Real questions about pro choice

[Lestat]

You realize that if there is a God, He performs more abortions than all humans combined in the form of miscarriages, right? Not to mention all the after-birth abortions in the form of SIDS and the many other causes of infant deaths. You DO realize this, right?

Anyway, I waited all those seconds and all I got was "your" unfounded beliefs. So what would you say to those who are not brainwashed by Christianity and therefore, don't hold your beliefs? The heck with them, huh?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
at exactly what point does a sperm and an egg begin "forming a human"..to the point that it is given sudden full value as a human? and why?

[/ QUOTE ]
How about at that point when its DNA and chromosome count can pass the genetic equivalent of the Turing test - IE, its DNA/chromosome count is not that of a sperm or an egg, but its DNA is distinct from that of its mother.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about the point when you give birth?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
You realize that if there is a God, He performs more abortions than all humans combined in the form of miscarriages, right? Not to mention all the after-birth abortions in the form of SIDS and the many other causes of infant deaths. You DO realize this, right?



[/ QUOTE ]
This has nothing to do with whether or not it is right for humans to perform abortions.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I waited all those seconds and all I got was "your" unfounded beliefs. So what would you say to those who are not brainwashed by Christianity and therefore, don't hold your beliefs? The heck with them, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, of course not. Have you never tried to put yourself in the mind of the person on the other side of a disagreement? I was just giving you background on why I believe as I do.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm quite certain that having sex while wearing a condom results in less than a 3% risk of pregnancy. I also suspect (albeit with less confidence) that having sex without wearing a condom and without pulling out, results in less than a 3% risk of pregnancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you can be "quite certain" all you like, but you'd still be incorrect here...

[Random crap omitted. -J]

So, given all of that, I would say that anyone who thinks they should have a less than 1% chance of getting pregnant, better not have sex at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the parlay you're looking for:

1. Through either misuse (which is preventable) or manufacturing defect, the condom must allow enough semen through to make impregnation possible.
Probability: 15% (or 5%, if you're careful). Source: you.
2. The woman must ovulate within 3-5 days (not 1-2; sperm live longer once they reach the fallopian tubes). Probability: 18% (18% = 5/28)
3. At least one sperm must fertilize at least one egg. Under optimum conditions (EG the condom fails during the two days leading up to ovulation) there might be as much as a 40% chance of pregnancy, in the case of total condom failure.
Estimated probability: 30%, if the previous two conditions are met. Source.
4. The blastocyst must successfully implant in the uterine wall.
Estimated probability: 30%. Source.

Net probability of pregnancy if you are incautious with the condom: 0.24% (~1 in 400)
Net probability if you can follow the directions on a box of Trojans: 0.08% (~8 in 10,000)

Note that if all of this happens, the result is a pregnancy - most of which will spontaneously abort (IE, miscarry).

Eat crow.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> This has nothing to do with whether or not it is right for humans to perform abortions. </font>

Well it has something to do with it. To my knowledge, the bible does not say, "Thou shall not abort a two week old fetus". At least I know this isn't one of the Ten Commandments. So if it's ok for God to do it, why should we assume we must not?

*I understand you were giving your beliefs, and I really don't mind hearing where you're coming from. But that's precisely the problem with bringing religion into important societal debates such as this. Not everyone shares your particular brand of fairy tale. Some are Jewish, some Muslim, some atheist, etc. Now what?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">So your position is that abortion is necessary for our survival as a species. I'm sorry, but that sounds really ridiculous to me. I'll explain why in a second. </font>

I'm not sure it's necessary today for humans. I mentioned this only to show that abandoning unwanted offspring has played some role in the past toward a species' survival. A lioness must give up on a cub who breaks it's leg for example. Our ancestors must've had to give up a baby who was sickly or simply put too much pressure on the survival of the rest of it's siblings. It's evolution, but I guess you don't believe in that.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm quite certain that having sex while wearing a condom results in less than a 3% risk of pregnancy. I also suspect (albeit with less confidence) that having sex without wearing a condom and without pulling out, results in less than a 3% risk of pregnancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you can be "quite certain" all you like, but you'd still be incorrect here...

[Random crap omitted. -J]

So, given all of that, I would say that anyone who thinks they should have a less than 1% chance of getting pregnant, better not have sex at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the parlay you're looking for:

1. Through either misuse (which is preventable) or manufacturing defect, the condom must allow enough semen through to make impregnation possible.
Probability: 15% (or 5%, if you're careful). Source: you.
2. The woman must ovulate within 3-5 days (not 1-2; sperm live longer once they reach the fallopian tubes). Probability: 18% (18% = 5/28)
3. At least one sperm must fertilize at least one egg. Under optimum conditions (EG the condom fails during the two days leading up to ovulation) there might be as much as a 40% chance of pregnancy, in the case of total condom failure.
Estimated probability: 30%, if the previous two conditions are met. Source.
4. The blastocyst must successfully implant in the uterine wall.
Estimated probability: 30%. Source.

Net probability of pregnancy if you are incautious with the condom: 0.24% (~1 in 400)
Net probability if you can follow the directions on a box of Trojans: 0.08% (~8 in 10,000)

Note that if all of this happens, the result is a pregnancy - most of which will spontaneously abort (IE, miscarry).

Eat crow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. I won't eat someone else's crow. I referred to where I found the sources, which was at Google with a quick search, and included a university website. The other facts about human anatomy and the ovulation cycle I mentioned as my own without sourcing, because I have an MD. Sorry I did not mention that ahead of time, I thought they were also not debatable items, just Physiologic facts.

But, in order to discuss what I really want to talk about, let's go with your data as being 100% accurate, and mine (and the univeristy website and my medical school, etc,) as being off target. So, according to your data, despite the apparent near-perfection with which condoms prevent babies, the truth is, there is an epidemic of unplanned pregnancies in the US. This in turn, leads to more abortions, which is all I really hoped to discuss. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that there are in fact, unplanned pregnancies, and that women do, in fact, sometimes choose to abort them...

As an aside, Are you really implying that since a person used a rubber, they should not feel obligated toward the fetus? As in, those who forgot the condom or the pill or whatever are more obligated? I doubt this is what you intend to say, but since you brought it up to defend a woman's right to abort, what else could you be implying?

If you have an unplanned pregnancy, some posters have tried to justify the NEED for abortion because the woman should not be "burdened" by such a responsibility if they did not *intend* this to happen. Need proof of lack of intent? Hey, she used a condom. How was she supposed to know it wouldn't work this time? Hey she was on the pill, she was being careful, this is *not* her "fault."

Sorry. Not gonna buy that. People get an unplanned pregnancy because of ONE reason: they had sex before they were ready to have kids.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> This has nothing to do with whether or not it is right for humans to perform abortions. </font>

Well it has something to do with it. To my knowledge, the bible does not say, "Thou shall not abort a two week old fetus". At least I know this isn't one of the Ten Commandments. So if it's ok for God to do it, why should we assume we must not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...this is ridiculous. FIrst off, it does say "Thou shalt not murder." Your argument could also be that it does not say "Thou shalt not kill your 2nd cousin twice removed," so why should I assume I must not do it?

Did you not proofread this one before posting? People die of natural deaths all the time, but everyone (I assume) agrees that killing someone is usually a no-no. Whether you believe in God or not, something occurring in nature from time to time or even all the time does not give you the right to perform that act yourself at any moment.

If your argument is that the 2 week old fetus is not a "person" and therefore cannot techinically be "murdered," then you might be taken seriously.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]


*I understand you were giving your beliefs, and I really don't mind hearing where you're coming from. But that's precisely the problem with bringing religion into important societal debates such as this. Not everyone shares your particular brand of fairy tale. Some are Jewish, some Muslim, some atheist, etc. Now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat,

Did you answer the questions from OP? Or are you content to critique others' posts based on the religious slant you see in them? I am curious to see where you stand on this issue.

Maybe you did mention your response, sorry if I missed it. To save you the trouble of looking back, I wanted to know from those who are Pro Choice, up to what number of weeks of pregnancy was OK to abort for you, and why?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Ummm...this is ridiculous. FIrst off, it does say "Thou shalt not murder." Your argument could also be that it does not say "Thou shalt not kill your 2nd cousin twice removed," so why should I assume I must not do it?

Did you not proofread this one before posting? People die of natural deaths all the time, but everyone (I assume) agrees that killing someone is usually a no-no. </font>

Hmm. Then why do you suppose it is that most fundamentalist Christians (or any othe religion for that matter), have no problem with killing when it suits them?

Death penalty? Fundamentalists are probably the most ardent supporters.

War? President Bush is a born-again. Look how many deaths he has caused! But he has somehow found a way to justify killing to God.

You are being incredibly naive. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy that occurs so naturally in religion and why religious views should have nothing to do with abortion laws.

As to exactly how old, to the day, to the week, or to the month, when it is morally wrong to abort a fetus... It is an unanswerable question with the only answer being as soon as possible.