Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

Oh God, now u don't want to admit u said a fertilized egg is a fetus.

The definitions of abortion are about destroying BOTH EMBRYOS AND FETUSES. The fertilized egg is an EMBRYO, therefore it DOES fit that description. Simple logic. Don't put words into my mouth. People can read the previous posts to check.

c'mon. i can read English.

You coulda fooled me! Hehehehe...

c'mon. we both know that we have opposite beliefs: u believe life begins during fertilization while I believe life begins during implantation.

Yes we have different beliefs. But I think the big difference is that your belief is ARBITRARY. You have been unable to show why a fertilized egg (which you do not consider to be human life) should suddenly become human life just because it attaches to the uterus. If the fertilized egg is not human life, there is no reason why attaching it to the uterus should make it human life.

If you deny that the fertilized egg is human life, you logically deny human life beginning at any point afterwards since these are only later states of development of the same unique human. And that uniqueness was determined at FERTILIZATION -- when the 46 chromosomes came together and formed the human's unique DNA.

If attachment to the mother's uterus confers human life, then ANY microscopic parasite that attaches to a human female's uterus is also a human life! That is absurd!


Abortifacient Contraceptives

Contraceptives that prevent the fertilized egg from implanting have an abortifacient function. This is a well-known mechanism of contraceptive pills and IUDs. The evidence for this has been posted before, but I am posting it yet again to make sure persons new to this thread can read it after your claims to the contrary.

• Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent
  (http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126)
  
  
  “It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would
  be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower
  doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are
  likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical
  literature does not support the hypothesis that
  postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”
• The Physicians' Prescribing information for Yaz and Yasmin, two oral contraceptives
  http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/ht.../Yasmin_PI.pdf
  http://www.berlex.com/html/products/pi/fhc/YAZ_PI.pdf
  
  
  Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of gonadotropins.
  Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation,
  other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increases the/QUOTE]
  difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces
  the likelihood of implantation).
  
  
• https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post4877015
  
  
• https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post4882951
  
  
• https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post4833085

Increased contraceptive usage increases unwanted pregnancies and demand for abortion.

• Increased access to contraception not linked to decrease in numbers of unplanned pregnancies, abortions
  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20761
  
  
• Habit Persistence and Teen ***: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?
  http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf
  
  
• The Role of Contraception in Increasing Abortion
  By Ruben Obregon
  http://www.noroomforcontraception.co...d-Abortion.htm

Promoting such artificial and abortifacient contraceptives is deadly and counter-productive. But that is exactly what the so-called RH bill does! And to make things worse, it does so while violating our human and civil rights!

Two things lang are common w/ us both: we both are Catholics and we support NFP.

OK. In which case, if we want to be able to cooperate and get something productive done, then why not focus on what we have in common instead of promoting a highly controversial bill? The common denominator is we should support and promote NFP. That way, no one's beliefs are violated.

--
NO TO ABORTION. NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

Some related stuff...

Manila Archdiocese highlights RH Bill on Pentecost Sunday
http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/8977

MANILA, May 31, 2009—Manila Archdiocese celebrated Pentecost Sunday 2009 highlighting the importance of life through conferences on the controversial Reproductive Health Bill or the Republic Act 5043.


CBCP pleads to Catholics for more prayers to halt RH bill passage
http://www.prolife.org.ph/news/index...h-bill-passage

MANILA, May 22, 2009—CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life Chairman and San Fernando (Pampanga) Archbishop Paciano B. Aniceto asked for the Catholic faithful to intensify their prayers to block the controversial Reproductive Health Bill now pending in the Lower House.


Archbishop objects to ‘foreign financiers’ funding artificial contraception
http://www.prolife.org.ph/news/index...contraception/

MANILA, May 23, 2009—ARCHBISHOP Paciano Aniceto branded international agencies US-AID, the European Commission, Australia’s Agency for International Development and even Agencia Espańola de Cooperacion Internacional of Spain as “unethical” after replenishing their interest in funding local maternal health and population management programs which include artificial birth control.

[giddyboy]

The definitions of abortion are about destroying BOTH EMBRYOS AND FETUSES. The fertilized egg is an EMBRYO, therefore it DOES fit that description. Simple logic. Don't put words into my mouth. People can read the previous posts to check.

c'mon. i think everybody here agrees w/ me that u r juggling the terms fertilized egg, fetus, and embryo. While u can somehow get away w/ "embryo", you can't get away w/ "fetus".

bsan gitay-an nko sa anatomy pre, pero my stock knowledge and googling helped me recall all those things.

again, a newly fertilized egg is not yet a fetus. the correct description for a fertilized egg is a zygote.

the zygote splits a few times (during the first two days after fertilization), converting itself from a zygote into a solid clump of only about sixteen cells called a "morula."

As an effect of continued specialized division of the cells in a certain pattern, a cavity appears in this morula which redefines it into what's called a blastocyst (the fourth and fifth days after fertilization). At this point, your future child may still be free-floating along the fallopian tube, pushed by cilia on the way to being spilled into the inside of the womb, or intrauterine cavity.

The blastocyst cavity separates two types of cells-- ones that will be developing baby and placenta (afterbirth), but also cells that will erode the lining of the womb with enzymes, allowing the blastocyst, which has been now floating free in the uterus for days, to implant and finally submerge into the uterine lining. In this way implantation takes place. At fertilization your future daughter was smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, and it took nearly three to five days for full, deep implantation to happen. (SO THIS FOR ME IS THE FIRST STAGE THAT A BLASTOCYST CAN BE CALLED AN EMBRYO BUT U CAN ALSO INSIST A ZYGOTE IS ALREADY AN EMBRYO). The very first structure associated with an actual embryo is something called "the primitive streak," which is made up of the ectoderm and endoderm, with the mesoderm in between. These three different types of cells are called the germ lines, or germ layers, as from them spring all of the beginnings of all of the organs of the developing embryo.

The blastocyst containing its fluid-filled cavity is now completely submerged in the uterine lining. The cells at one border of this cavity, that border adjacent to the lining of the uterus, will be that part of the blastocyst that will develop into the fetus and placenta. For the conception to make the transition to fetus, all of the organ systems of your future daughter must arise and fit together as they progressively develop. This is well established by the end of the seventh week, and this is when the transition from embryo to fetus is made. (NOWHERE A FETUS FITS THE DESCRIPTION OF A FERTILIZED EGG)

now to your description of a human embryo, let's get back to it:

An embryo (irregularly from Greek: ἔμβρυον, plural ἔμβρυα, lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full"; the proper Latinate form would be embryum) is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination.

but wait, it doesn't stop there. here's the continuation:

"In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus."

let's then describe what LMP means:

Gestational age is the age of an embryo or fetus (or newborn infant). In humans, a common method of calculating gestational age starts counting either from the first day of the woman's last menstrual period (LMP) or from 14 days before conception (fertilization). Counting from the first day of the LMP involves the assumption that conception occurred 14 days later. If the day of conception is known, the 14th day before conception is used in place of the LMP. Although this "LMP method" of calculating gestational age is convenient, other methods are in use or have been proposed.

Methods

Some countries count gestational age from fertilization instead of LMP. This method of counting is also known as fertilization age, conceptional age or developmental age. The LMP gestational age is usually greater by about two weeks. Also, pregnancy often is defined as beginning with implantation, which happens about three weeks after the LMP.

Controversy over the beginning of pregnancy usually occurs in the context of the abortion debate. (TO WHICH WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING NOW) Depending on where pregnancy is considered to begin, some methods of birth control or infertility treatment might be considered abortifacient. The controversy is not primarily a scientific issue since knowledge of human reproduction and development has become very refined, but rather is primarily a linguistic and definitional question. The issue may also have social, medical, political and legal ramifications, but only if one equates the "beginning of pregnancy" with the "beginning of an individual human being's life".

Definitions of pregnancy beginning

Traditionally, doctors have measured pregnancy from a number of convenient points, including the day of last menstruation, ovulation, fertilization, implantation and chemical detection. This has led to some confusion about the precise length of human pregnancy, as each measuring point yields a different figure.

At its 2004 Annual Meeting, The American Medical Association passed a resolution in favor of making "Plan B" emergency contraception available over-the-counter, and one of the claims in the resolution was that hormonal contraception that may affect implantation "cannot terminate an established pregnancy." (THIS IS ONE OF WHERE MY BELIEF IS BASED FROM)

Similarly, the British Medical Association has defined an "established pregnancy" as beginning at implantation (ANOTHER ARGUMENT WHERE I BASED IT FROM).

Finally the standard historical method of counting the duration of pregnancy begins from the last menstruation and this remains common with doctors, hospitals, and medical companies. This system is convenient because it is easy to determine when the last menstrual period was, while both fertilization and implantation occur out of sight. An interesting consequence is that the dating of pregnancy measured this way begins two weeks before ovulation.

Birth control methods usually prevent fertilization. This cannot be seen as abortifacient because, by any of the above definitions, pregnancy has not started (that's again my belief).However, some methods might have a secondary effect of preventing implantation, thus allowing the zygote to die. Those who define pregnancy from fertilization subsequently may conclude that the agents should be considered abortifacients. (and i respect that belief)

Speculation about post-fertilization mechanisms is widespread, even appearing on patient information inserts for hormonal contraception, but there is no clinical support.

SOURCE: WIKI

[giddyboy]

Yes we have different beliefs. But I think the big difference is that your belief is ARBITRARY.

No, my belief is not arbitrary. to be arbitrary is depending on individual discretion and not fixed by law. but my belief is fixed by law/s.

i know that the view that life begins at fertilization reached acceptance from the Catholic Church, pro-life groups, and some experts.

But one objection raised to the fertilization view is that not all of the objects created by the union of a sperm and an egg are human beings. Objects such as hydatidiform moles, choriocarcinomas, and blighted ovums are clearly not. Neither will every normal zygote will develop into an adult. There are many fertilized eggs that never implant and are “simply washed away” after conception. (but of course u will argue that death is a natural phenomenon)

The unique genetic identity of the zygote is also challenged. In fertilization, chromosomes from each parent are combined in the same cell nucleus but remain independent; every chromosome in a diploid cell can be traced to one parent and not the other. Only during meiosis, in which gametes are formed, do these chromosomes cross over, exchanging bits of DNA to form unique genes not found in either parent. However, gametes are not commonly considered to have personhood, perhaps because most of them are never involved in fertilization.

Implantation

In his book Aborting America, Bernard Nathanson argued that implantation should be considered the point at which life begins.

Segmentation

For fourteen to twenty-one days after fertilization, an embryo may segment and form twins, triplets, etc. Some argue that an early embryo cannot be a person because "If every person is an individual, one cannot be divided from oneself."

However, Fr. Norman Ford stated that "the evidence would seem to indicate not that there is no individual at conception, but that there is at least one and possibly more." He went on to support the idea that, similar to processes found in other species, one twin could be the parent of the other asexually. Theodore Hall agreed with the plausibility of this explanation saying, "We wonder if the biological process in twinning isn't simply another example of how nature reproduces from other individuals without destroying that person's or persons' individuality."

You have been unable to show why a fertilized egg (which you do not consider to be human life) should suddenly become human life just because it attaches to the uterus. If the fertilized egg is not human life, there is no reason why attaching it to the uterus should make it human life.

i can't. i'm not an embryologist nor an OB/GYN. it could have been due to the contact (blastocyst connects to the uterus), and thereby makes a relationship with the host (the mother)... it could have been magic or a miracle why a blastocyst after attaching itself into the uterus is made into human life. Of course, pulling diverse organ systems out of that magician's hat that up until now has consisted of a microscopic group of cells makes one indeed think of magic; still, the field of embryology (the study of the embryo) has allowed us to learn some of the tricks behind the illusions.

This is not to say that the whole process isn't miraculous. Miraculous is still an appropriate description. But we have learned a lot, unfortunately only to be raised to higher degrees of wonder based on continuing revelations. The blastocyst, moves her from the implantation milestone to the embryonic one. This is the structure that makes contact and thereby makes a relationship with the host; the mother herself a somewhat passive participant in an exhausting association.

With the blastocyst successfully received by Mom, this human race can continue, the cells showing some differences from each other as trends of cell lines begin. Nine days after fertilization, the cells of the blastocyst that will develop into the placenta begin to develop as strands of cells, creating little lakes interspersed among these strands. These lakes ultimately connect up with each other and are infiltrated with blood and blood vessels from Mom, the whole complex destined to be the placenta, by which process a natural site is determined to easily transfer nutrients and oxygen from Mom to future daughter.

source: gynob.com

here's another:

The Second Fetal Milestone: Implantation

Your future child (blastocyst) may still be free-floating along the fallopian tube, pushed by cilia on the way to being spilled into the inside of the womb, or intrauterine cavity.

The blastocyst cavity separates two types of cells-- ones that will be developing baby and placenta (afterbirth), but also cells that will erode the lining of the womb with enzymes, allowing the blastocyst, which has been now floating free in the uterus for days, to implant and finally submerge into the uterine lining. In this way implantation takes place.

It's because the lining inside the uterus has planned for the zygote cyclically for all of the normal menstrual cycles in the past since puberty. In the past, however, the disappointment of an unfertilized egg has caused all of the hard work to be discarded as the menses, or period. When a fertilized egg does not implant into the lining of the womb, the actual absence of signals by an embedded zygote is in itself a signal that allows pituitary hormones in the bloodstream to drop off, and therefore turns off the hormones from the ovary (especially progesterone) that keep this uterine lining intact. But when there is a fertilized egg (zygote), things go much differently, and finally congratulations are in order.

[joshua259]

science and dogma will never mix... thats the hard thing about this discussion...

[giddyboy]

science and dogma will never mix... thats the hard thing about this discussion...

they are trying to mix them both...yeah surely this is a very hard discussion. otherwise, humana na unta ni even sa international level.

[cebulifer]

why not promote condom use. kung dili magabot ang sperm ug egg... unsay i-abort pa ana!

mao gyud na wala na ko maunderstand sa stand sa church. anti-contraceptive stand nila.

[giddyboy]

why not promote condom use. kung dili magabot ang sperm ug egg... unsay i-abort pa ana!

mao gyud na wala na ko maunderstand sa stand sa church. anti-contraceptive stand nila.

Priests need not promote condoms, but should not ban them. UNAIDS Director Peter Piot said in 2001: “When priests preach against using contraception, they are committing a serious mistake which is costing human lives. We do not ask the church to promote contraception, but merely to stop banning its use.”

Few support Catholic anti-condom policy, undermining Church legitimacy. Claire Short, the UK’s minister for international development - "The Catholic church ... opposes contraception but most Catholics in the world use it, so the Catholic church is stuck and wrong on these questions. But lots and lots of Catholics ignore the Catholic church’s teaching, including lots of good priests and nuns who are in favor of condoms being made available." THIS IS THE SAME STORY IN THE PHILS. Only few Pinoy Catholics support the church's anti-condom policy.

[cebulifer]

sakto!

kanang pills and others... wa koy idea ana. pero condom is a physical barrier to prevent the sperm and egg to meet. di pa ganahan sila ana?

so kung dili mag meet. walay i-abort. happy ang pro-life. kay wa pa may life diba. sus... kapait gud... wala may mga anak ning mga pari. di lalim magbuhi ug anak or mga anak. mga tawo karon... mu gamit ug unsay contraception para lang gyud di mapreggy.

[giddyboy]

Two things lang are common w/ us both: we both are Catholics and we support NFP

OK. In which case, if we want to be able to cooperate and get something productive done, then why not focus on what we have in common instead of promoting a highly controversial bill? The common denominator is we should support and promote NFP. That way, no one's beliefs are violated.

if i focus only on what we have in common, that will erase my individuality: of who i am.

I am for abstinence and fidelity but also for condom use just like in the Uganda case. Condoms are needed where abstinence is not an option for women. Contraceptives protect married women from HIV-infected husbands. Condoms prevent transmission of death, not merely transmission of life. While not 100%-effective, condoms reduce risk of HIV-transmission and STDs. Catholics can support condoms as lesser evil than HIV/AIDS.

While you need not promote condoms, but you should not ban them.

That way, no one's beliefs are violated.