Morning after pill

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm saying that one might believe that an unimplanted embryo has worth, value and life, but one might still quash it in the case of rape, despite it's worth, value, and life.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Despite of the moral worth I give the embryo, I think in the circumstances of rape there are countervailing considerations that make it morally justifiable to take the MAP.

You wanted support for this position, and I gave you one reason: the creation of life was by force.

So what are you asking for with this line of discussion?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

This is exactly what I'm saying. Despite of the moral worth I give the embryo, I think in the circumstances of rape there are countervailing considerations that make it morally justifiable to take the MAP.

You wanted support for this position, and I gave you one reason: the creation of life was by force.

So what are you asking for with this line of discussion?

see, I don't say it is morally justifiable.

I say you might do it anyway even though it is morally unjustifiable.

You are basically arguing that the mental health of the mother supercedes the life of the embryo.

Of course, the problem with that argument is it can be used at anytime during pregnancy in a wide variety of circumstances.

As in, husband is an abusive jerk, abortion justifiable.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Levin

SU's, Cardiac's, and others' burden is this:

(1) Refute the notion that a zygote/embryo carries moral weight; i.e., is something worth reverencing and respecting as a living entity that differs from all other living, non-human entities.

(2) In the situation of consensual sex, come up with countervailing, generally applicable considerations that outweigh any moral weight the zygote has, and therefore justifies its destruction with the MAP.

I would separate the "stages" of pregnancy for the purpose of discussion like this:

1. Post-fertilization but before implantation. In other words, prior to clinical pregnancy (i.e. negative pregnancy test). If there is no pregnancy, there is no "baby" in any sense and I don't think any intervention (morning after pill, etc.) at that point caries much moral weight. If you need a microscope to see it, it's not a baby.

2. After pregnancy is established but before viability outside the womb (pre-20 weeks or so). I am in complete agreement with the Church's policy at this point. Except in cases of rape/incest, health of the mother, or severe fetal defect I would never personally participate in or condone any type of abortion, whether with RU-486 or conventional. I think it's immoral. However, if I were king I would not outlaw elective abortion during the first trimester and perhaps even up to around 20 weeks. Forcing women to seek unsafe, illegal, or foreign abortions seems to me to violate the rights of women who have an honest moral disagreement with us on this issue.

3. After the fetus is viable outside of the mother (post-20 weeks or so). Abortion should be illegal at this stage, probably with no exception except perhaps life of the mother. If the baby is at a stage where it has a chance at survival outside the womb, killing it can't be justified.

The "all or nothing" attitude toward this issue (that from the moment of fertilization the zygote has all the rights of any child) reminds me of the "all or nothing" attitude toward the Church generally (it's either ALL true and completely inspired including Zelph, polygamy, the Priesthood ban, and the inspiration behind my Primary calling) or it's ALL a sham, a hoax, and a complete waste of time.

For me, the truth on both issues is more complicated than that.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

see, I don't say it is morally justifiable.

I say you might do it anyway even though it is morally unjustifiable.

You are basically arguing that the mental health of the mother supercedes the life of the embryo.

Of course, the problem with that argument is it can be used at anytime during pregnancy in a wide variety of circumstances.

As in, husband is an abusive jerk, abortion justifiable.

I don't think it boils down simply to the emotional health of the mother -- at all.

It is about the way the life was created, that the mother's agency was stripped. This is an independent fact detached from the mother's emotional health.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I would separate the "stages" of pregnancy for the purpose of discussion like this:

1. Post-fertilization but before implantation. In other words, prior to clinical pregnancy (i.e. negative pregnancy test). If there is no pregnancy, there is no "baby" in any sense and I don't think any intervention (morning after pill, etc.) at that point caries much moral weight. If you need a microscope to see it, it's not a baby.

2. After pregnancy is established but before viability outside the womb (pre-20 weeks or so). I am in complete agreement with the Church's policy at this point. Except in cases of rape/incest, health of the mother, or severe fetal defect I would never personally participate in or condone any type of abortion, whether with RU-486 or conventional. I think it's immoral. However, if I were king I would not outlaw elective abortion during the first trimester and perhaps even up to around 20 weeks. Forcing women to seek unsafe, illegal, or foreign abortions seems to me to violate the rights of women who have an honest moral disagreement with us on this issue.

3. After the fetus is viable outside of the mother (post-20 weeks or so). Abortion should be illegal at this stage, probably with no exception except perhaps life of the mother. If the baby is at a stage where it has a chance at survival outside the womb, killing it can't be justified.

The "all or nothing" attitude toward this issue (that from the moment of fertilization the zygote has all the rights of any child) reminds me of the "all or nothing" attitude toward the Church generally (it's either ALL true and completely inspired including Zelph, polygamy, the Priesthood ban, and the inspiration behind my Primary calling) or it's ALL a sham, a hoax, and a complete waste of time.

For me, the truth on both issues is more complicated than that.

I'm not making an all-or-nothing argument. I agree that a zygote is different than an embryo is different from a fetus, etc. in terms of moral weight.

I just think there have to be very compelling reasons to counterbalance the moral weight that the zygote/embryo has.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

I don't think it boils down simply to the emotional health of the mother -- at all.

It is about the way the life was created, that the mother's agency was stripped. This is an independent fact detached from the mother's emotional health.

I don't see how that means that the life that was created lose its rights.

You presumably wouldn't believe in infantcide for a child born of rape.

You probably also wouldn't believe that if a man/boy was raped, that the fetus had no rights, would you?

If you believe in abortion for rape, you plain believe in abortion.

You just won't admit it.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't see how that means that the life that was created lose its rights.

You presumably wouldn't believe in infantcide for a child born of rape.

You probably also wouldn't believe that if a man/boy was raped, that the fetus had no rights, would you?

If you believe in abortion for rape, you plain believe in abortion.

You just won't admit it.

The life that was created doesn't lose its rights. It's that decision to end the life that gains justification.

And no, I don't believe in infanticide for a child born of rape. A live child is different than a live zygote/embryo. The moral worth of each is different.

I'm not categorical about this, like it seems you are.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

The life that was created doesn't lose its rights. It's that decision to end the life that gains justification.

And no, I don't believe in infanticide for a child born of rape. A live child is different than a live zygote/embryo. The moral worth of each is different.

I'm not categorical about this, like it seems you are.

Not categorical = not principled.

I don't see why you oppose MAP after drunken escapade. If she hadn't been drunk, she wouldn't have chosen it. She never chose it in her right mind. It's just an embryo. You already believe it is ok to kill the embryo if it were a date-rape. Now all of a sudden you are high and mighty about the rights of the embryo in the case of your drunken niece?

Weird. I think you are just mad at your niece.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Not categorical = not principled.

I don't see why you oppose MAP after drunken escapade. If she hadn't been drunk, she wouldn't have chosen it. She never chose it in her right mind. It's just an embryo. You already believe it is ok to kill the embryo if it were a date-rape. Now all of a sudden you are high and mighty about the rights of the embryo in the case of your drunken niece?

Weird. I think you are just mad at your niece.

You're SU's brother through and through.

I think getting drunk and having sex is much different than getting raped.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

You're SU's brother through and through.

No seriously.

Drunken mishap = embryo sacrosanct

Rape = embryo meat

What do you think about abortion after rape? I presume you are fine with it?