Why aren't the anti-choice people against birth control pills.

[Si modo]

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't mean that people have to hold that view to be pro life.

Again, not my argument. (The straw is starting to become involved).

There are many who are pro life because they say life begins at conception.
Done already. Read the thread and see how effective that was. Logic is not the preferred process used by many who discuss this topic.

... You can feel free to say they're hypocrites and they're free to think that they're not.

What the fuck does that mean?

OK. You've tried a few strawmwn now you're contradicting yourself in one post - you say they are hypocrites then you say I am one for pointing out their hypocricy.

I've been discussing with those who choose not to insult here. I'll continue to do so. Let me know how you would like to proceed.

So, even if someone does say or believe that life begins at conception, but they don't condemn people using the pill as a form of birth control? So what? What does that prove to you? That your argument that life doesn't begin at conception is true? That they're hypycrites then? Maybe they see a distinction between the two that you do not? So, your opinion differs from theirs then. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your argument I guess.

I'm not contradicting myself. You're trying to prove that they're hypocrites (altho I'm not sure why), so maybe in your own opinion they are, but it's still just that, your opinion. They may not view themselves as being hypocrites for being anti-abortion but believing that the use of the birth control pill is fine.

Someone has argued thru the entire thread that a fertilized egg doesn't constitute life in their opinion until it is attached to the womb. I would assume that those people that are pro-life and hold the same opinion that you do about the birth control pill, don't take the birth control pill. If you're looking for someone to justify being pro-life while at the same time taking the pill, then I'm not sure why they would need too? Isn't that a personal CHOICE?

OK, I'll repeat what I an others have already posted as it appears that you have no desire to read the thread.

If life begins at conception, then one should be against the COCP as one of its mechanisms of action is to prevent implantation of the fertilized eggs. The COCP kills human life.

If you doubt the statements, then read the thread. Supporting information is supplied (over and over, as a matter of fact, because you are not alone in not reading information already provided).

 

[Newby]

Again, not my argument. (The straw is starting to become involved).

There are many who are pro life because they say life begins at conception.
Done already. Read the thread and see how effective that was. Logic is not the preferred process used by many who discuss this topic.

What the fuck does that mean?

OK. You've tried a few strawmwn now you're contradicting yourself in one post - you say they are hypocrites then you say I am one for pointing out their hypocricy.

I've been discussing with those who choose not to insult here. I'll continue to do so. Let me know how you would like to proceed.

So, even if someone does say or believe that life begins at conception, but they don't condemn people using the pill as a form of birth control? So what? What does that prove to you? That your argument that life doesn't begin at conception is true? That they're hypycrites then? Maybe they see a distinction between the two that you do not? So, your opinion differs from theirs then. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your argument I guess.

I'm not contradicting myself. You're trying to prove that they're hypocrites (altho I'm not sure why), so maybe in your own opinion they are, but it's still just that, your opinion. They may not view themselves as being hypocrites for being anti-abortion but believing that the use of the birth control pill is fine.

Someone has argued thru the entire thread that a fertilized egg doesn't constitute life in their opinion until it is attached to the womb. I would assume that those people that are pro-life and hold the same opinion that you do about the birth control pill, don't take the birth control pill. If you're looking for someone to justify being pro-life while at the same time taking the pill, then I'm not sure why they would need too? Isn't that a personal CHOICE?

OK, I'll repeat what I an others have already posted as it appears that you have no desire to read the thread.

If life begins at conception, then one should be against the COCP as one of its mechanisms of action is to prevent implantation of the fertilized eggs. The COCP kills human life.

If you doubt the statements, then read the thread. Supporting information is supplied (over and over, as a matter of fact, because you arenot alone in not reading information already provided).

One SHOULD be against COCP if one believes life begins at conception? According to whom? You?

 

[Si modo]

So, even if someone does say or believe that life begins at conception, but they don't condemn people using the pill as a form of birth control? So what? What does that prove to you? That your argument that life doesn't begin at conception is true? That they're hypycrites then? Maybe they see a distinction between the two that you do not? So, your opinion differs from theirs then. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your argument I guess.

I'm not contradicting myself. You're trying to prove that they're hypocrites (altho I'm not sure why), so maybe in your own opinion they are, but it's still just that, your opinion. They may not view themselves as being hypocrites for being anti-abortion but believing that the use of the birth control pill is fine.

Someone has argued thru the entire thread that a fertilized egg doesn't constitute life in their opinion until it is attached to the womb. I would assume that those people that are pro-life and hold the same opinion that you do about the birth control pill, don't take the birth control pill. If you're looking for someone to justify being pro-life while at the same time taking the pill, then I'm not sure why they would need too? Isn't that a personal CHOICE?

OK, I'll repeat what I an others have already posted as it appears that you have no desire to read the thread.

If life begins at conception, then one should be against the COCP as one of its mechanisms of action is to prevent implantation of the fertilized eggs. The COCP kills human life.

If you doubt the statements, then read the thread. Supporting information is supplied (over and over, as a matter of fact, because you arenot alone in not reading information already provided).

One SHOULD be against COCP if one believes life begins at conception? According to whom? You?

If they value consistency in views and scientific facts, indeed they should be. If they don't mind being hypocrites, then no.

Do you have some point to make?

 

[Newby]

OK, I'll repeat what I an others have already posted as it appears that you have no desire to read the thread.

If life begins at conception, then one should be against the COCP as one of its mechanisms of action is to prevent implantation of the fertilized eggs. The COCP kills human life.

If you doubt the statements, then read the thread. Supporting information is supplied (over and over, as a matter of fact, because you arenot alone in not reading information already provided).

One SHOULD be against COCP if one believes life begins at conception? According to whom? You?

If they value consistency in views and scientific facts, indeed they should be. If they don't mind being hypocrites, then no.

Do you have some point to make?

I think I've made my point.

 

[Si modo]

One SHOULD be against COCP if one believes life begins at conception? According to whom? You?

If they value consistency in views and scientific facts, indeed they should be. If they don't mind being hypocrites, then no.

Do you have some point to make?

I think I've made my point.

Really? I missed it then. I think that's fine at this juncture, though.

 

[Newby]

If they value consistency in views and scientific facts, indeed they should be. If they don't mind being hypocrites, then no.

Do you have some point to make?

I think I've made my point.

Really? I missed it then. I think that's fine at this juncture, though.

Yes, I agree, because if you didn't get it by now, then you never will. But, then again, I didn't see your point either, so we're even.

 

[Si modo]

I think I've made my point.

Really? I missed it then. I think that's fine at this juncture, though.

Yes, I agree, because if you didn't get it by now, then you never will. But, then again, I didn't see your point either, so we're even.

Ah, now I understand how you want to proceed and as I suspected earlier. Nothing of substance, just pot shots and the ever popular but no less illogical I'm-not-telling-you argument.

It's a shame as this thread was one of the few where those with opposing views stayed civil.

Until...

Maybe you can move it to the flame zone now that you've shat in it?

 

[Newby]

Really? I missed it then. I think that's fine at this juncture, though.

Yes, I agree, because if you didn't get it by now, then you never will. But, then again, I didn't see your point either, so we're even.

Ah, now I understand how you want to proceed and as I suspected earlier. Nothing of substance, just post shots and the ever popular but no less illogical I'm-not-telling-you argument.

It's a shame as this thread was one of the few where those with opposing views stayed civil.

Until...

Maybe you can move it to the flame zone now that you've shitted in it?

Why are you so combative and angry? I haven't insulted you or said anything nasty to you, nor have I 'shit' in this thread as you put it. I was offering my opinions and views, just the same as you are. You're the one that's taken the wrong turn and turned it into something nasty. Your accusations are unfair and unfounded on all counts.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Sex out side of marriage between one man and one woman is dirty.

Lemme guess....a Catholic Priest told you that, right?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I wonder if there is a term for a group of idiots? A gaggle? Flock? Herd?

Ditto-Lemmings​

 

[Care4all]

Well, there are people like me, who naturally spontaneously abort their possible fertilized eggs every month....thus no children for Matt and me....my eggs are fine, my Fallopian tubes are clear and push the fertilized egg in to the Uterus....but my uterus just won't let them attach....it is scarred and has benign tumors in the way....of which I have had surgically removed, but they grew back....long story and TMI already....

But basically, my body always spontaneously aborts the fertilized egg, whereas other women may occasionally reject the fertilized egg, but still have the opportunity to not reject the fertilized egg, and get pregnant....

to me, pregnancy means the attachment of the fertilized egg....anything less, is fruitless.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Well, there are people like me, who naturally spontaneously abort their possible fertilized eggs every month....thus no children for Matt and me....my eggs are fine, my Fallopian tubes are clear and push the fertilized egg in to the Uterus....but my uterus just won't let them attach....it is scarred and has benign tumors in the way....of which I have had surgically removed, but they grew back....long story and TMI already....

But basically, my body always spontaneously aborts the fertilized egg, whereas other women may occasionally reject the fertilized egg, but still have the opportunity to not reject the fertilized egg, and get pregnant....

to me, pregnancy means the attachment of the fertilized egg....anything less, is fruitless.

And if you always had a miscarriage at 2 months, then pregnancy would be remaining pregnant until 3 months. If you always had a miscarriage at 3 months then you wouldn't actually be pregnant unless you carried the child to full term. etc.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ok then.. let's talk about the "anti-life" crowd...

I'm pretty-certain most of 'em are White, and consider themselves fans of Law 'N Order....especially if the Offender is a Minority.​

 

[Care4all]

Well, there are people like me, who naturally spontaneously abort their possible fertilized eggs every month....thus no children for Matt and me....my eggs are fine, my Fallopian tubes are clear and push the fertilized egg in to the Uterus....but my uterus just won't let them attach....it is scarred and has benign tumors in the way....of which I have had surgically removed, but they grew back....long story and TMI already....

But basically, my body always spontaneously aborts the fertilized egg, whereas other women may occasionally reject the fertilized egg, but still have the opportunity to not reject the fertilized egg, and get pregnant....

to me, pregnancy means the attachment of the fertilized egg....anything less, is fruitless.

And if you always had a miscarriage at 2 months, then pregnancy would be remaining pregnant until 3 months. If you always had a miscarriage at 3 months then you wouldn't actually be pregnant unless you carried the child to full term. etc.

pregnancy does not begin until the attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterus, in MEDICAL TERMS, I believe?

This does not negate, ''life'' beginning with conception....without conception, there is no chance ever of the attachment to the uterus to begin pregnancy.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, I agree, because if you didn't get it by now, then you never will. But, then again, I didn't see your point either, so we're even.

Ah, now I understand how you want to proceed and as I suspected earlier. Nothing of substance, just post shots and the ever popular but no less illogical I'm-not-telling-you argument.

It's a shame as this thread was one of the few where those with opposing views stayed civil.

Until...

Maybe you can move it to the flame zone now that you've shitted in it?

Why are you so combative and angry? I haven't insulted you or said anything nasty to you, nor have I 'shit' in this thread as you put it. I was offering my opinions and views, just the same as you are. You're the one that's taken the wrong turn and turned it into something nasty. Your accusations are unfair and unfounded on all counts.

Oh, I'm not angry. I just point out the pot shots, the strawmen, and the continued inanity of your input. I have no interest in discussions on this level in this thread. It was a reasonable debate.

Was.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Wow, the sheer amount of ignorant fail I see in this thread from hicks with no biology or medical background is astounding. Hey, let's take random guesses and reference wikipedia as a definitive source for abortion information! Don't worry that those articles get changed 20 times a day by nutjobs just like you, I'm sure it's perfectly valid.

Defining what's "natural" or when life starts based on how you can justify your personal sexual interactions is ridiculous. There is biology here which many of you seem to be ignoring (though props to the few of you who accurately cited primary literature - the following does not apply to the smart few in this thread).

First, to settle the dispute about the pill. Its main methods of preventing pregnancy include 1) preventing ovulation, and 2) thickening cervical mucus to restrict sperm from accessing the egg. Some of you have referenced the morning after pill as if it were some super secret formula, while others have mentioned the oral contraceptive pill works by stopping implantation. In all actuality, the morning after pill IS the oral contraceptive pill, in a higher dose. They're the same damn thing, so don't be too surprised to find an article that says that drug prevents implantation. That's like saying alcohol causes coma. Dose matters.

Second, this idea of defining when life starts which happens to perfectly align with what you WANT it to be just to fool yourself into thinking you're a good person is just plain stupid. No, you shouldn't use the term "it's natural when...". Miscarriage is "natural", even after implantation. In fact, the large majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and just aren't noticed. Ectopic pregnancy is "natural", and happens at a higher rate with most pharmacological contraceptive use. Test tube babies are not undead just because they haven't implanted yet but are growing outside the body. So let's drop these ridiculous ideas of "no it only counts after some arbitrary point I don't normally reach" or "no abortion only counts right after the arbitrary points I think are ok".

What I can tell you is that the medical community, comprised of highly educated and knowledgeable individuals, draw cutoffs and construct definitions that are very different than the wrong ideas that have been expressed here. All opinions are not created equal. Many in this thread are flat out wrong. Now if you were knowledgeable in biology, embryology, or physiology, you'd be in a better position to make an argument. But you're not. My guess is that you have no education in these fields whatsoever. My guess is that you don't even know that a young human embryo looks like a fish and has gill slits. My guess is that you don't know when the medical community identifies viability or why. Prove me wrong.

 

[Meister]

Wow, the sheer amount of ignorant fail I see in this thread from hicks with no biology or medical background is astounding. Hey, let's take random guesses and reference wikipedia as a definitive source for abortion information! Don't worry that those articles get changed 20 times a day by nutjobs just like you, I'm sure it's perfectly valid.

Defining what's "natural" or when life starts based on how you can justify your personal sexual interactions is ridiculous. There is biology here which many of you seem to be ignoring (though props to the few of you who accurately cited primary literature - the following does not apply to the smart few in this thread).

First, to settle the dispute about the pill. Its main methods of preventing pregnancy include 1) preventing ovulation, and 2) thickening cervical mucus to restrict sperm from accessing the egg. Some of you have referenced the morning after pill as if it were some super secret formula, while others have mentioned the oral contraceptive pill works by stopping implantation. In all actuality, the morning after pill IS the oral contraceptive pill, in a higher dose. They're the same damn thing, so don't be too surprised to find an article that says that drug prevents implantation. That's like saying alcohol causes coma. Dose matters.

Second, this idea of defining when life starts which happens to perfectly align with what you WANT it to be just to fool yourself into thinking you're a good person is just plain stupid. No, you shouldn't use the term "it's natural when...". Miscarriage is "natural", even after implantation. In fact, the large majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and just aren't noticed. Ectopic pregnancy is "natural", and happens at a higher rate with most pharmacological contraceptive use. Test tube babies are not undead just because they haven't implanted yet but are growing outside the body. So let's drop these ridiculous ideas of "no it only counts after some arbitrary point I don't normally reach" or "no abortion only counts right after the arbitrary points I think are ok".

What I can tell you is that the medical community, comprised of highly educated and knowledgeable individuals, draw cutoffs and construct definitions that are very different than the wrong ideas that have been expressed here. All opinions are not created equal. Many in this thread are flat out wrong. Now if you were knowledgeable in biology, embryology, or physiology, you'd be in a better position to make an argument. But you're not. My guess is that you have no education in these fields whatsoever. My guess is that you don't even know that a young human embryo looks like a fish and has gill slits. My guess is that you don't know when the medical community identifies viability or why. Prove me wrong.

So I guess your saying....you got nuthin'.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

what on pumpernickel are you talking about? nothing on what?

 

[DiamondDave]

Oh... he's saying he has something.... the ability to proclaim himself a know it all and an innate ability to chest puff

 

[DiamondDave]

Well, there are people like me, who naturally spontaneously abort their possible fertilized eggs every month....thus no children for Matt and me....my eggs are fine, my Fallopian tubes are clear and push the fertilized egg in to the Uterus....but my uterus just won't let them attach....it is scarred and has benign tumors in the way....of which I have had surgically removed, but they grew back....long story and TMI already....

But basically, my body always spontaneously aborts the fertilized egg, whereas other women may occasionally reject the fertilized egg, but still have the opportunity to not reject the fertilized egg, and get pregnant....

to me, pregnancy means the attachment of the fertilized egg....anything less, is fruitless.

And if you always had a miscarriage at 2 months, then pregnancy would be remaining pregnant until 3 months. If you always had a miscarriage at 3 months then you wouldn't actually be pregnant unless you carried the child to full term. etc.

pregnancy does not begin until the attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterus, in MEDICAL TERMS, I believe?

This does not negate, ''life'' beginning with conception....without conception, there is no chance ever of the attachment to the uterus to begin pregnancy.

I do not disagree with your statements and conclusions here