HHS moves to reclassify contraception as "abortion"

[Kanastrous]

It's a nice clear demarcation point: where the newborn first becomes a separate entity in the outside world.

So the same baby, 5 days before birth that could survive just fine outside of the womb, should be ignored as a legit patient because it's not been born yet? If it's a salvageable, viable life, equivalent to a newborn in any real way (neurologically, biologically) then it's logical to treat it like you would a newborn. Far more logical and ethical than ignoring them all together because it's easier.

The truth of the matter is that "life began" several billion years ago, and hasn't stopped since. Living tissue is not the issue, biological and neurological viability in the outside world are, because they're what really define human existence.

I would agree that the point at which you have outside-the-womb viability is a reasonable demarcation line.

Although it raises questions regarding support measures - the point at which you can keep a premature baby alive using medical technology keep rolling further and further back, all the time.

The fetus people don't see it as a tissue issue, anyway, or they would be picketing fertility clinics on behalf of the contents of their lab freezers...

[CaptainZoidberg]

Yes folks, it's never been about saving babies. It's been about those sluts, and restricting them.

It's always been about saving babies. Ever wonder why their propaganda always dwells on aborted fetuses, not scandalously dressed women?

Why, the gall of it all, they dress up like whores, whine about 'rape', and expect to be cleansed of their sins? Never, not in the US of A!

Would you like a tin foil hat to go with that conspiracy theory?

Yes, I'm serious, how else do you explain..

Indeed, among other things the proposal expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.

Um... You explain it logically, rather than trying to hammer your arbitrary ideology on to it. Maybe they view the fertilized egg as a person, so they oppose giving procedures that will kill it.

And as for everyone who claims that viability should be the cutoff point: how is a newborn baby viable? Maybe it doesn't need full life support, but it needs to be fed, changed, etc. Without support and nourishment it WILL die. (I'm going on a vacation tomorrow in rural Nebraska so I won't be able to issue more rebuttals over the next week or so).

[SirNitram]

And tada, here comes the apologist!

It's always been about saving babies. Ever wonder why their propaganda always dwells on aborted fetuses, not scandalously dressed women?

To generate disgust and hatred for those responsible, a viscereal appeal to emotion. This is obvious as the sky is blue.

Would you like a tin foil hat to go with that conspiracy theory?

Do, please, explain why contraception is now on the list, including pre-insemination contraception? Or is 'life' now defined as 'You might have sex soon'?

Um... You explain it logically, rather than trying to hammer your arbitrary ideology on to it. Maybe they view the fertilized egg as a person, so they oppose giving procedures that will kill it.

Which is why this bans contraception that prevents fertilization, of course! Whackaloon. Your theory is inconsistant with the actions. Therefore, it fails, no matter how much you squawk about me having an 'arbitrary idealogy'. Mine fully accounts for banning contraception, yours does not even cover 'day after', really.

And as for everyone who claims that viability should be the cutoff point: how is a newborn baby viable? Maybe it doesn't need full life support, but it needs to be fed, changed, etc. Without support and nourishment it WILL die. (I'm going on a vacation tomorrow in rural Nebraska so I won't be able to issue more rebuttals over the next week or so).

How convenient for the apologist to time his whining about how it's all in the crazy liberals heads, then not be availiable until this slips away.

Don't worry though. I'm sure we'll see more naked attempts to stop contraception, and you can again repeat your factually wrong 'Maybe they think a fertilized egg counts!' when discussing contraception that prevents the fertilization.

Ta, troll.

[Surlethe]

For all the foolishness in the OT, I do agree with the standard for 'when life begins - ' with the first breath. Not before.

Why?

It's a nice clear demarcation point: where the newborn first becomes a separate entity in the outside world.

By your logic, you might as well say that conception is 'when life begins': it's a nice clear demarcation point, where the embryo first becomes a separate genetic entity. In either case, the arguer seems more interested in finding a nice, thick line to draw instead of tying the onset of personhood to a consistent definition.

[Metatwaddle]

To force someone to suborn their body to another is pretty much equivalent to slavery...

In general though, it's important to remember that it is a human responsibility to prevent conception if they are not actually wishing to conceive. It cost's money and medical resources to abort. That's another entire argument in itself. Especially here in Canada where it'd be covered. I'd be pretty annoyed at some loose slut banging new guys on a regular basis without protection and expecting our tax dollar to keep flushing her out.

Right. Because obviously these "loose sluts" (and what the fuck gives you the right to judge women's precious ~*sexual purity*~?) intend to get pregnant when they fuck, and they're perfectly fine with morning sickness and invasive fucking surgical procedures to remove the fetus, just so long as John Q. Taxpayer is footing the bill! Jesus fuck, do dumbass men like you have any idea what an abortion actually is?

[Kanastrous]

Why?

It's a nice clear demarcation point: where the newborn first becomes a separate entity in the outside world.

By your logic, you might as well say that conception is 'when life begins': it's a nice clear demarcation point, where the embryo first becomes a separate genetic entity. In either case, the arguer seems more interested in finding a nice, thick line to draw instead of tying the onset of personhood to a consistent definition.

'Separate genetic entity' is in fact a clear demarcation, but it's not much of one. Every last bacterium and virus and pre-cancerous cell and remaining tailed wiggler in the tubes is a separate genetic entity from the woman in question.

By comparison, able to live alone - not within the perimeter of the mother's body and deriving life support from it, but as a physically distinct creature - is a much greater characteristic of individual identity.

I'm open to the possibility that there are brighter and therefore better lines to draw, than that.

[Surlethe]

Metatwaddle's post reminds me of the absurd conservative black-white fallacy that states if you remove some incentives against an action or state, you remove all of them. It's often used against welfare or sex ed: if you give handouts to poor people, you'll remove the incentives for people to work harder; if you teach kids about contraceptives, they'll have no incentive to not have sex. Here, it's very similar: if you pay for people's abortions, they'll have no incentives to not get pregnant.

[Kanastrous]

Sort of like suggesting that car insurance removes the incentive to avoid traffic accidents?

[Justforfun000]

Right. Because obviously these "loose sluts" (and what the fuck gives you the right to judge women's precious ~*sexual purity*~?) intend to get pregnant when they fuck, and they're perfectly fine with morning sickness and invasive fucking surgical procedures to remove the fetus, just so long as John Q. Taxpayer is footing the bill! Jesus fuck, do dumbass men like you have any idea what an abortion actually is?

Hey, I'm not calling down judgment on most women, I was specific. There ARE some women out there that have deliberately ignored birth control and have gotten pregnant because of it. There are many women who have ended up having 3 kids by different fathers and they keep getting a bigger welfare cheque every month to prove it. So don't fucking jump down MY throat when it's very easy to see people abusing our system. I pay into the heath system, and I have a right to speak out against what I consider an egregious abuse.

Of course the average woman has the sense enough to avoid pregnancy when not ready. I'm not talking about them, and I have nothing against women being promiscuous in and of itself.

To be fair that probably wasn't a very fair thing to call them, loose sluts. It sounds like I'm condemning their promiscuity instead of their irresponsibility. It was a poor choice of words, so I retract that part.

[SirNitram]

I'm open to the possibility that there are brighter and therefore better lines to draw, than that.

A fully developed central nervous system, thus demarking thought? Beginning of third trimester. It's about as bright as a biological process with so many variables can get.

[Metatwaddle]

Metatwaddle's post reminds me of the absurd conservative black-white fallacy that states if you remove some incentives against an action or state, you remove all of them. It's often used against welfare or sex ed: if you give handouts to poor people, you'll remove the incentives for people to work harder; if you teach kids about contraceptives, they'll have no incentive to not have sex. Here, it's very similar: if you pay for people's abortions, they'll have no incentives to not get pregnant.

Yes, this. Abortion is an invasive procedure, especially the ones performed after nine weeks (when RU-486 isn't an option). The American Pregnancy Association has a clinical but graphic description of the process from the woman's perspective (rather than the fetus's, which you get from pro-life shills). It ain't pleasant.

Any abortion, including an RU-486 abortion, usually involves a lot of side effects afterwards; the common ones are bleeding, cramping, nausea and diarrhea for two to four weeks. So basically it's like a period, prolonged by a factor of three, with nausea and diarrhea.

Is someone really going to try to convince me that's easier for women than using a goddamn condom?

[Metatwaddle]

Hey, I'm not calling down judgment on most women, I was specific. There ARE some women out there that have deliberately ignored birth control and have gotten pregnant because of it.

Do you have evidence of this happening in statistically significant numbers?

There are many women who have ended up having 3 kids by different fathers and they keep getting a bigger welfare cheque every month to prove it.

Do you have any evidence of this happening in statistically significant numbers? Also, did it ever occur to you that it takes a lot of fucking money to take care of children, and that after you've covered those expenses, there's basically nothing left from the extra welfare bonus?

So don't fucking jump down MY throat when it's very easy to see people abusing our system. I pay into the heath system, and I have a right to speak out against what I consider an egregious abuse.

I'll jump down your throat if I fucking feel like it, you stupid douchenozzle.

To be fair that probably wasn't a very fair thing to call them, loose sluts. It sounds like I'm condemning their promiscuity instead of their irresponsibility. It was a poor choice of words, so I retract that part.

You're damn right it sounded like you were condemning their promiscuity. That's what "loose" and "slut" mean. And I don't believe for a second that you're not inclined to judge women's sexual morality, because you just did so with that previous remark. But there's no real point in arguing that.

[Surlethe]

'Separate genetic entity' is in fact a clear demarcation, but it's not much of one. Every last bacterium and virus and pre-cancerous cell and remaining tailed wiggler in the tubes is a separate genetic entity from the woman in question.

This is true. However, if all you're looking for is a clear demarcation, it's just as good as any other.

By comparison, able to live alone - not within the perimeter of the mother's body and deriving life support from it, but as a physically distinct creature - is a much greater characteristic of individual identity.

And how do you derive that from a definition of personhood? After all, in every way but physically the baby is still a parasite.

I'm open to the possibility that there are brighter and therefore better lines to draw, than that.

That's the problem I'm pointing out: you're looking for bright lines to draw and trying to cut your definition of personhood to fit those, rather than finding a definition of personhood and then figuring out where in the pregnancy it starts, regardless of how fuzzy that beginning may be.

(Edit: spelling)
Edit 2: Jesus, I can't even spell the quote tags correctly.

[CaptainZoidberg]

And tada, here comes the apologist!

I'm just disputing your claim. You can attach whatever label you want to it.

It's always been about saving babies. Ever wonder why their propaganda always dwells on aborted fetuses, not scandalously dressed women?

To generate disgust and hatred for those responsible, a viscereal appeal to emotion. This is obvious as the sky is blue.
[/quote]

It wouldn't generate disgust and hatred if the movement wasn't about saving fetuses. And the fact that it appeals to values is totally irrelevant.

All you did there was restate my point, which is actually quite obvious, and pretend that you posted a rebuttal.

Do, please, explain why contraception is now on the list, including pre-insemination contraception? Or is 'life' now defined as 'You might have sex soon'?

Bush, a man with 20% approval ratings, doesn't constitute "It". The fact is that the majority of Americans support some amount of restriction on abortion, but only a small minority don't believe in the unrestricted right to use birth control.

Which is why this bans contraception that prevents fertilization, of course! Whackaloon. Your theory is inconsistant with the actions. Therefore, it fails, no matter how much you squawk about me having an 'arbitrary idealogy'. Mine fully accounts for banning contraception, yours does not even cover 'day after', really.

I think you're misconstruing my position. I don't dispute the fact that there is an anti-contraception movement, but I am able to see that the there isn't a 100% overlap between the two movements.

How convenient for the apologist to time his whining about how it's all in the crazy liberals heads, then not be availiable until this slips away.

In hindsight I apologize for starting a debate that I knew I wouldn't be able to finish.

Don't worry though. I'm sure we'll see more naked attempts to stop contraception, and you can again repeat your factually wrong 'Maybe they think a fertilized egg counts!' when discussing contraception that prevents the fertilization.

I'm sure we will too. But I'll still be right that the pro-lie movement is completely unrelated to those attempts.

Ta, troll.

Troll? Really? Trust me, I'm just trying to defend the conclusions that the evidence has compelled me to draw. The fact that it inflames people is merely a side effect of the fact that you don't agree with me.

[Darth Wong]

For all the foolishness in the OT, I do agree with the standard for 'when life begins - ' with the first breath. Not before.

Why?

It's a nice clear demarcation point: where the newborn first becomes a separate entity in the outside world.

In other words, "because it's convenient". That's a ridiculous argument.

In order to determine the point at which tissue becomes a person, you must first define what it means to be a person. Since personhood is generally defined in terms of thought (hence brain death = death), it seems perfectly reasonable to assign the start of personhood with the start of thought. That demarcation point, unlike yours, actually has some merit in the concept of personhood rather than deriving all of its merit from ease of definition.

[Kanastrous]

Capable of continued post-gestational life independent of placental support, with or without medical intervention, is how I think that looks, as a definition of personhood.

Which would place personhood somewhere late in the third trimester.

Maybe with data in hand from treatment of very early premature infants, it's possible to identify a statistical 50/50 survival rate date, and peg the distinction to that.

[SirNitram]

And tada, here comes the apologist!

I'm just disputing your claim. You can attach whatever label you want to it.

Disputing claims is more successful when you're not lying.

It's always been about saving babies. Ever wonder why their propaganda always dwells on aborted fetuses, not scandalously dressed women?

To generate disgust and hatred for those responsible, a viscereal appeal to emotion. This is obvious as the sky is blue.

It wouldn't generate disgust and hatred if the movement wasn't about saving fetuses. And the fact that it appeals to values is totally irrelevant.

Let's examine this hilarious statement: It wouldn't generate disgust if it wasn't true. Humans have no built-in lie detectors, kid. It can be a cover and it would still work. Provide a reason why it wouldn't work if it was a cover, or shut the fuck up.

All you did there was restate my point, which is actually quite obvious, and pretend that you posted a rebuttal.

If your point is 'It's impossible to lie about your intentions', you're so laughable pathetic you probably deserve a mercy banning.

Do, please, explain why contraception is now on the list, including pre-insemination contraception? Or is 'life' now defined as 'You might have sex soon'?

Bush, a man with 20% approval ratings, doesn't constitute "It". The fact is that the majority of Americans support some amount of restriction on abortion, but only a small minority don't believe in the unrestricted right to use birth control.

Bush, the man who sets policy as he just did, is the relevent one in this discussion. Appeal to popularity does not dispose of the factual evidence before us: Various forms of birth control are under attack here.

You are, in short, being a fallacious dick.

Which is why this bans contraception that prevents fertilization, of course! Whackaloon. Your theory is inconsistant with the actions. Therefore, it fails, no matter how much you squawk about me having an 'arbitrary idealogy'. Mine fully accounts for banning contraception, yours does not even cover 'day after', really.

I think you're misconstruing my position. I don't dispute the fact that there is an anti-contraception movement, but I am able to see that the there isn't a 100% overlap between the two movements.

You're of course going to explain how I declared there was a 100% overlap, with a quote.

Actually, while that is what is required of your under this site's rules, you will not. Because I never said there was. You are lying, once more.

How convenient for the apologist to time his whining about how it's all in the crazy liberals heads, then not be availiable until this slips away.

In hindsight I apologize for starting a debate that I knew I wouldn't be able to finish.

Hindsight, uh-huh. Maybe if you read the article where it specifically discusses that the government is now setting policy to allow contraception to be refused, before you spew off about 'life at conception'.

Don't worry though. I'm sure we'll see more naked attempts to stop contraception, and you can again repeat your factually wrong 'Maybe they think a fertilized egg counts!' when discussing contraception that prevents the fertilization.

I'm sure we will too. But I'll still be right that the pro-lie movement is completely unrelated to those attempts.

Bullshit. You were never right, and you will never prove that. Only in your head, where lies like 'Well, if they were lying, they wouldn't be supported!' survive, will you think you are right.

Ta, troll.

Troll? Really? Trust me, I'm just trying to defend the conclusions that the evidence has compelled me to draw. The fact that it inflames people is merely a side effect of the fact that you don't agree with me.

You're a lying, fallacious cunt who dodges the subject, ignores what was posted, and even lies directly about what's being discussed. You are a troll, or so monumentally stupid you shouldn't come back from your time away from this board.

[Darth Wong]

Capable of continued post-gestational life independent of placental support, with or without medical intervention, is how I think that looks, as a definition of personhood.

Why?

Which would place personhood somewhere late in the third trimester.

Maybe with data in hand from treatment of very early premature infants, it's possible to identify a statistical 50/50 survival rate date, and peg the distinction to that.

When I ask "why", I'm asking why someone should conclude that personhood begins at that point. What do you think it means to be a person?

For me, I think therefore I am. The corollary is that if you are incapable of thought, then you are not. Ergo, personhood begins with thought, ie- brain development. How do you justify your definition? Why should personhood have anything to do with placental support or independence?

[Durandal]

Can anyone tell me where this mythical "loose slut" is who keeps banging men without protection and then running off to get the morning-after pill or a first-trimester abortion on a regular basis is? Does anyone here know any woman who acts this way?

Let me clue the perma-virgins into something. It's scary when a girl gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be. Having a condom break on you is scary. Having condom-less sex with a girl who's on birth control but has told you she would not get an abortion if she got pregnant is scary. The whole fucking concept of having a child without intending too is mind-boggling. Take this from someone who's had a couple of close calls. It freaks you the fuck out. I can't imagine how it must feel for the woman, but I'm sure that having one of those close calls is more than enough to scare a woman into insisting on protection from that point on.

The ones who don't learn from these incidents are probably religious morons who are going to have the baby anyway.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Let's examine this hilarious statement: It wouldn't generate disgust if it wasn't true. Humans have no built-in lie detectors, kid. It can be a cover and it would still work. Provide a reason why it wouldn't work if it was a cover, or shut the fuck up.

It generates disgust because it appeals to their values.

If your point is 'It's impossible to lie about your intentions', you're so laughable pathetic you probably deserve a mercy banning.

The burden of proof obviously lies on you to show that the 150 million Americans who support some amount of restriction on abortion really just want to ban contraception, even though they don't live by those standards in their daily lives.

Bush, the man who sets policy as he just did, is the relevent one in this discussion. Appeal to popularity does not dispose of the factual evidence before us: Various forms of birth control are under attack here.

You are, in short, being a fallacious dick.

If your point is that Bush opposes birth control and abortion, then we're in complete agreement. But that point has nothing to do with what I originally replied to, which is the claim that it has "never been about saving babies".

How could I know that "it" referred just to Bush and not all who support restriction on abortion?

You're of course going to explain how I declared there was a 100% overlap, with a quote.

You said: "Yes folks, it's never been about saving babies. It's been about those sluts, and restricting them. "

When you said "It", I (rightfully) assumed that you meant the entire movement to put restrictions on abortion, and not just GWB.

Hindsight, uh-huh. Maybe if you read the article where it specifically discusses that the government is now setting policy to allow contraception to be refused, before you spew off about 'life at conception'.

I oppose that. My position that all measures to prevent or end pregnancy should be legal before some point in the 2nd trimester is well articulated.

Bullshit. You were never right, and you will never prove that. Only in your head, where lies like 'Well, if they were lying, they wouldn't be supported!' survive, will you think you are right.

That's not my claim at all. My claim is that "Yes folks, it's never been about saving babies. It's been about those sluts, and restricting them", is false.

You're a lying, fallacious cunt who dodges the subject, ignores what was posted, and even lies directly about what's being discussed. You are a troll, or so monumentally stupid you shouldn't come back from your time away from this board.

Our positions on abortion are virtually identical, so I don't see what's worth getting so riled up about.

[SirNitram]

Look, you lying sack of shit. If you can't do better than 'They parade in front of other people to inflame themselves and not affect their audience' and 'Now you must prove things you NEVER, EVER said', get the fuck out and don't come back. This laughable claim that I was referring to every single person who supports abortion is nothing but a bald-faced lie, considering I was referencing an action by a man and his political party.

In short, either stop the blatant, flagrant dishonest, or don't post.

[Oskuro]

The ones who don't learn from these incidents are probably religious morons who are going to have the baby anyway.

Or clueless kids who just believe it won't happen to them.

I agree with your assertion, Durandal, but it is true that typical teenage "invincibility complex", plus maybe partying, tends to equal irresponsible behaviour.

Appart from things I might have heard about second-hand, I've read studies about the alarming number of teens (and sometimes people in their 20s) who use no contraception at all, believing it won't happen to them (both pregnancy or STDs), or thinking bogus methods like pulling out work.

These people are, to me, infuriating, since they give ammunition to the pro-life zealots, who then generalize that any pregnancy could have been avoided, and conveniently forget that even if you're using contraception, there's a chance of failure.

[Patrick Degan]

Yes folks, it's never been about saving babies. It's been about those sluts, and restricting them.

It's always been about saving babies. Ever wonder why their propaganda always dwells on aborted fetuses, not scandalously dressed women?

I see, Mr. Zoidberg, that you still have a problem understanding the difference between what the leaders of the anti-choice movement are after, and what they let their dupes in the rank-and-file believe and how they specifically use pictures of aborted fetuses as an appeal to the emotions of the aforementioned dupes as well as a means to put on a cloak of respectability for public consumption, and I believe this has already been pointed out to you before on this board.

Um... You explain it logically, rather than trying to hammer your arbitrary ideology on to it. Maybe they view the fertilized egg as a person, so they oppose giving procedures that will kill it.

And what does contraception have to do with this alleged purpose, then? Because the new guidelines are targeting contraception as well as abortion.

And as for everyone who claims that viability should be the cutoff point: how is a newborn baby viable? Maybe it doesn't need full life support, but it needs to be fed, changed, etc. Without support and nourishment it WILL die.

Without support and nourishment, we ALL die. So you offer no substantive argument here. "Viability" quite obviously means the point at which a fetus, or baby, can be taken out of the womb and not immediately expire as a result.

Is it really going to be necessary to connect all the dots for you?

[Metatwaddle]

Can anyone tell me where this mythical "loose slut" is who keeps banging men without protection and then running off to get the morning-after pill or a first-trimester abortion on a regular basis is? Does anyone here know any woman who acts this way?

I'm pretty sure she only exists in the minds of closet misogynists.

Let me clue the perma-virgins into something. It's scary when a girl gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be. Having a condom break on you is scary. Having condom-less sex with a girl who's on birth control but has told you she would not get an abortion if she got pregnant is scary. The whole fucking concept of having a child without intending too is mind-boggling. Take this from someone who's had a couple of close calls. It freaks you the fuck out. I can't imagine how it must feel for the woman, but I'm sure that having one of those close calls is more than enough to scare a woman into insisting on protection from that point on.

Yes, it is. The thought of a full-term pregnancy and twenty years of endless time and money spent is terrifying, and the thought of an abortion is pretty frightening too. If we get pregnant, it has to be one or the other. There's no other option.

That's why justforfun's "medical coverage removes disincentives to pregnancy!" argument is so transcendentally clueless that you have to wonder if his parents have ever given him The Talk, or if he's ever seen an actual female in real life.

[Darth Wong]

Can anyone tell me where this mythical "loose slut" is who keeps banging men without protection and then running off to get the morning-after pill or a first-trimester abortion on a regular basis is? Does anyone here know any woman who acts this way?

I'm pretty sure she only exists in the minds of closet misogynists.

What's particularly maddening is when you raise a counter-argument involving an innocent teenaged rape victim, and they object that you can't base an entire policy upon such an extreme and unusual case. The irony of that retort doesn't faze them even if you point it out to them.