Jimmy?

It is not. The reason I have been asking for YOUR definition of conception and have even proposed various definitions for you to see if they best represent your definition is because many things happen between when sperm is released from a penis into a vagina and when a zygote implants on the in the lining of the uterus. Some people, however, place conception at either end of these processes (or even much later), or at many of the stages in between. It is not difficult to say at what specific stage you believe life begins. But you have yet to do so.

Why is it important? Above, you stated that you believe that the morning after pill is abortion. The morning after pill works to either inhibit ovulation, delay ovulation or prevent as fertilized egg from implanting on the lining of the uterus. If conceptions occurs when a zygote is formed as the only definition you have provided suggests, then in many cases the morning after pill prevents a zygote from forming, and thus is not abortion. That is why I kept asking you this:



I note that you studiously avoided this question.



First, rejecting your comment is no loss to me. What do I possibly have to lose from rejecting your comment? Second, I have never said I rejected your comment. I have said I don't understand your comment because you unwilling or unable to explain it. Third, this is not the first time you have put words in my mouth that I never said. That aspect of this discussion is getting tedious.

All that being said, it is quite possible that you will never be willing or able to articulate when you believe conception occurs and I no longer wish to try and figure out when you believe it occurs. So I will leave this discussion here.

Perhaps a far more interesting discussion, one in which we might find some common ground is what can we do as a society to limit the number of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. If you would like to continue the discussion alonog these lines I very much look forward to it.

It must be. I don't remember it.

Or maybe I'm just not very observant.

It's been so long since you've seen my penis that you've forgotten. I will make a point of showing it to you later.

Fnaarr Fnaarr...

where's Jimmy?

Conception occurs when conception occurs.



How grown up of you.



Wow, great intellectual comment, well done!

A tautology is your only response? How disappointing, I would expect someone witnessing what they thought was genocide would be more interested in reducing or eliminating the slaughter. That being said, here are a few proposals I would have on what society might do to limit the number of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies:

Universal sex education in the schools to teach children at a young age about safe sexual behavior, the use of contraception, the responsibilities of those engaged in sexual behavior and the dangers physically and emotionally of being sexually active.

A significant investment into research for additional methods of contraception in particular for males.

Programs to provide free and readily available contraception for anyone that wants it.

Eliminate all bans on gay couples wishing to adopt.

Never have so many abortions ever taken place, yet to a large extent these measures have already been implemented, your solutions are poor, much like all your comments in this thread.

what a cunt.

It appears you reach this conclusion without drawing upon actual facts. Perhaps I can help:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf

"After abortion was legalized nationwide in 1973, the U.S. abortion rate peaked in 1980. From 1990 onward, the rate declined substantially, and by 2000, it was at its lowest level since 1974."

This report shows that while the number of pregnancies has climbed, the percentage ending in abortion has declined.

What does the National Right to Life Committee say?

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

"After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s.

Two independent sources confirm this decline: the government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood’s special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry."

Worldwide, you ask?

http://paa2007.princeton.edu/download.aspx...missionId=70599

"We analyze trends from 1996 to 2003 and find that dramatic declines in incidence occurred in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, but these countries still have some of the highest rates in the world. The abortion rate in the United States declined modestly but remains higher than in many Western European countries. Rates are variable in developing countries where the procedure is legal. Possible explanations for trends are discussed."

Why have abortion rates declined considerably in Eastern Europe? An interesting question I will address in response to your next comment...



With regard to the extent to which my suggestions have been implemented, there is still a long way to go worldwide. And, while you may find my suggestions "poor", it appears you again do so without the aid of facts. Perhaps you wouldn't reach the conclusion you do if you instead relied on peer-reviewed studies such as those described here to help inform your opinion.

What is one of the important conclusions these reports draw:

"The most striking examples of declines in abortion associated with increased use of effective contraception are found in the states of the former Soviet Union and Eastern and Central Europe, where abortion rates dropped by 25 percent to 50 percent during the past decade. Strong data linking lower abortion rates with better access to high-quality family planning services and greater contraceptive use come from a study in Bangladesh that is one of the few to address the question through an experimental design."

So it appears my suggestions are not only NOT "poor", they are effective.

Hey, I think I'm gonna adopt a new slogan: "LeftintheUS - Providing effective ways of limiting the genocide!"

And perhaps you could suggest when and where there has been wide acceptance for gay coubles wishing to adopt?


That is really quite an ironic conclusion coming from someone who in their previous post offered a tautology as a form of response and who within the very same post draws two conclusions without the benefit of fact!!

"Never have so many abortions ever taken place, yet to a large extent these measures have already been implemented, your solutions are poor"

So tell me, Jimmy: what "measures" would have prevented me getting pregnant while fitted with a contraceptive coil, and my husband not wanting another baby? What "solution" would have prevented this situation from occurring?

Contraception fails. Grown-ups who have taken responsibility for their own fertility find themselves in agonising situations.

THOSE are the root causes of abortion. Now fuck off, you sanctimonious twat.

The Truth:

Only a fool will dispute that there are more abortions happening now then there ever was, or that there are more abortion clinics then there ever was, or more contraceptives available then there ever was, or more condoms available then there ever was. The choice and availability has never been so accessible.

Furthermore, it was unheard of to have sex education years ago, now it is the norm and even homosexual sex education is being pushed in schools, and gay couples are allowed to adopt in many countries now.

So the measures you talk of are not curbing the problem, if anything they are exacerbating it.

The Facts:

(http://www.cdc.gov)

Abortions

1970 = 193,491 *Illegal

1973 = 615,831 *(Legalised) Leaps to nearly an extra half a million more in less than 3 years!

1990 = 1,429,247

2000 = 857,475

This is genocide, and by far the biggest, most systematic and cruel ever witnessed!

What was it in the 1930s? How much sex education was in schools then? What gay sex education was available then? What condoms were available then? What contraception was available then? How many gay couples looked to adopt then?





Did you have sex? My guess is that sex was the cause of your pregnancy.

So if you know contraception fails why did you have sex? Is killing your child responsible? Dismembering your child caused the abortion, nothing else.

Right...so married couples who don't want children and who are using contraception should refrain from having sex in case the contraception fails and they get pregnant. I've been waiting for you to make a statement like this - it shows where you're coming from and what you're all about. Yourt stance is unreasonable, unrealistic and fanatical.

So people shouldn't have sex in case they get pregnant - and they also shouldn't masturbate (though you haven't actually told us why), which would prevent pregnancy from occurring. How do you resign these two principles? Maybe you go in for a daily bout of self-flagellation to keep your urges under control?

Nothing will convince you that your moral stance is at all shakeable. That's the thing about fanatacism - it's all about absolutes. The only people who can afford that kind of moral absolutism are the people who never find themselves having to make moral choices. in other words, I'd be willing to bet you've never been in any kind of sexual relationship. So telling married couples that they shouldn't be having sex if they don't want babies comes quite easily, as you don't understand the complexities of real social engagement.

Of course, if you're not getting any, your anti-wanking stance will also explain why you're so uptight...

He's clearly never been near another human being sexually in his life.
As I keep saying, the anti-women brigade are usually like this.

You said it freakozoid

It is 2007.



Another great intelectual comment made there, well done!





Not at all, I think you should give birth, killing babies is unreasonable, humans have done it for millions of years.

Making silly guesses about me does nothing except prove that you really do make statements without proof.

Really?

Your statistics mate.

Anyway, since 2000 the number of abortions has gone DOWN.

If you want to make yourself look a complete penis you go ahead.



Pity the fool.



Kill babies. Yes they have.



Anyway - since Jesus forgives* what does it matter?

(*A statement without proof if ever I saw one)

It isn't your right to tell me what I should have done with my body. And it WAS part of my body - not a baby, but an organism which could not exist independently without my biological environment to support it.

Well, Jimbo, I didn't have tha baby. I had a termination and I got on with my life. Do I lose sleep over it? No. It was a sad thing to go through, but I've moved on. Do I feel guilty? No. Do I regret it? no. Will I go to hell? No, because hell is a figment of the imagination of religious nutters such as yourself.

You don't like my decision? Tough shit. Get over it.

And besides Joanie. Jesus forgives, even if Jimmy is incapable of doing so.

Thanks for that, Rob. I can rest easy in my bed tonight!

That might be the funniest thing I have ever seen posted. Usually people take a few posts to contradict themselves. You manage to do it within the same post. You do agree 1,429,247 is more than 875,475, right, and you also understand that 1990 came before 2000?

It is 2007.




I'm not telling you what to do with your body, I'm telling you what not to do with someone else's.



1.) It is 2007.

2.) You agree.

3.) Well without proof, what do you care?

So you are not going to bother offering a source for your ridiculous claim?

I have proved everything I wanted to prove, your measures could have only exacerbated the problem, they certainly haven't improved it.

Really.

Well if you wanted to prove that you are a narrow minded nasty fool then you have done a very good job.

Otherwise,

Emotive.

Unsubstantiated.

Not conducive to the debate.

Insulting.

At least you are consistent.

Actually I don't agree that for millions of years human being have killed babies.

There is only evidence for a few thousand - and that is mostly anecdotal.

What you said is not what you meant anyway so it is irrelevant. I was taking the piss.



I care that at last you admit that your position is based on religious morality. My point, though flippant holds: If Jesus forgives then what is the problem?



Are you looking in a mirror, perchance?

1.) Where did you take it from?

2.) I have not brought religion into the debate.

3.) I call them monitors.

Ever since this thread started I've been dying to say:
"Sex!"

never mind

I'll take your answer to my question then to be a 'no'.

To be honest, I really like your discussion style, which as far as I can tell involves:

1. Drawing a hyperbolic conclusion that is well out of the norm of mainstream thinking.
2. Basing it on muddled, undefined premises to which you won't even commit.
3. Making factually incorrect statements.
4. Proving those statements incorrect with your own posts.
5. Responding to reasoned arguements by changing the subject or moving the goal posts.
6. Ignoring all facts presented to you by suggesting the opposite is true but providing no evidence of this.
7. Declaring victory by claiming you "have proved everything [you] wanted to prove".

Good work if you can get it I suppose...



Perhaps you can explain to me why The Netherlands, which emphasizes preventitive measures and has liberal abortion laws, has one of the lowest abortion rates of any industrialized nation in the world? Or, maybe you can explain how Russia's abortion rate was cut in half between 1990 and 2001 without any change in the legal status of abortion (hint: something happened beginning in 1992)?

Oh my god - It's the KLF!

Then you are misinterpreting the facts again.

You make claims that certain measures will reduce abortions, yet these measures are largely in place and there are nearly a million if not more abortions carried out every year in the US alone. Yet when these measures were not in existence like pre 1970s, abortions were barely carried out in the US or at least not on the scale they are today. You are clearly denying the facts.

The methods are eerily similar!

However, I think the KLF was pro-choice. I refure you to the following:

That is my signature, not a statement in this debate, the signature appears in every thread, just like my user name appears too.

Keep the weak arguments coming.

You only post in this thread.

How else can I possibly interpret it. Are you saying you do not believe Jesus forgives?






brilliant LITUS!

And?



You could apply a little logic and all would come clear.



What does it say in my signature?

Actually you are failing to answer the question again. Let me remind you of what it was:



In keeping with your discussion method #5, you have chosen to change the subject rather than answer the question.



I'll refer you again to your discussion method #5, where you again change the subject rather than addressing either of the eaxamples I provided here:

Do you know what logic is? I do wonder.

So if Jesus forgives us our sins why are you so intent on eliminating what you see as the sin of abortion when that is a matter between Jesus and the aborters?

I do what I can for humanity!!

Funny that you made the correlation between my question and logic.



So you agree, abortion is a sin?

Where did I say that? I said that you believe abortion is a sin.

I do not believe in sin since I do not believe in religion.

Are you going to answer my question? (Expecting more avoidance of the question, or maybe even a question instead of an answer)

What did I claim?

Are you claiming abortion statistics are lower now then in the 1930s?

More to the point, where did I say that?

There are so many children in this world that are abused, mistreated and grow up to be unhappy adults.
I wish the anti abortionists would put all their efforts in helping unwanted children that do get born to get all the love and support they need, instead of haunting women that want to prevent other unwanted children to be born.

Those that are aborted are abused, mistreated and don't even get the chance to grow up, nor do they have a voice, at least born abused people have a voice.

Hence pro-life people speak on their behalf.

"Hence pro-life people speak on their behalf"

No they don't. They don't help the children in rotten circumstances get better lives, they just help more kids to be born in rotten circumstances.

Substantiate this claim.

You've been using Method #5 so often now, it appears you can't even remember what you are claiming. I'll remind you:



Of course not. That would be ridiculous -- kind of like saying, that "there are more abortions happening now then there ever was" and then providing statistics to show more abortions were performed 17 years ago.

Sigh.