Originally posted by EHpianist:
Apple I think the morning after pill is technically a contraception pill as it frequently stops pregnancy before the egg is fertilized. There is the possibility of it destroying a fertilized egg, though.

RU-486 is the abortion pill. And that costs about $900.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com [/b]

Originally posted by Jeffrey:
ivory: "Tell me that's not a human being."

Deal. It's not a human being. It is a potential human being, but it is not a human being yet, any more than an acorn is an oak tree. [/b]

Originally posted by Jeffrey:
ivory: "Tell me that's not a human being."

Deal. It's not a human being. It is a potential human being, but it is not a human being yet, any more than an acorn is an oak tree. [/b]

Originally posted by Jolly:

However, if a young girl is emotionally sound enough to spread her legs on purpose, she should live with the consequences...as should the male half of that horizontal mambo. [/b]

Originally posted by Matt G.:
Typical Coffee Room:

Just compare your adversary's position to Nazism. Works every time. :rolleyes: [/b]

Originally posted by Jeffrey:

As for the Nazi analogies - I believe they were against abortion as part of their "Children, Cooking and Church" campaign to keep women in the home, out of the workforce, and breeding, which is the general motivation for anti-abortion politics today as well. The better comparison is between anti-abortion fanatics and the Nazi party. [/b]

Originally posted by ivorythumper:What is the difference whether the child is living inside the womb or outside of it? [/b]

Originally posted by Mercutio:
The point I was making (far above Matt's head, :rolleyes: ) was that words are words--they hold no particular meaning in fact, unless we give them meaning.[/b]

Originally posted by phykell:
The difference is that it's the mother which is keeping the foetus alive. Outside the mother's body, the foetus wouldn't survive. It's that simple. [/b]

Originally posted by Matt G.:
Oh, good grief, another would-be semiotician manqué. :rolleyes: Let 'em roll, Merc. You'll find that few, if any, things are above my head. (Oh, and thank you for the insult, BTW.) [/b]

Originally posted by Jolly:
On this one, you're dead wrong.

Ask Scott Peterson. [/b]

Originally posted by EHpianist:
Decline accepted. And I'm going to bed. I have no inclination to humor possible sockpuppetts like Mercutio.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com [/b]

Quite suddenly, or so it seems to many, the prospect of Roe v. Wade being overturned or effectively nullified has entered mainstream discussion. This has everything to do, of course, with the November 2004 election and the filling of vacancies on the Supreme Court. James Taranto, writing in the Wall Street Journal, takes a cool, some might say jaded, view of the possible political consequences: “Republicans are an extreme antiabortion party only in theory. When it comes to actual legislation, the GOP favors only modest—and popular—regulations. The Democrats, on the other hand, must defend such unpopular practices as partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-subsidized abortion, and abortions for thirteen-years-olds without their parents’ knowledge. If the Supreme Court overturned Roe, legislators would have to consider the legality of abortion itself. Antiabortion absolutists would demand action from Republicans—but the GOP would be unable to comply without putting off moderate voters, who are much more numerous. Thus the battle would shift to terrain far more favorable to the Democrats. Congressional Republicans’ smartest response would be to avoid the issue and leave it to the state legislatures. But this would free Democrats as well as Republicans to tailor their positions to match their constituents’. Abortion would likely remain legal in much of the country, and the Democratic Party would find it has nothing to fear from democracy.” Returning abortion policy to the states might well be the best course of action available. But to say abortion “would likely remain legal in much of the country” is somewhat misleading. More probably, it would remain legal in certain circumstances; perhaps in the first month or two or in the much discussed but little encountered instances of rape, incest, and direct threat to the life of the mother. It is possible but by no means certain that any state would adopt the unlimited abortion license mandated by Roe. Some states would likely provide comprehensive legal protection for the unborn from conception on. There is another factor, however. Today no court can plausibly follow Roe in claiming that we do not know when a human life begins. Over these thirty-plus years, every literate person has learned, if they did not know before, the basic science about when a human life begins. Nor is it likely that in the future pro-abortionists will be able to use the Dred Scott-like argument about the meaning of “person” employed by Roe. Politically and judicially, the question will be posed in an unevadable manner as to why some who are undeniably human beings have a right to legal protection while others do not. Speculation such as that by Taranto will undoubtedly become more widespread. The debate over abortion may take surprising twists and turns as people seek a politically sustainable equilibrium on the single most potent question in our public life. Attention must be paid to strategies and tactics and surprising turns, but those who understand what is at stake will never weary in working toward a society in which—if I may be permitted to say it for the thousandth time—every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life.