The only form of birth control that’s 100% effective is abstinence.

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
In this particular case, I wasn't referring to sterilization.

No. It's highly unlikely, and impossible to discern. Compare that to a fully formed living baby being cut to pieces.
If a woman is one minute pregnant and does not know it, is she aborting if she takes a morning-after pill?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
If a woman is one minute pregnant and does not know it, is she aborting if she takes a morning-after pill?
I'm not familiar with the morning after pill. Regardless, I don't have a problem with a woman skipping all of this and getting herself sterilized. Women who shouldn't or don't want to have children should skip getting one abortion after another and just get sterilized. Save everyone a whole lot of wasted time, money, effort, etc.

When compared to abortion of a discernable human fetus, I also don't have a problem preventing a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the womb. Ultimately, those who have no control over themselves and are basically animals should be sterilized.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I would think that at some point in the sex life of every normal person there is at least one case of failed abstinence. They don't always lead to pregnancy of course. Any policy that relies on abstinence for birth control is doomed to failure. Sustained abstinence is abnormal.
Pretty harsh on those I know who have never been able to find a partner.
But of course abstinence us 100% effective.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
I'm not familiar with the morning after pill.
It's pretty much what it says on the tin - a woman takes it "the morning after" and it prevents a fertilized cell from developing any further.
Women who shouldn't or don't want to have children should skip getting one abortion after another and just get sterilized.
Agree.
And people should wear bike helmets... but we still give medical treatment those that don't, and get injured.
When compared to abortion of a discernable human fetus, I also don't have a problem preventing a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the womb.
So you are not against abortion, but against abortion of that which is discernably human?
Why the distinction? What's the difference?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Only the completely stupid would be taken in by your obvious non sequiturs. The only person fantasising about the mechanics of rape, is you. Rape by definition, requires penetration, though not necessarily by the penis. Not all rape results in pregnancy. Some do. The stupidity of your intervention would beggar belief if it was made by anyone else.
So do you think women should reframe their rape trauma like the man who identifies as one of your transwomen ideas ?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
So do you think women should reframe their rape trauma like the man who identifies as one of your transwomen ideas ?
I would have to see what the person you refer to actually says rather than rely on your description. You are a very unreliable source of information.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I would think that at some point in the sex life of every normal person there is at least one case of failed abstinence. They don't always lead to pregnancy of course. Any policy that relies on abstinence for birth control is doomed to failure. Sustained abstinence is abnormal.
Pretty harsh on those I know who have never been able to find a partner.
That's not abstinence.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
So you are not against abortion, but against abortion of that which is discernably human?
Why the distinction? What's the difference?
In the former case, were still dealing with a few cells. In the latter case, we're dealing with a human being with functioning well developed organs. In the former case we're still dealing with a relatively simple and inexpensive process. In the latter, we're dealing with a rather more invasive, and more expensive procedure that could lead to medical complications.
 
Top