Home - List All Discussions

Abortifacients are NOT Contraception

by: ChristianLott2

Some women use aborton as birth control, so are you okay with that?
Contracpetives. I'll edit my post.
Contraception means to Prevent Conception.
Abortifacient means to Abort a Conceived Child.
For someone who says they didn't need to watch the abortifacient video, you sure don't know the meaning of these two simple words.

reply from: Yuuki

Some women use aborton as birth control, so are you okay with that?
Contracpetives. I'll edit my post.
Contraception means to Prevent Conception.
Abortifacient means to Abort a Conceived Child.
For someone who says they didn't need to watch the abortifacient video, you sure don't know the meaning of these two simple words.
I said I didn't want to watch it, and no, I don't feel I need to.
To explain why I am using "contraceptives" instead of "birth control", let me repeat that I am for ALL kinds of methods that prevent fertilization from occurring. I don't care if it is done hormonally (pills), physically (condoms), or other ways (copper IUD or NFP). Hormonal birth control DOES prevent conception (aka fertilization), so it IS contraceptive in nature. It has an unintended side-effect of rarely preventing implantation, but this is neither purposeful or malicious in nature. The child is not torn apart. It is, for all intents and purposes, prematurely delivered on accident. Just like a miscarriage. Except pregnancy never even began. I believe this rare side effect of hormonal contraceptives fits well into the concept of not purposely killing the unborn.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Now I see why you quote cm. You are as big a hypocrite and liar.
If you purposely take a drug that has a known 'side effect' of aborting a child, you are purposefully aborting a child.
"I felt like shooting my gun and you just happened to get in the way. Sorry."
The point here is not to debate what you believe is right and wrong. The point is to define what is and what is not abortifacient. That includes any and all drugs which have an abortive effect or side effect as you like to put it.
To act like you don't know the difference when you already do is lying and manipulative. People have a right to know the truth about what drugs they are taking and what their effects are.

reply from: Yuuki

Now I see why you quote cm. You are as big a hypocrite and liar.
If you purposely take a drug that has a known 'side effect' of aborting a child, you are purposefully aborting a child.
If I purposely take a drug that has the known side effect of rarely causing edema and death, am I committing suicide?
It's not quite like that. It's more like you're doing everything possible to prevent the person from falling off the side of the boat; you want to keep them in the boat! But everyone knows boating can be dangerous, and the person falls off the boat.
I'm not really going to debate that, since I don't think you can abort until you are pregnant, and you are not biologically or legally pregnant until implantation. So no, no form of hormonal contraceptive can possibly be abortifacient.
I'm not lying; I simply have a different opinion than you. We are not discussing facts here, we are discussing opinions. I do agree that IF this side effect is real (and I think more research needs to be done about it, or if the research is there it needs to be revealed - NON pro-life research) then it should indeed be noted to women thinking about the pill, because many may choose not to take it. I've never said that real side effects should be hidden; I have only questioned whether this really is a side effect or if it's catholic propaganda. I really and truly honestly do not know what to believe. IF it does prevent implantation, then I think that's something that needs to be worked on. However, just knowing what I do about birth control and the fact that women do indeed get pregnant on it, I just can't understand how it could possibly prevent implantation in a majority of accidental ovulation cases.

reply from: lycan

If the video is the one sheri referred to in an earlier thread, I had a chance to watch it. It states that the pill can be abortifacient because it makes the lining of the uterus thinner and less vascular. However, in a tubal pregnancy the newly formed person implants in an environment far less vascular than an endometrium thinned by oral contraceptives. http://rightremedy.org/articles/226 And in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta_accreta implantation is directly in the uterine muscle, which suggests the endometrium's purpose is as much to protect the mother as to nourish the child.
It should perhaps be noted that the pill (and the morning-after pill) has been linked to tubal pregnancies because of its effect on cell transport (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000895.htm. The reseach Yuuki is describing should have been done a long time ago.

reply from: Yuuki

I think preventing ovulation is a great way to prevent pregnancy, but I think our system needs some modification to the medications.

reply from: carolemarie

Birth control prevents pregnancy, which means less abortions.
I don't believe that the pill prevents implantation, I managed to get pregnant on the pill. Lots of women get pregnant on the pill.

reply from: ChristianLott2

If you purposely take a drug that has a known 'side effect' of aborting a child, you are purposefully aborting a child.
If I purposely take a drug that has the known side effect of rarely causing edema and death, am I committing suicide?
If you have a medical condition that requires the use of the drug, then you have a responsibility to take the drug to prevent your own death. In the majority of cases though, women who take the pill (or use iud, etc) are not taking it for health reasons.
It's not quite like that. It's more like you're doing everything possible to prevent the person from falling off the side of the boat; you want to keep them in the boat! But everyone knows boating can be dangerous, and the person falls off the boat.
No, it's more like you're rocking the boat on purpose to dislodge the child or prevent the child from grabbing ahold of the rail.
I'm not really going to debate that, since I don't think you can abort until you are pregnant, and you are not biologically or legally pregnant until implantation. So no, no form of hormonal contraceptive can possibly be abortifacient.
ok, if you want to redefine when life begins you'll need to invent some new language, just like all the other pro aborts. How about contraimplantation?
You just can't use the word contraception, because it goes well beyond that. Do you really want to be a liar? Wouldn't you rather just be a word inventer?
I'm not lying; I simply have a different opinion than you. We are not discussing facts here, we are discussing opinions. I do agree that IF this side effect is real (and I think more research needs to be done about it, or if the research is there it needs to be revealed - NON pro-life research) then it should indeed be noted to women thinking about the pill, because many may choose not to take it. I've never said that real side effects should be hidden; I have only questioned whether this really is a side effect or if it's catholic propaganda. I really and truly honestly do not know what to believe. IF it does prevent implantation, then I think that's something that needs to be worked on. However, just knowing what I do about birth control and the fact that women do indeed get pregnant on it, I just can't understand how it could possibly prevent implantation in a majority of accidental ovulation cases.
Well, indeed you are being dishonest when you keep calling something that could be abortifacient contraception. If you don't know, don't use the word.
However, this isn't as abstract and as unknown as you make out, you just want to disbelieve it.
The argument that you can still get pregnant while taking the pill is irrelevant. That a conceived child can still implant does not prove the lining is not thinned, only that it was not so thin as to prevent implantation that time.

reply from: LisaAnne

When we say that birth control pills are abortion, we really trivialize how horrible true abortion is to women and children. If every act a woman does is abortion, then nothing is.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Life starts at conception. The abortifacient drugs abort that conceived life. There's nothing trivial about it, it's a fact.
Purposely taking drugs to prevent a conceived baby from implanting is abortion. What else do you want to call it?
If the only acts a woman can do is abort children, you need to broaden your horizons.

reply from: churchmouse

The fact is that some birth control are abortifacients because they work by causing early term abortions.
This is a good site that explains the connection.
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/A_Longer_Condensation_of_Does_The_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions.shtml

The fact is any woman that takes birth control can abort an unborn child.
I have to say I agree with Lott
The Physicians Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. It lists and explains the effects, benefits and risks of every medical product that can legally be prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in the PDR. Keep in mind while reading it that the term implantation, by definition always involves an already conceived human being. Therefore any agent which serves to prevent implantation functions as an abortifacient. This is the PDR's product information for ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the pill.
"Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increases the difficulty of the sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrial which reduce the likelihood of implantation."
(Physicians Desk Reference (Montvale, NJ,: Medical Economics)
So they reduce the likelihood of implantation. Syntex and Wyeth say the same thing about their pill. If you read in the tiny fine print at the bottom of your birth control instructions, you will be told that if you want more information about birth control pills ask your doctor, clinic or pharmacist. They have a more technical leaflet called the Professional Labeling, which you can read which goes into detail about what the pill really does. The lengthier explanation you can also read in the PDR.
Bottom line the Pill does have a abortive mechamism. That is fact.

reply from: carolemarie

The thing is, that third mechanism may not work ever It is just speculation that it does that.
It prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation. If break through ovualtion occurs, the other two methods might work, but to many women get pregnant on the pill, proving the other methods don't work.
I would rather see people use the pill then seek abortions.

reply from: ChristianLott2

If pressure is put on scientists to find a way not to use abortifacients and abortion as birth control methods, then maybe we'll just never have to deal with either someday.
If pressure is put on scientists to develop artificial wombs for premature babies, those babies won't have to die or escape an early birth injured.
Denying the facts though is just that, denial.
You think we could spend some of that 900 billion 'stimulus bill' on science in that direction instead of more murder?
Why does everyone hate life so much?

reply from: scopia19822

"If you have a medical condition that requires the use of the drug, then you have a responsibility to take the drug to prevent your own death. In the majority of cases though, women who take the pill (or use iud, etc) are not taking it for health reasons."
The IUD IMHO should be taken off the market as well as the Patch. The risks outweigh the benefits with those 2 methods. I dont like the use of artifical BC, if I didnt have the bleeding problems I have, I would not be touching the stupid Pill. However pregnancy prevention is a moral decision that should be between a woman and her spouse and their doctor and God. Catholics know that the Church considers non medical use of ABC is a sin and should remember that if they comtemplate using BC, however other religions dont ban BC, including the so called controversial ones.

reply from: yoda

Now you are rationalizing.
When a person knows about the "unintended side effect" and still takes the medicine, they are in effect allowing that action, and therefore it is a malicious, purposeful action. And that is NOT "just like a miscarriage".
You need to rethink this.

reply from: yoda

You are purposely playing Russian Roulette with your life, yes.
And taking those "contraceptives" is playing Russian Roulette with your baby's life.
It's really not that complicated.

reply from: yoda

What's "trivial" about killing a new human embryo?
Why is that any less immoral than killing a six month old unborn baby?

reply from: scopia19822

"When a person knows about the "unintended side effect" and still takes the medicine, they are in effect allowing that action, and therefore it is a malicious, purposeful action. And that is NOT "just like a miscarriage"."
I wouldnt take the Pill Yoda if I didnt have a medical problem, maybe thats why I want them to remain legal for their medicinal purposes. Every other medication I know of people take it because they have something wrong with them and they need the medicine to make their body function properly etc. My husband is a type 2 diabetic , so he takes metformin to regulate his bloos sugar. HBC can help out with menstraul and other female related problems, but I cant understand why a woman whos body is working the way its designed too would take a medication or have a device inserted in their person to make their body malfunction on purpose. However, its a moral decision, not a legal one.

reply from: faithman

What's "trivial" about killing a new human embryo?
Why is that any less immoral than killing a six month old unborn baby?.....or a born 6 year old, or an 80 year old granny or.....

reply from: yoda

It is a moral decision. And taking those medications with the knowledge that they may cause a miscarriage is playing Russian Roulette with your baby's life. Apparently we have some here who think it's okay to gamble with your baby's life, as long as you get some benefit from it.

reply from: scopia19822

"What's "trivial" about killing a new human embryo?"
Do we really know what mechanism is implemented when taking BC pills? They primarily work by suppressing ovulation or keeping sperm from meeting egg by making the mucas hostile to sperm. The 3rd is preventing implantation. I dont like that women are often not old about the 3rd mechanism. They should know about so that if they have relgious/moral objections to it they can then select a method of BC that wont conflict with their beliefs. However how do we really know how it affects each woman from becoming pregnant. If we knew for a fact that it prevented implantion everytime I could see the argument as a valid reason to make the Pill illegal, however we dont and their is really no way to tell it.

reply from: yoda

What was it that Horton said? "A person is a person, no matter how small".

reply from: yoda

To make it illegal is not the point here, nor is it what anyone is asking for.
To admit that taking the pill while pregnant is playing Russian Roulette with your baby is what I am asking for.

reply from: scopia19822

"It is a moral decision. And taking those medications with the knowledge that they may cause a miscarriage is playing Russian Roulette with your baby's life. Apparently we have some here who think it's okay to gamble with your baby's life, as long as you get some benefit from it."
Maybe so, since we dont know what mechanism will be implemented most people arent going to follow on board. Im more concearned about protecting the life of the child once we know that its physically their inside the mom, growing and forming. By the time most women find out they are pregnant all systems have formed and now just need time to grow and mature. If a person has a moral argument against BC they should not use it, but if they dont they should not be stopped from trying to prevent a pregnancy. My main focus is once a pregnancy is established, abortion is wrong under any circumstances. We dont know if an unborn child is present until after implantation and the hormones are being produced.

reply from: scopia19822

"To admit that taking the pill while pregnant is playing Russian Roulette with your baby is what I am asking for."
Pregnancy isnt established until the baby implants, thats when the hormones that detect a pregnancy on a pregnancy test are produced. We dont know until that point that a human life is present. If a woman gets pregnant on the Pill, the baby implants certainly there is risk of fetal damage due to the exposure to the hormones, so in that case it would be playing Roulette. It may or may not cause a miscarriage. One reason they do a pregnancy test on a rape victim before they give her the MAP is to make sure shes not pregnant, if she is the baby wasnt concieved via rape and the MAP could cause damage to the baby shes already carrying.

reply from: yoda

There are lots of things "we don't know". Like whether or not the loaded chamber will come up when we pull the trigger.
If a woman knows there is a good chance she might be pregnant, and still takes a chemical that might cause a miscarriage, she is playing Russian Roulette with the life of any offspring she may have already produced.
There is no point in denying that those chemicals do involve a certain risk to life.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

It sounds like overweight women should be forced to lose weight, and "pre-pregnant" women should not be allowed to drink anything containing caffeine, as both cause failure of fertilized eggs to implant.
Now, if you have a fat woman who loves coffee, you will probably have to imprison her (or hospitalize her) and force her to eat properly and go without caffeine if you want to prevent her newly-conceived children from implanting correctly. If she is left on her own (at home without supervision) and gets her period (or miscarries), it is OBVIOUSLY her fault for putting her possible children in danger of being conceived but not implanting in her uterus.
Take this a little further and don't allow ANY women who are physically capable of becoming pregnant to engage in ANY risky activities, like driving a car, walking, riding a bicycle, being near rambunctious little children (they might knock her down and cause her to miscarry a pregnancy she isn't aware of), entering any building where anyone might be sick (home, work, schools, offices, etc.) with a contagious illness that could cause her to miscarry or prevenr her fertilized egg from implanting, be outside in a city where there is smog or other pollution, swim (she could drown and kill her newly conceived child) - you name it, she shouldn't be allowed to do it if there is even the SLIGHTEST chance that an activity could result in failure to implant or, even worse, cause a miscarriage.
This would mean that teenage girls over the age of puberty and ALL women (unless they have physical deformities that make them sterile) would not be allowed to engage in sports or attend the local gym, work out (especially running and exercise), hold a job, drive a car, be around other people (especially parents of children), or do ANYTHING that could POSSIBLE cause failure to implant. NOTHING would be acceptable except for sitting or lying in bed at home. And of course, sexual activity would NOT be possible, because if the woman has already conceived, the fertilized egg might not implant, or a miscarriage could be caused by all that bumping around. Women must be treated like the delicate, easily harmed, helpless little things that they are, right?

reply from: faithman

you finally got it right. Anyone who wants a child takes every precaution to protect the innocent life growing in them. To engage in activities that would cause the child harm is gross negligence at best, and out right murder if it causes the child to die. Pro-life is not swayed with "what if's", True pro-life stands on what is. After conception, we deal with what is a person. All your little borthead fairy tales are meaningless compared to that singular truth.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

What can we do about miscarriages for which there are no known reasons? How can we prevent something if we don't know the cause(s)?
It is incumbent upon every pregnant woman to care for herself and for her developing fetus, but miscarriages happen even to those who take the best care possible of themselves. Should more research go into finding out the causes of these miscarriages and/or to find ways to prevent them? Unfortunately, miscarriages occur long before fetal viability, so there is no way to save the babies.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

(deleted due to double post)

reply from: faithman

you are such an idiot. you are now stuffing straw in another proabort man. First you talk about irresponcible actions as justification for murdering womb children, now you are trying to enlist acts of nature for an excuse. Every effort is taken by real moms to avoid miscarriage. Medical science expends millions in resources to prevent it. But abortion, and other irresponcible acts destory life, either on purpose, or out of blatant unconcern for innocent life. Nice try back water scanc, but once again you prove just how willingly stupid you are. Seems to me you would run out of pro-death hay to stuff up the kiester of your aurguments.

reply from: lycan

What was it that Horton said? "A person is a person, no matter how small".
Ironically Ted Geisel, the author of those Dr. Seuss books, was an avid supporter of Planned Parenthood. I remember years ago we had signs with that slogan when we picketed his house.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

you are such an idiot. you are now stuffing straw in another proabort man. First you talk about irresponcible actions as justification for murdering womb children, now you are trying to enlist acts of nature for an excuse. Every effort is taken by real moms to avoid miscarriage. Medical science expends millions in resources to prevent it. But abortion, and other irresponcible acts destory life, either on purpose, or out of blatant unconcern for innocent life. Nice try back water scanc, but once again you prove just how willingly stupid you are. Seems to me you would run out of pro-death hay to stuff up the kiester of your aurguments.
You are such a paranoid moron that you don't even have enough intelligence or respect to know when I am asking a serious question about an important subject.
My mother, who never smoked or drank in her life, grew up on a farm eating organic food before anyone knew what it was, and who is both a Registered Nurse and the daughter of an R.N., had a miscarriage when I was about 10 or 11. I cannot for the life of me think of anything that coud have caused her miscarriage, do not know how she could have prevented it, and of course it gave me great concern when I was of childbearing age.
I asked this question because as many as HALF or more of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, which is heartbreaking for those mothers. Instead of using your vast wealth of knowledge to give me a serious answer, you once again became rude and nasty. You are so easy to hate.
If anyone else here has any insight into the causes and prevention of miscarriage, please tell me. At this point I wouldn't believe anything Fartman says anyway, because he is a proven liar and a fool.

reply from: Yuuki

There are lots of things "we don't know". Like whether or not the loaded chamber will come up when we pull the trigger.
If a woman knows there is a good chance she might be pregnant, and still takes a chemical that might cause a miscarriage, she is playing Russian Roulette with the life of any offspring she may have already produced.
There is no point in denying that those chemicals do involve a certain risk to life.
If she's on the pill, ther's a good chance she is NOT pregnant, because that's the whole purpose behind hormonal contraceptives. It is also common knowledge that if a woman IS pregnant, contraceptive pills do not harm the child.

reply from: Yuuki

No there's not actually. The hormones present in hormonal contraceptives are the exact same hormones produced by the body when it is pregnant, so there is no way they can harm the child and in fact, hormonal contraceptives are specifically designed to do no harm to established pregnancies. They don't give her the MAP because there's no point in doing so. On top of that, the MAP is a concentrated dosage that is much higher than the amounts found in normal hormonal contraceptives.

reply from: Yuuki

Now you are rationalizing.
When a person knows about the "unintended side effect" and still takes the medicine, they are in effect allowing that action, and therefore it is a malicious, purposeful action. And that is NOT "just like a miscarriage".
You need to rethink this.
That's like saying consenting to getting in a car is consenting to die in a crash.

reply from: Yuuki

The Physicians Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. It lists and explains the effects, benefits and risks of every medical product that can legally be prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in the PDR. Keep in mind while reading it that the term implantation, by definition always involves an already conceived human being. Therefore any agent which serves to prevent implantation functions as an abortifacient. This is the PDR's product information for ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the pill.
"Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increases the difficulty of the sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrial which reduce the likelihood of implantation."
(Physicians Desk Reference (Montvale, NJ,: Medical Economics)
So they reduce the likelihood of implantation. Syntex and Wyeth say the same thing about their pill. If you read in the tiny fine print at the bottom of your birth control instructions, you will be told that if you want more information about birth control pills ask your doctor, clinic or pharmacist. They have a more technical leaflet called the Professional Labeling, which you can read which goes into detail about what the pill really does. The lengthier explanation you can also read in the PDR.
Bottom line the Pill does have a abortive mechamism. That is fact.
No, it's not. You cannot abort if you are not pregnant. Pregnancy does not happen until implantation. Thus, something that prevents implantation is in no way "abortifacient".

reply from: yoda

That is quite ironic...... but his words help our cause, regardless.

reply from: yoda

And there's also a chance that she is. I personally know a woman who only got pregnant while on the pill, even though she was trying when she wasn't.
And when you play Russian Roulette, there's a good chance you won't hit the loaded chamber the first time, too.

reply from: yoda

It absolutely is consenting to the possibility that you may do so, and you know that.
Why are you refusing to be logical about this?

reply from: kd78

in other words females that are able to reproduce should be locked in sterile padded rooms so there is no possibility of accidentally abortion an embryo? is that it?

reply from: yoda

How would they get pregnant?

reply from: kd78

after they have a day of sex? then get locked up again?

reply from: faithman

How would they get pregnant?
Snicker!!! Ain't it funny how this baby killer degrades women as "female", and folks have the audasity to call us women haters? Why can't we merely elivate woman as something more than equipment at a free sex sporting event? Why can't we see both mother and child as persons worthy of high reguard and protection, from the exploitation of pro-abort politics? why don't we just realize that some women are low life scancs who betray sacred maternaty, and are nothing more than scum bag baby killers? The issue is life and death. We know which side abortion punks are on. They haven't seen a womb child yet they wouldn't pull the arms and legs off of given the chance.

reply from: yoda

What crime would you charge them with? And would you give them a trial, or just lock them up?

reply from: ChristianLott2

It absolutely is consenting to the possibility that you may do so, and you know that.
Why are you refusing to be logical about this?
because she really really really wants to be able to take the pill.

reply from: yoda

Oh yeah, why didn't I think of that?

reply from: Yuuki

It absolutely is consenting to the possibility that you may do so, and you know that.
Why are you refusing to be logical about this?
Because I believe it is absolutely NOT consenting. I don't see how your position is logical at all. Knowing the risks does not mean consenting to them.

reply from: Yuuki

It absolutely is consenting to the possibility that you may do so, and you know that.
Why are you refusing to be logical about this?
because she really really really wants to be able to take the pill.
I'm not currently on the pill as I am not sexually active, but I have taken it in the past and I have also used Depo Provera (though I didn't have any sex while on it, figure that!) Basically, I see hormonal contraceptives as a great ally of the pro-life movement: they prevent pregnancy, thus preventing abortions!

reply from: Teresa18

This was from my post in the "Implantation" thread.
(You can see the numbered sources at this link.)
http://www.epm.org/artman2/pub..._Cause_Abortions.shtml

reply from: Yuuki

Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. If implantation hasn't happened, she's not pregnant and she cannot abort. Thus, no hormonal form of contraception can possibly be "abortifacient", especially since it is designed to do no harm to any established pregnancies.

reply from: LisaAnne

I read the arguments about the pill being abortion, and I think they may have a valid point. Some other people have pointed out how bad habits of expectant mothers can lead to abortion. I think this is why God says we should always look at ourselves before criticizing others, and I'm reminded to stay in a humble spirit when I hear that someone has gone to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion.

reply from: sheri

Lycon, When the uterine lining is reduced it makes it difficult for the new person to implant, not always impossible, like you noted babies can and do implant outside of the uterus. However that they can be discouraged from implanting is an intended side effect of the pill. We should be very careful not to do anything (take anything) that may harm our children.

reply from: kd78

i was talking about going back into the padded room *rolls eyes*
in all reality, it's impossible to to avoid every single scenario and situation that can happen and can accident cause a miscarriage.the best we can do is do what we know causes harm (no shellfish, smoking, drugs for example) and do what we can to be careful and stay safe to the best of our abilities. now
i wasn't perfect during my pregnancy but i didn't do anything superbly harmful. i ate uncooked brownie and cake batter occasionally until my boyfriend told me i couldn't. i had a couple sips of wine but not glasses. i took pain reliever once that i didn't know had aspirin in it. i had a little caffeine. my daughter is healthy and thriving. had i been one to do things in excess, there might have been some problems with her. i'm not perfect.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Because I believe it is absolutely NOT consenting. I don't see how your position is logical at all. Knowing the risks does not mean consenting to them.
You know the risk and you take the pill anyway. That's consent. Why do you think drug commercials put out disclaimers about side-effects for their products?
It' NOT consenting when someone like you keeps telling women it's a contraceptive. You are lying and being manipulative. Stop lying.

reply from: lukesmom

It absolutely is consenting to the possibility that you may do so, and you know that.
Why are you refusing to be logical about this?
Because I believe it is absolutely NOT consenting. I don't see how your position is logical at all. Knowing the risks does not mean consenting to them.
If you drive a car, you really need to speak to your agent because if you are involved in an accident, even if your car is standing still and the accident was not caused by you, you are still partially liable just because your and your car were there.
If you know the risks of intercourse and accept these risks and have sex anyway in full knowledge of the risks, you have consented to the risks. It is called implied consent.
Consent that is inferred from signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent

reply from: kd78

the commercials say not use the bc pill or meds if you are pregnant or maybe pregnant. well if you're only like 3 days pregnant and don't know it, what do you do?

reply from: ChristianLott2

you should never take the pill unless you have a medical condition that requires it to save your life.

reply from: Teresa18

Look at the definitions for pregnancy:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline.../mplusdictionary.html
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=pregnant
http://medical-dictionary.thef...ctionary.com/pregnant
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pregnant
These definitions say a woman is carrying a new life. This happens at conception, not implantation.

reply from: Yuuki

So you believe every female on the planet is pre-pregnant?

reply from: Yuuki

It absolutely is consenting to the possibility that you may do so, and you know that.
Why are you refusing to be logical about this?
Because I believe it is absolutely NOT consenting. I don't see how your position is logical at all. Knowing the risks does not mean consenting to them.
If you drive a car, you really need to speak to your agent because if you are involved in an accident, even if your car is standing still and the accident was not caused by you, you are still partially liable just because your and your car were there.
If you know the risks of intercourse and accept these risks and have sex anyway in full knowledge of the risks, you have consented to the risks. It is called implied consent.
Consent that is inferred from signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent
Being responsible after the fact is NOT CONSENTING.

reply from: Yuuki

Dur, wait until you can take a pregnancy test of course. If you suspect you may be pregnant, don't start the pill!! It's common sense.

reply from: Yuuki

Pregnancy hormones are not present until AFTER IMPLANTATION. You can't be pregnant without pregnancy hormones. Kind of impossible, actually. Since they're produced by the embryo after it implants.

reply from: lukesmom

It absolutely is consenting to the possibility that you may do so, and you know that.
Why are you refusing to be logical about this?
Because I believe it is absolutely NOT consenting. I don't see how your position is logical at all. Knowing the risks does not mean consenting to them.
If you drive a car, you really need to speak to your agent because if you are involved in an accident, even if your car is standing still and the accident was not caused by you, you are still partially liable just because your and your car were there.
If you know the risks of intercourse and accept these risks and have sex anyway in full knowledge of the risks, you have consented to the risks. It is called implied consent.
Consent that is inferred from signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent
Being responsible after the fact is NOT CONSENTING.
If you know the risks of intercourse and accept these risks and have sex anyway in full knowledge of the risks, you have consented to the risks. It is called implied consent.

reply from: Yuuki

It absolutely is consenting to the possibility that you may do so, and you know that.
Why are you refusing to be logical about this?
Because I believe it is absolutely NOT consenting. I don't see how your position is logical at all. Knowing the risks does not mean consenting to them.
If you drive a car, you really need to speak to your agent because if you are involved in an accident, even if your car is standing still and the accident was not caused by you, you are still partially liable just because your and your car were there.
If you know the risks of intercourse and accept these risks and have sex anyway in full knowledge of the risks, you have consented to the risks. It is called implied consent.
Consent that is inferred from signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent
Being responsible after the fact is NOT CONSENTING.
If you know the risks of intercourse and accept these risks and have sex anyway in full knowledge of the risks, you have consented to the risks. It is called implied consent.
IT'S CALLED COMPLETE NONSENSE.

reply from: yoda

That's absolutely bizarre, especially for an otherwise intelligent person.
Knowing the risks of an action, and taking that action anyway is "not" consenting to the risks?
Have you been eating those weird mushrooms again?

reply from: yoda

You're hiding behind a very transparent technicality.
Killing an human being electively is wrong, no matter what you call it.

reply from: yoda

So at least you made an effort. That's positive.

reply from: lukesmom

Just because you don't want to accept fact and truth, doesn't make implied consent "nonsense".

reply from: nancyu

Right! Contraception prevents abortions by preventing the life of a human being in the first place... follow along with your own logic for a bit. If you are going to say that contraception prevents abortions you can also say that it prevents rape, robbery, murder, alchohol abuse, child abuse, etc!
But don't forget, it also prevents the following: love, fun, smiles, laughter, baby's first steps, baby's first words, grandchildren, more love, more fun, more smiles, more laughter....

reply from: lycan

(You can see the numbered sources at this link.)
http://www.epm.org/artman2/pub..._Cause_Abortions.shtml
Another explanation may be that the pill, especially the progestin-only version, may slow transport through the Fallopian tube, so that implantation would occur in the tube when it otherwise might have occurred in the uterus. http://www.aaplog.org/PositionsAndPapers/OralContraceptiveControversy.aspx?fileID=1 provides links to articles on both sides of the pill issue.

reply from: Rosalie

And as much as you and other control freaks with abusive tendencies would like to dictate how women should regulate their reproductive health, it's never going to happen. You're never going to have any say in this.
And again me me me me me. The 'stupid' pill and the horrifyingly dangerous IUD works for millions women who encounter no problems. Just because SOME might doesn't mean the IUD/pill is bad. But that's clearly beyond you to understand.

reply from: lukesmom

So that's what happened to you. Why didn't ya tell us sooner?

reply from: lycan

Some of you people don't seem to show much love to a woman who's had abortions and is trying to help others avoid her mistakes.

reply from: micah

Pro-lifers are being logically consistent by treating carolmarie poorly. Being truly pro-life and sympathetic to a post-abortive woman is contradictory. You either killed somebody or you didn't. If someone kills an 8 year old, we usually don't "show them love".

reply from: lukesmom

Pro-lifers are being logically consistent by treating carolmarie poorly. Being truly pro-life and sympathetic to a post-abortive woman is contradictory. You either killed somebody or you didn't. If someone kills an 8 year old, we usually don't "show them love".
Killing an 8yr old has never been legal...yet anyway. I have no doubt with the way society is going, killing 8yr olds will be not only legal but justifiable in some peoples minds, just as today abortion is justified by proaborts.

reply from: carolemarie

Pro-lifers are being logically consistent by treating carolmarie poorly. Being truly pro-life and sympathetic to a post-abortive woman is contradictory. You either killed somebody or you didn't. If someone kills an 8 year old, we usually don't "show them love".
Prochoicers don't treat women who had abortions and NOW regrest them any better. They act like we are traitors.
Prolifers should be able to understand that abortion is an intesly personal choice that many women enter into unaware of the truth, and they suffer terribly for that mistake. If they insist on being mean, they are jerks.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Then why are you posting here? If you're so confident why don't you spend your time doing something else. Don't worry, obama will take care of you.

reply from: ChristianLott2

IT'S CALLED COMPLETE NONSENSE.
Wow yuki, you're completely wrong. Would you like to define what 'consent' means for us then?

reply from: Teresa18

I'll note that every definition I posted defined pregnancy at conception or defined it as a woman having reproduced and carrying a child.
Obviously, like I have posted above, a big reason why they define pregnancy at implantation is to justify abortaficient birth control and in vitro. This way lives could be destroyed, and it could be justifed because techincally, according to them, a woman was not yet pregnant. That of course doesn't change the fact that a life is destroyed at times in both abortaficient birth control and in vitro. In fact, the ACOG goes so far as to redefine conception in order to justify these things.

http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html

Just because it can't be detected until implantation, doesn't mean there is not a newly concieved person there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

reply from: scopia19822

"And again me me me me me. The 'stupid' pill and the horrifyingly dangerous IUD works for millions women who encounter no problems. Just because SOME might doesn't mean the IUD/pill is bad. But that's clearly beyond you to understand."
I only mentioned "me " once when I mentioned why I took the Pill. If it wasnt for a medical condition, I would not be on it period. I am also entilted to voice my opinion on BC methods that I have safety concerns about, this is a public forum, maybe thats beyond your capacity to understand.

reply from: lycan

Here's another wikipedia article, this one on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progesterone_only_pill
"Mechanism of action
The mechanism of action of progestogen-only contraceptives depends on the progestogen activity and dose.[1]
Very low dose progestogen-only contraceptives, such as traditional progestogen-only pills (and subdermal implants Norplant and Jadelle and intrauterine systems Progestasert and Mirena), inconsistently inhibit ovulation in ~50% of cycles and rely mainly on their progestogenic effect of thickening the cervical mucus and thereby reducing sperm viability and penetration.
Intermediate dose progestogen-only contraceptives, such as the progestogen-only pill Cerazette (or the subdermal implant Implanon), allow some follicular development but much more consistently inhibit ovulation in 97 - 99% of cycles. The same cervical mucus changes occur as with very low dose progestogens.
High dose progestogen-only contraceptives, such as the injectables Depo-Provera and Noristerat, completely inhibit follicular development and ovulation. The same cervical mucus changes occur as with very low dose and intermediate dose progestogens.
In anovulatory cycles using progestogen-only contraceptives, the endometrium is thin and atrophic. If the endometrium was also thin and atrophic during an ovulatory cycle, this could theoretically interfere with implantation of a blastocyst (embryo)."
This article suggests the progesterone dose needed to thicken the cervical mucus is much less than that needed to suppress ovulation or thin the endometrial lining.

reply from: Yuuki

Sounds like those low-dose methods should be illegal unless they are being used for other reasons than preventing ovulation, since it's false advertizing as they don't do it well at all! Norplant is now illegal in the USA, but Implanon and Depo are highly available and I'm glad to see how effective they are at preventing ovulation. Seeing how effective they are, I cannot see how an extremist pro-lifer could be against them.

reply from: scopia19822

"Implanon and Depo are highly available and I'm glad to see how effective they are at preventing ovulation. Seeing how effective they are, I cannot see how an extremist pro-lifer could be against them."
My only concern about Depo is that if used for a long period of time can cause bone denisity loss putting a woman at even greater risk for osteporseous . This is yet another side effect that for years wasnt disclosed to women until the last 2 years or so. If a woman is going to use Depo shouldnt she be taking extra calcium supplements?

reply from: Yuuki

It's not meant to be used for that long. I've known about the bone loss thing for at least 2 years, probably 3 since I knew about it before I went on it and it was revealed to the public before I learned about it. It wasn't purposely hidden, it simply wasn't confirmed. All of the risks were made clear to me. If a woman is planning to use it for more than 3 years I believe, she should take supplements at that time. But for 1-2 years of use it's not an issue.

reply from: scopia19822

"If a woman is planning to use it for more than 3 years I believe, she should take supplements at that time. But for 1-2 years of use it's not an issue."
I think to be on the safe side extra calcium would be a good idea, it couldnt hurt.

reply from: Yuuki

True; you can't really overdose on it lol. Or vitamin C for that matter. You just excrete what you can't absorb.

reply from: 4given

Life begins at conception (fertilization). Implantation is necessary to sustain that created life. Abortifacints prevent that from happening. LIFE does not begin at implantation... Is this the issue here? Or are we on the "justification" hum in regard to abortifacient BC?

reply from: lukesmom

True; you can't really overdose on it lol. Or vitamin C for that matter. You just excrete what you can't absorb.
YES YOU CAN OVERDOSE ON CALCIUM! Please talk to your doctor before you take additional doses of ANY medication and suppliments and herbals are medication.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Would you rather have someone use "abortifacient" birth control or have an abortion once the pregnancy has been established? If birthcontrol is outlawed the number of unwanted pregnancies will go up which would probably result in more pregnant women aborting their preborn children.
I was able to find definitions that would support birth control not being abortifacient (depending on how you take the definitions).

reply from: scopia19822

Would you rather have someone use "abortifacient" birth control or have an abortion once the pregnancy has been established?
It boils down to the lesser of 2 evils, while the Pill may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, we dont know how it will work for each woman. It may prevent conception, it may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. I would rather see a woman use BC than abort an established pregnancy.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Same here. It's impossible to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the pill is abortifacient. There's even definitions that don't support the pill causing abortion.
That's why I support birth control. Although, I wouldn't have any objections if someone invents a 99% effective contraception method for women to use that can't be called abortifacient.

reply from: Teresa18

Of course a person doesn't always die when using abortaficient birth control, but a person does die sometimes. When a person does die, it is no different than an abortion because a person dies in both scenarios.

reply from: micah

So an abortion via the pill is as equally as bad as a late term abortion via intact dilation and extraction?

reply from: scopia19822

"Of course a person doesn't always die when using abortaficient birth control, but a person does die sometimes. When a person does die, it is no different than an abortion because a person dies in both scenarios."
Are you also opposed to giving the option of the MAP to rape victims? I cant imagine even as a Catholic telling a woman who has been raped that she cant have a pill that will hopefully prevent her from having to agonize over whether or not to abort the child or having to put up with pressure from outsiders to abort the child.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I found this:
One definition of abortion is "Expulsion of a fetus from the womb". The pill definately doesn't cause a fetus to leave the womb. So, it doesn't cause abortion. That means it isn't abortifacient.
One of the legal definitions of abortion is "The intentional and artificial termination of a pregnancy that destroys an embryo or fetus." The pill doesn't terminate a pregnancy AFAIK and pregnancy termination is definately not intended when women use the pill.

reply from: 4given

I am a little confused here. Are you trying to use her faith to shame her. We all have personal convictions. Please share with me where the RCC has advocated the use of the MAP.

reply from: carolemarie

If the MAP pill is fine, why not RU46?

reply from: 4given

I don't know.. Please enlighten me.

reply from: scopia19822

" I am a little confused here. Are you trying to use her faith to shame her. We all have personal convictions. Please share with me where the RCC has advocated the use of the MAP"
I am a Catholic 4given and Im aware of what the Church officially teaches, artifical BC and MAP are a sin for Catholics to use, however not everyone is a Catholic and should not have that belief pressed up on them if they are raped. Some Bishops in America allow the use of for rape victims only if she has a negative pregnancy test and ovulation has not yet occured. Catholic hosptials should not be obligated to offer the MAP nor provide abortions. When I was assaulted 2 years ago when my husband and I were seperated I went down to the local Health department and got a dose of Plan B and a complete STD panel. I went to Confession and was absolved of my sins as the rape was partially my fault, I was seperated and shouldnt have been there in the first place because I was still married. I compounded that sin by getting the MAP, but at the time I felt it was the best thing to do. If a Catholic doenst want to the MAP they should not have it forced on them, but those who are not Catholic arent bound by Church teachings on this issue and telling them they cant have the MAP if they are assaulted is uncompassionate. Its the lesser of 2 evils.

reply from: scopia19822

"I don't know.. Please enlighten me."
The MAP will not end an established pregnancy, RU-486 is meant to induce a miscarriage of an established pregnancy. This is why if a rape victim wants the MAP they will do a pregnancy test before hand, if its postive then she was pregnant at the time of the rape.

reply from: Teresa18

A person begins at conception, so a person dies either way. It's certainly not as graphic however, and they child may feel pain in the later one.

reply from: Teresa18

At this point I am because it can end the life of a newly concieved person.
http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html
http://www.morningafterpill.org/catholic-teaching.html

reply from: Teresa18

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022906.html

reply from: scopia19822

"At this point I am because it can end the life of a newly concieved person. "
Would this be only for Catholics or non Catholics as well.

reply from: Teresa18

The pill can end a newly concieved life in both, so I would not support something that can kill a newly concieved person. Check out the stats I posted on it preventing implantation.

reply from: scopia19822

"The pill can end a newly concieved life in both, so I would not support something that can kill a newly concieved person. Check out the stats I posted on it preventing implantation."
Its a matter of religious belief and personal conviction. Some people believe that life begins at conception and therefore it would be an abortificent. Others believe at implantation as until that step occurs the child cannot form and grow. I think that Catholic teachings are binding to us Catholics on the issue of BC, however I dont feel right forcing that onto non Catholics. Its a moral issue and if one has objections of that nature to BC or the MAP than they should not use them. The prolife movement needs to focus on abolishing abortions of established pregnancies first and foremost, this is what is most critical. Then once that is accomplished we can address these type of issues.

reply from: Teresa18

Something is either right or wrong whether people choose to believe it or not. A person's life begins at conception even if people choose to deny it. I can't support any pills with a specific design, even if it is not the only design, to end a person's life. I know you are saying it should be a personal decision, but pro-aborts like to say that abortion is a personal moral issue. It's the old, "If you don't personally support abortion, don't have one, but don't dictate whether or not I or another woman can have one" argument. We have to consider that all laws are based on morality, and the first and foremost right that should be protected in this country is the right to life.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Pro aborts don't believe abortion is murder. Why don't you stop trying to force your beliefs on them then, scopia?

reply from: scopia19822

"Something is either right or wrong whether people choose to believe it or not. A person's life begins at conception even if people choose to deny it. I can't support any pills with a specific design, even if it is not the only design, to end a person's life. I know you are saying it should be a personal decision, but pro-aborts like to say that abortion is a personal moral issue."
There is a difference between birth control and aborting an established pregnancy in the eyes of most Americans. As long as prolifers argue among themselves about the morality of BC or the MAP than we are never going to accomplish anything and we will continue to have millions of babies keep dying. Im being pragmatic, if I want to see abortions end then until it is abolished birth control is going to have to remain a moral issue between a woman and God. The focus here should be the unborn children not preventing pregnancy. If one has moral/religious objections to BC than by all means dont use it. Many people would happily join the prolife community if they did not think that BC was going to be outlawed if abortion was. We are a diverse group of people some think BC is a sin others dont. I dont think the MAP should be available to the general public, only to rape victims who come in and actually have the rape kit done, chances are a woman who hasnt been raped isnt going to put herself through that just to get the MAP. If I am wrong on this than I will answer to God, but I would rather see a rape victim take the MAP than to have an abortion of a pregnancy that resulted from that attack. Because once the child has implanted and is starting to grow and form abortion should not be an option.

reply from: yoda

That (the second one) is the weirdest reasoning I think I've ever heard. That's like saying if a born child stops growing for any reason, it is no longer a person. Totally, totally out of this world......

reply from: scopia19822

"That (the second one) is the weirdest reasoning I think I've ever heard. That's like saying if a born child stops growing for any reason, it is no longer a person. Totally, totally out of this world......"
Not really if one tries to look at it from their prespective. An human life may begin when sperm meets egg but until it implants in the uterine wall it will not be able to grow and form and be able to be carried to term and be born. Until then its a gamble, the egg may implant it may not and until implantation occurs their is no way of detecting an unborn childs presence growing and forming in their mothers womb.

reply from: yoda

Pardon me, but that is still absolutely insane.
ALL LIFE is a "gamble", no one has any assurance that the will grow another millimeter or breathe another breath.
So to say that our biological classification (human being/person) depends on our ability to survive is completely nuts...... but then what else is new with proabort reasoning.
It's just another way to justify the unjustifiable.

reply from: micah

There are about 1.4 million abortions in America per year. If you think using birth control pills results in abortion, then this figure would be far higher.

reply from: yoda

Not if they are not included in the stats, no. Technically they can't be classified as "abortions", and yet the end result is the same.

reply from: Yuuki

... Because the two are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
The Morning After Pill is a high dose of the same hormones found in normal pills. It is NOT abortifacient and does not cause intentional abortions, nor is its purpose to cause abortions: its sole prescribed purpose is to prevent ovulation. Period.
RU486 is the "abortion pill". It DOES cause abortions, ON PURPOSE. Its intended function is to cause abortions. It is in NO way a contraceptive device.

reply from: Yuuki

True; you can't really overdose on it lol. Or vitamin C for that matter. You just excrete what you can't absorb.
YES YOU CAN OVERDOSE ON CALCIUM! Please talk to your doctor before you take additional doses of ANY medication and suppliments and herbals are medication.
Really? I was under the impression that it, like Vitamin C, was simple excreted if there was too much. I did not intentionally spread flase information.

reply from: Yuuki

If something is abortifacient, it causes an abortion. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. A woman is not pregnant until implantation. Thus, something that prevents implantation cannot be called abortifacient because it does not cause a termination of pregnancy; the pregnancy has not even begun yet.
If something causes the unborn to fail to implant, I agree that it's not necessarily a wonderful thing and there should definitely be research done into finding out how often this occurs for real, and how to make BC better so it doesn't do that. Until then, since we have no concrete proof of how often this happens or even if it happens at all to a majority of women, hormonal birth control should remain legal.

reply from: faithman

True; you can't really overdose on it lol. Or vitamin C for that matter. You just excrete what you can't absorb.
YES YOU CAN OVERDOSE ON CALCIUM! Please talk to your doctor before you take additional doses of ANY medication and suppliments and herbals are medication.
One should employ the services of a clinical nutrisionist to wade thru the jungle of herbs and supliments. The wrong combination, and the wrong dosage can kill you. Done right, they can save your life.

reply from: yoda

Sure, what's a few babies here and there, as long as the "majority" is happy?

reply from: ChristianLott2

And if a pill has secondary effects that decrease an already conceived child's potential to implant, you should not call it contraception. So go find a different term. Till then we'll stick w/ abortifacient because that's what all good people agree is abortion - purposely murdering a conceived baby, not this implantation technicality you pro aborts cooked up last night.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I read on a christian site that there is a NABC (nonabortifacient birth control)... Does anyone know of one like that? If I can find one it might be worth switching to that.

reply from: 4given

I was not aware that "we" were discussing legality. My personal views likely would not be well-received here. I was sharing the simple truth in regard to fertilization/implantation/ abortifacient BC.

reply from: Yuuki

I was not aware that "we" were discussing legality. My personal views likely would not be well-received here. I was sharing the simple truth in regard to fertilization/implantation/ abortifacient BC.
Hormonal birth control that is properly designed and does not cause a failure to implant - such as Depo - is perfectly moral. Prevention is worth an ounce of "cure"; and we can all agree that taking a pill or injection is much simpler than being pregnant for 9 months and possibly caring for a child. You cannot change the fact that women have the right to have sex. What you CAN do is prevent accidental pregnancies.

reply from: Yuuki

And if a pill has secondary effects that decrease an already conceived child's potential to implant, you should not call it contraception. So go find a different term. Till then we'll stick w/ abortifacient because that's what all good people agree is abortion - purposely murdering a conceived baby, not this implantation technicality you pro aborts cooked up last night.
If if if. Have I not already agreed that low-dose pills are clearly not the best idea? They should be taken off the market until something more effective can be developed. Depo for example caused no failures to implant, and it is a high dose. That is because it fully prevented ovulation. So go find a different term yourself, because you may as well be labeling all black people lazy with your "birth control is abortifacient" statements. It's an outright lie. I didn't "cook up" the implantation technicality last night, I've been saying it for months. Get with the program.

reply from: Yuuki

Sure, what's a few babies here and there, as long as the "majority" is happy?
Sure, what's a few children dead from gunshot wounds, as long as the "majority" is happy?

reply from: ChristianLott2

And if a pill has secondary effects that decrease an already conceived child's potential to implant, you should not call it contraception. So go find a different term. Till then we'll stick w/ abortifacient because that's what all good people agree is abortion - purposely murdering a conceived baby, not this implantation technicality you pro aborts cooked up last night.
If if if.
Yeah, you made the first if though.
Why should I care? That's not what this thread is about.
We're talking about abortifacients. If it's not an abortifacient we're not talking about it.
If it's not an abortifacient we're not talking about it.
Are you attempting to smear me as a racist?
It is an outright lie, so point to where I said it.
Again, let me remind you of the title of THIS thread - Abortifacients are NOT Contraception
Are you joking now or are you really this stupid?

reply from: ChristianLott2

I can? How?
She sound just like her mentor killer.

reply from: yoda

Ah, so you approve of killing both the unborn AND the born?

reply from: faithman

I can? How?
I guess the same way they seperate the men from the boys in califoria.... Use a crow bar......

reply from: Rosalie

You mention yourself all the time. Everything somehow has to relate to you and your negative experience with everything that is against your beliefs.
Sure you are entitled to voice your safety concerns but prepare to sound like an idiot. It' like people trying to fight the flu vaccine because THEY had a bad reaction. It's the same stupid thing.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: Yuuki

Ah, so you approve of killing both the unborn AND the born?
Ha ha You know it was a purposeful jab at your comments about gun control. I view the two issues to have parallels. But whilst I am totally willing to say "we need more research done on developing pills that don't cause a failure to implant", you are utterly unwilling to compromise on your right to own a lethal weapon.

reply from: Yuuki

I can? How?
She sound just like her mentor killer.
Galen is not a killer, nor is Yoda, or Lukesmom. Those are the people I really consider my mentors on here.

reply from: Rosalie

So that's what happened to you. Why didn't ya tell us sooner?
What a perfect demonstration of the intelligence of 'pro-lifers'.
You would need to start using a brain in order to be able to use sarcasm.
No, that's not true. The problem is when women who regret their decisions (if it even was THEIR decision in the first place) start to generalize and say that since THEY regret it, everyone else will, too.
I told you before. Right now, I'm here see how low you are all capable of sinking. So far none of you have disappointed.

reply from: Yuuki

I can? How?
By approving of hormonal contraception.

reply from: Yuuki

And if a pill has secondary effects that decrease an already conceived child's potential to implant, you should not call it contraception. So go find a different term. Till then we'll stick w/ abortifacient because that's what all good people agree is abortion - purposely murdering a conceived baby, not this implantation technicality you pro aborts cooked up last night.
If if if.
Yeah, you made the first if though.
Why should I care? That's not what this thread is about.
It is relavent to this thread. You are claiming that ALL hormonal contraception is abortifacient, and you have now been shown that this is false.
We're talking about abortifacients. If it's not an abortifacient we're not talking about it.
So we're not talking about the many kinds of hormonal contraceptives that don't cause a failure to implant, got it.
If it's not an abortifacient we're not talking about it.
Then you cannot say "all hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient", because not all of them are.
Are you attempting to smear me as a racist?
Nope, just making a parallel to generalizations.
It is an outright lie, so point to where I said it.
The title of this topic, for one. Again, I believe you misinterpreted my above statement; when I say "birth control" I specifically mean hormonal contraceptives.
Not all hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient though, but that seems to be what you are implying.
Are you joking now or are you really this stupid?
Nope, but I am very confused by you.
Let me state this again so it's clear:
I feel that if a brand of hormonal contraceptives causes a failure to implant MORE than it prevents ovulation then it should be taken off the market until it can be made more effective at preventing ovulation. You're right; something that causes a failure to implant is NOT a contraceptive, since it clearly did NOT prevent conception (fertilization)! That's straight-up false advertizing and women should not be fooled like that. It's shameful. Hormonal contraceptives are supposed to prevent ovulation and thus fertilization. Anything less is unacceptable.
However, I still disagree with calling it "abortifacient" because according to all definitions I know of, a woman isn't pregnant until implantation and you can't abort if you're not pregnant. Now obviously, since I still want those brands of contraceptives taken off the market that cause an excessive failure to implant, I still value the unimplanted child. I just disagree with your label.
As for the many other kinds of hormonal contraceptives that are effective at preventing ovulation, I see no need for them to be removed from the market OR for it to be illegal for women to use them for their intended purpose, preventing ovulation. I don't care WHY she's preventing ovulation. That's what the medication does, and I have no problem with that.

reply from: ChristianLott2

It is relavent to this thread. You are claiming that ALL hormonal contraception is abortifacient, and you have now been shown that this is false.
Please quote where I said this. Let me save you some time though - I never did.
So we're not talking about the many kinds of hormonal contraceptives that don't cause a failure to implant, got it.
If it's not an abortifacient, we're not talking about it. Is that clear?
Then you cannot say "all hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient", because not all of them are.
Where did I say that? Let me save you some more time - I never did. Look at all this time I've saved you and all this time of mine you're wasting by lying.
Are you attempting to smear me as a racist?
Nope, just making a parallel to generalizations.
Stop doing it, it's offensive and you know it.
It is an outright lie, so point to where I said it.
The title of this topic, for one. Again, I believe you misinterpreted my above statement; when I say "birth control" I specifically mean hormonal contraceptives.
Oh, when YOU say bc. Are you really this moronic?
Not all hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient though, but that seems to be what you are implying.
Stop calling abortifacients contraception. That is all I'm saying.
You are still wrong. I agree with your last statement only: "Anything less is unacceptable", not the first (bolded) hypocrisy.
It either does not abort a conceived child or it does. If it does, it's an abortifacient. If it does not it's not part of this discussion.
According to biology, life starts at conception. You can say pregnancy starts at implantation all you want.
You can say - abortion is the purposeful ending of a pregnancy, but that's a borty definition. Abortion is the purposeful murder of a pre born human life.
By shifting the definition to 'pregnancy', you've taken the focus away from the child and mother and given it to only the woman ie "her pregnancy" not "her child".
Attempting to have people believe a child isn't a child until it's implanted is like saying homeless people aren't persons unless they own property. It's a smear against the child. Stop doing it.
That's not what this thread is about.

reply from: faithman

You mention yourself all the time. Everything somehow has to relate to you and your negative experience with everything that is against your beliefs.
Sure you are entitled to voice your safety concerns but prepare to sound like an idiot. It' like people trying to fight the flu vaccine because THEY had a bad reaction. It's the same stupid thing.
Oh, our informative little butt nuggett, thank you from the bottom of my heart for straightening this all out for us poor monster, idiot, stupid prolifers! Too bad you are a butt nuggett and forced to hide away. Never mind, know that we love you butt nuggett proaborts here and we try really hard not to pity you in your butt nuggettness...

reply from: faithman

So that's what happened to you. Why didn't ya tell us sooner?
What a perfect demonstration of the intelligence of 'pro-lifers'.
You would need to start using a brain in order to be able to use sarcasm.
No, that's not true. The problem is when women who regret their decisions (if it even was THEIR decision in the first place) start to generalize and say that since THEY regret it, everyone else will, too.
I told you before. Right now, I'm here see how low you are all capable of sinking. So far none of you have disappointed.
Oh, our informative little butt nuggett, thank you from the bottom of my heart for straightening this all out for us poor monster, idiot, stupid prolifers! Too bad you are a butt nuggett and forced to hide away. Never mind, know that we love you butt nuggett proaborts here and we try really hard not to pity you in your butt nuggettness...

reply from: lukesmom

So that's what happened to you. Why didn't ya tell us sooner?
What a perfect demonstration of the intelligence of 'pro-lifers'.
You would need to start using a brain in order to be able to use sarcasm.
No, that's not true. The problem is when women who regret their decisions (if it even was THEIR decision in the first place) start to generalize and say that since THEY regret it, everyone else will, too.
I told you before. Right now, I'm here see how low you are all capable of sinking. So far none of you have disappointed.
Chin up my little butt nuggett. It is hard to be disappointed but to be disappointed when you are part of a sh*t heap must be especially hard. It won't be long now, you are completely rotton and the next stage is desintigration. Hold tight (*).

reply from: faithman

Chin up my little butt nuggett. It is hard to be disappointed but to be disappointed when you are part of a sh*t heap must be especially hard. It won't be long now, you are completely rotton and the next stage is desintigration. Hold tight (*).

reply from: nancyu

More yuuki liberal lies ^^^ You are such a shameless liar. I'm sure your real good pals with cm aren't ya.
From epm.org
Are there any birth control pills that don't have the potential of causing an abortion?
Posted in: Birth Control Pill Questions and Answers
By Randy Alcorn
Are there any birth control pills that don't have the potential of causing an abortion?
Answered by Randy Alcorn
Combination pills contain both estrogen and progestins. According to the listings in the Physicians Desk Reference, all combination pills have the capacity to prevent implantation, and therefore all can cause early abortions, though it's impossible to tell how often they do so.
" It may prevent a pregnancy but will not end one that has already begun. It is believed to work mainly by inhibiting ovulation (release of an egg) and fertilization. It may block implantation of the egg in the lining of the uterus. It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun."
This is a misleading (lie) statement to say the least. It says it will not end a "pregnancy" that has already begun. What it does not say (like you lie, liberal) is that it can kill a child that has already begun his life.
Regardless of when "pregnancy" occurs, a human being's life begins at fertilization. Preventing implantation kills the child by removing it's life support.

reply from: Yuuki

Depo provera is not a combination pill, it is an injection. It is hormonal contraception. I do not lie. I will repeat once more that I feel hormonal contraceptives that don't actually prevent conception should be removed from the market, or at least be forced to change their names and their claims, since they clearly are NOT contraceptives if they can't even prevent ovulation!!

reply from: Yuuki

If it's not an abortifacient, we're not talking about it. Is that clear?
Yep, so we're not talking about any of the hormonal contraceptives that prevent ovulation and don't cause a failure to implant, such as Depo.
Not all hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient though, but that seems to be what you are implying.
I can't, because contraception is NOT abortifacient. Contraceptive means to prevent conception. Well, a damn lot of things do that, such as condoms. Are condoms abortifacient? No. Depo provera is a form of hormonal contraception that fully prevents ovulation (when taken properly, let's not even get into that). So Depo provera is truly a contraceptive, and it is NOT abortifacient.
You are still wrong. I agree with your last statement only: "Anything less is unacceptable", not the first (bolded) hypocrisy.
Why is it hypocrisy?
You cannot abort until you are pregnant. That does not happen until implantation. It kills the conceived child, but it is not an abortion since it is not ending pregnancy, because pregnancy never began. I'm not denying that it kills the child and I'm not denying that this is undesirable. I am simply refuting your label as literally incorrect.
According to biology, life starts at conception. You can say pregnancy starts at implantation all you want.
I didn't personally come up with that. I do believe it however. Pregnancy is a relationship and a physical state of connection between a mother and child in the womb. That doesn't begin until implantation.
It's not a borty lie, it's the cold hard truth. Unless you want to debate that abortion ends a pregnancy? You can't generalize everything in this debate; there is no ground to stand on.
You're the one shifting things; it's been established for a long time and by many reputable people that pregnancy begins at implantation, and that's how it's going to stay. Her pregnancy is her connection to her child; she is not connected to her child until pregnancy begins. It's so simple a 6 year old can understand it. I'm not taking away from anyone.
I'm not saying it isn't a child; and I have in fact called it a child several times in this post. Now you're outright lying, and that is a smear against ME. Stop doing it.
That's not what this thread is about.
But you won't acknowledge them either. I guess I'll make a new thread just for them so we can clear the air. Not all hormonal contraceptives prevent implantation. And again I agree that if something is abortifacient it clearly is not contraception, since it obviously didn't prevent conception!

reply from: Yuuki

More yuuki liberal lies ^^^ You are such a shameless liar. I'm sure your real good pals with cm aren't ya.
It's not a lie. Depo provera is an example. It's also not a pill so most of the rest of your post is irrelevant.
It WON'T end a pregnancy that has already begun; pregnancy does not begin until implantation. This is a very simple fact to understand; I don't see why you all are having such trouble with it. Pregnancy is the state of being connected to your child in a physical way; the most intimate and direct way any two human beings can possibly be connected. That connection does not begin until implantation. I also did not deny at any point in time that preventing implantation will kill the child, because it absolutely will. YOU are lying, now stop.

reply from: scopia19822

"It' like people trying to fight the flu vaccine because THEY had a bad reaction. "
BC isnt the only pharmacueticals that I have safety concearns about. My husband is on about a dozen different medications and it seems that if you experince side effects of one they give you another med to combat the side effect and itsa never ending cycle of medication.

reply from: Yuuki

That happens to many patients with severe diseases like AIDS and cancer. It's better than dying.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Depo+provera&page=1&qsrc=0&zoom=%3CKW%3EDEPO+Provera%3C%2FKW%3E+Side+Effects|Can+You+Get+Pregnant+after+the+%3CKW%3EDEPO+Provera%3C%2FKW%3E+Shot|Bleeding+and+%3CKW%3EDEPO+Provera%3C%2FKW%3E&ab=5&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abcinternetmarketing.com%2Fdepo-provera%2F
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=upjohn+Depo+provera&page=1&qsrc=19&zoom=%3CKW%3EDEPO+Provera%3C%2FKW%3E+Pregnancy|%3CKW%3EDEPO+Provera%3C%2FKW%3E+Questions|Can+You+Get+Pregnant+While+Using+%3CKW%3EDEPO+Provera%3C%2FKW%3E&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rxlist.com%2Fdepo-provera-drug.htm
Physician Information
Women who use Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection may lose significant bone mineral density. Bone loss is greater with increasing duration of use and may not be completely reversible.
It is unknown if use of Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection during adolescence or early adulthood, a critical period of bone accretion, will reduce peak bone mass and increase the risk for osteoporotic fracture in later life.
Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection should be used as a long-term birth control method (e.g. longer than 2 years) only if other birth control methods are inadequate. (See WARNINGS.)
Patients should be counseled that this product does not protect against HIV infection (AIDS) and other sexually transmitted diseases.
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/bircntrldepopro.htm
How does Depo-Provera prevent pregnancy?
The Depo-Provera injection prevents pregnancy by preventing the ovarian egg cells from maturing and releasing from the ovary. If an egg does not mature and release from either ovary there is no egg to be fertilized by sperm and pregnancy cannot occur. The contraceptive shot also changes the condition of the lining of the uterus so that pregnancy is less likely to occur.
Translation: Can also cause implantation failure *just in case.*
You would like us to buy the lie that if it's not a "pregnancy" then it's not a baby. Not me. Just the same, I'm sure this will get you a nice "attaboy" from PP. I'm sure there are plenty of http://www.ask.com/bar?q=wikepedia&page=1&qsrc=2106&zoom=&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2F people who will swallow your pro-abort-in-pro-life-wool lies.

reply from: scopia19822

"That happens to many patients with severe diseases like AIDS and cancer. It's better than dying."
Sometimes I wonder if these medications arent actually helping to kill people. My husband is on way too much medication. Hes Diabetic and needs his metformin to control his blood sugar, he has fibromyalgia and needs his Lyrica, but when you keep giving one med to combat the side effects of another where does it stop? Its a never ending rollercoaster. Im trying to convince him to give natural and homepathic remedies a try.

reply from: SRUW4I5

A new life starts at fertilization. I agree with that part. Preventing implantation doesn't remove the conceived child from life support, it prevents the conceived child from getting on life support. Since the conceived child can't get on life support it dies. That means that preventing implantation indirectly kills the child instead of directly killing the child (which is what you said it does).

reply from: scopia19822

"That means that preventing implantation indirectly kills the child instead of directly killing the child (which is what you said it does)."
When one goes on BC they dont go on it with the intent of killing a child, they go on it with the intent to prevent a pregnancy from occuring. If one has moral qualms about it preventing implantation than by all means choose a method of BC that will not conflict with ones beliefs if they arent against BC. IF one thinks BC is a sin than dont use artifical means at all, but dont focus on this one issue, there are 3000 babies a day that are slaughtered in abortion clinics across America, that is where my focus is and where everyones elses should be. IF we keep arguing about BC than we are shooting ourselves in the foot, how is that going to help save the lives of the unborn that are at risk for being killed in the local PP at the hands of an abortionist knife?

reply from: scopia19822

"That means that preventing implantation indirectly kills the child instead of directly killing the child (which is what you said it does)."
When one goes on BC they dont go on it with the intent of killing a child, they go on it with the intent to prevent a pregnancy from occuring. If one has moral qualms about it preventing implantation than by all means choose a method of BC that will not conflict with ones beliefs if they arent against BC. IF one thinks BC is a sin than dont use artifical means at all, but dont focus on this one issue, there are 3000 babies a day that are slaughtered in abortion clinics across America, that is where my focus is and where everyones elses should be. IF we keep arguing about BC than we are shooting ourselves in the foot, how is that going to help save the lives of the unborn that are at risk for being killed in the local PP at the hands of an abortionist knife?

reply from: Yuuki

My dad is a new diabetic as well. The metformin is really heling control his sugar, and it has in fact gotten so much better that we suspect his body is starting to recover and produce more insulin on its own. I think he also takes an acid reflux pill... What exactly is your husband taking to combat the side effects of the two medications you mentioned? My dad doesn't take anything to combat side effects, he doesn't have any.

reply from: scopia19822

"hat exactly is your husband taking to combat the side effects of the two medications you mentioned? My dad doesn't take anything to combat side effects, he doesn't have any."
He just takes another med to combat the side effects and takes another one to combat that side effects..its ridiculous.

reply from: scopia19822

"hat exactly is your husband taking to combat the side effects of the two medications you mentioned? My dad doesn't take anything to combat side effects, he doesn't have any."
He just takes another med to combat the side effects and takes another one to combat that side effects..its ridiculous.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Some women also take the pill to eliminate that horrible time of the month.
I have no problems with birth control even though in some rare cases it is possible for it to indirectly kill a conceived child. I was just responding to the person that said the pill kills a conceived child.
I agree that our first priority should be eliminating unnecassary abortions. Someone should come up with a nonabortifacient birth control pill that is 99% effective so we can have an alternative to the abortifacient ones.

reply from: 4given

I have a friend that had to take BC in order to become pregnant. If BC is required for health reasons, my personal POV is that one should abstain from sexual intercourse. Although BC prevents abortions, I also understand that many may unknowingly expel a conceived life.
*edit* I realize the 1st 2 statements don't quite go together. My friend had to take bc to regulate her cycle to conceive*

reply from: lycan

Doctors are a bunch of blind men trying to describe an elephant.

reply from: 4given

Not exactly. Family MD's get paid quite a bit whether or not their rx's pay or fail.. I am thankful for the physicians that have saved my life and the lives of my family and friends. *sidenote* I was told by a pham. rep. that many Dr's are "bought" by pharmaceutical companies in an effort to bolster their latest product and stock rating. I suspect they also use these new products on their unsuspecting patient/clients. I wonder if they "test" the products on a specific class?

reply from: Yuuki

WOW I should like, totally have osteoperosis right? lol nope. I'm fine, I'm fertile and I'm fabulous. Rare side effects are just that, RARE. We cannot outlaw a medicine just because it has side effects. Polio would still exist if we worried about that. Did you know I was almost on accutane? I decided the risks were too scary for ME, just like I decided I was okay with the risks of Depo. It's a CHOICE.
edit: This was a reply to the post about the terrors of Depo...

reply from: Yuuki

I believe you, I just wish you could tell me more. I didn't know the metformin had any severe side effects.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Which is it Yuki? Do you now admit Depo is an abortifacient?

reply from: 4given

I can? How?
By approving of hormonal contraception.
What?! No.

reply from: Teresa18

There is a difference in contraceptives which act to prevent conception and contraceptives that have a design to act as an abortaficient. The majority opinion has no bearing on absolute standards of morality. The majority of the people in this country believe sex out of wedlock is ok, but that doesn't make it right.
The goal should be personhood which would recognize the unborn child as a person with a Constitutional right to life from conception.
This is exactly what pro-aborts say about abortion. They say that, "You may be personally opposed to abortion for moral reasons, but don't force your beliefs onto me. Don't have an abortion if you don't want one, but don't tell me I can't have one."
Many people would also join if we decided to compromise the lives of the so-called "hard cases". We shouldn't compromise morality to become more popular. Now, I would be ok with a compromise in the short term like a ban on 95% of abortions, but I think personhood should be the ultimate goal.
Like I said, check the stats I posted on the morning after pill causing failure to implant. Secondly, check out the article on the Catholic Church's position on the MAP in cases of rape. As a Catholic, I can't support something that has a design to end the life of a newly concieved person

reply from: Teresa18

Like I posted before, you are simply playing semantics. Have you read the definitions and articles I have posted on previous pages in this thread that address this issue because you haven't responded to any of them?

reply from: Teresa18

You couldn't have read the defintions and articles, especially the one from Wiki because it isn't that simple.

reply from: Yuuki

You couldn't have read the defintions and articles, especially the one from Wiki because it isn't that simple.
Pregnancy is NOT a connection between the mother and child? Gee, you're redefining pregnancy!

reply from: Yuuki

Like I posted before, you are simply playing semantics. Have you read the definitions and articles I have posted on previous pages in this thread that address this issue because you haven't responded to any of them?
I skimmed them and found they contained nothing of value.

reply from: Yuuki

Which is it Yuki? Do you now admit Depo is an abortifacient?
The contraceptive shot ALSO completely prevents ovulation, so it doesn't matter one bit if the lining is thin: no egg is going to get there in the first place.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Some of the ways of preventing pregnancy Pro-Lifers have issues with can cause ectopic pregnancy.
Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000895.htm (It takes some scrolling to get to that part)

reply from: faithman

Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000895.htm (It takes some scrolling to get to that part)
OUCH!!!!! Kinda smacks the pro-BC crowd a bit!!! You pro-life UU's are tuff!!!!! So glad you are on our side!!!!

reply from: ChristianLott2

The contraceptive shot ALSO completely prevents ovulation, so it doesn't matter one bit if the lining is thin: no egg is going to get there in the first place.
Then why would it say something like that?
" The contraceptive shot also changes the condition of the lining of the uterus so that pregnancy is less likely to occur. "
If it's impossible to ovulate on the drug, why would they say that?

reply from: Teresa18

I'm reposting key parts of the information. You may not have found it of value, but it is my counter argument.
Look at the definitions for pregnancy:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline.../mplusdictionary.html
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=pregnant
http://medical-dictionary.thef...ctionary.com/pregnant
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pregnant
These definitions say a woman is carrying a new life. This happens at conception, not implantation.
Pregnancy Debate:
http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_10196.php

I'll note that every definition I posted defined pregnancy at conception or defined it as a woman having reproduced and carrying a child.
Obviously, like I have posted above, a big reason why they define pregnancy at implantation is to justify abortaficient birth control and in vitro. This way lives could be destroyed, and it could be justifed because techincally, according to them, a woman was not yet pregnant. That of course doesn't change the fact that a life is destroyed at times in both abortaficient birth control and in vitro. In fact, the ACOG goes so far as to redefine conception in order to justify these things.
http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html
Just because it can't be detected until implantation, doesn't mean there is not a newly concieved person there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B..._pregnancy_controversy
http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html

reply from: Yuuki

The contraceptive shot ALSO completely prevents ovulation, so it doesn't matter one bit if the lining is thin: no egg is going to get there in the first place.
Then why would it say something like that?
" The contraceptive shot also changes the condition of the lining of the uterus so that pregnancy is less likely to occur. "
If it's impossible to ovulate on the drug, why would they say that?
Because in the end, preventing pregnancy is its purpose. And I still don't have a problem with it, and I still refuse to call it abortifacient; since according to the excerpt you just posted, IT PREVENTS PREGNANCY even if it does so through preventing implantation. You CANNOT ABORT unless you're pregnant.
No form of hormonal contraceptive is abortifacient. End of discussion; you really have no ground to stand on AT ALL, aside from whining "waaah, I want to defy biology and say pregnancy begins before it actually starts just so I can complain about birth control and call it abortifacient, because I don't want women to have sex for fun!" Because let's face it, that's the point behind all of this. You don't want people having sex outside of marriage. Just spit it out already. And you're willing to endanger lives to achieve that. It sickens me.

reply from: yoda

Why don't you spit it out that you really don't give a damn whether or not any particular form of bc may cause a few embryos here and there to die?

reply from: Teresa18

Ignoring the definitions and information I posted again? You are playing semantics. I don't even care if you want to go with the definitions of pregnancy at implantation, because that doesn't matter. What matters is when a person's life begins. It sounds to me like you want people to be able to have free sex without consequences, and you're willing to endanger newly concieved persons to achieve that.

reply from: yoda

WORTH REPEATING:

reply from: ChristianLott2

Yet this is also deception. Look at the standard definition of pregnancy:
: containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body
This kind of deception is no different than the other type of deception - 'abortifacient is contraception'.
Unless you are sterile, sex is not a sport. There are lives at stake.
Attempting to change the subject will not help your argument, it will not change your lies into truth.
I am not affiliated with any church and I do not trust the state, therefore marriage certificates mean little to me. Besides, married people use bc as well. This has nothing to do with marriage and has everything to do with taking responsibility for your actions - including the murder of a conceived child.
One last thing - by claiming the purposeful murder of a conceived child is not an abortion you are grounding yourself into more pro abort rhetoric.

reply from: yoda

Say, haven't we had experience debating with a whole group of posters who do that constantly?

reply from: ChristianLott2

Say, haven't we had experience debating with a whole group of posters who do that constantly?
pro aborts are all the same.

reply from: Rosalie

You are embarrassing yourself and you don't even realize it. How pathetic.

reply from: Yuuki

I want women to not be the only party that truly suffers from sex, yes. Birth control frees us. We have the right to have sex and NOT get pregnant.

reply from: ChristianLott2

To be specific - we pro lifers would have respect for you if you had said:
We have the right to have sex and NOT murder a conceived child.
but since you continue to misuse words and speak borty lingo, no true pro lifer will ever have respect for your disregard of a child's life.
What is your problem?

reply from: Rosalie

Do you understand that if this is the way YOU choose to live your life, it's absolutely okay but that your 'morals' and 'beliefs' are absolutely NOT applicable to anyone else?
That you have no right to demand that others do what YOU think is right with their (sex) lives? It is the same as if someone else went and said that--"I think couples should have sex at least four times a week. It is against my personal beliefs and morals if they don't."
Sexual relations of other people are none of your business. I understand that being a nosy control freak is basically a requirement for being 'pro-life' but you need to face the facts: it's none of your business whether someone else has consensual sex and what they choose to use as birth control.

reply from: yoda

And obviously, that means more to you than the lives of a few innocent human beings here and there....... yes, I understand that completely.

reply from: Rosalie

What does that have to do with anything? It's all the same. We should NOT stop vaccinating against flu or polio and other things just because side effects rarely happen to a handful of people.
You are paranoid. I hope that you are talking to your therapist about your paranoid delusions.
DUH, that's what happens when you have more than just one illness. The meds may collide. It just happens.
You are seriously paranoid. Everyone is out to get you and kill you, there are conspiracies everywhere, right? Oh for heaven's sake.

reply from: nancyu

The contraceptive shot ALSO completely prevents ovulation, so it doesn't matter one bit if the lining is thin: no egg is going to get there in the first place.
Then why would it say something like that?
" The contraceptive shot also changes the condition of the lining of the uterus so that pregnancy is less likely to occur. "
If it's impossible to ovulate on the drug, why would they say that?
Because in the end, preventing pregnancy is its purpose. And I still don't have a problem with it, and I still refuse to call it abortifacient; since according to the excerpt you just posted, IT PREVENTS PREGNANCY even if it does so through preventing implantation. You CANNOT ABORT unless you're pregnant.
No form of hormonal contraceptive is abortifacient. End of discussion; you really have no ground to stand on AT ALL, aside from whining "waaah, I want to defy biology and say pregnancy begins before it actually starts just so I can complain about birth control and call it abortifacient, because I don't want women to have sex for fun!" Because let's face it, that's the point behind all of this. You don't want people having sex outside of marriage. Just spit it out already. And you're willing to endanger lives to achieve that. It sickens me.
No you can't ABORT unless you're pregnant. So you would have to admit a truth: This would be KILLING an UNBORN CHILD. Not aborting. Perhaps there is no clear law against abortion, but there IS a law against KILLING innocent CHILDREN.

reply from: nancyu

I want women to not be the only party that truly suffers from sex, yes. Birth control frees us. We have the right to have sex and NOT get pregnant.
Where do you find this "right"? In the constitution? In the Bible?
Pregnancy is a NATURAL consequence of having SEX. NATURE, ever hear that word?
I suppose you also believe you have a right to jump off a building and not hit the ground.

reply from: faithman

I want women to not be the only party that truly suffers from sex, yes. Birth control frees us. We have the right to have sex and NOT get pregnant.
Where do you find this "right"? In the constitution? In the Bible?
Pregnancy is a NATURAL consequence of having SEX. NATURE, ever hear that word?
I suppose you also believe you have a right to jump off a building and not hit the ground.
MEANIE OLE MEAN GRAVITY!!!! OUGHT TO HAVE IT ARRESTED FOR harassment!!!!! But if it got a suspended sentance, we would all float off !!!!!

reply from: scopia19822

"Sexual relations of other people are none of your business. I understand that being a nosy control freak is basically a requirement for being 'pro-life' but you need to face the facts: it's none of your business whether someone else has consensual sex and what they choose to use as birth control."
I certainly dont care what other people do in their bedroom as long as it doesnt involve children, force or animals than I would step in and say/do something. Im not a control freak and Im not nosy. BC is a moral decision between a woman, God and her doctor. I do have some concearns about the safety of some methods and other pharmacueticals, but that is completly different than telling someone thou shalt not...

reply from: nancyu

I want women to not be the only party that truly suffers from sex, yes. Birth control frees us. We have the right to have sex and NOT get pregnant.
Where do you find this "right"? In the constitution? In the Bible?
Pregnancy is a NATURAL consequence of having SEX. NATURE, ever hear that word?
I suppose you also believe you have a right to jump off a building and not hit the ground.
MEANIE OLE MEAN GRAVITY!!!! OUGHT TO HAVE IT ARRESTED FOR harassment!!!!! But if it got a suspended sentance, we would all float off !!!!!
What.. Are you some kind of whacko who is into FORCING people who jump off a building to hit the ground! GRRrrr you are such a hateful bully!

reply from: 4given

Do you understand that if this is the way YOU choose to live your life, it' absolutely okay but that your 'morals' and 'beliefs' are absolutely NOT applicable to anyone else?
That you have no right to demand that others do what YOU think is right with their (sex) lives? It is the same as if someone else went and said that--"I think couples should have sex at least four times a week. It is against my personal beliefs and morals if they don't."
Sexual relations of other people are none of your business. I understand that being a nosy control freak is basically a requirement for being 'pro-life' but you need to face the facts: it's none of your business whether someone else has consensual sex and what they choose to use as birth control.*Yawn* Why I stated it was my personal POV.

reply from: scopia19822

"If BC is required for health reasons, my personal POV is that one should abstain from sexual intercourse. "
This can be a real killer for a marriage. Even the Catholic Church says that a married woman who is on the Pill for medical reasons is permitted to have sex with her husband. The sin is in the intent not the use. If a woman who has to take the Pill for medical reasons has to abstain from sex with her husband I can only imagine how much worse she could feel.

reply from: 4given

Right I am sure. Marriages can continue without sexual gratification- especially if you are using the RCC recommendations of NFP. My personal opinions don't likely reflect yours or others understanding. Sure. I can "imagine" a lot of things. It doesn't mean that regardless of explanation they can be justified to me. Again- my personal POV. What is yours specifically?

reply from: SRUW4I5

I agree with the Catholic Church on that one... (except I believe it should apply to nonmarried couples as well)
There are some health benefits to having sex once or twice a week. People shouldn't have to miss out on those because the woman is on the pill.
Sex has been proven to improve cardiovascular health, help with pain, and relieve stress. According to some researchers sex can even help improve your immune system.

reply from: 4given

Right.. The "God and Dr." bit is true. I wonder what He has to say? It is always good to present another with the truth, whether received or not. .. And I agree with the rest of your post.

reply from: ChristianLott2

You don't care about the conceived child?
There are health benefits from practically any mental or physical action you do. Talking about your concerns and interests decrease stress. Riding your bike is a healthy activity.
Ditching conceived babies because they 'get in the way' is not healthy for them. How do you suppose it's healthy for you?
There are countless other ways to achieve sexual satisfaction without using abortifacients.
You people lack interest and imagination.

reply from: Teresa18

Do you have the right to end the lives of newly concieved persons for sex? Depending on the definition of pregnancy (which varies), some forms of birth control are ending pregnancies.

reply from: Teresa18

Abortaficient birth control can involve the lives of newly concieved persons if the first two mechanisms fail.
Like I've said a couple times previously, women say abortion is a moral decision, but that doesn't mean the law should not ban it.

reply from: Teresa18

I thought you believed abortaficient forms of birth control should not be legal for recreational use. I may have misunderstood you or your post here. IDK...I'm tired and confused.

reply from: Yuuki

Do you have the right to end the lives of newly concieved persons for sex? Depending on the definition of pregnancy (which varies), some forms of birth control are ending pregnancies.
The scientific, biological and medical definition does NOT vary: it starts at implantation, period.
However, I have come to decide that hormonal contraceptives that do not effectively prevent ovulation should not be marketed as "contraceptives", since obviously they aren't preventing conception!! They should be relabeled as "pregnancy control" and/or removed from the market. It should be made very clear to women which brands are ineffective at preventing ovulation and which use the "back up" of preventing implantation as their primary method of preventing pregnancy. I don't want to prevent BIRTH, I want to prevent ovulation and fertilization.

reply from: faithman

Yes. You are.
Need some more glue? Of course ruber can be aquired at planned parenthood.

reply from: scopia19822

"Like I've said a couple times previously, women say abortion is a moral decision, but that doesn't mean the law should not ban it."
Aborting an esatblished pregnancy where clearly there is a human being growing and forming with a heartbeat is a human rights violation pure and simple. If I was an athiest I would still be prolife because of that very prinicpal.

reply from: scopia19822

Right I am sure. Marriages can continue without sexual gratification- especially if you are using the RCC recommendations of NFP. My personal opinions don't likely reflect yours or others understanding. Sure. I can "imagine" a lot of things. It doesn't mean that regardless of explanation they can be justified to me. Again- my personal POV. What is yours specifically?
My personal POV is that if a woman has a medical reason to use hormonal BC she should be able to have sex with her husband without feeling guilty. She is treating a medical condition, not trying to delieberate prevent pregnancy.

reply from: scopia19822

" I agree with the Catholic Church on that one... (except I believe it should apply to nonmarried couples as well)
There are some health benefits to having sex once or twice a week. People shouldn't have to miss out on those because the woman is on the pill.
Sex has been proven to improve cardiovascular health, help with pain, and relieve stress. According to some researchers sex can even help improve your immune system."
Sex has been proven to have many benefits emotionally and physically. I however think sex has its proper place in the confines of marriage.

reply from: 4given

I thought you believed abortaficient forms of birth control should not be legal for recreational use. I may have misunderstood you or your post here. IDK...I'm tired and confused.
Oh goodness. That is confusing. Sorry. I was distracted. I do believe that abortifacient bc should be included in a ban. I can understand how the post can be misinterpreted. I agree with her that it is a moral decision. That is why I asked her what she feels God has to say about it. Pointing someone to the truth about abortifacient bc is not being "nosy". I also don't care about what other's do sexually as long as a child isn't sacrificed in the process. (or as she said invlolved force or abuse of children etc)

reply from: Teresa18

Are you going to contact the dictionary companies and tell them that they have the wrong definitions listed?
Did you read the articles I posted, in particular the Wikipedia article because it expands on this debate?

reply from: Teresa18

I would ask that you check out the definitions and articles I posted on the pregnancy debate.
A human being is present and developing from conception.

reply from: Teresa18

That's ok. I was tired when I read it and may have misinterpreted it for that reason.
I agree.

reply from: yoda

I'm always amazed that some people actually continue to question this.
What else would we be at that early stage of development...... frogs?
What lengths some people will go to to protect their state of denial.....

reply from: Shenanigans

Yeah... that's not going to happen... given that sex out of wedlock is a mortal sin.

reply from: Yuuki

Are you going to contact the dictionary companies and tell them that they have the wrong definitions listed?
Did you read the articles I posted, in particular the Wikipedia article because it expands on this debate?
I have never seen a definition of pregnancy that says the woman is pregnant starting at fertilization.

reply from: ChristianLott2

merriam webster:
" containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body "

reply from: Teresa18

You didn't read the definitions or articles I posted. In order to avoid reading them, you just claimed you couldn't find anything valuable in them.
Here is one from the Wiki article:

reply from: yoda

merriam webster:
" containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body "
Hey, you can post that, but you can't make her look at it!!

reply from: faithman

Are you going to contact the dictionary companies and tell them that they have the wrong definitions listed?
Did you read the articles I posted, in particular the Wikipedia article because it expands on this debate?
I have never seen a definition of pregnancy that says the woman is pregnant starting at fertilization.
Been willingly blind long piss ant?

reply from: scopia19822

"Oh goodness. That is confusing. Sorry. I was distracted. I do believe that abortifacient bc should be included in a ban. I can understand how the post can be misinterpreted. I agree with her that it is a moral decision. That is why I asked her what she feels God has to say about it. Pointing someone to the truth about abortifacient bc is not being "nosy". I also don't care about what other's do sexually as long as a child isn't sacrificed in the process. (or as she said invlolved force or abuse of children etc)"
So you think that hormonal BC should be banned? Sorry if I sound selfish, but what about women like me who take it for medical reasons? How can one discern if a person is using it for contraception or medicinal purposes? I believe this matter was decided by the Supreme Court in Connecticut vs Griswald. This is a private moral decision for a woman to make between a woman, doctor and God. BC isnt the same thing as aborting an established pregnancy. It may prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and if a woman has moral/religious objections she should not employ that method of BC. However since we cant tell how it will work in each individual woman you cant ban a BC method based on probable outcomes. If it prevents ovulation or sperm from meeting egg than the woman has not aborted a child. You stated that you arent concearned about peoples sexual habits as long as a child isnt sacrificed. My husband and I right have chosen to abstain from relations until I can work through some issues, we hope to be able to resume that relationship one day. My priest who is Roman educated assured us that even though Im taking the Pill for medical reasons its perfectly ok for us to have sexual relations, no sin is being committed. I dont think a woman whos taking the Pill for medical reasons should have to stop having sex with her husband, she should be able to do so and not have to feel guilty about it.

reply from: 4given

Hey that is your personal understanding. I am hopeful you understand the abortifacient qualities of hormonal bc. Personally I feel that if you are taking bc for health or other reasons, you should also try to abide by the NFP method as well.

reply from: Banned Member

I will say that even the Catholic Church recognizes the need for medical treatment , given and so long as treatment is the first and only reason for treatment whose secondary effect is interference with conception. It is however understood that treatment should not be viewed or used oportunistically as contraception.

reply from: scopia19822

"Hey that is your personal understanding. I am hopeful you understand the abortifacient qualities of hormonal bc. Personally I feel that if you are taking bc for health or other reasons, you should also try to abide by the NFP method as well."
Im well aware that some hormonal BC can cause a fertilized egg not to implant and I believe it should be told to every woman going in for BC so that if she has a moral qualm about it she can choose a method of BC that will be acceptable to her moral code. Im not an expert on NFP, but it only works for women who arent on anything that will alter the body chemistry of their reproductive system. HC alter a persons body chemistry mainly by changing the cervical muscus and preventing ovulation. NFP would not be effective.

reply from: scopia19822

"I will say that even the Catholic Church recognizes the need for medical treatment , given and so long as treatment is the first and only reason for treatment whose secondary effect is interference with conception. It is however understood that treatment should not be viewed or used oportunistically as contraception."
Thats what I was told my parish priest. A married couple should be able to have sex and not feel guilty if the woman has a problem that requires the use of the Pill. It can kill the marital relationship and God intended sex to be not only for procreation, but also for pure pleasure between husband and wife.

reply from: 4given

Hey I don't know. Does HBC guarantee a regulated menstrual cycle? If so, why could you not estimate your ovulation?

reply from: scopia19822

"Hey I don't know. Does HBC guarantee a regulated menstrual cycle? If so, why could you not estimate your ovulation?"
The period that a woman has on the Pill isnt the same thing as a regular period. Its is just withdrawl bleeding from the hormones. That is why some women will use the Pill to suppress their bleeding which is what I do. I just dont take the placebo pills. Since the Pill usually prevents ovulation the lining doesnt build up ready to recieve an egg like it does in women who arent on anything. The uterine lining is usually very thin and this is why some women experience lighter shorter periods and why the lining may be hostile to a fertilized egg hence preventing it from implanting.

reply from: Teresa18

No one is talking about banning hormonal birth control for health reasons like bleeding. EVen the Catholic Church supports it in such situations. We are talking about banning it for recreational use. It can be discerned because a woman will only be given a prescripting if she needs it for health reasons.
Abortion was decided by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade.
That's what the pro-aborts say about abortion.
That depends on the definition of pregnancy being used. When it acts as an abortaficient it is the same thing because a person dies. The person who dies in abortion is just a different size and level of development.
It may prevent the implantation of a newly concieved human being.
It is one of three functions. The pill has a design where it can do this.

reply from: scopia19822

"No one is talking about banning hormonal birth control for health reasons like bleeding. EVen the Catholic Church supports it in such situations. We are talking about banning it for recreational use. It can be discerned because a woman will only be given a prescripting if she needs it for health reasons. "
All a woman has to do is tell her doctor she is having heavy/painful periods. I dont have a dime of insuruance and the only way I could get the Pill was through the family planning clinic at the Health department. What do you define as recreational use? A single woman having casual sex? A married couple having sex? Griswald vs Conn. said that BC of all kinds was a private matter and that states could not ban their sell. Roe V Wade itself cant be overturned. Another case will have to be brought before the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion most likely dealing with a states right to regulate/restrict it and in that case will be turned back to the individual states. Or a an amendment to the Constitution will have to be ratified making an unborn child a person under the law. The Supreme Court has never overturned their own rulings. The Dred Scott decision was nullified by the 13 and 14th amendments. Segregation was deemed constitutional in 1890 in Plessy vs Ferguson. In 1954 it was deemed unconstitutional by a seperate case being brought in Brown vs Board of Ed of Topeka. Most Americans arent going to support a ban on HC because they dont view that as an abortion, but as pregnancy prevention. That is a private matter.

reply from: Teresa18

Recreational use is people who do not need it for health reasons like bleeding but who use it just so they can have sex and prevent pregnancy.

reply from: scopia19822

"Recreational use is people who do not need it for health reasons like bleeding but who use it just so they can have sex and prevent pregnancy."
What about a woman who has heart problems or is a bad diabetic who has been advised not to get pregnant? That is one area that I have struggled with as far as permitting use of the Pill to prevent pregnancy. I would rather see a woman in that situation use BC than to abort a pregnancy due to life threatening complications even though we have many treatment options available to them that make abortion not nessecary. I would define that as health reasons as well. You arent going to be able to ban HC because they may or may not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. Most of the time it prevents ovulation and sperm from meeting egg.

reply from: Shenanigans

Just a thought: If abortion were illegal, and abortifacients were banned for "recreational" use, what's to stop a poor woman with heavy periods selling her BC to those who would use it for recreational pursposes.
As it is, there are other meds that can be used instead of the pill. I have a condition where the PIll would sort it out hands down, no ifs buts or maybes, it'd essentially cure it. But I refuse to take that damn poision so instead take something intended for kidney problems which has a side effect of mininalmising my problem, its not a cure, but at least my conscience is clear.

reply from: kd78

so people in committed monogamous relationships aren't allowed/supposed to have non-procreated sex?

reply from: yoda

Are individual moral codes the only thing that matters where innocent human life is concerned?
Or should our laws protect that innocent human life in some way?

reply from: scopia19822

"Recreational use is people who do not need it for health reasons like bleeding but who use it just so they can have sex and prevent pregnancy."
Sex between a married couple who love and cherish each other is not "recreational" and should not even have that word in the equation when dealing with sexual relations between a married couple. By using that term you are making sex between married couples sound so cheap and meaningless. You would be correct if you are talking about unmarried people who dont give a damn about the other person they are having sex with and using the Pill as recreational use because they are having recreational sex.

reply from: scopia19822

"Are individual moral codes the only thing that matters where innocent human life is concerned?
Or should our laws protect that innocent human life in some way?"
The law is never going to outlaw hormonal BC because of its potential abortificent effect. There is no way as of right to tell that a human life is present and growing in their mothers womb until implantation has been established. The law wants tangible physical evidence that a human life is present in their mother and that only occurs as this point after implantation. I am more concearned about the woman who is going to walk into a PP clinic today, tomorrow etc knowing she has a human life present in her womb and have her child killed than a woman whos on the Pill.

reply from: scopia19822

"so people in committed monogamous relationships aren't allowed/supposed to have non-procreated sex? "
I think premartial sex is wrong, however a married couple can have sex for the pure pleasure and just wanting to show their spouse how much they love them. As far as BC goes it depends on ones religious or moral beliefs as to what BC to use or to use it at all. They dont have to have sex just for the purpose of procreation, however in the RCC all artifical forms of BC are considered sinful, however NFP is acceptable to regulate the size of ones family and to postpone pregnancy. However they have to be open to the prospect of children or the marriage will not be allowed to take place in the Church.

reply from: yoda

Predictions have been wrong before, but I'm asking the moral question, not the pragmatic one.
Do you think that the law should protect all innocent human beings, or not?

reply from: Rosalie

There are quite significant health benefits to have (consentual) sex even much more often than once or twice a week. It's weird that you felt the need to specify 'once or twice a week'.
Yeah, that's how people used to act two centuries ago (and what they pretended to think - fact is that what they were preaching and what they were doing were two diffeent things). Luckily, most of us have evolved past such sexist notions.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I'm the one that had said once or twice a week, she had quoted me.
What I read said that people that have sex less than once a week or 3+ times a week didn't have as much of the benefits. I can find the link again if you want.
I thought that people would get more of the benefits by having sex more often. But, there was a study done that proves once or twice a week is best for something.

reply from: Rosalie

Wanting to make decisions regarding contraception use in people other than yourself is a sign of low self-esteem, loss of control over things in your real life and therefore developing controlling tendencies. Creepy. I hope you're doing something about your issues.

reply from: Rosalie

I'm the one that had said once or twice a week, she had quoted me.
What I read said that people that have sex less than once a week or 3+ times a week didn't have as much of the benefits. I can find the link again if you want.
I thought that people would get more of the benefits by having sex more often. But, there was a study done that proves once or twice a week is best for something.
If you have good quality sex (that results in orgasm), endorphins are always released and therefore zhrx always affect people's moods positively. And they relieve pain. (Same goes for masturbation, of course.)
Once or twice a week might be best "for something" but it doesn't work as a general rule.

reply from: faithman

Wanting to make decisions regarding contraception use in people other than yourself is a sign of low self-esteem, loss of control over things in your real life and therefore developing controlling tendencies. Creepy. I hope you're doing something about your issues.
....and advocating the destruction of innocent life is a sign that you are a low life degenerate that hasn't got any business worrying about anyone elses "issues". It would seem scum Like you has plenty of their own to consider.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Source: http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/family/marriage-sex/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex-342515

reply from: Rosalie

Source: http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/family/marriage-sex/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex-342515
Thanks for the link. I actually read something else but I don't have the link handy, I'll try to look it up.
But even if this was actually true (and it very well could be, I'm not saying it's not) - what does it change, exactly? That it is not healthy or good to have sex more than twice a week? Deinitely not.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I was just showing where I got the 1-2 times a week thing from.

reply from: Rosalie

I was just showing where I got the 1-2 times a week thing from.
Oh okay, then.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I was just showing where I got the 1-2 times a week thing from.
Oh okay, then.
It's nice how even though we're on different sides of the debate we can go without attacking each other.

reply from: Rosalie

I was just showing where I got the 1-2 times a week thing from.
Oh okay, then.
It's nice how even though we're on different sides of the debate we can go without attacking each other.
It sure is. It's such a nice change.
I have no problems getting along with other people, as long as they don't attack me. And you haven't so I see no reason to be nasty to you. You being on the other side of the debate is not a reason sufficient enough for me to be nasty to you/attack you. At least that's how I see it.

reply from: micah

That's against pro-life America forum policy.

reply from: scopia19822

"Yeah, that's how people used to act two centuries ago (and what they pretended to think - fact is that what they were preaching and what they were doing were two diffeent things). Luckily, most of us have evolved past such sexist notions."
Of course you would think those of us who think sex is for marriage are sexist. I did the casual/premarital sex thing, its much better to have sex with someone you love than some anonymous stranger or someone you have absolutely no emotional regard.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I was just showing where I got the 1-2 times a week thing from.
Oh okay, then.
It's nice how even though we're on different sides of the debate we can go without attacking each other.
It sure is. It's such a nice change.
I have no problems getting along with other people, as long as they don't attack me. And you haven't so I see no reason to be nasty to you. You being on the other side of the debate is not a reason sufficient enough for me to be nasty to you/attack you. At least that's how I see it.
I don't have problems getting along with other people, either. I try not to attack people. It's very common here for people to attack each other for no real reason.
It's strange to me that the students at the highschool I go to get along better than the people on this forum when alot of the people on the forum say that they are adults.
Back on topic (sorta): Do you think a version of the pill that doesn't cause ectopic pregnancies would be better? Someone tried to tell me that HBC in rare cases causing ectopic pregnancies is a good thing.

reply from: Rosalie

Of course I would. And of course you wouldn't understant why, would you? If you do understand why I'd think that, tell me.
Maybe for you. But not necessarily for the rest of the mankind. Not to mention that marrying someone doesn't mean you love them and having sex with someone you're not married to doesn't mean you don't love them. But I guess these little details are a bit too much for you, right?

reply from: Rosalie

I don't, either. Definitely not in real life.
There are two reasons: 1) this is the internet and therefore much more things fly around here than in real life, 2) this is supposed to be a debate forum but in fact it's a forum for people who like to argue without any consequences.
I'm here to see how far the people who disagree with pro-choicers are going to sink. I HAVE seen an actual reasonable debate and pro-lifers who, despite them disagreeing with abortion, actually helped women - but this kind of people is not present here (there are like two or three exceptions I can think of but that's it, basically).
Anyway, you go to high school? Have you decided what's next for you?
I don't see why it would be a good thing. It's a risk, it's a rare occurence so it's definitely not a reason for banning or limiting its use but if there was an alternative that would eliminate the risk of an ectopic pregnancy completely, of course it would be better.

reply from: scopia19822

"Of course I would. And of course you wouldn't understant why, would you? If you do understand why I'd think that, tell me. "
You think anything that is traditional or conservative is sexist. It doesnt compute with your worldview.
"Maybe for you. But not necessarily for the rest of the mankind. Not to mention that marrying someone doesn't mean you love them and having sex with someone you're not married to doesn't mean you don't love them. But I guess these little details are a bit too much for you, right"
You damn right is is true for me and many others. In this age of AIDS and other STDS it is only common sense to have sex with only person who isnt infected, preferably in the confines of marriage. If you dont love a person than one should not marry them and if you really love some one and want to spend the rest of your life with them than why not go ahead and marry them? Maybe if one is so apprehensive about marrying the person they should rethink why they are in that relationship.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I don't, either. Definitely not in real life.
There are two reasons: 1) this is the internet and therefore much more things fly around here than in real life, 2) this is supposed to be a debate forum but in fact it's a forum for people who like to argue without any consequences.
It does seem that way. This forum is worse than the debate team at school. People get kicked off the debate team at school for verbally (or physically) attacking each other. I like debating, it's fun, but attacking is never needed.
I know what you mean. Some of the people on here from both sides make their side look really bad.
Yea. I'm going to take next year off from school and work a lot more. Since I'm graduating a year early, it's not going to be that bad. After my year off, I'm going to go to college.
I don't see why it would be a good thing. It's a risk, it's a rare occurence so it's definitely not a reason for banning or limiting its use but if there was an alternative that would eliminate the risk of an ectopic pregnancy completely, of course it would be better.
I agree a version without that risk would be better and that it isn't a good reason to ban the pill. That risk should be listed on the box and/or in the information with the pill though. It wasn't listed in any information for the brand I use, even though it's been proven that the one I use has the risk.

reply from: Rosalie

That is not 100% true but there is some truth in it.
Of COURSE that many traditional/conservative things are sexist. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. And I oppose that vehemently because sexism is repulsive. You, however, embrace it.
Marriage does not guarantee ANYTHING.
Because you are capable of loving more than just one person over the course of, say, 50 years. Love is different at 18 than it is 28 but that doesn't make it any less important.
And like I said, marriage does not guarantee love and the fact that you are not married does not mean that you don't love the person. It just means that marraige is not the most important thing on your list, or important at all.
You are seriously screwed up if you think that. And you are obviously too intolerant and/or ignorant that you don't understand that marriage is NOT needed for many people as a confirmation that they are in love.
All I said above applies.

reply from: scopia19822

"Because you are capable of loving more than just one person over the course of, say, 50 years. Love is different at 18 than it is 28 but that doesn't make it any less important."
It depends on how one approaches marriage. I see marriage as a lifetime commitment, Im in it for the long haul for better/worse, richer or poorer. I did not enter into marriage with my husband thinking if it doesnt work out theres always divorce, if one has that mentality than they should not marry. They clearly are not ready for the commitment that is marriage. My paternal grandparents have been married for 46 years, my mamaw was 21 and my papaw was 18 they were young and in love and they still love each other today if not more like they did the day they married. My maternal grandparents were married for 52 years before my stepgrandfather passed away. That marriage lasted through my grandmothers affair with my grandfather and the birth of my mom, they didnt just cut loose and run when the going got tough. They stuck it out, these days at the first signs of difficulty people just cut and run. I think it should be just as hard to get a marriage liscense as it can be to get a divorce.

reply from: Rosalie

That's the entire point, Scopia. 'IT DEPENDS ON HOW ONE APPROCCHES MARRIAGE'.
If you are at least a little intelligent and reasonable, you'll know that not everyone approaches marriage in the same way and therefore it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.
And that's wha it's all about.
People ARE in it for the long haul EVEN without marriage and some people who GOT married are definitely NOT going to stay with their SO for better or for worse. That's how it is.
The mentality that if the people find out that they are NOT compatible and are only making each other miserable in their marriage should get a divorce is VERY valid. I don't support anyone staying together - UNLESS THEY REALLY WANT TO. Obligation, children - not a good reason to stay married. Not in MY book. And again it comes back to the fact that this depends on how people view relationships and marriage.
Learn to be more tolerant and respect the views of others. You should also be more aware of the fact that other people's opinions are not wrong just because they are different from yours.

reply from: scopia19822

"he mentality that if the people find out that they are NOT compatible and are only making each other miserable in their marriage should get a divorce is VERY valid. I don't support anyone staying together - UNLESS THEY REALLY WANT TO. Obligation, children - not a good reason to stay married. Not in MY book. And again it comes back to the fact that this depends on how people view relationships and marriage."
I generally dont believe in divorce, if things can be worked out than they should be. A couple should not just call it quits at the first sign of trouble. If a woman is being physically abused and is fear for her life she needs to leave with the children and a civil divorce may be nessecary, even the RCC says that. I like the RCC approach to marriage. In our parish if a couple wants to be married they must take a marriage preperation course which covers everything from runnin a house to sex etc. This is a period for the couple to discern if marriage is right for them as it has to be seen as a permanant thing. I wish more states would require indepth premarital counsling before they issue a marriage liscence.

reply from: Rosalie

I have been around some debate forums a couple years ago, then I had a looong break and then I came here - mostly to find out if anything's changed. Like I said, now I stay here just to find out how far some people are willing to go.
This is a very touchy subject but on this particular forum, I don't believe it's about abortion anymore. It's about taking out your temper on other people, attacking others for having different opinions... it has nothing to do with abortion and definitely NOT with helping women.
It is entertaining when you join in and hold up a mirror to these people, but it is not a real debate.
I believe that in most of the cases, it is just a mockery of one another - and like I said, it can be entertaining for a while but it has nothing to do with the real issue.
Good for you, girl (? I suppose?) College is MUCH better than high school - and though it's been years I have graduated (I'm 28), I still have some great memories. College >>>>> high school, though. Do you plan on doing some travelling during your year off or will you concentrate on work? If you don't mind me asking. If you do, just let me know. No hard feelings.
I have been warned about possible side effects of the pill and I have also received a leaflet with all the information. And I would always ask my gynecologist if I had questions - everyone should seriously do that.
Didn't your OB/GYN provide any information about the pill? Did you ask?

reply from: Rosalie

There's a difference between having a fight about what's going to be for dinner and long-term problems. Some of it can be worked out, some if it can not. I believe in divorce because I don't believe people should stay together unless they want to. It just does no good to anyone.
And I absolutely disagree with marriage preparation courses because a priest butting into a relationship of two people is completely inappropriate and wrong in my book. But if that's what you want, whatever floats your boat. THAT'S how I roll. I would NEVER EVER agree with making it a requirement. That's jus thorrible and unacceptable.

reply from: scopia19822

"And I absolutely disagree with marriage preparation courses because a priest butting into a relationship of two people is completely inappropriate and wrong in my book. But if that's what you want, whatever floats your boat. THAT'S how I roll. I would NEVER EVER agree with making it a requirement. That's jus thorrible and unacceptable."
Actually our marriage preperation course is taught by a married couple who have been married for 40 years, so I think they can offer some insight and advice on the issue of marriage. In Tennessee if a couple doenst provide proof of premarital counsling than they charge 90 dollars for the marriage liscence, if they complete it its 30 dollars. They did that because TN has one of the highest divorce rates in the nation.

reply from: scopia19822

"here's a difference between having a fight about what's going to be for dinner and long-term problems. Some of it can be worked out, some if it can not. I believe in divorce because I don't believe people should stay together unless they want to. It just does no good to anyone."
As Dr.Phil puts it one can only say they are ready for a divorce when they can look at the other party not feel anger and have no unfinished buisness with them, only then can a person say they have finished that relationsip and move on to the next one.

reply from: Teresa18

Wanting to make decisions regarding contraception use in people other than yourself is a sign of low self-esteem, loss of control over things in your real life and therefore developing controlling tendencies. Creepy. I hope you're doing something about your issues.
The opinion of one who supports the slaughter of 4,000 unborn children per day means little to me in this area. Of course abortaficients that can prevent the implantation of a newly concieved life would not bother you.

reply from: Teresa18

I know the Church would not support using birth control in this instance. They would encourage NFP or abstinence. However, is it possible this couple could use a condom as opposed to birth control that can act as an abortaficient? I think decisions like this would be considered medical and would ultimately have to be left up to the doctor and the woman.
As Yoda said, it's not about what is popular. It's about what is right when human life is at stake. Birth control that can act as an abortaficient may never be banned, but that doesn't mean it's not right to support it's illegalization.
The use of birth control is recreational. There is no medical need for it.
The Church defines sex as being both unitive and open to new life in marriage. Having sex with birth control distorts that definition of sex. When a couple uses birth control, they can not fully unite and be open to new life.

reply from: Teresa18

I love to come across an older couple like that. They are going along, holding hands, and still as in love as the day they met. They are just walking a little slower, sometimes holding each other up because they aren't so steady on their feet. They express their love differently than when they are young, sometimes having to help each other with the simple things like putting on a sweater or pouring a cup of coffee. They lived their lives, and they are content to be together and enjoy the family they have made until Jesus calls them home.
I hope to marry once and have that kind of marriage. I try to picture myself 50 years from now sitting around at Christmas with my husband, kids, and grandkids before me full of so much love and joy, thinking how blessed I am.

reply from: scopia19822

"know the Church would not support using birth control in this instance. They would encourage NFP or abstinence. However, is it possible this couple could use a condom as opposed to birth control that can act as an abortaficient? I think decisions like this would be considered medical and would ultimately have to be left up to the doctor and the woman."
I think a barrier method on fertile days would be a better alternative. Some women if they can find a doctor to do it will get their tubes tied in these cases, their is a woman in my parish that did that because she is a brittle diabetic and a pregnacy could cause her to have renal failure. IF you have ever seen the movie Steel Magnolias you will see this with Julia Roberts charachter. I think in that case God forbid I would consider getting my tubes tied. Her and her husband have adopted two older children out of Foster care. Im a cradle catholic and while I understand the logic behind the prohibition against BC, however its only binding to Catholics not Protestants.

reply from: scopia19822

"As Yoda said, it's not about what is popular. It's about what is right when human life is at stake. Birth control that can act as an abortaficient may never be banned, but that doesn't mean it's not right to support it's illegalization. "
One can support it being made illegal but it will never happen. A lot of women use it for medical reasons including myself, and all a woman has to do is tell her doc she is having painful/heavy periods and she will walk out with a script. I get mine throught the family planning clinic at the local health department because I would not be able to get it any other way. THey have to say on paper Im taking it for BC, but the NP knows really why Im taking it. IF it was outlawed for contraceptive use than women like me who have no insuraunce or money to see a doctor could not get a script much less pay for the pills. That is why Im so protective of keeping it legal and available for free or low cost to low imcome women, because if it wasnt available like it is I would SOL and so would other women in mu situation.

reply from: scopia19822

"The opinion of one who supports the slaughter of 4,000 unborn children per day means little to me in this area. Of course abortaficients that can prevent the implantation of a newly concieved life would not bother you."
I dont support the slaughter of 4,000 a day in the abortion clinics of America. While I understand your concearn about the Pill and why you see it as an abortificent with all due respect Im more concearned about a woman who is going to walk into the PP knowing she is carrying a child and is going to have it killed, that is the 4,000 a day that are killed. Im more concearned about that than a woman who is taking HC.

reply from: Teresa18

Just to clarify, I was directing that post at Rosalie. I don't mind you responding to it; I just didn't want you to think I was taking such a hostile tone with you.

reply from: micah

Every sperm is sacred.

reply from: yoda

But every unborn baby is just so much meat (to you), right?

reply from: ChristianLott2

But every unborn baby is just so much meat (to you), right?
busted.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I have been around some debate forums a couple years ago, then I had a looong break and then I came here - mostly to find out if anything's changed. Like I said, now I stay here just to find out how far some people are willing to go.
Yeah, some people will take it pretty far.
Some of the people here do help women and some of it is about abortion. It is a very emotional subject.
I believe that in most of the cases, it is just a mockery of one another - and like I said, it can be entertaining for a while but it has nothing to do with the real issue.
True. People leave the real issue behind a lot.
Good for you, girl (? I suppose?) College is MUCH better than high school - and though it's been years I have graduated (I'm 28), I still have some great memories. College >>>>> high school, though. Do you plan on doing some travelling during your year off or will you concentrate on work? If you don't mind me asking. If you do, just let me know. No hard feelings.
I don't mind. I'm willing to answer almost anything.
I'm going to be concentrating on work and getting more time with my boyfriend and friends. I might do a little traveling to visit some friends and family on the other side of the country. It really depends on my work schedule, though.
I have been warned about possible side effects of the pill and I have also received a leaflet with all the information. And I would always ask my gynecologist if I had questions - everyone should seriously do that. Didn't your OB/GYN provide any information about the pill? Did you ask?
I got my first prescription for the pill from an abortionist. She wouldn't tell me anything. After that, I got the prescription from my doctor. When I asked my doctor she said "read the information that comes with the prescription". I don't have an OB/GYN.

reply from: Yuuki

Sorry for not answering any of the posts on here; no I was not "scared off" or "defeated". I stand firm by what I think.
I think pregnancy does not begin until implantation. I'd bet money most doctors and scientists agree.
I do not think preventing implantation is a good way of preventing pregnancy since it destroys a unique human being.
However, I also do not think it is right or fair to call such a process "abortifacient" since "abortion" is the ending of a pregnancy.
Either way, I do feel that if a form of hormonal contraceptive has been proven by multiple studies (not just pro-life ones) to regularly prevent implantation instead of ovulation, that it should not be able to be labeled as a "contraceptive" because it's not preventing conception. I also feel that such medications should be clearly labeled as doing so.
If a hormonal contraceptive functions regularly by preventing ovulation and a failure to implant is an accidental and occasional side effect, then I do NOT believe it should be removed from the market, and that it should maintain its classification as "contraception".

reply from: yoda

Hey, don't be shy, give us your usual "I won" speech..........

reply from: faithman

Bortheads hate womb gays and suport gay genocide by abortion!

reply from: Yuuki

Hey, don't be shy, give us your usual "I won" speech..........
Read the rest of my post.

reply from: ChristianLott2

one question. do you get tired talking out both ends?
I sure get tired listening to it.

reply from: Yuuki

one question. do you get tired talking out both ends?
I have no idea what you're implying. I'm afraid I do have a high respect for using the English language properly. So go think of a better word for "prevents implantation" and I'll call hormonal birth control that has been proven to do that by that name. Until then, I'll stick with "prevents implantation" or "causes a failure to implant". How about Implantafacient?
I sure get tired listening to it.
I have to keep repeating it because you don't get it. One of the ways people learn is through repetition.

reply from: sheri

Cheerio, Horemonal BC does tell about its abotifacient properties on its label. The manufacturers explain it also on there web sites. It is not a big secret that they work in ways that are dangerous to new life.

reply from: Yuuki

I am saying it IS a big secret because the only people talking about it are pro-lifers, and let's face the truth: most people don't believe a damn word we (you) say. It's all just "religious, anti-woman propaganda". That's why REAL research needs to be done; that's why the LABEL needs to change. They cannot call their product a contraceptive any more than ChristianLott can call it abortifacient. Both labels are WRONG. I never knew any of it until a pro-life said something, and to be honest I don't fully believe any of it even now. A part of me still says "bah, they were forced to place that information on their labels by pro-life fundies even though there's no proof". So it IS a huge secret and there's NOT enough information for me to make an educated decision about this. But one thing I know for sure is that they aren't abortifacient.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Is this murder? Or do you prefer the term 'destroy' like having your dog destroyed?
Is 'destroying a unique human being' murder?
Pregnancies don't regularly result in abortions. Are you okay with those too?
You're making a hypocrite out of yourself. Why can't you just be honest??

reply from: sheri

Thank you, cheerio, that was eye opening for me. I find i have learned quite a lot from you, your honesty is appreciated. I am wondering why you have chosen implantation as the time for life to begin? why not a few weeks later when the pregnancy can be detected, etc. You do realize that even your eye color is fixed upon at the moment of fertilization?

reply from: ChristianLott2

She didn't :
but it's difficult to infer that from her conclusion:
She's a liar and a hypocrite using muddlspeech not unlike her hero killermarie.

reply from: kd78

it still boils down to do you use the birth control at the risk of losing a teeny tiny person you didn't know was there (it not implanting)? or do you not use birth control and thereby definitely have a higher risk of pregnancy you aren't ready for at that time? my mate and i just had a baby at the end of december. we're not ready for another one already. there is a possibility i could get pregnant again now. we haven't decided on bc yet, but he's said no on the iud- causes miscarriages.

reply from: sheri

Kid, all hormonal birth control has the capacity to kill a teenie tiny person. Why not try a natural alternative to the pill. Go to NFPandmore.org for free info. on a birth control method that is 97% effective and will not harm you or your babies.

reply from: lycan

The IUD probably has more potential to cause early abortions than the Pill, because it irritates the lining of the womb, and doesn't just thin it. White blood cells and prostaglandins are much more active in the uterus with the IUD in place, because the IUD is a foreign object.

reply from: yoda

Hmm..... could that be because prolifers are the only ones who give a damn about unborn humans, maybe?

reply from: yoda

"A person's a person, no matter how small".

reply from: Rosalie

I still disagree with it. I don't think a third-party of strangers has the right to intervene in any way and determine whether the people are ready to be married or not. This is strictly the couples' choice. Offering insight - yes. Determining the depth of the relationship of these two people - no.
The opinion of one who supports the slaughter of 4,000 unborn children per day means little to me in this area. Of course abortaficients that can prevent the implantation of a newly concieved life would not bother you.
Me being pro-choice and you disagreeing with it does not change anything about your apparent problems.
And no, of course it wouldn't bother me. It doesn't bother most people.

reply from: kd78

my boyfriend's ex wife miscarried on an iud. yoda- that really doesn't help though. so we don't use anything and just don't ever have sex?

reply from: sheri

http://www.nfpandmore.org/

Kid, why not look into natural family planning. Do something good for your relationship.

reply from: faithman

I still disagree with it. I don't think a third-party of strangers has the right to intervene in any way and determine whether the people are ready to be married or not. This is strictly the couples' choice. Offering insight - yes. Determining the depth of the relationship of these two people - no.
The opinion of one who supports the slaughter of 4,000 unborn children per day means little to me in this area. Of course abortaficients that can prevent the implantation of a newly concieved life would not bother you.
Me being pro-choice and you disagreeing with it does not change anything about your apparent problems.
And no, of course it wouldn't bother me. It doesn't bother most people.
Just like it don't bother you if all gays were slaughtered in the womb.

reply from: yoda

I'm no marriage counselor...... so I don't have any advice for you.
I just want everyone to respect and admit the truth about BC.

reply from: Yuuki

Clearly it did not prevent implantation then. However, since it cause a miscarriage it was definitely abortifacient.

reply from: Yuuki

It still boils down to having any sex at all runs the risk of losing a teeny tiny person you didn't know was there. Why is there a difference? There isn't.

reply from: Yuuki

It is estimated that appropriate use of emergency contraception could reduce the number of unintended pregnancies each year by half and thereby similarly reduce the abortion rate.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/4/1026

-------------
Emergency contraception primarily inhibits ovulation, disrupts follicular development, and/or interferes with the maturation of the corpus luteum. These are the same mechanisms by which other hormonal methods of contraception prevent pregnancy.
Results of studies evaluating the effect of emergency contraception on the endometrium have been conflicting. Some studies have suggested histologic or biochemical alterations in the endometrium after emergency-contraception treatment, leading to the suggestion that the pills may act by impairing endometrial receptivity to the implantation of a fertilized egg.16,41,47 - 51 However, other studies have demonstrated little to no effect on the endometrium and raise the question of whether the endometrial changes observed would be sufficient to inhibit implantation.38,39,42,43,52,53 Other suggested mechanisms, including alteration of sperm or egg transport, interference with the fertilization process, and/or cervical mucus changes, have not been verified by clinical data.14,40
Emergency contraception does not interrupt a pregnancy that has already implanted in the uterine lining.
Unlike hormonal emergency contraception, mifepristone has the potential to disrupt a pregnancy after implantation within the uterine lining.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/4/1026

--------------
The hormonal methods, particularly the low-dose progestin-only products and emergency contraceptive pills, have effects on the endometrium that, theoretically, could affect implantation. However, no scientific evidence indicates that prevention of implantation actually results from the use of these methods. Once pregnancy begins, none of these methods has an abortifacient action.
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ajog/abstract.
00000447-199911000-00043.htm;jsessionid=JbKdd11xRC0qT9N7lwzGpQn3Hbgl3g56rQnHnGPMhLyJcSRsb0Wp!1204955331!181195628!8091!-1

reply from: yoda

"Teeny little person"?
Are you morally more valuable because of your size?

reply from: Yuuki

"Teeny little person"?
Are you morally more valuable because of your size?
I'm just quoting someone else. They said it first:

reply from: scopia19822

Sheri dont you think that charting and temp taking for some women would make sex be another chore, instead of something to enjoy? I tried NFP and just found it like other methods of BC took the romance out of sex, because when it comes down to it even with cooperation its all centered on the woman and her burden to bear. If I can get off of these Pills I would rather not use anything, but trust God,

reply from: scopia19822

If one doesnt want to do the premarital counsling they can pay the higher fee and go ahead and get married, thats there choice. IN the RCC if you want to be married within the Church than you must take the marriage prep, if not than one is always free to go have a civil ceremony, they may be able to have it convalidated later, but until that happens they cant partake of the Eucharist. Once again its the choice of the couple.

reply from: yoda

And that makes it okay? What if I used the "N" word here because I heard someone else say it?

reply from: ChristianLott2

Pregnancies don't regularly result in abortions. Are you okay with those too?

reply from: sheri

Yeh, Skippy, I have heard some women complain that it is a chore, i never considered it so, maybe because we followed the reccomendation to include the husband in the task, mine records the waking temperature, and also it just becomes part of the routine after a few months. The periods of abstainance are hard sometimes, but they can also be rewarding, we tend to have good conversations and going back to the premarital idea of a "disinterested" backrub is fun for me.
I certainly would not discourage the idea of "letting God handle it". Trusting Jesus to take care of you is so important for a Christian.

reply from: scopia19822

Im not Skippy Im Scopia. My husband was included in the matter as well, but I hated having to take my temperature everyday right before sex espeicailly. Also one has to have a consistant regular cycle for this work. I thinks its great and would rather see people practice NFP as opposed to feeding the pharmaceutical companies profits and having to put up with the side effects. I dont know for me BC even NFP just seems unnatural.

reply from: sheri

Actually i'm not aware of any form of NFP that requires a temp. check just before sex, what form were you using? That would make it hard, "just wait a minute, honey and i'll see if it's your lucky number, ohh too bad, maybe tomorrow." That would cause some angst.
Sympto/thermo method can be used with 97% efectiveness even if you have unregular periods. Take my word for it, one month i was 26 days, the next 46! We never had a problem with the method.

reply from: scopia19822

Usually for us relations had to be in the mornings before my son woke up, as at night we were usaully too tired. Your supposed to take your temp in the morning and chart it. Im not sure what method were were using, I knew that if my tempature elevated ovulation was near or occured. I got a book on NFP from the library and we used the advice and methods in it. It really didnt help to take my temp , chart then hubby say "IM ready". I prefer not to use anything myself, I feel personally that NFP takes the romance out of it. I prefer to leave it in Gods hands.

reply from: sheri

Dont get me wrong, i do think its great that you put your trust in God. I love that kind of "let go, let God" attitude.

reply from: micah

It's interesting that your own agnostic pro-lifer (yodavader) also seems to be the most passionate to fight against abortion. Showing up weekly for abortion protests is probably somewhat inconvenient, and he risks being sued by having his web site. It's not much, but it is far more than most pro-lifers risk.

reply from: Teresa18

If a woman is having difficulty with her cycle, then she can have an appointment with a doctor or OB/GYN where the doctor will confirm she needs birth control and write her a prescription. If a woman can't afford a doctor, the state can provide one low cost or free. That would actually be good in your case because they wouldn't be able to just give you birth control without finding the source of the problem. They would have to provide you with a doctor and tests to make sure you are given the best treatment.

reply from: faithman

It's interesting that your own agnostic pro-lifer (yodavader) also seems to be the most passionate to fight against abortion. Showing up weekly for abortion protests is probably somewhat inconvenient, and he risks being sued by having his web site. It's not much, but it is far more than most pro-lifers risk.
So what do you do besides run your baby killing mouth and advocate destruction of womb gays?

reply from: Teresa18

Think what you may; we'll all find out someday.

reply from: sheri

Mikey, I agree Yoda is a good, prolife, guy. Was there a point in stating that or were you just contributing by typing up the manifestly obvious?

reply from: Teresa18

It's not cut and dry. There is a debate about it. A big reason it is defined at implantation is to allow abortaficient birth control and in vitro.
It depends on how pregnancy is defined.
You think they should keep it on the market?
Currently, that is one of three designed functions of this kind of birth control.
Really, there is no need to play semantics. You can say pregnancy begins at implantation, but what matters is when the life of a concieved person begins. That life must be protected.

reply from: Teresa18

Hmm..... could that be because prolifers are the only ones who give a damn about unborn humans, maybe?

reply from: Teresa18

Ok, let's for sake of this argument say I am riddled with problems. There, now that I've tossed you that crumb, how does that make it ok to kill unborn babies?

reply from: Teresa18

If you read the info I posted from epm, it says that sometimes all three functions of the pill fail, and a woman manages to get pregnant. That doesn't mean one of the functions isn't preventing implantation.

reply from: scopia19822

If a woman is having difficulty with her cycle, then she can have an appointment with a doctor or OB/GYN where the doctor will confirm she needs birth control and write her a prescription. If a woman can't afford a doctor, the state can provide one low cost or free. That would actually be good in your case because they wouldn't be able to just give you birth control without finding the source of the problem. They would have to provide you with a doctor and tests to make sure you are given the best treatment.
It may work out that way in the future, but as of now it doesnt and I dont see that happening in the near future. Right now Im at the mercy of the state health departments family planning program. What if I could get in to see an ob/gyn, but cant afford the cost of the pills? I would still be SOL. If you are opposed to the use of HC fine, but the Pill with all due respect was developed to be a contraceptive, not treat menstrual problems. Its medicianl purposes were an unintended side effect. A woman may have regular, but just painful heavy periods, all they can do is take her word and give her the Pill.

reply from: scopia19822

It's interesting that your own agnostic pro-lifer (yodavader) also seems to be the most passionate to fight against abortion. Showing up weekly for abortion protests is probably somewhat inconvenient, and he risks being sued by having his web site. It's not much, but it is far more than most pro-lifers risk.
I go to a PP 2 hours away as we dont have one here, with women from my parish. I will be going in the 2nd weekend in March. I pass out social service and adoption referrals. I have been able to convince 5 women not to abort as they were doing it only because they felt they had no other alternative due to economic circumstances. When they knew there was help available they decided not to do something they would later regret. You cant convince all women not to abort, but if I can help convince just one woman than I have done good. How many prochoicers would be willing to offer these women an alternative? Not many I bet, as its cheaper to have the abortion than to have to help the woman and her children out with their taxdollars.

reply from: Yuuki

If you read the info I posted from epm, it says that sometimes all three functions of the pill fail, and a woman manages to get pregnant. That doesn't mean one of the functions isn't preventing implantation.
If you read the articles I posted, you'll see that NO ONE has conclusively proven any of your accusations. Ever study contracts with the others. Some say yes and some say no.

reply from: Yuuki

Pregnancies don't regularly result in abortions. Are you okay with those too?
I have no idea how this relates to the debate. Pregnancies OFF birth control regularly lead to miscarriage a majority of the time. Are you okay with those too? Shouldn't you condemn them too? Their act of sex is DIRECTLY leading to the possible death of their child is 70% of all cases!! That's FAR more than even the THEORIZED rates of implantation failure ON birth control. Seems to me birth control saves lives.

reply from: Yuuki

And that makes it okay? What if I used the "N" word here because I heard someone else say it?
To make a pun of what they said and show them how wrong it was? Yes, I would.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Pregnancies don't regularly result in abortions. Are you okay with those too?
I have no idea how this relates to the debate. Pregnancies OFF birth control regularly lead to miscarriage a majority of the time. Are you okay with those too? Shouldn't you condemn them too? Their act of sex is DIRECTLY leading to the possible death of their child is 70% of all cases!! That's FAR more than even the THEORIZED rates of implantation failure ON birth control. Seems to me birth control saves lives.
Miscarriage happens 70% of the time? Where do you get these 'facts'? WebMD? This is not a rhetorical question.
We're talking about intentional murder and putting a child at risk. A hormonal drug which causes a conceived child to be at a greater risk of death is reckless endangerment.

reply from: sheri

Cheerio, a miscarriage is an event we try to prevent, yes it happens, but we do everything we can to make sure the baby lives. HBC has been proven to thin the uterine lining, that makes a miscarriage more likely to happen.

reply from: kd78

they were using it in the hopes of not getting pregnant, though. not in order to cause a miscarriage.

reply from: Teresa18

I also think the state should provide the medicine if a woman needs it. I'm not a fan of national health care, but I don't think anyone should have to go without medicine they need in America.
I can't support the pill for recreational use or merely to prevent conception because it does have a designed mechanism which can end a newly concieved human life.

reply from: Teresa18

I did. Then why does it say in the PDR that the third mechanism exists? Why have MRIs and ultrasounds found the lining of the endometrium is thinner in pill users? Why is there an increase in the extrauterine/intrauterine pregnancy ratio for women taking the Pill?

reply from: scopia19822

I also think the state should provide the medicine if a woman needs it. I'm not a fan of national health care, but I don't think anyone should have to go without medicine they need in America.
I can't support the pill for recreational use or merely to prevent conception because it does have a designed mechanism which can end a newly concieved human life.
As long as you have the current health care system in place and the medical industiral complex treats the insurance card and not the patient you will have people going without medication, especially the elderly and the poor. You may not support the Pill for moral reasons therefore you should not use it, but even I as a Catholic understand the concept of seperation of chruch/state. Abortion can clearly be opposed as a human rights violation, but BC is a moral decision that the government has no right interfering with.

reply from: yoda

Now I find that just plain strange. If a BC chemical causes the death of an innocent baby, why is that not just as much a human rights violation as an abortion? What's the moral difference?

reply from: Yuuki

Because the woman isn't ovulating. Ovulation is a necessary step in thickening the lining of the uterus. If she doesn't ovulate, it doesn't ripen. If she DOES ovulate, it DOES thicken and voila! She DOESN'T have a "thin lining"!! That's how women get pregnant on the pill!! Which is why these studies are nonsense. They're not paying attention to a woman's biology, not the whole picture anyway.
Studies I posted did mention the lining was thinner, but that there is no substantial evidence that this has any effect whatsoever on implantation rates.
We've now seen evidence from BOTH sides. With that, we must make our own decisions in regards to this issue. With my own personal understanding of female biology and with the studies I've seen, I must say that I feel there is not enough evidence to support the claims that hormonal contraceptives have a purposeful, malicious third function of preventing implantation.
Again, since fewer women ovulate ON birth control than OFF it (just by the nature of the medicine itself - even if it only prevented ovulation 5/10 times that's still 5 eggs less than a woman OFF birth control) it must therefore produce FEWER implantation failures than not using any birth control at all, since we know for a fact that 70% of NORMAL zygotes fail to implant.
Zygotes fail to implant no matter what you do. Fact. On hormonal contraceptives, you PREVENT the ovulation of eggs up to +90% of the time. Let's say in a year, you only ovulate one month on accident, so that's 1/12. Off birth control, 11/12 times you WILL ovuvlate. Now have some sex. Clearly, there are MORE opportunitties for zygotes to fail to implant OFF of birth control. This is just logic, people.

reply from: Yuuki

Now I find that just plain strange. If a BC chemical causes the death of an innocent baby, why is that not just as much a human rights violation as an abortion? What's the moral difference?
There is no substantial proof it does so. Secondly, implantation failures happen OFF birth control too, so why aren't THOSE a human rights violation? What's the moral difference? You say it's intent; well, a woman on birth control is NOT intending to prevent implantation any more than a woman OFF birth control is.

reply from: yoda

My question was a hypothetical one, so your injection here is pure unresponsive argumentativeness.
IF they do KNOW about the possible anti-implantation effects of the BC, then they sure as hell do have "intent", don't they?
Hey, suppose I just say "you won"..... would that allow you to actually open your eyes and be honest about this subject?

reply from: Rosalie

Ok, let's for sake of this argument say I am riddled with problems. There, now that I've tossed you that crumb, how does that make it ok to kill unborn babies?
Ter: It has nothing to do with abortion and everything with the fact that you are full of irrational hatred and creepy control issues. Even if you are absolutely sure that you have the right to dictate whether a woman who is a stranger to you should go through an unwanted pregnancy, it doesn't make it true.
This need of control often signals loss of control in your private matters. You'd like to have control over SOMETHING and clearly the things you should have under control are absolutely out of control and therefore you're looking for someone to control - and you chose a really most heinous, abusive way to want to control people.

reply from: Yuuki

Why are you bumping this? It's full of nonsense and lies about hormonal contraceptives and anti-woman propaganda.

reply from: nancyu

Yes it is. All from Yuuki.

reply from: nancyu

So an abortion via the pill is as equally as bad as a late term abortion via intact dilation and extraction?
Killing a person is killing a person regardless of the age of that person.

reply from: Yuuki

Yes it is. All from Yuuki.
Nope. What's the name of the "death chemical" lurking in HCs waiting to kill babies, Nancyu?

reply from: Yuuki

Wonderful post, Concerned

reply from: nancyu

I'll give it a try, cp, but to me you are one of those unreasonable people, too.
Here is the difference between hormonal birth control and buckling a child into a car seat.
A child in a car seat has a HUGE chance of living.
Hormonal birth control gives a child next to no chance of living.
To repeat myself (again) using birth control isn't necessarily murder, but it is not pro life in that it solidly prevents life, and takes life which occurs inadvertently.
A person who is pro life would not be so steadfastly against the creation of a child to willingly accept an agent that would kill a child that might be created by accident. A truly pro life person might want to delay child rearing for whatever reason, but they would accept a child into the world if it were created by accident. They wouldn't intentionally kill any child (no matter how small that child may be.)
A woman who is anti life would use hormonal birth control, and advocate the same for others, because she doesn't want to take even the slightest risk of a child being born.

reply from: nancyu

Yes it is. All from Yuuki.
Nope. What's the name of the "death chemical" lurking in HCs waiting to kill babies, Nancyu?
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)
Here's one:

reply from: Yuuki

Ther eis no child when birth control is used. But despite that, the hormones are designed to do no direct harm to the unborn. On top of that, well I rebutted the rest of that on another thread.
Why do you think it is evil to prevent fertilization?

reply from: Yuuki

Yes it is. All from Yuuki.
Nope. What's the name of the "death chemical" lurking in HCs waiting to kill babies, Nancyu?
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)
Here's one:
Rebutted on another thread.

reply from: lycan

In the past I've argued that the IUD is more likely to be abortifacient than pills, and I think further evidence of this is that if the objective is emergency contraception (or however you want to define it), the IUD is much more effective in this respect. See http://www.arhp.org/crc/emergency.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Intrauterine_device_.28IUD.29_for_emergency_contraception

reply from: Yuuki

The copper coil IUD has a high chance of being abortifacient and I don't feel it should be labeled as a contraceptive.

reply from: nancyu

Yes it is. All from Yuuki.
Nope. What's the name of the "death chemical" lurking in HCs waiting to kill babies, Nancyu?
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)
Here's one:
Rebutted on another thread.
With lies.

reply from: Yuuki

With facts you don't like, so you call them lies.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_RnBM5o00I

reply from: Yuuki

Oh yes, because YouTube is a scientific source. Plus, I only had to watch two seconds to see that A; the video is religious in source and B; the title is "Pro-life Anti-Abortion". When you can't even TRY to be unbiased, it really makes me laugh.
Fact is, there's research from both sides and some fairly neutral sources saying all kinds of things about this, but the "abortifacient" aspect of HCs is only theorized, badly at best, by (often) religious nut-cases who don't want women to have sex without popping out babies.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z96eKLwnJ2s

reply from: Yuuki

No. They are lies.
Which one is a lie? That pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation? That's not a lie. That HCs prevent ovulation almost all of the time? That's not a lie, that's proven. That you're more likely to have a failed implant OFF of HCs than ON them? That's not a lie, that simple arithmetic.

reply from: Yuuki

Here's a hint: Pro-life sources aren't unbiased. You could at least TRY to look at research done by the contraceptive companies themselves. They can't change the facts; they can simply interpret them in a different way.
The same "action" that could cause a failure to implant (in around 5% of cases IF ovulation occurs AND fertilization) for a woman ON HCs is the same action that causes a failure to implant for women OFF HCs: A thin endometrium. yes, women OFF HCs have a thing endometrium for MOST of their cycle. It is only thick enough for implantation POST ovulation - and guess what? If a woman is on HCs and miraculously ovulates, IT STIMULATES endometrial growth!!!! WOW.

reply from: nancyu

When????? have?????I?????ever??????said?????that????pro life??????sources??????are????????unbiased?????????
They are biased.
That doesn't make them liars.
The idea that pregnancy begins at implantation is a PRO ABORT LIE.
The life of a human being begins at fertilization.

reply from: yoda

Here's a hint: Pro-abort sources (like the ones you use) aren't unbiased either, but that has no bearing on the accuracy of either.
And you don't think they have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST? No, I don't think it's possible to be that naive accidentally, only on purpose.

reply from: Yuuki

It has a high affect on the accuracy. I haven't cited any sources, pro-life or pro-choice, in a long time. I prefer to see raw facts without anyone's opinions piled on top, misinterpreting the data or clouding my judgment of the material at hand. Both sides are biased, which is why I don't really look at research from any side anymore. I've seen research from both sides and made my decisions using BOTH.

reply from: Yuuki

I'm not saying otherwise. I am saying this, though:
The same "action" that could cause a failure to implant (in around 5% of cases IF ovulation occurs AND fertilization) for a woman ON HCs is the same action that causes a failure to implant for women OFF HCs: A thin endometrium. yes, women OFF HCs have a thing endometrium for MOST of their cycle. It is only thick enough for implantation POST ovulation - and guess what? If a woman is on HCs and miraculously ovulates, IT STIMULATES endometrial growth!!!! WOW.

reply from: nancyu

I'm not saying otherwise. I am saying this, though:
The same "action" that could cause a failure to implant (in around 5% of cases IF ovulation occurs AND fertilization) for a woman ON HCs is the same action that causes a failure to implant for women OFF HCs: A thin endometrium. yes, women OFF HCs have a thing endometrium for MOST of their cycle. It is only thick enough for implantation POST ovulation - and guess what? If a woman is on HCs and miraculously ovulates, IT STIMULATES endometrial growth!!!! WOW.
1. What?
2. Where is your unbiased source for this information?

reply from: nancyu

Yuuki, do you support legal personhood for all unborn children?

reply from: Yuuki

I'm not saying otherwise. I am saying this, though:
The same "action" that could cause a failure to implant (in around 5% of cases IF ovulation occurs AND fertilization) for a woman ON HCs is the same action that causes a failure to implant for women OFF HCs: A thin endometrium. yes, women OFF HCs have a thing endometrium for MOST of their cycle. It is only thick enough for implantation POST ovulation - and guess what? If a woman is on HCs and miraculously ovulates, IT STIMULATES endometrial growth!!!! WOW.
1. What?
2. Where is your unbiased source for this information?
1. What are you saying "what" to?
Any pregnancy, fertility or "how does my body work" site will tell you this information: that a woman's endometrium is stimulated for final thickening upon ovulation. It is the action of ovulation that causes this thickening. If ovulation occurs, the endometrium thickens. HCs have no chemical in them to impede this, as it is caused directly by ovulation. If a woman on HCs ovulates, her lining with obviously thicken; it's just basic biology. Women get pregnant on HCs all the time due to improper use which allows break though ovulation; if HCs kept the endometrium thin despite ovulation, these women could NEVER get pregnant.

reply from: nancyu

Then post a link to one.

reply from: Yuuki

Yes. But what you're implying will not affect birth control. If it did, women would have to have every single period investigated, especially if they're using NFP, to make sure they didn't kill one of their children. Using NFP increases your risk of having a spontaneous abortion and/or the child failing to implant. So it's much more likely women suing NFP or not using any kind of birth control at all will be arrested for murder. Oh, and those obese women too. And the ones who drink caffine. Or any of the other dozens of causes of infertility. Often it is because the woman's womb can't support the child.
You implications are RIDICULOUS, to say the least. Women on Hormonal Contraceptives are not purposely, intentionally, or most likely not even accidentally murdering their children. Women lying on abortion tables are. Get your priorities straight.

reply from: nancyu

Yes. But what you're implying will not affect birth control. If it did, women would have to have every single period investigated, especially if they're using NFP, to make sure they didn't kill one of their children. Using NFP increases your risk of having a spontaneous abortion and/or the child failing to implant. So it's much more likely women suing NFP or not using any kind of birth control at all will be arrested for murder. Oh, and those obese women too. And the ones who drink caffine. Or any of the other dozens of causes of infertility. Often it is because the woman's womb can't support the child.
You implications are RIDICULOUS, to say the least. Women on Hormonal Contraceptives are not purposely, intentionally, or most likely not even accidentally murdering their children. Women lying on abortion tables are. Get your priorities straight.
Can you answer a simple question with a simple yes or no?

reply from: nancyu

When did I say it would?

reply from: Yuuki

Then post a link to one.
Kay. Hold on a sec.
Firstly, a picture. Check out that thickening endometrium right after ovulation! Notice how thin it was before...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/MenstrualCycle2.png

You may notice something on that diagram.The lining THICKENS after ovulation! That is because estrogen and progestrone is released from the Corpus Luteum, the hole left over from where the egg came. This is NECESSARY to stimulate thickening of the uterus. Corpus Luteum only appears after ovulation. These hormones iare produced independently by the woman's body if she ovulates.
Here's another sentence clarifying the importance of the Corpus Luteum:
Without ovulation, the lining cannot thicken.
But if you don't believe Wikimedia, let's look at JustMommies.com!!
Of course we can always take a look at Britannica Online, they're unbiased right?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/138543/corpus-luteum

So, how's that? We've got a bit from everywhere, though no overtly "pro-abort" sources I'm afraid. But surely JustMommies.com has a pro-life slant, yet they've posted the same exact information...

reply from: Yuuki

Yes. But what you're implying will not affect birth control. If it did, women would have to have every single period investigated, especially if they're using NFP, to make sure they didn't kill one of their children. Using NFP increases your risk of having a spontaneous abortion and/or the child failing to implant. So it's much more likely women suing NFP or not using any kind of birth control at all will be arrested for murder. Oh, and those obese women too. And the ones who drink caffine. Or any of the other dozens of causes of infertility. Often it is because the woman's womb can't support the child.
You implications are RIDICULOUS, to say the least. Women on Hormonal Contraceptives are not purposely, intentionally, or most likely not even accidentally murdering their children. Women lying on abortion tables are. Get your priorities straight.
Can you answer a simple question with a simple yes or no?
I did. I added additional information, but my first sentence was a very simple yes. However., your thought process is flawed.

reply from: Yuuki

When did I say it would?
If all unborn are people, that includes the unimplanted ones. You were thus going to go off and say that birth control is murder and I cannot possibly be "okay" with it when it purposely slaughters unborn babies - or so you think anyway. But I think my abive post should clear that right up.

reply from: nancyu

You are the most deliberately confusing and misleading person I've run across in quite some time.
Your above posts refer to naturally occurring hormones, they say nothing about birth control pills.
Unborn children are persons from the moment of conception, so how can it be any more okay to kill them with birth control pills then any other form of abortion?
If birth control pills don't cause abortions then personhood will have no effect on them. But if they do, it will.

reply from: Yuuki

1. Those hormones occur INDEPENDENTLY from HCs, so why do the HCs even matte? Just more proof that IF a woman ovulates on HCs, the HCs do the unborn no harm whatsoever.
The "claims" are that HCs keep the endometrium "thin". Well, obviously ovulation adds in additional, naturally produced hormones that cause the endometrium to thicken anyway. Otherwise, women would NEVER get pregnant on HCs. Truth is, it's very easy to become pregnant on HCs.
LOL predicted it!!!!!!
Lastly, you can only abort if you're pregnant. If you're not pregnant, you can't abort. Pregnancy does not occur until implantation.

reply from: nancyu

No. They are lies.
Which one is a lie? That pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation? That's not a lie.
Yes that is a lie.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.prolife.com/MorningAfterPill.html
(Source: The Report Newsmagazine December 6, 1999)
Marketers Of The Preven 'Morning After Pill,' Are Engaged In Re- Defining Pregnancy
by Celeste McGovern
There's nothing new about the "new" "morning after pill," Preven. It's just the old birth control pill in super-high doses wrapped up in a box with an image of a carefree '90s woman, a pregnancy home-test, instructions and a price tag of $25 to $35. Even the spokesman for the drug company that makes it says, "it's really just repackaging and re- marketing." What is new, however, is the definition of pregnancy that marketing strategists and Preven promoters are using to sell very early abortion as pregnancy prevention.
Doctors have given women fearing unwanted pregnancy concentrated birth control hormones within 72 hours of sex ever since Albert Yuzpe observed their effect on the endometrium (lining of the womb) in the 1970s: the hormones make the womb a hostile environment for a newly fertilized egg. For all these years, the use of the drugs has been unofficial, little known and called the Yuzpe regimen.
Like the Yuzpe regimen, Preven makes women vomit, bleed, feel sick and dizzy and, 75% of the time (according to optimistic website advertising), if she is pregnant (and no one can be sure if she is), shed an unwanted fertilized egg.
Jennifer Kessell, spokeswoman for Roberts Pharmaceuticals, the Oakville, Ont., Canadian manufacturer of the drug, sells Preven as though it were a new shade of eyeliner. "They're not sure of the ins and outs of it," she says. "But it's thought to work two main ways." First, by delaying ovulation, and second, by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg into the women's uterus. More often it would prevent implantation, she confirms. Ms. Kessell offers Preven as an alternative to abortion which "ends the life that is already implanted." She also calls it "emergency contraception" that prevents pregnancy.
But isn't Preven for women who believe they are already pregnant? Is this a new definition of pregnancy? "There's different definitions [of pregnancy] depending on where you live," offers Ms. Kessell. "Most doctors would say pregnancy begins at implantation," she continues. Only "anti- abortionists" would say life begins "when the sperm meets the egg. Period." Pregnancy begins when a woman is "comfortable" with it beginning, she adds . "It depends on your own personal views and what you want to believe."
"Biologically, physically, genetically, embryologically, pregnancy begins at conception," counters Calgary pharmacist Maria Bizecki, who belongs to Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience, an Alberta group that is lobbying for pharmacists' right to refuse to dispense abortifacients. "The public is being lied to about the way this works. Preven terminates a pregnancy in its very early stages," she emphasizes.
Planned Parenthood is promoting "Preven moments" for "non-consensual sex," " condom breakage," "birth control failure" or "moments of passion." It would like to see the drug available without a prescription. Alberta Pro- Life's Joanne Hatton is especially concerned about the effect this would have on young women and girls who may be pressured by boyfriends into taking the drug and exposed repeatedly to its unknown toxic effects.
Asked about the effects of repeat exposure to Preven, Ms. Kessell's answer is not entirely reassuring: "There's nothing known yet."
"Biologically, physically, genetically, embryologically, pregnancy begins at conception"

reply from: nancyu

No. They are lies.
Which one is a lie? That pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation? That's not a lie.
Yes that is a lie.
Ok, it's not a "lie," and I'll try to explain why....Technically, pregnancy begins at implantation, because an @ssload of fertilized eggs never implant, ending up on a tampon somewhere, and they just don't consider a woman to be pregnant every time conception occurs. All the hormonal changes and such associated with pregnancy are triggered by implantation, not conception, so in a way, that kind of makes sense.
Some argue that no form of BC is actually "abortifacient" for this reason, since if a woman is not pregnant, there can technically be no abortion. Of course, this is essentially a semantic dodge, since the life of every human being obviously begins at fertilization/conception rather than pregnancy, and we oppose the intentional, premature ending of human life whether it is technically an "abortion" or not. Killing a newborn is not an "abortion" and neither is killing an embryo that was created in a lab (outside the mother), but we obviously view these killings as unethical none the less, right?
I think you might be a little overly eager to find fault with Yuuki for personal reasons, in fact, I believe you lack objectivity in your dealings with other posters as well because you tend to take support of abortion personally. I understand, and I'm not condemning you for that. I realize this is an emotionally charged subject.
In this case, I must say you are wrong to call her a liar. She is actually technically correct on this, even though it really makes little or no difference as far as the ethics go. There is no ethical/moral difference between killing a human being before implantation and killing it after, so while it is technically not an "abortion" if you kill it before, that doesn't logically affect the ethics, only the valid terminology. I really don't see the point in arguing a semantic issue like that, and I can understand why you might question Yuuki doing so, but it was not a "lie."
You are a liar also.

reply from: nancyu

Yes I do have a problem with it. How many million more times do I need to tell you. I have a problem with contraception. I never said I didn't.
Contraception is not pro life, it is anti life.
Is it murder???? NO.
Should it be outlawed? NO.
Would you like to ask me any more stupid questions?

reply from: Faramir

Do you have anything specific you can refer to that is a lie, or is this just your usual name calling?

reply from: Yuuki

Yes I do have a problem with it. How many million more times do I need to tell you. I have a problem with contraception. I never said I didn't.
Contraception is not pro life, it is anti life.
Is it murder???? NO.
Should it be outlawed? NO.
Would you like to ask me any more stupid questions?
That's just your opinion, not a fact. According to the dictionary, contraception has nothing to do with the pro-life cause.

reply from: galen

'cmon nancy... just because you do not like what CP says does not make him a liar...his argument was well put and i personally think it got to the core of the argument over contraception/ abortion/ abortifacient.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Nancy, you are a saint. All definitions and all words are made by man to differentiate the things of this world, to clarify and disambiguate meanings. The liars bend the meanings to confuse and ultimately swindle others. They call murder 'choice', they call abortifacients 'birth control' and 'contraception', they twist the way people understand things. This year they'll say she was not pregnant while never mentioning she had conceived. They defend the ambiguity that gives them both more sexual license and less responsibility.
These lies feed the other lies which all end at the same place - a murdered baby.
They simply don't care.

reply from: Teresa18

That is debateable.
Look at the definitions for pregnancy:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline.../mplusdictionary.html
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=pregnant
http://medical-dictionary.thef...ctionary.com/pregnant
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pregnant
These definitions say a woman is carrying a new life. This happens at conception, not implantation.
I'll note that every definition I posted defined pregnancy at conception or defined it as a woman having reproduced and carrying a child.
A big reason why they define pregnancy at implantation is to justify abortaficient birth control and in vitro. This way lives could be destroyed, and it could be justifed because techincally, according to them, a woman was not yet pregnant. That of course doesn't change the fact that a life is destroyed at times in both abortaficient birth control and in vitro. In fact, the ACOG goes so far as to redefine conception in order to justify these things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B..._pregnancy_controversy

reply from: Teresa18

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/Does_the_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions_Part_1.shtml

http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_10196.php


http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html

reply from: yoda

Well, I don't know if she's caused three miracles yet, but I wish half the others on this forum who call themselves prolife had half the dedication and fidelity Nancy has on this issue. With a few more as dedicated as her, we could turn this thing around in my lifetime. Thanks, Nancy.

reply from: yoda

Excellent research and documentation, Teresa. Well done.

reply from: Teresa18

Excellent research and documentation, Teresa. Well done.
Thanks.

reply from: nancyu

Oh, am I now?
To start with, you lied. I am no liar, therefore it is a "lie" to call me one. Don't shoot the messenger here. I explained the "technicality" by which it is argued that killing a human being prior to implantation does not constitute abortion, as well as the fact that this semantic "technicality" actually changes nothing regarding the morals/ethics of killing a human being at that point. I did not make any of it up....
You are just a tad bit quick on the trigger with your accusations, just a little too quick to call someone a "liar" because you don't like what they had to say. The article you quoted even refers to the "redefining of pregnancy," does it not? Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that pregnancy has been defined as beginning at implantation. I explained the dishonest intent behind this, which is to allow people to engage in what I consider pointless semantics, as if the term used to describe the killing had any logical bearing on the ethical implications.
A clear controversy exists regarding when a pregnancy technically begins, but I didn't start it, I just tried to explain it to you, and it is certainly no "lie" to factually state that "technically" pregnancy has been defined as beginning at implantation, and that this matters not one bit to the ethical question of killing a human being prior to implantation as I did.
Of course, I suppose I should expect no more from someone who also insists that abortion is illegal while simultaneously advocating for it to be made illegal!
I don't advocate for it to be "made illegal" I advocate that laws against murder be enforced with regard to unborn children.
There is no controversy regarding when human life begins, but there are lies regarding when life begins.

reply from: nancyu

Good for you personally. He is a liar.

reply from: galen

really?? just because you say so?

reply from: nancyu

Well, I don't know if she's caused three miracles yet, but I wish half the others on this forum who call themselves prolife had half the dedication and fidelity Nancy has on this issue. With a few more as dedicated as her, we could turn this thing around in my lifetime. Thanks, Nancy.
Right back at you Yoda!

reply from: Faramir

Well, I don't know if she's caused three miracles yet, but I wish half the others on this forum who call themselves prolife had half the dedication and fidelity Nancy has on this issue. With a few more as dedicated as her, we could turn this thing around in my lifetime. Thanks, Nancy.
Yeah, we pro-lifers really need someone like her who insists that abortion is illegal, who goes around calling other pro-lifers "liars," and who bashes post-abortive prolifers.
Her dedication and fidelity seems to be to her own ego and her own quest to be nasty and mean.

reply from: Faramir

Well, I don't know if she's caused three miracles yet, but I wish half the others on this forum who call themselves prolife had half the dedication and fidelity Nancy has on this issue. With a few more as dedicated as her, we could turn this thing around in my lifetime. Thanks, Nancy.
Yeah, we pro-lifers really need someone like her who insists that abortion is illegal, who goes around calling other pro-lifers "liars," and who bashes post-abortive prolifers.
Her dedication and fidelity seems to be to her own ego and her own quest to be nasty and mean.
Like I told Mary, just let her have her fun....
How do you like faithman and nancyu being the poster boy and poster girl for the pro-life movement?
With friends like that...

reply from: galen

_______________________
actually in my state abortion is not legal... but the feds overruled us...

reply from: lycan

The lactational ammenorrhea method is considered a part of Natural Family Planning. As with the Pill, I wonder if LPD makes the endometrium any more hostile to implantation than a fallopian tube. Also, does LAM thicken the cervical mucus?

reply from: Faramir

_______________________
actually in my state abortion is not legal... but the feds overruled us...
Oh no, not you too! Don't tell me you live in Lala land with Nancyu.

reply from: yoda

Thanks for showing us your Christian way of relating to others, Faramir. And thanks for always being so "positive".

reply from: Faramir

I forgot that I should have said SAINT Nancyu.
I suppose she could be the Patron Saint of those in denial. Or maybe the patron saint of bullies and those who are addicted to meanspiritedness.

reply from: yoda

Aside from your caustic sarcasm, who do you think considers them or anyone else to be the poster boy & girl of the PL movement? Do you really think of the PL movement as needing a poster boy & girl, like some disease?

reply from: ChristianLott2

Murder is illegal, therefore abortion is illegal. That pro abort liars have twisted the meaning of what is real and verifiable does not change the reality.

reply from: Faramir

Abortion is not murder. If it were, you could call the cops and have abortionists arrested today.
Try it and see what happens.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Faramir and Cp claim to be pro life yet also claim abortion is not murder.
They are liars and hypocrites.

reply from: Faramir

Exactly.
Call the cops and start having abortionists arrested, then.
Stop wasting time posting on this board.
You could single handedly put an end to abortion with what you know.

reply from: Faramir

If abortion murder, and if murder is obviously illegal, then there is no longer a need for a prolife movement.
All you enlightened guys need to do, as opposed to us dum dums who don't get it that abortion is already illegal, is just start calling the cops and report the murders.

reply from: galen

_______________________
actually in my state abortion is not legal... but the feds overruled us...
Yeah, abortion is legal in every state, right? You should have said "was."
____________________________
Hint: i live in one of three states that continually state that abortion is illegal... so too now the federal governments claim to tell us how to use our $$ to benefit our residents..

reply from: galen

we also work to put forward states rights... to me this is where a major legal issue in this debate lies...
There were many states that abortion was NOT legal in before RvW and the whole federal jurisdiction nonsense.
persoanlly if we stopped funding blueberries and started funding prenatal programmes then we would be a whole lot better off.

reply from: ChristianLott2

So when the bible says 'thou shall not murder' they mean murdering little babies is okay if it's legal in your country, right?

reply from: Teresa18

I'm going to post this information bit by bit to make it easier to read.
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/Does_the_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions_Part_1.shtml

reply from: Teresa18

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/Does_the_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions_Part_1.shtml

reply from: Teresa18

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/Does_the_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions_Part_1.shtml

reply from: Teresa18

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/Does_the_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions_Part_1.shtml

reply from: Teresa18

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/Does_the_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions_Part_1.shtml

reply from: Teresa18

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/Does_the_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions_Part_1.shtml

reply from: Teresa18

You can continue reading here:
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/Does_the_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions_Part_1.shtml

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/Does_the_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions_Part_2.shtml

reply from: Faramir

This is not the same as saying "causes failure to implant." I would also point out the fact that there can be no possibility of implantation without, first, ovulation, which the pill is intended to prevent, and does a pretty good job of it, then fertilization, which would apparently be highly unlikely even if breakthrough ovulation does inadvertently occur.
I would ask you the same thing I have other BC opposers, even though you are obviously ignoring my arguments....
How many, or what percentage, of human beings must be at risk from a specific action or choice before you declare it to be "immoral?" Obviously you must be able to answer this question, since you have made such a declaration....
What percentage would you agree with?

reply from: Teresa18

These pills have 3 designs, and one of which is to end the life of a newly concieved person.

reply from: Yuuki

No they do not. They have ONE, which is to prevent ovulation. The hormones that prevent ovulation also HAPPEN to thicken cervical mucous, because this is what naturally happens during a pregnancy. The lining of the uterus is thinner BECAUSE no ovulation is taking place. But neither of those two other "actions" were purposely designed.

reply from: Faramir

I've been doing some reading, and have seen enough to conclude that hormonal birth control is an effective abortifacient, and its use should not be supported by pro-lifers.

reply from: ChristianLott2

So when the bible says 'thou shall not murder' they mean murdering little babies is okay if it's legal in your country, right?

reply from: ChristianLott2

I mean, this is the kind of sick, twisted people we're dealing with. They vilify the hard core pro lifers and coddle their buddies who sit on the fence and want to play nice with pro aborts. People like DisConcernedParent come up with a good argument or two but then take three steps back by bashing true pro lifers, mocking very real issues like abortifacients and, to top it all off - vote for the obamanation, claiming he's pro life as he signs foca and defends partial birth abortion.
Sick people like cp are a plague on the pro life movement. Two face swindelers and spin doctors like him have ruined the pro life movement. They are worse than any pro abort because they disguise themselves and try to blend in while bending and perverting everything pro life really stands for.
Murder is the taking of innocent human life. A baby is guilty of nothing and sick people like cp and faramir mock them with phony arguments.
How does it feel to mock 50 million + slaughtered babies cp and faramir? I bet you feel smart and strong for making this forum your own personal comedy show.
Thanks for wasting everyones time by being sick perverts.

reply from: Faramir

Sounds like life is treating you better these days CL2.
You're so much more cheerful and cordial than you used to be.

reply from: nancyu

I'm not sure "design" is appropriate in this context. The purpose and intent is not to end life, so that is not by "design"....
I assume you are determined to continue to ignore me?
Why don't they take that 3rd mehanism and get rid of it then. It does "a pretty good job" you say, of preventing ovulation so why isn't that enough?

reply from: ChristianLott2

and completely true, hence - no honest rebuttal as usual.

reply from: Faramir

Why do you suppose it is recommended to use it in conjunction with another method, like an IUD, then? Face it. You guys are just as opposed to condoms as any other method of BC, and they obviously have 0 chance of contributing to "baby killing." You are going to see what you want to see, and that's that.
That's not the case with me and I don't think it's the case with most who believe the pill causes abortions. True or not, we believe it in good faith.
I can't say that I'm 100% certain about it yet, but I've read enough for it to cause a lot of concern.
I would not say the same about condoms, and would not say they cause abortion, and would not oppose them on that basis. I would not as a pro-lifer seek to have condoms criminalized or restricted, except that I would not want them passed out at school to children.

reply from: Faramir

That some get through and actually implant causes me to wonder how many are not so fortunate and successful.
I would like to know how we could be so certain it is very rare that that there would be implantation failure.

reply from: Yuuki

I'm not sure "design" is appropriate in this context. The purpose and intent is not to end life, so that is not by "design"....
I assume you are determined to continue to ignore me?
Why don't they take that 3rd mehanism and get rid of it then. It does "a pretty good job" you say, of preventing ovulation so why isn't that enough?
They can't because it doesn't actually exist. Unless you want to put ALL women on some kind of medication to keep their endometriums thick ALL the time, you're never going to eliminate this "problem". But it's not a problem. It's natural. It's natural for the endometrium to be thin until ovulation. This is not an "abortifacient mechanism", it is a woman's natural state of existence.

reply from: Faramir

That was just a number I pulled out of my nether regions.
I really don't know, but I do know that there must be a point where the risk is too great.
Keep in mind that we have been comparing other risks, such as riding in a car, but with that risk is also the potential for reward, and failure to take that risk could also be risky, such as being homebound, and not being able to go to a doctor, or just leading a very miserable life.
But what I am confused about is that it seems some assert that hormonal bc BY DESIGN and intent causes the hostile environment, and that that it plays a significant part in the effectiveness of preventing pregnancy.
I really don't know enough to make an authoritive statement, but I think I would rather give the benefit of the doubt to the potential life and err on the side of life, if I must err.

reply from: angelofsorrow

I practice the best form of birth control there is: celibacy. I've been celibate for
over a decade. In fact it's been 14 years since I started my celibacy and it's been great. In my personal experience it has made me feel closer to my Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ as I feel I'm a bride of Christ.

reply from: Yuuki

That's fine for you and I'm sure many people love and relish their celibacy. For some reason the way you've stated your experiences with it feel really honest to me; I really feel your love for the Lord. Maybe I'm being corny lol.
But not everyone is going to be celibate their whole lives, and many people are going to have sex without the intent of having a child. And that's perfectly fine too. I would rather see them use Hormonal Contraceptives than abort.

reply from: angelofsorrow

Thank you Yuuki for your kind words. It's a pleasure for us all on these posts to
be kind to one another.

reply from: Faramir

So who gets to decide? Obviously, you have agreed that it is acceptable to risk the life of an existing child, so who gets to decide how much risk is acceptable in a case where the child does not yet exist?
I wouldn't put the risk of living a normal life in the same catagory as the risk of causing an abortion.
I can demonstrate the benefit of driving a child to school or to see his grandmother, and demonstrate a risk vs reward, and also domonstrate the risk of never taking a risk. And if I could remove a risk, I certainly would. If I could make the driving experience as safe as possible I would. I would not purposely cause an unsafe driving experience.
If I were to cause an unwanted pregnancy, I would still want the best environment for the child and would want to give him the best chance to survive and not the worst.

reply from: Faramir

I heartily agree.
I agree too, though I've lapsed and have been unkind to nastyu and kristiansnot.
I just can't help myself.
They are two of the nastiest buggers I've encountered online, and I hate that they drape themselves with "the babies" as if that justifies their despicable behavior.
Do you think it's possible they really aren't mean and are just are not playing with full decks? I would feel badly if I've been criticizing what appears to be meanness, but is really just that they are not "all there" in the upstairs department.

reply from: Faramir

What about recreational swimming, which is a top killer of children? The only real "benefit" is, well, fun, right? It's not necessary, and there's no risk involved with not letting kids swim... (I thought saying that not driving your kid in a car was a "risk" was something of a stretch) Are we really going to keep justifying some risks (really all but BC), but not others?
Who gets to say what level of risk is acceptable for others? I'm not comfortable with being the one, are you? Or are you just going to say that the person who is involved can weigh the risk for themselves (as long as they don't intend to end a human life) in every instance but one?
It's a "stretch" to say is is a risk to keep a child homebound--that he never gets to go anywhere?
At any rate, there is still reward vs risk in all the "risky" scenarios of regular living.
What is the potential reward for the zygote that is put at risk by the hositle environment? That he gets to live if he isn't killed by it?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/A_Short_Condensation_of_Does_The_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions.shtml

Whether it is moral or immoral to use hormonal birth control, whether it is intentional killing of a conceived child or not -- Everyone should know that using ANY hormonal birth control MAY cause an early abortion. That is the truth, and that is a fact.

reply from: Yuuki

What about recreational swimming, which is a top killer of children? The only real "benefit" is, well, fun, right? It's not necessary, and there's no risk involved with not letting kids swim... (I thought saying that not driving your kid in a car was a "risk" was something of a stretch) Are we really going to keep justifying some risks (really all but BC), but not others?
Who gets to say what level of risk is acceptable for others? I'm not comfortable with being the one, are you? Or are you just going to say that the person who is involved can weigh the risk for themselves (as long as they don't intend to end a human life) in every instance but one?
It's a "stretch" to say is is a risk to keep a child homebound--that he never gets to go anywhere?
At any rate, there is still reward vs risk in all the "risky" scenarios of regular living.
What is the potential reward for the zygote that is put at risk by the hositle environment? That he gets to live if he isn't killed by it?
The environment won't be hostile by the time s/he gets to the womb, because the corpus luteum (the pocket that results from ovulation) will have stimulated the uterus to thicken its lining. It can take up to two weeks for the embryo to travel thw whole length of the fallopian tube. By then, the lining is nice and thick no matter what. That's why women get pregnant on birth control all the time due to human error: they forget a few pills, ovulation happens, and even though they may start taking the pills again, it's too late. Ovulation stimulates the thickening of the lining, unprotected sex leads to fertilization and before you know it, voila! Implantation.

reply from: Faramir

I hope you're right about that, and I hope hormonal BC has never caused an abortion.
I wish I could find out more about it. I've seen nothing substantial to prove that it doesn't, and the same article posted over and over to prove that it does.

reply from: Faramir

First, I don't know whether hormonal BC is an abortifacient, and if it is, I don't know to what degree.
But for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that is is, to an unknown degree.
With that in mind, my argument is that the success of hormonal BC lies in part because it causes abortions, not that it causes a risk to an imaginary child.
My argument would be that though the intent would be that no child be conceived, but that if that should happen, there are knives, hand grenades, poisons, and nasty creatures awaiting the accidental child, and that they intend to do him in, but just maybe he could dodge them and live.
We see those who survive when we say that the BC has "failed," but we don't know about the ones that got offed in the process.
I don't see that as acceptable (if that's how it is) and I can't find any way to fairly compare a risk like that to an ordinary risk of living a normal life.

reply from: Yuuki

First, I don't know whether hormonal BC is an abortifacient, and if it is, I don't know to what degree.
But for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that is is, to an unknown degree.
With that in mind, my argument is that the success of hormonal BC lies in part because it causes abortions, not that it causes a risk to an imaginary child.
My argument would be that though the intent would be that no child be conceived, but that if that should happen, there are knives, hand grenades, poisons, and nasty creatures awaiting the accidental child, and that they intend to do him in, but just maybe he could dodge them and live.
We see those who survive when we say that the BC has "failed," but we don't know about the ones that got offed in the process.
I don't see that as acceptable (if that's how it is) and I can't find any way to fairly compare a risk like that to an ordinary risk of living a normal life.
Don't say it is "just for the sake of argument". I undertand your ethical argument, but even if it were even slightly true, it would still not justify making HCs illegal. You cannot make something illegal based on a hypothetical, unproven and unsubstantiated myth.

reply from: Yuuki

I hope you're right about that, and I hope hormonal BC has never caused an abortion.
I wish I could find out more about it. I've seen nothing substantial to prove that it doesn't, and the same article posted over and over to prove that it does.
This is basic female anatomy and menstrual knowledge. The fact that this obvious physical action has been ignore by all of the naysayers tells me how important it truly is.

reply from: Faramir

As far as whether it's an abortifacient--I don't know, and am presuming it is or leaning in that direction "for the sake of argument."
I hope you are right about it and I hope that it is not.
But I've read some articles that have seem to have legitimate scientific reasoning and research to back them up, that suggest otherwise.
I don't know enough to prove a thing, but I do know enough to be suspicious, and I personally could not take the risk of being involved in a process that could cause an abortion.

reply from: Faramir

What about condoms? That is also BC and though I might have a moral opposition to contraception, that was not always the case, and I bought my fair share of Trojans way back when, and that was part of my "normal life" and I don't think it caused a single abortion.
The argument is not against whether BC can be a part of a normal life, but whether the environment it creates for the accidentally conceived is " a normal life."
The risks of a normal life are not the reason for doing the thing that has a risk factor, unless you are a thrill seeker.
But if hormonal BC is an abortifacient, the risk and danger to the child IS INTENDED.
That's the difference to me.

reply from: Faramir

If hormonal bc is an abortifacient, then it is known by those who make it, and the intent is there, though I am not saying it is there to those who would be ignorant about that aspect of it, though it behooves them to research it for themselves.
Again, it's not about whether I like or don't like bc.
If I drive my child to Church, I'm not saying, "Come with me son, I intend to put you at risk of dying in an automobile accident."
But if hormonal BC is an abortifacient, then at least those who are making the stuff are saying, "Hello there. We were hoping you would not arrive, but wait until you see what we have in store for you. But...if you run the gauntlet successfully, if you escape all the ways we INTEND TO DESTROY YOU AND RISK YOUR LIFE, then there's a chance you'll live. Good luck."
In the first case what could happen by exposing the child to the slight risk is NOT DESIRED.
In the second case, what could happen because of the risk IS DESIRED.
In the first case, I don't want my child to be killed.
In the second case, if an abortifacient, then somebody DOES want the child so conceived to be killed.

reply from: Teresa18

It is not natural! When a woman not on birth control ovulates, her endometrium is thick and receptive to implantation, even though it doesn't always happen. When a woman on the pill has breakthrough ovulation, the endometrium is thin, and it is much more difficult for the newly concieved life to implant.

reply from: scopia19822

It is not natural! When a woman not on birth control ovulates, her endometrium is thick and receptive to implantation, even though it doesn't always happen. When a woman on the pill has breakthrough ovulation, the endometrium is thin, and it is much more difficult for the newly concieved life to implant.
We can debate the potential abortificent effects of the Pilll until we are blue in the face. However there are many women who have established pregnancies that are going to walk into an abortion clinic today tomorrow etc and have that child killed. That is where the main focus should be in this issue.

reply from: Yuuki

It is not natural! When a woman not on birth control ovulates, her endometrium is thick and receptive to implantation, even though it doesn't always happen. When a woman on the pill has breakthrough ovulation, the endometrium is thin, and it is much more difficult for the newly concieved life to implant.
No, it is NOT thick. Please for the love of education look at the sources I posted, several of them IMAGES of the cycle the lining goes through. Before ovulation it is NOT thick AT ALL. Ovulation creates a temporary "organ", the corpus luteum, which produces high amunts of progesterone and estrogen to thicken the lining. Without ovulation, the lining IS NOT THICK. Not in women ON birth control, not in women OFF of it.

reply from: Yuuki

I am aware of the fact that my brakes could suddenly fail for some reason on the road, but that doesn't mean the car companies INTENTIONALLY built my brakes to fail. Such thinking like that (which the naysayers have) is completely silly.

reply from: Yuuki

As far as whether it's an abortifacient--I don't know, and am presuming it is or leaning in that direction "for the sake of argument."
I hope you are right about it and I hope that it is not.
But I've read some articles that have seem to have legitimate scientific reasoning and research to back them up, that suggest otherwise.
I don't know enough to prove a thing, but I do know enough to be suspicious, and I personally could not take the risk of being involved in a process that could cause an abortion.
I've read articles with legitimate research to prove the Earth is flat. Don't believe 'em though.

reply from: Yuuki

THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT OVULATING. ONCE THEY OVULATE IT THICKENS UP NATURALLY.

reply from: Teresa18

That's what I mean! When a woman not on the pill ovulates, and a new life is concieved, the endometrium is thick enough for implantation. When a woman on the pill has breakthrough ovulation and a new life is concieved, the endometrium is not thick enough for implantation.

reply from: Teresa18

He has never denied that. He goes into the aspect of women getting pregnant on the pill.

reply from: Yuuki

Yes it IS thick enough, because OVULATION MAKES IT THICKEN.

reply from: Faramir

That's what I mean! When a woman not on the pill ovulates, and a new life is concieved, the endometrium is thick enough for implantation. When a woman on the pill has breakthrough ovulation and a new life is concieved, the endometrium is not thick enough for implantation.
Then it is impossible for a woman to have a child on the pill, right? And yet we know that is not the case, since women have conceived and given birth while on the pill! Obviously, Randy Alcorn's conclusions are flawed, and his book can noit be taken seriously! Do you have another "expert" you can trot out now?
Maybe "improbable" would be better than saying "impossible."

reply from: Yuuki

Yes, because all of those babies born on birth control don't really exist. It really takes the slightest slip up and bam you're pregnant. I always made my BF/fiancee use condoms if I missed more than a single pill.

reply from: Faramir

This stuff is over my head and above my pay grade to decide.
I think the burden of proof lies on those who call hormoal bc an abortifacient.
Do we have any pro-life doctors who dispute the notion that it is an abortifacient?

reply from: Teresa18

The book is not just his opinion; it is sourced. Secondly, if you read the beginning, you'll see that he and his wife once used and supported this type of birth control. He didn't want it to be abortaficient.

reply from: lycan

This stuff is over my head and above my pay grade to decide.
I think the burden of proof lies on those who call hormoal bc an abortifacient.
Do we have any pro-life doctors who dispute the notion that it is an abortifacient?
http://rightremedy.org/articles/226 and http://www.aaplog.org/PositionsAndPapers/OralContraceptiveControversy.aspx?fileID=1

reply from: Faramir

Thank you lycan.
Here's some good stuff from the first source:

reply from: Yuuki

This stuff is over my head and above my pay grade to decide.
I think the burden of proof lies on those who call hormoal bc an abortifacient.
Do we have any pro-life doctors who dispute the notion that it is an abortifacient?
I think the burden of proof lies in the thousands of children born with their mothers on HBC.

reply from: Faramir

The "burden of proof" means that's who needs to make the case.
I think those who assert that hormonal bc causes abortions need to prove it.
It's not enough to say "it might," and that pro-life doctor in the above except makes some very good points against the idea that hormonal bc is an abortifacient.

reply from: yoda

Interesting. You are putting the burden of proof on those who say the concerns are legitimate, thus saying "prove to me that your concerns are real and important, rather than "prove to me that they aren't".
When a hunter sees a movement in some vegetation, is he justified to say to his companion "prove to me that what caused that movement is not something that I want to kill"? Or should he say "until it is proven to me that the movement was caused by something I want to kill, I will not shoot"?
It's also like the NASA official who changed the criteria for launch safety shortly before the Challenger disaster: whereas the criteria used to say that engineers had to prove that launch conditions were safe, he changed them to where the engineers had to prove that those conditions were not safe. And the Challenger disaster was the direct result of that change, because no one could prove that very low temperatures would doom the shuttle. No shuttle had ever launched under those conditions before, so there was no way to prove it unsafe.
To whom do you give the benefit of the doubt? To the baby that might be at risk, or the person who insists on using HBC, unless there is "proof" that it could be fatal to new humans?

reply from: Faramir

The pro-life doctor in the above article does not see a reasonable basis for doubt, and he gives good reasons to support it.
Why do you think he's wrong?

reply from: Yuuki

I think the living children born from birth control are "making the case" by their very existence. Their lives are proof. Every breath they take is evidence.

reply from: scopia19822

I think the born children are proof that ovulation does occur on the Pill and its possible that a fertilized egg can fail to implant. What this boils down to is moral relativism. If a person thinks the Pill is immoral than dont use it, nobody is forcing them too.

reply from: Faramir

I think the real issue is whether it causes abortions.
Born children do not prove that it does not, but what is the proof that it does?

reply from: nancyu

Interesting. You are putting the burden of proof on those who say the concerns are legitimate, thus saying "prove to me that your concerns are real and important, rather than "prove to me that they aren't".
When a hunter sees a movement in some vegetation, is he justified to say to his companion "prove to me that what caused that movement is not something that I want to kill"? Or should he say "until it is proven to me that the movement was caused by something I want to kill, I will not shoot"?
It's also like the NASA official who changed the criteria for launch safety shortly before the Challenger disaster: whereas the criteria used to say that engineers had to prove that launch conditions were safe, he changed them to where the engineers had to prove that those conditions were not safe. And the Challenger disaster was the direct result of that change, because no one could prove that very low temperatures would doom the shuttle. No shuttle had ever launched under those conditions before, so there was no way to prove it unsafe.
To whom do you give the benefit of the doubt? To the baby that might be at risk, or the person who insists on using HBC, unless there is "proof" that it could be fatal to new humans?
Well stated.

reply from: Faramir

So how does this compare to hormonal BC?
What "movement" is seen that arouses suspicion someone could be in the bushes?
All I've seen so far is people who say it might be an issue, but no proof, evidence, or any reason to believe hormonal bc kills babies other than their own suspicions, and that's not sufficient, anymore than hunting should be outlawed in my state because I suspect there is a child hiding in every bush and every tree.
But I have read very resonable refutations from pro-life doctors. Please see the sources that lycan linked to.

reply from: Faramir

Interesting. You are putting the burden of proof on those who say the concerns are legitimate, thus saying "prove to me that your concerns are real and important, rather than "prove to me that they aren't".
When a hunter sees a movement in some vegetation, is he justified to say to his companion "prove to me that what caused that movement is not something that I want to kill"? Or should he say "until it is proven to me that the movement was caused by something I want to kill, I will not shoot"?
It's also like the NASA official who changed the criteria for launch safety shortly before the Challenger disaster: whereas the criteria used to say that engineers had to prove that launch conditions were safe, he changed them to where the engineers had to prove that those conditions were not safe. And the Challenger disaster was the direct result of that change, because no one could prove that very low temperatures would doom the shuttle. No shuttle had ever launched under those conditions before, so there was no way to prove it unsafe.
To whom do you give the benefit of the doubt? To the baby that might be at risk, or the person who insists on using HBC, unless there is "proof" that it could be fatal to new humans?
Well stated.
How many babies do you think you killed when you were on hormonal BC, nancyu?

reply from: yoda

Because of the number of other studies by other doctors who disagree with him, I think he could be wrong. I think the other studies establish a reasonable doubt about the issue.

reply from: yoda

An off the wall "theory" by a single, non-medical individual doesn't rise to the level of a credible, reasonable doubt, IMO.

reply from: yoda

The "movement" would be sexual activity. The gun would be the HBC. If you have sex, and use an HBC, it's like shooting into the bushes, IMO.
There are plenty of studies that support the possibility that HBC might cause the uterus lining to become more inhospitable, you just seem to want to disbelieve them. You seem to have reached your conclusion first, and are now citing the things that support your conclusion. And your conclusion does not give the benefit of the doubt to unborn babies.

reply from: Yuuki

An off the wall "theory" by a single, non-medical individual doesn't rise to the level of a credible, reasonable doubt, IMO.
Dude, it's sarcasm.

reply from: yoda

Sarcasm is often taken for seriousness online, where you cannot see nor hear the author. I thought you knew that.

reply from: Yuuki

If you actually thought that girl's post was serious you need to have your humor engine checked.

reply from: Faramir

An off the wall "theory" by a single, non-medical individual doesn't rise to the level of a credible, reasonable doubt, IMO.
We know lots of kids get killed in auto collisions and drowning "accidents" though, so why are you not vocally opposing these things? Oh, and toofy has a point. You claim that if it is theorized that a risk exists, the right thing to do is give the benefit of the doubt, insisting naysayers prove the negative. She is doing the same thing. She doesn't want you to eat meat, so she is saying that until you can prove it is not harmfull, you are a hypocrite not to oppose it as well.
I'm leaning in the direction of not buying that hormonal bc is an abortifacient. So I could end up on the same side as you about this, but not because of your reasoning above, which so far is not making sense to me.
If I WERE to oppose hormonal bc it would be because it is an abortifacient, and that would imply that I believed that it is inheritently dangerous to the unintentionally conceived child.
I could not compare an auto accident that no one desires, and for which purpose automobiles were not created, to a situation in which an "accident" or a "danger" is built into the system on purpose.

reply from: nancyu

Yes. You are.
Need some more glue? Of course ruber can be aquired at planned parenthood.
Snicker, how'd I miss this one?

reply from: nancyu

The contraceptive shot ALSO completely prevents ovulation, so it doesn't matter one bit if the lining is thin: no egg is going to get there in the first place.
Then why would it say something like that?
" The contraceptive shot also changes the condition of the lining of the uterus so that pregnancy is less likely to occur. "
If it's impossible to ovulate on the drug, why would they say that?
OOPs! Slip of the tongue? I'm sure that's not what they meant to say...

reply from: ProInformed

Contraception means to Prevent Conception.
Abortifacient means to Abort a Conceived Child.
TRUE - Those are two facts that pro-aborts and pretenda-pro-lifers prefer to ignore.
Sheesh why don't they at least teach the scientific FACT that each individual human's life begins at conception in sex ed courses?!? AND that some forms of birth control in fact sometimes act as ABORTIFACIENTS instead of as CONTRACEPTIVES?!?
There simply is no excuse for such a level of ignorance anymore.
Those posters who don't even know such facts, or refuse to acknowledge them,
aren't going to be taken seriously.

reply from: Yuuki

Abortifacient means to abort a PREGNANCY, which includes the child, but does not just mean to kill a fertilized egg at any time.

reply from: ProInformed

Interesting. You are putting the burden of proof on those who say the concerns are legitimate, thus saying "prove to me that your concerns are real and important, rather than "prove to me that they aren't".
When a hunter sees a movement in some vegetation, is he justified to say to his companion "prove to me that what caused that movement is not something that I want to kill"? Or should he say "until it is proven to me that the movement was caused by something I want to kill, I will not shoot"?
It's also like the NASA official who changed the criteria for launch safety shortly before the Challenger disaster: whereas the criteria used to say that engineers had to prove that launch conditions were safe, he changed them to where the engineers had to prove that those conditions were not safe. And the Challenger disaster was the direct result of that change, because no one could prove that very low temperatures would doom the shuttle. No shuttle had ever launched under those conditions before, so there was no way to prove it unsafe.
To whom do you give the benefit of the doubt? To the baby that might be at risk, or the person who insists on using HBC, unless there is "proof" that it could be fatal to new humans?
Well stated.
I agree - well stated.
PLUS there ARE choicists who do not deny that some forms of bc are indeed abortifacient - they just argue that in their opinion there is nothing wrong with killing humans at any point between conception and birth (and sometimes even after birth...) This is one of the MANY things choicers pretend is not a disgreement amongst THEMSELVES - that some of them admit the truth about the abortifacient forms of bc whle other choicers are either ignorant of or ignoring that truth.

reply from: Faramir

The articles that I referred to and that lycan linked to were by two PROLIFE doctors who refuted the idea that hormonal bc is an abortifacient.
Of course the life in the womb should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I think we need to demonstrate that that life is there, and not just guess that it might be there.
Otherwise we could open a whole can of worms about anything that "might" cause an abortion.

reply from: Faramir

My bias against bc is in no way affecting my thinking about this. If it were, I would try to conjure up a reason why a Trojan can cause an abortion.
Once more, IF I were to oppose hormonal bc, it would be because I would believe that that it is an abortifacient inherintly, and not just by accident and on rare occasion, and that would be to put a child in an intentionally dangerous situation where the objective would be that it did not survive.
If I take my child swimming, I am hoping to bring him back home alive, and am not using the swimming hole as a way to relieve myself of any responsibility to him. The abortifacient would be more like tossing him into the deep water, knowing he cannot swim, and hoping that I have one less mouth to feed when it's over.

reply from: ProInformed

Yoda the 'just like a miscarriage' lie is one of the more popular PRO-ABORT lies...
It's not a miscarriage if it's caused on purpose.

reply from: nancyu

Some women use aborton as birth control, so are you okay with that?
Contracpetives. I'll edit my post.
Contraception means to Prevent Conception.
Abortifacient means to Abort a Conceived Child.
For someone who says they didn't need to watch the abortifacient video, you sure don't know the meaning of these two simple words.

reply from: TreeHuggerzRule

Some women use aborton as birth control, so are you okay with that?
Contracpetives. I'll edit my post.
Contraception means to Prevent Conception.
Abortifacient means to Abort a Conceived Child.
For someone who says they didn't need to watch the abortifacient video, you sure don't know the meaning of these two simple words.
The definition of contraception (according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) is
Birth control does fit that definition as it works in three ways to prevent the woman from becoming pregnant.
The definition of abortifacient (according to The American Heritage Dictionary ofthe English Language) is
The definition of abortion (according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) is
Contraception isn't abortifacient.

reply from: The11th

You'll never win this argument. Look how many pages long it is. It's ok though. *pats you on the back*. I fought long and hard on this topic. I think it speaks for itself.

reply from: nancyu

Some women use aborton as birth control, so are you okay with that?
Contracpetives. I'll edit my post.
Contraception means to Prevent Conception.
Abortifacient means to Abort a Conceived Child.
For someone who says they didn't need to watch the abortifacient video, you sure don't know the meaning of these two simple words.

reply from: faithman

Yes. You are.
Need some more glue? Of course ruber can be aquired at planned parenthood.
Snicker, how'd I miss this one?
I do have my moments.


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