|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:22 pm
I.Am's got 6 siblings xd I don't think I've ever heard him say, "They're having too many children."
We actually did sterilize people without their permission in this country before. Margaret Sanger actually advocated a policy of sterilization or segregation for the poor. We had a really big eugenics movement pre-WII; the Nazis got some of their ideas from us.
Also, I've never worn revolting clothing. And while I can see your point about birth control, it's still better than abortion. It also does give us a little more control. My seatbelt won't protect me 100% of the time, but I'm going to wear it anyway. Seatbelts are not lies or fallacies.
Also you're now putting pregnancy in terms of a consequence to be suffered, and then later say we need to stop telling women that pregnancy is a burden. I'm getting mixed signals.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:15 pm
If the pill gives you control, tell me how many women on it haven't freaked out when they hadn't started menstruating when they expected and ran to buy a pregnancy test? It doesn't give women control, not real power. It's a fallacy. How many women are told that basically the moment they start seeing a gynecologist, they need to use the pill? And this without regard for it's increased risk of breast cancer.
It doesn't give you control because you become dependent on it. A seatbelt works in pretty much the same manner, it's an object that is dependent on a few factors. If you use it, it prevents you from leaving the seat you are in. Unless it breaks, you can have full confidence in it. With the pill, it's dependent on a number of factors, because each woman's body is different. No two people react to something ingested in exactly the same way. That doesn't take into account what you are allergic to, your health at the time, if you smoke, your family history of diseases, not to mention any other drugs you may be taking at the time that can decrease the effectiveness of the pill.
I know many people for whom the pill and other forms of birth control or contraceptives failed. They did everything they were told and it still didn't work.
I fully and 100% believe that people need to be more responsible for their actions and to do that young people today need to be better informed of exactly what sex is, what birth control does and that abstinence IS a viable option. The 'have your cake and eat to' attitude needs to stop. Life isn't about always getting what we want. We can't expect people to understand something when they aren't even given all the facts.
And yes I know about the practices of one Margaret Sanger. How people support Planned Parenthood today when their practices haven't changed one iota, just the way they advertise it, absolutely appalls me. The organization was created to wipeout those who Eugenists called 'undesirable'. Those of African descent, the poor, Jews; they were their targets to keep down or eliminate those populations. Yes, the National Planned Parenthood Council members even sat in on meetings with Hitler himself and reported back here how well things were going in Europe. It still astounds me how anti-semitic this country was back then and yet they now hail this organization for it's work to 'help' women. Just one more organization bent on destruction and covered themselves in pretty roses, unfortunately all people see are the roses and not the thorns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:08 pm
The pill gives you control because it reduces your chance of getting pregnant. It's not like it gives you total control and it fails, but it also succeeds in many cases.
I'm in a weird place because I agree with you about the cultural effects, but it's still better than abortion. I wasn't told to take birth control until I had a health problem where it made it so I could function. I enjoy functioning. A helpful side effect is the birth control aspect, but if I was sexually active and got pregnant, it's not like I'd be more likely to panic upon irregular menstruation than if I wasn't on it, and it's not like I'd go, "Oh, I must get an abortion now!" if I was pregnant.
I fail to see how birth control is having your cake and eating it too. You can hardly blame the existence of birth control for the irresponsible use of it, considering how many people use it responsibly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:35 pm
Women are not in control when they are on the pill. I do not call it birth control because it does not control birth. It tells the body it is pregnant, which in turn causes the egg(s), fertilized or not, to be menstruated out of the body. It it because of this that it is not condoned by the Catholic Church, because it acts as an aborticient. A drug tells the body it is in a certain state, which it is not. If you are indeed pregnant and a fertilized egg is menstruated out of the body naturally, that is fine, that's what the body is supposed to do. When you use a drug, it is unnatural.
The pill allows you to think you can be sexually active and not have any consequences. There ARE consequences for using the pill. First, as I said, it's an aborticient. If you are sexually active, and your egg becomes fertilized and is rejected by your body because the pill made it think you are pregnant, that is considered an abortion by the Catholic Church.
If you are on the pill for medicinal purposes, I suggest you talk to your doctor. Why are you on the pill? Is it absolutely necessary? Are there other factors that can be treated in other ways, that don't involve years of taking a drug, a harmful one that increases your risk of breast cancer.
Having your cake and eating it too means you want to have sex and not be concerned with the consequences of it. Today's society teaches that sex is necessary for you. It's everywhere, it's used to promote a variety of products and television shows. You can't even watch shows that are somewhat kid friendly and not have racy commercials for the racy television shows and specials shown during kid friendly shows. It's everywhere and frankly I'm sick of it. I don't care what people want to do in the bedroom.
I adore romance novels. Recently I actually found a writer that writes a fantastic love story without all the lust and sex. Her characters are adults, virgins and WAIT until they are married before any intercourse and even then she doesn't go into gory detail about their body parts and how they do it. It really is refreshing to read ROMANCE novels.
Sex has consequences when you do it outside of marriage, and yes, I believe in marriage as defined by one woman and one man. You can only truly experience true freedom of sex in the safe confines of marriage. You don't have to worry about am I good enough, how many has my partner had, are they diseased, what if I get pregnant? If people would learn how to control their libidos and stop acting like raging animals, sex wouldn't be so dangerous. If you wait until you are married, you and your partner will be equally as unsure about what you are doing, you'll both learn how to do it and it will bring you closer together in many ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:58 pm
Women are certainly in control when they are on the pill. They are in more control than they are without it, just like a woman using NFP is in more control than she is without it. The health side effects are such that I wouldn't want to use it as birth control, but that's a risk people take and are warned about when they talk to their doctor as he hands over the prescription.
I would like to be delicate for people who require it, but explain why I'm on the pill. The following will be in white text, so please highlight and if you quote back, delete it from your reply so it won't show up unless anyone wants to take the trouble to see it.
When I am not on birth control, my period is so bad that I'll go 6 weeks with nothing and then spend 2 weeks having one, with the majority of that time spent unable to actually leave the house because I am bleeding so heavily and in so much pain I can't actually function. I have tried several times to stop and I'm okay a few months after stopping but so far it reverts back. My hope lies in the fact that it takes longer and longer each time so eventually I might grow out of this. My health is poor to begin with, which is probably a contributing factor. And no, I can't just scrap 1/4th of the year, I'm living off of minimum wage and going to school.
Birth control was actually invented to treat disorders like that. I have a friend who could literally die without it from blood loss; very rare case, but scary.
And I beg to differ on your view that if you take birth control, you suddenly think you can have sex without consequences. First, no pill will protect you from the emotional consequences. Secondly, there is clearly a failure rate. Third, plenty of women who would never have an abortion are using methods (including NFP) of some sort to avoid pregnancy; they are obviously not going to go "Oh how did this happen, I need to end this pregnancy now!" Finally, any woman who will have sex without worrying about the consequences will do it with or without birth control, and will have an abortion without it if she really doesn't want to be pregnant. Once more:
Birth control. It's better than abortion.
You're preaching to the choir on the harm that sex causes in our society. I've mentioned that several times. But in the end, it comes down to this for me. Do I want a woman to choose to have her tubes tied, or do I want her to choose to kill her child? If you had to pick one or the other, which would it be? And yes, I understand that you believe one leads to the mindset of the other on a mass scale, and I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:13 pm
Melosta the problem is that society is threatened by people having many children. Just look at China. The number of children a family can have is enforced. Males are highly prized, girls are not. If you try to have more than the government regulated number of children, you are forced to get an abortion. If you somehow manage to elude the government and they find out about extra children, infanticide is then committed, while you watch, as punishment. If you try to evade the law, they don't just punish you, they come after your family. First of all, something you might want to keep in mind: Your posts are very rambling and unconnected. You should work on that if you want to be taken seriously in any debate against the actual "enemy" of the Pro-Choicers. Secondly, there is a reason that China is threatened by people having too many children. They are way over populated. Now, I absolutely don't agree with their method of population control, but that's an issue entirely separate from birth control. The only way that birth control is related to what happens in China is that -it helps prevent the horrible things from happening.- The things that happen in China aren't happening because birth control has made people go, "Hey, there's another option! You could have not had kids! So since you did, we can kill them." The things that happen in China are happening because they are overpopulated, and the Chinese government and, to a lesser extent, people don't have the same problems with what is going on that we do. If there were no such thing as birth control, China would just be killing a lot more babies. That's all there is to it. Quote: What I mean about society being a burden to children is this. How many times have you heard someone or you, yourself, made a comment about how many children a person should have. Do you feel that people should only have a certain amount of children? Any more than that number and they are a 'burden'? I'm Catholic, actually, and so I don't have a problem with people, in general, having any number of children. But there are provisions to that statement. First of all, I do think that it is irresponsible to have more children than you can properly take care of. If you are independently wealthy and can spend all of your time with your kids, I have no problem with Dugger-esq families of 19, because all of the kids are properly cared for and can eat and be clothed. If you are living on minimum wage, however, with both parents off at work all the time, I don't think any more than 2 is all that responsible. There is a proviso there as well, however; This is only referring to how many kids you should -attempt- to have. If you don't believe in birth control for yourself, that's fine, and NFP is a great way to keep from having more kids than you can support. If it fails, that's okay, and I don't have a problem with you. But if you're Octomom, and you've got eight newborns because you just felt like it, despite having no boyfriend and no job, that's irresponsible. And on that note, having children at 14 is damaging to the mother, and leads to a difficult life for the child as well. That's no reason for abortions, as they can still live a productive and healthy life, and killing doesn't solve anything. But birth control can keep that situation from ever happening, without abortion ever entering the picture. Quote: I personally am getting sick of the 'I want my cake and get to eat it too' attitude to today's values. Just because you want it, doesn't make it good for you and just because you want it, doesn't make it right. I look at it as one more way for the government to force sterilization on people. Now they have a quick and relatively painless way. They could even do it without your permission. Paranoia? No, not with the way other countries are doing it. I'd be surprised if China wasn't adopting this new type of sterilization now. Really what's wrong with learning a little self-control. Stop blaming hormones and desire and stop being so base. How many times have you made fun of a woman for wearing revealing clothing, yet done so yourself. All birth control, abortion and this new sterilization has done and will do is give men even more power over us. Don't say it hasn't. Now men will have one more way to get us to stop bearing their children. All those things have done and will continue to do is destroy marriage and the family unit. I'm sorry, but you are being paranoid here. Yes, other countries are doing it. Yes, our country has done it in the past. But that's not what birth control is. Our country is a lot more transparent than it once was. Although we have lost some freedoms, we have gained others, and we have a greater control over our government right now than we have ever had before, because of the media. But the paranoia about men is the worst part of what you are saying. I find your anti-man mentality insulting. Birth control isn't a way for men to control women. Why would men need it? Men who care so little about women will get them pregnant and just leave, even without birth control. It doesn't matter to them. Yes, birth control does let these horrible men breathe more easily. But a lack of birth control wouldn't stop them. And what about the fact that birth control helps women to keep from being saddled with these problems? What about the fact that birth control allows women to lead lives that men could already leave? Without birth control, sexually active women would run the constant risk of pregnancy, making it impossible to work full time, and go to school. Men can do all of that whether birth control is used or not. I know you are saying that people should just not have sex, but regardless what you think of the morality of sexual promiscuity, or even monogamous sexual relations outside of marriage, a lot of people don't agree with you. Why should they be held to your moral ideals? Quote: Birth control is a fallacy, a lie. It gives neither control nor birth. It's not foolproof, it's not a total guarantee, even when properly used. Condoms break, the pill can be aborticient (contrary to popular belief, it's not a contraceptive as it does not prevent conception) and that's if it's used properly, and abortion is the biggest fallacy of them all. No one has ever said, in modern times, that birth control is foolproof. And your statement about birth control giving neither control nor birth is cute, but nonsensical. Of course it doesn't give birth, that's not the point and never was. Birth control is just a name. If it makes you feel better about the name, we can call them contraceptives if you like. Which on to that, it is a contraceptive, in fact. Birth control, contrary to your belief, -is- a contraceptive, and -does- prevent conception. Birth control prevents the sperm from getting to the egg, through various methods. Used as instructed by a physician, there is only an extremely slight chance that birth control will act as an abortificient. The reason your sources say that it works as an abortificient is because -large doses- can, and do, act as abortificients, preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the wall of the uterus. But, although I'm sure there is a slight chance of that happening with properly used birth control, it is very slight, and it is not the main purpose or action of birth control. Quote: It all teaches us to not be responsible for our actions. That there are no consequences to suffer. We need to understand that we are responsible for what we do and how we present ourselves. All of us are examples to others, we are all role models. Each one of us needs to stop letting society dictate our actions and thoughts when we know it to be wrong. If what you're saying is true then, as lymelady alluded to, we should never wear seatbelts. Also, we should remove our car's airbags and bumpers, because they prevent us from being held completely accountable for our actions in driving the car. If we hit something, we should be thrown through the window to our death, because that's the consequences of hitting something. Similarly, we shouldn't wear oven mitts when taking things out of the oven, we shouldn't use fireplace grates to keep sparks from falling on our carpets, we shouldn't use chimneys to keep smoke from filling our houses, we shouldn't use fire alarms to wake us up if a fire happens... We should never, in any way, protect ourselves from consequences of our actions. Your idea just doesn't hold water. It's a lot of poetic soapbox words that mean nothing, and have no backing. Birth control isn't about feeling invincible. Those who feel invincible using birth control would find ways to feel invincible without it too. That's how myths like, "You can't get pregnant if she's on top during sex," or, "You can't get pregnant if you have sex standing up" start. They are ways to feel invincible. Quote: Society today places the blame on women for getting pregnant. Pregnancy is something to be ashamed of. Women are told that they must have perfectly healthy babies, else there is no point in giving birth. We need to stop telling women that pregnancy is a burden, a horrible thing, something to 'endure'. Here, I would like to point out that you were just saying that women should be held responsible for their actions. I would also like to point out that, before that, you were saying that men are using birth control to control women. And now you're saying that pregnancy isn't something to be ashamed of. Sounds to me like you're the one who is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Is it the man's fault? The woman's fault? Or is it not a matter of fault at all because it is an acceptable and wonderful thing? Pick one! I agree that pregnancies are wonderful... When you're ready to "endure" them. I have never heard anyone say that pregnancies are always a burden, and no one should ever have children. Well, except maybe those "No-child" folks, and they're just crazy in general. And while many Pro-Choicers go too far in telling people when they should and should not be pregnant, it makes no sense to act like it's always a wonderful thing to be pregnant. And it is naive to act like there are not dangers or negative consequences to getting pregnant and having a baby. If it were really a wonderful thing to be pregnant, always, then you're saying that, after a woman is married, she should be pregnant all the time, because children are gifts from God. It doesn't matter whether you can afford to take care of them or not, because pregnancy and childbirth are wonderful things. That's simply not true. And there is the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous for the mother, especially at younger ages. And then there's the fact that having a baby when you are a single, young mother is extremely difficult on both the mother and the child. Again, I barely make enough money to take care of myself. I couldn't care for a kid at this point, not on my own, not without there being major nutritional problems for one or both of us. Quote: Yes this isn't a perfect world. That doesn't mean we should be complacent with things that make natural human reproduction abhorrent or the process of it so base. This is the most hilarious part of everything you've said. Throughout your post you've talked about how pregnancy is a consequence, and that women, or men, or both, should be held responsible. You've also talked about sex like it -is- something base, something that should not be done outside of specific circumstances that you have set up. And I know that your opinion is most likely that sex is a wonderful thing, that should be done in a very specific environment in order to make it more wonderful. And while that's great for you, a) You can't force that opinion on other people, and b) You still come across as saying that sex is, essentially, something that should only be done when you are ready to reproduce. In other words, sex is for reproduction, and specifically not fun. And now you're telling me that birth control is what makes reproduction abhorrent, and sex "base." I'd like to make a final note that none of what I said in any way indicates my personal opinion on sex, when it is appropriate, and whether you should use birth control during. I'm not going to explain the intricacies of my personal opinion. But I do think that, when discussing what should be done, and when railing against something we disagree with like contraceptives, we have to consider the fact that other people have different opinions. I respect your opinion, and more power to you if you don't want to use birth control, and if you want to wait until marriage to have sex. But you can't expect others to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:40 pm
Melosta Women are not in control when they are on the pill. I do not call it birth control because it does not control birth. It tells the body it is pregnant, which in turn causes the egg(s), fertilized or not, to be menstruated out of the body. It it because of this that it is not condoned by the Catholic Church, because it acts as an aborticient. A drug tells the body it is in a certain state, which it is not. If you are indeed pregnant and a fertilized egg is menstruated out of the body naturally, that is fine, that's what the body is supposed to do. When you use a drug, it is unnatural. Cigarettes and alcohol can cause spontaneous abortions. So can numerous other drugs. The Catholic Church is not against these things. The only difference is that birth control is specifically meant to prevent pregnancies. But none of them are meant to cause abortions. When birth control is not being used as an abortificient, it shouldn't be called an abortificient, just like any number of other things. Quote: The pill allows you to think you can be sexually active and not have any consequences. There ARE consequences for using the pill. First, as I said, it's an aborticient. If you are sexually active, and your egg becomes fertilized and is rejected by your body because the pill made it think you are pregnant, that is considered an abortion by the Catholic Church. Delusions allow you to think that you can be sexually active and not have consequences. Although our sex ed programs probably need a little work, that much is true, information about birth control pills and condoms both come at people from every angle. I knew by the time I was in High School that condoms and birth control both had a failure rate, and before I was in High School I barely knew what sex was, much less condoms and birth control pills. Anyone who knows these truths about condoms and birth control pills and still thinks they are invincible are delusional. And they would be delusional with or without birth control pills and condoms. Quote: If you are on the pill for medicinal purposes, I suggest you talk to your doctor. Why are you on the pill? Is it absolutely necessary? Are there other factors that can be treated in other ways, that don't involve years of taking a drug, a harmful one that increases your risk of breast cancer. All drugs have consequences. Including increasing the risks of cancer and other diseases. That's why they don't feed us drug cocktails in the morning, unless we're either very sick, or old and already falling apart. Lymelady is a very well informed individual, and a devout Catholic, who would absolutely look for any alternatives to taking drugs. And she knows a lot more about her condition than you or I do. Why would she be on the pill if it wasn't absolutely necessary? Quote: Having your cake and eating it too means you want to have sex and not be concerned with the consequences of it. Today's society teaches that sex is necessary for you. It's everywhere, it's used to promote a variety of products and television shows. You can't even watch shows that are somewhat kid friendly and not have racy commercials for the racy television shows and specials shown during kid friendly shows. It's everywhere and frankly I'm sick of it. I don't care what people want to do in the bedroom. This is also something that would exist with or without birth control. Sex sells. Unfortunately, you're really just going to have to deal with that. Unless you want to censor television even more than it already is, something which is a completely different subject, and which I am even more strictly against. Quote: I adore romance novels. Recently I actually found a writer that writes a fantastic love story without all the lust and sex. Her characters are adults, virgins and WAIT until they are married before any intercourse and even then she doesn't go into gory detail about their body parts and how they do it. It really is refreshing to read ROMANCE novels. I really don't see what this has to do with the rest of it at all... And frankly, that sounds like the most boring romance novel I've ever heard of. And I'm a male, romance novels all sound incredibly boring to me. Quote: Sex has consequences when you do it outside of marriage, and yes, I believe in marriage as defined by one woman and one man. Again, unsolicited opinions on completely separate issues. If you want to talk about gay marriage rights, we already have a thread for that; It's [http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=766888&page=11]here. Quote: You can only truly experience true freedom of sex in the safe confines of marriage. You don't have to worry about am I good enough, how many has my partner had, are they diseased, what if I get pregnant? If people would learn how to control their libidos and stop acting like raging animals, sex wouldn't be so dangerous. If you wait until you are married, you and your partner will be equally as unsure about what you are doing, you'll both learn how to do it and it will bring you closer together in many ways. Actually, you're only half right about virgin newlyweds. If you're a newly wed couple, you can bet your bottom dollar that you're going to worry about whether you're good enough or not, virgin or otherwise. In fact, if you're a virgin, you're going to be even more worried. -Neither of you actually knows how to have sex.- Sure, you know the basics. But it will be extremely awkward and uncomfortable for both parties involved. Now, this isn't me saying that waiting until marriage is a bad thing. I think it's a great thing. And I agree about it leading to you both learning about each other, etc. etc. But don't delude yourself into thinking that you don't have that kind of concern. And if you're a newlywed, say you're in your early twenties, whether you get pregnant is also a concern. You may not be ready to take care of kids yet. Especially if you are a woman with a job. And the rest of it is only true if you are assuming that both parties are virgins. I hope you don't shun people who have had sex, or at least don't shun those who "see the light" after having had sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:58 pm
Melosta If the pill gives you control, tell me how many women on it haven't freaked out when they hadn't started menstruating when they expected and ran to buy a pregnancy test? Since none of us involved here has met every single person who has been on birth control, none of us can really say how many women have or haven't freaked out when they haven't started menstrating. But that's also a concern about having sex before marriage, not about birth control. Whether or not you're on birth control, if you are sexually active, you'll most likely start to worry if you miss your menstration. Quote: It doesn't give women control, not real power. It's a fallacy. How many women are told that basically the moment they start seeing a gynecologist, they need to use the pill? And this without regard for it's increased risk of breast cancer. I really wouldn't know about it being suggested when they first start seeing a obgyn since I'm male, but your claim that it is without regard for the increased risk of breast cancer is unfounded. There is regard, it is just found that the slight increase in risk for breast cancer is worth the protection. Quote: It doesn't give you control because you become dependent on it. A seatbelt works in pretty much the same manner, it's an object that is dependent on a few factors. If you use it, it prevents you from leaving the seat you are in. Unless it breaks, you can have full confidence in it. With the pill, it's dependent on a number of factors, because each woman's body is different. No two people react to something ingested in exactly the same way. That doesn't take into account what you are allergic to, your health at the time, if you smoke, your family history of diseases, not to mention any other drugs you may be taking at the time that can decrease the effectiveness of the pill. How do you become dependent on the birth control? As far as I can tell, birth control works exactly like seatbelts. To explain that, I first have to break you from your delusion that seatbelts are something you can have full confidence in. See, seatbelts only help in most cases. We'll call it 95% of cases. In the other 5% of cases, seatbelts can actually kill you; This happens if your car is flipped over and crushed, if it's plunged into the water and your seatbelt gets stuck, if your car catches on fire and your seatbelt gets stuck, etc. Just like in birth control. Only, in birth control, it's failure usually won't kill you. In both cases, they only work when you are using them properly. In both cases, even when you are using them properly, there is a small chance that they will not do what they are supposed to do. And in the case of seatbelts, they make the problem worse when this happens. Quote: I know many people for whom the pill and other forms of birth control or contraceptives failed. They did everything they were told and it still didn't work. No one claims that contraceptives are 100%. Also, not to insult your friends, but I don't know them. And if you know many people for whom the pill failed, despite their following the directions properly, then they weren't all following the directions properly. Either that, or you have some incredibly unlucky friends. Quote: I fully and 100% believe that people need to be more responsible for their actions and to do that young people today need to be better informed of exactly what sex is, what birth control does and that abstinence IS a viable option. The 'have your cake and eat to' attitude needs to stop. Life isn't about always getting what we want. We can't expect people to understand something when they aren't even given all the facts. I agree with all of that. Completely. That doesn't mean that birth control isn't also a viable option. Quote: And yes I know about the practices of one Margaret Sanger. How people support Planned Parenthood today when their practices haven't changed one iota, just the way they advertise it, absolutely appalls me. The organization was created to wipeout those who Eugenists called 'undesirable'. Those of African descent, the poor, Jews; they were their targets to keep down or eliminate those populations. Yes, the National Planned Parenthood Council members even sat in on meetings with Hitler himself and reported back here how well things were going in Europe. It still astounds me how anti-semitic this country was back then and yet they now hail this organization for it's work to 'help' women. Just one more organization bent on destruction and covered themselves in pretty roses, unfortunately all people see are the roses and not the thorns. While you are correct about her activities, and while I agree that she should not be treated as an object of respect, even by Pro-Choicers, it does not follow that Planned Parenthood is still carrying out her eugenics agenda. They may be, but to basically say, "Their founder supported eugenics and tried to further eugenics through them, so they must still be practicing eugenics" is very conspiracy-theory-esq. There's no proof or evidence to what you are saying. Although abortions are more common among minorities, I believe that this is more likely for the same reason that minorities are more likely to get funding for school. In other words, more people will pay for minorities to get abortions out of concern for their downtrodden-ness, rather than because they are trying to get rid of all of the minorities. Additionally, many minorities themselves feel the same desire that many women feel, to control their lives, and if they do not have moral problems with abortion, they see abortion as a way to control their lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:17 pm
So what's being done in China is alright because they are 'overpopulated'. How do we know they are 'overpopulated'. What's to say our government won't say we are 'overpopulated'. If they start controlling us now, and they are, just look at all the abortions taking place in our country today, and the government is funding this, then there won't be an 'overpopulation'. If those of you who say you are Catholic, don't you believe in God? Don't you think he will not give us more than we can handle? Gods ways are not our ways. We don't know why China is so populated, but why do we think it's 'overpopulated'?
If people shouldn't force their morals onto other people, what is the point of having any kind of laws? That is what laws are, the beliefs of a majority of society placed on the general public. Most people would agree that murder is bad. Most people would agree that forcing someone to have sex is bad. To curb those actions we have laws. If a majority of society believes that something is bad, new laws are then created.
I believe that contraceptives and contragestives (prevents implantation of the fertilized egg) are morally wrong. That is my opinion. I do not want to 'force' my opinion on others. I wish for them to understand the facts of birth control. So many people don't understand what the pill truly does. It's been called a contraceptive, but it can also be a contragestive. That makes it a problem. Since there is a chance, albeit small, you don't know for certain exactly how your body will react to it. For me, I believe if there is even a chance, it's not worth the risk and it's not worth the risk for others. No, I can't force that on others. I am sorry for those who don't understand what that means.
The reason I asked is because so many doctors prescribe the pill as a method of controlling problem menstruations, instead of finding the source of the problem. I wanted to suggest researching NaPro technology. While most people use it for infertility, it can help with irregular and heavy menstruation. I'm asking because I'm concerned, not to be a jerk about it. It must be remembered that on the internet it is incredibly difficult to tell a tone of voice so take others words with a grain of salt. If it is a simple solution and it finds the source of the problem, isn't that better than taking a pill indefinitely. Your doctor might not even know about NaPro technology. What can it hurt to find one that does? You may even get assistance if necessary.
What I get tired of is the attitude of well this is how it is, just accept it. Why? Why should I accept the fact that people use sex and glorify it for what it isn't then at the same time debase it for what it is? Sex is something wonderful to be shared by a man and a woman in the bonds of holy matrimony. Why does my opinion not count? Why is it not viable? Why is it delusional to think that people just need a little more information about what sex truly is?
Sex is not about mere pleasure. If that's all you want out of it, you are fooling yourself because you will never get it. To truly experience meaningful sex, marriage must play an integral part.
Sex is pushed into our faces on a regular basis. Can you name one show in primetime television that doesn't push sex? Even those dance and talent shows have scantily clad women prancing on the stage. I find it offensive as a woman that in order to be considered accomplished, sex must have been a part of my life. Of things in life, sex must be on your to do list, at least by society's standards for what makes life worthwhile.
Birth control gives you little control because you aren't in control, the drug is. While you might use other drugs to relieve symptoms or control physical problems, the main purpose today for birth control is to prevent birth, hence the phrase birth control. That in turn gives you confidence to have sex more often thinking you are less likely to become pregnant. Why use birth control if it doesn't give you confidence that you are less likely to become pregnant? While your chances are reduced, they are not eliminated, that I'm not arguing. To be truly in control means you decide whether or not to perform the act of contraception. Only then do you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether or not conception takes place.
So, organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Natzis, they don't hold the same 'values' as they did when first started? What exactly makes Planned Parenthood, an organization the welcomes with dollar signs in their eyes those that neither plan not want parenthood, any different from what was done 30 years ago, 50 years ago, even 70 years ago? They still misinform women of what abortions are, what they do and boy do they fudge their numbers about abortions that take place. All for the guise of 'helping' women.
These are my beliefs. While other may think it's ok to do what you want because it makes you happy, that fine. But I also believe in divine retribution. God doesn't like it when you say no to Him, He finds ways to punish, to teach and even to convert us. He does this out of love for us. He wants us to stand with Him, not against Him. It is His teachings that I uphold and His teachings that I wish for others to understand. Not to 'force' them on others, but to see what exactly it is that they are missing. What they are missing is the greatest love one could ever experience. Yes, that is my belief. I know it is a belief, but this is what I believe and noone can take that from me. To be Catholic is the evangelize and bring others to the faith, He wishes for all of us to do so. He asked it of the Apostles as much as He does us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:34 am
I'm not trying to attack you or your beliefs here. First off, they know China has a population problem the way we know any other animal group in an environment has a population problem. A specific area has a carrying capacity (a maximum number of organisms in a species that can survive off that land without depleting the resources entirely) and once it's been reached, in nature things usually start dying off. It's more complicated with humans because our environment is of our own making in many ways, but China is still dealing with massive shortages and poverty because the population is too large to take care of, and people are dying because of it.
Have they dealt with it in the right way? No. Killing children is a horrible thing. But that doesn't make the population problem less real. Thanks to the one child policy, they're actually looking at a future underpopulation problem, so they've bitten themselves in the butt, but yeah.
Our government has no room to say we're overpopulated because we're not. And while they could start policies of forced sterilization, they never needed this procedure specifically to do so.
I know you feel contraceptives and contragestives are wrong, and you are welcome to that opinion, but you're using the logic that they are wrong because they make it so people don't need to face the consequences of sex. NFP does the same thing, and when done properly, is just as effective as a condom.
If it's wrong because of the health consequences, there are loads and loads of pills that are much more dangerous. They prescribe antibiotics for acne, if you want to get into risk v benefit analysis. "Oh no, I have pimples, that's totally worth liver failure!" And there are almost no health consequences with condoms, the almost being for latex allergies.
If it's wrong because birth control pills have a slight chance of preventing implantation, condoms don't. And things like alcohol do. Is it wrong to drink alcohol if you are married and sexually active? If the main purpose was to prevent implantation I'd be more inclined to agree, but it's a rare side effect.
When NaPro helps with irregular menstruation, it's through medication or surgery. I'm not quite sure how this differs from my OBGYN. People who have been helped by NaPro when birth control pills failed are people who had undiagnosed endometriosis from what I found when I researched it last February, but that might just be because those are the only anecdotes reported. The ones who get medication get medication that controls your hormones, which is what birth control does. Any medication that messes with your estrogen and progesterone has risks, including a heightened risk of breast cancer.
I'm saying, accept this cultural attitude towards sex. You're welcome to your opinion, and of course it counts. It just wouldn't be a viable solution to tell everyone your views and expect that they'll listen. They've heard your views already and disagree. It's not such a dead idea that sex is for matrimony. While I'm extremely jaded on the sex in marriage thing, I still think it's a wonderful idea.
Most people don't approach sex as "It's all about pleasure." They just don't feel you need to be married to have meaningful sex. And many of them do have meaningful sex outside of marriage in their opinions. You may not agree that it's meaningful, but they feel like they do.
I understand your outrage of the virginal female. I have been there. Before I was married, it was something I encountered on a regular basis and it was frustrating that some people refused to take me seriously because I had not had sex. But in the end, they'd do it with or without birth control available. Without artificial birth control, everyone who uses it now would just use NFP as birth control. Basically, birth control is a symptom, not the cause.
I am glad you are so devoted to your faith. While you may not believe I am, I am. I just manifest it in a different way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:42 pm
Melosta Women are not in control when they are on the pill. I do not call it birth control because it does not control birth. It tells the body it is pregnant, which in turn causes the egg(s), fertilized or not, to be menstruated out of the body. It it because of this that it is not condoned by the Catholic Church, because it acts as an aborticient. A drug tells the body it is in a certain state, which it is not. If you are indeed pregnant and a fertilized egg is menstruated out of the body naturally, that is fine, that's what the body is supposed to do. When you use a drug, it is unnatural. The pill allows you to think you can be sexually active and not have any consequences. There ARE consequences for using the pill. First, as I said, it's an aborticient. If you are sexually active, and your egg becomes fertilized and is rejected by your body because the pill made it think you are pregnant, that is considered an abortion by the Catholic Church. If you are on the pill for medicinal purposes, I suggest you talk to your doctor. Why are you on the pill? Is it absolutely necessary? Are there other factors that can be treated in other ways, that don't involve years of taking a drug, a harmful one that increases your risk of breast cancer. Having your cake and eating it too means you want to have sex and not be concerned with the consequences of it. Today's society teaches that sex is necessary for you. It's everywhere, it's used to promote a variety of products and television shows. You can't even watch shows that are somewhat kid friendly and not have racy commercials for the racy television shows and specials shown during kid friendly shows. It's everywhere and frankly I'm sick of it. I don't care what people want to do in the bedroom. I adore romance novels. Recently I actually found a writer that writes a fantastic love story without all the lust and sex. Her characters are adults, virgins and WAIT until they are married before any intercourse and even then she doesn't go into gory detail about their body parts and how they do it. It really is refreshing to read ROMANCE novels. Sex has consequences when you do it outside of marriage, and yes, I believe in marriage as defined by one woman and one man. You can only truly experience true freedom of sex in the safe confines of marriage. You don't have to worry about am I good enough, how many has my partner had, are they diseased, what if I get pregnant? If people would learn how to control their libidos and stop acting like raging animals, sex wouldn't be so dangerous. If you wait until you are married, you and your partner will be equally as unsure about what you are doing, you'll both learn how to do it and it will bring you closer together in many ways. Hello. First of all I like to say that I'm not new, this is sachiko_sohma. Anyways. BC pills do give woman more control of their bodies. It's not an aborticient as they end pregnancies while BC and EC (emergency Contraception) prevents pregnancies. BC and EC doesn't end a pregnancy, in fact you have only 72 hours to take EC before it lose it's effect (that is when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus and you're now pregnant-that is if it was fertilized and not flushed out of the body). Also not everyone is Catholic so it doesn't go against what everyone believes. Sure it isn't natural and there is some risks to them though rare but it's an better option then more people aborting their unborn child (which isn't just killing the fetus but even has more risk to the mother). I was put on BC in order to help me, without them I can bleed heavily non-stop for months, so those pills give me more control in a way. And I have talked to my doctor. I'm not about to take anything without talking to my doctor first. Far as I know, the risks don't involved increase risk of Breast Cancer, the risks are mainly blot clots that can travel to the heart or lungs which can be deadly but like I said it is still rare as well as high blood pressure and why doctors always set up appointments every so often just to make sure there is no complications. Yeah sex is everywhere and I'm more concerned about people not using some form of protection or contraceptives and learning the proper uses when it comes to using them or being pressured into it when they aren't ready. Sex can have consequences within marriage just as much as outside of marriage. Many married people worry if they are good enough just has much as unmarried people (I know what would be one of my concerns). Even if you are a virgin, your partner may not be one. I'm not going to pick my boyfriend or future husband based on whether or not they had sex before. I want to know if we could get along even in a long term relationship, if they have a good personality or if we have some things in common. I'm not here to start a debate but to point out somethings and to give my opinion as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:43 pm
Bitter_Medicine Anyways. BC pills do give woman more control of their bodies. It's not an aborticient as they end pregnancies while BC and EC (emergency Contraception) prevents pregnancies. BC and EC doesn't end a pregnancy, in fact you have only 72 hours to take EC before it lose it's effect (that is when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus and you're now pregnant-that is if it was fertilized and not flushed out of the body). Also not everyone is Catholic so it doesn't go against what everyone believes. Actually, whether EC is an abortificient depends on your definition of pregnancy. I personally believe that life starts at conception, and I think we've had this argument before. If life is to be considered as starting at conception, then it is an abortion if the fertilized egg is "flushed," whether before or after implanting in the uterus. The thing with EC is, EC is meant to do that. That's the whole purpose. EC goes with the assumption that the egg might be fertilized, and prevents implantation. That's why I'm against EC, but for BC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:44 am
Melosta So what's being done in China is alright because they are 'overpopulated'. How do we know they are 'overpopulated'. Please read what I post before responding. I never said that what China is doing is right, I said that what China is doing is a response to a situation. They have already shown that they are willing to commit infanticide. Why would the lack of contraceptives stop that? Quote: What's to say our government won't say we are 'overpopulated'. If they start controlling us now, and they are, just look at all the abortions taking place in our country today, and the government is funding this, then there won't be an 'overpopulation'. I'm sorry, but that's a conspiracy theory. There is no proof or even the slightest amount of evidence to support the theory that the government is controlling us, or causing more abortions. Quote: If those of you who say you are Catholic, don't you believe in God? Don't you think he will not give us more than we can handle? Gods ways are not our ways. We don't know why China is so populated, but why do we think it's 'overpopulated'? The fact that China is overpopulated is simple fact. And I am kind of angry that you dare to challenge my belief in God simply because I disagree with what you are saying. You can't trust in God in everything, not like that. We should always trust in God, of course, but to act like we can do whatever we want and God will make sure we're taken care of... Not only is it foolhardy, but it is blind, and insulting to God. By that logic, we should just assume that nothing bad ever happens anywhere, because God wouldn't let bad things happen. Sorry, but that's not the case. People get sick, countries are war torn, and other countries are overpopulated. It is a scientific fact that most parts of China are overpopulated. Several factors go into determining this fact, and I frankly don't know all of them. But it's still the case. There are approximately 364 people per square mile in China. And that's not just the areas that are inhabitable by human beings, that's every inch of China. Compare this to the United States, where the population density is about 80 people per square mile. Quote: If people shouldn't force their morals onto other people, what is the point of having any kind of laws? That is what laws are, the beliefs of a majority of society placed on the general public. Most people would agree that murder is bad. Most people would agree that forcing someone to have sex is bad. To curb those actions we have laws. If a majority of society believes that something is bad, new laws are then created. See, I disagree with this idea. And it's interesting that you bring that up, because about a month ago, I was arguing with my friend over this very idea. It is my opinion that your kind of thinking is what has resulted in this horrible two party, harshly divided political system we currently deal with. I think that everyone should look at it from the other side. In fact, as a Christian, I think that we should all apply the golden rule. Other people believe that eating ham is a sin. How would you like it if they imposed that moral on you? Other people believe that women wearing jeans and speaking to men who they are not related to is a sin. How would you like it if that moral was legally imposed upon you? But more to the point, your very line of thinking does not allow for being outraged when the government rules against your morals. If the government decides that abortions should be funded by your money, you don't have a right to object, because you have already said that laws should be based on, essentially, the average of everyone's morals. You have the right to try and change it, but you don't have the right to be angry about it. Quote: I believe that contraceptives and contragestives (prevents implantation of the fertilized egg) are morally wrong. That is my opinion. I do not want to 'force' my opinion on others. I wish for them to understand the facts of birth control. So many people don't understand what the pill truly does. It's been called a contraceptive, but it can also be a contragestive. That makes it a problem. Since there is a chance, albeit small, you don't know for certain exactly how your body will react to it. For me, I believe if there is even a chance, it's not worth the risk and it's not worth the risk for others. No, I can't force that on others. I am sorry for those who don't understand what that means. I'm sorry, but you're the one who has shown a lack of understanding of how contraceptives work, considering that you started off by saying that BC is not a contraceptive. You're free to decide that it's not worth the risk. That's fine. But to act like other people who do take the risk, the risk that is about as great as the risk of having a spontaneous abortion because you drank a caffeinated soda, just don't understand, is presumptuous and arrogant. Maybe other people have just decided that the infinitesimal risk is worth it. Quote: The reason I asked is because so many doctors prescribe the pill as a method of controlling problem menstruations, instead of finding the source of the problem. I wanted to suggest researching NaPro technology. While most people use it for infertility, it can help with irregular and heavy menstruation. I'm asking because I'm concerned, not to be a jerk about it. It must be remembered that on the internet it is incredibly difficult to tell a tone of voice so take others words with a grain of salt. If it is a simple solution and it finds the source of the problem, isn't that better than taking a pill indefinitely. Your doctor might not even know about NaPro technology. What can it hurt to find one that does? You may even get assistance if necessary. You obviously don't understand how NaPro works if you are suggesting it as an alternative to birth control for the control of menstration. When NaPro gives you hormone pills to help with irregular and heavy menstration? They're essentially giving you birth control under another name. Quote: What I get tired of is the attitude of well this is how it is, just accept it. Why? Why should I accept the fact that people use sex and glorify it for what it isn't then at the same time debase it for what it is? Sex is something wonderful to be shared by a man and a woman in the bonds of holy matrimony. Why does my opinion not count? Why is it not viable? Why is it delusional to think that people just need a little more information about what sex truly is? Your opinion counts. It's perfectly viable. And it's also perfectly viable, and countable, to get annoyed when someone assumes that the only reason you don't think like them is that you don't actually understand how sex and birth control works. Especially when, and I mean no offense in this, they probably have never had sex because they are waiting until marriage. If you are married, then that's great, but people frequently get this argument from Christians who aren't married yet, and have no idea what they are talking about. If you aren't married, and you have never had sex, I'm sorry, but you're just going by talking points that you have been given. You don't understand sex better than they do, you don't have more information than they do, -you have less.- Quote: Sex is not about mere pleasure. If that's all you want out of it, you are fooling yourself because you will never get it. To truly experience meaningful sex, marriage must play an integral part. Now this, I truly have to disagree with. I agree generally with the idea that one should wait until marriage to have sex. But it's not because there's something about marriage that makes sex more meaningful. I'm sorry, but a man in a gown declaring you husband and wife doesn't magically change sex anymore than it makes a couple love and cherish each other forever. Some people are going to have meaningless sex in marriage just like some men are going to start abusing their wives after a year of marriage. Quote: Sex is pushed into our faces on a regular basis. Can you name one show in primetime television that doesn't push sex? Even those dance and talent shows have scantily clad women prancing on the stage. I find it offensive as a woman that in order to be considered accomplished, sex must have been a part of my life. Of things in life, sex must be on your to do list, at least by society's standards for what makes life worthwhile. A) If you consider dancing and singing to be "pushing sex," then you have a very loose definition of sex. B) It's simply not the case. I'll give you several primetime shows that don't push sex: Fringe, Heroes, Warehouse 13, The Mentalist, Eureka. C) To consider television that refers to sex as "pushing sex" is just ridiculous. Are shows with Christians pushing Christianity? No. Are shows with nerds pushing nerd culture? Don't be ridiculous. So why is it that characters mentioning sex is pushing sex? In a few shows, it happens all the time and is nearly the whole purpose of the show, and in those cases I can agree that sex is pushed, and it makes the show unwatchable. But in most shows that refer to sex, it's something that happens to one or two characters, and is something you would expect in a society where strict Christian values just aren't the norm anymore. For there to be no sex in any shows would just be unrealistic. Quote: Birth control gives you little control because you aren't in control, the drug is. While you might use other drugs to relieve symptoms or control physical problems, the main purpose today for birth control is to prevent birth, hence the phrase birth control. That in turn gives you confidence to have sex more often thinking you are less likely to become pregnant. Why use birth control if it doesn't give you confidence that you are less likely to become pregnant? While your chances are reduced, they are not eliminated, that I'm not arguing. To be truly in control means you decide whether or not to perform the act of contraception. Only then do you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether or not conception takes place. I believe you meant "intercourse" in that second to last sentence. But regardless, you're simply and completely wrong. First of all, the drug isn't in control. The drug doesn't choose anything, it just does what it's supposed to do. You're in control, because you're taking the drug. Birth control is not addictive, so you can stop anytime you decide you want to get pregnant. And second of all, I don't know what universe you're from, but having sex without birth control doesn't guarantee, "beyond a shadow of a doubt," that conception will take place. So you're not in any more control without birth control than you are with birth control. In fact, you're in less, because you can't decide when you will be more or less likely to get pregnant. The best you can do is know when those times actually are. Which, the funniest thing here is that your whole argument is really based upon the idea that -God- should be in control. And yet you're telling us about how contraception doesn't put the individual in control, when your main hang-up seems to be that you should be giving up control anyways. Quote: So, organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Natzis, they don't hold the same 'values' as they did when first started? What exactly makes Planned Parenthood, an organization the welcomes with dollar signs in their eyes those that neither plan not want parenthood, any different from what was done 30 years ago, 50 years ago, even 70 years ago? They still misinform women of what abortions are, what they do and boy do they fudge their numbers about abortions that take place. All for the guise of 'helping' women. To put your ridiculous comparisons in place, do the southern states hold the same values that they held two hundred years ago? Because last I checked, southerners are in agreeance with northerners that slavery is a bad thing. Does the Catholic Church still believe that witches should not be suffered to live, and that those who are suspected of witchcraft should be burned at the stake? Because I can't remember the last time I saw a good witch-burning before Mass. And I have no idea how PP is misinforming women of what abortions are. I have never heard anyone claim that abortions are anything other than the killing and removal of fetuses from the womb. Now, whether it's a person or not is something PP disagrees with us on, so to say that their claiming it isn't a person is misinformation would be like saying that we spread misinformationb ecause we say it is a person. It's ridiculous. Quote: These are my beliefs. While other may think it's ok to do what you want because it makes you happy, that fine. But I also believe in divine retribution. God doesn't like it when you say no to Him, He finds ways to punish, to teach and even to convert us. He does this out of love for us. He wants us to stand with Him, not against Him. It is His teachings that I uphold and His teachings that I wish for others to understand. Not to 'force' them on others, but to see what exactly it is that they are missing. What they are missing is the greatest love one could ever experience. Yes, that is my belief. I know it is a belief, but this is what I believe and noone can take that from me. To be Catholic is the evangelize and bring others to the faith, He wishes for all of us to do so. He asked it of the Apostles as much as He does us. I don't recall God saying that we should force our beliefs on other people, though. In the Old Testament, God was a Just God of fury, who would rain down punishment on those who would disobey. But if you read the New Testament, the part that is the actual cornerstone of our faith, God became a God of tolerance and patience. I would refer you to the story of the Good Samaritan. People tend to get stuck on the idea that we should help one another, when the whole point of that story was to point out to the zealous religious people of the time, the Pharisees and Sadducees, that you don't have to follow one specific religion to be a good person. And that following your religious beliefs to the point of ignoring, or looking down on, your fellow man/woman simply because they are not of your religion, is a sin as bad as any other. The point of the story wasn't just that the Samaritan stopped to help his enemy. It was that the Priest, and the Lawyer, didn't stop, because they were too focused on their religious observance. Another verse, Matthew 7:1, is one of my favorites. Judge not lest ye be judged. Who are you to say that what is being done is right or wrong? Who are you to say that this thing, which God does not directly address in His Bible, is right or wrong? Or that God will punish those who do not think the way you do? It's fine to have an opinion, and it's fine to state that opinion, but to threaten judgment and divine retribution upon those who do not agree with you is presumptuous at the least, and blasphemous at the worst. Jesus told us to evangelize, but He didn't tell us to force our beliefs on everyone within earshot. We should show who we are, and who others should be, by our actions. And being obnoxious evangelicals drives people away from God, not to Him. I'm not saying to hide our beliefs. But if we let people know that we are Christians, and then act like Christians, then we are evangelizing in the most effective way possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:28 am
I.Am Bitter_Medicine Anyways. BC pills do give woman more control of their bodies. It's not an aborticient as they end pregnancies while BC and EC (emergency Contraception) prevents pregnancies. BC and EC doesn't end a pregnancy, in fact you have only 72 hours to take EC before it lose it's effect (that is when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus and you're now pregnant-that is if it was fertilized and not flushed out of the body). Also not everyone is Catholic so it doesn't go against what everyone believes. Actually, whether EC is an abortificient depends on your definition of pregnancy. I personally believe that life starts at conception, and I think we've had this argument before. If life is to be considered as starting at conception, then it is an abortion if the fertilized egg is "flushed," whether before or after implanting in the uterus. The thing with EC is, EC is meant to do that. That's the whole purpose. EC goes with the assumption that the egg might be fertilized, and prevents implantation. That's why I'm against EC, but for BC. Well I guess that is just a matter of an opinion. I only see it as an human life once it's implanted in to the uterus (as that is when the woman is actually pregnant and the fertilized egg starts to develop into a human). Well not everyone shares the same views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:45 pm
Bitter_Medicine I.Am Bitter_Medicine Anyways. BC pills do give woman more control of their bodies. It's not an aborticient as they end pregnancies while BC and EC (emergency Contraception) prevents pregnancies. BC and EC doesn't end a pregnancy, in fact you have only 72 hours to take EC before it lose it's effect (that is when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus and you're now pregnant-that is if it was fertilized and not flushed out of the body). Also not everyone is Catholic so it doesn't go against what everyone believes. Actually, whether EC is an abortificient depends on your definition of pregnancy. I personally believe that life starts at conception, and I think we've had this argument before. If life is to be considered as starting at conception, then it is an abortion if the fertilized egg is "flushed," whether before or after implanting in the uterus. The thing with EC is, EC is meant to do that. That's the whole purpose. EC goes with the assumption that the egg might be fertilized, and prevents implantation. That's why I'm against EC, but for BC. Well I guess that is just a matter of an opinion. I only see it as an human life once it's implanted in to the uterus (as that is when the woman is actually pregnant and the fertilized egg starts to develop into a human). Well not everyone shares the same views. Well...you're right that it isn't abortion, because you can't terminate a pregnancy when you're not pregnant, and you aren't pregnant until implantation. But... It starts developing into a unique individual human life at conception. There is no genetic change at implantation and a new lifeform does not come into being. It merely grows to the next stage. Basically, at conception, you've got your DNA and you exist as an organism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
