You must mean the hormonal IUD e.g. Mirena (the copper one often makes periods heavier and cramps worse. It also happens with this one, but usually only for the first few months). Many women eventually get lighter or no periods while using it because the uterus lining is thinned, and some experience lesser effects from hormones than they would using BCP, but it can still fall out, fail (usually resulting in ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal), cause pelvic-inflammatory disease or sepsis, and perforate the uterus when being inserted. If a young and/or childless woman can find a doctor who’ll actually insert one for her.
Here are the hormonal IUD’s Most Common Side Effects (as opposed to uncommon ones and ‘most serious’ ones – appparently back pain and depression are just the cost of doing dirty business)
Abdominal pain
Upper respiratory infection
Leukorrhea (vaginal discharge)
Nausea
Headache
Nervousness
Vaginitis (vaginal irritation)
Dysmenorrhea
Back pain
Weight gain
Breast pain
Skin disorder
Acne
Decreased libido (sex drive)
Depression
Abnormal Pap smear
Hypertension
Sinusitis
They get the rights when they exist. Much like if you set a bear trap 5 years ago, today a 3 yr old gets killed by your trap, you are responsible for that death even though the 3 yr old didn’t exist when you set that trap.
You set into motion the action that will kill someone who doesn’t exist according to you, this does not negate your responsibility to your fellow humans.
Ok at least I understand where you got ‘trickery’ from now. And yes we don’t come with a owners manual attached to us. But most people who are sexually active IMHO know that anytime they have sex there is a chance, though small, that a new life could be created. It’s pretty obvious, not some fine print, as evidence of the sales of contraceptive products, and the worry some have when they are late in their period. It is much more like a bright flashing warning on a normal paper contract (yes on regular paper, this would actually flash), then some fine print.
Today’s society just tells us to ignore that flashing statement, it doesn’t apply to you, which I disagree with.
I’ll visit this one one more time time (Since it was so critical you quoted yourself), The fertilized egg is the smallest ‘unit’ that can be considered a unique human. Child refers to the parent/child relationship.
Well, a suggestion, perhaps you can reach out to the city’s prostitutes.
I think that the unborn offspring of male rapists should form an organization or union and demand the same squatter’s rights that are extended to all other unwanted unborn. They are, apparently, subject to a pretty class-specific abrogation of their rights.
The kid exists when the trap goes off. Not everyone believes a fetus has person hood. Not only that but 3 year old suffers a horrible death. The fetus never feels a thing.
It’s more akin to you have sex in the woods with an ovulating chick while wearing a condom. If you hadn’t put that condom on someone would exist eventually, but you do, and now they won’t.
Heck taking it to it’s logical extreme every moment you’re not out trying to have sex with ovulating chicks is a moment you’re contributing to more people not existing.
kanicbird, let me ask you a few questions so I can get a better idea where you are coming from, they should be easy to answer.
Do you believe abortion is murder?
Do you believe abortion is murder in all cases, except those cases where an abortion is performed as a result of incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother?
Do you think abortion except those involving the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother should be illegal?
If you do think they should be illegal, what would you have the penalty be if it were up to you?
[QUOTE=pool] kanicbird, let me ask you a few questions so I can get a better idea where you are coming from, they should be easy to answer./quote]
Yes
Yes
No
I don’t think they should be illegal
Let me summarize my position:
Ideally and morally:
1 - The mother must give permission to the fetus for the right of the fetus to develop , normally this is done automatically during sex.
In the case of rape this permission was never given
In the case of incest this permission was given
2 - Once the fetus has that right, the removal of that right is a violation of the fetus’ human rights and as the fetus is killed, that is morally murder
3 - If that permission was never granted, conceived during rape and not granted later by the mother, the mother has the right to her body and can have the fetus removed, the death of the fetus is a side effect of her enforcing her right. Not that she has to take this right, and she could allow the fetus to come to term.
Realistically in our current world, I see it as potentially very dangerious as if the only way to get a abortion is to claim rape, there will be many people tempted to falsely accuse others of rape and many wrongfully accused of rape. Because of this potential I see the need to open up safe legal abortions to any woman who requests to exercise the right of killing their child, which will not make abortions rare.
But I do see any woman who chose a abortion as a decision to murder her child and feel she is morally accountable for that decision and action.
I define my position politically as pro-choice, pro-abortion, anti-life.
Correct, you can do whatever you want before then, but once they are created you are responsible due to your past actions, just like that bear trap, plus you can’t abort nothing.
I don’t think they should be illegal
Let me summarize my position:
Ideally and morally:
1 - The mother must give permission to the fetus for the right of the fetus to develop , normally this is done automatically during sex.
In the case of rape this permission was never given
In the case of incest this permission was given
2 - Once the fetus has that right, the removal of that right is a violation of the fetus’ human rights and as the fetus is killed, that is morally murder
3 - If that permission was never granted, conceived during rape and not granted later by the mother, the mother has the right to her body and can have the fetus removed, the death of the fetus is a side effect of her enforcing her right. Not that she has to take this right, and she could allow the fetus to come to term.
Realistically in our current world, I see it as potentially very dangerious as if the only way to get a abortion is to claim rape, there will be many people tempted to falsely accuse others of rape and many wrongfully accused of rape. Because of this potential I see the need to open up safe legal abortions to any woman who requests to exercise the right of killing their child, which will not make abortions rare.
But I do see any woman who chose a abortion as a decision to murder her child and feel she is morally accountable for that decision and action.
I define my position politically as pro-choice, pro-abortion, anti-life.
I don’t think that’s quite right. First of all, the woman is responsible for her share of the child support, too. Secondly, assuming the woman gets primary custody of the child, she is taking on the much greater responsibility. The man can, of course, sue for primary (or joint) custody, and he has a chance of getting that.
Except that definition is a specious one. A fertilised egg is not a human being, any more than an acorn is an oak tree. I just ate a bag of nuts - by a definition equivalent to yours, this was an act of deforestation. Worse, it was an act of arson, then deforestation, because the nuts were roasted.
It is not a tree as we defined a tree as a woody plant at least x feet tall, x inches wide, etc. it does not change the fact that the acorn a individual member of the genus Quercus .
Kanicbird what would your viewpoint be on this scenario:
A woman is raped at a party after she passes out and does not know she was raped. After 16 weeks she finds out she is pregnant. Does she have a moral right to abort the fetus at this point?
It’s not even that - it’s a seed with the potential to become a member, given the right conditions and a bit of luck.
If destroying a human zygote is murder, is it actually deforestation when I eat a bag of nuts? The definitions are almost exactly equivalent, as far as I can tell.