Originally posted by kmax87Your wife is most likely right, but like whodey says, these women obviously deserve to be punished for not trusting their pill. 😛
My 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,
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 ti ...[text shortened]... e, and some of the googling I have done in the past seems to support this. But I could be wrong.
Edit: I guess we just have to wait to hear a response from a pro-lifer. Should women (let's assume their married) not take birth control because of a chance that a fertilized egg might not attach and thus be naturally aborted?
Originally posted by kmax87Why I say this is odd, because it basically argues that you can only choose over the right to life if you take preventitive strategies.
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.
Now at the risk of constructing straw men, how would that go down with people if the same logic was applied to medical access in other situations
For arguments sake, if you were diagnosed as having a heart condition and are told to take pills xy and z and significantly modify your lifestyle, and you choose not to, at the point of having a heart attack, as a result of continuing in your ignorant ways, should you be denied life-saving emergency treatment?
Originally posted by telerionI wouldnt hold my breath if I were you. The sound of absoute silence at this part of the debate with pro-lifers, is usually quite deafening.😲😛😴🙄😀
Edit: I guess we just have to wait to hear a response from a pro-lifer. Should women (let's assume their married) not take birth control because of a chance that a fertilized egg might not attach and thus be naturally aborted?
Originally posted by whodeySo does English law.
Yes but when immediately born the infant is still attached via the placenta. Therefore, I think it perfectly reasonable to be able to snuff them out before the woman passes the placenta. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is why God designed it to happen in this way. It is one last chance to kill them before they wreck our lives.
It's called infantizide.
Don't worry about it.
Originally posted by kmax87Again, this arguement has nothing to do with the notion of a pregnancy being a human life. So whatever causes that life to be aborted is the issue. Now I suppose we will move on to another non sequiter like back alley abortions occuring if we don't legalize abortions.
I wouldnt hold my breath if I were you. The sound of absoute silence at this part of the debate with pro-lifers, is usually quite deafening.😲😛😴🙄😀
Of course, if you are Catholic this arguement would disappear altogether, no?
Originally posted by shavixmirI knew a nurse once who worked around abortions. She said that nonviable infants would be aborted and at times left lying around to die. Being able to visualize them actively dying, she said she had to quit and changed her mind altogether about abortions.
So does English law.
It's called infantizide.
Don't worry about it.
Originally posted by whodeyShould married couples abstain from the birth control pill if there is a risk that it will cause a fertilized egg to be naturally aborted rather than attaching to the uterine wall and developing further?
Again, this arguement has nothing to do with the notion of a pregnancy being a human life. So whatever causes that life to be aborted is the issue. Now I suppose we will move on to another non sequiter like back alley abortions occuring if we don't legalize abortions.
Of course, if you are Catholic this arguement would disappear altogether, no?
Originally posted by whodeyYou have yet to respond to this I posted earlier:-
Again, this arguement has nothing to do with the notion of a pregnancy being a human life. So whatever causes that life to be aborted is the issue.
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?
.
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.
Originally posted by whodeyYour general lack of wanting to engage with the particulars of how contraception works, which in many cases does not prevent fertilization taking place, sorts of leaves us without many options other than to find some other tangential strand to this debate that can maintain some interest beyond your silence.
Now I suppose we will move on to another non sequiter like back alley abortions occuring if we don't legalize abortions.
Although the move failed in Colorado, where the ballot initiative didn't come close to success (73% of people voted against the proposal), the anti-choice brigade are now shifting their sights to Florida, where they are actually trying to ban the use of the contraceptive pill.
A word bandied about these forums quite regularly is 'disingenuous', but seldom has it seemed so apt as in this case: in a delightful semantic twist, the anti-choicers have changed the laguage used from 'fertilised egg' to 'from the beginning of biological development'. Suppressing ovulation then becomes isomorphic with 'abortion'.
Now, although I am entirely and without reservation pro-choice (and hence probably biased in any reasonable discussion), I wonder how some of the anti-choice people here - with whom, it has to be said, I have a great deal of moral sympathy and see exactly where they are coming from, even as I disagree - are entirely happy with their fellow-travellers attitudes on this issue. It would appear there exists a hard-core sub-group of the anti-choice movement that is hostile to contraception in general and to female-controlled contraception in particular, and that - despite their protestations to the contrary - these people are not only interested in saving foetal life. There is an undercurrent of misogyny here that at the very least plays in to the hands of the pro-choice movement.
(And sh76, I have to applaud both your honesty and your courage on opeing up this debate the way you did. Not only or even mainly because I am pro-choice, but because it is refreshing on these boards to have someone acknowledge doubt on an issue and to admit that their position may have changed. Any more with any more like this?)
Originally posted by DrKFThank you.
(And sh76, I have to applaud both your honesty and your courage on opeing up this debate the way you did. Not only or even mainly because I am pro-choice, but because it is refreshing on these boards to have someone acknowledge doubt on an issue and to admit that their position may have changed. Any more with any more like this?)
Originally posted by telerionAll I meant was that there are a lot of waiting families who are willing to go to great lengths to adopt a child. If financial burden is the reason a mother is considering abortion, adoption is an option that, rather than ending a life, provides that life with a family willing and eager to care for it.
[b]I'm sure I could find somebody to adopt your kid in less than an hour.
I don't think SG's offer sounds as attractive as he may have intended.[/b]