If ectopic pregnancies are the ones in which the egg implants in the fallopian tube, then that falls under the unbrella of “the mother’s life is in jeopardy.”
minty, I think that you may be thinking of RU-486 which is actually an abrtion pill and works as you have stated. The actual drug is called Mifepristone and prevents the implantation of the egg in the uterus.
The morning after pill on the other hand is just a double dose of daily oral contraceptive and has the same “no egg releasing effect.”
So, I can still be against most abortions and for the morning after pill.
Welcome to the SDMB, Stoneburg! Your English is perfect, so no worries there.
Your point about the illegality of elective late-term abortions is well-taken, but it’s probably also true that the reason enforcement is lax is because of the broad protections afforded to abortion under current U.S. law. The basis of the Supreme Court opinion recognizing abortion rights was the right of privacy between a patient and her physician. That zone of privacy makes it pretty difficult for police and prosecutors to investigate or charge either party for an elective late-term abortion. If the authorities even know that an abortion has occurred–which is doubtful–there’s just no way for them to determine why it occurred.
As for your claim that anti-abortion laws don’t work, that’s only true to a certain degree. Certainly, there will always be options for a woman who wishes to terminate a pregnancy, even when it is illegal to do so under local law–go to another jurisdiction, go to an illegal abortion provider, sterilize a coathanger, etc. But placing substantial legal barriers in the path of women seeking abortions can only have the effect of decreasing the number of women who choose to end their pregnancies. It’s no accident of demographics that the number of abortions in the U.S. rose sharply after Roe v. Wade.
RU-486 does not work by preventing implantation of a newly-fertilized egg. While it is certainly only used to terminate early pregnancies, that means anywhere up to 7 weeks. It works by causing the uterine lining to break down, shedding off the already-implanted fetus. This is followed by a second drug that causes contractions, thereby expelling the fetus.
As for Dr. Drew and “morning after” contraception . . . well, while I hate to say that a doctor is wrong, let’s just say that he’s not entirely correct:
No, I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. It’s the right to privacy in one’s own personal affairs, not some doctor-patient confidentiality thing. The right to privacy that Roe v. Wade was based on was built upon the right to privacy that the Supremes found in the Constitution, in the Griswold case, where they struck down state prohibitions on contraception.
Stoneburg, Thank you for posting my point to SnoopyFan in my absence. SnoopyFan, the cite that I quoted in my previous post was basically a layman terms explanation of Roe v. Wade. A part of which, was that RvW dealt loosely with the first trimester. Peruse the site for additional laymen’s terms explanations on rulings on the subject. You’ll see that there are rulings pertaining to first, and even some second tri issues. But third? I guess I’m going to have to call you on your anecdote. specifically:
(bolding mine) That ruling was in the early seventies, well before your anecdotal claim took place. My point is, IF such a physician were around that was willing to willy nilly perform third tri abortions, he would not last for long. Certainly not twenty years. Third tri abortions require clinical judgment, not something a physician would throw around lightly, especially in these days of malpractice.
Further confounding your claim is that the physician performed the abortion for racist reasons. I think this girl you knew has told you a whopper of a story that, when held up to scrutiny, does not seem plausible.
Well, from your cite it looks likepregnancy doesn’t start until implantation. I’m ok with that definition I suppose. So: it doesn’t cause an abortion, and it won’t do anything to an egg that is already implanted. Not abortion = OK by me.
Okay, so implantation is the critical point from your perspective. I disagree with that, given that there’s nothing particularly human-like about a newly-implanted embryo, but I can buy that as a legitimate dividing line.
But MDSL, you are thereby arbitrarily defining a mere potentiality threshold.
For argument’s sake, let us contend that a newborn baby is a human being. Now, let us examine the probability that the entity at various stages of development will become this newborn human. It would go something like:
8 month old foetus: 98% (how many babies die during birth?)
2 month old foetus: 70%, say (how many are miscarried?)
Implanted blastocyst: 40% (??)
Non implanted fertilised egg: 20% (??)
Egg surrounded by sperm: 10% (??)
Egg in fallopian tube, sperm in vagina: 5% (??)
Egg in fallopian tube, some sperm in vagina after coitus interruptus: 1% (??)
Egg in fallopian tube, sperm in condom: 0.001% (??)
Egg in fallopian tube, date arrives at restaurant:
…you get the idea. The debate regarding what is acceptable is simply establishing an arbitrary threshold in law. minty is trying to convince you that conception is ALSO an arbitrary threshold.
The boundry is looking more ad hoc by the minute and that reinforces the slippery slope arguement that you two are making now.
On the one hand, anything could potentially happen and create the conditions for a child. Right down to the metting at the restaraunt.
On the other is that women should have the right to terminate the life of any child that they have birthed right up until the time which they themselves die.
My point is this: there must be a sticking point somewhere. There must be a point at which a zygote/fetus/baby is protected by society (unless there is a danger to the life of the mother, as we have agreed.)
Let’s looks at it from your point of view. What does it take to be a person or a potential person from your point of view? Remember that there is nothing particularly human-like about the profoundly retarded or the very old or those in a coma.
I don’t think that you can just look at a particular moment in time and say: “nope, not human enough” and absolve youself of the moral wrong of killing an innocent.
there are several more reasonable options here, in my opinion. for many, it’s viability. once the baby can be birthed and live a healthy life with no more help from the mother, many would contend that the mother can no longer be in need of an abortion (barring medical complications, etc.).
personally, i feel birth is the best choice. at that point, the child is no longer part of the mother, and therefore sort of earns its rights as a person, if you will. or something like that. the main difference between the two, to me, is that in the first case, the control of a mother over her body might be encroached upon.
so those two seem like more reasonable options to me.
as a side note, i must say, this has got to be the least vitriolic debate on abortion i’ve seen here.
Since so many people have said think, I won’t quote one by one but try to counter or re-inforce some arguments:
Morning after pill does cause aabortions. Although its primary effect is to stop ovulation in stops the ferilised egg from implanting. Since life begins at conception (more on that later) it is an abortion. What many medical association have done is muddle everything saying the pregnancy starts with a successful implantation, when that was never part of the abortion debate. If pregnancies started even later the thing wouldn’t change.
Potential is a very complicated word. I am potentially Cooperstown material. I am potentially the next Pope. Life begins at conception becuase from there onwards your genetic makeup is set, and genetics define you biologically. Sperm aren’t potential humans becuase if you leave them alone they will die a sperm.
As to the whole “many embryos die or are miscarriaged”. ALL of us will die, that’s 100% sure. Should will kill each other then?
Life of the mother. Abortion is not an option even then.** Before you go bananas let me explain what I mean**. I DON’T mean let “the mum die”. What I said is that there is no reason to perform an abortion (direct killing) instead of removing the foetus and trying to let it live. I’m sure in 20 years’ time almost the whole pregnancy could be carried out outside the womb. Little consolation now, but that means I won’t have to change my morality evey time science changes.
Why? Is it not possible that a fetus, whether pre-or-post viability, is something in-between that is still worthy of protection? Why does it have to be a “human being” before it becomes worthy of protection under the law?
Why do you find it impossible for a law to determine that because of it’s completely unique status, a fetus is worthy of protection from the whims of the mother, without having to say that the fetus is a human being? Seems to me you’re creating a false dilemma.
Hey, I’m a lawyer, not a biologist. In my thoroughly non-expert opinion, however, I’d tie it to fetal brain function. When the higher brain functions kick in, elective abortion checks out.
I’ll have to leave it to the biologists to figure out when that occurs, however.
If you want to put it in legal terms, it’s because laws against homicide only apply when the victim is a human being. And though we’ve been talking exclusively about abortion, I would not flatly rule out legal protection for fetuses in other contexts.
That explains why they don’t currently prosecute people who obtain/commit abortions with homocide, but I don’t think it’s an argument against why abortion shouldn’t be made illegal.
The law provides protection, in both civil and criminal law, to a vast amount of things that are not “human beings.” Dogs, cats, property, etc. are all afforded some kind of protection under the law without having to first be proven to be “human beings.”
I don’t think the argument that a fetus is not a human being is relevant to a discussion of the propreity of laws outlawing abortions.
Nonsense, Hamlet. The humanity of a fetus, or lack thereof, is absolutely fundamental to the issue of abortion’s legality. It is not, as you point out, the end of the inquiry, but it most certainly is a necessary question.
Agreed, I went too far saying that it was irrelevant. What I should have said was that it is not necessary for the fetus to be fully a human being before it should be protected under the law. My bad.
In my thoroughly non-expert opinion, however, I’d tie it to fetal brain function. When the higher brain functions kick in, elective abortion checks out.