O’Reilly on Viagra vs. birth control
On July 17 Bill O’Reilly took on “the Planned Parenthood fanatics” for an ad they are running against John McCain for his votes against forcing insurance companies to fund contraceptives, even if Catholic, for instance, and in violation of their beliefs.
I was glad O’Reilly took the position he did but winced at his rationale, which was a bit ill-informed (stating this was a taxpayer funding issue) and I thought sexist….
While O’Reilly may consider impotence a “medical condition” insurance companies should pharmaceutically cover, others would make a strong case that contraceptives also treat medical conditions, like irregular or painful periods, as well as prevent pregnancy.
I’ll cover this more in my WND column Wednesday, but the problem here is more theological and moral. I’m sure for John McCain there were free market issues, too. The Catholic Church believes the concept of contraception is wrong. Furthermore, birth control pills and IUDs can abort a 5- to 9-day-old embryo. That’s why its insurance companies don’t want to subsidize birth control.
Perhaps someone can explain O’Reilly’s last line, which I kind of get but not quite: “Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the birth control? Give me and every other taxpayer a break, Planned Parenthood.”
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.
When it comes to using contraceptives as treatment for painful periods, PMS, PMDD, endometriosys, PCOD, etc… I think it is most proper to respond with the question: Is this all that medicine has to offer women? The state of women’s health care is unacceptable! It is bad medicine (and naive) to believe that one “medication” (birth control pill) can treat a myriad of problems adequately. Contraception merely wipes out a woman’s fertility cycle – women do not get their periods while on the pill because (ideally) they are not ovulating. (When breakthrough ovulation does occur (and sperm make it through the thickened cervical mucus) you are then dealing with a chemical abortion.)
I am outraged at the state of women’s health care and am appalled that the one legitimate women’s health science that does treat the underlying problems of fertility problems and not just the systems is all but ignored by the medical community.
Please, don’t believe the hype when hearing that contraceptives are needed to treat women’s health problems because it is simply not true. Take a look at NaProTechnology.com and gain a new perspective on real women’s health care.
“Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the birth control? Give me and every other taxpayer a break, Planned Parenthood.”
I think he’s saying that birth control is the financial responsibility of the man and woman using it, like any other recreational dating activity they may do (ie dinner). So I think he’s just kind of extending the “taxpayer funding for dating expenses” a bit further, to exaggerate the issue and illustrate his point.
There is something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth about the comment, because to me it seems to allude to the frame of mind where men exchange things like dinner for sex. I can’t draw a full parallel because I’m multi-tasking a bit right now, but that’s certainly what it made me think of right off the bat. And I think that’s a frame of mind that devalues men and women both — it implies that men don’t like spending non-sexual time with women, and that women dole out sexual favors to get things they “really” want. But giving O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt, which is not something I’m generally inclined to do, I don’t know that he meant to call that sort of thing to mind.
hey Jill, check this out:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/07/19/20080719abortion-ON.html
“Furthermore, birth control pills and IUDs can abort a 5- to 9-day-old embryo. That’s why its insurance companies don’t want to subsidize birth control.”
Cite please? I don’t think insurance companies have any concern for a 5- to 9-day old embryo. That is, rather, why YOU don’t want them to do it.
“Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the birth control? Give me and every other taxpayer a break, Planned Parenthood.”
Could it have something to do with that “birth control or dinner” gimmick that PP was running a few weeks ago? The one about how some had to choose between dinner or BC because they couldn’t afford both?
Just Saying: To clarify, I agree with you that hormonal birth control masks menstrual problems but don’t treat them. I was just refuting the argument that bcs aren’t used to treat medical conditions.
Alexandra: Yes, I had the same “bad taste in mouth” feeling with O’Reilly’s comment but couldn’t quite place why.
Hal, here’s a source, the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/nyregion/20courts.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Bobby: I don’t think O’Reilly is that in the know. I think he was thinking more along the lines of what Alexandra said.
Bethany, it quit letting me post on the other thread. Doctors don’t tell you that because it’s not true. Medically, the definition of an abortion is ending a pregnancy. A pregnancy doesn’t begin until typically 6 days after fertilization, at implantation. It’s like having all the planks, nails, tools, and boards you need to make a treehouse. You don’t actually HAVE a treehouse…you could if you had a tree to put it in, but the pill is like taking out all the trees in your yard. But I don’t know why I even bother trying to talk to you about this…nothing I can ever say will change your mind, because I lack the authority to do so with you, and the people who do have already told you what to think.
Now, X, that was a meaningful post and probably would have been worth reading if it weren’t for this:
“But I don’t know why I even bother trying to talk to you about this…nothing I can ever say will change your mind, because I lack the authority to do so with you, and the people who do have already told you what to think.”
Could you BE anymore rude and condescending to Bethnay?
You were explaining things very well in your previous sentences and then finished off with something rude to Bethany. Now while she may have wanted to absorb what you were saying earlier in the paragraph, she won’t now, because of all the talking down you just did to her in those last few sentences.
Do you know Bethany? Do you know people who have supposedly told her “what to think”? No..maybe Bethany believes what she believes because those are HER BELIEFS. You have your’s. Do we assume that somebody spoon-fed your beliefs to you? No…so how about not doing that to Bethany?
I don’t agree with every single thing she says, but that doesn’t stop us from communicating or trying to open each others minds.
X,
Suppose we have a “leftover” embryo from a IVF procedure. As you understand it, the embryo is not a human being and it would be morally permissible to use it in ESCR. Suppose further that it is implanted in a woman, and 5 seconds later, it is aborted on purpose by the doctor, perhaps for a medical experiment. If I understand your position correctly, you believe it is permissible to experiment on the embryo 5 seconds before it is implanted (to the point of destroying it, which all current ESCR does) but not morally permissible to abort it 5 seconds after it is implanted. OK fair enough, but my question is this; what is the ontological/metaphysical/scientific change that the embryo goes through after being implanted? Because after all, we aren’t interested in the semantics of pregnancy, we are interested in protecting human life. In other words, what is it about implantation that makes the implanted embryo a human being but that the non-implanted embryo lacks?
Elizabeth, thank you… I really appreciate your kind words. (hugs)
Bethany, it quit letting me post on the other thread. Doctors don’t tell you that because it’s not true. Medically, the definition of an abortion is ending a pregnancy. A pregnancy doesn’t begin until typically 6 days after fertilization, at implantation. It’s like having all the planks, nails, tools, and boards you need to make a treehouse. You don’t actually HAVE a treehouse…you could if you had a tree to put it in, but the pill is like taking out all the trees in your yard. But I don’t know why I even bother trying to talk to you about this…nothing I can ever say will change your mind, because I lack the authority to do so with you, and the people who do have already told you what to think.
Xalisae, I see what you’ve written but I still see no explanation for what changes happen to the unborn from before implantation and afterwards.
The same baby exists before and after. Conception starts the life. Implantation is simply the baby, which already exists as a complete organism, attaching itself to the uterus.
Is it any less a complete human organism before implantation than after? I don’t see how you could claim that is the case.
When have I brought up religion in my arguments to you? I am asking you for scientific explanation and so far you have provided me nothing but a philosophical opinion.
Scientifically speaking, pregnancy begins at conception. The new life begins at that point, and it is not a religious belief, it is scientific.
If the birth control pill can kill an already conceived individual, it does have abortive properties and that is why I personally oppose it.
I have never condemned or ridiculed you for your belief about contraception, yet you are ridiculing me in almost every post. Is there a reason for this, Xalisae?
Jill, I knew you agreed with me (yay!). I just thought I would cease this opportunity to voice my disgust at the state of women’s health care as it is something that has bothered me for a very long time. I am sure that most pro-life women can attest to the experience of their OB/GYN’s trying to push BC on them for anything and everything… be it light cramps to debilitating endometriosis. I find it an insult to the intellegence of these women (not to mention dangerous to their health) to do this.
Bobby Bambino: hear,hear! (cheered with a smile)! I like the way you think – clarity of mind is a rare find these days.
Another thought, Xalisae…your argument supporting birth control pills could be used to justify abortions up to term.
One could further your argument to say that no person exists unless it can live without the continuing support of the womb (the treehouse existing without the support of the trees) at ANY stage of life. And many do make that argument.
How would you counter that kind of argument, when used to justify late term abortions?
I feel strongly about contraception. I’ve been called a pro-abort who would kill her kids, i watched our movement lose legitimacy, especially with those on the middle ground who are essential to our cause, and abortions that are happening every day that could be prevented by embracing numerous contraceptive practices rather than chastising those who use them continue because of a smear campaign by ideologues who care more aboutprotecting their rhetoric than babies. Sorry I’m bitter.
Xalisae, I’ve seen a different America than you are describing… i’ve seen people changing for the good over the last decade…more Americans are pro-life than they were a decade ago. I don’t see our movement losing legitimacy. I see people realizing that life is more special than they previously realized. I’m sorry that you’re bitter, but I see no reason for you to take it out on me. I have never done anything to you.
I am sure that most pro-life women can attest to the experience of their OB/GYN’s trying to push BC on them for anything and everything… be it light cramps to debilitating endometriosis.
Why only pro-life women? Wouldn’t that apply to any woman?
I’ve never been on hormonal contraception because I really don’t like the idea of it, and I’ve never felt like a doctor was pushing it on me. I’ve been asked before if I wanted to look into it but when I said, “No, it’s not really something I’m interested in,” that was the end of it.
and abortions that are happening every day that could be prevented by embracing numerous contraceptive practices
Why do you personally believe that more abortions happen today, with numerous contraceptives extremely available, than there were before contraceptives became as widespread? I would like to hear your explanation for that, because the more contraceptives become available, the more abortions there are…I just don’t see that contraceptives have prevented anything, from my perspective, but I’d like to hear yours.
Bethany, I think that’s probably because abortion is more accessible than it was before — as is contraception.
Just Saying –
This is the second time you’ve made this assertion about hormonal BC, and the second time I’ll ask you to name me one other drug that has the same effects on severe menstrual symptoms.
Its also patently false that every doctor out there just wants to push BC on girls. My doctor tried two different pain killers with me before even CONSIDERING putting me on the pill, knowing I had no interest or desire to become sexually active at age 14.
You name me ONE medication that has the same effectiveness in treating those symptoms, and I’ll call my doctor today and ask her about it…and then go look for a new doctor, since you clearly know more about this than a primary care physician who’s managed to run her own practice for almost 30 years without your help.
Bethany, I think that’s probably because abortion is more accessible than it was before — as is contraception.
Actually, I don’t think that’s possible since there were nearly 2000 abortion clinics in the US, and now there are only 753 remaining. Abortion is less accessible than it used to be and yet it’s rising.
Also, an aging man’s ability to “get it up” so to speak, NATURALLY declines as he gets older. In a man under 50/60, yes, its a medical condition – just as infertility in a woman before the age of normal onset of menopause is a medical condition.
But plenty of men who are at or over the age where that starts to happen naturally are using Viagra.
That is no less of a CHOICE than using birth control.
Bethany:
more Americans are pro-life than they were a decade ago
By a 63 – 33 percent margin, American voters support the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. But Americans remain divided on the issue of abortion:
* 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases;
* 38 percent say it should be legal in most cases;
* 24 percent say it should be illegal in most cases;
* 14 percent say it should be illegal in all cases.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1194
Actually, I don’t think that’s possible since there were nearly 2000 abortion clinics in the US, and now there are only 753 remaining. Abortion is less accessible than it used to be and yet it’s rising.
When was this, Bethany? I’m just curious. Were there 2000 abortion clinics before contraceptives were widely accessible? Do you think that as contraceptives have become more accessible, abortion has become less accessible?
I think they both became widely accessible kind of alongside each other, and that in recent years abortion has perhaps become slightly less accessible — but is certainly still more accessible than in the years pre-contraception. I haven’t really studied the issue, though.
Amanda: Why would the doctor hesitate to give you BC @14 yrs. old if he/she knew it would be the best way to treat your severe menstrual symptoms?
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 5, 2008
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — A new poll reveals a majority of Americans take a pro-life position on abortion and that pro-life Americans outnumber pro-abortion Americans by a 16 percent margin. The survey also found the issue of abortion gives presidential candidate John McCain an eight point advantage over his pro-abortion rival Barack Obama.
Conducted by the Polling Company for National Right to Life, the June 2008 poll finds 54 percent of Americans take one of three pro-life positions on abortion and just 38 percent take a pro-abortion position.
Looking at a breakdown of the pro-life side of the equation, 17 percent of those surveyed said they oppose abortions and want them illegal for any reason.
Another 12 percent said abortions should only be allowed to save the life of the mother, and 27 percent said abortions should only be allowed in the very rare cases to save the life of the mother or when the woman is a victim of rape or incest.
The poll also found 30 percent of voters say that the issue of abortion will affect their vote, with 20 percent of self-identified pro-life voters saying so and only 9 percent of pro-abortion voters saying so.
Breaking down the numbers further, 17 percent of voters said they would only vote for a candidate who shares their view on abortion, regardless of that view. Looking at that group, 12 percent said they would only vote for a pro-life candidate and just 4 percent said they would only support a candidate who backs abortion.
That gives pro-life candidates, like McCain, an eight percent advantage on the issue of abortion, says David O
When was this, Bethany? I’m just curious. Were there 2000 abortion clinics before contraceptives were widely accessible?
I don’t know the answer to that question, but I can find out sometime this week, hopefully.
I think they both became widely accessible kind of alongside each other, and that in recent years abortion has perhaps become slightly less accessible — but is certainly still more accessible than in the years pre-contraception. I haven’t really studied the issue, though.
I don’t think going from 2,000 clinics to 753 is a slight decrease. It seems like a huge drop to me. Yet, abortions are being performed more than ever, and contraception is being practiced more than ever. Doesn’t seem that contraception (or comprehensive sex ed) has done a thing to decrease abortion.
“by Steven Ertelt”
HAHAHA. Yeah thats bound to be reliable info. More so, than say, research from an accredited university.
Janet – Because there was no need for it if something else worked – I was 14. Painkillers are cheaper and wouldn’t have made my Dad anxious.
HAHAHA. Yeah thats bound to be reliable info. More so, than say, research from an accredited university.
Yes, laugh at my source instead of using reliable information to prove me wrong, Amanda. That’s the way to debate effectively.
The per capita abortion rates have been on a steady decline since 1981.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#2ref
And Alexandra had already posted a reliable source regarding the opinion stats.
How is a liberal university any more reliable and unbiased than a pro-life source?
And secondly, how is Guttmacher, the research arm for Planned Parenthood (largest abortion provider in the world), any more unbiased than a pro-life source?
Your sources can be easily scrutinized too, you know.
Good point Bethany @ 4:31. It’s a never ending battle to find a source both sides can agree on. What to do?
Quinnipiac is “liberal”? Okay… back that up. What are you basing that on?
And Pro Lifers cite Guttmachers stats CONSTANTLY. I have never heard a pro lifer come up with any legitimate accusation of bias in their statistics.
Additionaly, the vast majority of public opinion polls back the results of the study posted by Quinnipiac. Ertlet’s piece, which cites NO links to the research, is an outlier.
Also, if you look at the Guttmacher results that show the steady decline in abortion rates, the citation is actually a reproductive health book. Unless you can show a connection between that author and Planned Parenthood, there is no reason to suspect bias.
“It’s a never ending battle to find a source both sides can agree on. What to do?”
Janet,
This is why I’m *this* close to having lost my faith in any science or statistics that are controversial. I’m almost to the point where I say that I don’t accept anything in science or the like (from either side) that I consider to be controversial. I’ve been trying to build my case based solely on philosophy and non-controversial science because it just seems like there is so much arguing in circles.
Of course, I don’t mean this towards Amanda and Bethany. It happens all the time, and now just happens to be the time when I mention it.
It just irritates me that birth control is so demonized for an effect it only MIGHT have. There are any MYRIAD of factors and chemicals that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, but only birth control is shunned for that effect. Until you advocate against every chemical or action that has the POTENTIAL to make it more difficult for implantation, you really can’t just focus on keeping women from birth control. I guess you should tell every sexually active woman who drinks coffee to stop, because the caffeine could prevent her embryos from implanting. Yet I don’t hear that being said, because of course, only the thing that gives women some say over their fertility is wrong.
I barely saw any response to the article about breakthrough ovulation that I believe PIP posted a while back. It said something about research supporting the idea that if breakthrough ovulation DID occur, then the lining of the uterus would also be sufficiently built up to accept implantation, negating the idea that birth control has any greater ability than nature to “abort” an embryo. I think Bobby was one of the only ones to respond to it.
It just irritates me that birth control is so demonized for an effect it only MIGHT have.
I understand your frustration, Lyssie, but the problem with it is that that is the intended function of the pill. That is what it is delibrately designed to do.
Bobby (4:49),
Excellent. Philosophy sounds like a great way to go, although easier said than done for some of us! You’ve probably recommended a book before…but I’ll ask again… Any suggestions on a good intro to pro-life arguments? A long time ago, i learned “you can make statistics say whatever you want”, so I’m quite the skeptic myself.
Thanks.
Lyssie –
Agreed. Though for me its easy to not even worry about the POSSIBILITY, because I KNOW I’m not ovulating. I wonder how accurate the ovulation kits are if someone is on the pill – I should look in to that. That way if a woman is concerned about the possibility of breakthrough ovulation, she can be aware of when that happens OR when she misses a pill, and abstain until the next cycle begins.
Stress and altitude changes can also prevent implantation. We should ban these things, and coffee, for ALL fertile women.
I barely saw any response to the article about breakthrough ovulation that I believe PIP posted a while back. It said something about research supporting the idea that if breakthrough ovulation DID occur, then the lining of the uterus would also be sufficiently built up to accept implantation, negating the idea that birth control has any greater ability than nature to “abort” an embryo. I think Bobby was one of the only ones to respond to it.
I didn’t see that article. If you still have it available, I’d like to see it.
“I understand your frustration, Lyssie, but the problem with it is that that is the intended function of the pill. That is what it is delibrately designed to do. ”
No. Its not. At ALL. Period.
Its design and function is to PREVENT OVULATION. The possibility of the mucus affecting the likliehood of implantation IF the pill fails to prevent ovulation is a POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECT, not an intention or function of the medication.
Lyssie: I guess you should tell every sexually active woman who drinks coffee to stop, because the caffeine could prevent her embryos from implanting. Yet I don’t hear that being said, because of course, only the thing that gives women some say over their fertility is wrong.
I had never heard this until I came to Jill’s and heard it from PC’rs who were defending BC as a non-abortifacient. Is this an old wives tale or are there actually caffeine studies out there?
Janet –
Does caffeine affect fertility?
That depends on how much you’re getting. Consuming moderate amounts of caffeine
Amanda,
Ask your dr. about Natural Progesterone Cream. My dr. laughed in my face. I found a new doctor, went in a completely natural direction and got off the synthetic estrogen.
Janet,
The best pro-life book out there, bar none, is “Defending Life” by Frank Beckwith. Chris A. has read it too.
and here is the actual NIH study – linking women who drink more than 1 cup of coffee a day to lower fertility AND increased rate of miscarriage.
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/common/caffeine.html
A girl in one of my courses at school had presented this study, and I’d encouraged the girls in my course to kick their soda and coffee habits, but really, unless you’re already pregnant or TRYING to get pregnant, its not something people are going to worry about, and its certainly ridiculous to start calling coffee “abortive”, isn’t it? So why label the pill as such when they both share the POTENTIAL to do the same thing – prevent implantation.
Its design and function is to PREVENT OVULATION. The possibility of the mucus affecting the likliehood of implantation IF the pill fails to prevent ovulation is a POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECT, not an intention or function of the medication.
No, it is the third function should the primary mechanisms fail, Amanda. I read about it on my own Ortho Cyclen label. Check it out for yourself:
Under “Oral Contraception”
“Although the primary mechanism of this action is the inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in cervical mucus (which increase difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus), and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)”
http://quiverfull.com/birth_control/CYCLTRI.PDF
It is to make sure that if there is a breakthrough ovulation, the baby will not make it to implantation.
Janet,
Caffeine causes constriction of the blood vessels, and can limit the amount of blood going to the endometrium. This MIGHT have the effect of slightly diminishing the uterine wall’s ability to accept an embryo.
Bethany, I have to disagree with you that “preventing implantation” is an INTENDED effect. The only INTENDED effect is prevention of ovulation. Anything that MIGHT happen after that is a potential side effect. I can even get the pamphlet that comes with my birth control and type what it says is a POTENTIAL, not intended, effect of the pill.
Even the scientist who first discovered the method of synthesizing the chemicals used in the pill never INTENDED for it to possibly prevent implantation. He specifically stated that its use was to prevent ovulation. I walk past the signpost hailing his discovery every day on my college campus. :)
Amanda:5:01: I wonder how accurate the ovulation kits are if someone is on the pill – I should look in to that. That way if a woman is concerned about the possibility of breakthrough ovulation, she can be aware of when that happens OR when she misses a pill, and abstain until the next cycle begins.
That’s a very interesting question, from a pro-life point of view! I’m curious too.
Stress and altitude changes can also prevent implantation. We should ban these things, and coffee, for ALL fertile women.
It’s enough to drive you crazy, especially when you are TRYING to get pregnant! Lol!
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Lyssie:4:49: I think Bobby was one of the only ones to respond to it.
That may be because Bobby usually gives REALLY GOOD answers!! :^)
You keep repeating that Bethany, but people keep telling you over and over again, THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN. It is a THEORY. It was NOT the intended purpose of the pill.
Sorry to drop out right now, but I think my fever has risen and I need to lay down.I’ll come back when I feel a little better and can think more clearly. Thanks for the discussion, all.
Bethany,
to say that “It is to make sure that if there is a breakthrough ovulation, the baby will not make it to implantation,” is taking a rather large mental leap. NOTHING extra is added to the pill to “make sure the baby won’t implant’. Everything in the pill is there to prevent ovulation, and nothing is put in there to specifically prevent implantation. It’s dishonest to say that prevention of implantation is the desired outcome when the chemical concoction in a birth control pill is specifically designed to prevent ovulation. The whole potential prevention of implantation thing was discovered long after the anti-ovulation effects of the pill were intended. To say that prevention of ovulation was intended, from the get-go, is dishonest. The pill has always been used, as intended, to prevent ovulation. The prevention of implantation potentiality was put forth later as part of how it is hypothesized the pill works, not as how scientists INTENDED it to work.
Bethany & Amanda – there is a really good article on this over at LTI-Blog:
http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-information-on-effect-of-ocs-on.html
http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2008/06/does-thin-uterine-lining-support-pill.html
I think Serge has done a fair treatment of this subject. Worth a read. You’ll find out who’s more or less in agreement with him when you both read through it.
The poll found only 10 percent of voters know that Obama supports abortion in all occasions
:: yawn :: another falsehood….
* 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases;
* 38 percent say it should be legal in most cases;
* 24 percent say it should be illegal in most cases;
* 14 percent say it should be illegal in all cases.
Very common results – hasn’t changed much for quite a while – toss out the “legal in all cases” and “illegal in all cases” and you’ve got the majority.
Alternatively, a majority of Americans think abortion should be legal to a point in gestation, which is what we now have.
Personally, I think that if the polls are better written, the two “all cases” numbers go down.
This is the second time you’ve made this assertion about hormonal BC, and the second time I’ll ask you to name me one other drug that has the same effects on severe menstrual symptoms.
Posted by: Amanda at July 21, 2008 3:54 PM
Hey Amanda, how
That’s why its insurance companies don’t want to subsidize birth control.
I strongly suspect that insurance companies’ primary reasons for wanting to not cover birth control are FINANCIAL.
Viagra can correct impotence, but how many men are using it solely to correct impotence or solely in the desire to produce children? If sex for non-procreative reasons is all right for men then it’s all right for women too. For that, women need birth control. It’s hypocritical to support coverage of Viagra but not birth control.
Amanda:5:14: A girl in one of my courses at school had presented this study, and I’d encouraged the girls in my course to kick their soda and coffee habits, but really, unless you’re already pregnant or TRYING to get pregnant, its not something people are going to worry about, and its certainly ridiculous to start calling coffee “abortive”, isn’t it? So why label the pill as such when they both share the POTENTIAL to do the same thing – prevent implantation.
I agree it is ridiculous to start calling coffee abortive, so maybe we could stop using that as a counter to the BC as a non-abortifacient argument so as to avoid more confusion in the future about coffee as an abortifacient. Agreed?
I read your link: http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/common/caffeine.html and it appears that most of the studies did not consider other factors that might also affect the woman’s fertility and implantation,except for a few that considered smoking or alcohol. The various study groups could not agree on a minimum amount of daily intake. Some said 150 mg caffeine, which would be 4.5 Cokes per day @ 34 mg/1 can; others said 300 mg caffeine, which would amount to 9 Cokes per day.
While the abortifacient effect of the pill is not conclusive, wouldn’t it make sense to let women in on the secret just in case it mattered to them? If it’s no big deal, then the labeling should be no big deal.
Hey Kristen,
One of my friends went to her doctor and was diagnosed with painful joints, fibromyalgia?? Anyway, she was up to 6 Diet Cokes a day and it was suggested she stop. Bye Bye joint pain. Thank you for bringing that up!!
Kristen,
That is a very good point!
I personally would never take BC pills because I don’t want to put synthetic hormones in my body. I can’t imagine they’re very good to put in your body so I just don’t take them. But that’s just me, I don’t really like to take medications though for anything. I guess it helps that I’m pretty healthy and don’t have to, but I don’t even like to take aspirin. I prefer to just power through.
(P.S.- Don’t take that as I’m a health nut or anything, I had McDonald’s for lunch! lol)
Kristen, that is interesting — and I want to note that I say this without casting any doubt on Amanda’s need for synthetic hormones to help her with her own issues. I’m not really qualified to speak on the subject since I basically lucked out in the reproductive-organ pain department, but I am always interested in how different foods and chemicals affect different people. I am also one of those people who prefers to avoid pills or chemicals when possible, so I appreciate you sharing your experience.
Kristen 6:06: I can’t speak to all menstrual issues but it was pretty clear to me that I was poisoning my body with DC and it manifested in me as “painful ovulation.” I had a friend recently who had numbing in her hands (she’s a stay-at-home mom so no carpel tunnel) and a neighbor told her to stop drinking DC, which she had been in copious amounts. Her pain went away within a couple days.
Some, not all I’m sure – symptoms could be lessened or erased by changing what we eat/drink, etc.
Just my two cents…
We are what we eat.. such a simple solution to many aches and pains when we pay attention! Caffeine can also cause terrible stomach aches… I used to drink tons of iced tea and have felt much better after weening myself off of it!
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Lyssie:5:18: Even the scientist who first discovered the method of synthesizing the chemicals used in the pill never INTENDED for it to possibly prevent implantation. He specifically stated that its use was to prevent ovulation. I walk past the signpost hailing his discovery every day on my college campus.
Do you think that a scientist wanting to market an effective pill may have wanted to make sure his pill was as close to 100% effective as possible and that he may have created the abortifacient effect when creating the pill while never specifically stating it? If he hadn’t stated it, perhaps the FDA was not even testing for that effect when the pill was going through testing. Just a thought.
I personally would never take BC pills because I don’t want to put synthetic hormones in my body. I can’t imagine they’re very good to put in your body so I just don’t take them. But that’s just me, I don’t really like to take medications though for anything. I guess it helps that I’m pretty healthy and don’t have to, but I don’t even like to take aspirin. I prefer to just power through.
So, you’re posts regarding your use of Xanex for your panic attacks was untruthful?
Just to complicate this issue even further with something that probably everyone will not like, I actually agree with a lot of what Lyssie said when giving reasons why one shouldn’t reject the pill. Now don’t get me wrong; I believe all contraception is intrinsically disordered (and I should note that includes the pill when it is taken with the INTENT of contracepting). But if one believes that birth control is a prima facie good or at least morally neutral (as many people on here who we are trying to convince otherwise do), it seems to me that the pill acts as an abortifactient about as much as other things which are morally neutral like coffee harm/kill the fetus/embryo. One could argue along the lines of double-effect; that the pill is being taken for the good purpose of preventing a pregnancy, but an unintended side-effect is that it may (though rarely) cause a spontaneous abortion, like coffee or something else. Hence it is morally permissible to take hormonal contraceptives even though they have the foreseen yet unintended side effect of a possible (rare) abortion.
Now I think that the above is sound if we start with what I believe to be the false assumption that BC is prima facie good or morally neutral. So I think that’s where we need to argue against the pill/ BC; that an actual contraceptive act is always in and of itself gravely wrong (which of course I believe to be true).
Kristen –
I don’t drink diet coke, but have heard similar things before – especially with headaches.
Its a little more medical for me than just pain though – I was throwing up for 2 days straight and getting awful dizzy spells. They put me on a low dose muscle relaxant first, and that just made me more nauseous. Then they tried Tylenol with Codeine, and that didn’t help the pain. My mom had it slightly less severely, but it went away after she had me. So I’m sure once I have my first baby, I’ll get the IUD instead of continuing on the pill.
Janet – the fact that the pill changed the cervical mucus was discovered AFTER it was created. It was never an intention or an additive. The possibility that the change can affect implantation is stated explicitly on the label, and I don’t know of anyone who has a problem with that. The label on mine says “the pill prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation….changes in the cervical mucus MAY also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the even of breakthrough ovulation…”
In other words, what is it about implantation that makes the implanted embryo a human being but that the non-implanted embryo lacks?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 21, 2008 3:02 PM
Once again I believe X did NOT answer this question. It is exactly the same one I posed to her several weeks ago.
You NEED to answer this one xalisae, even if only for yourself in your own mind.
Janet:
No, we did an organic chemistry unit on the synthesizing of these hormones. We were shown the exact formulation….just synthetic versions of hormones we already have. He was a chemist, not a biologist. He started out just trying to make the female hormones….only after did he realize their implications. He then suggested these implications to suppress ovulation. BTW, he never created the PILL. He synthesized the first wave of hormones used in them. We use slightly different ones today, ones that are based off the original model but considered safer for use. None of these formulations, however, intend from the get-go to prevent implantation. They have ALWAYS been produced to prevent ovulation. Anything else that happens is a side effect that was discovered after the fact.
When it comes to using contraceptives as treatment for painful periods, PMS, PMDD, endometriosys, PCOD, etc… I think it is most proper to respond with the question: Is this all that medicine has to offer women? The state of women’s health care is unacceptable! It is bad medicine (and naive) to believe that one “medication” (birth control pill) can treat a myriad of problems adequately. Contraception merely wipes out a woman’s fertility cycle – women do not get their periods while on the pill because (ideally) they are not ovulating. (When breakthrough ovulation does occur (and sperm make it through the thickened cervical mucus) you are then dealing with a chemical abortion.)
I am outraged at the state of women’s health care and am appalled that the one legitimate women’s health science that does treat the underlying problems of fertility problems and not just the systems is all but ignored by the medical community.
Please, don’t believe the hype when hearing that contraceptives are needed to treat women’s health problems because it is simply not true. Take a look at NaProTechnology.com and gain a new perspective on real women’s health care.
Posted by: just saying at July 21, 2008 1:39 PM
Of course the problem is that women’s healthcare has been completely hijacked by the women’s movement and politicized beyond help.
It would be nice to see rigorous research into dysmenorhea that looks at treating women in ways that are more natural and effective.
the 7:10 pm post was mine
So, you’re posts regarding your use of Xanex for your panic attacks was untruthful?
Well, actually I only take them when I’m feeling a panic attack coming on. The majority of the time I try to muster through it on my own and work on my breathing so I don’t get all worked up. I actually haven’t taken a Xanax in a month or so. I still have the anxiety, but I’m working on myself because that’s what the real cause of the anxiety is. I’m doing things like exercising and doing nice things for myself, and it seems to be helping a bit. So no, it wasn’t untruthful at all.
And also, Xanax isn’t a synthetic hormone, it’s a benzodiazepene that affects chemicals in your brain that can make you feel anxious. :)
Boy oh boy! Diet Coke is EVIL – but so good! Yes, Amanda I do know people who take the Pill for medical reasons and I don’t blame them one bit. I had a friend in HS that had a non-stop period practically all jr. year. Yuck!
Now I have a friend who’s very against taking the Pill for religious reasons but her GP (also a Catholic that uses NFP – I know the Dr. and his wife personally) basically said you NEED to take it, nothing else they’ve tried has worked and I told her he wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t true.
I agree with Elizabeth though that I don’t like synthetic hormones because basically I think Diet Coke is practically, if not really, a synthetic and look what it did to me. Also, since all the stuff came out on HRT I’m very skeptical. But, if medically needed, I can’t blame anyone for taking it.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 21, 2008 9:20 PM
How is O’Steen a liar? Obama said “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”
That would ensure that abortion was legal throughout pregnancy with no limitations and void all bans at the state and federal level.
Y’know- I haven’t been able to afford my copay nor have I been able to have the time to nip over to my university pharmacy to pick up my birth control pills and all I gotta say right now as I bleed like a stuck pig on heparin is: If you take away my pills, I will hunt you down and beat you with a fun noodle. I will then make you pay for every single feminine product I have to use over the 3 week course of my curse for the rest of my fertile years…and make you listen to ever nasty, disgusting complaint I have about “having the painters in”.
The end.
I drink about 6 diet cokes a day. Everyone tells me to stop. But I kind of don’t want to. They are comforting, delicious (MMM Aspartame), they are there with me through anything, and they have no calories.
I actually thought of sending Coca-cola a christmas card, but I realized I payed them for the privalege of drinking it so that would be redundant. Problem? I don’t know. But….why give that all up?
I prefer ginger ale =)
Posted by: Anonymous at July 21, 2008 10:06 PM
Hmmm… I have read it. Why don’t YOU tell me where it DOESN’T say states would be allowed to limit abortion or it would NOT ensure abortion is legal throughout pregnancy?
States are allowed to limit them now – why would we need FOCA if it says the same thing that’s legal now?
BTW, we aren’t supposed to post as Anonymous. Can’t you pick a name? Maybe “kool-aid drinker?”
Hmmm… I have read it. Why don’t YOU tell me where it DOESN’T say states would be allowed to limit abortion or it would NOT ensure abortion is legal throughout pregnancy?
Maybe that should read “DOES” say states would be allowed…
Anywho, you get my drift.
Anonymous: No anonymous posts allowed. Will delete from here on out.
Lol, I think it must take effort to drink 6 cans of anything soda a day! Wow!
Liz,
Nah. One for each meal, plus snacks. Whenever I have a food craving but have eaten my daily quota, I sip on a diet soda.
Guys, I’d be more concerned about the lack of privacy on Facebook if I were you. It just sounds like trouble waiting to happen. Be careful not to give too much personal information, especially about the children!
Rae, I feel for you. “Havin’ the painters in” is a new one for me!
PiP, 6 diet cokes may turn your teeth a nice caramel color and do God knows what to your stomach. Maybe you could have milk or water at meals? I’ve heard it’s easier to maintain your weight if you drink a milk with each meal. (I’m not implying you need to!)
Don’t worry Janet, I use Crest White Strips but yeah it’s probably not good for my stomach. Milk has a lot of extra calories that I don’t wanna add.
@Janet: THanks for the concern, but I have uber privacy settings on Facebook- in fact, if you’re not in my network my name doesn’t pop up in the search. :D
“A pregnancy doesn’t begin until typically 6 days after fertilization, at implantation.”
The embryonic human being’s life begins AT fertilization, though, and many oral contraceptives have the “backup method” of making implantation difficult.
“It’s like having all the planks, nails, tools, and boards you need to make a treehouse. You don’t actually HAVE a treehouse…you could if you had a tree to put it in, but the pill is like taking out all the trees in your yard.”
In other words, human embryos require a hospitable environment in order to survive and to develop — sort of like we all do.
“But I don’t know why I even bother trying to talk to you about this…nothing I can ever say will change your mind, because I lack the authority to do so with you, and the people who do have already told you what to think.”
…yup, that’s a pretty condescending thing to say. Believe it or not, some people can think with complete autonomy and still disagree with you, xalisae.
“* 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases;
* 38 percent say it should be legal in most cases;
* 24 percent say it should be illegal in most cases;
* 14 percent say it should be illegal in all cases.”
Those “most cases” you’re speaking of are the “hard cases” that account for approximately 5% of all abortions, not the purely selective abortions that constitute the majority. The majority view appears to be that abortion should be banned EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, etc.; that will be too restrictive for some of us and too permissive for some of us, but that appears to be the majority view right now.
38 percent say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. That’s not a “majority view.” 57% say it should be legal in most cases or all cases. The 38% who say it should be “legal in most cases” probably think very late term abortions (or maybe sex selection abortions) should be illegal.
Most abortions are first trimester. According to that pool, most people want those legal.
No…the polls typically ask if respondents favor legalized abortion in all cases, except in cases of rape, incest, life-endangering pregnancies, et al, or never. When we consider this, it’s only 19% who support it in all cases — including wholly elective ones.
according to this poll:
19% want all abortions for any reason legal
38% want most abortions legal (not just those for rape incest, life of the mother–but MOST Abortions.)
24% want abortion illegal except for those rare exceptions (rape, incest, life of the mother)
14% illegal, no exceptions
If the poll is accurate (I have no idea where it came from) then the majority favor legal abortions with a few excptions. Those exceptions are most likely late term abortions.
Well, I finally found the time to snatch to get on a real computer, because it seems that for some reason, just when I get on a roll here on this subject, my phone quits letting me post on this website. I’ve answered this before, but I’ll answer it again.
If you’re there, BB, I have your answer. Not that I haven’t already answered the question before, Bobby.
It’s a uterus. That’s very important to the whole baby-making process, dare I say essential. Potentiality and outside intervention are integral parts of my pro-life philosophy, and when applied to the united sperm and egg, make all the difference. If you’re making a cake, you need an oven. If you expect to make a cake by just mixing a bunch of ingredients up in a bowl on your table and leaving it there, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. However, once you put that cake in that oven, unless YOU touch the dial to make the cake burn, or YOU take the cake out of the oven before it’s ready, there will be a completed cake coming out of that oven. But, if any outside action is done to ruin the baking of that cake once it has begun, that is one less cake in this this world, and it can never be retrieved, and whoever is responsible for the cake-in-progress being removed from the oven only partly done or burned has destroyed the cake forever.
Well, I finally found the time to snatch to get on a real computer, because it seems that for some reason, just when I get on a roll here on this subject, my phone quits letting me post on this website. I’ve answered this before, but I’ll answer it again.
If you’re there, BB, I have your answer. Not that I haven’t already answered the question before, Bobby.
It’s a uterus. That’s very important to the whole baby-making process, dare I say essential. Potentiality and outside intervention are integral parts of my pro-life philosophy, and when applied to the united sperm and egg, make all the difference. If you’re making a cake, you need an oven. If you expect to make a cake by just mixing a bunch of ingredients up in a bowl on your table and leaving it there, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. However, once you put that cake in that oven, unless YOU touch the dial to make the cake burn, or YOU take the cake out of the oven before it’s ready, there will be a completed cake coming out of that oven. But, if any outside action is done to ruin the baking of that cake once it has begun, that is one less cake in this this world, and it can never be retrieved, and whoever is responsible for the cake-in-progress being removed from the oven only partly done or burned has destroyed the cake forever.
Posted by: xalisae at July 22, 2008 7:59 PM
……………………………………..
Actually, that particular ‘possible’ cake would be destroyed forever.
I think that it would be more accurate to consider the whole woman to be the oven rather than just her uterus. Many parts of the women going on the fritz can interrupt gestation/cause a cake failure. No oven can function without a power supply and a functional design capable of supplying an even and steady supply of heat. Not having the correct ingredients in proper quantity can also mess up the cake.
“A pregnancy doesn’t begin until typically 6 days after fertilization, at implantation.”
The embryonic human being’s life begins AT fertilization, though, and many oral contraceptives have the “backup method” of making implantation difficult.
——————————————————–
So, a human being has many different lives, according to what stage it’s at in development? After a person dies, would you qualify that as the beginning of their “death life” too? Not being alive is not being alive. A fertilized egg with no potential of implantation is NEVER going to be a person. You’re seeing babies that aren’t there.
——————————————————–
“It’s like having all the planks, nails, tools, and boards you need to make a treehouse. You don’t actually HAVE a treehouse…you could if you had a tree to put it in, but the pill is like taking out all the trees in your yard.”
In other words, human embryos require a hospitable environment in order to survive and to develop — sort of like we all do.
——————————————————–
Umm…no, you’re improperly paraphrasing what I said. Once a human embryo implants, it’s begining fetal development, which is the start of its survival and development into a living, breathing human—sort of like we all do. Before that, it has the capacity to develop into a person, the plans are all there and the elements exist, but without the means to continue this with nourishment or a place to accomplish this, it’s passed out of a potential mother into oblivion. Without a pregnancy, there can be no abortion, the term that anti-contraceptive individuals are so fond of throwing around and quite the falsehood, as well. When you’re trying to become pregnant (as I was for awhile myself), you’re hoping for a fertilized egg to implant into your uterine lining, not just hoping eggs fertilize. 5,000 eggs could become fertilized within your body, but you’d never ACTUALLY BE PREGNANT unless one or more of those eggs implants. Why do you think they typically use more than a single fertlilzed egg in IVF?
——————————————————–
“But I don’t know why I even bother trying to talk to you about this…nothing I can ever say will change your mind, because I lack the authority to do so with you, and the people who do have already told you what to think.”
…yup, that’s a pretty condescending thing to say. Believe it or not, some people can think with complete autonomy and still disagree with you, xalisae.
Posted by: bmmg39 at July 22, 2008 3:57 PM
——————————————————–
And it’s just a coincidence that most of the people who do have mostly religious affiliations, or religious roots connected to their attitudes about sex and the like, or talk about how they used to be in the dark about how they used to take the horrible abortion pill until some religious person came and “enlightened them to the evils of oral contraceptives”. Yeah. Sorry for my condescention, but disseminating false information to push their moral agenda on other people, setting the woman’s rights movement back by decades, and hurting the pro-life movement by attempting to take away what could be one of the single most valuable tools of protecting the unborn we could possibly possess is rather heinous, and in my opinion warrants a little bit of an unpleasant demeanor.
Actually, that particular ‘possible’ cake would be destroyed forever.
I think that it would be more accurate to consider the whole woman to be the oven rather than just her uterus. Many parts of the women going on the fritz can interrupt gestation/cause a cake failure. No oven can function without a power supply and a functional design capable of supplying an even and steady supply of heat. Not having the correct ingredients in proper quantity can also mess up the cake.
Posted by: Sally at July 22, 2008 8:23 PM
———————————————-
Yes, Sally, but my problem is when somone willfully screws with the cake-baking mechanisms with the express intent of destroying that delicious cake. ;)0
but disseminating false information to push their moral agenda on other people, setting the woman’s rights movement back by decades, and hurting the pro-life movement by attempting to take away what could be one of the single most valuable tools of protecting the unborn we could possibly possess is rather heinous, and in my opinion warrants a little bit of an unpleasant demeanor.
Posted by: xalisae at July 22, 2008 8:28 PM
What specifically is false?
Yes, Sally, but my problem is when somone willfully screws with the cake-baking mechanisms with the express intent of destroying that delicious cake. ;)0
Posted by: xalisae at July 22, 2008 8:31 PM
…………………….
Understandable if you are hungry for cake. My problem is someone else telling me that just because I assembled something that looks like cake batter, I must bake it.
but disseminating false information to push their moral agenda on other people, setting the woman’s rights movement back by decades, and hurting the pro-life movement by attempting to take away what could be one of the single most valuable tools of protecting the unborn we could possibly possess is rather heinous, and in my opinion warrants a little bit of an unpleasant demeanor.
Posted by: xalisae at July 22, 2008 8:28 PM
What specifically is false?
Posted by: Eileen at July 22, 2008 8:47 PM
————————————————
I said what was false, specifically. Claiming hormonal contraception to be an abortificent is definitively untrue, as an abortion is the premature termination of a pregnancy which culminates in the end of a pre-born person’s life. By medical definition, a woman is not pregnant-no pregnancy exists-until a fertilized egg has been implanted.
THERE CAN BE NO ABORTION IF A WOMAN IS NOT PREGNANT; IF CONTRACEPTION PREVENTS IMPLANTATION, NO PREGNANCY HAS OCCURED. THEREFORE, CONTRACEPTIVES CANNOT CAUSE ABORTIONS.
I cannot stress this any further, nor can I explain it any more clearly. I’ve attempted numerous times, and you all just don’t seem to understand.
Understandable if you are hungry for cake. My problem is someone else telling me that just because I assembled something that looks like cake batter, I must bake it.
Posted by: Sally at July 22, 2008 11:43 PM
————————————————-
Well, if you didn’t want a cake, why’d you put it in the oven in the first place? I just want to enjoy the yummy ingredients/cake batter, but if it happens to get mixed up and fall in the oven, that’s great, and I’ll make the most of my delicious, beautiful, delicate cake. I think we should all have the right to enjoy our ingredients/batter as much as we want, and not have to worry about people who place WAY too much importance on the ingredients, to the point they’re stepping on already-made cakes while trying to take away other peoples’ ingredients/batter, and start trying to protect a bunch of stuff that might look kind of like cake, or could be turned into cake, but is obviously not cake. So they start trying to make sure that everyone bakes their batter, even though some people just want to enjoy the batter, and trying to protect rice krispies’ treats, and all the while, cakes that could’ve been prevented from ever being put in the oven are burning…
Xalisae, I am sorry that you’ve been having computer problems. I see your analogy about the cake, and I understand how you are viewing this, however, your analogy could still be used to further late term abortion arguments.
One could argue that a cake really isn’t a cake until it’s fully cooked.
I would argue that a cake is still a cake in essence from the moment all of the ingredients are put together. Even before it is “put in the oven”, once the ingredients are put together, the cake, in essence, exists, and is complete, needing only time in the oven to develop into something edible.
In just the same way, a baby is still a baby from the moment the egg is fertilized. Even before it is attached to the uterus, the baby exists, and is a complete human organism, needing only time in the womb to grow and develop from that time on.
I agree with one thing Sally said, and that it is that it is not the “womb”, but the “woman” that the baby exists inside, that would be more comparable to the “oven”. As soon as the baby is in existence inside the woman – the “oven” – she is pregnant.
Pregnancy is defined as:
the state of being pregnant; the period from conception to birth when a woman carries a developing fetus in her uterus
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pregnancy
Any definition which defines pregnancy as beginning from implantation is being dishonest. The child exists both before and after implantation. What do you call it before then? Pre-baby? If so, please explain what structural changes occur to the baby in order to make it change from non baby to baby?
I mean, you can obviously see that a sperm must have something added to it’s structure in order to change it from sperm to human being.
And an ovum must have something added in order to change it from ovum to human being.
But what is added to the conceived baby during implantation that changes it from non baby to baby?
There is no such change. This is why you continue to use philosophical arguments and analogies such as cakes and trees instead of directly answering this question.
I hope you will consider answering the question, Xalisae. I consider you to be a very, very strong pro-lifer when it comes to later term babies, and I admire you for the pro-life work you’ve done thus far. However, it is contradictory for you to believe that something as arbitrary as the place where the child is located makes it more human or less human.
Just like it is arbitrary for some people to think that a person is not a human unless it can survive outside the womb.
Pregnancy is defined as:
the state of being pregnant; the period from conception to birth when a woman carries a developing fetus in her uterus
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pregnancy
Any definition which defines pregnancy as beginning from implantation is being dishonest. The child exists both before and after implantation. What do you call it before then? Pre-baby? If so, please explain what structural changes occur to the baby in order to make it change from non baby to baby?
Excellent, Bethany!
Actually Eileen, the invented PC term for what you are describing is “pre-embryo.” This is a made up political term, as Princeton biologist and ESCR supporter Lee Silver admits in his book “Remaking Eden.” He says
“I’ll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena
Oh BTW, by PC above, I meant politically correct, not pro-choice.
God love you too, Bobby! Thanks for the great info.!
Thank you, Eileen!
I wish people would stop misconstruing and twisting “potential” effects of the pill into “intended back-ups” that were planned on from the beginning. LIKE I SAID, the hormonal formulations of the pill are SPECIFICALLY, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT DESIGNED for the action of stopping ovulation. NOTHING is added as a “backup” to prevent implantation, should ovulation and fertilization actually occur. It just MIGHT be the case that the same hormones SPECIFICALLY INTENDED for suppressing ovulation COULD make it more difficult for implantation to occur, but that WAS NEVER THE INTENDED EFFECT DESIGNED BY MAKERS OF THE PILL. IT IS NOT AN INTENTIONAL DESIGN OF THE PILL. IT NEVER WAS. IT IS A POTENTIAL, NOT DEFINITE, SIDE EFFECT TO WHICH THE MAKERS OF THE PILL ALERT CONSUMERS, HONESTLY, ON THEIR PACKAGING. IT MAY OR MAY NOT ACTUALLY OCCUR.
Suppressing ovulation has always been the intention. The other two effects were hypothesized long afterward, and were never intended from the very beginning. It’s just simply ridiculous to expect every sexually-active woman to avoid anything and everything that could POTENTIALLY prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. Any chemical, for any reason, could be the chemical du jour that happens to prevent an egg that day from implanting in the uterus. Yet birth control gets the lion’s share of the condemnation.
Whether it was intended from the beginning or not is not the issue. It happens and women should be made aware of this because there are some who would not take it given that information.
Eileen,
Yes, it IS the issue for some people on this blog…if you read many of the posts up at the top, many oppose the pill for what they believe to be an “intended backup” to its use.
Again, you missed a very important point. It MIGHT happen. For you to say that “it happens”, period, is misleading. An egg can fail to implant for ANY NUMBER OF REASONS, not just hormonal. To have every woman live in a bubble where failure to implant is nonexistent would be impossible.
Whether it was intended from the beginning or not is not the issue. It happens and women should be made aware of this because there are some who would not take it given that information.
Eileen, I wholeheartedly agree.
When I first found out about the BCP, I was so angry that I had not been given this information that I needed to know before I started taking them. I think that all women deserve to know that it has the potential to be abortive.
Lyssie, I understand what you are saying, and I understand your point of view, that it is not the intended effect.
However, on the insert of the package that comes with the pill, it says that this is indeed one of the pill’s functions. Shouldn’t every woman be informed of this detail, in case she is morally opposed to that for herself? Not every woman understands the medical jargon on the package. I didn’t at the time I took them. If I had been given that information straight out the first time I was given the pill, I never would have taken them. I know I speak for many, many other women when I say this.
One could argue that a cake really isn’t a cake until it’s fully cooked.
I would argue that a cake is still a cake in essence from the moment all of the ingredients are put together. Even before it is “put in the oven”, once the ingredients are put together, the cake, in essence, exists, and is complete, needing only time in the oven to develop into something edible.
In just the same way, a baby is still a baby from the moment the egg is fertilized. Even before it is attached to the uterus, the baby exists, and is a complete human organism, needing only time in the womb to grow and develop from that time on.
————————————————————————————————
Yes, you could argue that…if you totally ignore that I stated my two main points of contention with abortion are potentiality and outside interference.
If you’re making a cake, and all the ingredients are put together, I don’t care how much you can’t wait for it to be or want for it to be cake, it is not yet cake, and you can’t start heaping frosting on it and telling people that the cake is done.
A fertilized egg, even a days-old blastocyst, is VERY different from a blastocyst post-attatchment, and stating that there is no difference, or there are no important changes between the official medical definition of “pregnant” and “a fertilized egg exists”, is just being dishonest or ignorant of the very important facts.
I’ll list the ones I’ve found to be the most important for your benefit:
1.) changes from a zygote to a morula to a blastocyst…that’s SEVERAL stages between “conception” and “implantation”
2.) the blastocyst shedding its zona pellucida so that it can even implant in the first place…I suppose we should start finding everything that can prevent that from happening so we can make sure it happens 100% of the time whether we want it to or not…
3.) the blastocyst attaching to the wall of the uterus and sending chorionic villi into the wall of the uterus as anchors, starting the process of its ensured survival and growth into a baby.
4.) the change in endometrial gene expression necessary to allow the embryo implantation, since the uterine endometrium is NATURALLY HOSTILE TO IMPLANTATION BY DEFAULT. Yes…a change is required within the endometrium from its default position for a blastocyst to even implant, people. Maybe that has something to do with the INSANELY LARGE number of fertilized eggs that just pass through a woman on their own even without birth control?
5.) trophoblast cells destroy the wall of the maternal spiral arteries, converting them from muscular vessels into flaccid sinusoidal sacs. This vascular transformation is important to ensure an adequate blood supply to the feto-placental unit and the beginning of the histiotrophic nutrition. This is kind of important if you want a baby, and the baby isn’t going to happen without it.
Yeah…it’s a little more complicated than “fertilization*POW*=baby”, and all of this information, including implantation being the defined begining of pregnancy, comes from medical sources.
If you are just KEEPING your uterine lining in its NATURAL, DEFAULT position, I hate to get back to the cake/oven thing, but it’s just like keeping your oven off and heck, if you throw in a condom, putting a lock on the oven just for good measure. It’s not happening.
I’m very disturbed that most if not all discussion of sex I’ve had here reverts immediately to “what THE CHURCH says” or “what GOD says”, and seems to have much to do with the opinions most of you hold on the matter of contraception. We all do not believe such things, and wanting to FREAKING OUTLAW (which some of you do, and have stated as much openly) contraception-which has helped place women on nearly equal footing with men in the area of actually fully enjoying our sexuality while also being able to concentrate on our own development in endevours both outside the home (intellectual/career/artistic/etc.) and within (concentrating on the relationship between you and your significant other only) without having to worry so much about raising children every second of every day-is a highly frightening and VERY FREAKING ALARMING PROSPECT to some of us within the pro-life community. You think my arguments smack of pro-choice rhetoric? Oh well…I think your comments remind me a little of some things I’ve heard from them too…like you don’t care so much about saving babies as you do imposing your moral standards on women, and using children as a punishment for enjoying sex. I’m really rather troubled since coming here and seeing some of your posts about contraception…especially because before that I was relying on MY pro-life opinion only…I thought that what the pro-choicers said was just a stereotyping of the pro-life movement to cast us in a poor light…when I think that many of you would WANT to put my daughter in such a situation one day that she has to pretty much choose between having kids she’s not ready for and a fulfilling sexual relationship with her significant other just because YOU don’t think it’s apropriate. I don’t think viagra should be covered on insurance if birth control isn’t, and vice versa. I think Planned Parenthood should do its freaking job and not use taxpayer money in addition to the millions of dollars it makes on its own to actually help people get the contraceptives they need as they really say is their goal. I don’t think they should be allowed to kill babies in utero, and I think people who can afford it can pay for their own contraceptives, even if that means they have to cut their Starbucks out of the budget to pay for it. But I don’t think any religious definition of morality or what women should be doing with their bodies should impact non-religious persons’ access to “better living through better medicine” if it’s not killing anyone.
I’m sorry I’m so tired. I’m sorry the conversation shifted so heavily to technical terms…I would’ve preferred to keep this in the realm of theorhetical yummy cake. I’m sorry this ended up getting so garbled and being a rebuttal to, like, 3 peoples’ comments (some from different threads), but I have limited time to do this sort of thing in, limited resources, and a phone that glitches quite often and denies comments randomly on various threads permanently. I’m sorry I got so offensive to some of you when maybe I shouldn’t have. But, I’m confused by the reaction of the pro-life movement to contraception. I’m really disheartened, and kind of frightened of the goals of the people I once sought to align myself with, and I don’t know what to do about these feelings
.like you don’t care so much about saving babies as you do imposing your moral standards on women, and using children as a punishment for enjoying sex. I’m really rather troubled since coming here and seeing some of your posts about contraception..
X, I am sorry but I really don’t know where these accusations are coming from. Using children as a punishment for sex?!!! I have never heard any pro-life person refer to children as a punishment for enjoying sex however I have heard B.Obama use that expression. I have never said that every act of marital intercourse should result in conception . (NFP when used correctly is just as effective.)
And I use “marital” to qualify because to have intercourse outside of marriage is simply using another person for your own enjoyment. There is strong emotional bonding that goes on between a man and a woman. When it doesn’t take place between two people who are committed to each other within the context of marriage, people almost always get hurt and it is usually the woman who suffers the most. If one doesn’t want to look at the emotional and/or spiritual perspective, why take something that messes with a normal part of your physiology and has potentially very dangerous side effects?
There you have it folks! Even anti-choicers can’t agree on when there precoius “embryo” is alive.
The cake analongy fits perfectly into a more rational pro-choice argument. According to the most extremists, all the ingreients put together make it into a cake before you put it into the oven. Nope. Then according to Xalisae, it becomes a cake the SECOND YOU PUT IT IN THE OVEN. Again, nope. Of course, it becomes a cake the second it is ready to eat i.e. VIABILITY!!! So you all fail. It’s not a cake unless you can eat it, it’s not a person until it can live on it’s own.
Okay, it’s a baby / it’s not a baby: it’s a cake / it’s not a cake! To kill a living, growing organism that is human ( I’ve never known a blastocyst to morph into a cat, dog or otherwise) is wrong. You can split hairs all that you want but when the egg is fertilized it has all the DNA it needs to differentiate it as human.
xalisae at 12:39 AM said:
xalisae – take some time, relax. (Good advice for everyone – including myself!)
There’s much more common ground between all those who advocate life for the preborn than not, so that needs to be valued, and differences need to be explored slowly and with great care and respect.
One of the reasons why you may find so much passion in these discussions is many have a deep love for all people, at every stage of life, implanted or not – but sometimes we forget (and I’m a great offender at this) and we respect our arguments more than the other person – and in the end, diminish the other person and ourselves.
At times even those with the most laudable intentions needs to be reminded that love must be shown to all.
Eileen @7:35
Yes, biologically speaking it is a human being from fertalization. But when does PERSONHOOD begin? It makes much more sense to define it at viability rather than implantation, let alone fertalization. I’ve never known a non-viable person. You may say people on ventilators, but then you’re arguing my point. It is precisely the fact that the fetus is dependant on another for survival which makes it a non-person.
The embryo which has not implanted needs a uterus to live which makes it a non-person, as does the fetus until it is viable.
It’s a shame that this thread is going to be dropped, because I think the conversation about when life begins and should be protected is an important one.
Kudos to Chris…as I always say…Abortion is the enemy, not pro choicers…
X,
I’ve wanted to engage you in this debate (about birth control) but was feeling so much hostility that I thought anything I had to say would fall on deaf ears. I did actually comment awhile ago, but you didn’t respond so I just let it go.
I feel as though you aren’t so much interested in discussion as you are in making the prolife side feel ashamed. Which saddens me.
We have very valid reasons for feeling the way we do, and if you’d just take the time to listen, and really hear what we’re saying, you might understand, if not agree, that we’re not just arbitrarily against birth control.
I feel, when reading your comments, the way I feel when I hear the pro choicers rationalize abortion.
A woman that has had an abortion has more to lose by becoming pro life than a woman that hasn’t had one. That is why I think they can be so much more emotional when debating the right to choose.
By the same token, I think that women that are using birth control, have much more to lose, than women that aren’t. Which would explain the “emotion factor”…
As a Catholic, I am obviously against all birth control, but as a civilian I would only want birth control that can result in what I believe to be an abortion to banned. I recognize that we are not a theocracy, and that using condoms, or the diaphram, while wrong from a religious standpoint, are not so wrong that they should be made illegal.
So I think it is unfair to say that we want ALL birth control banned. It is only the abortifacient ones that we would want illegal.
The rest would be personal decisions.
X,
Here is another post from a different thread that I put up…it explains a little more of the objections we have with birth control…Granted they are just theories, but they make you think…
I was listening to Relevant Radio the other day, and Janet Smith was talking.
She brought up some fascinating points.
We know that birth control mimics pregnancy. So as far as the woman’s body is concerned, she is carrying a child.
But is it possible, that males in certain species pick up on this? In many animals, the female looks for the Alpha Male to mate with. In wolves ONLY the Alpha male and Alpha female are allowed to mate.
The male that gets chosen is the one most like to protect and provide for any offspring.
An experiment was done with monkeys. The females were put on the pill, and introduced to males. The males not only didn’t attempt to mate with the females, but they became aggressive and acted out.
In another experiment female lap dancers were monitored. Those that were on the pill got significantly lower tips than those who were not, and the women that were ovulating got the highest tips. Men are attracted to fertile females.
Finally, in another test, men that were considered “losers”, didn’t have jobs, weren’t clean, weren’t aggressive/competitive, were given T-shirts to wear for 24 hours. Another group of men, that were highly competitive/aggressive, successful, etc. were also given t-shirts.
Women on birth control and women that were not on birth control were given the t-shirts to smell.
The woman on birth control, chose the t-shirts of the “losers”, while the women not on birth control chose the “winners”…
What does this mean? Maybe nothing.
BUT:
What if, by being on the pill you are sending out signals (most likely pheremones) that you are pregnant, and therefore not looking to “mate”, you were actually attracting the types of guys who were not interested in starting families?
I realize that that seems contradictory, since if you’re pregnant your already starting a family, but the pheremones whe’re talking about here are the ones that attract men, sexually.
So men that don’t want to make babies are being attracted to infertile women. Men that want families and would make good providers are attracted to fertile women.
And women on the pill, often NOT ALWAYS, have less sex drive. So, they might not be putting out any signals that would attract potentially “good” mates.
I’m not saying that these were conclusive. I can’t even find the studies to cite them. I can only find articles of people talking about them, but not the studies themselves.
So I’m not putting this out there as a SEE, BIRTH CONTROL IS BAAAAAD…but it did make me think. Couple this with all the hormones in our food, and BC in our water supply…
And the fact that so many women on the pro choice side say they never want children…maybe it’s the birth control pills themselves that are suppressing maternal instincts. After all, your body thinks it’s pregnant, so it’s not looking to get pregnant again…not actively seeking someone to “Impregnate” them…
I don’t know. I just thought it would make a good discussion…
Posted by: mk at July 23, 2008 5:38 PM
thanks for the reminder, Chris…
And I use “marital” to qualify because to have intercourse outside of marriage is simply using another person for your own enjoyment. There is strong emotional bonding that goes on between a man and a woman. When it doesn’t take place between two people who are committed to each other within the context of marriage, people almost always get hurt and it is usually the woman who suffers the most.
————————————————-
Ok, Eileen…you don’t see where people are coming up with all this talk about religion and morality in regards to other peoples’ relationships…then you immediately dive into your next paragraph which belittles MANY peoples’ relationships because, believe it or not, not everyone feels like YOU do about sex/marriage/etc. My relationship with my significant other is just as valid now, post-marriage, as it was before we were married and still having sex like nasty little heathens. A couple, regardless of marital status, that enjoys a healthy sexual relationship are not necessarily “just using each other”, even though you personally may not think so, and there are plenty of people in terrible marriages I’ve known personally who WERE just using each other physically, so get off your high horse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There you have it folks! Even anti-choicers can’t agree on when there precoius “embryo” is alive.
The cake analongy fits perfectly into a more rational pro-choice argument. According to the most extremists, all the ingreients put together make it into a cake before you put it into the oven. Nope. Then according to Xalisae, it becomes a cake the SECOND YOU PUT IT IN THE OVEN. Again, nope. Of course, it becomes a cake the second it is ready to eat i.e. VIABILITY!!! So you all fail. It’s not a cake unless you can eat it, it’s not a person until it can live on it’s own.
————————————————-
Umm…no, wise @$$ Todd…I guess everyone chooses to ignore the whole point I try to make about my pro-life philosophy, because it’s easier to act like you don’t understand in a feeble attempt to make me look like a moron than to actually try to digest it yourself. It’s about POTENTIALITY and OUTSIDE INTERVENTION. I explained that NATURALLY, BY DEFAULT, the uterine lining is unreceptive to a fertilized egg. Keeping it as such is just not turning on the oven…the fertilized egg passes right through, and never would’ve been anything anyway. It’s the changes which I detailed above that MUST be made to allow it to implant and sustain itself that are so important to me, because after those changes occur, it TAKES THE ACTIVE OUTSIDE MEDDLING FROM ANOTHER PARTY TO KEEP THAT LIFE FROM BEING ACTUALIZED. P.S., I never said anything about “personhood”.
=================================================
One of the reasons why you may find so much passion in these discussions is many have a deep love for all people, at every stage of life, implanted or not – but sometimes we forget (and I’m a great offender at this) and we respect our arguments more than the other person – and in the end, diminish the other person and ourselves
————————————————-
Thanks for those words of wisdom. This whole thing just kinda breaks me out of my comfort zone, and makes me a little uncomfortable for many reasons…when I hear people like Jacqueline talking about how the pill should be outlawed, etc., talking casually about something that can alter the way of life for literally thousands of people, in our opinions for the worse, it’s kind of frightening. It’s kind of a mixed blessing, I suppose, because it really does allow me to see where many pro-choicers are coming from, and that adds to my discomfort, but I suppose is a good test of my convictions.
““““““““““““““““““““““““
MK, I see where you’re coming from, but I just don’t think you understand that your reasoning is flawed because it by no means pertains to everyone. Personally, I would only need birth control in a relationship, and by then, I’ve made my “choice of mate” and vice versa, while not under the influence of birth control. But, I also think that we’re far more than a collection of hormones and hormonal responses…I place a lot of importance on our station above other animals in large part because we have nice, large brains that help to counter those hormones. I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with women who don’t want children, and sometimes, whether you can understand their reasons or not, just don’t want kids, or feel that they have other goals in their lives which are more important than children. Many women do. The kids I have now are the most important things in my life, but I have MANY goals and aspirations further down the line that are WAAaaaay more important than any more kids I’d potentially have without my TL.
X,
I did qualify that post by saying that I was claiming it was true, but that it was interesting and gave me pause…
As to pushing my morals onto others…isn’t that what we are doing as pro lifers? You say that not everyone feels as I do, but so do prochoicers. That can’t really be an argument.
The question, as always, comes down to when does life begin.
I think it begins at fertilization. You think it begins at implantation. Others believe it begins at viability. Still others at birth.
We can’t all be right. But IF, and I say IF, I am right, and it begins at conception, and IF the pill can prevent implantation, thereby rejecting newly formed life, then the argument against the PILL, not condoms, not diaphrams, not birth control in general, but the pill, falls into the same category as abortion. And then it would be such a grave wrong, objectively speaking, that it should be made illegal.
You argue that we aren’t being reasonable, because you say that life begins at implantation, but that issue has NOT been decided. Claiming that pregnancy starts at implantation is a new tactic. That is not how it has always been. The rules constantly change, to accomodate the pro choice side. This is an example.
So it is NOT unreasonable (capitals for emphasis, not anger) to believe that life does begin at fertilization, since the question withing the scientific community is still open.
However, that being said, we KNOW that when a sperm and an egg meet, connect, join, that a completely different “thing” comes into being…something that fits the accepted definition of life. It grows, it changes, it adapts…therefore, if we accept that it is “life” the next logical question is what kind of “life” and the only logical answer is of course, human life. In it’s most rudimentary stages, to be sure, but human and life, nonetheless.
You are arguing from a qualitative view. You are saying that while it may be “life” it is not a human life until…and that is the same argument that the pro choice side uses.
I for one, put no restrictions on the quality of a life. It’s a life, it’s a life, it’s a life. I don’t say it’s a life, but he’s dying anyway, or it’s a life, but the circumstances…, or it’s a life, but not a “real” life.
Once that miracle happens and it ceases to be a sperm and an egg, and becomes something “different”, I consider it life.
Other than birth control being an abortifacient, I don’t argue that it should be illegal.
I’ve said that a number of times. I’m not sure that anyone on this board wants condoms banned.
I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.
While I would like to see everyone VOLUNTARILY, reject contraception, I certainly have no desire to apply the law to it’s elimination…
X, I am not judging you personally, I am sorry that you thought that I was. It is not my intention to judge the state of anyone’s soul. But there is a lot of fallout from the sexual revolution and a lot of unhappy young women who have been taken in by it.
I was simply trying to explain where I am coming from. Whether you believe it or not — the Catholic Church isn’t trying to suppress women or spoil everyone’s fun,etc. Catholic moral teachings or other religious moral teachings are simply trying to safeguard a person’s material, emotional and spiritual health.
Yes, you could argue that…if you totally ignore that I stated my two main points of contention with abortion are potentiality and outside interference.
If you’re making a cake, and all the ingredients are put together, I don’t care how much you can’t wait for it to be or want for it to be cake, it is not yet cake, and you can’t start heaping frosting on it and telling people that the cake is done.
It is also not completed until the cake is fully baked.
You couldn’t pull a cake out of the oven half way through baking and put frosting on it and call it a cake. You couldn’t even pull it out of the oven 10 minutes before baking and consider it a completed cake.
Your analogy still does not prove consistent.
A fertilized egg, even a days-old blastocyst, is VERY different from a blastocyst post-attatchment, and stating that there is no difference, or there are no important changes between the official medical definition of “pregnant” and “a fertilized egg exists”, is just being dishonest or ignorant of the very important facts.
I didn’t say there is no difference, Xalisae, except in the essence. The fact that it is a complete human being doesn’t change from the moment of conception on.
There are very big changes from the fetus stage to the newborn stage…that doesn’t change the fact that a fetus is just as human as a newborn baby, does it?
The changes that I was referring to where structural changes in which the fertilized egg would somehow change from being a non-person/human to a person/human. So far, you have not shown me one iota of evidence that there are any structural changes which change a non human to a human at the moment of implantation.
I’ll list the ones I’ve found to be the most important for your benefit:
1.) changes from a zygote to a morula to a blastocyst…that’s SEVERAL stages between “conception” and “implantation”
And there is then the stage of embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler. Each one of those is a human being. I am not sure what your point was here. You are speaking of developmental changes, not the kind of changes I am referring to.
2.) the blastocyst shedding its zona pellucida so that it can even implant in the first place…I suppose we should start finding everything that can prevent that from happening so we can make sure it happens 100% of the time whether we want it to or not…
Xalisae, the zona pellucida is necessary for fertilization to occur at all. Once fertilization has happened, the fact that this is shed doesn’t prove that the child has somehow changed from a non-person/human to a person/human, not at all.
It’s just a developmental stage.
Just like shedding the umbilical cord is a part of development of a newborn baby,and the fact that a baby has an umbelical cord at one moment and then sheds it the next doesn’t change the humanity of the child…so why should shedding the zona pellucida change the humanity of an unborn child? That doesn’t make sense at all.
If you lose an arm, a leg, or your hair, are you less human?
3.) the blastocyst attaching to the wall of the uterus and sending chorionic villi into the wall of the uterus as anchors, starting the process of its ensured survival and growth into a baby.
4.) the change in endometrial gene expression necessary to allow the embryo implantation, since the uterine endometrium is NATURALLY HOSTILE TO IMPLANTATION BY DEFAULT. Yes…a change is required within the endometrium from its default position for a blastocyst to even implant, people. Maybe that has something to do with the INSANELY LARGE number of fertilized eggs that just pass through a woman on their own even without birth control?
There is a very large number of unborn children PAST the stage of implantation that miscarry naturally, Xalisae. Take, for instance, my baby, Blessing, that miscarried at 6 weeks last year.
My baby had already implanted and had started the “process of its ensured survival and growth into a baby”…only his/her life wasn’t ensured. Life never truly is. Natural death happens to people of all ages, naturally. Implantation is not a guarantee that your child will make it to term. In fact, most doctors will tell you that every single woman will experience at least 1 miscarriage during their lifetime.
Does that make abortion okay, since it happens so often? It surprises me that you seem to be actually making the argument that if natural death occurs enough times, that an intentional killing would be acceptable.
Would you say that if enough newborns were dying of SIDS (in insanely large numbers, mind you) that it was morally acceptable to start killing them off when you choose? Because so many die naturally anyway? Of course not. Because that is not reasonable.
5.) trophoblast cells destroy the wall of the maternal spiral arteries, converting them from muscular vessels into flaccid sinusoidal sacs. This vascular transformation is important to ensure an adequate blood supply to the feto-placental unit and the beginning of the histiotrophic nutrition. This is kind of important if you want a baby, and the baby isn’t going to happen without it.
There are obviously many changes just as important as this one that you mentioned, that happen after the implantation stage, which further the development of the child and are designed to make the baby’s development safer. However, I see no evidence that these changes are anything other than developmental. The child is still a biologically alive individual, developing and growing, and is a complete human organism from the moment of conception.
Yeah…it’s a little more complicated than “fertilization*POW*=baby”,
Of course it’s complicated, but that doesn’t change the fact that a complete, developing child has come into being at conception. In fact, how could that be anything BUT complicated?
and all of this information, including implantation being the defined begining of pregnancy, comes from medical sources.
As does the fact that a developing human has come into being at conception.
I’m very disturbed that most if not all discussion of sex I’ve had here reverts immediately to “what THE CHURCH says” or “what GOD says”, and seems to have much to do with the opinions most of you hold on the matter of contraception.
I don’t see what this rant has to do with me. I’ve not brought up God on this topic at all. You have been the one to repeatedly bring Him up over and over, but I have yet to do it in this conversation.
We all do not believe such things, and wanting to FREAKING OUTLAW (which some of you do, and have stated as much openly) contraception-which has helped place women on nearly equal footing with men in the area of actually fully enjoying our sexuality while also being able to concentrate on our own development in endevours both outside the home (intellectual/career/artistic/etc.) and within (concentrating on the relationship between you and your significant other only) without having to worry so much about raising children every second of every day-is a highly frightening and VERY FREAKING ALARMING PROSPECT to some of us within the pro-life community. You think my arguments smack of pro-choice rhetoric? Oh well…I think your comments remind me a little of some things I’ve heard from them too…
Please calm down. I never said anything about outlawing contraception. I am simply trying to make you aware, as a pro-lifer, that the BCP’s that you are taking are potentially abortive.
like you don’t care so much about saving babies as you do imposing your moral standards on women, and using children as a punishment for enjoying sex.
Do you really see children as a punishment?