backtop


Print 110 comment(s) - last by HomerTNachoChe.. on Jul 21 at 10:24 AM

Implantable device can deliver the hormone levonorgestrel for up to 16 years

The field of contraceptives may soon get a huge boost thanks to a startup company from Lexington, Massachusetts. MicroCHIPS has developed a new wireless implant that is designed to operate for up to 16 years within a woman’s body.
 
The device measures just 20mm x 20mm x 7mm and can be implanted in a variety of areas of the body including the abdomen and buttocks. Once implanted, a woman would be able to control her dosages of the hormone levonorgestrel — at a rate of 30 micrograms per day — via remote control. The device holds enough levonorgestrel — ensconced within a hermetic titanium and platinum seal — to last for 16 years.

An early version of the MicroCHIPS implantable device 
 
The hormone is dispensed daily by temporarily melting the seal, allowing only the correct daily dosage to pass through the membrane. “The idea of using a thin membrane like an electric fuse was the most challenging and the most creative problem we had to solve,” said MicroCHIPS president Robert Farra.
 
A woman would have full control over the device, allowing her to keep the daily dosage of hormones flowing to prevent pregnancy. However, once she is ready to conceive, she can simply turn off the device via the remote control.


MicroCHIPS' current implantable device
 
There are of course a number of issues that need to be worked out before the device can be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Notably, some of the most important aspects of the device that must be developed include its security and encryption protocols. We’re certain that women don’t want hackers to have control over their reproductive organs or have the ability to dispense more than the daily dosage of levonorgestrel at a time (which could lead to its own set of problems).
 
Earlier this year, MicroCHIPS received a $4.6M grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to further develop its implant. MicroCHIPS hopes to have its device on the market by 2018.

Sources: MIT Review, MicroCHIPS, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, news@JAMA



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 10:22:20 AM , Rating: 3
"The psycho religious fanatics that hijacked the republican party want to control womens fertility via Remote Control"




By atechfan on 7/7/2014 10:29:48 AM , Rating: 4
Just wait until it is hacked.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/7/2014 10:37:17 AM , Rating: 3
Or just wait until the boyfriend/husband gets control of the remote ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=260PsNtX7Nw


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By tayb on 7/7/14, Rating: 0
By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 10:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
I was 1/2 kidding... The main point being that it's insulting that these nutjobs think they have any right to make any statement, much less laws about other peoples sex lives.


By inperfectdarkness on 7/7/2014 11:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
I think there's people on BOTH sides of the aisle that have a narrow viewpoint about sexuality.

Frankly, until I can attend live sex shows in, say, Atlanta or something, we've got a LONG ways actually go. Heck, until DADT was repealed, no one ever thought to question the fact that sodomy was against the UCMG--even within THE CONSENSUAL BOUNDS OF MARRIAGE.

America does have a proud heritage. We are a country founded by puritans and it STILL shows...to this very day.


By Dorkyman on 7/7/2014 6:31:07 PM , Rating: 1
Fine, that's your point of view. I find it fascinating that you assume you're right and all those "religious nubjobs" are wrong. Most of the folks in the world definitely do not hold to your point of view. Are they wrong? What makes you think so?


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 10:56:10 AM , Rating: 2
"There's nothing wrong with birth control if it merely prevents fertilization. The issues arise when birth control actively prevents a fertilized egg from implantation or aborts an active pregnancy."

And there he is on queue, a member of the religios right inserting his own opinions into Vagina's everywhere. ;)


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 11:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
"Why is it bad for the "religious right" to insert their opinions about this issue; But it's perfectly fine for a mayor of New York to tell everyone "no, you can't have soft drinks. I'm banning them, they aren't good for you?"

It's not. In fact both are eerily similar. I am not sure where you get the impression that what NY did was OK. I see unanimous disapproval for the goofy ban.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 11:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
You know exactly what I mean. Why are you playing stupid?

The second a Christian says something, it's immediately associated with the real or imaged ideology of the "extreme" element of that religion. Whether or not that person even belongs, apparently doesn't matter. He's a Christian, so hey, he MUST be a wack job.

That's simply not the case with other ideologies like Progressive Leftism which seek to control and force everyone into their way of being. They're given the benefit of the doubt every-single-time.

I don't want someone in my girls vagina OR telling me what I can smoke, eat, drive or drink.



By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 11:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
"The second a Christian says something, it's immediately associated with the real or imaged ideology of the "extreme" element of that religion. Whether or not that person even belongs, apparently doesn't matter. He's a Christian, so hey, he MUST be a wack job. That's simply not the case with other ideologies like Progressive Leftism which seek to control and force everyone into their way of being. They're given the benefit of the doubt every-single-time."

First off, I was not condemning the whole christian religion, just the nutjob extremists that think its their business what other people do with their lives and reproductive health.

Secondly, this perplexes me coming from you. Taking a single stupid act and assigning it to a whole idealogy as if everyone of the millions of people in that ideology agree is EXACTLY what you do with politics and liberals in general.

"I don't want someone in my girls vagina OR telling me what I can smoke, eat, drive or drink."

Totally agreed. At the core, it's not a religious issue or a political one, its a freedom issue. No-one should be telling anyone what they can and cannot do with their bodies period.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 12:01:21 PM , Rating: 1
Except with what I was talking about, its not the same as eating, driving, or drinking.

You believe in allowing someone to choose to do something that will end the life of another. Simply because you think they have the right to. By and large they made the decision to do something that had a consequence. And you're advocating that they be free of that consequence through the ending of another life so their life won't be impacted in a way they view as negative.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 12:51:32 PM , Rating: 3
lol @ "reproductive health". I'm sorry, but we're talking about killing people. Let's just call it what it is. It's not a "reproductive health" issue.

You don't have to be religious to feel the unborn should be protected by the law. You know, the whole right to life and liberty thing?

What's with the censorship here? You don't have to agree with Fit, but to say he can't "insert" his opinion? No, I can't get on board with that.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 1:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
We are talking about freedom of choice. You, or Fit, or me for that matter don't get to decide what a woman does with her body. It's her choice, not ours, not the govt. not the church. That is all I am saying.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 1:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
What are you even talking about "feminist garbage"? It's pro choice, vs. pro life. If you haven't noticed, most of the country is pro choice. To continue a thought on another comment, I am not for late term or anything after a brain is formed, but still, there is an important distinction here...

Pro choice is allowing a woman to decide for herself what is best for her life and her potential child.

Pro life is dictating that an abortion cannot happen.

The former is allowing for either possibility, the latter disallows all.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 1:41:55 PM , Rating: 1
Pro-choice is an intellectually bankrupt position. You don't get to "choose" whether someone lives or dies.

I'm all for freedoms here. I'm even for freedoms that might potentially put others at risk.

But I cannot support this idea that you have a "freedom" to directly terminate the life of someone else.

You can couch it in this feminist "my body" crap all you want, but that's my opinion. And yes, I DO get to have an opinion about it, sorry.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 2:21:50 PM , Rating: 1
"Pro-choice is an intellectually bankrupt position. You don't get to "choose" whether someone lives or dies"

Well, if you beleive that life begins at conception, then you do get to "choose" whether someone lives or dies. Check Roe v Wade.

"that's my opinion. And yes, I DO get to have an opinion about it, sorry."

Yes, you do, and that is fine. But you do not get to say whether someone else can have an abortion or not. That is a choice, but not your choice.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 5:35:02 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know if "life" begins at conception. But I do know that during the time it's still legal to abort a "fetus", it can be reasonably stated that a fully functioning viable human being is being terminated.

quote:
But you do not get to say whether someone else can have an abortion or not.


Actually I do. That's kind of the whole point of Democracy.

There's a whole lot of things I can't do because someone somewhere made that choice for me. Claiming abortion is "hands off", or any different, is just not a statement I'm going to respect.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 5:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
You know what I meant... Not that you cant actually "say" it, but that you get no "say in it", meaning you can have your opinion and practice it for yourself and your family all you'd like, but you cannot stop someone else from having an abortion.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 6:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not interested in stopping people from having abortions. I personally feel it's wrong, but meh, whatareyougonnado.


By Dorkyman on 7/7/2014 6:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
Hypothetical: Suppose the Supremes had said back in 1973 that a woman had the right to terminate up to 3 months after birth. After all, being a mom is an incredible hassle and some women really shouldn't be one. I assume you'd be cool with that, too, based on your logic.

If not, why not? Where do you draw the line? With a heartbeat? With feeling pain? With a unique genetic code?


By Reclaimer77 on 7/8/2014 9:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're right. He mentioned how horrible "unwanted" children are for the world.

Let's just say you can test drive your kid for up to one year. If you don't like him by then, or he's "unwanted", you can just take him down to the clinic and put him down like a dog.

Why not? It's her choice, right!


By atechfan on 7/7/2014 9:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of anything else we have ever said to each other, my respect for you has grown immensely reading that reply.


By Vytautas on 7/7/2014 3:49:52 PM , Rating: 4
It really is funny when something touches your sensibilities. This really is a religious issue.

22 % of fertilized eggs aren't able to implant in the uterus even under natural conditions (no anticonceptives). Even more 75% percents of pregnacies don't come full term because of natural abortions early on the pregnacy (most women don't even find out they were pregnat). There goes your argument against anticonceptives.

Second, scientifically speaking you have to first define what is a human being. Is that single fertilized cell with a 75% chance of dying anyway a human being? May be the morula then? Or the blastocyst? Before or after implantation in the wall of the uterus (~10 days after fertilization)?
May be when the first neurons and neural tube are formed around the 4th week?
Or when it takes the actual form of a human being around the 9th week?
O rather when the neural network in the brain starts forming interconnections and actually process information, feel pain and so on? (this happens in the SECOND HALF of the pregnacy).
If you start talking about souls, spirits, poltergeists, etc. it's clear your argument is religious (based in superstition).

There is quite an objective article written by Carl Sagan some years ago. Here is a link: http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

Please Reclaimer, read it. It's really worth the effort because it sheds light on all the issues without actually giving out some judgement on the matter.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 4:31:09 PM , Rating: 1
How many times do I have to say I'm not religious nor do I believe in a "god" whatsoever???

I think it's morally wrong to kill unborn babies, so I MUST be religious? That's just uncalled for. Why is this so damn polarizing anyway?


By Vytautas on 7/7/2014 4:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
You are the one making it polarizing. Please, read the article I linked for you. May be it will clear up things a little bit.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 5:28:31 PM , Rating: 1
You cannot compare what happens naturally to what happens artificially.

I've been very clear about what I define to be a human being. A living human being is someone who is biologically human and meets the scientific definition of life. A skin cell yes has human DNA but doesn't create a human being on its own. A human embryo does.

definition of life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Skin cells do not individually respond to stimuli. A human embryo does respond and adapt. And it certainly meets the other three criteria. Reproduction is just not at the same potential of that as a fully developed human being. But that's also true of a newborn. So if you want to say it doesn't meet that requirement, then neither do newborns and therefore they aren't living human beings either.


By JasonMick (blog) on 7/7/2014 5:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Skin cells do not individually respond to stimuli.
Not to jump in this fray, but that statement is just plain ignorant and wrong.

Clearly you've never taken any college-level biochemistry or endocrinology coursework. For someone trying to make an argument you say is scientifically sound, you clearly have a tenuous grasp on the fundamental science involved with the human body.

Please Google "intercellular matrix", "intercellular signaling", and "paracrine signaling" and do some reading.

Cells absolutely respond to external chemical stimuli. They also effectively respond to light (via photochemistry). They also of course see metabolism and growth.

Among your "criteria of life" the only one skin cells do not fulfill is the ability to reproduce sexually. But your assertion they don't respond to stimuli individual is laughably wrong -- that might be considered true if we were living in the 1800s. Fortunately we know a little more about science today; some of us do, at least.

.......................................

Further I think you misunderstood the op. He was arguing that zygotes and early fetuses regularly abort due to accidents or circumstances. Almost no one would consider this illegal.

For example, if a mother at anywhere from a week or a month works out strenuously the fetus can detach (or if she just conceived, can fail to attach). In such cases should she be charged with second degree murder? Most people -- even those in the so-called "right to life" camp -- would argue she should not be charged.

What about if a parent straps a newborn child to their back and runs 20 miles and the baby dies from the jostling? Will they be charged with murder? Likely, yes -- negligent homicide, but still a murder charge.

Clearly there's a point between conception and birth where a baby could survive if born (in the extreme around 4 months with today's technology -- 5 months if you want to exclude unusual events). That would be a scientifically sound and ethically consistent place to draw the "murder" vs. "choice" line, in such a way as to be consistent with current law (e.g. miscarriage vs. negligent homicide of an infant).

At that point miscarriages should also be treated as murders, if they are artificially induced -- or at least that would make sense from a scientific perspective.

Who should be charged is easy to determine with investigation. e.g. Was the mother drinking and crashed her car? Mother gets charged with negligent homocide. Was mother obeying traffic laws and drug-free, but was hit by a careless motorist? Charge that motorist with negligent homicide for the miscarriage.

.......................................

See, science lies somewhere between the most extremist views on either side of the debate.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 6:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example, if a mother at anywhere from a week or a month works out strenuously the fetus can detach (or if she just conceived, can fail to attach). In such cases should she be charged with second degree murder?


http://memedepot.com/uploads/0/207_not_sure_if_ser...


By FITCamaro on 7/8/2014 8:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
Recently deceased organisms can still have parts of their bodies respond to stimuli as well, that doesn't make the organism alive. You know what I'm saying. You're choosing to go beyond the context I'm referring to. No one argues that skin alone is a living organism that can survive by itself or even if it could that it is a human being. It's never going to be more than skin.

And I've said it multiple times here. You cannot compare the natural ways that a pregnancy might end to artificial ones. Otherwise we can compare them past the pregnancy as well and say that explicitly murdering the child after its born should be legal since it might die on its own anyway. After all, in the history of the world, infant mortality rates used to be far higher.

For anyone who has kids, when you found out you/your wife was pregnant, did you consider that to be your child then and there? Or a clump of cells that, if it vanished, no big deal because it wasn't really a life anyway? You can find out you're pregnant at an earliest of around 1 week. At that point the child has only been implanted in the womb for about 4-5 days. By only week 5, the baby has a heartbeat. But it's not a life until 5 months? I certainly pity children who's parents viewed them as a choice not to be ended, not a blessing.

Yes a child in the early stages of development can't survive on its own either but that also applies to newborns so clearly that is not a determining factor of life. Trying to say that what determines whether a child is a life is based on whether it can survive is ultimately flawed. Someone who's severely mentally handicapped can't survive on their own and possibly has less brain activity than a newborn. But that doesn't mean I can artificially end their life if I so choose. There is a difference between artificially ending a life and it naturally occurring. Yes probably millions of children die each year in the womb from natural causes. But that doesn't mean we can say "well it happens naturally so it's ok for us to make it happen too". That thinking goes down all sorts of dark roads.


By Vytautas on 7/8/2014 12:24:25 AM , Rating: 2
What is biologically a human? Something that has a metabolism (lives) and human dna? Then a kidney is a human? So you should be against organ transplants, because they are a kind of slavery! Right... the bible condones slavery. I should remember who I am speaking to.

Something that is alive and may reproduce itself? Then if a person is sterile for one reason or another, he/she no longer is human and may be killed without prejudice? Vow.

In my opinion the only thing that actually makes us human and distinct from animals ir our ability to think (relatively speaking, because animals think too). The fetus starts displaying ability to feel pain and process information and brain waves appear from the 6-7th month of pregnacy. A blastocyst certainly doesn't think or have any ability to feel. Yes it may react to SOME stimuli, but no more and no less than a skin cell would.

You can't speak of the sanctity of life, because to survive you murder and kill life all the time. If you only value human life, then again we have to define what actually is a human. If a human is something that has a metabolism, human dna and can reproduce, then skin cells (or any other cells in our body) are humans too, and you shed (kill) millions of them each day.

FIT, read the link I gave reclaimer. It exposes and analyzes all the arguments for both sides objectively. It's too long to post it here.


By bigboxes on 7/8/2014 11:03:22 PM , Rating: 3
A few cells is not a life. Until it is viable outside of the womb then it's only a fetus, not a baby. Women naturally abort fetuses all the time and they are not murderers. If men could get pregnant abortion would be readily available, cheap and as common as McDonald's. You cry for freedom, but deny it for others. If you are against abortion don't have one.


By EricMartello on 7/12/2014 1:55:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well, if you beleive that life begins at conception, then you do get to "choose" whether someone lives or dies. Check Roe v Wade.


Roe v Wade was a decision based on a very loose and twisted interpretation of the 4th amendment. In fact, it's arguable that the 4th amendment - a law that is intended to protect people from a "police state" type of situation - has no relevance as to whether a woman should be allowed to end a pregnancy at all. The fact that it has survived challenges only shows that the supreme court partakes in its fair share of activism and does not want to make decisions it deems politically charged (obamacare allowed to exist as a tax simply because it has a penalty? LOLRIGHT).

quote:
First off, I was not condemning the whole christian religion, just the nutjob extremists that think its their business what other people do with their lives and reproductive health.


Being pro-life is hardly a "nutjob extremist" position...but believing in pseudo science like man-made climate change does make you a nutjob extremist.

We're having extremist liberal ideology made policy in America under entirely bogus pretenses...the funny thing is that the more extreme some d1pshit like you becomes, the more unreasonable common sense seems.

quote:
We are talking about freedom of choice. You, or Fit, or me for that matter don't get to decide what a woman does with her body. It's her choice, not ours, not the govt. not the church. That is all I am saying.


I am not opposed to abortion - as most women considering abortion are likely to give birth to yet another liberal and so whatever we can do to thin the herd is fine by me. The problem is that you're actually trying to use liberal propaganda as your basis for an argument.

My position on abortion is that once the fetus is fully developed it should be considered human, and therefore off limits to abortion. That gives the woman several months to make a decision. Unfortunately there is no law that defines at which point a fetus qualifies as an individual.

The liberal extremists would have you falsely believe that until it breaches the vagina, it's just a "fetus" and abortion is fair game...but if the little bastard manages to pop out, suddenly it's a human...that's utter crap.

I would definitely not support late term abortions, which often involve a viable fetus that has all of its organs and is a couple weeks away from birth...that would definitely not be a "womans health" issue as there are two seperate lives at play.


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By tayb on 7/7/2014 11:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
It isn't bad for anyone to insert their opinion about any issue. It becomes a problem when that opinion is turned into law.

The fundamental difference between a "liberal opinion" being turned into law and a "religious opinion" being turned into law is that we have constitutional protections against religious laws. First amendment to the US Constitution.

You have a constitutional right to practice your faith but I have a constitutional right to practice another faith or no faith at all. Passing a law based on the teachings of a single religion which restricts the freedoms of other citizens inherently violates that religious freedom.

There is no constitutional protection for consuming large sodas. Whether you think the law is stupid or not is irrelevant, soda drinking isn't protected.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 11:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
"There is no constitutional protection for consuming large sodas. Whether you think the law is stupid or not is irrelevant, soda drinking isn't protected"

You are sort of following the letter of the constitution, but not the intent. Freedom is protected period. You could technically put it under "pursuit of happiness". The constitution doesn't specifically say alot of things to day that didnt exist in the 1700's. It outlines freedoms, and banning a particular sized drink is a ridiculous law period.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 12:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
Except you don't have the right to end another human life because it's inconvenient for you. Which is the issue I'm bringing up and fighting against. You can try to argue with me that it is indeed a human life. But I've already stated all the evidence required to show that even a 1 second old human zygote is indeed a living human life. Arguments for abortion and birth control that results in an abortion use largely opinion.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 12:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
"Except you don't have the right to end another human life because it's inconvenient for you. Which is the issue I'm bringing up and fighting against."

I dont have that right. I wouldnt presume to take it or insert my opinion on it. It's a womans reproductive health issue that should be decided by each woman personally, NOT me NOT you and NOT the govt. or the church. Get it?


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 12:12:26 PM , Rating: 1
Except their health is not at issue here. There is nothing wrong with them. What about that do you not get? That argument is just a copout made up to justify things. That if you're against women killing their children, you're against them living healthy lives.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 12:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
That is your religious opinion and you are entitled to not have an abortion and teach your children your same beliefs. You are not entitled to insert your opinion and judgments on to others.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 12:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's what happens every day. Opinion is always inserted. It's inserted every single day into the minds of the young in schools. By the government in the laws with what is made legal and illegal. Are you really so blind you don't realize that?

To you what is right and wrong seems to coincide with what government tells you is right and wrong based on whether it is legal or illegal.


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By sgw2n5 on 7/7/2014 12:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
A zygote is a human cell, not a human. It is 1-cell stage embryo, and if you were to analyze all of the DNA, you would indeed find a complete nuclear and mitochondrial genome. The problem is, you could also find that if you analyzed one of my skin cells.

A 1-cell stage embryo is not a human. Sorry. Your view is extreme.

Should a woman be charged with manslaughter if the blastocyst fails to implant?


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 12:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Except it is a human cell reproducing to form an entire human being. And by the time it implants in the uterus, at attempts to at least, its more than just a single cell. It already has unique cells necessary for human development.

No you can't just take a skin cell and get another person from it. But you can take the DNA out of that skin cell and create a clone of you that, while genetically identical, is not you. That's just how all life was created. That every single cell has the information to create more life if there are the means.

Let me ask you this, according to your argument, at a point in your life, you were not human. Do you want to admit that? I certainly don't believe it. To me you were a human life since moment zero. Same as me and every other person on the planet, born or unborn.


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By sgw2n5 on 7/7/2014 1:06:37 PM , Rating: 3
Your being purposefully obtuse here...

Of course I have always been human. That is my species after all.

My skin cell, too, is human. An embryo, too, is human.

I wouldn't call my skin cell or a blastocyst "a human being".


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 1:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
No I'm being detailed. You either have always been a living human being since conception or you haven't been. Your skin is that of a human. It alone is not a person. It alone cannot grow into an individual. That is where the human zygote differs. It can. It meets the scientific criteria for life while your skin does not.


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By sgw2n5 on 7/7/2014 2:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Human" denotes species. A "human being" implies "person".

A blastocyst is human. Obviously.

A blastocyst is not a person.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 3:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
And what defines a person? I don't buy this argument of "personhood". It's a concept that was created solely for this argument to help the pro-abortion crowd feel better. The same arguments people try to use to deny the unborn "personhood" status applies to newborns and some severely mentally handicapped people. Which is why "ethicists" are now calling for murder, sorry abortion, to be allowed up to 1 year old in some cases. All humans beings are people.

I don't know if you have kids, but I pitty the child who grows up with parents who believe that at some point they could have ended their child's life if they felt like it. A life that didn't start when they were born. Or hit a certain gestation period. But began at fertilization which marked the beginning of a new life. One that yes nature or God could have ended on its own. But people shouldn't be involved in the decision over whether or not that new life survives. It should be given the chance to mature.

At the point when a woman can pee on a stick and find she's pregnant, there's no real difference between that new life and the one at fertilization. So you can't say that at a point before that it's ok to end it. It either is always ok to end it, or not at all.

All this has been said before and will be said again.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 12:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
There is a difference in these three things...

Yes, No, and "let the indovidual choose"

The laws allowing for freedom of choice to not suppose an opinion on eother direction, they merely let the person decide fore themselves what is best with their lives and their bodies.

As someone that I have seen here defending the constitution, you should at least get that point.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 1:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's kind of hard to use the Constitution to justify killing of others. Especially those who cannot defend themselves.

And since you brought the Constitution into it, I'm pretty sure I know which side of this debate our Founders would be on.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 1:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
"And since you brought the Constitution into it, I'm pretty sure I know which side of this debate our Founders would be on."

Really? You think so?

Bringing and unwanted child into the world can have far worse consequences than you seem to think. Don't be so quick to guess what 250 year old people would have done if a thought like this were even possible in their time. They did have the foresight to know that they couldn't possibly know what was to come and they allowed amendments to be made. That process allowed for freedom of choice, and again, it's not up to us, it's up to each to decide for themselves.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 1:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bringing and unwanted child into the world can have far worse consequences than you seem to think.


Sadly not everyone is going to have a great life. That's just how life is. Even "wanted" children can grow up with crappy parents and crappy homes. Murder isn't the answer.

However the Founders very clearly wanted everyone to have the RIGHT to life and liberty. The chance to be happy, not the guarantee of happiness, but the promise of it.

By supporting abortion, you directly support that chance being taken away. Hide behind your (made up) 'right to choose' all you want, but that's how it is.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 1:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yes they did allow amendments to be made. But there is no amendment to allow one person to legally kill another. A judge decided that.

If it's for each of us to decide for ourselves, we can start killing others and say that its moral according to us so it must therefore be legal. We're just a court case away from being justified in it according to your argument.

And the founders absolutely would have ruled against abortion as even the actual deists among them had a far more biblical worldview than even most Christians today.

They didn't state that rights came from men. They acknowledged that rights came from God.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 2:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
That is the problem with alot of Christians. Not all, but alot like for example, you yourself... You think what you think, and that is fine, but you think that everyone should think what you think and that is wrong. Like I said, I personally thank God for our separation of church and state.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 5:31:41 PM , Rating: 1
No I don't think everyone should think what I think. What I DO think everyone should do is abide by the law. And our Constitution is law. Not just some guidelines that we can choose to ignore when its inconvenient to follow it. And it specifically grants, as Reclaimer has pointed out, that EVERYONE has the right to life and liberty. Not just those deemed convenient by their parents.

I thank God for our Constitution. Which doesn't actually include a separation of church and state beyond limiting the FEDERAL government from instituting an official religion.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 8:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
"No I don't think everyone should think what I think. What I DO think everyone should do is abide by the law"

Then what is your issue? The law allows for abortion.

"I thank God for our Constitution. Which doesn't actually include a separation of church and state beyond limiting the FEDERAL government from instituting an official religion."

As do I. Separation of church and state is more of a founding concept/philosophy than an official dictate. Whatever. It's integral, its important and it works and I an glad for it.


By atechfan on 7/7/2014 9:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but I sure as hell wouldn't trust you to defend me with that attitude. You MIGHT have a bad life so I'll save you by killing you? A black person MIGHT have a bad life if his neighbour is a Clansman, so I'll save him by killing him. Same mentality.

If you think this is about the woman's body, you failed basic biology. The fetus is not part of the woman's body. The child merely lives there for a short time. You keep harping on freedom of choice, but where, in your equation, does the child get to choose whether it wants to live?


By retrospooty on 7/8/2014 12:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
"Sorry, but I sure as hell wouldn't trust you to defend me with that attitude. You MIGHT have a bad life so I'll save you by killing you? A black person MIGHT have a bad life if his neighbour is a Clansman, so I'll save him by killing him"

You are putting alot into it that wasn't there.

"If you think this is about the woman's body, you failed basic biology. The fetus is not part of the woman's body. The child merely lives there for a short time. "

Uhh... Yeah, I get that, I am not retarded. My point is that it the choice of the woman involved if she didnt want to be a mother and didn't want to carry a child to full term. Not saying it should be used as birth control, or late term abortions are ok, I am just saying if a mistake was made and a woman fins out she is pregnant, it is her chocie to make whether she keeps it. That is the law, and I fully agree with it.


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By bah12 on 7/7/2014 12:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
Therein lies the conundrum. The argument is really over when life begins. I don't think even the most extreme on either side condones killing say a 3 year old (even in say an extreme case where the mother confesses the dad was a rapist a hole).

Problem is and will always be the definition of life. Ironically it is the hypocritical Christian right that is off base here as the Bible defines life based on "breath". There are a few passages of the babe in the womb being joyful, but far far more direct quotes related to "breath", and absolutely NO direct references to time of conception (the argument for time of conception has always been because of our interpretation never directly said).

To me the most glaring is Gen 2:7, the very book that defines how and what things are, clearly says the soul is created at time of "breath".

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 2:7


Interesting read here. I found it funny that even the Bible has a method for how to perform an abortion, even rules against not using the proper method.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/19/1285933/-...


By bah12 on 7/7/2014 12:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Here is another analysis, probably a little less one-sided. But it is hard not to be since the idea of life at conception is really contrived biblically speaking.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/artic...


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 12:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
This has to be the single worst interpretation of the Constitution I've ever seen.

You should hang yourself from the nearest sturdy object, ASAP. You've failed as an American and a human being.

And to claim all abortion laws are "religious laws" is stunningly stupid. Just...wtf?

quote:
There is no constitutional protection for consuming large sodas.


Did you just seriously say that? Wow!! You fail at the very basic concept of the Constitution.


By M'n'M on 7/7/2014 6:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You fail at the very basic concept of the Constitution.

Indeed, James Madison would be rolling over in his grave had he heard this repeated still to this day. One of the many reasons he feared a BoR was the argument that only those rights listed would matter ... be considered true rights. What did he say in addressing the 1'st Congress on this particular point ?

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.


By EricMartello on 7/12/2014 2:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It isn't bad for anyone to insert their opinion about any issue. It becomes a problem when that opinion is turned into law.


You have a problem with opinion into law? We have an entire government agency, the EPA, that is liberal opinion given legal authority.

quote:
The fundamental difference between a "liberal opinion" being turned into law and a "religious opinion" being turned into law is that we have constitutional protections against religious laws. First amendment to the US Constitution.


We really need to stop giving liberalism credibility as a fringe political ideology when it is in fact an extremist religion.

Christians believe in a god.
Liberals believe that the government is a type of god.
Both sides espouse plenty of rhetoric along the lines of them believing they have to "save" people from themselves.

From there you can extrapolate both "belief systems", where christians base their views on religious doctrine and liberals go by pseudo-scientific doctrine.

Should we give weight to the opinions of either group when considering public policy? Sure, that's what a free society does.

Should we chastise any group that steps over the line and call them on pure BS? Yes, but the problem is that while christians do get called on their BS quite regularly liberals are getting a free pass and this is causing problems.

quote:
You have a constitutional right to practice your faith but I have a constitutional right to practice another faith or no faith at all. Passing a law based on the teachings of a single religion which restricts the freedoms of other citizens inherently violates that religious freedom.


Wait, so labeling CO2 - one of the most common gasses on this planet - a "pollutant" in the name of 'saving the planet' is OK with you, even though the real reason they did this is entirely about extending government power.

It doesn't matter if a law and religious teachings overlap in certain instances - I think we can all agree that murder should be illegal, and the fact that one of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not kill" does not make the outlawing of murder a religious liberty violation.

Ideally, our laws and government policies would be based purely on pragmatism and subject to verification - i.e. any new law must justify its existence with real evidence and not just a claim that it must be on the books "just in case".

Most gun laws, for example, would not pass the verification because any action that results from the improper use of a gun (robbery, murder, assault) are already crimes, and anti-gun laws violate the 2nd Amendment while providing no public benefit.

All Americans have a RIGHT to bear arms, so why do many states require a concealed carry license? A license to exercise a right? That is blatantly unconstitutional - do you have a problem with it? Probably not since these anti-gun laws were passed by liberal elites who wanted to make idiots feel safer, while at the same time reducing the peoples' power.

Liberalism = Pure Ideology / No Verifiable Basis = Religion


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By Manch on 7/7/2014 11:28:49 AM , Rating: 1
Nothing was mentioned in the article yet your first comment you attack people. Nowhere in his statement did he call for a ban or anything like that. He is merely voicing his opinion and countering the FUD you just spewed out.

I dont believe in abortion. I think its wrong. I do think there are exceptions. That being said, what you do with your vagina is your business.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 11:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
"what you do with your vagina is your business"

You're damn right it is. ;)


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 12:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Except we're not talking about their vagina anyway. We're talking about their uterus.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 12:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
Exctly... as men, the V is as far as we go ;)

hehehehe


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 11:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
So you're allowed to express your opinion and insert it into vagina's but I'm not?

Sounds fair.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 12:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
"So you're allowed to express your opinion and insert it into vagina's but I'm not?"

I am not. How can you be so obtuse?

I am saying its no-ones business about other peoples reproductive health, not mine either, its up to them, not me, not you. You are inserting your opinion, I am saying let each the vagina decide for herself... So to speak.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 12:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
Except this is largely not a health issue. There is nothing wrong with women. If anything we're creating problems as there are issues that result from women taking birth control. It's a crap shoot for women until they find one with relatively few, minor issues.

This is an issue on morality. Either way you go, you're implementing one set or another. I choose mine because I believe in the sanctity of all human life. ALL. Not just ones that are convenient for women.

Women shouldn't be allowed to murder their children any more than anyone else should be allowed to. According to you, if a woman wants to stab a knife into her pregnant belly, killing her unborn child, she should be allowed to since it's just her deciding for herself. Morally there is absolutely no difference between that and artificially preventing her child from growing inside her much earlier on.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 12:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
"This is an issue on morality. Either way you go, you're implementing one set or another. I choose mine because I believe in the sanctity of all human life. ALL. Not just ones that are convenient for women"

You are right, it is morality. And yours doesn't fit for everyone. You are free to practice your beliefs and not have an abortion. Lets leave it at that.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 12:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm never just going to "leave it at that". I view abortion as far worse than the Holocaust. Far more have died legally at the hands of a board certified doctor than did in the concentration camps. Over 80 million souls just in the US alone since Roe vs Wade. That's not to take anything away from the evil that was the Holocaust. Just this evil is that plus more. I think some of those babies would prefer the bullet or gas chamber those in concentration camps got to being burned alive by acid or ripped apart limb from limb, which is what happens in an abortion.

This is an issue of life vs legal murder. If you viewed it as such, would you just "leave it at that" because people disagreed? Would you just "leave it at that" if we were talking about tearing apart newborns in hospitals? I certainly hope not. You may disagree with me. But you're crazy if you think I am just going to "leave it at that".


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 12:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well, lets be real... You and I aren't going to solve this issue on a comment section. It's not a sovable issue. Different people think differently on it. I dont personally believe in late term abortions and I dont think it should be used as a contraception. Way too many abuses of it going on, but that is my opinion. I just think it's not my (or your) business to dictate that to others. I can respect your opinion on it though as an opinion. It's the wanting to force it on to others that is an issue to me.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 12:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
My disagreement with abortion goes beyond this site. It goes into who I vote for.

And as I keep pointing out, someone else's opinion is currently being forced on people. The opinion that it's legal is forcing it on the children who are murdered as a result of that opinion.


By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
That is very extremist.

I personally thank god for our laws on separation of church and state.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 1:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
Which is not actually a law. It is a decision from a court. It doesn't exist in the law.

Those are some of the most twisted words from all of American history. Jefferson was speaking to a single individual afraid of the national legislature imposing a national religion. Furthermore, Jefferson didn't author the Constitution. Nor was he even present when it was being authored. To say his words there can be used to judge the meaning of the Constitution means that King George's words could be as well.


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By sgw2n5 on 7/7/2014 12:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
You really are an extremist.

If you really believe that physicians that perform abortions are worse than Hitler, you truly are unhinged. Maybe you should seek help?

Why is it that you think a 1-cell stage embryo = human.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 1:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is it that you think a 1-cell stage embryo = human.


You realize fully formed humans are also legally aborted, right? With heartbeats, brainwaves, the ability to see and feel pain and have dreams.

And then there's late-term abortions where, let's be clear, you are murdering a perfectly viable human.

I know you pro-abortion peeps only want to see one side of this, but you better be clear about the full depth of what you are supporting.


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By sgw2n5 on 7/7/2014 1:14:32 PM , Rating: 5
I do not and have never supported late term abortion. I do believe that to be very wrong. I think when an embryo generally enters the fetus stage and there are signs of brain activity (though those aren't really thoughts, most of it is a consequence of embryonic neuronal development and pathfinding), that abortion is wrong.

Abortion isn't all black and white. All of these "ZOMG ABORTION IS CHILD MURDER" people equate taking the morning after pill (preventing blastocyst implantation) to shooting a 3 year old kid in the face. It's not the same.

There is a lot of grey with this issue.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2014 1:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
Okay cool.

And let me also solidify my position. I don't care about morning after pills or devices like these. I don't consider that abortion, or a woman who's been pregnant for 2 days a murderer.

Yup there's a LOT of grey area. I'm just saying, we don't really know when someone becomes a "person" yet. So how can we really say with such conviction abortion isn't wrong?

I think it's an important debate to have, and both sides have a right to an opinion.


By rlandess on 7/7/2014 10:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think you hit on the core of what most pro-choice supporters are trying to express. That there is a grey area that should be acknowledged; that there is a a point where very few people would oppose the right to stop a pregnancy. Although a select few would argue that the excusable only time to stop a pregnancy is before ejaculation. (See the Monty Python - The Meaning of Life - Part I - The Miracle of Birth Part II - The Third World.)

It does come down to at which point it becomes murder. Few people think an embryo constitutes a life that be considered protected by law and very few people think that aborting a fetus is anything but murder after it can give the doctor the middle finger in broad daylight.

No normal healthy human being has ever wanted to have an abortion. No matter how excited you get about being pro-life you can't seriously say people are doing it for fun. People do it because of health reasons, lack of ability to care for a child, the circumstances of the conception, or the potential outcome for the child. It's for that person a solemn but overall beneficial trade-off.

For the average American who doesn't dogmatically align themselves with any extreme outlying viewpoints, there is a spectrum with generally acceptable at one end, somewhat acceptable in the middle, and generally unacceptable at the other end. But I don't think most people believe full person hood is bestowed until full term.

While I personally wouldn't make the choice to have an abortion, I've also never had to make that decision. It's clearly an issue that can't objectively be settled without referencing religion, pseudoscience, magic or other BS. So why not leave it to each individual to settle with their own conscience. Keep government out of the all of the decisions where it doesn't belong.


By ie5x on 7/8/2014 7:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
As you said, there is indeed lot of grey... In this specific case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halap... mankind failed again despite all our healthcare advances.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 3:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure even Hitler never ripped apart a child with his bare hands as abortion doctors do.

Hitler was pure evil. But that doesn't make those who would profit from ripping apart children any less evil.

I've more than adequately explained why I believe an embryo is a human being. And science's definition of life agrees with me. So it's not just religion.


By Dorkyman on 7/7/2014 6:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
By the way one side effect of all those aborted humans ever since the 1973 Roe v Wade decision is that they (or more accurately, the lack of them) are having a dramatic effect on Social Security in the USA. Basically, there aren't enough younger wage earners to support all the older people over the next few decades. The system will be deep in red ink. How fitting for a once-great country.


By Digimonkey on 7/7/2014 8:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I looked there don't seem to be enough jobs to support the younger wage earners that we do have. Having more people would've likely made a worse scenario.


By Vytautas on 7/8/2014 7:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Science agrees with you? Talk about selective interpretation of facts. The actual definition of a human being depends on the context it may be applied. And there is A LOT of controversy regarding the point at which an embryo or fetus becomes or may be considered said human being.

Your objections are on pure religious and ethnic customs grounds. Other people may and do think differently. Actually there is a very varied points of view regarding this subject and the conclusion about which is the right one depends on the presumptions used to reach such conclusion.

- Science says: 75% of fertilized eggs either aren't able to implant themselves in the uterus wall, or die after a misscarriage (more frequently than not women don't even notice they were pregnat).
- Science says that an ebryo aquires a human appearance around the 9th week (after two months of pregnacy), but it still doesn't think or feel anything because the brain still isn't mature enough (lack of neural interconnections).
- Science also says that fetuses may start some very basic cognitive processes (thinking and feeling) from the 6th month on (and this is a very conservative estimate). Before that the brains don't even generate brainwaves!

As new information and knowledge is acquired about the subject of fetal development we will have more data to analyze this dilema. But to say that science "agrees" with you is stupid.

The point at which a fetus may be considered a full human being is still very much a matter of discussion and controversy. Otherwise you could argue that unfertilized eggs and spermatozoids are also human beings and should be regarded accordingly.


By rlandess on 7/8/2014 12:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
The hole in the argument is that you apply use the scientific definition of life to give credence to argument that an embryo should be protected by law in the same way a child should be. The scientific definition of life puts you or I into the same category as a blade of grass, but do you protest lawn mowing?

Comparing doctors to Hitler is a little hyperbolic for a person who is trying to invoke science in their argument.

The scientific definition of life should only be used if your willing to entertain that all forms of life should be protected to the same extent as an adult human. If not then you have to agree that there is a gradient of value to life based on its complexity; that the value of a life is related to its development, not intrinsic to it's ability to self-replicate or provide homeostasis.

I'm unwilling to accept the arbitrary opinion of a few people who have the arrogance to think they should make a decision for the whole because they have an aversion to what others do with their body. For sure the consequences should be weighed seriously against the benefits whatever they may be, but the decision should only be made by the person whose body it effects and the doctor they choose. No legislation can adequately be tailored to fit the many situations people find themselves in.

If you want to take all your fervor and find better alternatives for people then put your effort there. Stop your BS rhetoric about Hitler-doctor-baby-killers and donate to institutions that facilitate adoption or support for unprepared parents. More importantly stop voting these single issue legislators into office that divide our country and keep us from confronting real issues. The reduction in any freedom should be considered a reduction in every freedom. If you value your beliefs, your gun, your truck, your beer - then you shouldn't try to repress others rights to do what they want. Otherwise we slide down the slippery slope to complete oppression.

Maybe if Conservatives give up on abortion for a while then Liberals will give up on gun control for a while. Seems like a fair trade. Then we could deal with important things like corruption in government, rebuilding the economy, advancing the sciences, and reestablishing a unifying concept of an American identity - something that is important to stay off the further degradation to our social structure.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/8/2014 12:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the Hitler thing was way way out of left field.

But I don't see how you think using a blade of grass is less hyperbole.

Grass is alive, yes. But it's not human. It's not even intelligent.


By Vytautas on 7/8/2014 1:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
A blastocyst also isn't any more intelligent than a blade of grass, reclaimer. And an adult dog may be as intelligent as a 5-7 year old kid. A dolphin may actually be more intelligent than a human being (just unable to make tools, because of its phenotype). This is just for reference. Obviously we don't give the same importance to dogs or dolphins as we do to human children, but saying that a fetus with no brainwaves is intelligent is quite a stretch of the imagination.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/8/2014 4:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Okay sure let's just completely drag this into minutia then and bring animals and plant life into it. That's totally going to help rational debate.


By rlandess on 7/8/2014 4:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's a distinction that's important because it is the core of the debate. What is the element that distinguishes a fetus from a tadpole, a child from a dog, or an adult from an elephant?

The argument isn't about life, it's about personhood. It's the ability to be bestowed the full rights of a human being and at what point are those rights made enforceable. Is it during intercourse, fertilizaion, implantation, first tri, second tri, full term, first breath, or once able to pass a high school exit exam?

it's a complex issue that unfortunately exposes a large division in our society. The discourse really can't be reduced to tag lines and fall in the realm of rational debate.


By Vytautas on 7/8/2014 4:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
You are the one arguing that an amalgamation of undiferentiated cells is already an intelligent being. Unless intelligence means completely different things to both of us, then a blade of grass is equally intelligent and according to your own definition and moral stand should be given the same rights to life, etc.

Look, almost nothing is completely black or white. You are the one trying to paint it that way. If you actually read the article I gave you it would become clearer for you. Obviously it's not right to kill an intelligent and thought capable being (even a dog, chimpanzee, elephant, dolphin, or human). But there is a point in the development of intelligent beings when they don't actually have any intelligence or capacity of thought. When they are not much more than the aforementioned blade of grass. Even then it's not completely right to kill it, but we do it regulary without much thought. A human life is a quite more sensible subject because it concerns our own species, but it also boils down to the same parameter. Is it already intelligent, capable of feeling or thought, or not?

I do have a kid of my own, so I completely agree that such a life should be respected in most cases and it shouldn't be allowed to be destroyed at least from the point when it achieves some semblance of sentience, or some thought process (indicated by brainwaves, or some other parameter we may discover in the future and agree upon), unless the circunstances are quite extreme (serious and uncurable fetal brain malformation, high risk of death for the mother, etc.). Even before this point it should be respected and treated seriously, but this decision never comes easy to anyone, specially the possible mother of the child. There isn't and can't be an ideal solution for this and every case is different. Why should someone that is a complete stranger to a particular situation get to decide what should be done in it, unless it involves an actual currently sentient being? (again an amalgamation of cells, or blastocyst, or the fetus in the early stages of development certainly isn't sentient).

It's not like I approve of abortions completely, but there are circunstances where allowing the pregnacy to continue would destroy both the life of the woman and the possible kid. So up to a certain point people have actually agreed upon (in the USA I think is 6 or 7 months of pregnacy) abortions should be and are legal. In my opinion it would be better to set this limit at something around 2-4 months, just to be on the safe side.

So again the polarization of this issue is mostly from the prolife side of the discussion, because they deal in absolutes and blind themselves from any reason at the same time. Kind of difficult to discuss something with such people.

If you start imposing your own rules on how others live their lives, dont' get pissed off when those others impose their own rules over you (like a complete smoking, alcohol and such ban, may be ban every and all wireless devices and technology (there is a small group of people that would love to impose such laws on everyone)) and so on.

Generally society should have the least ammount of rules possible, because every individual has its own ideas what those rules should be, so if you want freedom for yourself, you should respect the freedom of others even if you don't like it.


By atechfan on 7/7/2014 12:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
It usually isn't my opinion that I am looking to insert into vaginas.


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By tayb on 7/7/2014 11:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's nothing wrong with birth control if it merely prevents fertilization. The issues arise when birth control actively prevents a fertilized egg from implantation or aborts an active pregnancy.


Oh, you mean like what the human body naturally does to 18% of all fertilized eggs?

If you believe that a fertilized egg is a life then ovulating women are mass murderers. That likely includes your wife! Have you considered phoning the authorities?

Of course, this is preposterous. A fertilized egg is not a life and a flushed egg isn't murder.

But hey, believe what you like. As long as your insane beliefs aren't being imposed on others.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 12:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
What happens naturally is one thing. What happens as a result of artificial means is another. The vast majority of death in the world is natural. That doesn't make dumping acid on you legal.


RE: And of course, the next headdline on this...
By danjw1 on 7/7/2014 2:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, according to the Catholic Church anything that prevents conception, is a sin. I think they have moderated a bit on the use of condoms, since that also helps to prevent the spread of STDs.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 3:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Luckily I'm not Catholic. And few Catholics even follow that. Most Catholics are "Catholics" today. They go to church, they'll wear a cross, they'll say they're a Catholic, but ask them what any of it means, and few will know.


By Dorkyman on 7/7/2014 6:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Bull. Get your facts straight.


By KCjoker on 7/7/2014 6:36:56 PM , Rating: 1
Nope, they just want you to pay for it yourself! It's not a right and if you can't afford 15 or 20 bucks(a month) for birth control you shouldn't be having sex anyway. It's not 100% effective and you could have a child which the couple clearly couldn't afford. You want people out of your bedroom? well that includes my wallet.


By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 10:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah...no.


I've been saying for years
By GreenEnvt on 7/7/2014 10:48:40 AM , Rating: 3
For years I've been trying to get my Dr/Engineer friends to make one for men, that is like a little bypass valve with a remote control (or maybe you go into a dr's office to have it switched.
It operates in either "baby" or "fun" modes. Essentially a temporary vasectomy.

Shouldn't be anymore invasive then a normal vasectomy surgery.




RE: I've been saying for years
By retrospooty on 7/7/2014 10:53:40 AM , Rating: 2
Ouch... You don't think a bypass valve would be invasive? OK, you be the first guinea pig ;)


RE: I've been saying for years
By GreenEnvt on 7/7/2014 12:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
Already had the permanent one done, and I was shovelling sand into my trailer later that day. Never even took any of the painkillers they gave me.

However I did listen to the "don't engage in sexual activities for a week" directive I was given. Years back someone else at work felt fine the same day and disregarded that particular warning. He was in hostpital a week later with an infection that caused certain parts to swell to the size of baseballs.


RE: I've been saying for years
By HomerTNachoCheese on 7/7/2014 12:41:23 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, and having a bypass could have unintended side effects: http://tinyurl.com/nnx8vys


By HomerTNachoCheese on 7/21/2014 10:24:01 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that was an image of milk squirting from one's eye, before the link broke.


Hey
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2014 10:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
What could go wrong right?




Practical applications?
By Samus on 7/8/2014 12:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
The first thing that comes to mind...with technology like this, is why start with (and limit it to) birth control. It has so many other applications. Diabetes and other automated drug administration comes to mine.

And since its implanted near the surface of the skin and not deep in a cavity (except for that buttocks part...umm) it could be easily refilled.

This is just ridiculous. With all the birth control options, many of which already last months (Depo-Provera) between "doses" and some of which can last years (IED's) it seems unreasonable to even introduce such a controversial device into such a controversial field.

If anything, it's just the wrong time for this.

I'm reminded of the best advice I've ever received regarding medicine: "It's all about a balance of pro's and con's." And this simply has WAY more con's than ANY other comparable drug, even levonorgestrel hormones' themselves, with the sole exception you can be lazy and 'forget.' On the flip size, the dangers are obvious, and 100% avoidable going with ANY other method.




20mmm?
By WhatKaniSay on 7/7/14, Rating: -1
"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki