is also

because the vast, vast majority of abortions are performed in the

weeks of pregnancy.

It should be noted that a more strict version of the "neurological"

holds that coordinated brain waves and responses indicate too much
development has occurred, and that we should be even more cautious.

people suggest around week 8 as an (extremely conservative) point,

when organogenesis is complete and the synapses and reflexes have at

been set up (Shannon and Wolter 1990). This still is within the time

of most abortions in the US, although some effort might be invested

eliminating the week 8.5-12 abortions. While I personally favor the

relaxed view (on the grounds that simple 3-neuron reflexes are no

complex than what is seen in simple animals), I could certainly

on such a point.

Obviously this is a contentious and emotional issue, but I think that

science and embryology of development can be very instructive. I am
interested in what other people think.