should IUD's be considered instruments of murder?

It is my understanding that many, perhaps even most anti-abortion supporters consider a fully human being to be in existence at the moment of conception, when the sperm combines with the egg.Biologically, this usually happens in the fallopian tubes, and it takes up to a week or so for the blastocyst to travel all the way to the uterus and then begin the process of implantation. IUD's (Intrauterine Device) are a birth control method which, among other mechanisms of contraception, prevents the implantaion of the blastocyst in the uterine wall.It is very effective, and is even better at preventing pregnancy up to five days after unprotected intercourse than hormonal emergency contraceptive pills.Some anti-abortion advocates do denounce the IUD as an abortifaciant due to the prevention of implantation action the IUD does provide as part of its method of action.Every time I have encountered an anti-abortion supporter on EvC over the years, all of them said they firmly believed that all life is precious, that pregnancy begins at fertilization, and that doing anything to interfere with the continuation of that life is killing a baby.None of them, that I recall, has ever objected to the idea of IUD's when I have asked them about it, even though they most certainly do interfere with the continuation of the life of what they consider a baby. An IUD kills what they consider a baby exactly as emergency contraception pills do, and exactly as a chemical or surgical abortion does.When asked to explain this inconsistency, I have heard nothing but silence.I have my own ideas as to why this is, but I will set that discussion aside for now in the hopes that those who hold this position will come forward and explain.

Hi Schraf,I was led to believe that the contraceptive pill was able to work in a similar way. It isn't 100% effective at preventing egg release, but it also prevents implantation, too.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Damn right!

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

C'mon, all you anti-abortiionists!I know you're out there.

I consider human life to begin at the point of conception and I don't believe IUD is murder.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

quote:

---

I consider human life to begin at the point of conception and I don't believe IUD is murder.

---

I also believe human life begins at conception.What other sort of life could it be? Goldfish?However, I do not think that every thing that is alive and is also of human origin has the same rights as a fully-formed person. A sperm cell, for example, is alive, and of human origin, but does not have any rights.I think that you hold a similar position. Please correct me if I am mistaken.The difference between our/my position regarding IUD's and that of the anti-abortionist, is one of their treating this: ...exactly the same as this: So, my question is, if they think the willful expulsion (abortion) of a blastocyst from the body is the same as killing a baby, then why don't they also think that using an IUD to prevent that same blastocyst from implanting in the body is the same as killing a baby?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

You are mistaken. I believe that a zygote or embryo should have the same basic human rights that the rest of us enjoy. Even if you take this route, the ultimate logical conclusion would still be a pro-choice. In other words, I pretty much hold the same premises that the pro-life crowd hold. The difference is I actually thought it through. Actually, I believe that both would result in the baby's death. Whether it is murder or not is another question.By the way, what's with repeating yourself 3 dozen times?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

nator Damn good thing or us guys would all have blood on our hand.

quote:

---

I believe that a zygote or embryo should have the same basic human rights that the rest of us enjoy. Even if you take this route, the ultimate logical conclusion would still be a pro-choice.

---

How so? I don't understand how, if you believe that a fertilized egg has the same rights as the rest of us, you can logically conclude that it is not murder to end the "life" of the fertilized egg. Or a blastocyst, or a fetus.

quote:

---

Actually, I believe that both would result in the baby's death. Whether it is murder or not is another question.

---

If it is a baby, and if it enjoys the same basic human rights as you and I, how is it not murder?

quote:

---

By the way, what's with repeating yourself 3 dozen times?

---

Do you still see multiple copies of sentences? I thought I fixed that. I don't see it on my end. (Don't know why that happened)

Long story. Short version is I can't actually tell when human life begins when all human rights apply. Therefore, I'm just taking the coward's way out by assuming that it begins at the safest point for me to assume, the point of conception. Well, one of the consequences of being treated as a fully human being is you can't violate another person's rights. The "baby" is there in the womb of another human being, the woman. It's nothing more than a parasite. Whether to keep this parasite or not inside her body is entirely up to her. If the woman wants it out of her body, too bad for it.For a moment, forget that it's a baby. What if it's me? What if I've found a way to implant myself inside you? What if you don't want me there? What if I will die if you remove me from your body?When the baby is viable, the parent has every right to get rid of it by giving it up. Before it is viable, it is entirely its fault for not being able to survive after it is expelled. Haha, I thought you were pissed off at me.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Ahh... so when you said you had "actually thought it through" in Message 7, you really meant that you had jumped to an unsupported conclusion.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

What if you have no choice? What if you absolutely must implant yourself into nator or you will definitely die? Or what if the choice was never made -- you suddenly find yourself implanted in nator, and removing you in, say, then next 9 months will certainly lead to your death?

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Um, no. I meant I'm not ready to accept that human life and human right begin right after birth. Frankly, I can't tell the difference between a baby a few days before birth and a baby right after birth. My problem is I can't see the fine line that many of you guys claim to be able to see.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Does it matter if I had a choice or not? I say no. Just because I absolutely must implant myself into her or I will die doesn't mean I can definitely violate her right to her own body without her consent. Again, choice or no choice on my part is totally irrelevant when it comes to nator's rights.Are you implying that we ought to force people to give up their rights to their own bodies to save other people?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

That's what I said: You've "thought it through" and come to the conclusion that you haven't come to a conclusion. But you are drawing a fine line at the "moment of conception". The OP asks a specific question about a time after that moment. If "a zygote or embryo should have the same basic human rights that the rest of us enjoy" (Message 7), how is killing it not murder? If IUDs are not murder and abortions are not murder, how does that zygote have any rights? Where are you drawing the line that killing it is murder?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.