Pill video

thats an interesting visual considering taking the pill is a lot like playing with guns, dangerous for everyone.

If the pill causes abortions, then the abortion rate is significantly higher than we suspected. How many abortions do we get before god interferes and smites us?

I don't think eliminating abortion is really about protecting fetuses. It's more about controlling the sexual behavior of women.

The pill does not cause any more abortions than using no birth control at all or even using NFP. Using no birth control can result in eggs being fertilized near the extreme ends of the woman's fertile stages, and those eggs will fail to implant for many reasons.
The pill cannot cause this because it prevents ovulation in the first place. IF ovulation occurs, it automatically causes the lining to thicken. It takes a week for the egg to reach the uterus. That's quite enough time for the uterine lining to mature.

Cheerio, watch the video, it will give you a better understanding.

No. Because I know about how birth control actually works; I don't need to see propaganda and lies. I know how my body works and how it worked on birth control. I also know the benefits are absolutely worth the risks, which are extremely rare.

So... how, when so many women decide to abort after getting preg, did they get preg while on the pill? You'd think if the pill caused abortions, less women would be getting pregnant on the pill...
Another reason it's not very effective in most cases.

"No. Because I know about how birth control actually works; '
I take the Pill to control my bleeding and I ask the FNP at the health department if the Pill can cause a fertilized egg not to implant. She told me yes, because the lining is so thin when using hormonal BC, thats why some women experince lighter and shorter periods on the Pill.As for the side effects for me I had a heart attack while using the Patch. Many women have been injuried or have died because of blood clots and heart attacks related to the Patch, maybe because its delievered through the skin may make it more of a risk I dont know. But I joined in on a class action suit on it and got $200! Whopee! Im rich! I think it should be taken off the market, along with the IUD. I think as long as women are given all the information it should be up to them and their doctors if they decide to take the Pill. However at the local health department they dont seem to want to give that information as most of their patients are low income and they want to make sure ALL poor women are on some form of BC and I think thats wrong. However most private doctors will give all of the facts.

I've forwarded this to my parents and my MIL&FIL as they always get a good laugh out of fanatical anti-birth control lunatics.
My MIL just got back to me a couple minutes ago. She said it lacks the sound of toilet flushing - then it would be perfect.

These side-effects are NOT exclusive to the pill. There are side effects warning in each pack of them and every OB should tell you that there are risks - BECAUSE THERE ARE RISKS TO EVERYTHING. Absolutely everything. The fact is that hormonal birth control greatly increases the quality of life of MANY people and makes their sexual relations much more enjoyable.

It doesn't prevent abortions so much as it makes them happen earlier, so they are less gruesome and objectionable to the unconscious masses.

No. Because I know about how birth control actually works; I don't need to see propaganda and lies. I know how my body works and how it worked on birth control. I also know the benefits are absolutely worth the risks, which are extremely rare.
So you decide that it's propaganda and lies without even watching the video. How cowardly and hypocritical of you. Are you afraid to watch that you may be tricked into believing something that is false? Why not try watching the video, then show us the lies and propaganda.

No kidding, I was gone at the hospital most of yesterday as my son had been bitten by the neighbors dog and required stitches (thank god the wretched beast was up to date on shots) when I struck up conversation with another guy in the waiting room who was a teacher at the local highschool. He said with all the pregnant girls attending school he was tempted to slip birth control pills into the cafateria food (jokingly of course.)

No. Because I know about how birth control actually works; I don't need to see propaganda and lies. I know how my body works and how it worked on birth control. I also know the benefits are absolutely worth the risks, which are extremely rare.
So you decide that it's propaganda and lies without even watching the video. How cowardly and hypocritical of you. Are you afraid to watch that you may be tricked into believing something that is false? Why not try watching the video, then show us the lies and propaganda.
I'd rather listen to music. Secondly, I've done tons of research in the past and read MANY sites accusing birth control of being abortifacient. All of them had major flaws linked to a lack of understanding around how birth control really works.

I was told all of the proven facts about birth control when I went on it.

The pill is only ineffective (usually) due to human error. Women get pregnant on the pill because they take it wrong. Or don't take it at all.

Most of these girls are going to have their lives ruined, and they don't even know it. I would never force a decision, but somebody needs to give these high school girls the facts. The girls who get abortions will eventually move on with their lives. She will not. When a 15 year old girl gets pregnant, I'm pro-abortion.

Usual indifference to murder by the faux lifers. Well sheri, why don't you defend them as you do carolemarie?

It takes a man and a woman to have sex... so wouldn't it be 'controlling' them both?

No. Because I know about how birth control actually works; I don't need to see propaganda and lies. I know how my body works and how it worked on birth control. I also know the benefits are absolutely worth the risks, which are extremely rare.
So you decide that it's propaganda and lies without even watching the video. How cowardly and hypocritical of you. Are you afraid to watch that you may be tricked into believing something that is false? Why not try watching the video, then show us the lies and propaganda.
I'd rather listen to music. Secondly, I've done tons of research in the past and read MANY sites accusing birth control of being abortifacient. All of them had major flaws linked to a lack of understanding around how birth control really works.
Please give me the benefit of your expertise and answer these questions I have with regard to this particular video:
1. When was the first contraceptive pill developed, and how did it work?
2. What side effects were caused by this first contraceptive pill?
3. What did the pill manufacturers do to alleviate these side effects?
4. When the pill was redesigned to alleviate these side effects, what problems resulted, and how were these problems overcome?
5. Is it possible for fertilization to occur while on the modern contraceptive pill?
6. If fertilization does occur, why is the pill so effective against full term pregnancies?
7. What happens at fertilization?

No. Because I know about how birth control actually works; I don't need to see propaganda and lies. I know how my body works and how it worked on birth control. I also know the benefits are absolutely worth the risks, which are extremely rare.
So you decide that it's propaganda and lies without even watching the video. How cowardly and hypocritical of you. Are you afraid to watch that you may be tricked into believing something that is false? Why not try watching the video, then show us the lies and propaganda.
I'd rather listen to music. Secondly, I've done tons of research in the past and read MANY sites accusing birth control of being abortifacient. All of them had major flaws linked to a lack of understanding around how birth control really works.
Please give me the benefit of your expertise and answer these questions I have with regard to this particular video:
1. When was the first contraceptive pill developed, and how did it work?
2. What side effects were caused by this first contraceptive pill?
3. What did the pill manufacturers do to alleviate these side effects?
4. When the pill was redesigned to alleviate these side effects, what problems resulted, and how were these problems overcome?
5. Is it possible for fertilization to occur while on the modern contraceptive pill?
6. If fertilization does occur, why is the pill so effective against full term pregnancies?
7. What happens at fertilization?
Yoohoo, Liberal...

i think she's got her headphones on.

Well shoot, it's kind of hard to shout on here, but I'll try
YOOHOOO LIIIIIIBBBEEERRRRAAAAALLLLLLLLLL!!!!!
Could you please answer my questions.
Please give me the benefit of your expertise and answer these questions I have with regard to this particular video:
1. When was the first contraceptive pill developed, and how did it work?
2. What side effects were caused by this first contraceptive pill?
3. What did the pill manufacturers do to alleviate these side effects?
4. When the pill was redesigned to alleviate these side effects, what problems resulted, and how were these problems overcome?
5. Is it possible for fertilization to occur while on the modern contraceptive pill?
6. If fertilization does occur, why is the pill so effective against full term pregnancies?
7. What happens at fertilization?

I have done research about MODERN birth control pills since those are the ones MODERN women take. IF the pill caused abortions in the past it's certainly a good thing they fixed it, because the modern ones don't.
5. Yes, fertilization is possible on the modern pill because ovulation is possible. Ovulation is possible because no form of birth control is perfect; the hormones do not always convince the body that it is already pregnant, so the ovum matures and erupts. Once that happens, it is also possible for sperm to make it through the thickened cervical mucous and fertilize the egg.
6. I do not understand this question. The pill is not "effective" against "full term pregnancies". If implantation occurs, then the pill is incapable of causing harm. If a full-term woman took a birth control pill, nothing would happen.
7. During fertilization, a sperm breaches the wall of the egg in the fallopian tube. The egg immediately produces a "skin" to prevent other sperm from entering. The two sets of DNA merge, and soon the cell makes its first division.
PREGNANCY does not occur until implantation, which is different from fertilization and occurs up to a week to two weeks later. During this time, the woman's body has a chance to thicken the lining of the uterus, which happens as a direct result of ovulation. If the egg successfully implants, the woman is now pregnant.
Many, many fertilized eggs fail to implant in women on and off birth control every day.
You cannot abort if you are not pregnant. Failure to implant is not an abortion. It is not a miscarriage either.

I have a life you know.

NancyU is. I, on the other hand, have no problem with it.

I have done research about MODERN birth control pills since those are the ones MODERN women take. IF the pill caused abortions in the past it's certainly a good thing they fixed it, because the modern ones don't.
5. Yes, fertilization is possible on the modern pill because ovulation is possible. Ovulation is possible because no form of birth control is perfect; the hormones do not always convince the body that it is already pregnant, so the ovum matures and erupts. Once that happens, it is also possible for sperm to make it through the thickened cervical mucous and fertilize the egg.
6. I do not understand this question. The pill is not "effective" against "full term pregnancies". If implantation occurs, then the pill is incapable of causing harm. If a full-term woman took a birth control pill, nothing would happen.
7. During fertilization, a sperm breaches the wall of the egg in the fallopian tube. The egg immediately produces a "skin" to prevent other sperm from entering. The two sets of DNA merge, and soon the cell makes its first division.
PREGNANCY does not occur until implantation, which is different from fertilization and occurs up to a week to two weeks later. During this time, the woman's body has a chance to thicken the lining of the uterus, which happens as a direct result of ovulation. If the egg successfully implants, the woman is now pregnant.
Many, many fertilized eggs fail to implant in women on and off birth control every day.
You cannot abort if you are not pregnant. Failure to implant is not an abortion. It is not a miscarriage either.
Well you haven't shown me anything that is false or propaganda in this particular video, so why the slander when you haven't even watched it?

NancyU is. I, on the other hand, have no problem with it.
WHEN and WHERE did I say any such thing??!! You talk about false propaganda.

You are pro-abortion regardless of age. Ever hear of adoption? The girl can move on without bloodshed on her conscience. I always find it Ironic how pro-choicers stand for women's right to choose but when their 15 year old gets knocked up choice goes in the garbage along with the unwanted grandbaby.

Wow.
I was really stoned last night when I watched that video.
It was fascinating then. Now, not so much.

Wow, guess you failed the DARE program.

Nope, passed.
I'll keep my 'gateway drug' tyvm

When I said I was pro-abortion for the 15 year old, it doesn't mean that I would force an abortion, but rather would favor one. If someone forces abortion, they're just an anti-choice as someone who forces pregnancy.

I know it comes as a shock to you but some people actually believe conception is a VERY IMPORTANT thing. Though a conceived egg may fail to implant and is not considered a pregnancy or abortion by others there are still some people who believe intentionally attempting to prevent a conceived PERSON from implanting is conspiracy to murder.
People SHOULD NOT be lied to. Changing words and semantics is STILL LYING. Contraception MEANS - prevent CONCEPTION, NOT prevent IMPLANTATION.
Understand now?

See micah, you're both pro choice. Why does bm still want to say she's pro life?

"Why does bm still want to say she's pro life? "
Because Boss condemns abortion, if she favors any "exceptions" its because she is misguided and dont forget she is a new prolifer who has a lot of growing and learning to do.

The possibility of the pill being abortifacient was one reason the Colorado Pershonhood Amendment didn't pass, despite arguments to the contrary. http://rightremedy.org/articles/226

I would be willing to support a personhood law that gives personhood at implantation, as once the egg has implanted unless something is wrong is there to grow for the next 9 months. This would allow use of hormonal BC and the MAP for women. For me this is a "compromise" and hence I guess I have sealed my fate as a proabort faux lifer.

I notice even Sheri's been added to that list

You are one of the stupid anti personhood because it could ban contraceptives pro aborts? Read the article would you.
A person IS a PERSON from the moment of fertilization, whether you like it or not, whether or not that is convenient for you, whether or not you think the pill should be banned because of this.
That person exists, is alive at that moment, whether anyone likes it or not. Be truthful with yourselves people.

No one can fault you for that on this board, that's for sure.
I am pro-choice even for 15 year old girls. Their body belongs to THEM. So I guess it's your point that goes to garbage.
And I'm always so amused when pro-lifers use words like bloodshed. Dramatic much?
This is the funniest thing I've read today. Conspiracy to murder.

Dumb ass, how was my statement at all pro-choice?

Scopia I am hardly misguided and that was offensive of you to say. I am not Catholic and do not hold myself to your standards. I know more about pregnancy, complications and, the freak accidents that can happen then you do. I would not force a rape victim to carry a pregnancy when I don't know that I'd even do it myself (thank god I'm sterilized). I would not force a child to carry a pregnancy then undergo triple the risk of death during a c-section, where's the concern for the born child? It's two children, not a woman and child but two CHILDREN. I would not force a woman to sacrifice herself and leave her child motherless and, I would not force a woman to carry to term a doomed infant who will die shortly after birth or during birth. The exceptions I make are hard cases that make up only a paltry 1% of abortions. I am compassionate for more than just the fetus, I consider the quality of life for fetus, woman and, born child. Misguided? I don't effin' think so.

I am pro-choice even for 15 year old girls. Their body belongs to THEM. So I guess it's your point that goes to garbage.
And I'm always so amused when pro-lifers use words like bloodshed. Dramatic much?
I was talking to Micah..twit

I wonder if she opposes sterilization..all those eggs that never get a chance.

Ah ok, misread you there. I've spoken to several pro-choice advocates that have said they would force their teen to abort or throw them out before they would support their kids kid.

You'll have to argue with Lib about that one. She screams that the dictionary is wrong, and that pro-abortion is not the same thing as prochoice. She can't break out of her old proabort habbits, I guess.

Yes, but it's an INCONVENIENT person to scopia. And any people who are inconvenient to scopia are fair game to be killed.
Can't let a tiny little person get in the way, can we?

"Scopia I am hardly misguided and that was offensive of you to say. I am not Catholic and do not hold myself to your standards. I know more about pregnancy, complications and, the freak accidents that can happen then you do. I would not force a rape victim to carry a pregnancy when I don't know that I'd even do it myself (thank god I'm sterilized). I would not force a child to carry a pregnancy then undergo triple the risk of death during a c-section, where's the concern for the born child? It's two children, not a woman and child but two CHILDREN. I would not force a woman to sacrifice herself and leave her child motherless and, I would not force a woman to carry to term a doomed infant who will die shortly after birth or during birth. The exceptions I make are hard cases that make up only a paltry 1% of abortions. I am compassionate for more than just the fetus, I consider the quality of life for fetus, woman and, born child. Misguided? I don't effin' think so."
I am sorry if I offended you, that wasnt my intent at all. However I disagree with these exceptions because its these so called hard cases that pro choicers use to justify keeping the other 98% of abortions legal. Since I disagree with you does that mean you wont be my friend any more? I am I now on the "list".

Cheerio, watch the video, if for nothing else it gives a very clear visual of conception. I think you will understand better why we believe life bigins at fertilization.You don't really think implantation happens 2 weeks postfertilization, do you?

proof
http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-conception

"Yes, but it's an INCONVENIENT person to scopia. And any people who are inconvenient to scopia are fair game to be killed.
Can't let a tiny little person get in the way, can we?"
How immature, Yoda. Why not grow up and act your age and not your shoe size for Christ sake. So are you oppossed to giving the MAP to a rape victim? I think the majority of us prolifers and this would not inlcude you or your cohorts that once a pregnancy is esatblished, hence at implantation that it has every right to be protected from being killed. Morally most of us believe that life begins at conception, but from a legal standpoint it would have to be implantation as that is clearly when a pregnacy clearlly establishes itself.

And? Is it a new rule you have just launched that no one else but the person you are directing your posts at can comment on it?

A person IS a PERSON from the moment of fertilization, whether you like it or not, whether or not that is convenient for you, whether or not you think the pill should be banned because of this.
Are you for banning the Pill Fman? I personally as a Catholic thinks its wrong to use it to prevent conception, however I take it to control my bleeding and so do many other women across this country. Do you propose that they who take it for medical reasons should be prohibited from having access to it ?

"think you will understand better why we believe life bigins at fertilization.You don't really think implantation happens 2 weeks postfertilization, do you?"
Wouldnt it not be about 3-7 days? As the MAP is only effective within 72 hours after intercourse.

And? Is it a new rule you have just launched that no one else but the person you are directing your posts at can comment on it?
No, no rule against it but butting into peoples one on one conversations is just generally rude and frowned upon. I'm surprised that you who are so globally learned didn't know that. And frankly I think you did it just for the chance to be an ass considering our previous disagreements, however if that is what gets your little rocks off please, be my guest.

lol nah, we're cool but I will be honest you know. :hugs: We'll just have to agree to disagree then have some virtual tea and cake eh?

Lib knows everything, or at least thinks she does.

Because an embryo fails to implant? That's a bit extreme IMHO, not every break through ovulation deserves a name.

Now you are going to hide behind the law like the proaborts do?
No, there is no legal principle that would exclude the protection of the baby before implantation. You cannot hide behind that excuse to justify the killing of the new baby.
You'll have to come up with a new excuse to kill babies.

There is absolutely NO difference between what micah believes and what bm believes.

"Now you are going to hide behind the law like the proaborts do?
No, there is no legal principle that would exclude the protection of the baby before implantation. You cannot hide behind that excuse to justify the killing of the new baby.
You'll have to come up with a new excuse to kill babies."
Go ahead and slander me some more. So I will assume you think that rape victims should be denied the MAP. I take it you think that the Pill should be outlawed even though people like me take it for medical reasons. Implantation is when a pregnancy is established and that is when personhood will be granted if abortion is outlawed.

They say that to assume makes an ass of you and me.
I oppose the elective use of any chemical that can cause the death of an unborn child.
How much plainer can I make it?

Of course, because that's how you can attempt to shame us by refusing to listen to what's being said. We all hope you bleed to death and the pill is only denied to YOU.
You are such a child.
If you can predict the future, why can't you understand english?

Then you shouldn't be using those chemicals to try to abort your child, should you?
You know what's being said. You are attempting to skew the difference between abortion and miscarriage, intentional and unintentional.

"You are such a child. "
You are the person with the "list" . Pot meet kettle, look in the mirror CL2.

He's just one. Lib was the first, she started the whole trend.

Lol, that made me giggle out loud.

How can I show you slander on something I haven't seen? I notice you didn't refute anything I had to say. I simply have no desire to see it because I can already tell that it is obviously anti-birth control, and promotes the lie that birth control is abortifacient.
I'll make this clear:
I do not consider IUDs, hormonal birth control OR the MAP to be abortifacient for one clear reason: You can only abort if you are pregnant. Until implantation, you are not pregnant. Preventing implantation is NOT AN ABORTION.

NancyU is. I, on the other hand, have no problem with it.
WHEN and WHERE did I say any such thing??!! You talk about false propaganda.
Do you believe birth control is abortifacient? Then you cannot possibly be "ok" with it, knowing how extreme your views are. I'm just using logic.

You cannot abort if you are not pregnant.

YES. I would agree to that too. Otherwise we could enact all sorts of nonsense jailing women for having embryos that fail to implant for all kinds of totally natural reasons.

Ah ok, misread you there. I've spoken to several pro-choice advocates that have said they would force their teen to abort or throw them out before they would support their kids kid.
Yeah, I've knows some pro-aborts who feel that way too. I can't even call them pro-choice; they are pro-abortion.

You'll have to argue with Lib about that one. She screams that the dictionary is wrong, and that pro-abortion is not the same thing as prochoice. She can't break out of her old proabort habbits, I guess.
If someone wants to call themselves pro-abortion they can; but the majority of pro-choicers are not, and YOU don't have a right to label them.

Let me speak this slowly for you.
I.
FULLY understand.
The process.
Of conception and implantation.
I am not an idiot. I have been studying human reproduction in my free-time since I was six. If there's a program in TV about pregnancy, I watch it.

"YES. I would agree to that too. Otherwise we could enact all sorts of nonsense jailing women for having embryos that fail to implant for all kinds of totally natural reasons."
I dont know what else would get a personhood bill to pass. I mean those 3-7 days after conception are a gamble. It may or may not implant, but once implantation occurs the child is growing and forming. The child is there and has no right to be killed under any circumstances. The law is going to want CONCREATE evidence that a human life is present and by the time most women even find out they are pregnant in the first place, there is plenty of concrete proof. We cant even tell if a woman is pregnant until shes at least 4 weeks along. I believe the option on whether or not to use BC or the MAP is a moral one, not a legal one. My religion prohibits the use of artificial BC as its seen as playing God and interfering with nature, but Im permitted to take the pill because I have a medical condition, even though an unborn child may be concieved and the egg may not implant or it may work to keep sperm from reaching egg all together can be a secondary result. As the sin is in the intent, not the use itself. Some religions permit all forms of BC, but not abortion

Engaging in activities that cause a miscarriage knowingly is abortion, though it is not exactly a particularly effective kind of abortion.
Then you shouldn't be using those chemicals to try to abort your child, should you?
You know what's being said. You are attempting to skew the difference between abortion and miscarriage, intentional and unintentional.

Good points all around. Some of the earlier tests can tell at 2 weeks but no sense arguing over that. The point is that NO law should infringe upon a woman's rights if she plain didn't KNOW she was pregnant. I think you have an important note with the word "intent".

True. Miscarriage and abortion are synonyms, though of course abortion has come to be known as intentionally causing a miscarriage, and a miscarriage is the accidental/natural abortion of a fetus. It is intentional human involvement that changes the name. If a woman throws herself down the stairs with the intention of inducing pre-term labor and this ends the pregnancy, she has aborted. If she wakes up one night and is randomly and inexplicably bleeding through no (known) actions of her own, she has miscarried.

True. Miscarriage and abortion are synonyms, though of course abortion has come to be known as intentionally causing a miscarriage, and a miscarriage is the accidental/natural abortion of a fetus. It is intentional human involvement that changes the name. If a woman throws herself down the stairs with the intention of inducing pre-term labor and this ends the pregnancy, she has aborted. If she wakes up one night and is randomly and inexplicably bleeding through no (known) actions of her own, she has miscarried.
True you say? If the "activities" she is engaging in cause a miscarriage, why would you say that it was not an "effective" kind of abortion?

Let me speak this slowly for you.
I.
FULLY understand.
The process.
Of conception and implantation.
I am not an idiot. I have been studying human reproduction in my free-time since I was six. If there's a program in TV about pregnancy, I watch it.
So.
Why
don't you
just
watch
the video,
and show us
(unedecated dum peeple)
the lies
and propa
ganda.

WRONG!
If a woman engages in a behavior known to cause implantation failure - say, taking vitamin C, taking the pill, drinking coffee, or overeating, she is responsible for the death of that blastocyst.
If you were a REAL pro-lifer, you wouldn't be standing around with your thumbs up your butt while coffee-drinking wh*res kill those babies!
I think women who are having sex should not put their babies at risk. If it takes special care at those early stages (pre implantation), she should be taking those precautions.
Once the baby is born the child's parents should be looking out for the child's well being. If they are not it's considered endangerment and abuse. I merely would like to see it start from day zero.
Are you attempting to infer that parent's taking LESS responsibility or postponing care for their child is better?
If I was talking to a rational person, they would immediately see that viewing human life from it's very beginning - conception - all the way through to a person's death being sacred, that the MORE concern you give to it, the more care you devote is a direct parallel to humanities ultimate fate and future, that the less you care, the less responsibility or concern you show for it necessarily the worse off it will become.
Why is this concern so difficult for you people to comprehend? Why do you people continually attempt to devalue human life? Why do you always attempt to evade responsibility?

I listened to the video with some difficulty. It seemed choppy at times, but that could be because our computer uses dialup and has a slow download time.

ON A MESSAGE BOARD? No, it's not.
I also wonder why you feel the need to attack me and try to insult me just because I have shared that I have been able to travel a lot and receive a comprehensive education?
Are you so envious, jealous and insecure that you feel it's necessary to attack me with it?

You'll have to argue with Lib about that one. She screams that the dictionary is wrong, and that pro-abortion is not the same thing as prochoice. She can't break out of her old proabort habbits, I guess.
If someone wants to call themselves pro-abortion they can; but the majority of pro-choicers are not, and YOU don't have a right to label them.
Ah ok, misread you there. I've spoken to several pro-choice advocates that have said they would force their teen to abort or throw them out before they would support their kids kid.Yeah, I've knows some pro-aborts who feel that way too. I can't even call them pro-choice; they are pro-abortion.
So YOU have a right to label people, but others don't. I get it.

Let me speak this slowly for you.
I.
FULLY understand.
The process.
Of conception and implantation.
I am not an idiot. I have been studying human reproduction in my free-time since I was six. If there's a program in TV about pregnancy, I watch it.
So.
Why
don't you
just
watch
the video,
and show us
(unedecated dum peeple)
the lies
and propa
ganda.

Which women's rights are you referring to?

So are you saying that a personhood bill shouldn't be proposed, because it might not pass?

Let me speak this slowly for you.
I.
FULLY understand.
The process.
Of conception and implantation.
I am not an idiot. I have been studying human reproduction in my free-time since I was six. If there's a program in TV about pregnancy, I watch it.
So.
Why
don't you
just
watch
the video,
and show us
(unedecated dum peeple)
the lies
and propa
ganda.
Because it is already clear that the video contains lies, if it is claiming birth control causes abortions. It's as simple as that. But you all seem to think for some reason that I A) do not understand fertilization and implantation and that B) this video is somehow going to convince me that birth control is abortion when I have stated exactly why it cannot be so.

Nancy, stop being a woman hater!

You'll have to argue with Lib about that one. She screams that the dictionary is wrong, and that pro-abortion is not the same thing as prochoice. She can't break out of her old proabort habbits, I guess.
If someone wants to call themselves pro-abortion they can; but the majority of pro-choicers are not, and YOU don't have a right to label them.
Ah ok, misread you there. I've spoken to several pro-choice advocates that have said they would force their teen to abort or throw them out before they would support their kids kid.Yeah, I've knows some pro-aborts who feel that way too. I can't even call them pro-choice; they are pro-abortion.
So YOU have a right to label people, but others don't. I get it.
He calls ALL of the pro-abortion. And demands that THEY call themselves pro-abortion. I'm simply describing extremists who are far beyond the normal pro-choicer. They can call themselves whatever they want; unlike Yoda, I do not DEMAND they call themselves pro-abortion.

Nancy, stop being a woman hater!
Sorry, those were very hateful things to say! I must learn to be less of a bully.

Let me speak this slowly for you.
I.
FULLY understand.
The process.
Of conception and implantation.
I am not an idiot. I have been studying human reproduction in my free-time since I was six. If there's a program in TV about pregnancy, I watch it.
So.
Why
don't you
just
watch
the video,
and show us
(unedecated dum peeple)
the lies
and propa
ganda.
Because it is already clear that the video contains lies, if it is claiming birth control causes abortions. It's as simple as that. But you all seem to think for some reason that I A) do not understand fertilization and implantation and that B) this video is somehow going to convince me that birth control is abortion when I have stated exactly why it cannot be so.
The video explains quite clearly how birth control pills can cause very early abortions. You seem to have a fear of this truth. Why?

Actually we have been calling pro aborts like you faux lifers, but don't take that as a compliment or construe it to mean you are anything other than an even MORE dishonest pro abort.

Here is a trascript of the video:
If you're going to insist that this video contains lies, liberal, you should at least have the honesty and integrity to point out those lies to the rest of us.

If you're going to insist that this video contains lies, liberal, you should at least have the honesty and integrity to point out those lies to the rest of us.
No non-biased research has EVER found any proof that the birth control pill prevents implantation. When you show me an UNBIASED source on this, THEN I will stop calling it lies. Until then, this may as well be an alien conspiracy theory.

If you're going to insist that this video contains lies, liberal, you should at least have the honesty and integrity to point out those lies to the rest of us.
No non-biased research has EVER found any proof that the birth control pill prevents implantation. When you show me an UNBIASED source on this, THEN I will stop calling it lies. Until then, this may as well be an alien conspiracy theory.
What is an UNBIASED source to you? A pro abort one?

This is from the ortho novum website. Unbiased enough for you?
http://www.healthline.com/multumcontent/ethinyl-estradiol-norethindrone?utm_medium=ask&utm_source=smart&utm_campaign=article&utm_term=Ortho-Novum&ask_return=Ortho-Novum+(ethinyl+estradiol-norethindrone)
And in case you're not intelligent and educated enough to know, a fertilized (human) egg is a human being.

Actually we have been calling pro aborts like you faux lifers, but don't take that as a compliment or construe it to mean you are anything other than an even MORE dishonest pro abort.
CL, I've come to realize that a perpetual liar like LIb doesn't really care about being honest at all.
She knows very well that none of that crap is true, but she says it anyway.

"No non-biased research has EVER found any proof that the birth control pill prevents implantation. When you show me an UNBIASED source on this, THEN I will stop calling it lies. Until then, this may as well be an alien conspiracy theory."
Lib I have asked the FNP that prescribes my LoOvaral if the pill can prevent implantation. She told me that sometimes breakthrough ovulation is possible and because the lining of the uterus is thin it becomes hostile to the fertilized egg. I believe her, she has nothing to gain from telling me that, however it is something that should be disclosed as a possibilty so that women who may have moral/philosphical objections can make an informed decision and if need be choose another BC method. It even says in the PDR that I have that it can prevent implantation.

So, do YOU have a "moral/philosophical" objection?

The lining is NOT thin because ovulation stimulates the lining to grow. Everyone forgets that.
And even if it does, I don't care. Unless the extremists want to imprison every woman on their period the argument against birth control is nonsense.

This is from the ortho novum website. Unbiased enough for you?
http://www.healthline.com/multumcontent/ethinyl-estradiol-norethindrone?utm_medium=ask&utm_source=smart&utm_campaign=article&utm_term=Ortho-Novum&ask_return=Ortho-Novum+(ethinyl+estradiol-norethindrone)
And in case you're not intelligent and educated enough to know, a fertilized (human) egg is a human being.
Why thanky ou nancyu, someone has finally provided an unbiased source on this.
I still don't care, for the reasons stated in the post above.

"The lining is NOT thin because ovulation stimulates the lining to grow. Everyone forgets that.
And even if it does, I don't care. Unless the extremists want to imprison every woman on their period the argument against birth control is nonsense."
I am not talking about the extremnist. Im talking about informed consent. I think you would agree that a woman has a right to know how it works entirely. I would also think that in cases of women who may have moral objections to that mechanism has a right to know so that she may choose another method of BC. Most likely a barrier method. Im not saying outlaw the Pill, jail women, but Im saying that it should not be kep from women who are looking for a method of BC.

Each pill then needs to be individually evaluated to see if it causes a failure to implant. This needs to be done in careful studies. Then, the results - whatever they may be - need to be included in the pill's informational packets and listed as one of the risks. That's it.

Each pill then needs to be individually evaluated to see if it causes a failure to implant. This needs to be done in careful studies. Then, the results - whatever they may be - need to be included in the pill's informational packets and listed as one of the risks. That's it.
Years ago I was privately skeptical of the Pill's alleged abortifacient properties, because I didn't feel a thin endometrium was any more hostile than the Fallopian tube. Also, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta_accreta the baby implants directly in the uterine muscle rather than the lining. This suggests the endometrium's purpose is as much to protect the mother as to nourish the child. When Dr. and Mrs Willke described the Pill as abortifacient in one of their handbooks I more or less deferred to their judgement. Now I find out http://rightremedy.org/articles/226 The discrepancies I've described are something I feel Pro-life should have investigated a long time ago.