Home - List All Discussions

The pro-life myth of Martin Luther King Jr

by: Elessar

In 1966, Martin Luther King Jr was the first repicipent of the Margaret Sanger Award. Other winners of this award are mentioned on Planned Parenthood's website and their various achievements in the field of abortion rights.
Among the interesting and rather curious comments that King made in his acceptance speech for the Sanger award were the following and I will comment on each of them respectively.
"(W)e spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet."
Two important things have happened since Martin Luther King Jr wrote this acceptance speech in 1966. One, funding for birth control and abortion, which is now legal, has expanded to billions of dollars around the globe. Two, overpopulation has been virtually exposed as the alarmist environmentalist myth that it is. Abortion and birth control have not rid the world the world of poverty or made fair the distribution of the world's resources by decreasing populations. Poverty and hunger still happen and happen because of man's fundamental lack of respect for the sacredness of life and flawed political systems. Such cures for the ills of the world should come through mans enlightenment and own sense of self control as guided by the informed conscience.
"Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess."
Today we see this mentality played out in the explanations for health care rationing from people like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who essentially argues that fewer children and sick people means more available resources for the remainder of society. Human life is hardly a plague and even while poverty still exists, a basic disrespect for life supercedes even the bigotry of racism. Today, population control methods favor neither race or sex as all conceived in the womb are under the constant threat of legalized abortion. That we possess birth control and abortion hardly speaks of our enlightenment as a society. The age of human population control is the present dark age that man need concern himself with ridding the world of today.
"There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts."
The very idea that the human rights movement reveals a kinship to birth control and abortion in speaks of general ignorance and short sightedness even during a time period when the presense of illegal abortion was well known. Within a population in which abortion claims 3 times as many of a single race in relation to it's actual proportion in that population does not represent a parallel between the works of Margaret Sanger and civil rights advocates of the 1960s. It is hardly more right for a people to supress themselves with "family planning" than it is for any other race or group to arbitrarily suppress them through racism. The theory that a smaller number of children affords greater opportunity is the worst sort of social-Darwinism and human bigotry. Such a mentality not only proposes the survival of the fittest, but that the fewest survive best.
"(Margaret Sanger) was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity..."
Polls today indicate that half of this nation is personally opposed to the fruits of Margaret Sanger's work. Birth control and abortion have not enriched humanity. More than 40 years after Martin Luther King Jr made these remarks, Planned Parenthood's advocacy of birth control and abortion have not been universally assepted. They have in fact helped destroy the family and devalue human life. At the time of Roe V Wade, abortion was all but legal in name only in many parts of America. We have seen 45 million abortion in the United States alone. We have seen the bitter battle over the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion, which is infanticide by any other name. Abortion proponents are quick to point out that the practice is now illegal but loath to point out that it's not illegal because groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL wish it to be. Left to their own devices, abortion providers would happily be providing partial-birth abortions once more.
"Margaret Sanger, who offered an important institutional remedy, was unfortunately ignored by social and political leaders in this period. In consequence, Negro folkways in family size persisted."
Perhaps Dr King might have dreamed that one day children would be judged by the content of their character but he was reluctant in making known that he believed that those children in fewer numbers possessed a greater chance at success in a racially color-blind society. The leaning up of the size of the family, not dissimiliar to the "one child only" policies of nations like Communist China, hardly speaks of the compassion of a society or their committment to human freedom but rather the need of one group of people to lord their political and economic power over another group of people.
"Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command."
Family planning, population control, birth control, eugenics, abortion, genocide; by whatever means you want to control the life and freedom of the human person, the result is the same, a morally dead society and one without a future.
"Negroes were once bred by slave owners to be sold as merchandise. They do not welcome any solution which involves population breeding as a weapon. They are instinctively sympathetic to all who offer methods that will improve their lives and offer them fair opportunity to develop and advance as all other people in our society."
Should the human person be freed from exploitive breeding by others only to suppress their own potential for the purposes of the gaining the maximum fruits of materialism, commercialism and consumerism. Martin Luther King Jr lived in another age of more pronounced racism. It would have been offensive in 1966 to believe that whites would use population as a weapon to create poverty. In 2010 it is even more offensive to believe that someone could use this rational to justify abortion and birth control among a specific racial group. What would Martin Luther King Jr think today knowing that he had sang the praises of an organization that targets poor racial areas of American cities?
"For these reasons we are natural allies of those who seek to inject any form of planning in our society that enriches life and guarantees the right to exist in freedom and dignity."
Martin Luther King Jr may not have advocated legalized abortion in 1966, but he may have possibly done something much worse. While abortion was illegal in 1966 he could not have claimed to be ignorant of the presense of illegal abortion. In addition, abortion exceptions already existed in many states. In other states anti-abortion laws existed in letter only. It was the very presense of illegal abortion that propelled abortion proponents to make the case that abortion be not merely safe and legal, but very much on demand and wholesale.
Truth should not be the casualty of preferring to preserve the legacy of national heroes. The historical fact remains, unvarnished and unabridged, that Martin Luther King Jr received an award from the organization which would become the largest single provider of legal abortions in the United States of America. In 1966, Martin Luther King Jr. not only sang their praises but parroted their pathological and sociological explanations for the continued presense of abortion and population control methods.
You can't give a dead man the benefit of the doubt. Martin Luther King Jr is gone and we cannot change the past. His words were what they were. History shows us that King was championed the cause of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood whose unstated motto has always been that an unwanted child, an inconveniant child, and an unloved child, for the sake of a woman, is always better off a dead child. This credo is inexcusable in any civilized cultural or historical context. I will not ascribe false ideals and beliefs to a man who can neither embrace or reject them. In addition, I will not misportray a man's actual history in favor of a popular and fictional mythical version.

reply from: aaronmhatch

"Two things have happened since Martin Luther King Jr made this statement in 1966. One, abortion and birth control funding has expanded to billion of dollars around the globe. Two, overpopulation has been exposed as the alarmist myth that it is. Abortion and birth control have neither rid the world the world of poverty or made fair the distribution of the world's resources. These things happen because of man's fundamental lack of respect for the sacredness of life as manifested in abortion and birth control. "
How has overpopulation been exposed as a myth? Were abortion and birth control expected to end poverty and unfair distribution of resources? Can you provide evidence that man's fundamental lack of respect, which is manifested in abortion and birth control, is the cause of poverty and unfair distribution of resources?
"Today we see this mentality played out in the health care rationing explanations of people like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who essentially argued that fewer children and sick people means more available resources for the rest of society."
Can you provide sources showing that Pelosi's argument for "fewer children and sick people" involved killing?
"(Margaret Sanger) was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law."
In this clinic, did Sanger provide contraception and / or abortions?
"Family planning, population control, birth control, eugenics, abortion, genocide; by whatever means you want to control the life and freedom of the human person, the result is the same, a morally dead society and one without a future. "
Did King explicitly intend his "easy access to the means to develop a family" to mean the above?
"Negroes were once bred by slave owners to be sold as merchandise. They do not welcome any solution which involves population breeding as a weapon. They are instinctively sympathetic to all who offer methods that will improve their lives and offer them fair opportunity to develop and advance as all other people in our society."
Isn't he saying that it's tragic for Black people to procreate so much that overpopulation causes pain and suffering? It seems he supports birth control so as to limit overpopulation. Do you have a problem with this? If so, what is it?

reply from: CP

Since the title is "the prolife myth of Martin Luther Kink Jr," am I to understand that you are arguing that MLK jr was not prolife? And this is based on his understanding of concerns about overpopulation and ties to Sanger (who opposed abortion, and did not provide abortions in her birth control clinics)?
MLK jr understood that rampant poverty in the black community contributed to their ongoing difficulties, and that large families under these conditions helped perpetuate the problems. He understood that it was not good for black families to keep having child after child when they could not afford the ones they already had, and felt that family planning was in the best interests of these people. The same logic applied to poor whites, including the white immigrants living in poverty whom Sanger also "targeted."
I noticed that concerns about overpopulation were also summarily dismissed as invalid in your article. I got the distinct impression that you were attempting to imply that such concerns are not only invalid, but are part of an agenda to promote abortion.
While I readily concede that there are groups who see abortion as part of a potential solution for overpopulation, and certainly people who use population concerns as part of their rationalizations for supporting abortion, I must point out the fact that none of this invalidates concerns about overpopulation.
Surely any logical person must agree that population growth is a valid concern. The only real question is how urgent it is. If anyone feels that we shouldn't be worried at this time, and bases that assertion on the facts, I can respect that, even though I do not necessarily agree. I just don't think it is reasonable to deny that it is a legitimate concern!
As I pointed out on another thread, there is no way our population can continue to grow every year without us eventually finding ourselves trapped on a planet that is simply no longer capable of supporting us.

reply from: Elessar

I do not believe that Martin was either pro-life or anti-abortion.
You can't give a dead man the benefit of the doubt. Martin Luther King Jr is dead and we cannot change the past. His words were what they were. History shows us that King was championed the cause of Planned Parenthood whose unstated motto has always been that an unwanted child, an inconveniant child, an unloved child is better off a dead child. This credo is inexcusable in any cultural or historical context. I will not ascribe ideals or beliefs to a man who can neither embrace or reject them. In addition, I will not misportray a man's actual history in favor of a popular and fictional mythical version.
Birth control and abortion are not moral norms and cannot be the solution to man's problem whether they are ignorance, poverty, disease or even overpopulation.

reply from: Elessar

My own personal reason that I am against birth control is that birth control is not human self control and where there is not human self control, there is no morality or accountability. Birth control is ultimately a weak and failure prone technology. It is not a genuine respose to a genuine human condition. The only authentic response to mankind's desire to not reproduce is to abstain from sexual intercourse.

reply from: Ana

I'm married, and I don't want any more children, ever. I will not abstain from sex with my husband because you don't like birth control.
Barring a Catholic who has a religious bias, I never understood why a pro lifer would be against birth control. A non existant baby cant be aborted.

reply from: CP

Are you implying that this was King's position? (and I'm not necessarily agreeing with you that this accurately portrays PPs position, either, just for the record)
So, anyone who uses a condom, "natural family planning," or any other means of birth control has no self control, no morality, and no accountability? Do you believe the reverse is true as well? Do you think people who refuse to use any form of birth control prove themselves to have self control, morality, and accountability?

reply from: aaronmhatch

Would you be in favor of females using contraception as a form of protection against rape?

reply from: Elessar

I said that this is my own personal reason for opposing abortion. I am not advocating that this, or any Catholic teaching, be public policy. It's a moral question, not a legal one, unlike abortion. However, as a Catholic, I will not vote for measures that fund birth control, and to that end, I will be a fly in the ointment.

reply from: aaronmhatch

I asked because using birth control for defense and birth control for pleasure are two completely different reasons. I'm surprised Jesus would not support birth control for defense. This is akin to saying shields are for the depraved.

reply from: Elessar

What is birth control for defense against rape? I have never heard of such nonsense.

reply from: Elessar

Birth control for defense against rape? A large angry looking dog, good locks in your home, a can of mace, some self defense training and a loaded .45 under your bed.

reply from: AshMarie88

You realize that MLK was pro-life, right? His niece, Alveda King, knows all about his work and beliefs and she passes them on freely to everyone.

reply from: Elessar

No, I realize that he was not pro-life. I used to simply assume that he was, but then realized upon careful examination, he was nothing of the sort.

reply from: aaronmhatch

I wish it was so simple. If I had it my way, there'd be no birth control; and women would be strong enough and have honed self defense skills that could ward off any rapist. So on one hand, I'm not in disagreement with you.
In reality, unless the pill is causing chemical imbalances or dangerous short and long-term side effects, I can't argue against its practicality.

reply from: Shenanigans

Depending where you read, 50 - 75% of women aborting were using birth control when they fell pregnant. Guttmacher's stats show about 54%.
That's roughly 500,000 children murdered by abortion because of a birth control mentality. A lot of post abortive women I've spoken too seem to think they have a moral highround in choosing abortion if their pill didn't work or if the condom tore, a kind of "well, I was trying to NOT get pregnant by using birth control, thus, I am more justified in my abortion then those ho bags sitting across from me in the waiting room".

reply from: Shenanigans

Are you implying that the woman ask her potential rapist to wear a condom or are you talking about the ECP, which can cause the death of a newly concieved human being by preventing her implantation.
I think it was in Aussie, but there was a case I read about where a woman insisted her rapist wear a condom, he did, and the jury accepted that as the woman giving consent.

reply from: aaronmhatch

Are you implying that the woman ask her potential rapist to wear a condom or are you talking about the ECP, which can cause the death of a newly concieved human being by preventing her implantation.
I'm referring to the standard daily birth control pill.

reply from: Tam

This post makes me want to throw things at my computer screen, but that won't do anything to correct this egregious illogic.
"Birth control" does not prevent rape. Birth control has absolutely nothing to do with rape. Someone can still be raped by someone wearing a condom--that doesn't make it any less rape. When you say "defense" you make it sound as though the birth control is a chastity belt. Is that the birth control you mean? And that would only prevent some forms of rape.
If what you mean is, to "defend" the woman from her unborn child, you have the "shield" facing the wrong person. The child is not the rapist.

reply from: Shenanigans

So you're advocating a woman take a pill to alter her hormones EVERYDAY for her entire fertile life on the off chance she gets raped?
What happens if she's married and her husband wants children? Should she continue on the pill in case she's raped, because that way she'd be ensuring her husband never has to deal with raising some rapist's baby (or killing one).

reply from: Tam

Are you implying that the woman ask her potential rapist to wear a condom or are you talking about the ECP, which can cause the death of a newly concieved human being by preventing her implantation.
I'm referring to the standard daily birth control pill.
Oh, the one with all the side effects, including occasional murder?
How exactly does the pill defend against rape? Do you throw a whole bunch of them at the rapist? Shoot them in a BB gun? Do tell!

reply from: Tam

So if I put up some links about all the side-effects, will you no longer think the pill is a defense against rape? LOL

reply from: Shenanigans

You konw what, I think we need to petition the pharamco companies to get them to make the pills spherical, then that way, the woman can throw them in the road of the attempted rapist and then it'll be like on hte cartoons when the character can't get his footing. Then the woman can run off to safety at her local woman empowering Unplanned Parenthood clinic!

reply from: aaronmhatch

This is the last time I post on this forum. Take care.

reply from: Elessar

Birth control defense against rape means that the woman won't become pregnant if raped. She's still been raped however! It should really be called rape control defense against birth.

reply from: Shenanigans

Because you can't explain your opinion on BC as a defence against rape? Surely you must have known saying such a thing was goign to get peoples' attention.
Don't be such a sensitive baby.

reply from: CP

Anti contraception people tend to put the kind of spin on this that misleads people into thinking that contraceptives are a lot less reliable than they actually are. Most of the women who get pregnant on the pill admit they didn't use it properly (failed to take it as prescribed or whatever), but that fact seems too often ignored...The failure rate is minimal when used properly.
This goes for condoms as well. Women who get pregnant, but say these condoms for birth control, often do not use them consistently. People then point to the fact that she was a condom user and count her pregnancy as a "failure" even if she didn't use one during the encounter when she conceived...

reply from: CP

Yes, why not blame everything bad on things we do not approve of. Use of BC doesn't cause women to choose abortion. Women who would never abort use BC, and such women generally do not abort if they conceive.
If there was no such thing as BC, do you think more women would abort, or less? It would be naive in my view to assume they would choose to be abstinent just because there was no BC...BC greatly reduces the risk of unwanted pregnancy, but obviously offers less "protection" when not used properly. This is one of the reasons sex ed is so important.

reply from: CP

I'll just mind my own business from now on.

reply from: Shenanigans

I'm not questioning its reliablity, I"m making a statement regarding the general false sense of security people are lulled into over it.
Its like antibotics and the pill, AB's lessen the Pills effectiveness. You can't just go buy the damn things at the corner dairy, you need a Rx or at least a discussion with a health care professional - surely they're educating women as to the "use extra protection when you're on ABs".
Even when you get Rx ABs the doctor is supposed to ask about whether the woman is on the pill so as to warn her about extra protection.
Then you have drunk idiots thinking that having the horziontal macarana with the stranger they picked up in the pub is a good idea as long as they use their little condom in their wallet.
"Safe sex" has conned people into thinking that contraception is fail proof. Then when low and behold either someone botches its use or it fails, abortion is the next step because "well, I used contraception, its not my fault if it didn't work".
Half the abortion rate is because of people not using their contraceptives right, and seriously, how cake making hard is it to roll on a condom? Its an advertisment for blatant stupidity and half a million children are murdered because of it.
I think that huge number of half a million children justifies that the contraceptive mentality and the "safe sex" message has done more harm then good.
Even if contraceptives were 100% effective with no contraindications, there'd still be a lot of riggle room for morons to do a botch job and concieve.

reply from: CP

These are good arguments for sex ed in my view, but do not convince me that BC is making anything worse, including the abortion rate....

reply from: Shenanigans

If 50% of women aborting were using (or trying to use) their contraceptives it stands to reason that they were having sex using (or trying to use) their contraceptives. I know many a woman who won't bounce into bed without knowing their pill is up todate and that the condom is firmly attached and secured.
Its only logical to assume that throwing condoms at people lulls them into the false sense of security that they are safe when they engage in an act designed to create offspring.
More contraceptives, greater access, people are willing to take more risks with their sex lives. In the last thread that broke down to this discussion I posted the studies that have found condom use has actually INCREASED rates of STDs because more peopel using them, increases the numbers where the failure rate (while still the same) is increased.
Contraceptives have existed for thousands of years, so have methods of abortions, but the way people dealt with unplannd pregnancies have changed, once upon a time a man would step up and marry the woman, now its "here's 300$ get rid of it".
The pro-contraceptive anti-abortion movement has had over forty years to prove their point, but with abortion rates high, unplanned pregnancy rates high, its obvious to anyone with a brain that it hasn't worked.
Its time to find a different method.

reply from: Shenanigans

The problem is that contraceptives, particuarly the pill came out in full force within about 5 - 10 years of RvW, so its probably difficult to seperate teh two.
They are fruits of the same tree, and neither are helpful for the protection of the unborn.

reply from: Shenanigans

Offers some good advice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3y_aue5gUA&feature=fvst

reply from: CP

Do you think the rate of unwanted pregnancies would be lower if all women just stopped using BC? You don't honestly think they would all just start practicing abstinence, do you?
It almost sounds like you think that, if there were no such thing as BC, people would have no choice but to practice abstinence....You seem to want to represent BC as contributing to the problem of unwanted pregnancies. BC came into being to meet a "need." People were having sex who did not want to conceive children. BC helps address that problem, it didn't cause it, and I see no reason to assume that if we stop "throwing condoms" and just throw Bibles instead, that would help reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies or abortion.

reply from: Elessar

THE MOST serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children. These statements may startle those who have never made a thorough investigation of the problem. They are, nevertheless, well considered, and the truth of them is abundantly borne out by an examination of facts and conditions which are part of everyday experience or observation.
The immorality of large families lies not only in their injury to the members of those families but in their injury to society. If one were asked offhand to name the greatest evil of the day one might, in the light of one's education by the newspapers, or by agitators, make any one of a number of replies. One might say prostitution, the oppression of labor, child labor, or war. Yet the poverty and neglect which drives a girl into prostitution usually has its source in a family too large to be properly cared for by the mother, if the girl is not actually subnormal because her mother bore too many children, and, therefore, the more likely to become a prostitute. Labor is oppressed because it is too plentiful; wages go up and conditions improve when labor is scarce. Large families make plentiful labor and they also provide the workers for the child-labor factories as well as the armies of unemployed. That population, swelled by overbreeding, is a basic cause of war, we shall see in a later chapter. Without the large family, not one of these evils could exist to any considerable extent, much less to the extent that they exist to-day. The large family - especially the family too large to receive adequate care - is the one thing necessary to the perpetuation of these and other evils and is therefore a greater evil than any one of them. -Margaret Sanger
Is this what martin Luther King King Jr believed? Is believing things like this why he received an award that bore her name? The award is given to people not because Margaret Sanger espoused their beliefs, but because they espouse hers. One should think of that before they sing the praises of Martin Luther King Jr.
"There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts." -Martin Luther King Jr.

reply from: lukesmom

A well aimed throw of whatever book of choice may be a good solution, an incapacitated person isn't a fun sex partner. Problem is, the blow to the head or groin area (for men) has to be pretty good and in some cases, like if the people aren't readers, there may be no ammunition. I'm sure we could work that out. Suggestions?

reply from: AshMarie88

No, I realize that he was not pro-life. I used to simply assume that he was, but then realized upon careful examination, he was nothing of the sort.
Are you now going to tell me that back in the time of Jesus, unborn babies were considered not important until they were born, too? I don't know where I heard that, but I can't imagine it's true.

reply from: terry

It's not your responsibility to apologize for "misunderstandings" on the part of other forum members, especially when the issue was clearly not one of misunderstanding at all. Which is it you are trying to say, that the women who posted in this thread don't understand what aaron really meant, or that they did understand but reacted poorly because they're over-sensitive, the poor dears? I don't see any evidence of misunderstanding whatsoever. Perhaps you just missed all the sarcasm? Or did you really think the women were advocating throwing birth control pills at rapists?
As for the ridicule, you have now accused other forum members of personal attack, because if aaron was being ridiculed, then that was a personal attack. The problem is, I don't see any personal attacks. I do see ridicule, but it is ridicule of a point, not a person. And all I can say about that is, the word "ridiculous" has a meaning, and it was a ridiculous point. I am not going to sanitize this forum to the point where no one can ridicule the ridiculous.
How about you, and everyone else, refrain from posting things that accuse other forum members of ANYTHING, whether personal attacks or trolling or whining to the FBI or spying for Planned Parenthood. How about if you feel someone has broken the rules, you tell me privately, and we can do away with this "sorry that my fellow forum members are so stupid and mean, but they're probably just touchy, especially the chicks" stuff, ok?

reply from: Shenanigans

Bar the Virgin Mary, no one ever got pregnant abstaining.
Of course, not everyone has the self-control of the Blessed Mother, nor her submission to God.
With that said, I am not naive enough to think that unplanned pregnancies would just drop if BC was banned tomorrow. Although, it would be interesting to see the stats 8 - 12 weeks later, how many women I wonder would feel comfortable engaging in sex without protection due to it being banned or whatever?
The situation I'm advocating for is where chidlren are allowed to be children and not boombarded with sexual information they do not need.
Have "sex ed" in a biological sense in science classes for older kids, 15 years +.
Furthermore, society as a whole needs to stop peddling the pervision of free sex for all whenever and where ever you can get it. How can we expect kids to abstain when Father Joe or Rev. Bob tell them "sex out of wedlocks is bad, wait for your spouse" when they turn on the TV or pick up a magazine or see a bill board with a half dressed woman selling something or getting something from men for being a tart.
Parents need to pick up the slack too, they cant just fob theri children's education in this matter off on the schools.
So its a multi-pronged approach.
The first step we need to take is to acknowledge that contraception is part of the problem, it, as I've said, lulls people into that false sense of security, it encourages sexual activity. A woman who I work with was telling me all about 60s and how the greatest turn around was the pill, and because of it eeveryone was out having sex.
For most of human history BC has been the dodgey potion you get from the witchdoctor or an incantation or some sock type condom, competely useless for the most part, so people generally restrained themselves knowing the risks of their sexual activities.
We have gone waaaaay to far as a society to just turn this mess around overnight. But I don't think that BC is the answer, it never was really, and all we've done is dig ourselves into a hole.
Will people screw around and get pregnant regardless of abstience programmes? Absolutely, there are always peopel who are going to test the limits, but I don't think its too late to not try and make a go of it.
If those 50% of women who aborted after a contraceptive failure/misuse had abstained, that'd be over 500,000 children who never existed to be murdered.
Sex ed has not worked. The millions of abortions over teh years is testament to that. I think its naive to think its done the foetus any good.
People can get by without sex. Seriously, its not the end of the world if your 14 year old daughter is still a virgin.
Granted, I know our society is now a society of excess and the "me, mee, MEEEEEE!!!" mentality is all about what feels good for "me" not what's good for "me".
Just like there are morons who still smoke despite all the health warnings et al, there are goign to be people who run the gauntlet of pregnancy and STD with or without the availability of contraceptives.
I just think we should focuss on pulling the majority of people out of this hog slosh.
Of course I'm represneting BC as a contributing to the problem of unplanned pregnancies, because the way I see it, it damn well is. We have, as I have said, half a million dead children each year as a testament to the failed "safe sex" programme. Its a sick joke.
BC's been around for as long as humans realised what caused babies. That's not goig to change. I don't want to throw bibles at kiddies, I want to throw common sense and teach self-confidence, self-worth, and self-control to people. A 2000+ year old book written by angry goat herders isn't going to help.
What's goign to lower unplanned pregnancies is teaching kids that their value isn't between their legs, that they dont' have to have sex to be "cool", that adults can find companionship and platonic relationships more fullfilling then a sleezy one night stand or a relationship with some guy who's last name they dont' even know. And giving sex back the respect it deserves, and educating kids that its not only safer to wait for their spouse but more fullfilling in a whole heap of other ways.
As I've said, contraceptives and the "safe sex" message have been around for 40 years, and its done squat to drop the numbers of abortions and teen pregnancies. If it was really all its cracked up to be, there'd only be abortions for mechanical failure, not stupidity or misuse of contraceptives.

reply from: CP

Do you understand that sex is a normal part of life, and that masturbation, "sex play," and even actual sex are a normal part of "children being children?" Children actually have to be conditioned to feel shame and taught what actions are inappropriate under what circumstances.
Sexual exploration is a normal part of being a child. Suppression of sexuality is taught.
Lot's of "kids" already have sex before then, and many have actually conceived children. Nearly all are physically capable of reproducing by then...
I think 15 would be a little too late, to be perfectly honest with you...

reply from: CP

Since I'm not attempting to report a possible violation, but am responding to a public statement addressed to me, is this permissible?
And you honestly believe that Aaron's "point" was that taking BC can protect a woman against being raped? Forgive me for trying to console a poster who was obviously upset at the ridicule of a "point" that no reasonable person would assume he tried to make.
Regardless of my personal conclusions, I clearly gave everyone on this thread the benefit of the doubt.
I made no accusations against any poster here, but you seem to have been personally offended by the presumed implications of my statement.
If you prefer that I contact you privately when I think the rules have been broken, that's fine. Can we assume that, unless I actually say I think the rules have been broken, I do not? Can we also assume that, unless I insult someone, I have not? If you assume I meant to say "sorry that my fellow forum members are so stupid and mean, but they're probably just touchy, especially the chicks," have I then violated the rules?
Is it not enough for you to deal with what is actually said here? Am I now responsible for what you assume I meant?

reply from: CP

And is it your "responsibility," in your official capacity, to make sure I'm aware of what is or is not my responsibility beyond my obvious responsibility not to violate the rules of the form?

reply from: Ana

And of those women using bc who were ok with abortion to begin with, how many more would have aborted if the had become pregnant withOUT bc? Your presumption seems to be that no bc = a more moral style of living and time has proven this no to be true. Some people who are willing to abort are dilligent about bc. Some are sloppy with it and some, for whatever reason, dont bother. If they were ALL on bc AND were dilligent enough to use it properly, then the abortion rate would go down. It is lovely, but unrealistic to simply say "then don't have sex".
Also you didn't comment about the initial point of my post. I'm married. I'm not abstaining. And with our schedules, I have no interest in figuring out "fertile times". I also don't trust it. Hubby got a vasectomy for me. Best. Thing. Ever!
(And before you bring up possible failure, he was cut AND cauterized. Failure of that type of vasectomy is pretty much unheard of because the tubes dont touch each other in addition to being sealed, so they cant grow back together.)
Depending where you read, 50 - 75% of women aborting were using birth control when they fell pregnant. Guttmacher's stats show about 54%.
That's roughly 500,000 children murdered by abortion because of a birth control mentality. A lot of post abortive women I've spoken too seem to think they have a moral highround in choosing abortion if their pill didn't work or if the condom tore, a kind of "well, I was trying to NOT get pregnant by using birth control, thus, I am more justified in my abortion then those ho bags sitting across from me in the waiting room".

reply from: terry

Most of the recent discussions have been moderated based on the intent of the statement, not the literal meaning. How many posts of LN's did I censor because of what he meant for you to imply from them, without his having stated it as such? Many.
Anyway, I think hopefully this is resolved now via PM so I'll leave it at that.
For the record, for everyone, intent is definitely important when considering the meaning of a statement. If your statement is X, but by logical deduction X means that Y must be true, and Y is a personal attack or false accusation, then X will be censored as well.
Example: if speaking Norwegian is expressly forbidden, and then you post "I can't believe the other forum members use Norwegian so much in this thread!" then there had better be some genuine Norwegian in the thread, or it's by implication a false accusation of other forum members.
I hope that all makes sense. Just everyone be careful what they say about each other on this forum. You can rip each other's points to shreds if you like, but do not attack each other in any way, do not post or solicit personal information, etc.
I don't have anything against Norway. I picked it because it was sort of random, and I figured no one else would have anything against it, either.
Technically, we should probably stick to English, though. Otherwise it will get pretty tricky to moderate.

reply from: terry

And is it your "responsibility," in your official capacity, to make sure I'm aware of what is or is not my responsibility beyond my obvious responsibility not to violate the rules of the form?
That's a bit out of context, I think. In essence, if there had actually been misunderstandings, I would not censor you for apologizing for them. It is the false implications about other forum members that I am moderating, not censoring your opinion. In fact, if you rephrase it as "it seems to me that these other posters don't understand what you mean" or "i think they just don't understand" or something, that would be different.
Imagine some other poster posted something like "sorry that CP called you a liar" when you not only had NOT called anyone a liar, but had totally gone out of your way NOT to call the person a liar, but instead to attack their point, in strictest accordance with the rules. Wouldn't you want me to censor that? It would be, sort of libelous or something.
Look, everybody, just be really careful when saying things about other forum members. That is the number one thing I am supposed to watch out for on this forum. You can say nice things about one another, but be very careful when saying anything other than something nice. If you are saying something negative about another forum member, it had better be demonstrably true, relevant, and free of personal attack.

reply from: CP

Is there an obvious difference between that and making a general statement, such as "I'm sorry that it appears your statement might have been interpreted as a lie?"
In the latter case, no accusation was made against any specific poster, therefore it was not a "personal attack" in my view. If others feel a specific poster has committed an offense personally, that is on them. At any rate, you are not obligated to defend your decisions. You are in a position of authority. Use that authority to do your job to the best of your ability. No one can ask more than that of you.

reply from: terry

Is there an obvious difference between that and making a general statement, such as "I'm sorry that it appears your statement might have been interpreted as a lie?"
In the latter case, no accusation was made against any specific poster, therefore it was not a "personal attack" in my view. If others feel a specific poster has committed an offense personally, that is on them. At any rate, you are not obligated to defend your decisions. You are in a position of authority. Use that authority to do your job to the best of your ability. No one can ask more than that of you.
Ok. Fine. I'm done defending this particular decision. For the record, to clarify, though: a personal attack does not have to be directed at only one person. The fact that an attack is vague does not mean it is not an attack. Some may be about groups of posters, or about the members of the forum in general--but that still counts.

reply from: CP

I will put aside any further personal objections in this case and simply defer to your authority. Consider the matter closed.

reply from: CP

There's the thing, though. I'm not convinced that it is, and you have certainly not clearly shown this to be so...
You argue that contraception is part of the problem because it "lulls people into a false sense of security," the implication being that people think it's more effective than it really is. I'm not convinced this is generally true either, but I responded that sex ed would be a good way to address that if it is, then you started arguing against sex ed as well...
So what is your objection to sex ed, really? Do you think it somehow corrupts kids? What, exactly, is your complaint? Do you concede that, if people are educated on the facts regarding contraceptives, there shouldn't be a problem with "false security?" And if you really aren't arguing that contraceptives are not reliable (you said "I'm not questioning its reliablity"), then how can you argue that any "security" people feel from using it is actually "false" to start with? I'm really having trouble understanding your reasoning here....
The whole "false security" thing seems to be just a catchy phrase that has been incorporated into the anti-contraception propaganda. It doesn't seem to me to be a legitimate part of a rational position at all.

reply from: CP

If you really think sex ed won't help because these people are "morons," how can we reasonably expect them to make responsible decisions in any case?
Also, can you show me how you determined that half of abortions are a direct result of misuse of contraceptives? If you can, wouldn't you also have to show that the abortion rate would not have been even higher if none of these women had used contraceptives at all?
Please don't imply that they would have been abstinent if they had not used contraceptives, either. I don't think that is a reasonable assumption, and I'm sure you can't prove it.
Regardless of how many women conceived children while supposedly using contraceptives, and what percentage of these women aborted as a result, I think it is reasonable to assume that contraceptive use prevented many pregnancies successfully. I also think it is reasonable to assume that if they had not used contraceptives at all, even more would have experienced unwanted pregnancies, at least some (perhaps most) of which would have been aborted.

reply from: CP

If you go to this site and check out the entire article, you will see that the author has listed credible sources to substantiate all claims made in the article. Sources include actual scientific studies and research.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=450&Itemid=336

reply from: B0zo

Contracetpion is everywhere. It's quite visible in any Wal-Mart or any drug store.
What makes you think people need to be told about it?

reply from: CP

I believe it is a necessary part of comprehensive sex ed to inform our youth on all aspects of reproduction, including preventing it. Contraceptives are very effective at reducing the rate of pregnancy and STIs if used both properly and consistently, therefore it is important for everyone to be aware of those facts.
Do you think this should be a secret?

reply from: Shenanigans

Of course, this is where we will differ greatly in opinion to an extent.
Yes, sex is a normal part of life, like taking a crap, but you don't take a crap in the middle of a public park or out the front of the cop shop. Just as sex is a normal part of life, there's a time and a place for it - namely, marriage.
Within the context of marriage there is a foundation of love, understanding, committement (real committement), and a better stability then that found in a non-married sexual relationship.
Can you honestly think the over-sexualisation of our society is a good thing? Sex is normal right? Well is it normal for an 8 year old to be wearing a "playboy bunny" tight tee shirt? Isn't that just a nice little, normal, sexually aware 8 year old being normal?
As for the "M" word, it is deftinely NOT normal. It may be something very small children do out of curiosity or whatever, but they're running on more animalistic brains. Masturbation corrupts sex, it turns the focus of it inwards, as opposed to outwards. The act of sex is meant to be the physical expression of the marriage vows, its about sharing all aspects of a person, being completely open and giving to their spouse - hence the reason contraception is so gravely immoral. Masturbation is about turning the attention on to one's self, it makes it about pleasing the person, not about giving to another.
Acceptance of masturbation, I think, has added to the oversexualisation of society, people are taught now, at least from a secular public perspective, that if it feels good, do it. Whether that's by yourself or with some idiot you picked up at a bar on a Friday night.
Not to mention that masturbation can lead to an addiction to it. There are studies out there, I thought about posting them but you'll just say its all about me quote mining for things to back up what I'm saying, but its purely logical. When an individual organsms, their brain release the same kind of happy chemicals that can be released when a person is on a drug high, so a person may become dependant on having a wank. This of course can lead to all sorts of problems, while you may think its fine for teenaged Johnny to audition his finger puppets, if he develops an addiction to it, what happens when he marries Jane who while gives him sex when he wants it, it won't be available all the time, so he'll take to his hand. Masturbation usually goes hand in hand with porn, so poor ole Jane will see her husband Johnny dating Rosie palmer and her five daughters while gwaking at pictures of Angelina Jollie. How do you think Jane is going to feel? Seeing her husband get more pleasure from a 2d image of a hollywood adulteress?
It will harm their marriage is what it will do if Johnny doesn't get help for his addiction.
I expect you to scoff at this, but it happens.
So even if my religious perspectives against masturbation are not your cup of tea, or can't be really substantiated - I don't expect people to live by my Catholicism, but the addiction that masturbation leads to, and the damage it can do to both the person and any partner they have, are very, very real.
I mean, honestly, people can live without having a wank. It demeans the person and society as a whole to just fob off self control in this matter, to say "oh, well, every wanks, no point trying to stop it, lets tell everyone its normal, huzzah". It belittles the individual to not give them the benefit of the doubt that they can control themselves.
And honestly, I dont' know how people find the time for it.
We live in a society where more and more we are shunning self control in favour of "whatever you like do it". Masturbation, sex,, contraception, abortion, they've all increased because of this mentality.
Yeah, people will wank, but at least if we start talking about how its not okay, we won't have to have movies where people make disgusting jokes about it and press it as normal.
And then the question is why are kids of
Becuase people want to say "its normal", "do what feels good", "and if you do, here's some condoms".
But honest to God, CP, people talk about sex-ed like its some kind of difficult concept to grasp, how strawman wearing hat hard is it to roll a balloon tying over mr. winky? Its not rocket science!

reply from: Shenanigans

CP showed a stat of what was it, 67% of women aborting were Christians, if 50% of women aborting were doing so because of contraception botch ups then can we assume that 33% of those Christian women were using contraception? My math might be dodgey, correct me if it is, but its a logical assumption, is it not?
So by that reasoning, there's a lot of pro-abortion christians out there.
People use contraception to try and stop pregnancy, when it occurs they can be operating under the premise that since they tried to prevent a pregnancy, they are justified in ending the one that evenutated. I've met plenty of women who were "pro-life", had sex, used contraception, it botched up, and off they went to have their foetus suctioned down a tube and into the trash.
No, that is not my presumption.
I've been trying to make the point that contraception use has lead to a mentality that abortion is an acceptable solution if it fails. The whole "the only moral abortion is my abortion" BS.
If anything time has proven, is that the safe sex message, contraceptives, and RvW has not reduced pregnancies and abortion, it is not "rare" it has continued, on steady numbers for 40 years.
40 years of safe sex and contraception and still 1.2 million abortions pa. approximate. Time to think of a better plan, that's my point.
I mean, for the love of all that is holy, cute and fuzzy, how hard is it to roll a balloon thing on a man's parts? How hard is it to remember to pop a pill everday?
Are people getting dumber? Are we aborting all the foetuses with teh high IQs?
Its not quantum mechanics!
40 years we've been living with that mindset.
It hasn't worked. Time for a new idea.
And its certainly your right. For better or worse, whatever you find on the other side of life, these are your choices and if you're happy about them, good luck.
And I think the failure rate for vasectomies is like 0.02%, but in all honesty, I don't care about failure rates, I'm more concerned with the mentality of contraception having lead to the absolute bloody debacle we're in now.
I mean, is it that hard to grasp, or even perhaps admit that after 40 years, the whole "safe sex"/contraception message is either not getting through or just not working.
I bet if we banned abortion and kept contraception legal people would be very diligent with their pill popping, balloon rolling.

reply from: Shenanigans

My problem with sex ed is exactly what is defined as "sex ed".
I went to a Catholic all girls' school. We got one heck of a detailed sex ed class. And yet despite that information, despite the contraceptives the public nurse would hand out on the sly, despite the Catholic teaching added into the fray, of the 50 girls in my year, by the time we hit 20 years, at least 15 had gotten pregnant - unintentionally and outside of marriage.
We were known to have a high rate of pregnancy - but it was actually more to the point that we didnt' have a high rate of abortion, and the majority of my class were pro-life.
Then there's the public schools, the sex ed you get there is superfluous its just not funny. I went with the public health nurse as part of my training and sat in on the instruction given about condom use, the pill and then at the school clinic, all it was were kids as yougn as 12 coming in and asking for the MAP because they were out having sex at 2 on a Saturday morning. [And is this the sexual exploration people think is normal for children?] In fact, one girl who was abotu 13, the nurse told me had been in for the MAP 8 times in abotu 3 months - and she was supposed to have a Rx for the pill.
This is what sex ed is?
There are a lot of heart broken teens out there, engaging in sex ebcause they think their partner will "love" them forever. Kids are short sighted, and we need to give them the tools and the strength to say no to their sex-obcessed boyfriend.
Girls in particular are at bigger risks, if a girl gets pregnant shes generally on her own. What does a 15 year old boy know about parental responsbility, or any responsibility?
I have no opposition to sex ed as a concept, its the current application of sex ed I am opposed to. The whole "here's a condom, this is how you have sex, watch out for herpes, and here's the card for Planned Parenthood if things go pear shaped".
Kids need to be given the tools to develop self-esteem and realise its okay to wait till marriage, or to not have sex, its okay to say no, and that they can have self-respect in doing so. That their popularity /coolness isn't based on how many girls they've done behind the toilets.
Kids are obviously not being taught to respect themselves or their sexuality. They're being given instructions for an adult act when they dont' have the mental stability to deal with the adult act and the emotional implications it can bring. Even now, a lot of older women are hurting due to being used by over sexed men. And with the liberal pollution of feminism, there are some women who are being the predators.
Children are being exploited thanks to this "sex ed" as we currently have it.
I can't comment if I think that correct education about contraception will turn back the tide, as we have had 40 years of so called "correct education" about contraception. FORTY YEARS + Is this time span perfectly acceptable to the pro-contraception crowd? Forty years of foetal murder, of women harmed, of children messed up by sexual acts they are not old enough or mature enough to deal with?
There really is no downside as I see it to a teenager waiting till they're married. They are not only protecting themselves from the heart ache of broken childish relationships, but from pregnancy, abortion and diseases they could carry that they could pass to a future partner, diseases that could sterilise them or even kill them.
The risks are too high to be complacent.
You people have had 40 years to prove that safe sex and contraception will work to reduce the abortion rates et al. Its failed. Time to move on to something else.

reply from: Shenanigans

Forty years +.
People aren't using it correctly now, what makes you think further increase in this concept is going to help?

reply from: PCmom

Do you believe that the U.S. has been teaching comprehensive sex ed to youth for 40 years? Perhaps that's why you claim it doesn't work. It has not been even close to 40 years and there has yet to be consistent teaching to measure the effects.

reply from: CP

Because marriage is like taking a crap? What does marriage have to do with your objections to contraception and sex ed?
Oh, please! What has "commitment" to do with either contraception or sex ed? Also, I'd like to see you back up this claim even it did have anything to do with rationalizing condemnation of sex ed or contraceptives! Do you really think a piece of paper (marriage license) has anything to do with love or level of commitment?
Sexuality has always been a part of life. Human beings are sexual beings. Even if you think society is "over sexualized," what does that have to do with sex ed and contraception?
Whether it is or not, how is that relevant?
Masturbation? Yes. It's "normal." You thinking it's wrong doesn't change that. Almost from birth, we instinctively explore our bodies. If we touch something, and it feels good, we learn from that. As I already pointed out, children actually have to be taught not to, or at least when it is considered inappropriate...It's actually not considered healthy to teach them to feel guilt and shame about their natural sexuality.
Says who? And how does this relate to contraception and sex ed? How does this prove either is harmful to society, increases the abortion rate, or "corrupts" anyone?
WHY is it "immoral?" If you think it's "immoral," then don't use it....but don't pretend there is a rational argument why I shouldn't unless you can show that there is.
Same thing... If you think it's "immoral," then don't do it....but don't pretend there is a rational argument why I shouldn't unless you can show that there is.
Is that what you were taught? Because I wasn't...Can you show where this has been taught in society, or are you just assuming?
Because it's "normal?" Our sex drives are part of us, and sadly, it is strongest when we first enter puberty, at least for boys. This also happens to be when we are the least responsible.
I don't think that's going to cover it. I know you want to blame it on contraceptives because you oppose the use of condoms, but you're putting the cart before the horse. Did you read the article I posted? Those pesky facts don't always do what we want them to, do they?
I think there's a little more to sex ed than "rolling a balloon over mr. winky," and anybody who doesn't understand that might be about ready for a refresher course themselves...

reply from: CP

Are you saying that if they hadn't used contraception, they wouldn't have an excuse to abort, so the baby would be spared? I think that's quite a reach, if so...
That's possible. I think that it's much more likely that it would result in avoiding the situation altogether by preventing an unwanted pregnancy to start with...I don't think you can reasonably assert that using contraceptives changes anyone's "mentality," or makes them more likely to abort. I'm sure you can't prove it.
Basically, the idea here seems to be that everything bad in the world is caused by someone disagreeing with you about something, and you seem to want to tie it all together in a nice tidy bundle and label it "bad" whether it actually helps or harms society or any individual.
I'm trying to stay off religion, but clearly that is what it all boils down to here.
Maybe it's the "contraception is evil" mentality that is to blame. Maybe all those good intentioned people that want to prevent truths they do not approve of from seeing the light of day that are to blame.
So what is your plan? Tell our kids sex is dirty and wrong until they get written permission from a priest, and outlaw the sale and use of contraceptives? Tell everybody to just not have sex unless they're married? You know what I think you can expect that to get you (assuming you could somehow enforce it to start with)? More people getting married married sooner, a higher rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions among married women, and an even greater divorce rate than our current ridiculous numbers....

reply from: CP

What does that prove? That the Catholic schools aren't doing it right, maybe? I know the Catholic girls are never taught all this stuff you are preaching here about the evils of contraception, right? Oh, wait, they hear that all their lives, don't they? Don't you get that they are less likely to use contraceptives for that reason if they do have sex anyway?
And are you implying that these girls would have been abstinent until they were married if only they hadn't been forced to learn sex ed?
And in your view, it's better for a teen girl to have a baby than use contraceptives, right? As long as they never use a rubber and never get an abortion, it's all good? If they have sex, they shouldn't get away with it, but should be forced to accept the consequences? To conceive and raise a child?
If this is what passes for comprehensive sex ed in New Zealand, it's a wonder things aren't worse than you claim....
To be perfectly honest, I do not believe this is an accurate representation. I would find it hard to believe that this summed up any sex ed curriculum anywhere...

reply from: BossMomma

Are you implying that the woman ask her potential rapist to wear a condom or are you talking about the ECP, which can cause the death of a newly concieved human being by preventing her implantation.
I think it was in Aussie, but there was a case I read about where a woman insisted her rapist wear a condom, he did, and the jury accepted that as the woman giving consent.
By ECP do you mean the Morning After Pill? I don't know what your problem is with it, if a woman is raped and seeks emergency contraception I feel that she should have that right. She was not promiscuous, she was taken against her will, should she have motherhood thrust upon her too? I really must wonder, in all this concern for a potential zygote, where is the concern for the woman?

reply from: BossMomma

Before or after she killed a couple pregnancies?

reply from: BossMomma

Jesus never said one way or another whether a woman who is raped must be forced into motherhood.

reply from: BossMomma

The MAP, given shortly after unprotected sex to prevent implantation. That is an example of contraceptive for defense.

reply from: B0zo

The MAP, given shortly after unprotected sex to prevent implantation. That is an example of contraceptive for defense.
How is this morally different than an abortion?
Are you saying it's not really a person until implantation?

reply from: Shenanigans

ECP = MAP, just different terms.
I won't condemn a rape victim who seeks the ECP, but the reality is there is a possibility that there has been a human being concieved.
Either we value the human being from their conception or we don't. To use the term "potential zygote", its like that term "potential child/baby" you know, the term the pro-aborts use to justify their slaughter?

reply from: Shenanigans

I really have to wonder if you're being faectious or if you're just not getting it.
You claimed sex was natural, in regards to kids exploring sexually et al.
The similie I was trying to get you to understand is thus:
Sex is natural. So is taking a crap.
Both have their places. Taking a crap on the bonnet of your neighbour's car is not a good idea. Taking a crap is natural. The location of the crap [the neighbour's car] is not a good place to take said crap.
Likewise, sex is natural. Having sex out side of wedlock is not a good idea.
Like a toilet being a place for a crap, marriage is the place for sex.
Either I'm not explaining myself simply enough to be understood or you're getting my points jumbled. So from now on, I'm going to make points with numbers.
1. Marriage is not just a "piece of paper".
2. Marriage is a publci acknowledgement before family, friends, the law or God if that's yoru cup of tea.
3. Said public acknowledgement gives the couple a sort of mandate that they are responsible before the people they made the committement before.
4. De-facto/co-habitation relationships do not have that level of committement. There is an ease of removal of oneself from it. There is an ability where an individual can just bugger off and those around them can say "oh well, its not like they were married".
5. Marriage has been eroding for years.
i. Contraception has lead to a free for all in regards to sexual antics.
ii. Marriage was once somethign people did who loved each other and wanted children. It was seen as the relationship that people entered into, with one of the main goals being the co-creation of children.
iii. When contraception came along, it reduced teh possibility of reproduction significantly from the sex act. No longer was sex an open invitation for babies.
iv. Considering iii., people could now have lots of sex without the responsibility of said reproduction.
v. So, sex was saved for marriage because of the high risk of reproduction, and without that risk, or a much lowered risk, people no longer had to wait till marriage to have sex.
vi. With contraception people's responsibilities to their spouses/future spouses, deminished. A man could easily venture outside of his marriage bed, and not have to concern himself with his mistress getting pregnant. And of course, once RvW came along, it wasn't hard for any newly concieved mistakes to be removed. Subsquently, any diseases he woudl have picked up from mistresses or "ladies of the night" was now lessened thanks to condoms.
vii. Contraception has allowed people to live in a state of marriage, ie having sexual relations, without the full committement of marriage. Thus, marriage itself is seen as something that is no longer purposeful except to those who are a little nostaglic or religious.
viii. When contraception fails within the co-habitating/de-facto relationship, without that committement the father could bugger off. I've known it to happen to quite a few people, and it seems to be easier for a defacto male partner to escape a relationship where he has fathered a b@stard child then it is for a husband to sod off.
ix. 50% of marriages are failing. Often cited reasons are finanical issues, lack of communication, lack of trust, but we can also contemplate that for some people, they rush into marriage, and I don't mean young teens, but rather, people who fall in love, have a rushed and a possibly sexual active romance and don't sit down and have the big conversations before hand, ie. kids, money, religion.
Are these difficult connections to make?
If we teach children to refrain from sexual activity until their marriage, will that message be taken seriously if they go home and are able to view on early evening television where people are bonking all in sundry? IF they can walk down the street and see half naked women selling insurance on billboards? Where magazines aimed at teens and young women have "sealed" sections which is nothing short of porn?
Children are getting mixed messages.
How the heck do you think its relevant? Honestly, CP, I'm starting to have concerns about your reponses.
If an 8 year old is wearing a "playboy bunny" tight top what's going on?
Did she choose to wear that shirt because of "the cute bunny"? Or does she actually know what it means, and thinks its glamerous to aspire too being an over paid prostititute? Where are her parents in all of this? What sort of mother/father woudl allow their 8 year old chidl to wear such a shirt?
You said sex is normal, that its normal for kids to explore, that children have to be suppressed by society to view sex as shameful.
Is this girl's mother thinking "oh, I don't want to be seen as an uncool mum who is "suppressing" my daughter's personality because she wants to wear a shirt with a porn icon on it".
Where too for that 8 year old? She's the kind of kid who's likely to end up pregnant at 16. Or heck, maybe in the centre of that magazine when she's 18.
Same argument is used for abortion.
And how old are you?
YOU might not have been taught that, but my generation is grossly obcessed with what feels good. I picked up a "Marie Claire" magazine once that was in a doctor's office and found a four page article dedicated to masturbuation and different ways to do it, and it said something like "think about whatever you want, its your fantasy, if it feels good, go for it!" In the same magazine was an advert for a "fancy" alcho-pop, and expensive shoes.
Ours is a society of excess. Excess in clothing, money, sex. If people want it, and they can get it, they will.

reply from: Shenanigans

People dont' really need an excuse to abort, they'll find one if they want an abortion.
What I'm saying is that a woman who was using, or trying to use contraception may feel more morally validated in seeking an abortion, kind of a less shameful approach to the whole thing. "I was using contraception, I wasn't being stupid or irresponsible, abortion is my back up, I didn't want to be pregnant, I was trying to not get pregnant, the contraceptive failed, not me, therefore, my abortion is justified".
Funnily enough, for a long time I supported contraception and was quite happy to think that in my career I could dole it out. Religion had nothing to do with it. And honestly, should I get married, contraception would be out of the question for me anyway due to medical concerns.
My distain for contraception and abortion is based on science and a view of human stupidity and lack fo self-control as opposed to any religious view point, though I will openly discuss that religious view when it is inquired of.
Not to mention, I don't see it as having done any significant good to reduce numbers. There are always going to be morons who dont' use it during sex or get drunk or stoned and can't use it correctly. No amount of sex ed is goign to help them. We need to focus on the "wait as long as possible, hopefully till marriage" view as the first line of defense.
What? You mean like how the pill is 98% effective, how condoms are about 97% effective when used correctly, how tubals have a failure rate of about 0.02%?
When I was 9 I found a condom instruction pamplet in the gutter. I knew what it was, and I mean, for goodness sake, if a Catholic nine year old girl can figure out what its all about, how can a grown man not?
Sex without protection = chance of baby.
Sex with protection when used incorrectly, or under teh influence = chance of baby.
Sex with protection = small risk of baby.
I'm happy for people to get the stats out there, I'm just not happy about the whole concept of how the truth is presented. It'd be like saying if you get drunk, you shouldn't drive, but if you do, drive slowly, stay to the middle of the road and you will only have a x% chance of crashing!
If I didn't know better, CP, I'd say you have a strong dislike of opinions being different to yours. I have noticed on this forum in particular, that the moment a "Catholic" speaks out against contraception, its all because of the Church and its got nothign to do with the fact that the concept of sex ed has been an absolute faeces storm.
My plan?
1. Give children the skills to be self-confident and self-assured.
2. Encourage children to develop relationships of a platonic nature, and realise that sexual relationships are not necessary for any kind of social fullfillment.
3. Give children the courage to say "no" to situations where they are pressured or encouraged to have sex by their peers or with their little boyfriends.
4. In NZL we have banned smoking advertisements from TV, public places and tabacco companies are no longer allowed to sponsor sporting events or other events. It has lowered smoking rates. Alchol can only be advertised after a certain time, I think its 10pm currently. I want to see the same for overtly sexualised advertisements and programmes. I mean ads like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4dKbEnMLl0 I honestly don't think they need to be shown at 4 in the afternoon when kids are watching. And that ad is tame compared to some of the ones that are down here.
The same for magazines, I mean, those "sealed sections" in Teen magazines are basically soft porn. Anything that has excessive sexual description - one teen mag I saw had cartoon versions of teh Karma sultra for the 90s, ie. where to have sex when there's not enough space, and these mags are aimed at girls aged 10+. I think these magazines should be sealed in shrink wrap and sold only to 18+.
I think those are perfectly reasonable laws to enact, and it aims to protect children. I mean, that 8 year old with the play boy bunny shirt? The only person she's really impressing is the local paedophile.
My neighbour told me his 28 year old friend is dating, and having sex with a 15 year old girl, which I pointed out is stat rape, but my neigbour just laughed.
5. A more detailed sexual abuse safety campaign. With all these mixed messages out there for kids, there are bound to be children who think making a fuss about an adult who makes them uncomfortable will be "uncool".
6. The above points can be introduced as early as possible, I think, I mean, a five year old can be taught all about self-confidence and strength not to go in for peer pressure, for older kids and teens, I think they should be given information about sex. ALL the information. Full on full frontal images of STDs, videos of abortions, videos of child birth, most of them know math, give them the costs of having a baby, the emotional, physical, spirtual et al cost of abortion, the stress of adopting out, include contraceptive methods, and their failure rates.
The whole "here's a condom, this is sex, be safe" is a dog's breakfast. Kids dont' have teh proper context for it.
Kids should be discouraged from sex for as long as possible. Its got nothing to do with suppresing natural urges or growing shame complexes or even religious opinion, its about common bloody sense, do we really need teenagers pregnant, teenagers aborting, teenagers hurting from broken hearts because they thought having sex with their boyfriend would make him like her?
Honestly, I have to question the moral stability of a mind who thinks that its perfectly acceptable to be so blase about kids having sex. Frankly, its sick.

reply from: BossMomma

ECP = MAP, just different terms.
I won't condemn a rape victim who seeks the ECP, but the reality is there is a possibility that there has been a human being concieved.
Either we value the human being from their conception or we don't. To use the term "potential zygote", its like that term "potential child/baby" you know, the term the pro-aborts use to justify their slaughter?
I say potential zygote because no one is even certain an egg was fertilized and I don't think women should be denied that precaution. Don't compare me to a "pro-abort" thank you very much. I value all human life which includes the woman that you often seem to forget.
As a rape victim and a child concieved of rape I think I have a bit of knowledge on the subject and, as you can imagine it's a touchy subject for me. My opinion is that unless you've gone a mile in a rape victims shoes, you have no right to judge her.

reply from: BossMomma

The MAP, given shortly after unprotected sex to prevent implantation. That is an example of contraceptive for defense.
How is this morally different than an abortion?
Are you saying it's not really a person until implantation?
Are you certain that every MAP pill kills a zygote? That's just it, it's a precaution. 80% of a womans pre-implantation pregnancies never implant, should we mourn our periods then as the possible loss of a child?

reply from: CP

Marriage is "a place?'
Sure it is. The only real difference between a married couple and a couple who is "shacking up" is that the former got a license.
Surely you do not mean to imply that "hey, everybody, we're going to live together," is not also "a public acknowledgment?"
And what "responsibility" does this entail? Surely you are aware that you can take it all back the next day by divorce or annulment?
What level of commitment? People who are not legally married might stay together for decades, and people who marry legally might divorce in a matter of weeks! Are you saying married people do not leave their spouses? Is it any more difficult for them? What is it that actually prevents them from leaving> Shen? The piece of paper? The ring? Married people are no different from the unmarried in this respect.
This assumes facts not in evidence. You have yet to show correlation, much less causation...
Rape was once seen as a binding marriage. What's your point?
What's your point? Are we obligated to produce offspring?
And does this personally offend you, or do you have a legitimate beef?
And this has some significant impact on society that would not be the case if they had simply been abstinent? Either way, most aren't having children, so obviously that is not your beef, right? So what is it? Does it simply offend you that they have sex for fun?
Was it better in "the good old days" when whores and prostitutes needed to "entertain" even more to provide for there bastard children, or perhaps society had to step in and take care of them? Many of them turned to crime. Was that better in your view?
Prostitution is referred to as the world's oldest profession for a reason. Men, both married and single, have lain with whores and prostitutes since the beginning. Lack of contraceptives will not stop a promiscuous man (or woman) from having sex. It is naive to assume otherwise.
You would prefer he was punished by contracting a disease, perhaps? Never mind that he might bring it home to his wife? Sorry, I don't see how preventing the spread of disease is a bad thing.
Implying that the "purpose" of marriage is to have children? If so, then sterile persons should obviously have no reason to marry, right?
This is ridiculous. Millions of married men have abandoned their families, Shen. Wake up and smell the BS.
What is your proposed solution? I suppose we could flog women who show legs or cleavage....Of course, societies have tried this kind of thing, and it seems to create more problems than it was intended to solve. It certainly won't force "immoral" people to behave "morally!"
How is it relevant to the bad, bad, contraception allowing people to enjoy sex without being "punished" with children they may not want?
There's nothing new under the sun, Shen. There's nothing "special" about your generation.

reply from: CP

This "human stupidity and lack of self control" is exactly why I insist that contraceptives are necessary, and that simply expecting people to act responsibly (abstinence until they want children, marriage irrelevant)! You want people to just abstain from sex, but you clearly understand why this is an unreasonable, even naive expectation! I really don't get it, Shen!
Try reading up on what has been shown to have a positive impact. And do please try to put aside your personal feelings and examine the issue objectively.
Are you implying that I, the loving father of two teen daughters, am "blase about kids having sex?" Or do you simply "question the moral stability" of my mind because I understand it is "normal" for kids to experiment sexually? I am quite frankly, very much offended by the implications of your statement. I have tried to be patient with you, understanding as I do where the "anti-contraception/anti-sex ed mindset" originates, but I think you are dangerously close to crossing the line here. There is nothing to be gained by trying to make this personal...

reply from: Elessar

ECP = MAP, just different terms.
I won't condemn a rape victim who seeks the ECP, but the reality is there is a possibility that there has been a human being concieved.
Either we value the human being from their conception or we don't. To use the term "potential zygote", its like that term "potential child/baby" you know, the term the pro-aborts use to justify their slaughter?
I say potential zygote because no one is even certain an egg was fertilized and I don't think women should be denied that precaution. Don't compare me to a "pro-abort" thank you very much. I value all human life which includes the woman that you often seem to forget.
As a rape victim and a child concieved of rape I think I have a bit of knowledge on the subject and, as you can imagine it's a touchy subject for me. My opinion is that unless you've gone a mile in a rape victims shoes, you have no right to judge her.
So if we don't know, that makes it okay?

reply from: B0zo

The MAP, given shortly after unprotected sex to prevent implantation. That is an example of contraceptive for defense.
How is this morally different than an abortion?
Are you saying it's not really a person until implantation?
Are you certain that every MAP pill kills a zygote? That's just it, it's a precaution. 80% of a womans pre-implantation pregnancies never implant, should we mourn our periods then as the possible loss of a child?
Can you prove that 80% figure? And why should we mourn periods? You think all women are sexually active, and every month?
But you seem to be saying you approve of abortifacients.

reply from: CP

What is your point here? That a woman's right not to be forced to conceive a child takes precedent over that innocent child's life?
I'm not going to get into any lengthy debates concerning comments about "killing pregnancies," but it would seem to me that such comments are the result of a need to deny objective reality. We both know you can't "kill pregnancies." Pregnancy is a condition that always involves two human beings, and we're talking about killing one of those human beings here, not the condition that is ended by its death.
If you think it's OK for a woman to kill her offspring prior to implantation, please just honestly own your position. Semantic acrobatics do not change the reality of what this position actually entails.
As a father of two teen girls, I have given this issue considerable thought, and I understand that it's one of the more difficult questions we are faced with regarding the abortion issue. It's hard to even think about someone sexually assaulting one of my babies, and I know how traumatic it can be for the whole family. It is an issue that actually touched my family in a personal way when I was very young, and someone very close to me was impregnated as a result of a very brutal sexual assault.
Hopefully, I will never have a similar experience again, and I wish no woman (or girl) ever would, but I accept that it does happen, and we have to consider these issues carefully no matter how distasteful it might be.
If one of my young daughters were pregnant as a result of sexual assault, I would be devastated, not necessarily because of the pregnancy itself, however. Pregnancy would certainly complicate the issue greatly, and I would not be happy about the circumstances in any way (this should go without saying), but the child would still be her child and my grandchild.
Killing the child would not undo the rape, or any trauma associated with it. My grandchild would be just as innocent as my child in this case, and even if I thought it would somehow make my daughter feel better to abort, I could not condone it. I simply can not condone the killing of one human being in order to make another feel better, and in such a case, there is no way to know it would have that effect anyway...

reply from: BossMomma

ECP = MAP, just different terms.
I won't condemn a rape victim who seeks the ECP, but the reality is there is a possibility that there has been a human being concieved.
Either we value the human being from their conception or we don't. To use the term "potential zygote", its like that term "potential child/baby" you know, the term the pro-aborts use to justify their slaughter?
I say potential zygote because no one is even certain an egg was fertilized and I don't think women should be denied that precaution. Don't compare me to a "pro-abort" thank you very much. I value all human life which includes the woman that you often seem to forget.
As a rape victim and a child concieved of rape I think I have a bit of knowledge on the subject and, as you can imagine it's a touchy subject for me. My opinion is that unless you've gone a mile in a rape victims shoes, you have no right to judge her.
So if we don't know, that makes it okay?
For a rape victim who has just had her body violantly violated? Darn tootin'. Better to prevent implantation than to let a heart start beating and then rip it apart.

reply from: BossMomma

What is your point here? That a woman's right not to be forced to conceive a child takes precedent over that innocent child's life?
I'm not going to get into any lengthy debates concerning comments about "killing pregnancies," but it would seem to me that such comments are the result of a need to deny objective reality. We both know you can't "kill pregnancies." Pregnancy is a condition that always involves two human beings, and we're talking about killing one of those human beings here, not the condition that is ended by its death.
If you think it's OK for a woman to kill her offspring prior to implantation, please just honestly own your position. Semantic acrobatics do not change the reality of what this position actually entails.
As a father of two teen girls, I have given this issue considerable thought, and I understand that it's one of the more difficult questions we are faced with regarding the abortion issue. It's hard to even think about someone sexually assaulting one of my babies, and I know how traumatic it can be for the whole family. It is an issue that actually touched my family in a personal way when I was very young, and someone very close to me was impregnated as a result of a very brutal sexual assault.
Hopefully, I will never have a similar experience again, and I wish no woman (or girl) ever would, but I accept that it does happen, and we have to consider these issues carefully no matter how distasteful it might be.
If one of my young daughters were pregnant as a result of sexual assault, I would be devastated, not necessarily because of the pregnancy itself, however. Pregnancy would certainly complicate the issue greatly, and I would not be happy about the circumstances in any way (this should go without saying), but the child would still be her child and my grandchild.
Killing the child would not undo the rape, or any trauma associated with it. My grandchild would be just as innocent as my child in this case, and even if I thought it would somehow make my daughter feel better to abort, I could not condone it. I simply can not condone the killing of one human being in order to make another feel better, and in such a case, there is no way to know it would have that effect anyway...
So you would refuse your own daughter even a precautionary contraceptive to prevent pregnancy? The MAP does not cause an abortion, it prevents pregnancy from establishing. If implantation does not occur then neither does pregnancy therefore, all you have is a possibly fertilized egg that gets flushed out via the monthly cycle.

reply from: BossMomma

The MAP, given shortly after unprotected sex to prevent implantation. That is an example of contraceptive for defense.
How is this morally different than an abortion?
Are you saying it's not really a person until implantation?
Are you certain that every MAP pill kills a zygote? That's just it, it's a precaution. 80% of a womans pre-implantation pregnancies never implant, should we mourn our periods then as the possible loss of a child?
Can you prove that 80% figure? And why should we mourn periods? You think all women are sexually active, and every month?
But you seem to be saying you approve of abortifacients.
http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by
">http://reason.com/archives/200...ated-chiefly-by
The MAP is not an abortifacient, it is an emergency contraceptive that prevents pregnancy by preventing the meeting of sperm and egg.

reply from: CP

If it is "flushed out via the monthly cycle," that is a natural death. If it is intentionally prevented from implanting in order to cause death, that is another matter in my view altogether.
I would never approve of my daughter killing any of my grandchildren at any point in their existence, from conception. That is when their lives begin, not implantation...

reply from: BossMomma

If it is "flushed out via the monthly cycle," that is a natural death. If it is intentionally prevented from implanting in order to cause death, that is another matter in my view altogether.
I would never approve of my daughter killing any of my grandchildren at any point in their existence, from conception. That is when their lives begin, not implantation...
No matter that it was forced upon her? That her body was violently used? She should be denied even that small bit of security? Forgive me if my opinion violates the "spirit" of the new rule but I'm glad that the decision is not yours to make. And if this view makes me less than pro-life, I can live with that.

reply from: CP

No, it doesn't prevent conception, only implantation. Its prescribed purpose and sole function is to kill any human being that might have been conceived by preventing it from implanting in the uterus.
It is true that it is not technically an "abortifacient," but only because pregnancy does not technically begin until implantation. It still kills any offspring you might have conceived, however. That is it's sole purpose.

reply from: BossMomma

No, it doesn't prevent conception, only implantation. Its prescribed purpose and sole function is to kill any human being that might have been conceived by preventing it from implanting in the uterus.
It is true that it is not technically an "abortifacient," but only because pregnancy does not technically begin until implantation. It still kills any offspring you might have conceived, however. That is it's sole purpose.
No it's not and I'll thank you to quit outright lying. It serves 3 purposes, 1) to prevent ovulation. 2) To thicken the cervical mucus to prevent sperm and egg from meeting. or 3) if conception has already occured to prevent implantation.

reply from: CP

I'm not making any personal judgments against you or anyone else. You answer only to yourself. I'm just making sure you understand the truth, nothing more. As a father, I understand that this is heart rending issue, and it poses something of a moral dilemma. I certainly love my daughters, and have no desire to add to their suffering if we are unfortunate enough to be personally affected by this issue.
In the end, any child that is conceived by my daughters, even as a result of sexual assault, is still their child, and my grandchild. Once more, even if I was convinced it would make them feel better (which I am actually not), I could never condone their choice to kill my grandchild.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm not making any personal judgments against you or anyone else. You answer only to yourself. I'm just making sure you understand the truth, nothing more. As a father, I understand that this is heart rending issue, and it poses something of a moral dilemma. I certainly love my daughters.
You do? It seems you love the possibility of a fertilized egg far more.

reply from: CP

The MAP is not intended as "regular" birth control. It is basically just a massive dose. Since the primary function of regular hormonal BC pills is to prevent ovulation, the massive dose would obviously also have that effect, but that's not why it is used. It is used "just in case" a woman might have been impregnated during a rape or possible failure of "regular" BC methods... Its sole purpose is to kill any child that might inadvertently have been conceived in a specific instance of unprotected sex. That doesn't mean it doesn't have other effects, it just isn't taken for those other effects.
I would never lie to you, BM. I can be wrong, but I would never intentionally mislead you or misrepresent the facts regarding any issue.

reply from: CP

That is not fair, BM, and I do not believe you think it is true. Please don't take any of this personally. I am an honest man, and I will honestly admit I would value the life of one of my children over that of a newly conceived grandchild. If one had to die so that the other might live, I will honestly admit I would choose for my daughter to live.
I could not condone her unnecessarily killing my grandchild in order to make herself feel better, however, and obviously, there would be no way to be sure it would anyway. It would not erase the pain of the assault. It would not change the fact that she had been violated...It could even make things worse for her.

reply from: CP

The MAP is not intended as "regular" birth control. It is basically just a massive dose. Since the primary function of regular hormonal BC pills is to prevent ovulation, the massive dose would obviously also have that effect, but that's not why it is used. It is used "just in case" a woman might have been impregnated during a rape or possible failure of "regular" BC methods... Its sole purpose is to kill any child that might inadvertently have been conceived in a specific instance of unprotected sex. That doesn't mean it doesn't have other effects, it just isn't taken for those other effects.
I would never lie to you, BM. I can be wrong, but I would never intentionally mislead you or misrepresent the facts regarding any issue.
OK, I read up on it, and this was a valid point from BM. I was thinking the sperm remained viable for 24 hours like the egg, but apparently the sperm can remain viable for up to 5 days, so I was wrong about taking the MAP not having a legitimate purpose in preventing conception by stopping ovulation.
That doesn't change the fact that any child conceived in the first 24 hours (or longer, depending on when she takes the pill) would die due to failure to implant, however, and it would be too late to stop ovulation in the case of ovulation that occurred before taking the pill.
Does anyone know how long it takes for the pill to start preventing ovulation? That would be a relevant factor, it would seem.

reply from: CP

I think it's safe to say that the primary function is to prevent implantation, and the chances of that are pretty good too, it would seem, so it's not like taking the regular BC pill in my view. You take the MAP when you're not using regular BC and are therefore ovulating normally.
Regular BC pills are taken with the intention of preventing ovulation, which is the primary function, but I think there must be an intent to kill a human being with the MAP (uless you just don't understand its primary purpose and function...).

reply from: BossMomma

The MAP is not intended as "regular" birth control. It is basically just a massive dose. Since the primary function of regular hormonal BC pills is to prevent ovulation, the massive dose would obviously also have that effect, but that's not why it is used. It is used "just in case" a woman might have been impregnated during a rape or possible failure of "regular" BC methods... Its sole purpose is to kill any child that might inadvertently have been conceived in a specific instance of unprotected sex. That doesn't mean it doesn't have other effects, it just isn't taken for those other effects.
I would never lie to you, BM. I can be wrong, but I would never intentionally mislead you or misrepresent the facts regarding any issue.
OK, I read up on it, and this was a valid point from BM. I was thinking the sperm remained viable for 24 hours like the egg, but apparently the sperm can remain viable for up to 5 days, so I was wrong about taking the MAP not having a legitimate purpose in preventing conception by stopping ovulation.
That doesn't change the fact that any child conceived in the first 24 hours (or longer, depending on when she takes the pill) would die due to failure to implant, however, and it would be too late to stop ovulation in the case of ovulation that occurred before taking the pill.
Does anyone know how long it takes for the pill to start preventing ovulation? That would be a relevant factor, it would seem.
It's hard to say how long it takes as women ovulate at different times, plus sperm have varying motility rates. Most medications take between 6 and 8 hours to enter the blood stream and begin working and it takes at least 24 hours for conception to take place.

reply from: BossMomma

It's primary function is to prevent pregnancy and in only some instances does it cause failure to implant.

reply from: BossMomma

That is not fair, BM, and I do not believe you think it is true. Please don't take any of this personally. I am an honest man, and I will honestly admit I would value the life of one of my children over that of a newly conceived grandchild. If one had to die so that the other might live, I will honestly admit I would choose for my daughter to live.
I could not condone her unnecessarily killing my grandchild in order to make herself feel better, however, and obviously, there would be no way to be sure it would anyway. It would not erase the pain of the assault. It would not change the fact that she had been violated...It could even make things worse for her.
Whether it would or would not should be entirely up to her. In an abortion, one knows they are killing a child. With the MAP they are preventing the pregnancy all together. Nothing can erase the pain of the assault, but the MAP can give assurence that she can go on with her life and heal without being thrust into parenthood.

reply from: CP

The article I quoted on the other thread said 12-24 hrs.

reply from: BossMomma

I posted before I read your quote.

reply from: CP

http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html
">http://www.morningafterpill.or...es-it-work.html

reply from: CP

But not necessarily conception....And life begins at conception, not pregnancy/implantation.Preventing implantation kills the child just as surely as if it had been aborted after implantation...

reply from: CP

Whether it would make her feel better to kill her child? She can't know whether it would or not, and even if it would, does that justify it?

reply from: BossMomma

http://www.morningafterpill.or...es-it-work.html
http://www.morningafterpill.or...html
Lets try using an unbiased site?
Emergency Contraception
You can prevent pregnancy after intercourse by taking Emergency Contraceptive pill (also known as the Morning After Pill or EC). The most common is brand name "Plan B One Step."
Plan B, the one-step Emergency Contraception (EC) Pill, works by giving the body a short, high, burst of synthetic hormones. This disrupts hormone patterns needed for pregnancy. Plan B affects the ovaries and the development of the uterine lining, making pregnancy less likely. Depending upon where the woman is in her menstrual cycle, the hormones prevent pregnancy in different ways. It prevents ovulation (the egg leaving the ovary and moving into the fallopian tube). It blocks the hormones needed for the egg to be able to be fertilized. It may affect the lining of the uterus and alters sperm transport which prevents sperm from meeting the egg and fertilizing it.

EC may be effective up to 120 hours (5 days) after intercourse. But, it is most effective within the first 24 hours. Emergency Contraception reduces the risk of pregnancy by 75 - 89%. EC does not protect against reproductive tract infections, including HIV/AIDS.
http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/ecinfo.htm

reply from: BossMomma

Whether it would make her feel better to kill her child? She can't know whether it would or not, and even if it would, does that justify it?
At the time the MAP is used, there is no way of knowing whether or not the MAP has prevented anything. Furthermore the MAP is only 86% effective meaning that even it has a failure rate and it does not cause birth defects. I would not equate the loss of a zygote to the loss of a child, women lose zygotes everyday and no one is the wiser. When a woman loses a child, she knows it and her life is severely impacted. I would know.

reply from: CP

The site I quoted included a link to their source. It was included in my quote. It is the link within the original quote. I already pointed out the fact that the PP site makes no distinction between preventing implantation and preventing conception, referring to both together as "preventing pregnancy." I won't call "bias," but I've shown misrepresentation at your source. Show why the info I provided is not credible in your view....

reply from: BossMomma

The site I quoted included a link to their source. It was included in my quote. It is the link within the original quote. I already pointed out the fact that the PP site makes no distinction between preventing implantation and preventing conception, referring to both together as "preventing pregnancy." I won't call "bias," but I've shown misrepresentation at your source. Show why the info I provided is not credible in your view....
I don't trust pro-life sites because of their tendancy to dramatise and skew facts. I prefer unbiased medical research that is neither one way or the other.

reply from: CP

Then in what way do you actually differ from those who do not "equate" the loss of a fetus or embryo with the loss of a child? They are all unborn human beings, right? Do you differ only in where you draw the line, at what level of development you believe your offspring can justifiably be killed?

reply from: CP

The site I quoted included a link to their source. It was included in my quote. It is the link within the original quote. I already pointed out the fact that the PP site makes no distinction between preventing implantation and preventing conception, referring to both together as "preventing pregnancy." I won't call "bias," but I've shown misrepresentation at your source. Show why the info I provided is not credible in your view....
I don't trust pro-life sites because of their tendancy to dramatise and skew facts. I prefer unbiased medical research that is neither one way or the other.
I have shown you how the PP site misrepresents the facts. Show me why my source is not credible in your view....

reply from: CP

You know I don't accept everything I read on prolife sites, don't you? I believe the info I provided to be credible, and the prolife site I quoted gave their source. It was included in my quote. I have shown that your source is not credible, and why, not simply cried "biased." Show my source the same courtesy, please. Show me a valid reason not to trust the info from my source....

reply from: CP

http://www.drugs.com/cdi/levonorgestrel.html

I can't find a single source (other than prolife sites) that even mentions the significance of preventing implantation (it kills a human being). They all talk about "preventing pregnancy" by killing the unborn human being before implantation, but they all neglect to mention that it involves the ending of a human life....

reply from: BossMomma

The site I quoted included a link to their source. It was included in my quote. It is the link within the original quote. I already pointed out the fact that the PP site makes no distinction between preventing implantation and preventing conception, referring to both together as "preventing pregnancy." I won't call "bias," but I've shown misrepresentation at your source. Show why the info I provided is not credible in your view....
I don't trust pro-life sites because of their tendancy to dramatise and skew facts. I prefer unbiased medical research that is neither one way or the other.
I have shown you how the PP site misrepresents the facts. Show me why my source is not credible in your view....
Because every other medical site shows the same information. Pro-life sites enphasize opinions in an attempt to guilt people into buying into their ideals. Med. sites just tell it like it is.

reply from: BossMomma

Then in what way do you actually differ from those who do not "equate" the loss of a fetus or embryo with the loss of a child? They are all unborn human beings, right? Do you differ only in where you draw the line, at what level of development you believe your offspring can justifiably be killed?
Before there is implantation and pregnancy is established the zygote is only a potential. It could take and grow, it could get flushed out because of whatever reason. My point is it is something that is discarded every day, every hour, every minute and no one sheds a tear. No pro-lifer is holding an IAAP sign over a discarded sanitary napkin for fear it is the final resting place of a zygote. A victim of rape should have the right to at least keep herself from becoming pregnant by her assailant and the MAP is a method that I fully support and will continue to support it reguardless of whether you place a fertilized egg over a woman.
The difference between using the MAP and having an abortion is that using the MAP prevents a child from becoming, it prevents a woman from getting pregnant and having to make the choice as to whether she will take her child who has a beating heart, an established life to the abortion clinic to intentionally kill it. With the MAP there is no intention of killing anything, the intention is not to get pregnant to begin with.

reply from: BossMomma

http://www.drugs.com/cdi/levonorgestrel.html
">http://www.drugs.com/cdi/levonorgestrel.html
I can't find a single source (other than prolife sites) that even mentions the significance of preventing implantation (it kills a human being). They all talk about "preventing pregnancy" by killing the unborn human being before implantation, but they all neglect to mention that it involves the ending of a human life....
Many things end the life of a human being without intent yet we support the freedom to use them. Smoking, drinking, high cholesterol diets yet we don't see pro-lifers lined up outside of liquor stores, tobacco barns or, McD's yelling at women who could be killing their unborn children with clouds of toxic smoke, with wave after wave of booze, cramming themselves with lard (as spin always said, obesity is one of the chief causes of failure to implant) so why do we go after rape victims who only want return their lives to some sembalance of normalcy? Priorities effed up much?

reply from: CP

The prolife sites call attention to a glaring omission on all the other sites, that being the fact that preventing implantation ends the life of an innocent human being. That is not an "opinion," BM, but objective scientific reality.
A potential what, BM? A potential fetus or embryo? It is a living human being from conception! I am not overly "dramatizing" this fact. I'm just telling you what all the "medical" sites, for whatever reason, ignore and/or downplay! This is a scientific fact, and one that any woman who considers using the MAP deserves to be aware of (in my humble opinion)!
Yes, natural deaths occur every day, and that is a part of life. Many human beings die every day, naturally, as a result of natural failure to implant in the uterus. Many human beings also live long enough to become adults, then die natural deaths. Many of these have no one mourning their passing, just as no one would have mourned their passing if they had died in the womb as a result of failure to implant.
Does the issue of whether anyone would mourn your passing (or even be aware that you had lived and died) have any bearing whatsoever on whether it is morally acceptable to intentionally cause your death?
And if you intend to argue that the intention in using the MAP is not to kill, but to "end pregnancy," I will be compelled to reemphasize the fact that killing is one of the primary means by which pregnancy is avoided by using the MAP. We know that if conception has not yet occurred by 12-24 hours after taking the MAP, it can prevent conception, but we also know that if conception has occurred before then, the function of the MAP is to kill the unborn human being be preventing 9it from implanting in the uterus. Any such death would certainly have been intentionally caused by taking the pill!
To say that your intention was not to kill your offspring, but only to "prevent pregnancy," with full knowledge that pregnancy is "prevented" by killing your offspring, is disingenuous at the least.
It is one thing to allow people to exercise their liberty in a way that puts their own health and lives at risk, but quite another to allow them to be cavalier about risking the lives of innocent others! Do you honestly make no distinction between the two?
And for the record, I am not "going after" rape victims. Simply put, my concern for the rape victims just doesn't cancel out my concern for the unborn children they might, in turn, themselves "victimize" by using the MAP. I refuse to accept the contention that their status as victims somehow justifies the "victimizing" of their innocent unborn offspring....

reply from: BossMomma

Whether it would make her feel better to kill her child? She can't know whether it would or not, and even if it would, does that justify it?
You go through a rape and then the possibility of a pregnancy and then ask yourself if you wouldn't take steps to avoid it. It's easy to say no that's wrong when you will never face that situation. And I believe that the MAP prevents a potential child, until pregnancy has been established it's all a big maybe. Until implantation it's not even a miscarriage.

reply from: B0zo

Whether it would make her feel better to kill her child? She can't know whether it would or not, and even if it would, does that justify it?
You go through a rape and then the possibility of a pregnancy and then ask yourself if you wouldn't take steps to avoid it. It's easy to say no that's wrong when you will never face that situation. And I believe that the MAP prevents a potential child, until pregnancy has been established it's all a big maybe. Until implantation it's not even a miscarriage.
Does a human person begin at conception or at implantation? (or at some other time)

reply from: BossMomma

The prolife sites call attention to a glaring omission on all the other sites, that being the fact that preventing implantation ends the life of an innocent human being. That is not an "opinion," BM, but objective scientific reality.
A potential what, BM? A potential fetus or embryo? It is a living human being from conception! I am not overly "dramatizing" this fact. I'm just telling you what all the "medical" sites, for whatever reason, ignore and/or downplay! This is a scientific fact, and one that any woman who considers using the MAP deserves to be aware of (in my humble opinion)!
Yes, natural deaths occur every day, and that is a part of life. Many human beings die every day, naturally, as a result of natural failure to implant in the uterus. Many human beings also live long enough to become adults, then die natural deaths. Many of these have no one mourning their passing, just as no one would have mourned their passing if they had died in the womb as a result of failure to implant.
Does the issue of whether anyone would mourn your passing (or even be aware that you had lived and died) have any bearing whatsoever on whether it is morally acceptable to intentionally cause your death?
And if you intend to argue that the intention in using the MAP is not to kill, but to "end pregnancy," I will be compelled to reemphasize the fact that killing is one of the primary means by which pregnancy is avoided by using the MAP. We know that if conception has not yet occurred by 12-24 hours after taking the MAP, it can prevent conception, but we also know that if conception has occurred before then, the function of the MAP is to kill the unborn human being be preventing 9it from implanting in the uterus. Any such death would certainly have been intentionally caused by taking the pill!
To say that your intention was not to kill your offspring, but only to "prevent pregnancy," with full knowledge that pregnancy is "prevented" by killing your offspring, is disingenuous at the least.
It is one thing to allow people to exercise their liberty in a way that puts their own health and lives at risk, but quite another to allow them to be cavalier about risking the lives of innocent others! Do you honestly make no distinction between the two?
And for the record, I am not "going after" rape victims. Simply put, my concern for the rape victims just doesn't cancel out my concern for the unborn children they might, in turn, themselves "victimize" by using the MAP. I refuse to accept the contention that their status as victims somehow justifies the "victimizing" of their innocent unborn offspring....
Do you think pregnant women don't smoke, drink and heap on pounds of possible miscarriage causing fat? These women are exercising their rights and you have said nothing against it. These acts put fetal lives at risk and I haven't seen a post here condemning it. All I'm asking for is consistancy. And I'm telling you you can't have it all. You can't say no abortion and then in the same breath say you can't prevent the pregnancy either. Not everyone is going to be on the pill just incase rape should occur and the guy isn't considerate enough to use a condom.

reply from: BossMomma

Whether it would make her feel better to kill her child? She can't know whether it would or not, and even if it would, does that justify it?
You go through a rape and then the possibility of a pregnancy and then ask yourself if you wouldn't take steps to avoid it. It's easy to say no that's wrong when you will never face that situation. And I believe that the MAP prevents a potential child, until pregnancy has been established it's all a big maybe. Until implantation it's not even a miscarriage.
Does a human person begin at conception or at implantation? (or at some other time)
A human person is established at birth, a human being is established at implantation, life may begin at conception but it's all a big maybe until it implants and grows.

reply from: CP

I've never heard of a woman rushing out to get a quarter pounder or a pack of smokes because she had unprotected sex or was raped and doesn't want to have a baby on account of it. The MAP, on the other hand is intentionally taken for the purpose of "preventing pregnancy," including by killing any child that might already have been conceived. The difference here is intent.
Tomorrow is not guaranteed to any of us, BM. It's all "a big maybe." What if you knew for certain that a human being only had hours left to live? Would it be OK to kill them? If not, then how can you say that a mere possibility (or even probability, for that matter) that a human being will die soon anyway has anything at all to do with justifying killing them?

reply from: B0zo

So because of the "mabye" aspect of a zygote, it's ok to kill it on purpose?
You are fine with abortifacients as "contraception"?

reply from: BossMomma

I've never heard of a woman rushing out to get a quarter pounder or a pack of smokes because she had unprotected sex or was raped and doesn't want to have a baby on account of it. The MAP, on the other hand is intentionally taken for the purpose of "preventing pregnancy," including by killing any child that might already have been conceived. The difference here is intent.
Tomorrow is not guaranteed to any of us, BM. It's all "a big maybe." What if you knew for certain that a human being only had hours left to live? Would it be OK to kill them? If not, then how can you say that a mere possibility (or even probability, for that matter) that a human being will die soon anyway has anything at all to do with justifying killing them?
Doctors take born human life all the time with court ordered DNR's and court enforced removal of life support. There is also hospice care where people are only made comfortable until death. We choose life or death for each other all the time. In essense, we are all pro-choice. Heck, look at the guy you voted for, quite possibly the biggest planned parenthood supporter next to sanger herself and you want to cry to me about "saving the snowflake babies"?
And I never heard of a rape victim running to get ECP's with the intention of killing a zygote, she is taking it to avoid pregnancy.

reply from: BossMomma

So because of the "mabye" aspect of a zygote, it's ok to kill it on purpose?
You are fine with abortifacients as "contraception"?
The MAP is not an abortifacient. For it to be an abortifacient it has to terminate a pregnancy, if the woman is pregnant the MAP wont work.

reply from: B0zo

So because of the "mabye" aspect of a zygote, it's ok to kill it on purpose?
You are fine with abortifacients as "contraception"?
The MAP is not an abortifacient. For it to be an abortifacient it has to terminate a pregnancy, if the woman is pregnant the MAP wont work.
That wasn't my question.
Is it ever ok to kill a zygote on purpose?

reply from: BossMomma

So because of the "mabye" aspect of a zygote, it's ok to kill it on purpose?
You are fine with abortifacients as "contraception"?
The MAP is not an abortifacient. For it to be an abortifacient it has to terminate a pregnancy, if the woman is pregnant the MAP wont work.
That wasn't my question.
Is it ever ok to kill a zygote on purpose?
Not okay to take this pill thinking " die zygote die!" one might question the sanity of someone killing a one celled critter with malice aforethought. What seems be argued here is the intent of taking the MAP and at the time the MAP is used, there may or may not even be a zygote.

reply from: B0zo

This seems to be the better approach.
With MAP, there is a possibility of destroying a life that has begun.

reply from: CP

When there's a possibility of "recovery" within 7 days? I think if the situation was similar to waiting a week or less to see if it implants successfully, no court would "pull the plug," and in the cases where the plug is pulled, they don't deliberately and directly kill them anyway! They just stop keeping them alive artificially, BM!
And there we have it. You just wrap that lie around yourself like a warm, comforting blanket...It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the primary way it "prevents pregnancy" is by killing your offspring before they can implant in your uterus!
You can pretend it doesn't kill a human being, but just "prevents pregnancy" if you want, but you're only kidding yourself. Killing your offspring before you begin to gestate them is no different in principle from killing them at any other point in their existence, however. They are just as dead whether you wait the 7 days or less for them to implant, when it technically becomes a "pregnancy," or kill them during their first week of life before they can implant in your uterus...

reply from: CP

You just keep hiding behind those semantics....Abortion is killing, but not all killing is abortion. Kill your offspring before pregnancy, during, or after, it all comes out the same....

reply from: BossMomma

When there's a possibility of "recovery" within 7 days? I think if the situation was similar to waiting a week or less to see if it implants successfully, no court would "pull the plug," and in the cases where the plug is pulled, they don't deliberately and directly kill them anyway! They just stop keeping them alive artificially, BM!
And there we have it. You just wrap that lie around yourself like a warm, comforting blanket...It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the primary way it "prevents pregnancy" is by killing your offspring before they can implant in your uterus!
You can pretend it doesn't kill a human being, but just "prevents pregnancy" if you want, but you're only kidding yourself. Killing your offspring before you begin to gestate them is no different in principle from killing them at any other point in their existence, however. They are just as dead whether you wait the 7 days or less for them to implant, when it technically becomes a "pregnancy," or kill them during their first week of life before they can implant in your uterus...
That's a crock of bovine excrement and you know it. The MAP prevents fertilization if taken up to 5 days before ovulation, you have no idea how often it does or does not cause a failure to implant. The MAP is a precautionary measure for rape victims and they have the right to use it, frankly if men would stop forcing themselves upon women this whole argument would be a moot point. We women deserve some sort of protection against the two legged pigs in this world (please note that this statement does not include all men) and the MAP at least frees us from becoming pregnant! If you want to save your beloved snow flake babies then tell your fellow man not to stick his penis in a woman against her will and leave his sperm behind!

reply from: BossMomma

You just keep hiding behind those semantics....Abortion is killing, but not all killing is abortion. Kill your offspring before pregnancy, during, or after, it all comes out the same....
Even you agreed that the MAP is not an abortifacient so quit backpeddling. It's bad enough the woman was raped, but to deny her even that simple assurence that she will not get pregnant is inhumane. I get disgusted everytime I hear a man say, "rape is a tragedy but...(:insert excuse why a fertilized egg is more important: )" Men are the reason the MAP even exists.

reply from: CP

If I fire my pistol into a dark room, knowing that I might kill someone, or that I definitely will if there is anybody in there, am I off the hook because there might not be anyone in the room? If there is, and I kill them, can I say it wasn't intentional because there was a possibility that no one was there? No, I intentionally fired the pistol, with full knowledge that there may be someone in the room, and that if there was, my shot would kill them. It wouldn't matter how I justified my desire to fire the pistol in the first place! I would still be responsible for their death! If I never looked to see, and so never actually knew I had killed someone, they would still be just as dead, it would still be because I intentionally chose to risk their death, and it would still be wrong.

reply from: Elessar

What's worse, these defensive forms of birth control are used precisely because someone might be in the room. Pre-meditated ignorance is not a defense for taking the life of an unborn child.
Also, if the women were sexually active when raped, without a test, how does she know that she is not aborting someone else's child, other than the rapist's?

reply from: CP

What's worse, these defensive forms of birth control are used precisely because someone might be in the room. Pre-meditated ignorance is not a defense for taking the life of an unborn child.
Also, if the women were sexually active when raped, without a test, how does she know that she is not aborting someone else's child, other than the rapist's?
Fantastic points!

reply from: BossMomma

Apples and oranges. A pistol serves one purpose, to fire a lethal projectile at a target. If you fire a bullet in the dark at a room full of people, you are intending to kill someone. The MAP serves a triple purpose and two of which pertain to preventing conception, you are fixated on the one that prevents implantation and you have no idea exactly how often this actually occurs. So, in your judgemental ignorance you would disaprove of the drug based on the mere possibility that a zygote will not survive.

reply from: CP

Maybe I just don't want anyone alive in the room, and firing the pistol keeps them out. Of course, if there does happen to be someone in there, killing them will also serve that purpose...It's OK, though, because there might not be anyone in the room, right?

reply from: BossMomma

So because of the "mabye" aspect of a zygote, it's ok to kill it on purpose?
You are fine with abortifacients as "contraception"?
The MAP is not an abortifacient, you can't abort if there is no pregnancy to begin with.

reply from: CP

So because of the "mabye" aspect of a zygote, it's ok to kill it on purpose?
You are fine with abortifacients as "contraception"?
The MAP is not an abortifacient, you can't abort if there is no pregnancy to begin with.
I'm pretty sure you understand that, while killing a preborn human being prior to implantation is not technically an "abortion," it still violates the same moral precept that force me to oppose killing it during or after pregnancy. A .45 slug to the base of a newborn's skull is also not an "abortifacient."

reply from: B0zo

So because of the "mabye" aspect of a zygote, it's ok to kill it on purpose?
You are fine with abortifacients as "contraception"?
The MAP is not an abortifacient, you can't abort if there is no pregnancy to begin with.
Do you believe it is ok to intentionally kill a zygote?
Any zygot?
All zygotes?
Or just a zygote coceived by rape?

reply from: BossMomma

So because of the "mabye" aspect of a zygote, it's ok to kill it on purpose?
You are fine with abortifacients as "contraception"?
The MAP is not an abortifacient, you can't abort if there is no pregnancy to begin with.
Do you believe it is ok to intentionally kill a zygote?
Any zygot?
All zygotes?
Or just a zygote coceived by rape?
If pregnancy is not desired, I support it's prevention. Draw your conclusions as I'm sure you will. This topic has exhausted it'self and you and your cohorts will not be satisfied until I side with your belief which will never happen.

reply from: Elessar

If a woman is not pregnant before the conceived egg implants, what is the conceived new life to be called? Isn't the very idea of abortion to make sure that a conceived life is never born?

reply from: CP

So, you're OK with a woman killing her offspring to avoid pregnancy? But you're not OK with a woman killing her offspring to end pregnancy, because that would be wrong? Am I to understand that you find it to be morally acceptable for a woman to kill her offspring in order to avoid pregnancy, but you are morally opposed to her prematurely terminating her pregnancy by killing her offspring? This would seem to imply that you are against abortion because it unnaturally ends pregnancy, but have no moral qualms about killing unborn human beings, that the unborn child is not important in your view, only the pregnancy is....

reply from: CP

Or is it just that, while some draw the line at birth, sentience, the first or second trimester, or maybe "viability," YOU draw the line at implantation?

reply from: B0zo

You still haven't answered the question directly.
I'm exhausted by your continual dodging and not giving a direct answer.
You're entitled to your beliefs, but you presented MAP as if it is something that could be embraced by all pro-lifers, and clearly it cannot, since it seems most, or possibly all pro-lifers believe that killing a zygote is morally the same as killing an ebryo or fetus by abortion, and MAP is DESIGNED to not only prevent conception but to KILL ZYGOTES.

reply from: Elessar

Conception is egg meets sperm; new life and new DNA. That's when the unique-ness happens. That's when the unrepeatable event happens. This particular new human life will never happen again. If you prevent it from implanting, you've aborted it. It you remove it 5 minutes after it attaches to the mother, you've aborted it. Abortion is the ending of a human life in the womb any time after the moment of conception, not some specified moment after conception, not some ambiguous "later" and never at some particular moment of development be that sooner or later.

reply from: BossMomma

You prove to me that every emergency contraceptive causes a failure to implant and you may have a point, as of now, you don't. Pregnancy occurs at implantation, when the embryo attaches to the uterus and begins to grow. Until then there is no pregnancy, no child to abort. Conception is but the joining of two cells, nothing in that zygotes future is certain until implantation and it is not fair to hold that potential over a reality, that reality being the woman who does not want to be pregnant.

reply from: CP

You prove to me that every emergency contraceptive causes a failure to implant and you may have a point, as of now, you don't. Pregnancy occurs at implantation, when the embryo attaches to the uterus and begins to grow. Until then there is no pregnancy, no child to abort. Conception is but the joining of two cells, nothing in that zygotes future is certain until implantation and it is not fair to hold that potential over a reality, that reality being the woman who does not want to be pregnant.
You tell'em, BM! And don't tell me it's wrong to shoot at people unless you can prove I hit one every time!

reply from: Elessar

You prove to me that every emergency contraceptive causes a failure to implant and you may have a point, as of now, you don't. Pregnancy occurs at implantation, when the embryo attaches to the uterus and begins to grow. Until then there is no pregnancy, no child to abort. Conception is but the joining of two cells, nothing in that zygotes future is certain until implantation and it is not fair to hold that potential over a reality, that reality being the woman who does not want to be pregnant.
Paint me confused. Are you against the destruction of conceived life or the premature termination of pregnancies? I don't have to prove that "emergency contraceptives" cause a failure to implant with every use, I only have to know that they sometimes do. Human life cannot be collateral damage in some kind of war against rape. If you are taking any measure against the life of the unborn child while inside the body of the mother, that constitutes an abortion. Pre-implantation abortion, post implantation abortion; what is the difference. It sounds to me like you have decided that implantation is the line where you say, "okay, it's not an abortion yet" in the same way abortion advocates choose various post implantation lines that say, "okay, it's not a baby yet". And what if the post rape, pre-implantation measures don't work? Does the woman the woman then have the gree light to abort? Contraception, rape or not, pre-implantation or not, in no instance ever states or implies an agreement that if a woman should conceive, she will not have an abortion.

reply from: B0zo

So life begins at implantation instead of at conception?
BTW, an embryo is also a "potential," or so say those who are pro-abortion.

reply from: BossMomma

You prove to me that every emergency contraceptive causes a failure to implant and you may have a point, as of now, you don't. Pregnancy occurs at implantation, when the embryo attaches to the uterus and begins to grow. Until then there is no pregnancy, no child to abort. Conception is but the joining of two cells, nothing in that zygotes future is certain until implantation and it is not fair to hold that potential over a reality, that reality being the woman who does not want to be pregnant.
Paint me confused. Are you against the destruction of conceived life or the premature termination of pregnancies? I don't have to prove that "emergency contraceptives" cause a failure to implant with every use, I only have to know that they sometimes do. Human life cannot be collateral damage in some kind of war against rape. If you are taking any measure against the life of the unborn child while inside the body of the mother, that constitutes an abortion. Pre-implantation abortion, post implantation abortion; what is the difference. It sounds to me like you have decided that implantation is the line where you say, "okay, it's not an abortion yet" in the same way abortion advocates choose various post implantation lines that say, "okay, it's not a baby yet". And what if the post rape, pre-implantation measures don't work? Does the woman the woman then have the gree light to abort? Contraception, rape or not, pre-implantation or not, in no instance ever states or implies an agreement that if a woman should conceive, she will not have an abortion.
No but the fact that it can prevent abortion is a plus in it's favor. There is no such thing as pre-implantation abortion, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy not the prevention of pregnancy.

reply from: BossMomma

So life begins at implantation instead of at conception?
BTW, an embryo is also a "potential," or so say those who are pro-abortion.
No, an embryo is an established entity with a heart beat that has already attached and begun to develop. A fertilized ovum is alive in the way a skin cell is alive and like a skin cell they are shed every day and go unnoticed.

reply from: Elessar

Correction; abortion is the destruction of a human life in the womb, on the way to the womb, on the way out of the womb.

reply from: Elessar

So life begins at implantation instead of at conception?
BTW, an embryo is also a "potential," or so say those who are pro-abortion.
No, an embryo is an established entity with a heart beat that has already attached and begun to develop. A fertilized ovum is alive in the way a skin cell is alive and like a skin cell they are shed every day and go unnoticed.
So it's not alive until there is a heartbeat? Exactly which abortions don't you oppose?

reply from: CP

So life begins at implantation instead of at conception?
BTW, an embryo is also a "potential," or so say those who are pro-abortion.
No, an embryo is an established entity with a heart beat that has already attached and begun to develop. A fertilized ovum is alive in the way a skin cell is alive and like a skin cell they are shed every day and go unnoticed.
Wow, killing it before implantation in order to avoid killing at after implantation! That's bloody brilliant! That's almost as good as abortion as child abuse prevention!

reply from: BossMomma

No, that's you're opinion and is based solely on religious doctrine, not fact. Abortion is the voluntary or involuntary (miscarriage) ending of a pregnancy. No implantation, no pregnancy. You may now return to your regularly scheduled ignorance.

reply from: BossMomma

So life begins at implantation instead of at conception?
BTW, an embryo is also a "potential," or so say those who are pro-abortion.
No, an embryo is an established entity with a heart beat that has already attached and begun to develop. A fertilized ovum is alive in the way a skin cell is alive and like a skin cell they are shed every day and go unnoticed.
So it's not alive until there is a heartbeat? Exactly which abortions don't you oppose?
I oppose all abortions, the MAP is not an abortifacient therefore I do not violate my pro-life views by supporting it.

reply from: Elessar

After an egg is fertilized, it may be 8-11 days before the unborn life is entirely implanted. What do you call the deliberate killing of that life in the mean time?

reply from: BossMomma

So life begins at implantation instead of at conception?
BTW, an embryo is also a "potential," or so say those who are pro-abortion.
No, an embryo is an established entity with a heart beat that has already attached and begun to develop. A fertilized ovum is alive in the way a skin cell is alive and like a skin cell they are shed every day and go unnoticed.
So it's not alive until there is a heartbeat? Exactly which abortions don't you oppose?
Would you be alive without a heart beat?

reply from: BossMomma

lol, considering that no one knows whether they are 8-11 days pregnant, I'd call it impossible. It can't be deliberate if you don't even know it exists.

reply from: Elessar

lol, considering that no one knows whether they are 8-11 days pregnant, I'd call it impossible. It can't be deliberate if you don't even know it exists.
So if a woman takes measures to kill another human life inside her own body, it's not wrong she doesn't know whether it's not there?
If you set fire to a house with children inside, not knowing they are inside, are you not still responsible if they are killed as a result of the fire?

reply from: BossMomma

lol, considering that no one knows whether they are 8-11 days pregnant, I'd call it impossible. It can't be deliberate if you don't even know it exists.
So if a woman takes measures to kill another human life inside her own body, it's not wrong she doesn't know whether it's not there?
If you set fire to a house with children inside, not knowing they are inside, are you not still responsible if they are killed as a result of the fire?
Nope. If anything the rapist is responsible. He put his sperm in harms way and therefore should have kept it to himself.

reply from: Elessar

You prove to me that every emergency contraceptive causes a failure to implant and you may have a point, as of now, you don't. Pregnancy occurs at implantation, when the embryo attaches to the uterus and begins to grow. Until then there is no pregnancy, no child to abort. Conception is but the joining of two cells, nothing in that zygotes future is certain until implantation and it is not fair to hold that potential over a reality, that reality being the woman who does not want to be pregnant.
Is abortion about ending pregnancies or ending human lives?

reply from: B0zo

Nobody is questioning a means to prevent sperm from meeting egg as you well know. Are you so desperate to make a case you have to be deceitful?
You think zyogotes are expendable. Why not stick to your guns that it's a-ok to kill any zygote at any time for any reason?

reply from: BossMomma

Nobody is questioning a means to prevent sperm from meeting egg as you well know. Are you so desperate to make a case you have to be deceitful?
You think zyogotes are expendable. Why not stick to your guns that it's a-ok to kill any zygote at any time for any reason?
Because no one even knows a zygote exists, if no one knows it exists how can anyone plot to kill it?

reply from: B0zo

Nobody is questioning a means to prevent sperm from meeting egg as you well know. Are you so desperate to make a case you have to be deceitful?
You think zyogotes are expendable. Why not stick to your guns that it's a-ok to kill any zygote at any time for any reason?
Because no one even knows a zygote exists, if no one knows it exists how can anyone plot to kill it?
The plan is to make sure it is killed in the event it does exist.
Most of the time it doesn't. That is not in dispute.
But your comment about sperm being "in harm's way" makes no sense because nobody cares about a rapist's sperm being "harmed."

reply from: Tam

Maybe it's "abortion" and maybe it's not. What difference does it really make what the procedure is called, or whether it even has a name, or whether everyone uses the same terminology? It doesn't matter. And neither does the location. Really, what I think the pro-life movement is all about, to me, is that it is NOT all about location, location, location, the way some would claim. That deliberately taking actions intended to end innocent human life is wrong, REGARDLESS of location. Right?
So, to me, it doesn't matter whether the human life is in the womb or in a cradle, or in the fallopian tubes, or in a test tube, or frozen in some laboratory, or halfway in the womb and halfway out of the womb, and on and on ... I think that to be pro-life means to oppose the taking of human life regardless of age and location, regardless of ability or disability, or gender or race or sexual orientation (if that is indeed at least partly genetic). Just, regardless of ALL of it, that we oppose taking human life.
I cannot imagine why anyone would think that a position that supported taking human life during early development is a pro-life position. Pro-life is the position that there is no line that is drawn on a human being's life, on one side of which it is okay to take his/her life, and one instant later, it is no longer okay. Pro-choice is the position of drawing such a line (and the places and reasons for where the line is drawn are as individual as the people in the pro-choice movement).

reply from: CP

Don't you just love semantics? In this case, I think a lot of people may have been deceived into believing the MAP is just a contraceptive, and semantics has been the tool by which the deception has been carried out. Now, we have a few people who have been shown the truth, yet they seem to prefer the delusion to facing the full implications of what they support.
Technically, I suppose they are still "prilife" as long as they oppose killing unborn children after implantation, even if they condone killing them before, but that is just semantics too. Either you condemn the unnecessary and intentional ending of innocent human life, or you do not. If you think it's OK before birth, the second or third trimester, sentience, or even implantation, then you clearly do not oppose the intentional killing of innocent human beings. The only difference between people who justify killing based on birth, trimester, sentience, implantation, etc. is where they draw the line.

reply from: BossMomma

Nobody is questioning a means to prevent sperm from meeting egg as you well know. Are you so desperate to make a case you have to be deceitful?
You think zyogotes are expendable. Why not stick to your guns that it's a-ok to kill any zygote at any time for any reason?
Because no one even knows a zygote exists, if no one knows it exists how can anyone plot to kill it?
The plan is to make sure it is killed in the event it does exist.
Most of the time it doesn't. That is not in dispute.
But your comment about sperm being "in harm's way" makes no sense because nobody cares about a rapist's sperm being "harmed."
My point is, that if men would keep their sperm to themselves no one would be worried about whether a woman takes measures to keep it from getting her pregnant.

reply from: Elessar

Nobody is questioning a means to prevent sperm from meeting egg as you well know. Are you so desperate to make a case you have to be deceitful?
You think zyogotes are expendable. Why not stick to your guns that it's a-ok to kill any zygote at any time for any reason?
Because no one even knows a zygote exists, if no one knows it exists how can anyone plot to kill it?
The plan is to make sure it is killed in the event it does exist.
Most of the time it doesn't. That is not in dispute.
But your comment about sperm being "in harm's way" makes no sense because nobody cares about a rapist's sperm being "harmed."
My point is, that if men would keep their sperm to themselves no one would be worried about whether a woman takes measures to keep it from getting her pregnant.
Almost 100% of the time men's sperm ends up where it ends up because the woman wants it there. It's the changing of their mind later that creats problems.

reply from: BossMomma

Nobody is questioning a means to prevent sperm from meeting egg as you well know. Are you so desperate to make a case you have to be deceitful?
You think zyogotes are expendable. Why not stick to your guns that it's a-ok to kill any zygote at any time for any reason?
Because no one even knows a zygote exists, if no one knows it exists how can anyone plot to kill it?
The plan is to make sure it is killed in the event it does exist.
Most of the time it doesn't. That is not in dispute.
But your comment about sperm being "in harm's way" makes no sense because nobody cares about a rapist's sperm being "harmed."
My point is, that if men would keep their sperm to themselves no one would be worried about whether a woman takes measures to keep it from getting her pregnant.
Almost 100% of the time men's sperm ends up where it ends up because the woman wants it there. It's the changing of their mind later that creats problems.
So in the case of rape the woman wants to be inseminated? I think this is among your most incompetant statements yet. Bozo really is an apt name for you.

reply from: CP

I don't think anyone is arguing that rape is not an inexcusable violation of a woman's rights, or attempting to downplay the trauma rape victims are subjected to. It is a heinous crime.
I also understand why a woman would not want to birth a child conceived as the result of a sexual assault, and am not unsympathetic to the fact that pregnancy compounds the offense.
In the end, however, her status as a victim, and the suffering she has unfairly been caused simply does not justify her victimizing another innocent human being, even if it is the child of her attacker (who is also her child).

reply from: CP

I hope you are not attempting to imply that most reports of rape are not legitimate! I think I understand what you were trying to say, and I certainly agree that there are cases where they are not, but I think you should have worded your statement more carefully.
If you actually meant it exactly as you wrote it, I wouldn't even know where to begin to address it. There are certainly a large number of women who are victims of sexual assault every day, and there is no way you could ever convince me that any of them could possibly have done anything that would make them culpable in any way, and they definitely did not want to be sexually assaulted!


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