He should probably take the morning after pill as soon as he gets back to camp.

It is curious where Penn Jillette draws the line on protecting people's rights. On one hand, he will protect the minority-of-one in the case of a nativity scene on public property... but on the other, he will not protect the minority who is looking for a morning-after pill in an area that is so religious that pharmacists will not carry or sell it. (or the nurse from a Catholic hospital having abortion coverage)

Surely the minority's right is to be protected as well? It's unfortunate that both of these men haven't figured out that most civil rights wedge-issues come from an argument of X's rights are more important than Y's.

>> ^ReverendTed:

I think your "line in the sand" is a perfectly rational approach. I disagree personally, but I can appreciate that you're taking a reasoned approach and I would be willing to accept it as a basis for legislation on the matter.
It gets problematic when we attempt to define "a definitively human quality". On one extreme, a human fetus is and will be a human fetus. On the other extreme, even newborns only look human, and exhibit few, if any, behaviors that distinguish them from primates. (Primate rights, or animal rights in general being another hot potato, tying in to the "only care about killing humans" sentiment.)

What, to you, would constitute a "definitively human quality"? Limbs? Beginning of neural development?
(This directly ties into what I think is that "most important question", so if you'd like to reply in the original thread, that's great.)


I look at this from two different perspectives:

What do I think is right?
This is a sliding scale, not black and white. I've got zero problem with the morning after pill and probably no issue even with a first trimester abortion. At the other end of the spectrum, I think a third trimester abortion is pushing it a little.

These have to be judged on a case by case basis, though. [Warning: I'm about to be absurd for the sake of illustration.] If a woman is on her 9th abortion, all due to accidental pregnancy, I'm not going to think particularly highly of her (or the father for that matter). Though still, my problem with her wouldn't be that nine children have been "murdered", it would be that she's an irresponsible, immature fuckup (and again, him too). But I also wouldn't want such people raising children, so it's probably better that way.

If you're having a third trimester abortion for an accidental pregnancy, I might wonder why you waited so long. If you're having it because you may not survive the birth, by all means, do so.

There are all sorts of other factors that could potentially change my opinion in either case. Most importantly, while I may have an opinion on these cases or any others, I realize I have no say in any of these cases unless I'm the father (and even then, barely). This brings me to the second perspective.

What makes for a good law?
I don't like grey in laws, they should be as black and white as possible, and abortion is simply not condusive to that sort of law. This is why I think the "line in the sand" needs to be drawn at birth and the choice needs to be made by the would-be mother, hopefully with input from the would-be father, if he's in the picture.

Generally speaking, I think it's perfectly acceptable for things which may be considered wrong to also be legal. Women who have abortions already face tremendous ostracization in society; there's nothing to be gained by locking them up as well.

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

>> ^kymbos:

So that Ron Paul guy tripped up, huh? Good thing the rest of us are completely on top of that simple 'pro-life vs pro-choice' question in every circumstance. Seriously, is there any point of view on this topic that doesn't need caveats or have exceptions?


But that's exactly the problem with what Paul's saying. Abortion is not a simple moral issue, and this whole "life begins at conception" and the move to criminalize abortion is an attempt to force people to view it as a black & white issue.

The answer I'd hope most fathers would give to the hypothetical question Paul was asked is "No, I'll be there for her no matter what she chooses to do." Not, "If she's not lying about the rape, I might let her have a morning after pill, but beyond that, yeah she's gonna carry her rapist's baby to term whether she wants to or not."

I'm not saying that I'm absolutely certain the former is the morally correct position, I'm just saying I'm pretty damn sure the second is morally wrong on several levels.

So you are aware that contraception is not 100%?

Between a man with a vasectomy and wearing a condom and a woman on the pill or ring, if she still gets knocked up, the kid should be named Houdini. There's also the morning after pill. And nowhere do I make the claim to oppose all abortion., just the skull-drilling murders of fully-formed children exiting the womb.

And you are aware that despite there being a multitude of forms of contraception out there, people still make mistakes? You are aware that sometimes having a baby when you make a mistake ISN'T the best option right?

An illegitimacy rate in the Black community alone approaching 70% doesn't add up to mere "mistakes" but a sanctioned way of life. Liberal dogma fosters irresponsibility, ignorance, a victim mentality and dependency on the State. Everyone has to pay for these FUCKUPS in addition to their own taxed-to-death families. Unsurprisingly, there weren't as many FUCKUPS when they had to pay for the kids themselves.

You are not excused from being a responsible individual just because you fancy yourself a liberal "rebel". Pay for the abortion OR the kid yourself.

Considering that the Morning After Pill does not actually "kill" an embryo, it's hard to make a case against it as post-coital contraceptive regardless of when you think life begins.

Take it one step further! Adoptions for children of rape! Morning-after-pill kills a baby! Hoorah!

That and 'being gay is a choice' @ 9:20 ... she's pretty old school!

>> ^Octopussy:
Interesting topic that, as an ignorant European, I’d like to know more about. In the US (most states, which states?) how do you get contraceptives like the pill, or the morning-after pill if you’re a minor? Do you need a prescription? If so, can you be sure the doctor isn’t going to tell your parents? What ways do minors have to access reliable information about birth control? Of course, there are the interwebs, but if both your school and your parents have filters installed, do you have to sneak into a cybercafe?
I guess it’s obvious, I’m all for reliable information about anything to everybody, because I seriously don’t see how keeping kids ignorant is going to help (seriously, do all these abstinence-until-you’re-married programs tell the kids about how to plan your family and/or avoid STDs after your married?).


You have to get a prescription to get the pill or the morning after pill. I'm not sure about all states but in my state if you are low income or under the age of 18 you can get free exams and birth control. They usually have a candy dish filled with free condoms at the front of the clinic.

It's illegal for the clinic to notify your parents about the visit unless you are under a certain age. I think it was age 13 and under. This also applies to STD screenings, yearly exams and abortions.

I don't know how much things have changed in a last few years but my school and my state(Washington) were pretty good about the whole thing when I was a teen.

Interesting topic that, as an ignorant European, I’d like to know more about. In the US (most states, which states?) how do you get contraceptives like the pill, or the morning-after pill if you’re a minor? Do you need a prescription? If so, can you be sure the doctor isn’t going to tell your parents? What ways do minors have to access reliable information about birth control? Of course, there are the interwebs, but if both your school and your parents have filters installed, do you have to sneak into a cybercafe?

I guess it’s obvious, I’m all for reliable information about anything to everybody, because I seriously don’t see how keeping kids ignorant is going to help (seriously, do all these abstinence-until-you’re-married programs tell the kids about how to plan your family and/or avoid STDs after your married?).

* Condoms
* BC pills with 99% effectiveness
* IUDs
* The BC "ring" (Nuvaring)
* Morning-after pills

Ladies, if you're going a-whoring, you have no excuse for not being prepared.

Waiting 3 months to take care of an unwanted pregnancy smacks of sloth. If you're going to just lie around, do it with your knees closed.


Obama @ Saddleback = FAIL.

Oh, i should add that i don't have a problem with birth control or even morning after pills. I put the start of human rights at the start of brain waves, about 40 to 43 days after conception. I think that is a pretty clear line. So, i can't see any thing wrong with legal abortions in the first month of pregnancy. Putting the limit there would greatly put my heart at ease.

Guess the morning-after pill has side effects.

Krupo

From the wikipedia article

"After sex, pregnancy may occur if an egg is released and the sperm and egg meet. But the sperm are available inside the woman for days, so a woman who releases an egg one, two or three days after sex can become pregnant. If, however, she takes emergency contraception after sex but before releasing an egg, the emergency contraception will prevent the egg from being released and thus prevent pregnancy. Since pregnancy can result if emergency contraception is taken after an egg has been released, EC is not 100% effective, and it becomes less effective when there is a delay in administering it.

The emergency contraception pill should not be confused with mifepristone (also called Mifeprex, and formerly known as RU-486), an abortifacient which is taken after implantation has occurred, aborting the pregnancy. The morning-after pill must be taken before implantation, or it will have no effect.

Earlier, it was believed that emergency contraception worked by preventing blastocysts from implanting in the womb. Today, however, current medical science, as reflected in research papers published in respected medical journals, states that emergency contraception works by preventing ovulation. Recent medical studies in animals (the rat and the monkey) did not suggest that emergency contraception prevents implantation; however, this mechanism of action cannot be ruled out in all cases, as it is impossible to prove a negative."

So while there is perhaps a small chance of Plan B preventing implantation most scientists agree that it works by preventing the fertilization of an egg. The woman while strong in her convictions is espousing a view point at odds against current prevailing scientific research.

I really enjoy the chance to talk about abortion, I just think that it's important that talking points do not become the publics main impression on a subject.