Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, the problem is this would be true IF the pill only suppressed ovulation. It's now thought that at least some of the time, the birth control pill may work by making the woman's uterus not receptive to implantation of the fertilized egg.
If you are referring to "morning after" therapy, then yes, you are correct, but that's following a bolus dosage of birth control pills. Typical daily dosages of birth control pills are designed to suppress ovulation.
There will always be variables with regard to efficacy - hence the reason some women get pregnant while on birth control. That's why they are a prescription, and patients must be followed medically.
The issues that I take umbrage with is the presumption that the egg is fertilized and then spontaneously aborted - that is not the case. In fact, many women skip the off-colored placebo pills in a pack (that are designed only to keep track of the days) and continue on in order not to have a period at all.
When that's the case, how can they go on for 6 or 8 months and not be obviously pregnant?
If you are referring to "morning after" therapy, then yes, you are correct, but that's following a bolus dosage of birth control pills. Typical daily dosages of birth control pills are designed to suppress ovulation.
There will always be variables with regard to efficacy - hence the reason some women get pregnant while on birth control. That's why they are a prescription, and patients must be followed medically.
The issues that I take umbrage with is the presumption that the egg is fertilized and then spontaneously aborted - that is not the case. In fact, many women skip the off-colored placebo pills in a pack (that are designed only to keep track of the days) and continue on in order not to have a period at all.
When that's the case, how can they go on for 6 or 8 months and not be obviously pregnant?
No, I am not referring to solely" morning after" therapy, nor am I referring to taking the pill improperly or sporadically. If you will google something like "are oral contraceptives abortifacient?" you will find an abundance of material to show that in some cases, even if properly taken, they MAY, at least, be abortifacient. I'll see if I can find a good link. It is now believed by many doctors that the pill may actually work in 3 ways:
1) by suppressing ovulation (the most usual way)
2) by changing the cervical mucus
3) by interfering with the movement of the Fallopian tubes or
4) by changing the uterus so it is inhospitable to a fertilize egg
I think it is thought that it more often works by #1, but not always. This is where the pro-life groups have a problem with it. (even those such as myself who are not against birth control, in general.) Not everyone agrees that it can work in this way, but it is suspected that it can. Some experts believe it can and does. Other say they don't. So the use of it remains controversial, at least, in the pro-life camp.
My neighbor is Catholic and I don't know if this is something that all of the Catholic church believes since I am not Catholic, but at least her priest at her church considers the BCP abortion for the very reason that sometimes/often/whatever the egg is fertilized but just not able to implant.
No, I am not referring to solely" morning after" therapy, nor am I referring to taking the pill improperly or sporadically. If you will google something like "are oral contraceptives abortifacient?" you will find an abundance of material to show that in some cases, even if properly taken, they MAY be. I'll see if I can find a good link. It is now believed that the pill may actually work in 3 ways:
1) by suppressing ovulation (the most usual way)
2) by changing the cervical mucus
3) by interfering with the movement of the Fallopian tubes or
4) by changing the uterus so it is inhospitable to a fertilize egg
I think it is thought that it more often works by #1, but not always. This is where the pro-life groups have a problem with it. (even those such as myself who are not against birth control, in general.) Not everyone agrees that it can work in this way, but it is suspected that it can. Some experts believe it can and does. Other say they don't. So the use of it remains controversial, at least, in the pro-life camp.
Fair enough. I did google that; however, I found it most interesting that much of the info was of "evangelical" origin. I guess you're right in that therein lies the controversy.
In the meanwhile, I'll stand by my stance that it suppresses ovulation. The dosage of Estrogen and Progesterone are designed to suppress it. The change in the cervical mucous is designed to prevent the sperm from entering from my understanding - thus, I conclude still preventing the egg from becoming fertilized in the first place. I would suppose it stands to reason that with those hormonal change aspects, the uterus would also change in terms of being hospitable to a fertilized egg.
Straying off topic there I suppose as my take is the group's intent is to scare the bejeebies out of women by highlighting health risks. That's where the patient/physician relationship is necessary IMHO. I'm of the belief that people who want to debate whether or not birth control and abortion are right or wrong shouldn't be doing so based on scare tactics.
Excellent judgment.
It's none of your business what anyone chooses to do with their reproductive system, zygote or fetus or the reasons for it. Absolutely none.
You don't have to carry or raise it.
The epitome of self-centeredness is putting your nose in someone else's business and assuming you know better than they do.
Self-centeredness is when you have kids you can't or won't care for, either economically or emotionally.
Then again, there is no proof of a god.
I have said it's no one else's concern. I respect people who have chosen not to have kids. I probably should a healthy, wanted pregnancy does not suc,
As far as the statement about "god's plan", I struggled with how to say that, and I obviously bombed. The question was how do some Christians justify abortion in the case of rape. I think they would say it's not part of God's plan. I neither agree nor disagree.
True conservatives don't want GOVERNMENT interferring with their personal lives. I don't believe in legislating morality and am an advocate for the separation of chruch and state. I also don't believe the Roe vs Wade issue should not have necessarily been politicized and turned into a supreme court decision.
Like I said before these so called "Bible Belt" red states have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy rates compared to much lower rates for most of the northern states.
With that being said, I DO NOT like abortion in general- especially late term. However, the decision rests with the individual. Like other posters have said, extraneous medical situations or other complexities may arise. It is not what I would call a black and white issue for some people. (It MAY BE a black and white issue for others, but that does not give them the right to force others to conform to their own personal views). The decision should ultimately be a personal one for the individual.
Another big item is education. The more educated the populace the more informed they are about birth control options. Abstinence only sex ed has been promoted by the religious right, but the statistics prove that teen pregnancies have increased over the past few years.
This is my well thought out Independent viewpoint on the matter. I am not a liberal nor conservative. I am not pro-life nor pro-choice. I am a centrist on most issues.
However, centrist viewpoints are not respected in states like Kansas (where I used to live, unfortunately). I posted this same response on a Kansas thread and got threatening direct messages and was personally attacked for writing my viewpoint on the matter. I learned that you can't reason with hypocritical people (who are often Christian) who will not participate in an honest debate with you.
Part II
I have a queston for staunch pro-lifers. Are you as a taxpayer going to want to foot the bill for increases in social service programs, early childhood development programs, mental health programs, property tax increases for huge increases in school enrollment, etc. if we completely ban abortion entirely? The examples I just mentioned are the externalized costs that are not factored in for the general population.
Part III
My view on contraception is that it is definitely not abortion. I think most people do not want out of control population growth and the pill, condoms, and education help out in that regard.
I think that the Catholic Church continues to take rather extreme positions on these issues as of late, and I think some are getting rather fed up. They also take a very favorable stance toward illegal immigrants as well.
In conclusion, I do not hold the belief that all abortions should be banned. However, I do not feel that one should have the hubris to force feed personal beliefs onto others that share differing personal, cultural, and religious values. I think that we need to continue to invest in comprehensive sex education so that knowledge regarding contraception methods becomes even more widespread which will lead to abortions becoming more rare over time.
This is my overall take on the issue.
PS: Don't ever try to have a well reasoned debate with most people from KS on this issue. They will send you hate filled messages and personal threats if they think that you even slightly side with the pro-choice crowd. To them it is an ideologically rigid black and white issue that they like to personally force on others.
This is absurd...people need to grow up and stay out of other peoples business already. Anyone who cannot stay out of other peoples business....should lose their civil and basic human rights.
Boy when you're wrong you are really, really wrong. I am definately in the anti-abortion camp but would support putting the birth control pill in sexually active teen's mouth every morning and stroking their throat until they swallowed it. I also believe that if a man has children by 3 or more "babies mamas" from whom he is not married he should be snipped. And if he isn't paying child support to any children he sired he should be snipped. And the same goes for women who have children by 3 or more babies daddys to whom they are not married. If a child or children have had to be removed from their parents because of neglect and/or abuse then the parents should be snipped.
So you would advocate "forced birth control"? And how would such reduce the number of abortions? Because you're talking here about children who are born. I cannot go along with such forced sterilization, though, even for a woman who has had several abortions, because that woman may at some time decide she's ready to be a mother, and such 'snipping' as you are advocating would completely take the ability to make such a decision away from her.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did google that; however, I found it most interesting that much of the info was of "evangelical" origin. 
Socks Kill
