As some uncharitable people have said: Republicans like to tell people how bad government is, and when they get in power they do their very best to prove themselves right.

Of course I would never say such a thing.

The day after pill works post conception (very briefly). Given it kills embryos it qualifies as abortion and hence is not a viable option for anti-abortionists.

Seems to me the issue for secular types is rather fraught. There really isn't a definitive point you can identify that makes a foetus or embryo not a person on one side and a person on the other. So any stage of the pregnancy that's chosen as a legal definition as an element of arbitrariness to it.

It's much cleaner for those who believe that the human soul comes into existence at the moment of conception. I.e. it's a human from minute 1 because what makes us human is the existance of the rational soul, not the state of development of the physical body. However that still doesn't make it cut and dried, because then you have to formulate a moral framework around when it is and isn't acceptable to terminate that life. Severe foetal defects? Rape? Significant risk to the health of the mother if the baby is carried to term (or viability then born by cesaerian)? For the most part inconvenience isn't acceptable for those who are religioulsy inclined, so some things are easy to put on the not acceptable side of the line.

But, the other matter for the religious is whether they can legitimately impose their spiritual beliefs on those who believe differently. In a secular democracy, where there is meant to be strict separation of church and state, religious views on abortion should not dictate public law. Religious people should folloow their religious law, and secular law should not force them to act against their religious beliefs (with certain caveats). What they should do for the less religiously minded is pray for the dead babies, and pray that the baby killers realise the grave error of their ways, but that's as far as they should go. Leave punishment and justice to God if you are so confident in his ability to judge and punish. What we sow in this life we reap in the next, or something like that.

The religious angle also gets tied in knots if you believe that babies go to hell unless they are bapstised in Christ, or some such. Doesn't say much for the justice of God if you honestly believe that. But if you believe innocents are looked after if they die prematurely then there's not a great deal of suffering for the aborted child. In fact they get a get out of jail free card and a go directly to go and collect $200 by bypassing the trials and tribultations of this life. I wouldn't want to say they are fortunate if this is how things are for aborted foetuses because the plan, surely, is for a strong character to be forged in the fires of trial and tribulation. But it's not something for those who are not directly involved to fret over. The spiritual suffering, if there is any to be had, is on the mother and the facilitators of abortion. If there is a spiritual element and spiritual consequences, I don't think rape victims are going to suffer spiritual torment on top of the trauma of being raped. It would be nice for a rape victim to have the mental fortitude to have, raise and love the child. But I don;lt think the law should place that sort of burden, or expectation on anyone. The choice should the victims.

Offhand?  No.  Just guessing back on my psychology degree.  Didn't really care about child psychology though.

Point is.  It's after kids are born.  So a "human consiousness" arguement means that you'd be free to kill born children.

I'm pro-choice, but i tend to find that most pro-choice people are horribly uninformed and don't actually have a logical "Pro-choice" cutoff or reasoning for why they want to cutoff to be at that level... just relying on the current status quo.  Which really is kind of problematic.

If you're going to take a stand on something you should always imagine you or a loved one in a particular situation that the stand is about.

In this case imagine that your mother or sister or daughter was raped. Would you be OK with them being forced to carry the child to term against their will by the government because of the moral or religious views of others?

Does this politician and others that share his views for example have more of a right to decide if your loved ones' pregnancy should continue even at the very beginning of pregnancy than your loved one does?

He believes that he has more of a right than your loved one in making the decision even though he doesn't have to take into consideration or even deal with the emotional and physical trauma of such a pregnancy.

I don't think he understands how the female body really works...
A Pregnancy On/Off button would be cool though.

Shame on you...

That reminds me of the joke in Venture Bros, where Number 21 coming back from the grave revealed that children don't get souls until age 4

Miscarriage, and not conception on the whole.

It would still make for a weird moral argument the part of any pro-lifers if they're saying "miscarriage will sort it out" because a dead baby (condemned, depending on who you listen to, to eternity in hellfire or at least a lengthy stay in purgatory) is still a dead baby.

Can it prevent/offset ovulation? That's the question here.

No, no, that is absolutely false. This study showed how women who had multiple miscarriages had higher cortisol and stress levels. It did not show how women with higher stress levels and cortisol had miscarriages.

Yes, it can. I stated that in my second post in this thread. There are many factors that can prevent or delay ovulation. That won't stop pregnancy if she's already ovulated, however...

A fertile on/off button would be fantastic for males and females to have. We've clearly failed so far in our evolution.