User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 48

  1. #11
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    If I'm reading it right, it's not against all forms of contraception, just against those which could more accurately be described as early abortion. So condoms, diaphragms etc are fine. They prevent conception, not dispose of the result. Morning after pills (or RU486) not so fine. At least, I assume that's what they're talking about. I'm not an expert on contraceptives. I dunno where regular birth-control pills fit in. I guess they don't prevent conception - they just prevent the impregnated egg from latching onto the wall of the uterus. Or something. So they may indeed be out according to the definition.

  2. #12
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Margaret Sanger? Is it time to merge this thread with the N-word thread?

  3. #13
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones View Post
    "between conception and natural birth" seems to exclude the notion of contraception to me. If conception has taken place, clearly there's been no contraception in the first place. Or am I reading that wrong?
    Yeah, I see what you mean. Contraception, by definition, would have prevented conception, so the use of it would not have fallen under this proposed ban. However, the type of 'contraceptives' that the family planning lady is talking about are like the morning after pill, which work to either prevent ovulation or fertilization, or to prevent a fertilized embryo from implantation, all after sex. So the ban would cover this type of contraceptive because it re-defines abortion to mean the killing of the embryo before implantation. Abortion, as it is usually practices, kills the embryo after implantation.

    Edit: Nevermind, I posted this after you posted again.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #14
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Yeah, I see what you mean. Contraception, by definition, would have prevented conception, so the use of it would not have fallen under this proposed ban. However, the type of 'contraceptives' that the family planning lady is talking about are like the morning after pill, which work to either prevent ovulation or fertilization, or to prevent a fertilized embryo from implantation, all after sex. So the ban would cover this type of contraceptive because it re-defines abortion to mean the killing of the embryo before implantation. Abortion, as it is usually practices, kills the embryo after implantation.

    Edit: Nevermind, I posted this after you posted again.
    I don't see any difficulty according to the definition for a form of contraceptive which prevented ovulation. No ovulation = no possible conception. I think.

  5. #15
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    There is a theoretical dispute about whether or not the mucus plug created by the birth control pill would prevent a fertilized egg from implanting should there be a breakthrough ovulation.

  6. #16
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones View Post
    I don't see any difficulty according to the definition for a form of contraceptive which prevented ovulation. No ovulation = no possible conception. I think.
    The problem, I think, is that the morning after pill can function that way (preventing ovulation), AND it can also prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting, which basically terminates it. The proposed ban calls the latter part abortion, which would make any use of the pill illegal.

    Edit: Yes, what heart said.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #17
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,784

    Default

    contraception has been known to fail in rare cases. I've had more then a couple of friends in which a condom broke on them and they weren't on BC so they went and got the morning after pill. This to me seems like a bad idea to take away this choice.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  8. #18
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    There is a theoretical dispute about whether or not the mucus plug created by the birth control pill would prevent a fertilized egg from implanting should there be a breakthrough ovulation.
    "Theoretical"? That's kinda vague.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    The problem, I think, is that the morning after pill can function that way (preventing ovulation), AND it can also prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting, which basically terminates it. The proposed ban calls the latter part abortion, which would make any use of the pill illegal.
    I could see why this would be a cause for concern. But I think it's shoddy journalism to blare out headlines along the lines of "Bush equates contraception to abortion" (or whatever). Since that's clearly not what's being said.

  9. #19
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones View Post
    "Theoretical"? That's kinda vague.
    No argument from me on that. But it is where some people want to connect the birth control pill with actual abortion.

    I could see why this would be a cause for concern. But I think it's shoddy journalism to blare out headlines along the lines of "Bush equates contraception to abortion" (or whatever). Since that's clearly not what's being said.
    It is just election time hype, part of the show for the good cop/bad cop thing.

  10. #20
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones View Post
    I could see why this would be a cause for concern. But I think it's shoddy journalism to blare out headlines along the lines of "Bush equates contraception to abortion" (or whatever). Since that's clearly not what's being said.
    I agree.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court Ruling Striking Down Anti-Abortion Law
    By Hard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-28-2016, 11:17 PM
  2. Transgendered Ruled by EEOC to be Protected under Civil Rights Act, Title VII
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 02:22 PM
  3. One ring to rule them all... blah blah blah (Not about LOTR)
    By Xander in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 05:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO