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

[SmarterThanHick]

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

That's because you are both wrong. Again, pregnancy is not defined by your personal opinion, it has a specific definition.

Stedman's medical dictionary lists that definition as "The state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." SYN gestation, gravid. When doctors say "you are 12 weeks pregnant", the week in between conception and implantation is included in there.

Oh but I'm sure you'll insist your opinion of what it REALLY is has more value then the sum total of doctors in America.

 

[Newby]

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

That's because you are both wrong. Again, pregnancy is not defined by your personal opinion, it has a specific definition.

Stedman's medical dictionary lists that definition as "The state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." SYN gestation, gravid. When doctors say "you are 12 weeks pregnant", the week in between conception and implantation is included in there.

Oh but I'm sure you'll insist your opinion of what it REALLY is has more value then the sum total of doctors in America.

Why don't you try telling the pro-choice crowd the same thing when it comes to the definition of life?

 

[Si modo]

I do not disagree with your statements and conclusions here

That's because you are both wrong. Again, pregnancy is not defined by your personal opinion, it has a specific definition.

Stedman's medical dictionary lists that definition as "The state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." SYN gestation, gravid. When doctors say "you are 12 weeks pregnant", the week in between conception and implantation is included in there.

Oh but I'm sure you'll insist your opinion of what it REALLY is has more value then the sum total of doctors in America.

Why don't you try telling the pro-choice crowd the same thing when it comes to the definition of life?

The academic definition of life has already been discussed in this thread. I guess you missed that, too.

 

[DiamondDave]

That's because you are both wrong. Again, pregnancy is not defined by your personal opinion, it has a specific definition.

Stedman's medical dictionary lists that definition as "The state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." SYN gestation, gravid. When doctors say "you are 12 weeks pregnant", the week in between conception and implantation is included in there.

Oh but I'm sure you'll insist your opinion of what it REALLY is has more value then the sum total of doctors in America.

Why don't you try telling the pro-choice crowd the same thing when it comes to the definition of life?

The academic definition of life has already been discussed in this thread. I guess you missed that, too.

Yep... plus in addition to all the parts we were talking about with it.. my mother actually has set up a dinner with one of the other doctors from her NNICU just to talk about some of it... but just from some brief conversation I know there is some debate on nutrient absorption.. and whether just because something has the ability at a stage, whether it happens before exposure to the uterine wall is in high debate as the uterine wall is where the necessary nutrients are and not just in the open environment of the fallopian tube or open area of the womb.... when exposed to a nutrient rich solution, the reaction takes place as if it were in contact with the uterine wall... and with the fact that here is indeed stored nutrients from both the egg and head of the sperm left in the fertilized egg upon fertilization that the blastocyst does rely upon... should indeed make for some interesting dinner conversation

 

[sweetie]

blah blah blah..

..remember, the 'pro-life,' idiots are the ones scheming for government intervention here..(despite the fact these tea-bagging dinks are frequently found working their cocksuckers complaining about, 'too much government'..)

...therefore, it is up to the goddamned 'pro-life' fools to make the case..the government rules/laws and the government punishment for violation of these rules/laws, etc..

...i don't have a problem with diamonddave...he admits he wants to execute 100's of thousands of women and others involved in abortion/'murder'...(and eventually a state and/or federal 'womb cam' and maybe a pee-pee cam strategically placed at birth to keep people more honest)

...but, i never hear this kind of honesty from your stinking conservative republican 'pro-life' politicians...at least not in public..

..gee, i wonder why..

...hint for you miserable 'pro-lifers' :...the earliest u.S. coins bore the inscription, 'mind your business'..maybe it's time for a new series of coins: "republicrats, mind your motherfucking business"

..the rest of you, have a good day!..

 

[Si modo]

blah blah blah..

..remember, the 'pro-life,' idiots are the ones scheming for government intervention here..(despite the fact these tea-bagging dinks are frequently found working their cocksuckers complaining about, 'too much government'..)

...therefore, it is up to the goddamned 'pro-life' fools to make the case..the government rules/laws and the government punishment for violation of these rules/laws, etc..

...i don't have a problem with diamonddave...he admits he wants to execute 100's of thousands of women and others involved in abortion/'murder'...(and eventually a state and/or federal 'womb cam' and maybe a pee-pee cam strategically placed at birth to keep people more honest)

...but, i never hear this kind of honesty from your stinking conservative republican 'pro-life' politicians...at least not in public..

..gee, i wonder why..

...hint for you miserable 'pro-lifers' :...the earliest american coins bore the inscription, 'mind your business'..maybe it's time for a new series of coins: "republicrats, mind your motherfucking business"

..the rest of you, have a good day!..

Now, THAT'S constructive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

A tea party.

Wrong. I'm part of the Tea Party and I am pro choice.

Oops on you, moron.

Oops on me? The class of all idiots includes the class of both pro and con on the issue of abortion.
The main body of Tea Partiers seems to consist of the Conservative Chic, fools who dance around in 18th Century Garb, openly carry firearms and want other to believe they have something in common with the colonists who protested taxation without representation.
It is a movement of fantasy, fueled by avarice and ignorance and lead by Freedom Works. The same people who brought us 'Enron'.
IMHO most of those who attend these events want to be included in something, much like all those mid-western and southern boys and girls who came to San Francisco in the summer of love. Most didn't know shit about the real issues of the day, they simply wanted to be included in the 'happenings'.

 

[Si modo]

A tea party.

Wrong. I'm part of the Tea Party and I am pro choice.

Oops on you, moron.

Oops on me? The class of all idiots includes the class of both pro and con on the issue of abortion.
The main body of Tea Partiers seems to consist of the Conservative Chic, fools who dance around in 18th Century Garb, openly carry firearms and want other to believe they have something in common with the colonists who protested taxation without representation.
It is a movement of fantasy, fueled by avarice and ignorance and lead by Freedom Works. The same people who brought us 'Enron'.
IMHO most of those who attend these events want to be included in something, much like all those mid-western and southern boys and girls who came to San Francisco in the summer of love. Most didn't know shit about the real issues of the day, they simply wanted to be included in the 'happenings'.

Your 'issues' with the Tea Party are not quite the topic. Maybe you could create another thread about your 'issues', then your 'issues' would be on topic.

Focus is not a difficult thing to do, unless one is a moron.

 

[Si modo]

Why don't you try telling the pro-choice crowd the same thing when it comes to the definition of life?

The academic definition of life has already been discussed in this thread. I guess you missed that, too.

Yep... plus in addition to all the parts we were talking about with it.. my mother actually has set up a dinner with one of the other doctors from her NNICU just to talk about some of it... but just from some brief conversation I know there is some debate on nutrient absorption.. and whether just because something has the ability at a stage, whether it happens before exposure to the uterine wall is in high debate as the uterine wall is where the necessary nutrients are and not just in the open environment of the fallopian tube or open area of the womb.... when exposed to a nutrient rich solution, the reaction takes place as if it were in contact with the uterine wall... and with the fact that here is indeed stored nutrients from both the egg and head of the sperm left in the fertilized egg upon fertilization that the blastocyst does rely upon... should indeed make for some interesting dinner conversation

I wish I could rep you again, but I can't yet. It's great arguing with you.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

That's because you are both wrong. Again, pregnancy is not defined by your personal opinion, it has a specific definition.

Stedman's medical dictionary lists that definition as "The state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." SYN gestation, gravid. When doctors say "you are 12 weeks pregnant", the week in between conception and implantation is included in there.

Oh but I'm sure you'll insist your opinion of what it REALLY is has more value then the sum total of doctors in America.

Yet in other medical texts the definition of when pregnancy starts is indeed upon implantation...
and these indeed have been linked to earlier in the thread... as a matter of fact, you will not even get a positive pregnancy test until implantation occurs... just as with invitro fertilization with fertilized egg insertion, it does not always result in pregnancy.. the mere presence of a fertilized egg does not constitute pregnancy

 

[Qball]

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.

This is waaaaay too much grandstanding for one paragraph. Geez.

 

[DiamondDave]

The academic definition of life has already been discussed in this thread. I guess you missed that, too.

Yep... plus in addition to all the parts we were talking about with it.. my mother actually has set up a dinner with one of the other doctors from her NNICU just to talk about some of it... but just from some brief conversation I know there is some debate on nutrient absorption.. and whether just because something has the ability at a stage, whether it happens before exposure to the uterine wall is in high debate as the uterine wall is where the necessary nutrients are and not just in the open environment of the fallopian tube or open area of the womb.... when exposed to a nutrient rich solution, the reaction takes place as if it were in contact with the uterine wall... and with the fact that here is indeed stored nutrients from both the egg and head of the sperm left in the fertilized egg upon fertilization that the blastocyst does rely upon... should indeed make for some interesting dinner conversation

I wish I could rep you again, but I can't yet. It's great arguing with you.

I really don't even consider it arguing... as I believe we are both expanding information in an area where we have interest... did much reading on development when my ex was pregnant and ESPECIALLY when my daughter was born a premie... but never really delved much into the earliest stage other than glancing thru my mothers medical texts

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wrong. I'm part of the Tea Party and I am pro choice.

Oops on you, moron.

Oops on me? The class of all idiots includes the class of both pro and con on the issue of abortion.
The main body of Tea Partiers seems to consist of the Conservative Chic, fools who dance around in 18th Century Garb, openly carry firearms and want other to believe they have something in common with the colonists who protested taxation without representation.
It is a movement of fantasy, fueled by avarice and ignorance and lead by Freedom Works. The same people who brought us 'Enron'.
IMHO most of those who attend these events want to be included in something, much like all those mid-western and southern boys and girls who came to San Francisco in the summer of love. Most didn't know shit about the real issues of the day, they simply wanted to be included in the 'happenings'.

Your 'issues' with the Tea Party are not quite the topic. Maybe you could create another thread about your 'issues', then your 'issues' would be on topic.

Focus is not a difficult thing to do, unless one is a moron.

Moron or not, I recognized you as a phoney the first week I began posting. I won't call you a moron, because you're not; but I do find your propensity to use ad hominems rather than respond with intelligence callow and faineant.

 

[Si modo]

Oops on me? The class of all idiots includes the class of both pro and con on the issue of abortion.
The main body of Tea Partiers seems to consist of the Conservative Chic, fools who dance around in 18th Century Garb, openly carry firearms and want other to believe they have something in common with the colonists who protested taxation without representation.
It is a movement of fantasy, fueled by avarice and ignorance and lead by Freedom Works. The same people who brought us 'Enron'.
IMHO most of those who attend these events want to be included in something, much like all those mid-western and southern boys and girls who came to San Francisco in the summer of love. Most didn't know shit about the real issues of the day, they simply wanted to be included in the 'happenings'.

Your 'issues' with the Tea Party are not quite the topic. Maybe you could create another thread about your 'issues', then your 'issues' would be on topic.

Focus is not a difficult thing to do, unless one is a moron.

Moron or not, I recognized you as a phoney the first week I began posting. I won't call you a moron, because you're not; but I do find your propensity to use ad hominems rather than respond with intelligence callow and faineant.

I understand it's difficult for you to focus on the topic.

 

[Si modo]

Yep... plus in addition to all the parts we were talking about with it.. my mother actually has set up a dinner with one of the other doctors from her NNICU just to talk about some of it... but just from some brief conversation I know there is some debate on nutrient absorption.. and whether just because something has the ability at a stage, whether it happens before exposure to the uterine wall is in high debate as the uterine wall is where the necessary nutrients are and not just in the open environment of the fallopian tube or open area of the womb.... when exposed to a nutrient rich solution, the reaction takes place as if it were in contact with the uterine wall... and with the fact that here is indeed stored nutrients from both the egg and head of the sperm left in the fertilized egg upon fertilization that the blastocyst does rely upon... should indeed make for some interesting dinner conversation

I wish I could rep you again, but I can't yet. It's great arguing with you.

I really don't even consider it arguing... as I believe we are both expanding information in an area where we have interest... did much reading on development when my ex was pregnant and ESPECIALLY when my daughter was born a premie... but never really delved much into the earliest stage other than glancing thru my mothers medical texts

Personally, I view arguing as a positive experience when it's done civilly. Maybe debating is a better word here.

 

[Care4all]

I do not disagree with your statements and conclusions here

That's because you are both wrong. Again, pregnancy is not defined by your personal opinion, it has a specific definition.

Stedman's medical dictionary lists that definition as "The state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." SYN gestation, gravid. When doctors say "you are 12 weeks pregnant", the week in between conception and implantation is included in there.

Oh but I'm sure you'll insist your opinion of what it REALLY is has more value then the sum total of doctors in America.

Yet in other medical texts the definition of when pregnancy starts is indeed upon implantation...
and these indeed have been linked to earlier in the thread... as a matter of fact, you will not even get a positive pregnancy test until implantation occurs... just as with invitro fertilization with fertilized egg insertion, it does not always result in pregnancy.. the mere presence of a fertilized egg does not constitute pregnancy

Well, she does have a point...when you are pregnant, they do include the one week period for egg implantation as part opf the gestation period...even the medical community debates when pregnancy actually begins....my thoughs of implantation is just one of the arguments...

good point on invitro.....the woman is not pregnant unless the implanted egg attaches to the lining of the uterus.

 

[Newby]

That's because you are both wrong. Again, pregnancy is not defined by your personal opinion, it has a specific definition.

Stedman's medical dictionary lists that definition as "The state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." SYN gestation, gravid. When doctors say "you are 12 weeks pregnant", the week in between conception and implantation is included in there.

Oh but I'm sure you'll insist your opinion of what it REALLY is has more value then the sum total of doctors in America.

Why don't you try telling the pro-choice crowd the same thing when it comes to the definition of life?

The academic definition of life has already been discussed in this thread. I guess you missed that, too.

You just don't like me very much, do you? For what it's worth, I typically agree with you and respect your opinion on many topics, so it's a shame that you can't seem to have the same courtesy towards others who's views differ from yours.

I've read the whole thing. My point was that for your argument in this thread about when a woman is considered 'pregnant' or life begins, you seem to be able to clearly define it. However, when the shoe is on the other foot and life needs to be defined when it comes to aborting a baby at any stage of pregnancy, it's somehow undefinable then. Funny how that changes. Your crying hypocrasy while being guilty of it yourself.

I clearly see a difference between an hours old fertilized egg not planting to the womb and a ten to twelve week old baby. How do you justify your support of a fully formed person being ripped apart and sucked out of the womb and not calling it a life?

 

[Si modo]

Why don't you try telling the pro-choice crowd the same thing when it comes to the definition of life?

The academic definition of life has already been discussed in this thread. I guess you missed that, too.

You just don't like me very much, do you? For what it's worth, I typically agree with you and respect your opinion on many topics, so it's a shame that you can't seem to have the same courtesy towards others who's views differ from yours.

I've read the whole thing. My point was that for your argument in this thread about when a woman is considered 'pregnant' or life begins, you seem to be able to clearly define it. However, when the shoe is on the other foot and life needs to be defined when it comes to aborting a baby at any stage of pregnancy, it's somehow undefinable then. Funny how that changes. Your crying hypocrasy while being guilty of it yourself.

I clearly see a difference between an hours old fertilized egg not planting to the womb and a ten to twelve week old baby. How do you justify your support of a fully formed person being ripped apart and sucked out of the womb and not calling it a life?

Another strawman. How do you know I justify that?

Whether I like you or not is irrelevant. Also, it's ridiculous of you to think that I 'like' or dislike folks based on their board posts. I don't like or dislike folks about whom I know nothing. And, I don't like or dislike folks with whom I disagree on a topic. Not my style, yet you assume it is.

Now, you took at least two gratuitous potshots at me in your few posts here. And, it is clear from a few of those posts that you didn't read the thread before you took those potshots.

As I said, the tone was relatively fine here. I am discussing with those who want to discuss the topic. Reading the thread helps those interested in a fruitful discussion to have the same foundation.

If you have read the thread, I apologize for saying that you didn't.

 

[Newby]

The academic definition of life has already been discussed in this thread. I guess you missed that, too.

You just don't like me very much, do you? For what it's worth, I typically agree with you and respect your opinion on many topics, so it's a shame that you can't seem to have the same courtesy towards others who's views differ from yours.

I've read the whole thing. My point was that for your argument in this thread about when a woman is considered 'pregnant' or life begins, you seem to be able to clearly define it. However, when the shoe is on the other foot and life needs to be defined when it comes to aborting a baby at any stage of pregnancy, it's somehow undefinable then. Funny how that changes. Your crying hypocrasy while being guilty of it yourself.

I clearly see a difference between an hours old fertilized egg not planting to the womb and a ten to twelve week old baby. How do you justify your support of a fully formed person being ripped apart and sucked out of the womb and not calling it a life?

Another strawman. How do you know I justify that?

Whether I like you or not is irrelevant. Also, it's ridiculous of you to think that I 'like' or dislike folks based on their board posts. I don't like or dislike folks about whom I know nothing. And, I don't like or dislike folks with whom I disagree on a topic. Not my style, yet you assume it is.

Now, you took at least two gratuitous potshots at me in your few posts here. And, it is clear from a few of those posts that you didn't read the thread before you took those potshots.

As I said, the tone was relatively fine here. I am discussing with those who want to discuss the topic. Reading the thread helps those interested in a fruitful discussion to have the same foundation.

If you have read the thread, I apologize for saying that you didn't.

Si Modo, I read every thread all the way thru that I participate in, so you are wrong. Secondly, I haven't taken any 'pot shots' at you. And for someone who doesn't 'dislike' people, you certainly throw insults around fairly quickly, just read through the thread and it's quite clear. Show me where I have not discussed the topic? You keep saying that ad nauseum, so please show where I am not discussing the topic outside of defending myself from your accusations.

And you said earlier that you're pro-choice, so you have to justify abortion in some way unless your opinion is that it is not the taking of a life.

 

[Founder]

What about the fertilized eggs which fail to attach naturally to the uterine wall? Does nature itself have a process to abort a pregnancy?

Besides: who is going to scream "MURDERER!" at a fifteen year old scared out of her wits kid when the pill kicks in? Where's the fun in that?

It isn't natural when a birth control pill is causing it.

I agree. Saying it happens naturally is the same kind of relativism as saying the mailman is going to die anyway, therefore it is ok if I shoot him. Or saying people die naturally all the time, therefore it is ok for me to shoot the mailman.

The two are not a valid comparison. The fact is pro-lifers who use birth control are hypocrites.

Birth Control Of Any Sort Equally Takes Life

The fact is pro-lifers who use ANY TYPE METHOD, OR FORM WHATSOEVER of birth control are hypocrites.

There is absolutely NO difference between "NATURAL" Birth Control and "ARTIFICIAL" Birth Control. Both kill babies equally, and each just as effectively as the other. It is a lying shuck to try to draw some difference between these two murderous acts, when in fact they are not two things at all, but one and the same.

So-Called "Natural" Birth Control, or Contraception is just as deadly to babies as any other kind of Baby Killing practices, pills, methods, or devices.

Now, nature kills babies all the time, in hundreds of ways at every stage of development, but there is an enormous difference between nature taking a life for its own reasons, and us willfully, with malice aforethought, premeditatedly taking the life of our own children out of shear greed for money, and other material things, and/or for our convenience.

The Bible says, "Woe must come into the world, but woe unto him, (or her) who purposely brings that woe."

Yes, babies, sperm and eggs die all the time, but when you purposely kill your own for the single purpose of preventing their development into a child then you are murdering your own children point blank, and for that there are no words despicable enough to describe that heinous act .