Morning after pill

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

the pictures are proof of nonsense?

All I have you on record for is being uncomfortable with abortion at 12 weeks or older, and undecided at 11 weeks. Presumably still undecided at 10 weeks. With no real distinction or reasoning as to the differences. Quickening is not intrinsic to the fetus. It is an experience of the mother.

It's all a muddled unexplainable mess, for SU.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's all a muddled unexplainable mess, for SU.

No. For you. Post a picture of a zygote, doc. Let's compare and contrast. Also, give us a sense of phyical size, proportion, like you did in your excellent post re percent of "cured" gayes vis-a-vis the world population of gays.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No. For you. Post a picture of a zygote, doc. Let's compare and contrast. Also, give us a sense of phyical size, proportion, like you did in your excellent post re percent of "cured" gayes vis-a-vis the world population of gays.

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/f...ent1.php#week1

So we are to understand that the brain and heart are formed in the first 4 weeks.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/f...ent1.php#week1

So we are to understand that the brain and heart are formed in the first 4 weeks.

Maybe we can have an interesting discussion about abortion sometime. I'd be truly interested in your views, because I agree that it is a big moral issue of our times, and there is a time period post 4 weeks that is troubling and ambiguous. But this thread is the MAP thread. And we're done on that issue. You're done. I'll have to change gears mentally to discuss abortion, a different subject altogether. I do, however, think the problem needs to be addressed in terms of a continuum, and that there are no easy answers, later on than the morning after at least. I don't think there's anything ambiguous about the morning after. Do you disrespect an infertile couple receiving implanted zygotes because inevitably some will be washed down the sink?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

the morning after. Do you disrespect an infertile couple receiving implanted zygotes because inevitably some will be washed down the sink?

actually I do think it's problematic to kill and experiment with, raise for spare parts, etc. with zygotes.

[beelzebabette]

Back to the original question about the morning-after pill, I don't think I'd have any qualms about taking a "morning-after pill" if I found myself in this situation.

Basically, the thought process that led to this conclusion is that pregnancy and the attending adoption/abortion decisions differ from fertilized-egg discussion. A fertilized egg is not viable for life until implanted in the uterus (as I understand science). In the scenario presented, I'd feel repentant for the sex but not the subsequent pharmacological decision. If presented with terminating a viable pregnancy, I would approach the decision from the thought of what I was doing to a fetus. In short, I view a fetus differently from a fertilized egg.

Applying the same thought process, I also would not feel moral concerns about not attempting to implant all fertilized eggs if I found myself resorting to in-vitro fertilization in the future.

[Levin]

A big theme here is that zygotes are different from embryos are different from fetuses are different from quickened fetuses are different from viable fetuses are different from newborns. There is a moral difference between killing a zygote versus killing a newborn. You got me!

But moral equivalency between the newborn and the zygote has never been the issue. The issue is that the zygote still carries some moral weight, and significantly more moral weight in some circumstances than others.

In vitro fertilization? The intent and purpose is to create life, and sometimes the result is the loss of the life of an embryo. The loss is regrettable, but morally justifiable.

Zygote after rape? The loss of the zygote is regrettable, but morally justifiable.

Zygote after consensual sex, killed with the MAP? At a theoretical level, morally unjustifiable. Why? B/c there are no countervailing, generally applicable considerations that are sufficiently weighty to make it a morally justifiable decision.

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

Zygote after consensual sex, killed with the MAP? At a theoretical level, morally unjustifiable. Why? B/c there are no countervailing, generally applicable considerations that are sufficiently weighty to make it a morally justifiable decision.

So you say, religious whacko. America and the rest of the free world, outside of pockets of religious fundamentalism, disagree with what you say. You're a terrible, judgmental and really pretty hateful uncle. If I were your niece I'd write you off because you've shown you care nothing for her next to your self-satisfied religious fundamentalism, which is pure abstraction.

We're done with this issue. Let's just agree to disagree.

[beelzebabette]

Originally Posted by Levin

But moral equivalency between the newborn and the zygote has never been the issue. The issue is that the zygote still carries some moral weight, and significantly more moral weight in some circumstances than others.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Levin

In vitro fertilization? The intent and purpose is to create life, and sometimes the result is the loss of the life of an embryo. The loss is regrettable, but morally justifiable.

Zygote after rape? The loss of the zygote is regrettable, but morally justifiable.

Why? Because you say so?

Originally Posted by Levin

Zygote after consensual sex, killed with the MAP? At a theoretical level, morally unjustifiable. Why? B/c there are no countervailing, generally applicable considerations that are sufficiently weighty to make it a morally justifiable decision.

Killed? That's a mighty strong term.

It's a mass of cells capable of producing human life. I have unfertilized eggs with that same capability. Those eggs lack fertilization and implantation. Your zygote examples lack implantation.

It's nice that you've formulated your own opinions on the topic and are using them as your moral compass. Without a doctrinal statement that a zygote is a human entity at conception, I disagree that the burden to refute your argument lies at anyone's feet.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by beelzebabette

I disagree.



Why? Because you say so?



Killed? That's a mighty strong term.

It's a mass of cells capable of producing human life. I have unfertilized eggs with that same capability. Those eggs lack fertilization and implantation. Your zygote examples lack implantation.

It's nice that you've formulated your own opinions on the topic and are using them as your moral compass. Without a doctrinal statement that a zygote is a human entity at conception, I disagree that the burden to refute your argument lies at anyone's feet.

Exactly. All Levin does is recite (his own made up) religius nostrums. No reasoing, no engagement with facts or life.