Thanks again SoSIck for making your position so clear.
I hate to bicker but the term conception does not include non-conception, as you are arguing. An empty egg sac is not conception. It's a false pregnancy, no conception took place. duh.
This is how cognitive dissonance deals with facts that contradict belief: pretend it doesn't exist or that it's something else. Let's look at the information again:
Patient information: Miscarriage[/b] As an example, in 1/3 of miscarriages occurring before 8 weeks, there is a pregnancy sac but no embryo inside. [color:"red"][b]This means the egg was fertilized and the cells began to divide, but an embryo did not develop.[/color]
Color and bold for emphasis.
Conception occurs when a sperm unites with an ovum, the result is a zygote. The empty pregnancy sac does not invent itself, nor is it produce by the woman, but develops from a zygote that divides into multiple cells becoming a blastocyst. In the cases cited above those multple cells just happen to form an empty pregnancy sac instead of one with an embryo.
A
false pregnancy on the other hand, is a psychological condition and does not involve the production of an empty pregnancy sac.
Denial of reality doesn't change it to what you want it to be.
Many women have been known to hemorhage, even die from hemorhaging after abortions, or contract nasty infections, and likewise die. It's not a safe procedure under any condition.
The same happens with birth sometimes, so maybe we should stop having any births eh? You like absolute black and white solutions, don't you?
I see this as an argument to improve the methods used instead of trying to drive them back into the back alleys with opportunist quacks instead of trained medical staff.
And, abortiion is used as birth control RAZD, duh again.
So? That does not answer the question of when an abortion
is required to save the womans's life. The question was:
[color:"purple"]Are you equating abortion with birth control? Some people have to have them or suffer drastic consequences -- whether they want to or not -- and it would be cruel to accuse them of just engaging in birth control when they are in the middle of making a difficult decision.[/color]
Do you or do you not agree that some cases are necessary?
It's the rare case where it's used for reasons of detriment to the mother's health.
Nor does the rareness affect the question. Certainly that was not an issue in the supreme court decision on the
Ayotte caseBecause the New Hampshire abortion restriction at issue in this case did not have a medical emergency exception, the U. S. Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional. It sent the case back to the lower courts to determine how best to fix the violation. [color:"red"]In doing so, the Court instructed the lower court to consider whether the New Hampshire legislature would have wanted this law with a medical emergency exception. If not, the Court said the law should be struck down in its entirety. No matter what, the Court said the law cannot be applied in medical emergencies.[/color]
This is the (now reactionary) supreme court saying that abortion for medical emergencies cannot be denied.
Different people will make different choices based on their personal beliefs, and the fact remains that human life cannot be easily defined in a way to satisfy everyone. What this means ethically, legally and morally is that different people that are affected should be able to decide on issues that affect their lives and the lives of their families based on their personal beliefs. Allowing choice by the families involved - based on honest fact based information - is the only way to meet the needs of all people in our pluralistic society.
Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
