Home - List All Discussions

How far does your view go?

seemed interesting to ask...

by: jujujellybean

What do you believe? If so, why do you believe that? I am interested in knowing exactly who is on here!!!!

reply from: GratiaPlena

I believe both abortion and birth control are wrong. Well, actually, I have no problem with birth control, I'm just against artificial contraception. Natural Family Planning morally accpeptable in my opinion.

reply from: sheri

i agree.you know what Chesterton said about birth control being aptly named, because people who use it have "no birth and no control."

reply from: xLoki

I'm honestly curious on the reasons you are against birth control. And do you mean you are against it personally or are you for limiting access to birth control for everyone?

reply from: GratiaPlena

I believe the pill should be outlawed simply because it can be abortaficient. I am personally against other kinds of contraception, but I am not going to campaign to get them outlawed.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

I voted a few hours ago for the first option.
I think outlawing contraceptives is ridiculous. It will increase the number of abortions. If it is against your morals do not use them.
As far as my beliefs on abortion goes, I am completely pro-choice if the pregnancy is in the first trimester and early in the second trimester.
6-9 months, I think it is only acceptable if it is best for the mother or fetus healthwise since it can now feel pain. And 8-9 months, it pretty much is a baby (in my opinion). But all abortions done in the third trimester are for health risks anyway.

reply from: joe

kayluvzchoice, how do you make the statement that the unborn feels pain only after 6 months. Is it a scientific fact?
If it is not proven, then you are clearly willing to make an fatal error to satisfy your agenda.
How can anyone take a chance to cause pain to the unborn?

reply from: ronin82

Kayluvz,
It isn't true that all third trimester abortions are done for health risks... pro-life activists found out that some of Dr. Tiller's patients (if you don't know who he is, google him) were getting late term abortions for reasons as frivolous as vacations and wanting to be able to play sports. The abortion industry has a vested interest in maintaining good PR, like any other industry. People are more likely to assent to late term abortion if they think it is only being used for health risks. Meanwhile Tiller and those who share his overall philosophy believe that late term abortions should be available for any reason whatsoever, as part of women's "reproductive freedom".
To answer the original post, 100% pro-life, though I question whether or not it is morally acceptable to take an innocent life to save my own life - I have a hard time saying that this is morally wrong. But only a tiny number of abortions are sought out for this reason. I am opposed to the murder of innocents in general, and abortion is only one form of that.

reply from: jujujellybean

I think the same...I think stopping life before it has a chance for occurring is wrong.

reply from: jujujellybean

Best for the fetus? Killing it is best for the fetus? What are you talking about? And no, they aren't. Look at this from a former employee of Tiller the Killer:
Luhra (Tivis) Warren, a former Tiller employee, wrote the following:
"I was required to falsify the medical records. But not just that, related to that, I was required to lie to the women over the phone. And the way he'd explain it to me was, without coming right out and saying it, these are really third trimester abortions, but we're going to tell them they're only in the second trimester. They would say, well, I've already had a sonogram, and my bpd was 7.8 or 8.3 or whatever. He said, when they tell you that, don't turn them away as being too far along. Tell them to come in, and we'll do our own sonogram, and it will show they're not that far along. Tell them that sonogram reading is an art, not a science. He explained to me that the bpd is a measurement of the angle of the baby's head, where at that angle, the baby's head is roughly egg-shaped. The usual way that you measure the bpd is from the top of the egg to the bottom of the egg, which is at the widest point. But we measure it from side to side, at the narrowest point." from Celebrate Life Sept/Oct 1994 "Where is the Real Violence?"
Isn't that sick? THEY LIED TO THE WOMEN AND TOLD THEM THEY WEREN'T THAT FAR ALONG. Go to this link to read even more:
http://www.dr-tiller.com/elective.htm

Freaky!!!!!

reply from: AshMarie88

Well now we all know the proaborts on this forum really don't think abortion is EVER wrong in ANY case and that it's a right up until birth. They confirm it.

reply from: xLoki

Do you believe wire hangers and knitting needles should be outlawed as well? What about cigarettes or caffeine, even?

reply from: yoda

Goodness no! If we did that, what would you proaborts use for props when you stage your protests?

reply from: Hereforareason

"Preventing sperm from entering the vagina is wrong? "
That is the view of those who believe God is in control, and no one should play god. Roughly.
"I believe the pill should be outlawed simply because it can be abortaficient.
Do you believe wire hangers and knitting needles should be outlawed as well? What about cigarettes or caffeine, even?"
Hm, what is the main objective of the pill? It wouldn't be to end pregnancy early would it? Does it have another main usage?
Amber

reply from: xLoki

Absolutely not! The main objective is to prevent pregnancy from occuring! The pill stops ovulation from occuring and sometimes thickens a woman's cervical mucus as to prevent sperm from getting past.
I know a lot of women use the pill to help regulate their periods, as well. I have a friend who is on the pill (and is a VIRGIN) because her periods are too heavy and painful without it. Good to know you all would outlaw her pills and have her suffer instead.

reply from: sheri

loki your friend will be suffering more when her pill gives her breast cancer. besides the pill doesnt fix anything it only masks the symptoms there are better ways to deal wth problem menses.
you need to read the pill insert where it explains how when break through ovulation happens the back mechanism of the pill kicks in and causes the uterus to become a hostile enviroment for the newly conceived baby thus causing an early abortion.

reply from: sheri

vex the pill isnt regulating anything, its setting up a false period and masking the underlieing problem that needs to be addressed, have you visited an endocranolagist? dont let your lasy doctor write you a scrip and write you off find out whats wrong and get off the pill before you get breast cancer.

reply from: sheri

also you do realize the pill causes chemical abortions right?

reply from: sheri

so your all up on how the pill causes abortions?

reply from: xLoki

I would like a source stating that "OMGZ the pill gives you breast cancer!". Here's something I found:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
This site basically says two different studies contrasted each other. One study found that oral contraceptives may slightly increase one's risk for breast cancer. That same study also states that:
Then, a second study apparently found no correlation at all between oral contraceptives and breast cancer risk.
But your little glib remark about my friend is noted. You're quite compassionate.
Oh, really? Like how? You seem to have all of life's mysteries solved. Do enlighten.
No dip. This is not the main objective of the pill, however. Which is what I was asked.
Breastfeeding can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting itself. You don't want to outlaw that too, do you?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Wow. Some of you guys belong in a padded room in a straitjacket.
I didn't think anyone honestly felt that much emotion over eggs. Are you also against periods or abstinence on the days a woman ovulates? When you don't have sex on the days you ovulate, you take away the reason for the process. I mean, your God made us ovulate for a reason, right? (According to your "logic")
Anyone who is against BC pills (for everyone) obviously has never had a very heavy flow (losing too much blood) or menstrual cramps so painful that you would faint, vomit, or have hot flashes.

reply from: deannat

I see nothing wrong with birth control and I think abortion in the first trimester is a medical matter that should be left up to a woman, her doctor, and her God. After the first trimester there is greater risk of harm to the woman and the fetus becomes viable. For those and other reasons, abortion after the first trimester should be regulated in the same way organ donations, transplants, transfusions, and other medical procedures are regulated to prevent abuse.

reply from: carolemarie

I believe that abortion is always wrong, unless it is to save the life of the mother. As for birth control, that is a personal decision.
While the pill can possibly cause chemical abortions, it is only one of three ways the pill works and we are just speculating how many times it prevents implantation.
There are other methods that work well. I don't think we have to have as many kids as we can conceive.

reply from: sheri

no, God doesnt require us to have as many kids as we possibly can, for unselfish reasons NFP can be used. i realize some of you believe life begins at implantation not fertilization, but you are wrong, and if you think about it with an open mind you should be able to figure it out on your own.
the pills ability to cause an early abortion is the reason it is most evil, it doesnt matter if a women is having one chemical abortion a year or twelve, you dont play russian rholette with your kids.
This site shows a graph that should make it clear to you the added increase in the risk of breast cancer due to pill use. www.polycarp.org

reply from: sheri

breast feeding works to delay the return of fertility naturaly, it suppresses ovulation. if you would like more info on that www.ccl.org

reply from: galen

I voted for the middle one and i will state why... even though I am Catholic... I teach NFP... but believe condom use and other barrier methods are not wrong( gosh do the MSGr and I go aroung about this!)... I also believe in rare cases that a pill or other hormonal BC method is required as preventive measures for certain patients.. cancer patients for example. once a pregnacy is there however i do believe that everything possible should be done to protect it.
Mary

reply from: sheri

the pill causes early abortions as a nfp teacher you should know that, who are you certified with?

reply from: xnavy

i voted the 2nd one because i do believe in bc but not abortions. there are other forms of bc then the pill like barrier methods(condom,
pregnancy sponge, etc)

reply from: galen

I am certified through the university that i teach at...i won't say more because i am also the RN for a women's shelter run by Catholic charities...and before you ask YES they know my views and NO i do not prescribe the pill to those women.
If a woman who is undergoing a course of chemotherapy is advised to be on hormonal BC by her physician then it is my feeling and many others' also that she should do so... there are other disorders such as autoimmune diseases ie lupus RA scleroderma... that necessitate lifelong low dose chemo.. should a married woman give up all relations with her spouse because she may have to be on Cytoxin therapy or methotrexate for the rest of her life? Being on those meds have a high risk of fetal deformaty( severe) and or miscarraige.
Mary

reply from: galen

ps NFP has instructors not teachers....
MAry

reply from: sheri

the sympto/thermo method of nfp has an effectivness rate that is equal to the pill. why advocate a method that puts the woman in danger of aborting her children. If its ok to kill a baby in some situations where do you draw the line?

reply from: galen

Originally posted by: sheri
no, God doesnt require us to have as many kids as we possibly can, for unselfish reasons NFP can be used. i realize some of you believe life begins at implantation not fertilization, but you are wrong, and if you think about it with an open mind you should be able to figure it out on your own.
----------------------------------------
open mind huh???* smiles sweetly*
I absolutely hate it when people spread misinformation about science as a way of scaring other people into thinking the way they do... don't you agree? * bats eyes.
Mary
ps what medical college did you graduate from??

reply from: galen

NFP is NOT reliable when a woman is on immunosupression... and no respected instructor would tell you so... why would you put the woman at risk and therefor her unborn child by saying this is ok?
deliberate misinforation is worse than misinformation... some might call it premeditation.....
Mary

reply from: sheri

if the poor woman in your example is that sick why would you give her an artificial horamone? do you know the pill causes breast cancer? www.polycarp.org

reply from: galen

Saints preserve us where do you come from??
lol when you have spent as many years as i have helping women safely deliver and lead happy, healthy productive lives... then come back to me with that one.
just because some crackpot out there says its so do you automaticly believe them and then apply that thought to every female in the world.
the old pills ran the risk you speak of... they are not sold in the US or Canada any longer...
The cascade of problems caused by an autoimmune disease can be helped by a hormone balancing agent like the mini pill. ( in some cases) .
But you still have not answered MY questions.... care to give it a whirl. ??
Mary

reply from: sheri

you need to call the couple to couple leage, they can help teach a women how to monitor her fertility signs even when they are comprimised and irregular. 1 800 745 8252. p.s. i would rather abstain for the Rest of my LIFE then take a chance at aborting one of my babies.

reply from: sheri

did you go to polycarp. org please educate yourself then get back to me and do not call yourself prolife if you think its ok to kill a child at conception. your giving us a bad name baby!

reply from: galen

here is an excerpt from the study you are citing.....
Q-G: What are the weaknesses of the Oxford study and what implications do they have?
The main weakness was the failure to report any evidence of what the pooled risk of oral contraceptive use before a first term pregnancy was in women less than 45 years old. Another major weakness is that the Oxford study pooled data from studies which looked at women with breast cancer from the early and mid 1970s [17, p.5S].
A woman's breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic influence (ie, cancer producing influence) before she has her first child because the breast undergoes a maturing process throughout a woman's first pregnancy. By failing to measure the effect of OCP use before a premenopausal woman's first full-term pregnancy (FFTP), the Oxford study failed to give data on the one group of women who are most likely to get breast cancer from oral contraceptives, namely, those women who used them before their FFTP (eg, many teenagers and women in their 20s).
The second weakness is that the Oxford study used data from older studies which took some of their data from the mid and early 1970s. This does not leave a long enough latent period. A latent period is the time between exposure to a suspected risk factor (eg, early OCP use) and the cancer which it increases (eg, breast cancer). Often the latent period between a risk factor and a cancer is 15 to 20 years or more (eg, cigarettes and lung cancer). Although women in the U.S. began taking OCPs in the 1960s, they only began taking them for longer periods of time at younger ages in the 1970s. Thus, only studies which include data from the 1980s and 1990s or beyond would allow a long enough latent period to pick up the influence of early OCP use.
Q-H: Why is it important to study women who are under the age of 45?
Women who are under the age of 45 are more likely to have used OCPs prior to having a child than woman over the age of 45. For example a 55-year old woman who had breast cancer in 1990 would have been very unlikely to have taken the OCP for a significant period of time prior to giving birth because OCPs were just coming to the U.S. in the early 1960s when the cited woman would have been in her late 20s.
Q-I: What do the four largest studies, which take the bulk of their data after 1980, state regarding women who used OCPs prior to their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
did you even read the study used by the group you support?
Mary

reply from: galen

are YOU married??
personally i am and i would rather not. luckily cancer gave me a gift... hysterectomy.
Mary

reply from: galen

---------------------
even this organization would not DARE to came between a woman and her physician.( and yes i have used them before) why not leave the medicine to the medical profesionals... go back to your apple tree. you calling a frog a horse will never make it so.
Mary

reply from: galen

Nope its people who waltz into a battle weilding a wet noodle that end up getting the rest of us killed.
AND PS i am NOT your baby.
Mary
Still not answering any of my questions are you?

reply from: sheri

the oxford study was one of the few that showed a decrease in breast cancer(God give me patience!) the other 20 howed an increase. im married to a nurse whom i dearly love ,ild rather saw off my right arm then give sex up but i would if it was our only option, child killing is not an option. fortuatly that will never have to hasppen because we have nfp.

reply from: sheri

and ps thank god your not my baby ild give you the spanking of a lifetime for your uncouth behaviour.

reply from: galen

Well then you go speak with your clergy.... i do not know anyone that would tell you to go against medical advice (remember progesterone HELPS some cases of autoimmune) neither did the Vatican or those in the varius protestant organisations. BTW after the intiial studies were produced then everyone was giving out dollars for studies such as these. there have been over 75 worldwide.... care to guess what the bulk of them found?
OK so you answered 1 of my questions... what about the others?

reply from: galen

My uncouth behaviour?? lol * choke gasp wheeze* ...
I only told the truth...
again... what medical university did you graduate from.... how many times have you take and intrest in a pregnant woman's situation....?
mary

reply from: sheri

no please tell me what the bulk of the studies found,where the results different from the 24 on polycarp.org? ild be interested to see them. What questions are you refering to? 2nd attempt.

reply from: sheri

Why is it relevent how often ive helped a pregnant woman out if i told you would you care? also when i helped i was never paided for my pains, nurse ratchet.

reply from: galen

What medical university did you graduate from.... ??
what makes you think you are better than a woman's own physician...
why do you believe its ok to pass out misinformation like poisonous candy?
As for the bulk of those studies.... NONE of them were able to draw any real corrilation that BCP cause breast CA in any diffinitive way... while the logic might seem valid there as yet has been no proof. good hypothesis stan up to vigerous testing and retesting... everyone get nearly the same result.
Mary

reply from: sheri

also you dont need a degree to know that life begins at conception. and its always wrong to take that life. So says the vatican, despite what you think, the vatican frequently stands against public oppinion, even doctors.

reply from: galen

HE HE He who said i was paid? i have no need of payment my husband makes a very cozy living and i happen to volunteer my time... so do my kids.
Mary
so now we're down to name calling are we?

reply from: galen

The Vatican does not condone sentencing a married couple to misery or a woman to death... which you would understand if you comprehended my point at all...
Mary

reply from: galen

Yes i would care if you helped women... I have a great respect for honest labour and abolutely none for people who spout without getting down in the trenches... you would not comment to your sainted wife about how she handles a patient's care with out knowing what she does all day would you?
Mary

reply from: sheri

20 out of 24 studies show bc causes breast cancer and thats not good enough? go read the rest.
1) i have ba in bs- besides that im dumber then a shovel.
2)remember when drs were giving horamones to menapasel women,didnt turn out so well. i dont have my dr confused with my God.
3)this info could save someones life. dont dismiss it without looking into it more.

reply from: carolemarie

I believe that life begins at conception not implantation, but as I understand it The pill has three mechanisms that work in preventing pregnancy, the only one that is abortificiant is the one that doesn't allow the embroy to implant so it starves to death...the other two are not abortificiant in nature. So if you use the pill and a condom it won't be a problem.
The breast cancer connection is pretty well documented, there are risks with all drugs....I think the low dose BC pills are suppose to be less dangerous than the old high dose pills.

reply from: sheri

your right the pope wants his children to be happy thats why paul the great gave us humane vitae and etc. the pill harms women, nfp is natural and effectiveand vatican approved.

reply from: galen

For your info i teach it... that is why i'm arguing with you about it... you need to go to your nearest medical college's library and read the rest of the studies...
yes HRT was proported to be bad for most women... but not all... if you scare people away with mispronouncements then you can scare them so badly they will not seek the proper treatment and infuence them in less that positive ways. let truth be your guide and you cannot go wrong... if you fudge the truth than you can end up explaining to someone why you had to.
NEVER NEVER NEVER take what the media tells you as gospel... go find you own answers. i have not been able to seperate medicine from God.... they have not been mutually exclusive for me.
Mary

reply from: sheri

carol, just the possibility that it could work to kill your baby once a year should be deturent enough to make you avoid the pill like the poison it is.

reply from: galen

great talkin' to you guys... gotta run... my night at the shelter....
Mary

reply from: sheri

how dumb do you think the average women is? you think they cant decide for themselves that the pill is dangerous to themselves and there children.

reply from: sheri

gay, you never addressed your thoughts on the pill being abortifacient. Have you ever encoraged a woman to get on the pill? if so i sincerly hope your not presenting yourself for Holy Communion. Have you ever been on the pill have you gone to confession since then? did you know you have to?

reply from: xLoki

Shouldn't you take your own advice, here? Let the women decide the risks of the pill for themselves and stay out of it.

reply from: AshMarie88

Shouldn't you take your own advice, here? Let the women decide the risks of the pill for themselves and stay out of it.
Aha, this proves it.

reply from: sheri

I will speak up and let people know the abortive action of the pill, i dont think many people read there pill inserts, or understand them if i can shed light on this why shouldnt i. and really most women ive talked to dont seem to care about the breast cancer risk, theyld rather have breastcancer then get pregnant and no other options seem plausible to them, certainly not abstinance, boyfriend would be gone in aheart beat, wouldnt stand for that!

reply from: 4given

Maybe I am naive. I personally feel that bc is wrong. I do however have the blessing of diversity (realized and appreciated recently) through the friendships I have maintaned. Among them are women w/ varying reasons for use of birth control. One cannot conceive unless she uses birth control. She has 4 babies now, conceived by regulation of her menstrual cycle via bc. Another, her sister, has five children. One from the age of 17, until her last at 24. She also has an incompetent cervix, which has made her pregnancies inconvenient w/ all of the time spent on bed rest. (I can relate to that) She was willing to suffer the condemnation and ridicule of the church when they realized she was not pro-creating at the level of her peers. Thirdly I have a dear friend. She has a history of depression. Her drugs that help her to "feel normal" threaten the well-being and life of any conceived child. I knew her throughout the "baby blues". I confess, I thought she should rejoice in another beautiful baby. She could not. Although she loves her children, she was/is overwhelmed by something she has explained to me as being "not within control.." I trust her, because I have known and engaged her. She takes bc to prevent the possibility of 1. becoming pregnant, and relying on the pharmaceuticals as heavily as she does. or 2. going w/out her meds, delivering a child and being in the same threatened state she was before.. I hear her. I speak w/ her daily. I understand that she does not know what to do. I asked her about the neccesity of bc, w/ all of the other meds. (most diminish sexual interest/drive) She explained that the Dr. ordered her to take them as a measure to counteract the ill-effects of her anxiety/manic depressant/blood pressure/ADD medication.(I think he was trying to save himself from the consequences of prescribing someone a measure of pollutants.. counteract? Save himself from the possibility) I thought God could deliver her if she just prayed and trusted and believed that her problems weren't significant in comparison to the next person.. I have learned to judge differently. I KNOW GOD CAN DELIVER HER! She is sincere. So are her problems. Oh and Melissa. She has scleriderma. She brought a beautiful baby into this world that has been in my life since she was 15 months. She wants to have a baby. I see her pain and sacrifice w/out the medication to keep her well or functioning. She told me she needs to take it (and the other drugs prescribed) because she has valuable time w/ her baby girl. (est. life span of under 5 years at this point) I don't know what to believe. I do not support abortifacient (1. causing abortion.2. an agent that induces abortion.)
birth control. I personally do not support any bc. I am not willing to go so far as to say it should not be an option. Although this may seem hypocritical, I honestly do not support birth control, but have families w/ a "reason" as to why I should. The issue is w/ the women I know or have known that argue otherwise. (esp. Kara, who cannot get pregnant, as explained to me, w/out bc.)Ideas?

reply from: sheri

it seems all your friends have very good resons to postpone another pregnancy at this time. But do you reealize you could use your arguemnt to justify surgical abortions? Chemical abortions are just as imoral as killing a 10 week old baby. less blood and emotion but its every bit the same baby. Natural family Planning would be the perfect solution if they would consider it especialy for the women on the pill to get pregnant a more complete understanding of her cycles could give her the information she needs to help her improve her health. the couple to couple league teaches a method that is just as effective as the pill in preventing pregnancy and extremely helpful in achieving pregnancy. (513) 557 8252

reply from: 4given

I appreciate the information! The only ones that are of interest to me (sorry girls) are Melissa w/ Scleriderma.. she wants a baby, and is relying solely on her Dr., who many ppl trust as the one accurate source of information. Then Kara, who needs to have bc to get pregnant. Honestly, if it was within God's will for either of these women, they would be pregnant. I don't want to disrespect them and their unique situations, but I do try to understand them. Although my opinion varies from theirs, I want them to be well. The arguement (for most) is that they will not be well if they conceive.Secondly, that their babies may suffer the ill-effects of the medications they take. Not being absolute when reading or predicting the future, I can not agree. I just support them and understand to the best of my abilities the reason why their bc choices suit them. (oddly, there is a physician behind every answer, understanding and reason) I do agree that chemical abortions are the same as killing a 10 week old baby.. or any life really. I value life. These women are pro-life. This topic came up and they shared their personal experiences. I did not know that bc actually caused chemical abortions. I have never personally felt it was tolerable, okay or justifiable. After speaking w/ so many women, (understanding and thinking it would increase cervical mucus, deter the shedding of an egg, and make fertilization impossible)I believed it was okay(for others). I realize that my personal convictions about birth control do not apply to the rest of the world (not w/in my family, household or otherwise). I want others to be responsible w/ their bodies and sexual choices. Again, I value additional resources. I wanted to share a few personal scenarios. (3 of these women are from large families where they were reared to understand bc is a violation of God's will, plan and also a sin before Him)

reply from: sheri

if you get an opportunity to speak with them again, make sure they know the pill is abortafacient. it would be good to have some literature on hand also in case they are interested in NFP. www.ccl.org there are other places that teach NFP
but ccl does the sympto/thermal which is 97% effective in preventing pregnancy.

reply from: Hereforareason

"how dumb do you think the average women is? you think they cant decide for themselves that the pill is dangerous to themselves and there children."
Most women are taught from pre-teen years now that bc and abortion are great and are no problem. They are lied to. They aren't told the risks. you aren't dumb for not being told something, but if you just deny it without researching it, you are getting there.
Amber

reply from: xLoki

How do you know women aren't being told the rsisk of their birth control?
Also, surely you know that ALL medication comes with risks? Why is it only women's BC pills that you take issue with? My mother's heart meds come with risks! Should she stop taking them? My father's diabetes meds come with risks. Should he stop taking them?
Why is it that people think a medication made specifically for women should be publically monitiored in such a way that no other med is? It couldn't possibly be socitey's tendency to infantilize women, could it? Women don't know how to analyze things and make decisions for their own health? What's up with that?

reply from: sheri

loki, not ALL meds are proven to raise your risk of breast cancer, the pill does. How can a woman make an educated decision if she doesnt have all the facts? Doctors do not have the ability to look into all the meds they pass out, Sometimes the miracle pill of the future turns out to be a real dud, youve heard about the recalls, if you want to live in ignorent bliss go ahead, if not polycarp.org

reply from: sheri

This whole arguement comes down to when you believe life begins.
if someone told me my vitamins could cause an abortion i would immediatly stop taking them. At least till i could look into it and discovor the truth.
This is about the "prolifers" who have the No Body No Crime mentality. if the aborted child is too little to evoke compassion hes as worthless as the pro aborts think he is so go ahead take that pill, no body on crime!

reply from: yoda

The proaborts know that the existence of each individual human begins at fertilization, sheri, they just pretend ignorance. There is no legitimate "uncertainty" about that, they just have no better lie to cover their malice with.
I haven't run into any of those, on which forum have you encountered them?

reply from: 4given

I most deifately will. I didn't understand that myself until recently. Thank you for the information. You are absolutley right to suggest having literature to back it up.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

If you think that BC pills should be outlawed because you THINK they cause abortions, what about outlawing anything with a sharp point? They are proven to cause abortions AND death or injury to the woman who attempts it.
What the hell is with some of you guys and controlling other people's lives and bodies? God, get some therapy.
And if birth control pills caused abortions, why would we need an abortion pill?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

yoda, explain how the hell an embryo, fetus, or even a zygote is an individual?

reply from: yoda

It's real simple, actually. It fits these definitions:
Main Entry: individual Function: noun1 a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=individual&x=0&y=0

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Sheri-
Have you never seen a BC pill commercial or asked your doctor about them? They do tell us the risks on the commercials. They do that on ALL medication ads or just about. And isn't the doctor required to tell you all the risks? Obviously if they do not tell you a certain medication causes a certain illness, it isn't proven.
"Doctors do not have the ability to look into all the meds they pass out"
Where do you get your info? A GOOD doctor will look up a medication when they do not remember things about it. There are huge books just with information just about medications. Why do hospitals and doctor's offices order them? Who but a doctor is going to use those? You think they give it out to their patients to kill boredom? Have you ever seen them in a waiting room?And where do you think they learn about this stuff?
And them causing cancer is no logical reason to ban them. EVERYTHING causes cancer these days. . Just about every human on this earth takes the risk of heart disease, heart attack, diabetes, CANCER every time they eat something that is high in saturated or trans fat. And if I continue to have horrible menstrual cramps or if they become worse I will take that risk. How many times have you had cramps that would make you faint, get hot flashes, vomit, cry? My mom said hers hurt worse than giving birth to my brother and me. And I can't go to school or even eat on some days when I get them. If you ever have, you wouldn't want them banned.
"Sometimes the miracle pill of the future turns out to be a real dud"
This goes for EVERY medication. If everyone had that attitude, would we have penicillin? Anti-depressants? Chemotherapy?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

okay yoda...but I would still love to see a zygote live on its own.

reply from: yoda

Why? As CP mentions, a newborn can't do that either.
But more to the point, how does (temporary) dependence, by itself, morally confer upon a mother the right to kill the dependent child?

reply from: jujujellybean

tough questions, I guess that's why they haven't been answered. They tend to ignore the whole issue, because of course that is easier than having to take the time to think up another indirect attack.

reply from: 4given

To whom are you speaking/addressing? Don't be foolish. I have let a lot of that (your comments) slide. Secondly, if one was taking responsible measures to ensure a lack of pregnancy, they would not need an abortion.

reply from: sheri

kayluz, Have you ever heard a pill commercial stating that the pill will kill your week old baby? read the pill insert if you dont beieve me.
I know you think your good dr would never provide you with bad meds, you maybe have never heard of the massive recalls on certain meds, yes nessasary meds may have undesirable sideffects, but we weigh out the good from the bad and decide from there. thats all im asking you to do, get all the information, not just what they tell you on the t.v. commercial.
why do you people always have to have a personal testimony? As a matter of fact i have had painful periods, i remember writhing in agony many nights, the paul the sixth institute reccomended yams a source of natural estrogen, it helped to some degree, so did aspiren on the real bad days, and just like they said it pretty much cleared up after my first pregnancy. as a side note my cus had the same problem but chose to get on the pill at 14, she is now 34 and she and her husband have been trying for a baby for years with no results. is it because of the pill? it could be it has been known to cause infertility or it could just be a result of the endometriosis left untreated for all those years. maybe if they had tryed to treat it sooner instead of just covoring up the symptoms with the pill.
the pill is not good medicin its a wolf in sheeps clothing.

reply from: sheri

the pill raises the risk of getting breast cancer, polycarp.org if any other meds do what this poison does i want to know about it, and what about it being a abortifacient?

reply from: Carifairy

Mechanism of action
Combined oral contraceptive pills were developed to prevent ovulation by progestogenic and estrogenic suppression of gonadotropin release. Combined hormonal contraceptives, including COCPs, inhibit follicular development and prevent ovulation as their primary mechanism of action.[2][20][58][59][60]
Progestogen negative feedback decreases the pulse frequency of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) release by the hypothalamus, which decreases the release of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and greatly decreases the release of luteinizing hormone (LH) by the anterior pituitary. Decreased levels of FSH inhibit follicular development, preventing an increase in estradiol levels. Progestogen negative feedback and the lack of estrogen positive feedback on LH release prevent a mid-cycle LH surge. Inhibition of follicular development and the absence of a LH surge prevent ovulation.[2][20][58]
Estrogen was originally included in oral contraceptives for better cycle control (to stabilize the endometrium and thereby reduce the incidence of breakthrough bleeding), but was also found to inhibit follicular development and help prevent ovulation. Estrogen negative feedback on the anterior pituitary greatly decreases the release of FSH, which inhibits follicular development and helps prevent ovulation.[2][20][58]
A secondary mechanism of action of all progestogen-containing contraceptives is inhibition of sperm penetration through the cervix into the upper genital tract (uterus and fallopian tubes) by decreasing the amount of and increasing the viscosity of the cervical mucus.[60]
Although endometrial effects have been hypothesized as a possible mechanism of action of combined hormonal contraceptives, insufficient evidence exists on whether cellular or biochemical changes in the endometrium could actually prevent implantation. However, the possibility of fertilization during COCP use is very small. Hence, endometrial changes are unlikely to play an important role, if any, in the observed effectiveness of COCPs.[60]

reply from: yoda

Hey, no fair asking questions that are simple, direct, and to the point! They're way too hard to dance around, and you know the "choicers" would prefer a sombrero!
True. And so far, none of them have actually attempted to answer that one.

reply from: lukesmom

Carifairy,
Could you please site your reference?

reply from: faithman

So lets just throw a bunch of fancy words around to cover up the fact that birth control is chemical warfare on the wombchild, as well as, the body of hs/hr mom. BC causes a woman's body to mal function. How can something that causes another something not to work right, be good? You can't take doses of poision, and think you can walk away untouched? Even the TV adds now tell you of the increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

reply from: lukesmom

Do Oral Contraceptives Cause Abortions?
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm

Will look for more but time is limited right now. Carifairy, you know to always list a reference so I am wondering if your resource is creditable or dated and that is why you didn't leave any reference info?

reply from: sheri

I can think of 3 little babies whoes mothers were on the pill at the time of conception. many women i talk to going into planned parenthood for abortions say they were using the pill and it failed. The truth is we do know break through ovulation is possible what we dont know is how often it happens because the abortifacient aspect of the pill usually picks off the little ones who are conceived. what studies have been done to look into this? None that i know of.

reply from: Carifairy

SHERI- WE DO know about how often breakthrough ovulation occurs!
This reference is from a "pro life" site, and I have seen similar numbers from the medical journals that I pay to receive..
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

And the "Textbook of Contraceptive Practice" states that, "Among women who have been followed over a considerable number of cycles, breakthrough ovulations occur in 2 to 10 percent of cycles."
2-10% sounds about right, CONSIDERING that of course many women may not take the pill every day at the EXACT same time... That is NOT alot at all...
LUKESMOM-
I thought that I cited my source..I am sorry... I will do that in the future, and will find the reference right now.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Why? As CP mentions, a newborn can't do that either.
But more to the point, how does (temporary) dependence, by itself, morally confer upon a mother the right to kill the dependent child?
Because she wants to cut off said dependance.

reply from: sheri

I looked up what "contraceptives" will cause a chemical abortion in the PDR and that stated pretty much all of them do! you say that it is an insignifcant number and 2-10% may not sound like alot to you but how many parents would play russian rhoulette with their 6 year old with those odds? Just from my own limited observations i am led to believe that break through ovulation must happen more then even drs know.

reply from: Carifairy

Sheri-
That 2-10 % is doctors monitoring women on their cycles..
In actual CLINICAL trials of BC pills, where the study ensures that the woman is given the pill at the exact SAME TIME every day, breakthrough ovulation occured in less than 1% of women.
I feel that perhaps 'user error' can be KEY in breakthrough ovulation.
There is a procedure called a "Wash out".. They wash the fallopian tubes and uterus out to see IF any fertilized or UNfertilized eggs were present during BC use. This is how they determined IF and when ovulation occurred. You can read about this online at clinical research sites.
THAT is how they found out about the effectiveness of IUD's. They know IUD's do not prevent ovulation, but they were not sure if prevention of FERTILIZATION occurred. They did the same wash out in clinical trials and found that the eggs were unfertilized in tests.
Copper is a potent spermicide.
AS a side note, I do not use hormonal birth control due to side effects, but it si my personal choice.

reply from: yoda

Why? As CP mentions, a newborn can't do that either.
But more to the point, how does (temporary) dependence, by itself, morally confer upon a mother the right to kill the dependent child?
Because she wants to cut off said dependance.
Well, there you have it. "Because she wants to".
AND....... if that's enough reason to kill an unborn child... then morally, it "ought to be" enough reason to kill a born child as well....... just because "she wants to".
What a concept.... only a proabort could come up with that one.

reply from: faithman

You can not say BC is not anti womb child, when the whole purpose of BC is to make sure a womb child does not exist. They no longer can claim that womb child poision is not harmful to the women who take it. By law, they must warn women of the harmful side effects of destroying body chemistry, just so you can be equipment at a sexual sporting event. BC devalues the person hood of womb children as nothing more than an inconvenient lump of tissue, women as nothing more than a sexual play thing for whore mongers, and totally makes men irresponcible jerks who want the fun, without the duty of being a father. BC is part of the secular humanist steam roller, hell bent on destroying everything that is good. The whole abortion issue finds it's very genesis in the birth control movement. The 2 issues are the same, from the same camp, and with the same destructive effect on our culture. So puke all the fancy words you want, cover it with all the verbal perfume you want. But both issues are vomit from pro-abort, death scanc dogs. I don't care how fancy you fry it up, I ain't eating from that table.

reply from: Carifairy

REGARDLESS of your distaste for such, married people are having sex for reasons other than procreation.
I am happily married and do not wish to procreate, and sex is a loving, bonding, and wonderful part of our life.
PLENTY of people use "birth control" such as "Natural family planning" to space children, or even use it indefinitely.
People of all faiths and income levels wish to plan their family, whether it be 0 children or 10.

reply from: faithman

AAAAAHHHH the scanc wishes to change and miss direct the issue again. "NFP" is not chemical warfare on mother and child. It also takes knowing the PERSON you have sexual relations with, to get the timing right. The "pill" was not primarily developed for marrieds. It was developed for those who see sex as a form of recreation, not pro-creation. The primary purpose of the sexual act is to bring life into the world. The by product of that is pleasure. This is the major phalacy of the BC pro-abort position. They have totally flip it around and say that pleasure is the primary thing, and the child is an inconveniant by product of pleasure.Who said I had a distaste for married people having sex? The by product of pleasure is a reward for taking on the duty of being a parent. The bond you speak of, is so children can grow up in a family that is committed to each other. I realize as a super selfish pro-abort death scanc, you don't want to have anything [particularly a child] to interfear with your narsisistic meaningless life. But some think there is more to life than selfish indulgence. And though you have the right to live your life that way, show me where our constitution ever said that if some one gets in the way of your self indulgence, you have the right to kill them? Bc is a super distructive attack on our culture, which has given us the betrail of womanhood, marriage, and culture known as abortion on demand.
So just keep spouting off scanc. You only prove to us what a black hearted murderous monster you truely are.

reply from: Carifairy

I do not use hormonal BC, for your information. I do not wage any chemical warfare on my body.
Just because people get married does not mean that they wish to have children, or that they wish to have babies every time they have sex.

reply from: faithman

When did I say folk ought to have babies everytime? When did I say that I was against married people having fun physically? What I said was you have it backwards. It is pro-creation pleasure, not pleasure pro-creation. What an empty meaningless marriage just to get hitched to secure a reagular piece of tail every now and again. You continue to prove what a sorry excuse of womanhood you are, and expose yourself for the heartless killer that you are.

reply from: Carifairy

What a meaningless marriage to be treated like a "breed-mare".
Infertile couples cannot have children, and I am sure you would not tell them that being married is meaningless.
PLENTY of infertile people become married, and are very much in love.
I am very much in love, and our love continues to grow over the years. Having kids does not a marriage loving, plenty of marriages are abusive and unhappy with lots of children.
We can control and take charge of our fertility by simple charting, if one is up for the education and challenge.
Yes, my husband and I enjoy sex for what it is to US, a unifying experience that shares a great love and respect for EACH OTHER.

reply from: yoda

Wow...... you consider a marriage with children to be meaningless, but not a childless marriage?
Do you really hate kids that much?

reply from: jujujellybean

Wow...... you consider a marriage with children to be meaningless, but not a childless marriage?
Do you really hate kids that much?
obviously she doesn't like them. She's already killed three of them!

reply from: Carifairy

YODA/ASHLEY-
NO, oh no, I do not believe that having children is meaningless!!
I was using HIS tactic..
Just because people do not want/or cannot have children, does not make their marriage meaningless.
He was saying that not having children makes a marriage meaningless, and I was saying that a marriage can be meaningless with or without children. It is the 'couple' who makes a marriage meaningful, not the children.
The children that a marriage brings forth are an added bonus of love

reply from: yoda

So you must approve of "his tactic", right?
Then you ARE saying that children do not add any "meaning" to a marriage.

reply from: Carifairy

Yoda- POINT WELL TAKEN. If one uses someones else's tactic, even in mockery, it really is not very becoming.
I believe that it depends on the state of the marriage in the first place. If there are two people who are constantly fighting, they abuse each other, I do not think that they would receive any meaning. They would be too caught up in violence or abuse to be able to get any kind of meaning.
I believe that most healthy/happy couples would receive a lot of meaning and happiness in having children.

reply from: yoda

It's been my experience and observation that children add a lot of meaning to anyone's life, even after a divorce. It just isn't something that you can explain to someone who isn't a parent, however.

reply from: Carifairy

Yodavader-
I do not mean divorce, obviously a divorce cannot take away a parents love for a child.
I mean that if a couple is in an unhealthy and abusive relationship, they may not even be open to the meaning that a child can add. Or a child could add stress to an already unhealthy situation.

reply from: yoda

No one can anticipate the "meaning" of parenthood, it is not something that you can understand until you become one.
But yes, there are a minority of people for whom parenthood is not a positive experience, and that is their loss.

reply from: jujujellybean

No one can anticipate the "meaning" of parenthood, it is not something that you can understand until you become one.
But yes, there are a minority of people for whom parenthood is not a positive experience, and that is their loss.
Yah...most parents enjoy it. For those that don't...shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place.

reply from: galen

Sheri....
Ok sorry this reply took so long but i have had a rash of deliveries this week.....
No i do not steer any woman twards anything but abstinance... that is what the shelter is about. i do teach NFP to pre marrige couples... yes i do take communion, from the Bishop most of the time. He and i are both in agreement with the statement that if a woman's physician feels that it is medically necessary to be on a chemical form of BC or other form of BC then it would be a sin for us to interfere with her and her physician. If you can not see that then i do pity you. people who go to the moral high horse are worse than those whose ignorance they foster.
mary
PS... if you think that adressing me as gay means something...* shrug* well than you do not have a clue who i am.

reply from: nancyu


Me too to this answer, except I think there are also some other forms of BC which are also abortifacient, and their should at least be restrictions on their use.

reply from: Faramir

Me too to this answer, except I think there are also some other forms of BC which are also abortifacient, and their should at least be restrictions on their use.
I understand the pill can be used for bona fide medical purposes. What are people who need it to balance hormones going to do if it's outlawed?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics