15 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWell duhhh!!
....Show me a mother who wishes she had never given birth and I will show you an unfit parent and borderline sociopath.
If a woman is unprepared for the reality that her uninformed/irresponsible/uneducated sexual activity might result in her being responsible for a child for at least the next 18 years, when she herself has barely ceased being a chid herself, and the 'father' of that unborn child in all probability would have had no intention of that sexual act being the first step in welcoming a new life onto this planet and you would think that forcing these unfit half children into taking on a responsibility that neither have entertained nor welcomed as being anything other than a borderline sociopathic sentiment itself????
16 Oct 09
3 edits
Originally posted by kmax87For your information, if you take a look at history you will see that women traditionally had children before the age of 20. However, in modern times this is not the case. No, in modern times we coddle our children and turn them into narsassistic basket cases so that they are ill prepared to face such issues. Modern society advocates dating, which amounts to sleeping around), until they a about 40 or so at then at the last minute try to find someone to marry so they can have a kid. After all, who wants to be tied down to a comitted relationship until they absolutely have to do so?
Well duhhh!!
If a woman is unprepared for the responsibility that her uninformed/irresponsible/uneducated sexual activity might result in her being responsible for a child for at least the next 18 years, when she herself has barely ceased being a chid herself, and the 'father' of that unborn child in all probability would have had no intention of that sexu ...[text shortened]... tained nor welcomed as being anything other than a borderline sociopathic sentiment itself????
It all reminds me of a woman I heard of who lived in Manhattan. SHe was living with some guy and thought it would be "neat" to have a kid with him. However, much to her surprise she was carrying twins. She then had one selectively aborted so that she could mantain her lifestyle and not be forced to move to Jersey. Of course, I can understand this. After all, living in Jersey is nothing short of torture. Oh the inhumanity!!
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by whodeyWell, all I can say is that I respect your opinion and I can see that it is sincerely held, though I may disagree.
So you are comparing having a child to torture? Show me a mother who wishes she had never given birth and I will show you an unfit parent and borderline sociopath. Most do NOT regret their decision, but many do such as the woman who won the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Although the feelings of the parents are important, the issue is whether they have the right ...[text shortened]... we have no recolection of that time, so what they hey, they must not suffer so why not kill it?
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyFor your information mr fyi, what part of history, where the church was an integral part of society's values and morays, and there was an economic imperative to raise large families because of high infant mortality rates and unreliable contraception dont you get?
For your information, if you take a look at history you will see that women traditionally had children before the age of 20. However, in modern times this is not the case. No, in modern times we coddle our children and turn them into narsassistic basket cases so that they are ill prepared to face such issues.
What part of history where woman were in a secondary sub serviant role, where economic disparity placed them totally at the whim of a patriarchal society dont you get?
What part of history where the interests of the young were not molded by mindless persuits that amplified self indulgent fantasy and where they were not being constantly pandered to and sexualised by the system that their parents are economic slaves to, dont you get?
What part of history where the influence of the parents was totally undermined by the sheer lack of physical time that they got to share with their offspring as opposed to the modern television raised WALMART dependent latchkey kids, dont you get?
And yet somehow, this lack of preparedness in the minds of the young of today should make us even more concerted in our efforts to ensure that they are lumbered with a guilt burden to perpetrate an even bigger crime of neglect and parental irresponsibility than they were subjected to?
So that you can sleep at night with a clear conscience right?
edit: and so that my tone does not offend, let me reiterate mr shush. I respectfully acknowledge your philosophy on the sanctity of life and while I do see the problems faced when abortion becomes a poor substitute for resposnible action, I do believe that there is a greater resposnibility not to refuse to engage with the problem of unwanted/unprepared preganancy by saying they should have known better, this will teach them. What the taking on of parental responsibility does for a person reluctant to take on that role is much more likely to produce a lifetime of misery in the unwanted child, with the high probability that they will end u being uncritical immature adults themselves one day perfectly capable of repeating the same depressing cycle of disinterest and ignorance that allowed them into this world.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by kmax87The issue is whether or not the unborn is human. Considering that, I don't know what this has to do with the price of tea in China.
For your information mr fyi, what part of history, where the church was an integral part of society's values and morays, and there was an economic imperative to raise large families because of high infant mortality rates and unreliable contraception dont you get?
What part of history where woman were in a secondary sub serviant role, where economic dispar ...[text shortened]... y than they were subjected to?
So that you can sleep at night with a clear conscience right?
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by whodeyIs the fertilised ovum that is denied the opportunity to maintain its attachment to the ovarian wall and develop into a new born due to the presence of inappropriate levels of eostrogen and progesteron imposed by oral contraception medication, also not human?
The issue is whether or not the unborn is human. Considering that, I don't know what this has to do with the price of tea in China.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by kmax87Is it just me but why is it when anyone raises this point, does the debate go quiet?
Is the fertilised ovum that is denied the opportunity to maintain its attachment to the ovarian wall and develop into a new born due to the presence of inappropriate levels of eostrogen and progesteron imposed by oral contraception medication, also not human?
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Well, I don't say anything because I agree that it is an inconsistency in many pro-lifer's thinking.
Is it just me but why is it when anyone raises this point, does the debate go quiet?
Edit: On the other hand, a lot of pro-lifers are against emergency contraception.
16 Oct 09
5 edits
Originally posted by telerionAnd this is the very crux of the matter! Contraception does not prevent fertilization from happening, it simply provides a hormonal environment that is not condusive for that embryonic life-form to flourish.
Well, I don't say anything because I agree that it is an inconsistency in many pro-lifer's thinking.
Edit: On the other hand, a lot of pro-lifers are against emergency contraception.
So on the one hand a woman who takes the pill avoids pregnancy simply by not allowing her womb to be receptive to that embryo being permanently attached. Because of hormonal levels mimicking the usual rise and fall of a typical unfertilized cycle (the pills influence) menstruation occurs as the uterine lining (which builds up every cycle for the very possibility that an embryo be present) collapses and takes all hope of that embryo developing any further than the 10-14 days that fertilization may have given it from conception to the start of the menstruation cycle. Noone seems to have a problem with this.
But just let a woman forget to take her pills regularly, or not being a regular pill taker ask to have a morning after pill because her lifestyle and irregular sexual activity does not warrant her taking contraception on an ongoing basis, and suddenly she becomes all manner of evil and an unstable sociopath to boot.
If someone can describe to me the actual difference the fertilsed egg would experience, if it were conceived into a womb of a woman who took her contraception regularly compared to that same woman who at a different stage in her life when she was not reguarly taking contraception, took a morning after pill after a night before, I would really like to know how this changes things to this embryonic life-form's viability.
In both instances the woman would have exercised her choice against allowing life to flourish in her womb, and in both instances life was terminated by not allowing her natural hormonal response to offer life -support to the presence of that fertilised egg in her womb.
I'm sorry to belabour the point but listening to the pro-life debate, its never clear if some of the more staunch anti-abortionists among the pro-life lobby have ever really thought through all the ramifications and inconsistencies of their moral position.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by kmax87It's my understanding that a woman does not ovulate at all while on a standard pill regimen.
And this is the very crux of the matter! Contraception does not prevent fertilization from happening, it simply provides a hormonal environment that is not condusive for that embryonic life-form to flourish.
So on the one hand a woman who takes the pill avoids pregnancy simply by not allowing her womb to be receptive to that embryo being permanently attach ...[text shortened]... pro-life lobby have ever really thought through all the ramifications of their moral position.
Here's Planned Parenthood on the issue:
"How Do Birth Control Pills Work?
It's pretty common for people to be confused about how birth control pills work. Here’s what it boils down to: birth control pills are made of hormones. Hormones are chemicals made in our bodies. They control how different parts of our bodies work.
Some birth control pills contain two hormones — estrogen and progestin. These are called combination pills. Some are progestin-only pills. Most women on the pill take combination pills.
The hormones in the pill work by keeping a woman’s ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman’s cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.
Some people say that the pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens.
You might have also heard that the morning after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion."
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm
They say pretty much the same thing for the morning after pill.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by kmax87I definitely agree with your last sentence whole-heartedly.
And this is the very crux of the matter! Contraception does not prevent fertilization from happening, it simply provides a hormonal environment that is not condusive for that embryonic life-form to flourish.
So on the one hand a woman who takes the pill avoids pregnancy simply by not allowing her womb to be receptive to that embryo being permanently attach ...[text shortened]... pro-life lobby have ever really thought through all the ramifications of their moral position.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by telerionI used to think the first position was correct and then After some research I took the view that the second opinion which they are not discounting as being the case.
It's my understanding that a woman does not ovulate at all while on a standard pill regimen. .......
Some people say that the pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens.....
They say pretty much the same thing for the morning after pill.
I've always thought that the morning after pill aborted a viable foetus, but given that the time it could take for an unfertilised egg to encounter a fast swimming sperm as it descended the fallopian tubes on the way to the ovary being up to a couple of days, I suppose the mechanism that the first description of how the pill works could then conceivably be true also for the morning after method.
Regardless of all this,(and I think the former position is taken because it upsets the feathers of fewer constituencies) the basic tenet of the argument is the right to life.
If it is inalienable then who are we to even barrier it either chemically or prophylactically, if by doing so we prevent the possibility of life being formed.
That contraception prevents the 'will of God' being made manifest in the monthly cycle of women has been a game altering development even as to what the right to life means. It is no longer a natural right, because women everywhere are making choices that suit themselves, and not the dictates of any other particular group.
Yet the Pro-Lifers insist that for women who are not able to make responsible deciscions regarding the consequences of their sexual activity, these women should not be allowed the advances of modern medical and pharmeceutical knowledge to make a choice post facto as to whether life should be the result of sperm entering their fertile wombs.
It seems an odd position to take.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by telerionMy wife is a registered nurse. She assures me that the pills that cause no ovulation to take place are also the same that allow women to stop menstruating altogether,
It's my understanding that a woman does not ovulate at all while on a standard pill regimen.
However many women get anxious at that thought of losing their period altogether because how would they know if the pill stopped working and they had inadvertantly fallen pregnant? By the time they found out it would be way too late. For these women, a pill that still allows them to menstruate regularly is the only peace of mind option. The point is that if you take a formulation that prevents the eggs from being released it can cause complications when the woman/couple do want to have children. With this in mind newer formulations with lower levels of homorne suppliment still allow the egg cycle to go on unhindered, and work on the detachment of the uterine lining as the ultimate mechanism of contraception. Thats what she told me, and some of the googling I have done in the past seems to support this. But I could be wrong.