Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, olympe said:

Where is the difference between a fetus and a baby, save for the fact that a fetus might not be able to survive outside the womb yet? (Sadly, the same is true for way too many babies, too. So, maybe not quite as much of a difference as it seemed at first glance.)

So, extreme case: Let's take a newborn as an example.

  • Memories? Probably the same as those of a fetus, just with the trauma of birth added.
  • Aware of their own existence? Not yet - as a matter of fact, children only become aware of their own existence as an entity separate from their mothers around the time they learn to move around on their own.
  • Able to feel pain? Yes, definitely. Same for the fetus.

And while killing all babies would end the human race, so would killing all embryoes and/or fetuses, too. Just the same. Without fallacy. And, yes, there were and still are cultures were unwanted newborns were/are killed right after birth. One famous example would be ancient Greece, where it was usually newborn girls who were left to die. Because, according to their belief system, the newborns were not yet presented to society, thus not part of society and thus not considered human beings yet. So, this was not considered "killing", although most people here in this thread would probably argue that. Plus, the newborns couldn't survive on their own... Apparently.

 

And, while I'm still pro choice, I feel that many women nowadays take this choice too easily. Because, in the end, aborting is willful the ending of another life. In other words: Killing. Unless, of course, you successfully dehumanize the victim. Which is happening a lot here in this thread. :( 

i don't think we are at risk of 'ending the human race' anytime soon. even if countless women chose abortion, there are still 7 billion + people on this earth at least half of which are women, and most women do not abort.  from an objective standpoint we are VASTLY overpopulated and in no way near becoming extinct so i'm not sure what point that was meant to make

Share this post


Link to post

No one ever said they wanted all embryo/fetus killed. We just want the option to have safe and early abortions for all women that require them. Also you talk about fetuses as though they are all fully formed when they are not. You are talking about fetuses at the very end of gestation where they are basically already a baby but haven’t been born yet. That is not the same as a fetus at the beginning or middle of its phase as a fetus.

 

And I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “able to move on their own”. I was moving my head on my own at only a few hours old, does that count? Newborns and babies a few weeks old can move around, they just can’t relocate themselves from one place to another and I know babies are aware of themselves before they start crawling/walking from watching my cousins. 

 

You also cannot compare modern society to Ancient Greece, and places nowadays that will kill a newborn simply for their gender or overpopulation laws. Places that do that are not in line with places that are more scientifically advanced. They are either communists or religious zealots.

 

reminds me how so many religious people insist life starts at conception yet in the Bible it’s clear they think life doesn’t begin until birth.

 

the bottom line difference is viability, an embryo is not viable, a fetus might be viable but still has the chance to not be, babies that no longer need to leech nutrient from the mother via placenta are viable, a growing child is viable, adults are viable. No one here has ever said that we should kill viable babies, and if the pro-life people would stop keeping women from a receiving safe early abortions the issue of late-term abortions wouldn’t be NEARLY as big as it is. The only late term abortions that should be done are those in which there is no chance of survival for the child or if they do survive their life will be nothing but a painful hell or blackness as they are a vegetable.  Sadly that is not the case, but if we work together for better women’s health rights and proper sex education along with easily obtainable contraceptives we can drastically cut down on abortion rates. Just look and some of the Scandinavian countries. 

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to point out the biggest reason newborns may not have been considered part of society in ancient times is because of how common it was for children to die within their first few years of life. The parents didn’t want to become too attached to the child if it was going to die before the age of 4.

 

But just because it was okay back then doesn’t mean it’s okay to kill already born happy babies today, with that logic we should bring back slavery and blood letting. 

Edited by Cecona

Share this post


Link to post

An early stage fetus cannot feel pain. They don't have the neural pathways that make up pain reception.

 

Pain reception as we know it in humans requires AT THE VERY LEAST a fully functioning spinal cord, mostly a fully functioning brain.

 

800px-Human_brain_growth_01.jpg

Taken from here.

 

Those tiny little blobs on the right are the brain of an embyro (and the spinal cord) up to week 8. The brain on the right is a viable late term fetus brain - are you seriously going to tell me they're even comparable?

 

From what I gleaned from reading through that, it seems as though these pathways are not set up to form pain proper until week ("stage") 22.

 

I could go on but I will just list these briefly as counter points for your "what purpose do they serve"; certain monkey species spread lice on purpose by touching heads - it seems to help make them resistant to certain diseases. You also realize that yeast infections are the result of those things getting out of whack; we NEED those fungi to help maintain a healthy gynecologic system. 

 

Also, because you pulled out ~definitions~;

"A parasitic relationship is one in which one organism, the parasite, lives off of another organism,"

taken from a paper published on the New England Complex System's Institute's website. I figured I had to find a scientific definition vs a dictionary one because I'd get told it works different in science.

Share this post


Link to post

That brain doesn’t even have all its wrinkle/ridges yet, which are very important in increasing the surface area for neurons, which are basically what makes us intelligent.

Share this post


Link to post

Better read what you had in the pics of the brain here let me show you.

 

Neural - Spinal Cord Development

 
[Expand]Embryology - 1 Sep 2018    Facebook link Pinterest link Twitter link  Expand to Translate  
Stage10 sem6.jpg

Introduction

300px-Stage10_neural_sm.jpg
 
Neural groove closing to neural tube
Embryo early week 4 (Stage 10)
Spinal cord transverse section week 8
 
Spinal cord transverse section
Embryo week 8 (Carnegie Stage 22)

The spinal cord is the central nervous system part that extends into the axial skeleton and provides the two-way traffic required to interact with our environment. During pregnancy, early development of the spinal cord is influenced by the maternal dietary requirement for folate for closure of the neural tube. Later development requires the contribution of neural crest associating with the cord to form the dorsal root ganglia and ventral sympathetic ganglia. The animal models of spinal cord development has also been a key models of patterning, establishing ventral and dorsal compartments based upon surrounding signals.


The early central nervous system begins as a simple neural plate that folds to form a groove then tube, open initially at each end. Failure of these opening to close contributes a major class of neural abnormalities (neural tube defects).


Neural development is one of the earliest systems to begin and the last to be completed after birth. This development generates the most complex structure within the embryo and the long time period of development means in utero insult during pregnancy may have consequences to development of the nervous system.


Within the neural tube stem cells generate the 2 major classes of cells that make the majority of the nervous system: neurons and glia. Both these classes of cells differentiate into many different types generated with highly specialized functions and shapes. This section covers the establishment of neural populations, the inductive influences of surrounding tissues and the sequential generation of neurons establishing the layered structure seen in the brain and spinal cord.

  • Neural development beginnings quite early, therefore also look at notes covering Week 3- neural tube and Week 4-early nervous system.

 

Neural Links: neural | ventricular | ectoderm | Stage 22 | gliogenesis | neural fetal | Medicine Lecture - Neural | Lecture - Ectoderm | Lecture - Neural Crest | Lab - Early Neural | neural crest | Sensory | neural abnormalities | folic acid | iodine deficiency | Fetal Alcohol Syndrome | Postnatal | Postnatal - Neural Examination | Histology | Historic Neural | Category:Neural
300px-Stage13_face_ventral_view01.jpg
 
Human embryo (Carnegie stage 13) spinal cord (shown in cross-section at the bottom of image).

Some Recent Findings

  • Review - The Multiple Roles of FGF Signaling in the Developing Spinal Cord[1] "During vertebrate embryonic development, the spinal cord is formed by the neural derivatives of a neuromesodermal population that is specified at early stages of development and which develops in concert with the caudal regression of the primitive streak. Several processes related to spinal cord specification and maturation are coupled to this caudal extension including neurogenesis, ventral patterning and neural crest specification and all of them seem to be crucially regulated by Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) signaling, which is prominently active in the neuromesodermal region and transiently in its derivatives. Here we review the role of FGF signaling in those processes, trying to separate its different functions and highlighting the interactions with other signaling pathways." FGF
  • Coordination of progenitor specification and growth in mouse and chick spinal cord[2] "Our data show that domain proportions are first established by opposing morphogen gradients and subsequently controlled by domain-specific regulation of differentiation rate but not differences in proliferation rate. Regulation of differentiation rate is key to maintaining domain proportions while accommodating both intra- and interspecies variations in size. Thus, the sequential control of progenitor specification and differentiation elaborates pattern without requiring that signaling gradients grow as tissues expand."
  • Motor neuron position and topographic order imposed by β- and γ-catenin activities[3] "Neurons typically settle at positions that match the location of their synaptic targets, creating topographic maps. In the spinal cord, the organization of motor neurons into discrete clusters is linked to the location of their muscle targets, establishing a topographic map of punctate design. To define the significance of motor pool organization for neuromuscular map formation, we assessed the role of cadherin-catenin signaling in motor neuron positioning and limb muscle innervation. We find that joint inactivation of β- and γ-catenin scrambles motor neuron settling position in the spinal cord but fails to erode the predictive link between motor neuron transcriptional identity and muscle target. Inactivation of N-cadherin perturbs pool positioning in similar ways, albeit with reduced penetrance. These findings reveal that cadherin-catenin signaling directs motor pool patterning and imposes topographic order on an underlying identity-based neural map."
  • Dynamic imaging of mammalian neural tube closure[4]
[Expand]More recent papers

Neural Development Overview

Neuralation begins at the trilaminar embryo with formation of the notochord and somites, both of which underly the ectoderm and do not contribute to the nervous system, but are involved with patterning its initial formation. The central portion of the ectoderm then forms the neural plate that folds to form the neural tube, that will eventually form the entire central nervous system.

Early developmental sequence: Epiblast - Ectoderm - Neural Plate - Neural groove and Neural Crest - Neural Tube and Neural Crest

 

Neural Tube Primary Vesicles Secondary Vesicles Adult Structures
week 3 week 4 week 5 adult
neural plate
neural groove
neural tube
 
Brain
Prosencephalon Telencephalon Rhinencephalon, Amygdala, Hippocampus, Cerebrum (Cortex), Hypothalamus, Pituitary | Basal Ganglia, lateral ventricles
Diencephalon Epithalamus, Thalamus, Subthalamus, Pineal, third ventricle
Mesencephalon Mesencephalon Tectum, Cerebral peduncle, Pretectum, cerebral aqueduct
Rhombencephalon Metencephalon Pons, Cerebellum
Myelencephalon Medulla Oblongata
Spinal Cord

Early Brain Vesicles

In week 3, the neural plate forms and the caudal end of the neural plate remains narrow compared to the cranial end which rapidly expands.

In week 4, when the plate folds to form the neural tube, the cranial end of the tube then forms a series of enlarged cavities (vesicles) that will eventually form the brain. The caudal end of the tube forms a narrower tube of relatively the same size along its length that will eventually form the spinal cord.

Primary Vesicles Secondary Vesicles
CNS primary vesicles.jpg CNS secondary vesicles.jpg
early embryonic late embryonic

Human brain growth 01.jpg

Direct comparison of brain growth embryonic and fetal period. Note the relative size of the spinal cord seen at the lower end of each image.

Spinal Cord Regions

The neural tube forms similar regions around the wall along its length, including the spinal cord. The floor and roof plate are specialised developmental regions, important embryonic "patterning" regions.[5]

  • Floor plate - thin wall region that overlies the notochord. Ventral patterns the spinal cord, both floor plate and notochord produce Sonic hedgehog (Shh) (see also Notochord)
  • Basal plate - thick wall region lying either side of the floor floor plate. The ventral horn motor neurons develop here and extend axons out of the spinal cord to innervate developing skeletal muscle. Tracts formed by axons surround these horns and project both up and down the spinal cord.
  • Alar plate - thick wall region lying either side of the roof floor plate. The sensory dorsal horn develops there and receives axons from the sensory structures outside the spinal cord. The adult horn is divided into 6 laminae (I to VI). Tracts formed by axons surround these horns and project both up and down the spinal cord.
  • Roof plate - thin wall region that underlies the dorsal ectoderm epithelium. Dorsal patterns the spinal cord, the roof plate produces Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs).[6][7]
  • Lumen - neuroepithelium lined fluid-filled space continuous with the brain ventricular system.
Week 4 Week 8
Stage13 spinal cord02.jpg Human Stage22 spinal cord02.jpg
Stage 13 Spinal cord cross-section (upper part of cord). 
labeled image | unlabeled image
Stage 22 Spinal cord cross-section (ventral is at bottom of image)
labeled image | unlabeled image

Embryonic Development

Week 4

Spinal cord cross-section (upper part of cord) (Carnegie Stage 13)
Stage13 spinal cord01.jpg Stage13 spinal cord02.jpg

Week 8

Human Stage22 spinal cord02.jpg

Virtual Slide

Stage 22 - Spinal Cord (rotated)

Human Stage22 spinal cord03.jpg

 ‎‎Mobile | Desktop | Original

Stage 22 | Embryo Slides
These listed features link to zoomed views of the virtual slide with the named feature generally in the centre of the view.

Use the (-) at the top left of the screen to see where this feature is located.

Spinal Cord Features Other Features

Fetal Development

Links: Fetal Development

Conus Medullaris

Human week 10 fetus
 
Conus Medullaris (week 10, GA week 12)

The conus medullaris (Latin, "medullary cone") is the tapered, lower end of the spinal cord. An ultrasound study of the position of the spinal cord conus medullaris at 18-22 weeks (20 to 24 weeks ((GA}}) showed that it ended adjacent to vertebrae L2, L2-3 vertebral space, and L3 (73/78, 93%).[8]

 

Plexus Development

The spinal nerves initially leave the spinal cord at each individual segmental levels. At various levels they then form an intersecting network of nerves, a plexus, from which mixed segmental nerves emerge.

 

Cervical Plexus

Adult Cervical Plexus
Gray0804.jpg

(plexus cervicalis)

  • formed by the anterior divisions of the upper four cervical nerves
  • each nerve, except the 1st, divides into an upper and a lower branch, and the branches unite to form three loops.
  • branches are divided into two groups, superficial and deep.

Search PubMed: cervical plexus embryology

Brachial Plexus

Adult Brachial Plexus
Gray0807.jpg

plexus brachial

  • plexus extends from the lower part of the side of the neck to the axilla.
  • nerves that form it are similar in size, mode of communication is subject to some variation.
  • formed by union of the anterior divisions of the lower 4 cervical nerves and the greater part of the anterior division of the first thoracic nerve.
  • 4th cervical usually gives a branch to the 5th cervical.
  • 1st thoracic frequently receives one from the 2nd thoracic.
Search PubMed: brachial plexus embryology

Lumbar Plexus

Adult Lumbar Plexus
Gray0822.jpg

plexus lumbalis

  • formed by anterior divisions of the first three and the greater part of the 4th lumbar nerves.
  • 1st lumbar often receives a branch from the last thoracic nerve.
Search PubMed: lumbar plexus embryology

Sacral Plexus

Dermatomes

A dermatome represents the area of skin that is mainly supplied by a single spinal nerve. Therefore each spinal nerve can be "mapped" to a region of the external body surface and that this "map" is established before embryonic limb rotation.

  • 89px-Keith1902_fig239.jpg

    Fig. 239. Distribution of the Posterior Roots of the Spinal Nerves on the Flexor Aspect of the Arm.

  •  
  • 120px-Keith1902_fig240.jpg

    Fig. 240. Posterior Nerve Roots are distributed in the Lower Limb.

  •  
  • 68px-Keith1902_fig241.jpg

    Fig. 241. Flexor Aspect of the Lower Limb showing the Sensory Distribution of the Segmental or Spinal nerves.

 

Links: Sensory - Touch Development | Limb Development

Molecular

Neural tube dorsoventral patterning SHH BMP.jpg|

Neural tube Dorsoventral Patterning by SHH BMP[9]

Dorsoventral domains are established by opposing concentration gradients of Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) and Bone Morphogenic Protein (BMP).

  • left - These regulate progenitor gene expression. The progenitor genes cross-repress each other to establish domain boundaries.
  • right - Each domain will give rise to a specific cell type that expresses various post-mitotic differentiation genes.

 

Links: SHH | BMP

Spinal Cord Histology

Identify gray and white matter, central canal (surrounded by ependymal cells), dorsal and ventral horns, meninges (pia, arachnoid and dura mater), subarachnoid space with dorsal and ventral rootlets, blood vessels, a motor neurone with a cell body (soma), nucleus, nucleolus, Nissl granules, an axon with axon hillock area, dendrites, glial cells (oligodendrocytes, astrocytes).

Spinal cord (Luxol Fast Blue)
Spinal cord histology 01.jpg Spinal cord histology 02.jpg
Spinal cord - Grey and white matter
Spinal cord histology 03.jpg Spinal cord histology 04.jpg
Spinal cord - Grey matter
Spinal cord histology 11.jpg

Grey matter (HE)

Spinal cord histology 12.jpg

Grey matter (silver)

  • 120px-Spinal_cord_histology_05.jpg

    Overview

  •  
  • 120px-Spinal_cord_histology_06.jpg

    Grey matter

  •  
  • 120px-Spinal_cord_histology_08.jpg

    Grey matter

  •  
  • 120px-Spinal_cord_histology_07.jpg

    White matter

  •  
  • 120px-Spinal_cord_histology_09.jpg

    Ependymal cells

Spinal Cord: Overview 1 | Overview 2 | Overview animation | Grey matter | Grey matter | Grey matter | White matter | Overview unlabeled | Grey matter unlabeled 1 | Grey matter unlabeled 2 | White matter unlabeled 1 | Ependymal cells unlabeled

 

Spinal cord histology 10.jpg
Mouse ependymal cilia 01-icon.jpg
 ‎‎Ependymal cilia
Page | Play
<mediaplayer width='600' height='230' image="http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/5/5f/Mouse_ependymal_cilia_01-icon.jpg">File:Mouse_ependymal_cilia_01.mp4</mediaplayer>

 

Additional Images

  • 120px-Stage_22_image_176.jpg

    Stage 22 labeled image

  •  
  • 120px-Stage_22_image_127.jpg

    Stage 22 unlabeled image

Historic

[Expand]Historic Disclaimer - information about historic embryology pages 
[Expand]Filum Terminale (1919)
[Expand]Human Embryology And Morphology (1921)
[Expand]Anatomy of the Human Body (1918)

References

  1. Jump up Diez Del Corral R & Morales AV. (2017). The Multiple Roles of FGF Signaling in the Developing Spinal Cord. Front Cell Dev Biol , 5, 58. PMID: 28626748 DOI.
  2. Jump up Kicheva A, Bollenbach T, Ribeiro A, Valle HP, Lovell-Badge R, Episkopou V & Briscoe J. (2014). Coordination of progenitor specification and growth in mouse and chick spinal cord. Science , 345, 1254927. PMID: 25258086 DOI.
  3. Jump up Demireva EY, Shapiro LS, Jessell TM & Zampieri N. (2011). Motor neuron position and topographic order imposed by β- and γ-catenin activities. Cell , 147, 641-52. PMID: 22036570 DOI.
  4. Jump up Pyrgaki C, Trainor P, Hadjantonakis AK & Niswander L. (2010). Dynamic imaging of mammalian neural tube closure. Dev. Biol. , 344, 941-7. PMID: 20558153 DOI.
  5. Jump up Wilson L & Maden M. (2005). The mechanisms of dorsoventral patterning in the vertebrate neural tube. Dev. Biol. , 282, 1-13. PMID: 15936325 DOI.
  6. Jump up Chizhikov VV & Millen KJ. (2004). Mechanisms of roof plate formation in the vertebrate CNS. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. , 5, 808-12. PMID: 15378040 DOI.
  7. Jump up Chizhikov VV & Millen KJ. (2005). Roof plate-dependent patterning of the vertebrate dorsal central nervous system. Dev. Biol. , 277, 287-95. PMID: 15617675 DOI.
  8. Jump up Perlitz Y, Izhaki I & Ben-Ami M. (2010). Sonographic evaluation of the fetal conus medullaris at 20 to 24 weeks' gestation. Prenat. Diagn. , 30, 862-4. PMID: 20582935 DOI.
  9. Jump up Zannino DA & Sagerström CG. (2015). An emerging role for prdm family genes in dorsoventral patterning of the vertebrate nervous system. Neural Dev , 10, 24. PMID: 26499851 DOI.

Reviews

Greene ND & Copp AJ. (2009). Development of the vertebrate central nervous system: formation of the neural tube. Prenat. Diagn. , 29, 303-11. PMID: 19206138 DOI.

Ulloa F & Martí E. (2010). Wnt won the war: antagonistic role of Wnt over Shh controls dorso-ventral patterning of the vertebrate neural tube. Dev. Dyn. , 239, 69-76. PMID: 19681160 DOI.

Dasen JS & Jessell TM. (2009). Hox networks and the origins of motor neuron diversity. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. , 88, 169-200. PMID: 19651305 DOI.

Dessaud E, McMahon AP & Briscoe J. (2008). Pattern formation in the vertebrate neural tube: a sonic hedgehog morphogen-regulated transcriptional network. Development , 135, 2489-503. PMID: 18621990 DOI.

Molyneaux BJ, Arlotta P & Macklis JD. (2007). Molecular development of corticospinal motor neuron circuitry. Novartis Found. Symp. , 288, 3-15; discussion 15-20, 96-8. PMID: 18494249

Glenn OA & Barkovich AJ. (2006). Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetal brain and spine: an increasingly important tool in prenatal diagnosis, part 1. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol , 27, 1604-11. PMID: 16971596

Glenn OA & Barkovich J. (2006). Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetal brain and spine: an increasingly important tool in prenatal diagnosis: part 2. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol , 27, 1807-14. PMID: 17032846

Sadler TW. (2005). Embryology of neural tube development. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet , 135C, 2-8. PMID: 15806586 DOI.

Placzek M & Briscoe J. (2005). The floor plate: multiple cells, multiple signals. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. , 6, 230-40. PMID: 15738958 DOI.

Articles

Saitsu H & Shiota K. (2008). Involvement of the axially condensed tail bud mesenchyme in normal and abnormal human posterior neural tube development. Congenit Anom (Kyoto) , 48, 1-6. PMID: 18230116 DOI.

Books

Search PubMed

November 2010 search "Spinal Cord Embryology" All (7631) Review (641) Free Full Text (1562)

Search Pubmed: Spinal Cord Embryology | Spinal Cord Development

Share this post


Link to post

I want to throw a question out for the pro-life side to consider. Rather than criticizing women for choosing to abort, wouldn't it be easier and more in-line with your values/beliefs to promote better sexual education in schools and widely available contraceptives to prevent many of the abortions these very women desire to have? Because I have heard many people say (not in this thread specifically) that they disagree with abortion but also believe that extensive sex ed in schools is "inappropriate" and increasing the availability of contraceptives is "unecessary" and "a waste of tax dollars." But...I also see little talk of providing for these children once they're born. Obviously we can't just throw a newborn into an orphanage and call it a day. Yet their parents have no desire/resources/ability to raise them. So what should happen to these children?

 

I'm just curious about the other side's viewpoint of this. We've heard from the pro-choice side, but the pro-life people haven't commented much.

Edited by The Dragoness

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/30/2018 at 2:05 PM, olympe said:

Another thing to think about: The easiest way to actually kill another person is to first take away their humanity. This happened in history time and again. "Less than humans", "monkeys", "unworthy lives", "barbarians" or "uncultured and thus unworthy", "sub-class humans", "perverted", "idiots" or "non-believers" are all labels assigned to whole groups of people during history with the intent to make killing them either acceptable or even desirable. (Yes, the barbarians example is from the Roman Empire.) 

 

Now, let's make a list of the terms floating around here to describe an unborn child. "Parasite leeching off nutrients", "no-brainer", "potential human" (with emphasis on potential, not on human), "clump of cells"... 

 

That is really comparing apples and tar, there. Not comparable in the slightest. When people use such totally different things to try to argue their side, I honestly think it just does the opposite. Regardless of what people might *say* about other living, functioning, alive humans, that doesn't mean it's true. Calling people names to try to put them down or make them 'lesser' has nothing whatsoever to do with completely *accurate* terminology regarding a fetus/embryo. Calling it a parasite is *medically accurate*, not a way to 'take away humanity'. Calling it a potential human is also completely *accurate* given that many many pregnancies result in natural miscarriage or stillbirth, therefore it has the *potential* of being born alive but in no way has the *guarantee* of being born alive. These are not judgements or biased propaganda words or anything like that, they are completely, medically *accurate* words. The fact that some people don't *like* those words because they disagree with the idea that fetuses/embryos aren't human, that doesn't mean the words aren't *true*. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Spoiler

 

 

This was very long and said nothing we don't all know. I am still interested in the WHY of your arguments. Is it religious ? Why would you want to force desperate women into a back street when their legal choices are taken away ? Abortions will still happen; they are still needed by some - like it or not.

 

3 hours ago, The Dragoness said:

I want to throw a question out for the pro-life side to consider. Rather than criticizing women for choosing to abort, wouldn't it be easier and more in-line with your values/beliefs to promote better sexual education in schools and widely available contraceptives to prevent many of the abortions these very women desire to have? Because I have heard many people say (not in this thread specifically) that they disagree with abortion but also believe that extensive sex ed in schools is "inappropriate" and increasing the availability of contraceptives is "unecessary" and "a waste of tax dollars." But...I also see little talk of providing for these children once they're born. Obviously we can't just throw a newborn into an orphanage and call it a day. Yet their parents have no desire/resources/ability to raise them. So what should happen to these children?

 

I'm just curious about the other side's viewpoint of this. We've heard from the pro-choice side, but the pro-life people haven't commented much.

 

Absolutely. So much of this would all go away of we had decent sex ed and free contraception. Not all - there's still rape, accidents and the rest - but even so.

 

And who is going to bring up all the unwanted babies that woman are forced to carry - there's actual money involved - and the adoption/care systems are so broken it isn't even funny.

 

2 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

That is really comparing apples and tar, there. Not comparable in the slightest. When people use such totally different things to try to argue their side, I honestly think it just does the opposite. Regardless of what people might *say* about other living, functioning, alive humans, that doesn't mean it's true. Calling people names to try to put them down or make them 'lesser' has nothing whatsoever to do with completely *accurate* terminology regarding a fetus/embryo. Calling it a parasite is *medically accurate*, not a way to 'take away humanity'. Calling it a potential human is also completely *accurate* given that many many pregnancies result in natural miscarriage or stillbirth, therefore it has the *potential* of being born alive but in no way has the *guarantee* of being born alive. These are not judgements or biased propaganda words or anything like that, they are completely, medically *accurate* words. The fact that some people don't *like* those words because they disagree with the idea that fetuses/embryos aren't human, that doesn't mean the words aren't *true*. 

 

 

 

Thanks, HeatherMarie. I absolutely agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Dekka said:

i don't think we are at risk of 'ending the human race' anytime soon. even if countless women chose abortion, there are still 7 billion + people on this earth at least half of which are women, and most women do not abort.  from an objective standpoint we are VASTLY overpopulated and in no way near becoming extinct so i'm not sure what point that was meant to make

The point was a counter-argument to this point made by Cecona:

18 hours ago, Cecona said:

 If we killed living babies because they might die as an adult there would be no adults to reproduce and the human race would die out. That’s not even close to the same thing as abortion.

And here, this argument applies: Humanity would die out as surely if we killed all living babies as it would if we killed all viable embryos. Same result, really. Only one way is kind of acceptable to most people here and the other clearly isn't. However, either way, there will always be enough women willing to have and raise babies to keep our species going, so neither argument applies, really. I was just trying to lead the "killing babies leads to extinction" thing ad absurdum.

15 hours ago, Cecona said:

No one ever said they wanted all embryo/fetus killed. We just want the option to have safe and early abortions for all women that require them. Also you talk about fetuses as though they are all fully formed when they are not. You are talking about fetuses at the very end of gestation where they are basically already a baby but haven’t been born yet. That is not the same as a fetus at the beginning or middle of its phase as a fetus.

Believe it or not, I'm well aware of this. However, it's just as true that a fetus is the stage of development where all major organs are either there, or getting developed rather quickly. This doesn't mean that the organs are fully formed, or already look like an adult's. (Take the heart, for example...)

Quote

And I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “able to move on their own”. I was moving my head on my own at only a few hours old, does that count? Newborns and babies a few weeks old can move around, they just can’t relocate themselves from one place to another and I know babies are aware of themselves before they start crawling/walking from watching my cousins.

It's the relocating things that really drives home to a young human that they're not part of their mother, but an independent entity. Moving your head, arms or legs is something even fetuses can do, and quite early at that.

Quote

 You also cannot compare modern society to Ancient Greece, and places nowadays that will kill a newborn simply for their gender or overpopulation laws. Places that do that are not in line with places that are more scientifically advanced. They are either communists or religious zealots.

Like... India? Where girls are either left wherever or killed because the parents wouldn't be able to afford to pay for them to get married?

 

Quote

reminds me how so many religious people insist life starts at conception yet in the Bible it’s clear they think life doesn’t begin until birth.

I really don't like the idea of bringing any religious texts into this, mostly because they hold no value to me.

Quote

[*snip*] and if the pro-life people would stop keeping women from a receiving safe early abortions the issue of late-term abortions wouldn’t be NEARLY as big as it is. The only late term abortions that should be done are those in which there is no chance of survival for the child or if they do survive their life will be nothing but a painful hell or blackness as they are a vegetable.

This, I agree with wholeheartedly, although I'd like to add that late-term abortions (or, if possible, premature births) should be possible for women who otherwise likely wouldn't survive giving birth at the usual time.

 

15 hours ago, Cecona said:

I would like to point out the biggest reason newborns may not have been considered part of society in ancient times is because of how common it was for children to die within their first few years of life. The parents didn’t want to become too attached to the child if it was going to die before the age of 4.

Actually, that was not the reasoning back then. It was their equivalent of "birth control", since the only kind of contraceptive they knew - sponges filled with vinegar put into the woman's vagina - wasn't really all that effective. Plus, while more sons were always a good thing to the wealthier people back then, more girls could cost them dearly. Their ideal family size was parents plus one son, one daughter. And, as I said, more sons were always acceptable. More daughters... not so much. Another thing typical for their society was to marry paternal half-siblings (as it cut down on cost for getting their girls married).


Re human brain growth: The fact you omitted is that the brain of a newborn is far from fully developed. As a matter of fact, the brain develops until around 20, maybe 25 years of age.

 Also, regarding the ability to feel pain:

Quote

Nociceptors [=pain receptors] develop from neural-crest stem cells. The neural crest is responsible for a large part of early development in vertebrates. It is specifically responsible for development of the peripheral nervous system (PNS). The neural-crest stem cells split from the neural tube as it closes, and nociceptors grow from the dorsal part of this neural-crest tissue. They form late during neurogenesis. Earlier forming cells from this region can become non-pain sensing receptors, either proprioceptors or low-threshold mechanoreceptors. All neurons derived from the neural crest, including embryonic nociceptors, express the TrkA, which is a receptor to nerve-growth factor (NGF). However, transcription factors that determine the type of nociceptor remain unclear.

 

 

11 hours ago, The Dragoness said:

I want to throw a question out for the pro-life side to consider. Rather than criticizing women for choosing to abort, wouldn't it be easier and more in-line with your values/beliefs to promote better sexual education in schools and widely available contraceptives to prevent many of the abortions these very women desire to have? Because I have heard many people say (not in this thread specifically) that they disagree with abortion but also believe that extensive sex ed in schools is "inappropriate" and increasing the availability of contraceptives is "unecessary" and "a waste of tax dollars." But...I also see little talk of providing for these children once they're born. Obviously we can't just throw a newborn into an orphanage and call it a day. Yet their parents have no desire/resources/ability to raise them. So what should happen to these children?

 

I'm just curious about the other side's viewpoint of this. We've heard from the pro-choice side, but the pro-life people haven't commented much.

Well, I'm not from the US, but from Germany, where the respective states decide what's taught in schools. I'm from Nordrhein-Westfalen, and only know the syllabus of my home region, both from when I was a kid and now from my daughter's generation. It also bears to be said that every child has to attend a school that works with the officially sanctioned syllabus. We don't have home-schooling at all, which I consider a good thing overall.

 

In my time, we had some basic sex ed in grade 4 (around age 9-10) that included anatomy, puberty, pregnancy (and a general idea of how to get pregnant) as well as birth. I distinctly remember that we were made to watch a video of a woman giving birth, and when I got home that day, I told my mother I'd never ever ever have babies, because ewww!

We had another couple of lessons on sex-ed that also included various forms of contraceptives, as well as STDs with a focus on AIDS two years later.

 

My 15-year-old daughter, who has just entered 10th grade, has had 3 or 4 instances of sex ed, roughly every other year. I know it's covered all the things I learned at school, at the very least, plus they practiced how to put a condom on a banana. I also know from various accounts (as well as looking at the biology syllabus) that this is the norm, not an exception.

 

Personally, I think that we have all the bases covered when it comes to sex ed, and I wish that all other countries had comparable standards.

 

When it comes to availability - aroundhere, every single supermarket (which are not open 24/7) and most shops at gas stations (of which there are many, and many of which are open 24/7) sell condoms, at the very least. (I feel that they could be cheaper, but it's not like their price is excessive, either.) I never really looked into the pill because I'm not supposed to take them due to a medical condition (essential thrombocythemia, which I got diagnosed with at the ripe old age of 16), but even I know that they need to be prescribed by a doctor, usually an OB/GYN, and are available in pharmacies. What I don't know about is who much you need to pay for them, but I'm reasonably sure you don't have to pay for them at all before you turn 18. (That's at least something.) Considering we also have a social system that won't let you just slip into poverty unless that's what the person affected chooses, I think it's safe to say that nobody here needs to get pregnant if they don't want to - unless their contraceptive(s) of choice failed. Which happens, as I'm well aware. XD However, it is possible to get the morning after pill in every single pharmacy - of which we have a lot, sometimes several within viewing distance of each other.

 

Regarding laws: In German law, abortion is not considered abortion before implantation of the embry. So, the morning after pill is a non-issue and perfectly fine.

Any other kind of abortion is prohibited, unless...

  • ...conception hasn't occurred more than 12 weeks ago, and the woman requesting the abortion has had a counseling session, after which she has waited at least 3 days to proceed. (As far as I can tell, the counseling required is not that hard to get.)
  • ... there's a risk to the life, health or mental wellbeing of the mother.
  • ... there's a possibility that the pregnancy is the result of a crime (eg. rape), and conception hasn't happened more than 12 weeks ago.

I think that his covers all the bases, unless I'm missing a point somewhere? I mean, sure, 3 months is not that long a time, but time enough for a responsible woman to take care of matters. Plus, there's always the exception for mental wellbeing...

 

Edited by olympe
Edited because I messed up my quote tags; content hasn't been changed otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for the double post, but my latest post got too unwieldy to continue. Plus, it started to freeze my browser. (Stupid forum software hating multiple quotes...)

7 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

That is really comparing apples and tar, there. Not comparable in the slightest. When people use such totally different things to try to argue their side, I honestly think it just does the opposite. Regardless of what people might *say* about other living, functioning, alive humans, that doesn't mean it's true. Calling people names to try to put them down or make them 'lesser' has nothing whatsoever to do with completely *accurate* terminology regarding a fetus/embryo. Calling it a parasite is *medically accurate*, not a way to 'take away humanity'. Calling it a potential human is also completely *accurate* given that many many pregnancies result in natural miscarriage or stillbirth, therefore it has the *potential* of being born alive but in no way has the *guarantee* of being born alive. These are not judgements or biased propaganda words or anything like that, they are completely, medically *accurate* words. The fact that some people don't *like* those words because they disagree with the idea that fetuses/embryos aren't human, that doesn't mean the words aren't *true*. 

With the same reasoning, a breast-fed baby could be considered a parasite because it leeches nutrients off its mother. And breast-feeding used to be the standard way to raise babies until bottle-feeding was invented - and breat-feeding is still very wide-spread. Still, you and others keep telling me that "it's not the same" because - why? Breathing? That seems a very arbitrary standard to me. Brain development? There's no clear difference between "before birth" and "after birth", it's a steady development that continues into adulthood. Memories? Even unborns can remember sounds. (My daughter taught me that lesson while still in the womb, around 6 months after conception, I think.) And, what happened more than once, equating a fetus with a clump of cell is accurate as calling the world a disk.

Share this post


Link to post

responding to the concept of sex ed in schools, my high school (american) has given us no sex ed whatsoever.  as in, none... and this is a public school, not based on any certain religion.  just putting that out there.  i once had a girl ask me if she could get pregnant if a boy ejaculated in her mouth which goes to show that it's VERY IMPORTANT that this get fixed.  if you want to prevent abortions at any point you need to give people the knowledge they need not to get pregnant lmao

Edited by Dekka

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I think that his covers all the bases, unless I'm missing a point somewhere? I mean, sure, 3 months is not that long a time, but time enough for a responsible woman to take care of matters. Plus, there's always the exception for mental wellbeing...

 

Your post went a bit odd...

 

Three months would be - in an ideal world. BUT - sometimes you actually don't know you are pregnant till long after that; sometimes others will deliberately stall (as in Northern Ireland) so that the abortion you want and need is unreasonably delayed. One size will never fit all. And choice is vital. No-one who doesn't want an abortion has to have one, on the whole (except in parts of China).

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

Your post went a bit odd...

 

Three months would be - in an ideal world. BUT - sometimes you actually don't know you are pregnant till long after that; sometimes others will deliberately stall (as in Northern Ireland) so that the abortion you want and need is unreasonably delayed. One size will never fit all. And choice is vital. No-one who doesn't want an abortion has to have one, on the whole (except in parts of China).

Well, first of all, as far as I know, we don't have that stalling here. If you have intercourse and there's even a slight chance you could have gotten pregnant (eg. the condom burst, you needed antibiotics while being on the pill, you may have forgotten to take the pill one day...), get tested. Twice. That's a very good way to find out. Or, if you want to go the "better safe than sorry" route, take the morning after pill. If you choose to stay ignorant despite symptoms and the very real possibility of a pregnancy - that's on you. Seriously. Eventually, you need to own up to your own mistakes, instead of letting someone else, even if unborn, bite the bullet.

 

And if all else fails, you can still argue that carrying your pregnancy to term would impact your mental health. I'm 100% positive that this kind of thing can be faked, if nothing else.

 

ETA: That's not saying I agree with the stalling techniques present in Northern Ireland.

Edited by olympe

Share this post


Link to post

You can't get a test result right after intercourse - it won't show positive for a good long while - but as you say, there is of course the morning after pill. (Not in Northern Ireland of course. And some pharmacists - even in the UK -  are very naughty about refusing to give it to you... even though they are legally required to.)

 

The big issue is the number of places around the world (notably the US) where these options simply AREN'T available - and sex education is appalling as well. Until all that is fixed, this will remain the massive problem that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, olympe said:

Sorry for the double post, but my latest post got too unwieldy to continue. Plus, it started to freeze my browser. (Stupid forum software hating multiple quotes...)

With the same reasoning, a breast-fed baby could be considered a parasite because it leeches nutrients off its mother. And breast-feeding used to be the standard way to raise babies until bottle-feeding was invented - and breat-feeding is still very wide-spread. Still, you and others keep telling me that "it's not the same" because - why? Breathing? That seems a very arbitrary standard to me. Brain development? There's no clear difference between "before birth" and "after birth", it's a steady development that continues into adulthood. Memories? Even unborns can remember sounds. (My daughter taught me that lesson while still in the womb, around 6 months after conception, I think.) And, what happened more than once, equating a fetus with a clump of cell is accurate as calling the world a disk.

 

Breast-feeding is *optional*. Again, it's not the same thing at all. No one is *forced* to breast-feed a baby (at least I've never heard of that!). Especially not a baby they didn't want in the first place. Even when breast-feeding was the standard way to go, I've never heard of anyone literally being *forced* to breast-feed a baby. Choice is key here. People who breast feed their child do it because they love the child, want them to grow up healthy and strong, want that bonding experience, etc etc etc.... They *choose* to do it. So of course they would never equate that with a parasite, because it's something they choose to do. 

 

Forced pregnancy, on the other hand, is not a choice. Women are *forced* to carry something inside their bodies that they do *not* want, they probably feel no attachment to and/or don't want those 'bonding' experiences that come with carrying a fetus for 9 months. Being *forced* to do something against your will is a great way to make you look at that something in a negative way, and that's what most anti-choice people think the term 'parasite' is, a negative term. Even though it's completely medically accurate. Also, most actual definitions of the term 'parasite' specify it taking nutrients 'at the host's expense' and 'to a possibly harmful extent' (look it up). Again, something growing INSIDE your body is living off your body with or without your consent, pulling nutrients from you body whether or not you want it to, whether or not you agreed to 'let' it, etc. That is completely different then *allowing* something *outside* your body to benefit from your body.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

Breast-feeding is *optional*. Again, it's not the same thing at all. No one is *forced* to breast-feed a baby (at least I've never heard of that!). Especially not a baby they didn't want in the first place. Even when breast-feeding was the standard way to go, I've never heard of anyone literally being *forced* to breast-feed a baby. Choice is key here. People who breast feed their child do it because they love the child, want them to grow up healthy and strong, want that bonding experience, etc etc etc.... They *choose* to do it. So of course they would never equate that with a parasite, because it's something they choose to do. 

 

Forced pregnancy, on the other hand, is not a choice. Women are *forced* to carry something inside their bodies that they do *not* want, they probably feel no attachment to and/or don't want those 'bonding' experiences that come with carrying a fetus for 9 months. Being *forced* to do something against your will is a great way to make you look at that something in a negative way, and that's what most anti-choice people think the term 'parasite' is, a negative term. Even though it's completely medically accurate. Also, most actual definitions of the term 'parasite' specify it taking nutrients 'at the host's expense' and 'to a possibly harmful extent' (look it up). Again, something growing INSIDE your body is living off your body with or without your consent, pulling nutrients from you body whether or not you want it to, whether or not you agreed to 'let' it, etc. That is completely different then *allowing* something *outside* your body to benefit from your body.

There are still areas in this world where bottle-feeding is not available, or simply too expensive for many people. Mothers there usually don't have a choice, unless you consider the choice to let their offspring die of starvation. So, for those people (of which there are millions, if not billions), the change from fetus to baby is the change from endoparasite to ektoparasite.

 

Having looked up the term "parasitism" before, in about half (?) the definitions, parasitism is defined as what you describe - but stating quite clearly that parasitism involves individuals of different species. However, a human embryo is still a member of the human species. This definition, btw, is biologically accurate. Otherwise, children in general would actually fit the definition of "social parasites", because they need their parents' help/resources in order to mature.

Share this post


Link to post

So, the definition I provided - which specifically states two separate organisms, of which the mother and embryo ARE separate organisms -  doesn't count just because you found other definitions that list it a certain way? Like, that's not how language works. Words mean their totality and can be used in any context - which is the reason why haughty teachers asking their students to say may I go to the bathroom aren't right. It's all about the way the word is being used in the moment - and it is NOT scientifically incorrect to call an embryo a parasite. Two separate organisms, one feeding off the other. Organisms /=/ separate species. 

 

Let me leave you with this, Olympe, something that happened just this year in the US. https://womenintheworld.com/2018/06/26/pharmacist-refuses-abortion-pill-to-woman-with-unviable-pregnancy-because-of-his-ethical-beliefs/ Her fetus was dead. And she was refused the medicine she was prescribed. The proper thing to do would have been to have the boss or another store fill the prescription, but he wouldn't even let her do that (I am not arguing about whether or not the pharmacist should have done it himself - again, freedom of choice to do whatever you want, but company policy is to refer to another pharmacist or call another store). He straight up refused her and gave her no options. This happened in 2018. In America. It's never easy anywhere, even if a fetus is medically dead. And, yes, a medically deceased fetus could end up killing a mother

 

I will also leave you with the fact that no one, even in ancient times, was forced to breast feed their child: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2684040/ Wet nursing existed, and so did other animals' milk. "Clay feeding vessels dating from 2000 BC onwards have been found in graves of newborn infants (Wickes, 1953a). The vessels are oblong with a nipple-shaped spout (Osborn, 1979a). At first, the objects were thought to be containers for filling oil lamps. However, chemical analysis revealed casein from animal's milk in the containers’ residue (Weinberg, 1993), which suggests that animal's milk was used in ancient times as an alternative to breastmilk (Wickes, 1953a)." Taken from the former article. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, olympe said:

Sorry for the double post, but my latest post got too unwieldy to continue. Plus, it started to freeze my browser. (Stupid forum software hating multiple quotes...)

With the same reasoning, a breast-fed baby could be considered a parasite because it leeches nutrients off its mother. And breast-feeding used to be the standard way to raise babies until bottle-feeding was invented - and breat-feeding is still very wide-spread. 

 

Before making blanket statements about what you 'think' is history? You really should research it first....You also seemed to conveniently forget that not all women can or could bottle feed, due to their milk won't/wouldn't come in. It's more common then you think, that breast feeding is simply not possible for many women. So are you suggesting then that those women let their babies die of starvation, when they couldn't feed those babies? Or when the mothers died during or soon after child birth? How do you think those babies were fed if there wasn't an available wet nurse?

 

Baby bottles.....Not the modern glass or plastic ones we're familiar with today. But as long as men have made vessels to hold food, there's been baby bottles. 

 

4 hours ago, Alrexwolf said:

I will also leave you with the fact that no one, even in ancient times, was forced to breast feed their child: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2684040/ Wet nursing existed, and so did other animals' milk. "Clay feeding vessels dating from 2000 BC onwards have been found in graves of newborn infants (Wickes, 1953a). The vessels are oblong with a nipple-shaped spout (Osborn, 1979a). At first, the objects were thought to be containers for filling oil lamps. However, chemical analysis revealed casein from animal's milk in the containers’ residue (Weinberg, 1993), which suggests that animal's milk was used in ancient times as an alternative to breastmilk (Wickes, 1953a)." Taken from the former article. 

 

THIS is just a sampling of the historical use of bottles throughout history. They were made of animal horns, pottery, wood, china, as well as metals (pewter or copper) as society advanced. There's even early glass nursing bottles dating back to the Hellenistic, Etruscan, and Roman era (9th century) that were first thought to be perfume bottles, but animal milk was discovered in them. And for nipples on those early nursing bottles? They used dried nipples from other animals. Such as cow or goat teats. 

 

There's even archeological finds suggesting that some of those vessels also worked in a manner similar to breast pumps, where wet nurses could 'pump' their milk for the mother that couldn't nurse, could feed the baby themselves. 

 

5 hours ago, olympe said:

There are still areas in this world where bottle-feeding is not available, or simply too expensive for many people. Mothers there usually don't have a choice, unless you consider the choice to let their offspring die of starvation. So, for those people (of which there are millions, if not billions), the change from fetus to baby is the change from endoparasite to ectoparasite.

 

Actually, bottle feeding has never required the use of formula. Formula is only to imitate human breast milk, but it isn't the primary source that non-nursing mothers use to feed their babies. Never has been, still isn't either in developed or undeveloped countries. Even today, in those poor countries you mention that can't afford formula? They still bottle feed their babies. Using the very methods used throughout history, as well as any bottles they may run across, that they can put a nipple on the end of. Such as disposed soda or water bottles. And they fill it with animal milk, cow or goat mainly. Just like our ancestors did since the beginning of time when the mother had died or was unable to breast feed.


I did my homework on this subject a long time ago, thanks to the 'bottle feeding versus breast feeding' debates....I'm thinking you should have done yours before making an inaccurate statement about this very subject as well. 

Edited by AlicornsPrayer

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, olympe said:

Actually, that was not the reasoning back then. It was their equivalent of "birth control", since the only kind of contraceptive they knew - sponges filled with vinegar put into the woman's vagina - wasn't really all that effective. 

 

 

Actually, history says differently. That there were many different forms of birth control, and it wasn't just the ancient IUD method you state here....

 

Breast feeding was one form of birth control, although unreliable. It was believed the longer a woman breast fed, the less likely she was to get pregnant. This was an observation made by watching how many mammals don't get pregnant until their young are weaned. 

 

Actually, the Talmud recommended soaking a sponge in lemon juice, then inserting it into the cervix....Also lemon and lime *****s were used prior to and after sex. It was also used to abort fetuses. There was also a drink that the rabbis would make a woman drink, if the hubby suspected the child she was carrying wasn't his own. That effectively aborted that fetus when drank. It also tended to kill the woman as well. 

 

Hippocrates (370 BC) recommended women eat the seeds of or drink a tea  made from Queen Ann's lace daily as a form of birth control, as well as use it as a ***** after sex much like the 'morning after pill'.  Pennyroyal was used in much the same manner as well, and was known for it's properties to cause miscarriages. 

 

Blue cohosh was used as birth control while black cohosh was used to abort. 

 

Dong quai (Angelica) was used as birth control as well as to regulate women's cycles. It also helped to relieve cramping. It's synthetic form is what's used in most birth control pills today. If used in the early stages of pregnancy, it can cause uterine contractions, thus aborting embryos. 

 

Rue was used in foods and drank as a tea, as a form of birth control in 200 BC. It's also one of the synthetic ingredients in birth control pills. It was also used in the early stages of pregnancy to abort. 

 

In 1550 BC, a popular IUD was to make a paste of ground dates, honey, and acacia bark and then apply it onto a piece of raw cotton, then insert in the cervix. This created an effective spermicide that prevented unwanted pregnancies. 

 

The earliest known IUD is from 1800 BC Egypt, which was a paste made from unripe acacia berries, colocynth, and honey and applied to a sponge that was inserted into the cervix. It was very successful. In fact, the Egyptians lead the front line in contraceptives, Cleopatra being the figure responsible for the creation of the first condoms that were made from sheep intestines. The Chinese used condoms made from oiled silk paper. 

 

This doesn't include the many other plants that have been used throughout the history of mankind as either birth control or abortives. That were used as teas, food seasoning, or made into pastes that were applied to materials that could be inserted into the cervix, that worked actually well. The ancients were very well skilled in the use of those herbs to prevent pregnancy as well as to end unwanted pregnancies. And those 'recipes' were used throughout history, by every generation up to today even. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/2/2018 at 12:24 AM, Alrexwolf said:

 

Let me leave you with this, Olympe, something that happened just this year in the US. https://womenintheworld.com/2018/06/26/pharmacist-refuses-abortion-pill-to-woman-with-unviable-pregnancy-because-of-his-ethical-beliefs/ Her fetus was dead.

 

The case in Ireland was even worse - the medical staff wanted to abort a dead foetus but couldn't, as it was against the law. The woman died of sepsis as a direct result.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

 

On 9/2/2018 at 4:02 AM, AlicornsPrayer said:

Actually, bottle feeding has never required the use of formula. Formula is only to imitate human breast milk, but it isn't the primary source that non-nursing mothers use to feed their babies. Never has been, still isn't either in developed or undeveloped countries. Even today, in those poor countries you mention that can't afford formula? They still bottle feed their babies. Using the very methods used throughout history, as well as any bottles they may run across, that they can put a nipple on the end of. Such as disposed soda or water bottles. And they fill it with animal milk, cow or goat mainly. Just like our ancestors did since the beginning of time when the mother had died or was unable to breast feed.

 

 

Actually to be fair to olympe - while I don't see that bringing in breast feeding is relevant here - there are far too many places in the world where there simply isn't any alternative to feed the baby - no goat's or other animal's milk. Not even clean water.But the mother's breasts in those circumstances can simply dry up and shrivel.... Horrible.

 

 

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

And because bottle-feeding and whatever you can use for it is so easily available, we have so many starving infants, especially in (but not limited to) third world countries. And of course, every poor peasant wife in the dark middle ages who was barely able to put enough food on the table had easy access to bottle feeding. Bottle feeding, like wet-nursing, was and still is a privilege, and you need resources - usually money or other forms of wealth - in order to pay for it. (Although I'll gladly concede that wet-nursing isn't unheard of in cases where the mother couldn't feed the child and a relative or good friend took over. Still, it was most likely an exception, not the rule.)

 

You also might want to look up the term "parasitic fetus", it's quite enlightening.

parasitic fetus

[-sit′ik]
Etymology: Gk, parasitos + L, icus, like, fetus, pregnant
the smaller, usually malformed member of conjoined, unequal, or asymmetric twins that is attached to and dependent onthe more normal fetus for growth and development. Compare autosite.
 
Apparently, a fetus is not considered a parasite even by medical dictionareis unless it's non-viable and attached to its viable twin. As a conclusion, neither fetuses nor babies are parasites, probably because they do give back, as they're the ones carrying on one's genetic legacy, which is important (from a purely biological point of view) to keep the species going. A parasitic fetus (as defined above) doesn't do that.
 
And, before anyone tries to twist my words abot babgies being aprasites: That was meant as a logical conclusion of the "embryos/fetuses are parasites" paradigm that's such a favorite around here. Because if one is to be considered a parasite, so is the other - and not just the unborn child because it doesn't breathe. Ticks, mites, lice and mosquitos all breathe, yet they're still parasites. Lack of breathing doesn't equal parasitism.
 
@Alrexwolf: I never said I was totally against abortions, but that I do consider the ending of another life - even unborn life - killing. I hold to the belief that there are cases where killing is justified, and even most laws recognize some of them, like self-defense. Getting to the example you cited: The fetus that was to be aborted was dead. You can't end a life that's not there any more. That's a real no-brainer to me. I also don't really agree with the way the pharmacist acted, considering the circumstances.
 
@AlicornsPrayer: Yes, there are many ways to try to avoid getting pregnant without abstinence - but how reliable are these methods? As you stated yourself, breast-feeding isn't very reliable at all. Neither are most herbal contraceptives, because you need a certain dose of the active component, which varies greatly with herbs, depending on the used subspecies, season of harvesting, area of harvesting, climate in the year of harvesting, number of parasites the plant has to fight (and the species of said parasites), amount of time the herb has ben stored, which parts of the plant have been harvested (like young leaves vs. older leaves), even the time of day the herb was harvested... You get the idea, there're just too many variables. And, considering that even nowadays with our perfected chemical formulas and processes, contraceptives are not 100% safe, it's safe to assume that they weren't back then, either. As a result, unwanted pregnancies were most definitely a thing. Now think about how dangerous abortions used to be without the proper medical care we all know and appreciate -  under these circumstances, it was in the best interest of a woman (and her survival) to rather kill a newborn than have an abortion. (Plus, there was always the chance that the child was male...)
 
Edited by olympe
edited because I somehow messed up my quote tags and needed to re-type most of this because copying didn't work. :(

Share this post


Link to post

OT - but Olympe - please try not to put your comments inside the quotes of others - it makes your posts very hard to decipher in terms of what you said and what someone else said...

Share this post


Link to post

Crossposted, but yes, I noticed. I sometimes hate how this new forum software makes for really hard editing of quoted content. I spent a good five minutes re-typing everything because it was impossible to copy and paste the content of the wrong quote for some reason. :(

Share this post


Link to post

I’ll say this, no matter the terminology it doesn’t change the importance of abortions /contraceptives being available to those that need them. To me the term makes no difference as to what it is: Human or nonhuman, parasite or beneficial. It’s still a potiental life that could perish before birth (or right after in some cases) and does not trump the already established life of the mother that is suffering.

 

and what happened/s in the past or in under developed countries does not, and should not determine what we do or how we treat already born babies. The whole dowry thing is out dated and impractical in modern society, it only made sense back when marriage was about territory/land/property/slavery.

 

I know you are trying to argue where the line is and when it becomes not okay, but it’s been stated countless times that it’s about viability. An already born baby is viable, one still developing its spine and nervous system is not.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.