Morning after pill

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

So is a rat.

You are revealing yourself as a very shallow thinker.

You are confirming yourself as a dick who can't engage in a conversation absent ad homs.

Why must I see the equivalency between a newborn and zygote in order to oppose the MAP? Thanks in advance for what will surely be some very deep thoughts.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

what is "quickening" and how does that play into your formulation?

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/dur...almovement.htm

I would be very troubled by ending pregnancy post quickening, and would probably be against it. I might support a statute that made it illegal post quickening. I haven't made up my mind, to be honest. But I reserve judgment because I've never been there. I hope I never am.

This is a much tougher question than the one Levin originally posed.

[CrazyHorse]

I would have my daughter take it, I don't think two or more lives should be ruined for that mistake.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

You are confirming yourself as a dick who can't engage in a conversation absent ad homs.

Why must I see the equivalency between a newborn and zygote in order to oppose the MAP? Thanks in advance for what will surely be some very deep thoughts.

Becuase I see it as a question of the moral implications changing as the fertilized egg develops into something more, as the Supreme Court did in Roe (again, leaving aside whether they were the ones to be making that law). That's how a majority of Americans see it, judging by the number of states that have adopted the Roe forumulation in their Constitutions.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/dur...almovement.htm

I would be very troubled by ending pregnancy post quickening, and would probably be against it. I might support a statute that made it illegal post quickening. I haven't made up my mind, to be honest. But I reserve judgment because I've never been there. I hope I never am.

This is a much tougher question than the one Levin originally posed.

This is a fetus at 12 weeks. A life with rights?

[SeattleUte]

As I told Waters, were I king I might well draw the line earlier than the Supreme Court did in Roe in terms of deciding when abortion could be prohibited by the state and criminally penalized.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is a fetus at 12 weeks. A life with rights?

I don't know for sure. Maybe. I've never had to make that decision as a lawmaker or an interested party. Does a zygote look like that? Why don't you answer my question. I've answered yours.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't know for sure. Maybe. I've never had to make that decision as a lawmaker or an interested party. Does a zygote look like that? Why don't you answer my question. I've answered yours.

So 11 weeks is okay to abort? (i.e. before quickening)



Isn't choosing when a mother perceives movement pretty arbitrary? Esp. when different Moms feel it at different times?

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is a fetus at 12 weeks. A life with rights?

I really don't agree with the line that Roe drew, but unless I am mistaken the morning after isn't 12 weeks.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So 11 weeks is okay to abort? (i.e. before quickening)

Isn't choosing when a mother perceives movement pretty arbitrary? Esp. when different Moms feel it at different times?

Same answer.

You've lost this argument. The pictures you have posted are themselves proof of the nonsense of your and Levin's position. The rest of us are for personal accountability and taking whaterver measure available to avoid the difficult choices you post. Please put a padlock on this thread becuas there's nothing fruitful left to discuss. You're done.