Blogger inaccurately claims Time inaccurately claims emergency contraception induces abortion
Yesterday, blogger Sex in the Public Square complained about this quote in a March 30 Time magazine article about the abortion industry’s marketing advances in Latin America:
… Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, a socialist, late last year sanctioned the free distribution of abortion-inducing “morning-after” contraception pills at government-run hospitals.
Groused SitPS:
This is a major problem. Not only is it inaccurate, but to describe emergency contraception as an abortion-inducing pill is to greatly reduce its chances of acceptance by people who oppose abortion, and increase the stigma attached to its use.
I, too, am shocked Time used the a-word to explain how the morning-after pills works, certainly due to a momentary lapse of honesty.
And SitPS is right that if women knew hormonal contraception caused abortions, many would reject it. But SitPS is wrong to purport it does not. I’ll cut her slack, though. She is likely ignorant through no fault of her own but because her liberal mentors seek to keep all women barefoot and barren on that point….
Here is how the Plan B morning-after pill website says Plan B works:
Plan B works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb).
What is “it”? An embryo. Embryos are a minimum of five days old and maximum of nine days old when they implant in the uterus. So the morning after pill may cause the abortion of an approximately week-old preborn human.
This is information women including SitPS should know, but the contraception/abortion industry purposefully keeps it from them by using ambiguous or misleading language.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Wow, I am impressed that a magazine like Time would have actually been so honest as to use the word abortion to describe how the Plan B pill works!
Bethany,
I sent you an e-mail…let me know what you think.
Samantha,
Medjugorje…
On June 24, 1981, six children in the mountain village of Medjugorje in central Yugoslavia reported that the Virgin Mary had appeared to them on a hillside. Allegedly she has been returning every day since
The morning after pill does NOT cause abortions. Medically, pregnancy does not begin until the embryo has been implanted. You cannot abort a pregnancy if a pregnancy has not yet begun!
It is fine if you are personally opposed to the morning after pill, however, it is not okay to allow medically inacurate information to be printed in magazines like Time magazine.
I was watching the news about 2 months ago. A pro-life pharmacist got into some hot water because he refused to dispense this pill. Why should he be in trouble? It was HIS CHOICE not to do so! My friend is an RN.She was asked to assist in an abortion procedure.She was a student at the time.She flat out refused. She told the school to go ahead and flunk her if they so chose.They didn’t.Lots of students refused to participate.Choice works both ways.
First, this is correct –
“The morning after pill does NOT cause abortions. Medically, pregnancy does not begin until the embryo has been implanted. You cannot abort a pregnancy if a pregnancy has not yet begun!”
Second, the possibility of EC preventing implantation is HYPOTHETICAL. It is not a proven possibility.
Third, proper use of Plan B is within 72 hours of having sex. Your five-day-old embryo misses the cut.
Rape victims are being denied this resource because people like you have nothing better to do than whine about the rights of hypothetical, not-yet-formed embryos. Excuse me, but what the hell is wrong with you?
Rae and J-Please don’t shoot the messanger.It was a news report.I believe the pharmacist was cleared of any wrongdoing.As far as the nurse’s refusal to participate in the abortion,I don’t blame her one bit.I wouldn’t either.
We’re not shooting the messanger, I’ve heard about that as well (the pharmacy thing). I was just pointing out that by not giving out all prescriptions that are legally prescribed is in my opinion a dereliction of duty. They aren’t doing their jobs if they don’t give out the prescribed medications.
As for the nurse, more power to her, if she doesn’t want to learn how to perform abortions or see abortions, that’s fine…as she’s not necessarily required to help out.
This differs from the pharmacy thing though, because more often than not, these pharmacists who refuse to give out BC or EC on moral grounds feel it necessary to berate these women in public for their decisions and moralize at them. Instead they should transfer the prescription to another pharmacy that will fill the prescription.
You can find more info at: http://www.medugorje.com/
and: http://www.medjugorje.org/
A couple of stories from people who have been there…
Wayne Wiebel, a protestant minister, (Now Catholic), went into the room with the visionaries during an apparition. When the children simultaneously fell to their knees, he snapped a picture of the blank wall where all the children were gazing.
When he developed the film this picture appeared:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~boyne/mary/mary.jpg
At another time, the children were having their vision and the people in the room asked if they could touch Mary. Mary said yes.
Each person went up and touched where the children claimed she was standing.
The visionaries became distressed. When asked why, they replied that Mary was dressed that day in a brilliant white dress. But every time someone touched her, they left a black smudge on her gown. Mary explained that these were the stains of the their sins.
At another time, a priest, wishing to challenge the visionaries entered the apparition room with the Holy Eucharist. He figured that if the visions were from Satan, the Eucharist would act as a deterrent and Satan would not be able to perform his sleight of hand.
When Mary appeared the children fell to their knees. The priest attempted to kneel, but found that he couldn’t. The children told him that Mary was on her knees. She said that her son would never kneel before her, but she would always kneel before her son. Her son was present in the Eucharist, and as long as the priest was holding the Eucharist, he would not be allowed to kneel.
There are so many stories of conversions, miraculous healings, rosaries turning gold, miraculous photos, strange weather phenomenon etc, that I would have to type on here forever to cover just a percentage of them.
You can research yourself…there are tons of sights.
Just remember, to only believe the sights that are approved. No new agey type ones.
You could read on this one for quite some time, so let me know when you are ready for more…
mk
Samantha,
more on the secrets:
http://www.medjugorje.ws/en/apparitions/docs-ten-medjugorje-secrets/
The visionaries today:
http://www.praypraypray.org/medjugorje_visionaries.html
I urge you all to look up a variety of birth control pills and ECs in the PDR. It clearly explains that one of their functions is to prevent implantation. In fact, that is the case for all hormonal methods of bc. Even pills like Seasonale.
If you don’t believe life begins at conception, fine. Then you have no problem with it. But for those of us that do, you can see how this can create a moral issue for us. “Medically” a pregnancy may not be official until it is implanted, but in my mind, the second the egg and sperm unite, it’s a pregnancy. Anything that interferes with it from there is an abortifacient.
I urge you all to look up a variety of birth control pills and ECs in the PDR. It clearly explains that one of their functions is to prevent implantation. In fact, that is the case for all hormonal methods of bc. Even pills like Seasonale.
If you don’t believe life begins at conception, fine. Then you have no problem with it. But for those of us that do, you can see how this can create a moral issue for us. “Medically” a pregnancy may not be official until it is implanted, but in my mind, the second the egg and sperm unite, it’s a pregnancy. Anything that interferes with it from there is an abortifacient.
I urge you all to look up a variety of birth control pills and ECs in the PDR. It clearly explains that one of their functions is to prevent implantation. In fact, that is the case for all hormonal methods of bc. Even pills like Seasonale.
If you don’t believe life begins at conception, fine. Then you have no problem with it. But for those of us that do, you can see how this can create a moral issue for us. “Medically” a pregnancy may not be official until it is implanted, but in my mind, the second the egg and sperm unite, it’s a pregnancy. Anything that interferes with it from there is an abortifacient.
I urge you all to look up a variety of birth control pills and ECs in the PDR. It clearly explains that one of their functions is to prevent implantation. In fact, that is the case for all hormonal methods of bc. Even pills like Seasonale.
If you don’t believe life begins at conception, fine. Then you have no problem with it. But for those of us that do, you can see how this can create a moral issue for us. “Medically” a pregnancy may not be official until it is implanted, but in my mind, the second the egg and sperm unite, it’s a pregnancy. Anything that interferes with it from there is an abortifacient.
So PB&J….
I hope you are opposed to breast feeding too, which also prevents implantation of fertilized eggs. Should we ban breast feeding?? What a boon for the formula companies aye!
Conservative estimates are that about 1/4 to 1/2 of all fertilized embryos fail to implant. A significant percentage of this may be more unnatural as opposed to natural… for example lifestyle decisions such as smoking, drinking, coffee, dieting, and perhaps even strenuous work-outs.
Realisticly considering Plan B, timing, and nature… of the small percentage of fertilized embryos that got past Plan B’s initial target effects, one in three probably wouldn’t have implanted anyhow, and the abortion nature of it is pretty minor. However, failing to recieve plan B on time because of pious idiot at the pharmacy, will most certainly result in an abortion. It’s a lesser of two evils things absent any ability to actually stop the woman from doing what she’s undoubtedly going to do, and the idiot pharmacist is ultimately killing more babies than he/she’d save.
What kind of principles are those? I think it’s pretty clear that these people don’t give a hoot about saving babies so much as casting judgement for the purpose of their own feeling morally superior.
Get a clue!
pb&j – i respect the belief that life begins as soon as the sperm and egg meet, but that is NOT a pregnancy. So you can say its a life if you believe that, but its not a pregnancy. And because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, a drug that prevents implantation, and thus pregnancy, cannot be called an abortifacient – because it isn’t.
TH, 9:29a, said: “You cannot abort a pregnancy if a pregnancy has not yet begun!”
TH, just tell me what “it” is in Plan B’s description of how it works.
J, 9:56a, said: “Second, the possibility of EC preventing implantation is HYPOTHETICAL. It is not a proven possibility. Third, proper use of Plan B is within 72 hours of having sex. Your five-day-old embryo misses the cut.”
J:
1) It was not me who said Plan B could prevent the embryo from implanting, it was the maker of Plan B.
2) Are you under the impression that taking a pill causes an instantaneous bodily response?
3) I have previously posted a diagram explaining the fertilization and implantation process here.
Cameron,
Actually, breastfeeding prevents ovulation. It does not prevent a fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. And honestly, you’ll only get the bc effects of breastfeeding if you nurse exclusively. And even at that, it isn’t exactly reliable. ;) Just ask my friend who gave birth yesterday to a her third child…10.5 months after her second! So, I do have a clue.
I certainly understand your argument regarding the number of pregnancies that fail to implant. You’re right, those are conservative estimates. HOWEVER, I am not going to knowingly take a pill that could cause a failed implantation. Something that occurs naturally is one thing (yes, even the lifestyle choices you mentioned I would consider natural because the woman is not smoking 6 packs a day with the direct intent to end her pregnancy. And even if she were and she was “successful”, I would question the viability of the pregnancy from the get-go).
As for your argument that the “abortion nature” of it “may be minor”, you could very well be right. But to me, a life is NOT minor. I am not willing to take a chance like that.
Cameron,
Actually, breastfeeding prevents ovulation. It does not prevent a fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. And honestly, you’ll only get the bc effects of breastfeeding if you nurse exclusively. And even at that, it isn’t exactly reliable. ;) Just ask my friend who gave birth yesterday to a her third child…10.5 months after her second! So, I do have a clue.
I certainly understand your argument regarding the number of pregnancies that fail to implant. You’re right, those are conservative estimates. HOWEVER, I am not going to knowingly take a pill that could cause a failed implantation. Something that occurs naturally is one thing (yes, even the lifestyle choices you mentioned I would consider natural because the woman is not smoking 6 packs a day with the direct intent to end her pregnancy. And even if she were and she was “successful”, I would question the viability of the pregnancy from the get-go).
As for your argument that the “abortion nature” of it “may be minor”, you could very well be right. But to me, a life is NOT minor. I am not willing to take a chance like that.
Cameron,
Actually, breastfeeding prevents ovulation. It does not prevent a fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. And honestly, you’ll only get the bc effects of breastfeeding if you nurse exclusively. And even at that, it isn’t exactly reliable. ;) Just ask my friend who gave birth yesterday to a her third child…10.5 months after her second! So, I do have a clue.
I certainly understand your argument regarding the number of pregnancies that fail to implant. You’re right, those are conservative estimates. HOWEVER, I am not going to knowingly take a pill that could cause a failed implantation. Something that occurs naturally is one thing (yes, even the lifestyle choices you mentioned I would consider natural because the woman is not smoking 6 packs a day with the direct intent to end her pregnancy. And even if she were and she was “successful”, I would question the viability of the pregnancy from the get-go).
As for your argument that the “abortion nature” of it “may be minor”, you could very well be right. But to me, a life is NOT minor. I am not willing to take a chance like that.
Cameron,
Actually, breastfeeding prevents ovulation. It does not prevent a fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. And honestly, you’ll only get the bc effects of breastfeeding if you nurse exclusively. And even at that, it isn’t exactly reliable. ;) Just ask my friend who gave birth yesterday to a her third child…10.5 months after her second! So, I do have a clue.
I certainly understand your argument regarding the number of pregnancies that fail to implant. You’re right, those are conservative estimates. HOWEVER, I am not going to knowingly take a pill that could cause a failed implantation. Something that occurs naturally is one thing (yes, even the lifestyle choices you mentioned I would consider natural because the woman is not smoking 6 packs a day with the direct intent to end her pregnancy. And even if she were and she was “successful”, I would question the viability of the pregnancy from the get-go).
As for your argument that the “abortion nature” of it “may be minor”, you could very well be right. But to me, a life is NOT minor. I am not willing to take a chance like that.
Amanda,
Thanks for respecting that belief! That means a lot, really.
However, tell a mother who has had four early miscarriages that she wasn’t really pregnant because her child hadn’t attached the uterine wall. It’s called a chemical pregnancy. It’s happened to me. The fact that hcG was present in my system, thus producing a positive pregnancy test tells me that it *WAS* a pregnancy.
Perhaps “medically” it is not considered one (although I wonder why the term “chemical pregnancy” was coined then). But to me, it was.
Amanda,
Thanks for respecting that belief! That means a lot, really.
However, tell a mother who has had four early miscarriages that she wasn’t really pregnant because her child hadn’t attached the uterine wall. It’s called a chemical pregnancy. It’s happened to me. The fact that hcG was present in my system, thus producing a positive pregnancy test tells me that it *WAS* a pregnancy.
Perhaps “medically” it is not considered one (although I wonder why the term “chemical pregnancy” was coined then). But to me, it was.
Amanda,
Thanks for respecting that belief! That means a lot, really.
However, tell a mother who has had four early miscarriages that she wasn’t really pregnant because her child hadn’t attached the uterine wall. It’s called a chemical pregnancy. It’s happened to me. The fact that hcG was present in my system, thus producing a positive pregnancy test tells me that it *WAS* a pregnancy.
Perhaps “medically” it is not considered one (although I wonder why the term “chemical pregnancy” was coined then). But to me, it was.
Amanda,
Thanks for respecting that belief! That means a lot, really.
However, tell a mother who has had four early miscarriages that she wasn’t really pregnant because her child hadn’t attached the uterine wall. It’s called a chemical pregnancy. It’s happened to me. The fact that hcG was present in my system, thus producing a positive pregnancy test tells me that it *WAS* a pregnancy.
Perhaps “medically” it is not considered one (although I wonder why the term “chemical pregnancy” was coined then). But to me, it was.
“TH, just tell me what “it” is in Plan B’s description of how it works.”
“it” is an embryo, we both know that, but that is totally irrelevant to my post. As I said before, medically a pregnancy does not begin until implantation. It is fine if you believe that preventing implantation is immoral, however, that does not make it an abortion. An abortion terminates a pregnancy, if there is no pregnancy, there cannot be an abortion. This is the problem with the wording in the article.
TH, if you want to say a woman aborting a week-old embryo wasn’t pregnant when she aborted, ok. The result is still the same. That’s irrelevant to you, but it wouldn’t be to other women. If Plan B et al didn’t agree with me, they wouldn’t try to cover up that important fact.
PB&J.
Wrong.
See luteal phase defect. Breastfeeding may prevent implantation of a pre-baby.
As far as the argument. You seem to have missed the point that Pharmacy denial indelibly results in more babies being killed, as the primary mode of action in Plan B is the prevention of ovulation and fertilization. Again, it illustrates their disingenuous nature with respect to saving lives, and they’d sooner see more babies die just so long as they can punish the woman for sex.
Cameron,
Breastfeeding has nothing to do with a luteal phase defect. Find me some sources on that. Really, I would be interested to read that. I mean, after all, I have nursed four children. I would be interested to know this.
In any case, a luteal phase defect (caused by breastfeeding or not) is no abortion. It occurs naturally through no fault of the woman.
And I wasn’t even jumping on the pharmacists bandwagon. You assumed I was. I was simply commenting on the article that Jill posted.
Cameron,
Breastfeeding has nothing to do with a luteal phase defect. Find me some sources on that. Really, I would be interested to read that. I mean, after all, I have nursed four children. I would be interested to know this.
In any case, a luteal phase defect (caused by breastfeeding or not) is no abortion. It occurs naturally through no fault of the woman.
And I wasn’t even jumping on the pharmacists bandwagon. You assumed I was. I was simply commenting on the article that Jill posted.
Cameron,
Breastfeeding has nothing to do with a luteal phase defect. Find me some sources on that. Really, I would be interested to read that. I mean, after all, I have nursed four children. I would be interested to know this.
In any case, a luteal phase defect (caused by breastfeeding or not) is no abortion. It occurs naturally through no fault of the woman.
And I wasn’t even jumping on the pharmacists bandwagon. You assumed I was. I was simply commenting on the article that Jill posted.
Cameron,
Breastfeeding has nothing to do with a luteal phase defect. Find me some sources on that. Really, I would be interested to read that. I mean, after all, I have nursed four children. I would be interested to know this.
In any case, a luteal phase defect (caused by breastfeeding or not) is no abortion. It occurs naturally through no fault of the woman.
And I wasn’t even jumping on the pharmacists bandwagon. You assumed I was. I was simply commenting on the article that Jill posted.
“Breastfeeding has nothing to do with a luteal phase defect. Find me some sources on that.”
No problem!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1521642&dopt=Abstract
“Prolactin is released during breastfeeding. Even when your menstrual cycles return, there may be high levels of prolactin in your body. Prolactin suppresses ovulation and causes luteal phase defects, which can also hinder conception.” http://conception.lifetips.com/cat/55132/breastfeeding-and-conception/index.html
I guess you’re wrong, pb&j.
Joy,
Hinder conception, suppress ovulation, but where does it say prevent implantation?
MK
“Breastfeeding has nothing to do with a luteal phase defect. Find me some sources on that.”
I responded to this and nothing more. I made no claims beyond refuting this particular statement.
But since you asked…
http://www.inciid.org/printpage.php?cat=infertility101&id=7
http://www.thefertilesoul.com/Diagnosis/Luteal/
Breastfeeding can cause a luteal phase defect, and a luteal phase defect can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. It’s pretty straightforward.
Joy,
well allrighty then.
mk
Hmmmm…interesting. But I’m still not against breastfeeding. ;)
However, I will tell you the BIG difference in my mind is that with breastfeeding, it is naturally occuring. With pills it is induced by artificial hormones.
One is completely natural, the other is clearly not.
Hmmmm…interesting. But I’m still not against breastfeeding. ;)
However, I will tell you the BIG difference in my mind is that with breastfeeding, it is naturally occuring. With pills it is induced by artificial hormones.
One is completely natural, the other is clearly not.
Hmmmm…interesting. But I’m still not against breastfeeding. ;)
However, I will tell you the BIG difference in my mind is that with breastfeeding, it is naturally occuring. With pills it is induced by artificial hormones.
One is completely natural, the other is clearly not.
Hmmmm…interesting. But I’m still not against breastfeeding. ;)
However, I will tell you the BIG difference in my mind is that with breastfeeding, it is naturally occuring. With pills it is induced by artificial hormones.
One is completely natural, the other is clearly not.
“J:
1) It was not me who said Plan B could prevent the embryo from implanting, it was the maker of Plan B.”
It is said that Plan B may prevent implantation not because it’s been proven that it can have this effect, but because researchers have been unable to disprove it. They simply don’t know whether or not EC has an effect after fertilization. It’s entirely possible that it doesn’t.
“2) Are you under the impression that taking a pill causes an instantaneous bodily response?”
Instantaneous? No. Quick? Yes. While it’s uncertain whether or not Plan B affects implantation, it HAS been proven that it prevents fertilization. If it didn’t take effect quickly, it would be unable to do so.
“TH, if you want to say a woman aborting a week-old embryo wasn’t pregnant when she aborted, ok. The result is still the same. That’s irrelevant to you, but it wouldn’t be to other women. If Plan B et al didn’t agree with me, they wouldn’t try to cover up that important fact.”
If other women had an issue with emergency contraceptives, I would certainly want them to have all the information available to them. I would not want them to be ignorant of how these pills work due to lack of access to this information. However, plan B is not trying to cover up this important fact. It is widely available information.
I completely respect your views on Plan B and I agree that awareness about how it works is very important, however, misrepresentation, such as calling it an abortifacent, is not helping anyone. If implantation has already occured, plan B will NOT induce an abortion. This is why there is a problem with the article in Times Magazine. I definately want people to be fully aware of Plan B before they choose to take it but pointing out the fact that it does not cause abortions is NOT lying to people, telling them the opposite is.
If anyone feels that the results of taking Plan B are the same as having an abortion, from a moral standpoint, I completely respect that. However, it is wrong to call plan B abortion-inducing just because you see them as equally immoral when this is simply not true.
“However, it is wrong to call plan B abortion-inducing just because you see them as equally immoral when this is simply not true.”
Just to clarify, I meant it is not true that plan B is abortion-inducing, not that people are wrong who believe plan B to be immoral. (I think morality is relative so there is no right/wrong)
TH, I invite you to show me one contraception/emergency contraception site or packaging instructions that clearly explains it is possible the hormonal contraception may cause an embryo to be aborted.
You are becoming quite entangled in semantics because you don’t like the word abortion.
You’re not ok with saying hormonal contraception causes abortion. But are you ok with saying hormonal contraception may cause the death of a preborn human?
“TH, I invite you to show me one contraception/emergency contraception site or packaging instructions that clearly explains it is possible the hormonal contraception may cause an embryo to be aborted.”
They all clearly explain that it may prevent implantation, however none of them use the word abortion because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and as I have mentioned before, if a woman is pregnant (implantation has occured) plan B will NOT induce an abortion.
I have no problem with the word abortion. I have a problem with the word abortion being applied to preventing a pregnancy, rather than terminating a pregnancy.
The problem is, Jill, you’re not using the medically and scientifically accepted definition of “aborted.” By accepted terminology, contraception does not terminate a pregnancy, so there is no obligation for them to inform users that it causes an “abortion.” Because it doesn’t.
The real problem here isn’t changing the wording on the package, it’s changing the definitions of pregnancy and abortion has they are commonly accepted by the medical and scientific community. Good luck with that.
The real problem here isn’t changing the wording on the package, it’s changing the definitions of pregnancy and abortion has they are commonly accepted by the medical and scientific community. Good luck with that.
Yes, good luck. I’ll particularily enjoy it when you try to tell the scientific communities that petri dishes containing embryos are pregnant.
” Contraception Deception: The Abortion Rights Movement Plays Word Games to Hide Abortion
By Ruben Obregon
Abortion rights advocates have been accusing the pro-life movement of trying to redefine pregnancy and reclassify certain contraceptives as abortifacients. In essence, they have been charging that the movement has not been telling the truth about contraception but instead has been playing word games in an effort to ban it.
The truth is, it was the abortion rights and family planning movements that have been playing word games for the past few decades, and the pro-life movement is simply trying to correct the damage.
This decades old controversy revolves around the definition of a single word: conception.
Up until the mid sixties, the question of the beginning of pregnancy wasn’t a subject of serious debate. It was well accepted, based upon sound science, that, that conception occurred at fertilization (that is, the union of sperm and egg).
It was also accepted that anything which prevented implantation in fact caused an abortion, as recognized by the US Government and described in a 1963 public health service leaflet:
“All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote [newly created human] at any time between the instant of fertilization [union of sperm and egg] and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion” [1]
This acknowledgement posed a problem for the family planning movement which was moving away from “pure” contraceptives and more towards drugs which also caused early abortions by preventing implantation of a newly created human being. The only way to make these drugs legally and morally acceptable to the general public was to change the definition of conception.
This is where the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) stepped in. In 1965 the ACOG issued a medical bulletin which “officially” changed the definition of conception from union of sperm and egg to implantation: “Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum [egg].
I think you all know (or perhaps you don’t, to give you benefit of the doubt) that liberals got hold of the word “pregnancy” in the 60s-70s and changed its definition in part so they could continue to get funding for contraception under Title X. The Hyde Amendment was enacted in 1976 that stopped federal abortion funding. The other reason they changed the definition was so they wouldn’t have to admit to mothers that contraception aborts.
TH, the wording by contraception/ec companies is truly ambiguous. For one thing, they never say the word “embryo” in relation to what exactly may not be implanted. They try every way around saying anything other than “it,” although every now and then they’ll call “it” a “fertilized egg,” which is still clearly ambiguous.
Bethany, thanks! I would say, “great minds think alike,” but yours is obviously greater!
Except, once again, that researchers have been unable to confirm OR deny that EC has any effect whatsoever on a fertilized egg/embryo/tiny innocent baby of heaven/whatever else you think it should be called. It may, it may not. But saying that it does is simply false.
Can I see a citation to an unbiased source that shows that the common definition of pregnancy was changed in the “60s-70s”? Thanks, Jill.
The Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR)
The Physician’s Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. The PDR, as it’s often called, lists and explains the effects, benefits, and risks of every medical product that can be legally prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests.
As you read the following, keep in mind that the term “implantation,” by definition, always involves an already conceived human being. Therefore, any agent which serves to prevent implantation functions as an abortifacient.
This is the PDR’s product information for Ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill:
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.[5]
The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause “changes in…the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).”[6]
Notice that these changes in the endometrium, and their reduction in the likelihood of implantation, are not stated by the manufacturer as speculative or theoretical effects, but as actual ones. They consider this such a well-established fact that it requires no statement of qualification.
Similarly, as I document in my book, Syntex and Wyeth, the other two major pill-manufacturers, say essentially the same thing about their oral contraceptives.
The inserts packaged with birth control pills are condensed versions of longer research papers detailing the Pill’s effects, mechanisms, and risks. Near the end, the insert typically says something like the following, which is taken directly from the Desogen pill insert:
If you want more information about birth control pills, ask your doctor, clinic or pharmacist. They have a more technical leaflet called the Professional Labeling, which you may wish to read. The Professional Labeling is also published in a book entitled Physician’s Desk Reference, available in many bookstores and public libraries.
Of the half dozen birth control pill package inserts I’ve read, only one included the information about the Pill’s abortive mechanism. This was a package insert dated July 12, 1994, found in the oral contraceptive Demulen, manufactured by Searle. Yet this abortive mechanism was referred to in all cases in the FDA-required manufacturer’s Professional Labeling, as documented in The Physician’s Desk Reference.
In summary, according to multiple references throughout The Physician’s Desk Reference, which articulate the research findings of all the birth control pill manufacturers, there are not one but three mechanisms of birth control pills:
1. inhibiting ovulation (the primary mechanism),
2. thickening the cervical mucus, thereby making it more difficult for sperm to travel to the egg, and
3. thinning and shriveling the lining of the uterus to the point that it is unable or less able to facilitate the implantation of the newly fertilized egg.
The first two mechanisms are contraceptive. The third is abortive.
When a woman taking the Pill discovers she is pregnant (according to The Physician’s Desk Reference’s efficacy rate tables, this is 3 percent of pill-takers each year), it means that all three of these mechanisms have failed. The third mechanism sometimes fails in its role as backup, just as the first and second mechanisms sometimes fail. Each and every time the third mechanism succeeds, however, it causes an abortion.
“TH, the wording by contraception/ec companies is truly ambiguous. For one thing, they never say the word “embryo” in relation to what exactly may not be implanted.”
When I went on birth control at the age of 17 I had no problem figuring out what might not be implanted. Anyone concerned about preventing pregnancy would know exactly what that statement was referring to and I think by implying that young women are not intelligent enough to understand this, you really show how little you think of some women.
I truly don’t think this is an attempt to conceal the truth from unsuspecting young women. As a pro-choicer, I would have no problem with more explicit wording to ensure that all women understand (because we want women to make informed choices). However, I do not think that this is an issue as I believe the wording is very clear the way it is.
So I’m just curious…if they made it so only the first two mechanisms of birth control pills, would you not be so against their useage?
“They all clearly explain that it may prevent implantation, however none of them use the word abortion because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and as I have mentioned before, if a woman is pregnant (implantation has occured) plan B will NOT induce an abortion.”
You do realize that what pro-lifers object to isn’t “ending a pregnancy” but killing a human being? I’ve had four pregnancies end — two ended because of medication I took for the specific purpose of ending the pregnancy. Since that medication was pitocin and each time “ending the pregnancy” resulted in a live, healthy, full-term child, I seriously doubt anyone would be upset about it.
I don’t care when doctors say “pregnancy” begins — killing a baby before the pregnancy is official, or even if the baby is in a petri dish as you suggest, is still killing a baby. The rest is semantics.
“However, I will tell you the BIG difference in my mind is that with breastfeeding, it is naturally occuring. With pills it is induced by artificial hormones.
One is completely natural, the other is clearly not.”
I disagree. The difference is between a) doing something healthy and beneficial for your child which possibly inadvertently causes another child to be miscarried — sad; or b) intentionally doing something that has no purpose other than to prevent a child, even if the method by which that happens is killing an already formed embryo. Intent is the key, IMO.
“So I’m just curious… if they made it so only the first two mechanisms of birth control pills, would you not be so against their useage?”
I wouldn’t be against it at all. If it’s not hurting an already formed human being, what’s the problem? I still probably wouldn’t take BC, but only because I’m sensitive to hormonal changes like that. If I’m going to be all hormonal, I’m gonna get a baby out of it. ;)
Michelle! it’s good to see you here. I actually found this site through your blog a month ago. Hope you’re doing well! :)
Thanks Michelle!
I will certainly agree with that. The big difference is INTENT.
Thanks Michelle!
I will certainly agree with that. The big difference is INTENT.
Thanks Michelle!
I will certainly agree with that. The big difference is INTENT.
Thanks Michelle!
I will certainly agree with that. The big difference is INTENT.
So none of you would object if they reformulated birth control pills to prevent the release of an egg or prevent fertilization by hindering the sperm from entering the uterus and fallopian tubes exclusively (and hopefully with a better success rate) as long as there was no prevention of the implantation of a fertilized egg?
Bethany – your source (which you didn’t reveal, but which turns out to be a pro-life ministry’s website) uses tiny snips of references that I, unfortunately, have been unable to find. I’m wondering how they know that it “reduces the likelihood of implantation” when (a) embryos quite frequently fail to attach to the uterus naturally and (b) I’ve been completely unable to find any information of any experiments or tests to determine the effect of changes to the uterine lining due to the birth control pill.
I disagree. The difference is between a) doing something healthy and beneficial for your child which possibly inadvertently causes another child to be miscarried — sad; or b) intentionally doing something that has no purpose other than to prevent a child, even if the method by which that happens is killing an already formed embryo. Intent is the key, IMO.
First off, I’m sure very few people on birth control intend to create embryos. They’re not just smiling to themselves every morning as they pop the pill, thinking “Gee, you know what would be fun? Fertilizing an egg and then flushing it away.”
Intent has to be the key, because there’s a decent chance that every mother reading this blog right now has had a couple embryos that didn’t implant, whether it was because of their nutrition, their point on their cycle, the birth control they were using, or just dumb luck. In fact, the only way to be sure to never end up creating a “child” that ultimately dies before attaching to the uterine wall is to never have sex. By having sex, you’re knowingly taking the chance that an embryo will end up never making it. In fact, it’s considered a pretty high risk, even without Plan B or any other contraceptive.
But you’re right. It’s all those rape victims and stupid teens taking EC that need to be stopped! God forbid we be removed from our high horses!
No I wouldn’t have a problem with others using one which prevented conception as opposed to killing the already conveived embryo. Why would I?
(Of course, personally, I won’t use birth control measures of any kind, as of about a year ago when my husband and I came to a few realizations that we weren’t trusting in the Lord completely with our lives by trying to space out our children. We stopped using any methods of birth control, period. But we understand if others don’t do the same. This is our personal conviction.)
The only thing I’m concerned with actually taking legal action against is taking the life of a human being that has already been conceived.
TH, 3:44p, said: “Anyone concerned about preventing pregnancy would know exactly what that statement was referring to and I think by implying that young women are not intelligent enough to understand this, you really show how little you think of some women. I truly don’t think this is an attempt to conceal the truth from unsuspecting young women. As a pro-choicer, I would have no problem with more explicit wording to ensure that all women understand (because we want women to make informed choices). However, I do not think that this is an issue as I believe the wording is very clear the way it is.”
TH, I think a lot more of women than apparently you do. I believe in informed consent. The wording is ambiguous and you know it. You’re not defending that any longer. Now you simply say it’s great as is, even though it incredibly omits the most important information. I’m telling you it’s not great. You would never stand for such ambiguities when discussing any other medication or procedure in the world.
You pro-aborts are so hypocritical. You push comprehensive sex ed on how to have sex but fight in on the consequences of sex.
Jill,
Isn’t the point of comprehensive sex ed to fight the consequences of sex: Unwanted pregnancies and STDs caused by irrepsonsible or risky behavior due to lack of education or miseducation?
By teaching people how to prevent said pregnancies by properly using protection and birth control, wouldn’t that reduce the number of abortions?
Isn’t the point of comprehensive sex ed to fight the consequences of sex: Unwanted pregnancies and STDs caused by irrepsonsible or risky behavior due to lack of education or miseducation?
Posted by: Rae at April 10, 2007 04:16 PM
By teaching people how to prevent said pregnancies by properly using protection and birth control, wouldn’t that reduce the number of abortions?
Rae, let’s see some statistical evidence that sex education has helped reduce the number of abortions and STDs.
The whole pharmacist thing irritates me. If you have a moral dilemma with the job, dont choose it. Im not into murdering; therefore, I wouldnt sign up with the mafia to be a hitman. Its just common sense.
MK, Im fascinated. Padre Pio tho….
Bethany, apparently you missed my post to MK on another thread: funny, MK didn’t respond either.
Youth who take virginty pledges are 1/3 less likely to use contraception when they do have sex. They have the same rate of STDs as their peers who do not take the pledge, and are less likely to seek treatment, thereby increasing transmission. However, in communities where 20% of the youth had taken virginity pledges, the STD rate was 8.9%: a similar community with fewer pledges had only a 5.5% STD rate.
-In Texas after abstinance only sex ed was introduced, sexual activity actually increased among teens: prior to participation in the program, 23% of ninth grade girls were not virgins, whereas afterwards, this jumped to 29%. Among tenth grade boys, this jumped from 24% to 39%.
http://www.siecus.org/policy/research_says.pdf
Clearly, abstinance only is not working, not helpful, and worst of all, it is doing a great disservice to those students who eventually DO have sex. Bethany, specifically look at the bolded part.
Samantha,
MK, Im fascinated. Padre Pio tho..
I know, he’s got me too girl. I just want to know how to become one of his spiritual children…
Medjugorje is fascinating tho, because it is still happening right now.
I have seen Mirjana in person and the priest that she gave the secrets to.
You can read Mary’s monthly messages on any of those websites I gave you.
It’s hard to encompass Medjugorje. There is just so much…
The first time I heard about it was on a PBS special back in my wild days. I grabbed a tape (not a dvd) from a stack I had (it was shocking pink) and stuck in the VCR (not the DVD player) and taped the show.
When I pulled it out and went to label it “Madonna of Medjugorje”, I realized that the tape I used was a concert of the other Madonna.
I still have that tape, labeled Madonna/Madonna of Medjugorje.
Medjugorje saved my life. And my soul. I have been fasting on Wednesdays for over 15 years now.
So while Padre Pio has my heart, Medjugorje has my soul…not a bad duet, tho, huh?
mk
Bethany, apparently you missed my post to MK on another thread: funny, MK didn’t respond either.
Youth who take virginty pledges are 1/3 less likely to use contraception when they do have sex. They have the same rate of STDs as their peers who do not take the pledge, and are less likely to seek treatment, thereby increasing transmission. However, in communities where 20% of the youth had taken virginity pledges, the STD rate was 8.9%: a similar community with fewer pledges had only a 5.5% STD rate.
-In Texas after abstinance only sex ed was introduced, sexual activity actually increased among teens: prior to participation in the program, 23% of ninth grade girls were not virgins, whereas afterwards, this jumped to 29%. Among tenth grade boys, this jumped from 24% to 39%.
http://www.siecus.org/policy/research_says.pdf
Clearly, abstinance only is not working, not helpful, and worst of all, it is doing a great disservice to those students who eventually DO have sex. Bethany, specifically look at the bolded part.
If you’ll type “virginity pledges” in google, statistics and reports proving either position come up. How is your report any more valid than the one from CNN and other news sources which confirm our position?
Until I see clear evidence that SEX EDUCATION has significantly reduced teen pregnancies, STD’s, and abortions, I wont be convinced. Sorry.
Bethany, you could have just said that you wouldn’t have accepted any proof and saved me the time of searching for it. ;|
Less, your “proof” that abstinence is bad comes from SIECUS?!
SIECUS, which stands for Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States?!
SIECUS, which formulates and distributes comprehensive sex ed material for children 5 and up?
SIECUS, that wants 5 year olds to learn the word “masturbation” and how to do it?
SIECUS, which on its website links to The American Nudist Research Library, People For The American Way, Planned Parenthood, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Abortion Clinics OnLine, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, ACLU, National Coalition against Censorship, National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, The Intersex Society of North America, The Kinsey Institute, Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Catholics for a Free Choice, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Contraceptive Research and Development Program, Feminist Majority Foundation, IPAS (which promotes self-abortions), Population Council, and last but not least, Society for Sex Therapy and Research?
In other words, Less, your source has an agenda, and it’s the polar opposite of the abstinence agenda. So I would not wildly guess your source saying abstinece teaching doesn’t work is tainted.
So in light of that information, Less…how about you show me some objective proof of your claim?
Funny to hear that from the people who support ALL of their ideas with religious sources and have yet to name an unbiased source themselves.
Really, Becca?
We pro-lifers have show proof many times from not only an objective source, but many times we show proof from sources such as the Alan Guttmacher institute, which is the research arm for Planned Parenthood, to back up many of our claims. We show evidence from your own side to back up our claims (claims that you pro-aborts still ignore and pretend don’t exist)… can you find one pro-life site on which you could do the same? It’s not because the pro-life side is not objective, that you cannot do this…it’s because you people can’t face facts. We show it time and time again. Look at all of the evidence I posted above from the Physicians’ Desk Reference? Is that biased information?
how about the Plan B’s own website, where I posted information from?
Becca, as a pro-lifer on this site who constantly corroborates my statements with unbiased sources, I can tell you you’re wrong and obviuosly haven’t bothered to look at our sources, which I always suspect anyway.
Along with Bethany I often go to Guttmacher, which despite its obvious bias can’t avoid telling the truth from time to time.
Actually, I’m waiting for proof of ANY of the claims Jill just made.
What are those? And whatever they are, you first.
SIECUS, which formulates and distributes comprehensive sex ed material for children 5 and up?
SIECUS, that wants 5 year olds to learn the word “masturbation” and how to do it?
SIECUS, which on its website links to The American Nudist Research Library, People For The American Way, Planned Parenthood, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Abortion Clinics OnLine, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, ACLU, National Coalition against Censorship, National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, The Intersex Society of North America, The Kinsey Institute, Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Catholics for a Free Choice, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Contraceptive Research and Development Program, Feminist Majority Foundation, IPAS (which promotes self-abortions), Population Council, and last but not least, Society for Sex Therapy and Research?
Prove it. Unless you can prove my source biased, than I really don’t need to prove anything.
Um, Less, she already did. Ball is in your court now.
Bethany, she provided no backup to any of her claims. Without verifiable proof, they are simply words.
Less, come ON. Are you kidding? Go to seicus.org and see for yourself! You were just there, it’s just a click away. She found that info by following YOUR LINK!
Less, well this is rich. You want me to show you from the link you provided how your source is biased. As Bethany said, I got everything from the SIECUS website.
Since you apparently didn’t get beyond SIECUS’s clearly unbiased report entitled, “Reviews of Fear-Based, Abstinence-Only-Until Marriage Curricula,” I’ll tell you where to find where it advocates teaching five-year-old children:
“Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation”: Page 51 of http://www.siecus.org/pubs/guidelines/guidelines.pdf
Jill, I wouldn’t call that “comprehensive sexual education” for five year olds. I’d call that common sense. Kids as young as two and three masturbate. What’s wrong, exactly, with putting a name to it?
I don’t see what’s wrong with any of those sites, to be honest. I realize you don’t like the concept that people would (heaven forbid!) know how to have safe sex, or that people would (oh noe!) love people of their own gender, but the way in which their reserach is used doesn’t make the research itself biased. I’m sure parts of your blog have been posted on pro-choice sites: that doesn’t make you pro-choice.
Of course, I can find other research on it, it’s not that difficult. Unfortunatly, as I have a major essay in my religion class coming up, it’s going to have to wait for a bit. The internet is just too distracting.
Actually infants have been known to masturbate too. Sometimes people think it is an epileptic seizure (imagine how i stumbled upon it):
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/518798
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1344768&dopt=Abstract
http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/89/3/225
Where did my comment go? :(
I’m really confused. My comment was not malicious. And it isn’t my first time, either. ?
PIP, the blog sometimes automatically holds comments with hyperlinks in them for approval. So I just approved your link.
Your baby orgasm theory was launched by child sex abuser Alfred Kinsey. Read The Children of Table 34. Quite the disgusting pervert, Kinsey was the father of the sexual revolution.
Less, SIECUS is disgusting. I have read some of its actual classroom graphic sex ed materials.
When lobbying against this curricula at the IL capital 2 years ago, we gave legislators position papers with packets of grape jelly attached, because in its material SIECUS advises high schoolers that if they don’t have lubricant on hand, they can substitute jelly.
The position papers made quite the impact, btw.
I mentioned Kinsey to PIP. Speaking of that sick child sex abuser, “The Kinsey Institute created SIECUS in 1964 with the explicit goal of incorporating Kinsey’s philosophy into sex-education material.3 Dr. Mary Calderone, who was medical director for Planned Parenthood, became the first SIECUS president. Wardell Pomeroy, who was Kinsey’s co-author on both his male and female sex books, served on the founding board. With SIECUS under their direction, the Kinsey ideology began flowing into sex-education programs promoted by PP.” (http://www.cwfa.org/articles/6232/CWA/family/index.htm)
“Kinsey’s “trained observers” tested babies “5 months in age,” for repeated orgasms via:
…empirical study and statistical procedures… which resulted in…reported observations on such specifically sexual activities as erection, pelvic thrust and several other characteristics of true orgasm in a list of 317 pre-adolescent boys, ranging between infants of 5 months and adolescence age.[18]
Orgasm was defined as follows:
Extreme tension with violent convulsions: …sudden heaving and jerking of the whole body… gasping… hands grasping, mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding; whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching…violent jerking of the penis…groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children)…. hysterical laughing, talking, sadistic or masochistic reactions… extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject…. some…suffer excruciating pain and may scream …if the penis is even touched….some…before the arrival of orgasm, will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax although they derive definite pleasure from the situation.[19]”
[18]Kinsey, Male volume, p. 181.
[19]Ibid., pp. 160-161.
Forgot to to include link where that info came from:
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html
There’s plenty more info there…enough to make you sick.
Kinsey’s Research on Child Orgasm
Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s research on child orgasm is described in Chapter 5 of his book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948).[7] Some of the observations are summarized in Tables 30-34 of the book. The numbers of the children in the five tables were, respectively, 214, 317, 188, 182, and 28. The minimum ages were, respectively, one year, two months, five months, (ages of children not recorded for Table 33), and five months. The tables identify sex experiments; for example, Table 32 speaks of: “Speed of pre-adolescent orgasm; Duration of stimulation before climax; Observations timed with second hand or stop watch.”
Did Kinsey instigate or encourage these practices? And did he actually use pedophiles to obtain the data for Tables 30-34? In his book, acting as the on-site reporter, Kinsey did not clearly describe his own role. However, Kinsey’s close colleague, C. A. Tripp, made a revealing statement in a 1991 televised interview by Phil Donahue:
[Reisman is] talking about data that came from pedophiles, that he [Kinsey] would listen only to pedophiles who were very careful, used stopwatches, knew how to record their thing, did careful surveys….[T]hey were trained observers.[8]
Two questions cry out for an answer: What was the nature of the training given to these “trained observers”? And, who “trained” them? Perhaps Dr. Tripp or others can answer these questions. A 1991 book review in the respected British medical journal, The Lancet, noted:
[T]he important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are the imperfections in the [Kinsey] sample and unethical, possibly criminal observations on children….Kinsey…has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.[9]
Tripp is not the only former Kinsey colleague to admit that actual pedophiles were involved in the Kinsey Institute’s child sexuality studies. A taped telephone interview with Dr. Paul Gebhard, former head of the Kinsey Institute and Kinsey co-author, also confirms this fact:
Interviewer: “So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?”
Dr. Paul Gebhard: “Ah, they do if we tell them we’re interested in it!”
Interviewer: “And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to….”
Dr. Gebhard: “So, second hand or stopwatch. OK, well, that’s, ah, you refreshed my memory. I had no idea that there were that many.”
Interviewer: “These experiments by pedophiles on children were presumably illegal.”
Dr. Gebhard: “Oh yes.”[10]
[7]Key pages from Kinsey’s 1948 Male volume, pp. 157-192, “Early Sexual Growth and Activity.”
[8]”The Donahue Show,” transcript, December 5, 1990.
[9]The Lancet, March 2, 1991, p. 547. Emphasis added.
[10]Audiotaped phone discussion between J. Gordon Muir, editor of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, and Paul Gebhard on November 2, 1992.
My reports are not from the Kinsey Institute and have a pretty detailed descriptions of its method.
Thanks, Jill. I was just a little confused.
pip, according to your research, is what these studies refer to as infant masterbation what you would consider normal, or is it a rare occurance?
The article below describes it as a disorder:
http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/89/3/225
If doing such a thing is a disorder, then why would we teach children it’s normal and good to do such things?
“rare occurance?”
Oh it’s rare, it’s called gratification disorder. I was simply reporting that it happens.
It’s abnormal because they are infants, and completely undeveloped in that area. When the child is considerably older, masturbation is part of sexual development, so it is considered normal.
PIP, I realize boys sometimes touch themselves when they notice what they’ve got down there, because they’re curious and they’re like, Oh wow, what is that?
But to encourage them how to get sexual pleasure out of it, at or even before the age of 5? Isn’t that quite ridiculous and really, really sick?
I never did that when I was a kid, not even once. It never even occured to me to do anything like that. I would have had to be taught to do it. But I didn’t get taught it, thank goodness, and I ended up perfectly fine. What did I miss out on?
There is absolutely NO reason that a child needs to be learning about sex until they reach puberty. CAn you give me one reason they need to masturbate? What for?
My kids certainly don’t need to, and they don’t. If my boys ever tried to stick their hands in their pants, I’d say, “Get your hand out of your pants!”, just like I’d say, “Get your finger out of your nose!”, if they were picking their nose. It’s a disgusting habit. But I think that the masturbation is much more disgusting.
“But to encourage them how to get sexual pleasure out of it, at or even before the age of 5? Isn’t that quite ridiculous and really, really sick?”
It seems ridiculous to me, but I am not a sexual development expert so I can’t really say for sure :/
“There is absolutely NO reason that a child needs to be learning about sex until they reach puberty.”
Yes, when I said “part of normal sexual development” I meant during puberty.