|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 25, 2021 19:07:21 GMT
Called CHOICE.. all things medical for each individual, male and FEMALE
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jun 25, 2021 19:28:00 GMT
I’m glad that I’m past all of that. When I was young, any woman could easily get birth control. Abortions were also available if you needed one. That was before all of the bc/abortion insanity happened.
I really feel for young women. This is dreadful.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,987
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Jun 25, 2021 19:43:13 GMT
The Catholic church and Evangelicals don't want women to have sex, married or not, therefore birth control is not needed. Just close your legs! You are right. And if women can't, what are the men doing? Who are they getting together with? They never say anything about men, just women. So frustrating! And don't get me started on those dads who don't want their daughter to date, but for their son, he can date whenever and whoever he wants. I hate double standards! Well, they have a lot to say about gay men. Just not straight men. Or straight men who prey on young girls. Although the girls are going to hell for having sex. But not the men.
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Jun 25, 2021 20:43:17 GMT
Yep. Anything that makes the uterus “inhospitable” to implantation is abortion to some. To be honest, I got old without even knowing this. The first time I heard about it was in the Hobby Lobby case. I wish the medical field was more upfront about this. None of the doctors who wrote me BC prescriptions mentioned it - I had to learn it from church. This lack of transparency fuels a lot of Catholic/Evangelical distrust of modern medicine. To me, the messaging needs to be, the pill works in these two ways, and you have an absolute right to use them and have them covered as part of your normal health care. If you’re not OK with that, these are your other options, which will also be covered. I thought it was common knowledge how they worked. I think I learned this in high school biology at a Christian high school. Drs should pass the information on either way. I grew up Christian, went to Christian schools and never really got the message that birth control was wrong just that sex before marriage was. I don’t understand why not having children you can’t take care of or don’t want is wrong. Birth control is much healthier than an abortion. Preventing implantation to me was what was important. Therefore the morning after pill was ok to. Not every fertilized egg will successfully implant and continue to grow. Many don’t make it the first month or two anyways it’s just nature. I really hope they don’t figure out how to make it more difficult for women to get birth control. I know many older women that have used IUDs to control heavy periods not just birth control. I know many take bc for acne or other issues. I don’t get the don’t have sex unless you want children but then always say yes to your husband that just doesn’t make sense. I also don’t get the no birth control but then the men think it’s ok to have affairs and then expect the mistress to have an abortion. Seriously. This makes no sense at all. Things would be so different if men could get pregnant and had to deal with menstrual cycles.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2021 21:26:09 GMT
Not every fertilized egg will successfully implant and continue to grow. Many don’t make it the first month or two anyways it’s just nature. ps - Your periodic reminder that "God" is the biggest abortionist of all w/fertilized eggs (aka "Full Persons") being spontaneously aborted at a rate of approximately 10% of known pregnancies and between 40-60% of fertilizations (most before a woman even knows she's pregnant).Kline J, Stein Z, Susser M: Conception and Reproductive Loss: Probabilities. Conception to Birth. Epidemiology of Prenatal Development.New York: OUP;1989;43–68. [Google Scholar] Rai R, Regan L: Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet. 2006;368(9535):601–11. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69204-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Brosens JJ, Salker MS, Teklenberg G, et al. : Uterine selection of human embryos at implantation. Sci Reports. 2014;4: 3894. 10.1038/srep03894 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Silver RM, Branch DW: Sporadic and recurrent pregnancy loss. In: Reece EA, Hobbins JC, editors. Clinical Obstetrics: The Fetus and Mother.3rd ed: Blackwell Publishing;2007;143–60. 10.1002/9780470753323.ch9 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Nishimura H: Fate of human fertilized eggs during prenatal life: present status of knowledge. Okajimas Folia Anat Jpn. 1970;46(6):297–305. 10.2535/ofaj1936.46.6_297 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Short RV: When a conception fails to become a pregnancy. Ciba Found Symp. 1978; (64):377–94. 10.1002/9780470720479.ch16 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 25, 2021 21:34:49 GMT
Not every fertilized egg will successfully implant and continue to grow. Many don’t make it the first month or two anyways it’s just nature. ps - Your periodic reminder that "God" is the biggest abortionist of all w/fertilized eggs (aka "Full Persons") being spontaneously aborted at a rate of approximately 10% of known pregnancies and between 40-60% of fertilizations (most before a woman even knows she's pregnant).Kline J, Stein Z, Susser M: Conception and Reproductive Loss: Probabilities. Conception to Birth. Epidemiology of Prenatal Development.New York: OUP;1989;43–68. [Google Scholar] Rai R, Regan L: Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet. 2006;368(9535):601–11. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69204-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Brosens JJ, Salker MS, Teklenberg G, et al. : Uterine selection of human embryos at implantation. Sci Reports. 2014;4: 3894. 10.1038/srep03894 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Silver RM, Branch DW: Sporadic and recurrent pregnancy loss. In: Reece EA, Hobbins JC, editors. Clinical Obstetrics: The Fetus and Mother.3rd ed: Blackwell Publishing;2007;143–60. 10.1002/9780470753323.ch9 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Nishimura H: Fate of human fertilized eggs during prenatal life: present status of knowledge. Okajimas Folia Anat Jpn. 1970;46(6):297–305. 10.2535/ofaj1936.46.6_297 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Short RV: When a conception fails to become a pregnancy. Ciba Found Symp. 1978; (64):377–94. 10.1002/9780470720479.ch16 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] is there part of this post missing?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2021 22:58:08 GMT
ps - Your periodic reminder that "God" is the biggest abortionist of all w/fertilized eggs (aka "Full Persons") being spontaneously aborted at a rate of approximately 10% of known pregnancies and between 40-60% of fertilizations (most before a woman even knows she's pregnant).Kline J, Stein Z, Susser M: Conception and Reproductive Loss: Probabilities. Conception to Birth. Epidemiology of Prenatal Development.New York: OUP;1989;43–68. [Google Scholar] Rai R, Regan L: Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet. 2006;368(9535):601–11. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69204-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Brosens JJ, Salker MS, Teklenberg G, et al. : Uterine selection of human embryos at implantation. Sci Reports. 2014;4: 3894. 10.1038/srep03894 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Silver RM, Branch DW: Sporadic and recurrent pregnancy loss. In: Reece EA, Hobbins JC, editors. Clinical Obstetrics: The Fetus and Mother.3rd ed: Blackwell Publishing;2007;143–60. 10.1002/9780470753323.ch9 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Nishimura H: Fate of human fertilized eggs during prenatal life: present status of knowledge. Okajimas Folia Anat Jpn. 1970;46(6):297–305. 10.2535/ofaj1936.46.6_297 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Short RV: When a conception fails to become a pregnancy. Ciba Found Symp. 1978; (64):377–94. 10.1002/9780470720479.ch16 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] is there part of this post missing? I don't think so. What do you think might be missing?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2021 23:10:01 GMT
It's ludicrous that any adult doesn't know how an IUD works and even more ludicrous to akin it to an abortion. What are they doing next ban condoms ?
Technically they are very similar - both stops the egg meeting the sperm. If the pro birth people think that a pregnancy begins at conception then how do they explain the fact that there never is a conception if the woman is fitted with an IUD. Crazy thinking some of these people have.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 26, 2021 0:05:37 GMT
is there part of this post missing? I think @zingermack is just citing the various sources for the percentage she quoted.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jun 26, 2021 0:34:25 GMT
The majority of women who have abortions already have children. You’d really think that if you wanted to reduce abortions, you’d want as much birth control access as possible—these are not women who do not want children, but do not want more, or cannot emotional, physically, or financially handle more. You would think you’d want them to have the tools to control their childbearing. All lives matter until they are born. You quickly learn that when you have a child with special needs. My son is on a on a wait list that has not been funded for over two years. We have health insurance through the federal government and it's still not enough.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 26, 2021 0:50:08 GMT
is there part of this post missing? I don't think so. What do you think might be missing? I thought ps meant Post Script and assumed part if it got deleted
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2021 2:13:47 GMT
I don't think so. What do you think might be missing? I thought ps meant Post Script and assumed part if it got deleted Ah. No. I was ps'ing the comment I replied to
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2021 14:38:12 GMT
Pay attention. Speak up! It works! Missouri Lawmakers Pretended IUDs Cause Abortion. They Lost. "The Missouri Senate defeated a measure that would have redefined certain forms of birth control as abortifacients in order to ban Medicaid from paying for the contraceptives. After hours of negotiation last Friday, lawmakers dropped the anti-choice language from the tax bill and voted against an amendment to ban Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider. The senate voted early Saturday morning to renew the Federal Reimbursement Allowance, a state tax that funds Medicaid, and the measure now heads to the state house. The Kansas City Star reported: The vote makes it much more likely the General Assembly will meet Gov. Mike Parson’s July 1 deadline to renew the tax. He has promised severe budget cuts without a bill on his desk by then. Last week, Missouri lawmakers had tried to use the funding bill to ban Medicaid from covering emergency contraceptives like Plan B and certain forms of birth control, like intrauterine devices (IUDs). The Republican state senators claimed that using Plan B or IUDs is the same thing as getting an abortion." rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2021/06/28/missouri-lawmakers-pretended-iuds-cause-abortion-they-lost/
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2021 14:59:42 GMT
"The bill marked a defeat for conservative senators and anti-abortion activists who had hoped to use the tax, known as the Federal Reimbursement Allowance or FRA, to force Planned Parenthood, the state’s only abortion provider, out of Medicaid altogether. Sen. Bob Onder, a Lake St. Louis Republican, led the move against Planned Parenthood but a bipartisan coalition, fearing the possible loss of federal funds, rejected his proposal. “The question for us is whether we’re just going to roll over and play dead,” Onder said, calling it a “sad day” for the Senate.... “I’m going to say this to my fellow colleagues who are pro-life: you know, Sen. Onder really doesn’t have the ability to decide who’s pro-life and who’s not when it really comes down to it,” Parson told 97.1 FM on Friday. “He may have his opinion, but we don’t need to have somebody put a brand on us, a stamp on us saying hey, we’re pro-life or not.”" www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article252363683.htmlOh, really, Parson? Cuz you and your ilk have spent the past 40 years dictating who is "pro-life" and who isn't based on your particular beliefs. Now that you're seeing the extreme beliefs hurting YOU and YOUR political ambitions, NOW you say "no one has the ability to decide who is pro-life and who isn't". Take it up w/your Handmaid's Tale GOP brethren.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jun 29, 2021 15:07:54 GMT
The majority of women who have abortions already have children. You’d really think that if you wanted to reduce abortions, you’d want as much birth control access as possible—these are not women who do not want children, but do not want more, or cannot emotional, physically, or financially handle more. You would think you’d want them to have the tools to control their childbearing. All lives matter until they are born. You quickly learn that when you have a child with special needs. My son is on a on a wait list that has not been funded for over two years. We have health insurance through the federal government and it's still not enough. This makes me so angry. They are pro-birth, but after that…not so much. They haven’t got a damn clue.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 29, 2021 15:17:32 GMT
It's ludicrous that any adult doesn't know how an IUD works and even more ludicrous to akin it to an abortion. What are they doing next ban condoms ? Technically they are very similar - both stops the egg meeting the sperm. If the pro birth people think that a pregnancy begins at conception then how do they explain the fact that there never is a conception if the woman is fitted with an IUD. Crazy thinking some of these people have. That's the problem - that statement is not true. As Merge mentioned above, ignoring the secondary function of the devices, doesn't help as it just breeds distrust. The IUD whether copper or hormonal stops the vast majority of fertilizations, but not 100% and no manufacturer claims they do. The IUD also effects the lining of the uterus and absolutely prevents fertilized eggs from implanting. If a condom fails, it does not also prevent implantation. This is from the international planned parenthood federation - an extremely strong advocate for birth control and sexual rights for women:
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 29, 2021 16:32:16 GMT
It's ludicrous that any adult doesn't know how an IUD works and even more ludicrous to akin it to an abortion. What are they doing next ban condoms ? Technically they are very similar - both stops the egg meeting the sperm. If the pro birth people think that a pregnancy begins at conception then how do they explain the fact that there never is a conception if the woman is fitted with an IUD. Crazy thinking some of these people have. That's the problem - that statement is not true. As Merge mentioned above, ignoring the secondary function of the devices, doesn't help as it just breeds distrust. The IUD whether copper or hormonal stops the vast majority of fertilizations, but not 100% and no manufacturer claims they do. The IUD also effects the lining of the uterus and absolutely prevents fertilized eggs from implanting. If a condom fails, it does not also prevent implantation. This is from the international planned parenthood federation - an extremely strong advocate for birth control and sexual rights for women: Yes, I think the feeling among pro-choice folks is that recognizing the secondary function of those birth control choices somehow lends credibility to the anti-choicers’ arguments. The truth is that if we’re pro-choice, it doesn’t matter if birth control *does* cause an abortion (very broadly defined as disallowing the implantation of a zygote). Keeping that function on the down-low seems to me to be a concession to the anti-choice mindset that ending a pregnancy is always wrong, always bad, never allowed. Something shameful. Yes, one of the ways birth control prevents pregnancy is by not allowing a zygote to implant. What of it? If a woman doesn’t want a pregnancy, there’s nothing wrong with that at all, so don’t be afraid to admit it.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jun 29, 2021 16:36:26 GMT
That's the problem - that statement is not true. As Merge mentioned above, ignoring the secondary function of the devices, doesn't help as it just breeds distrust. The IUD whether copper or hormonal stops the vast majority of fertilizations, but not 100% and no manufacturer claims they do. The IUD also effects the lining of the uterus and absolutely prevents fertilized eggs from implanting. If a condom fails, it does not also prevent implantation. This is from the international planned parenthood federation - an extremely strong advocate for birth control and sexual rights for women: Yes, I think the feeling among pro-choice folks is that recognizing the secondary function of those birth control choices somehow lends credibility to the anti-choicers’ arguments. The truth is that if we’re pro-choice, it doesn’t matter if birth control *does* cause an abortion (very broadly defined as disallowing the implantation of a zygote). Keeping that function on the down-low seems to me to be a concession to the anti-choice mindset that ending a pregnancy is always wrong, always bad, never allowed. Something shameful. Yes, one of the ways birth control prevents pregnancy is by not allowing a zygote to implant. What of it? If a woman doesn’t want a pregnancy, there’s nothing wrong with that at all, so don’t be afraid to admit it. Absolutely; it’s a cluster of cells. So what? It amazes me how much time and energy some pro-birthers spend on matters that are none of their damn business.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2021 17:18:55 GMT
Yes, one of the ways birth control prevents pregnancy is by not allowing a zygote to implant. The key is that abortion STOPS a PREGNANCY. IUDs PREVENT a pregnancy. The "pro-forced-birth" crowd HATE that PREGNANCY is defined as implantation - vs. their bs "conception" approach. So, as long as we define PREGNANCY by IMPLANTATION, IUDs are NOT abortifacients.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2021 17:30:32 GMT
It's ludicrous that any adult doesn't know how an IUD works and even more ludicrous to akin it to an abortion. What are they doing next ban condoms ? Technically they are very similar - both stops the egg meeting the sperm. If the pro birth people think that a pregnancy begins at conception then how do they explain the fact that there never is a conception if the woman is fitted with an IUD. Crazy thinking some of these people have. That's the problem - that statement is not true. As Merge mentioned above, ignoring the secondary function of the devices, doesn't help as it just breeds distrust. The IUD whether copper or hormonal stops the vast majority of fertilizations, but not 100% and no manufacturer claims they do. The IUD also effects the lining of the uterus and absolutely prevents fertilized eggs from implanting. If a condom fails, it does not also prevent implantation. This is from the international planned parenthood federation - an extremely strong advocate for birth control and sexual rights for women: You didn't need to explain it thanks I know exactly how it works. I also know that no birth control is 100% effective but for the pro birth( pro life) people as I mentioned in my post, it's obviously not clear enough for them if they compare it to an abortion. An abortion happens after conception an IUD prevents conception. Therefore how can they say both are classed as abortions. I can only go on what was in the original post as I can't read the linked article in this country so I was commenting on this in the original post
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2021 17:44:25 GMT
Yes, one of the ways birth control prevents pregnancy is by not allowing a zygote to implant. What of it? If a woman doesn’t want a pregnancy, there’s nothing wrong with that at all, so don’t be afraid to admit it. Do these pro life people only have sex when the woman ovulates then cause after all isn't the rest of woman's cycle a natural birth control ( if you're lucky and got your dates right )
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 29, 2021 18:16:03 GMT
Yes, one of the ways birth control prevents pregnancy is by not allowing a zygote to implant. What of it? If a woman doesn’t want a pregnancy, there’s nothing wrong with that at all, so don’t be afraid to admit it. Do these pro life people only have sex when the woman ovulates then cause after all isn't the rest of woman's cycle a natural birth control ( if you're lucky and got your dates right ) So fun fact, I was taught - via the Catholic-church-approved CCL/Natural Family Planning course for married couples - that it's only OK to use NFP to avoid pregnancy if you have a "grave reason" for doing so. Like pregnancy could put the mom's health in danger or whatever. Other than that, you're supposed to be "open to life" at all times. My husband and I were like, fuck that. Problem was that my cycle was never regular and didn't conform to the NFP rules very well, so we ended up having to abstain from sex a LOT to avoid pregnancy. I mean a lot a lot. We were newlyweds and in NO position to have a baby at that point. Come on. Of course, their response is that you shouldn't get married/have sex until you're ready to have children, and that we should "offer the sacrifice up to God." Alrighty then. One of the many reasons we left the church. I realize that most Catholics don't practice NFP and think that whole thing is nutty, but that's the version of it that I was raised in.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 29, 2021 18:31:52 GMT
That's the problem - that statement is not true. As Merge mentioned above, ignoring the secondary function of the devices, doesn't help as it just breeds distrust. The IUD whether copper or hormonal stops the vast majority of fertilizations, but not 100% and no manufacturer claims they do. The IUD also effects the lining of the uterus and absolutely prevents fertilized eggs from implanting. If a condom fails, it does not also prevent implantation. This is from the international planned parenthood federation - an extremely strong advocate for birth control and sexual rights for women: You didn't need to explain it thanks I know exactly how it works. I also know that no birth control is 100% effective but for the pro birth( pro life) people as I mentioned in my post, it's obviously not clear enough for them if they compare it to an abortion. An abortion happens after conception an IUD prevents conception. Therefore how can they say both are classed as abortions. I can only go on what was in the original post as I can't read the linked article in this country so I was commenting on this in the original post It’s already been explained by Merge . An IUD doesn't just prevent conception. What pro-life adherents believe is that IUDs’ secondary function of preventing implantation of the zygote because they create a hostile environment in the uterus makes them an abortifacient after conception has occurred. Whether one agrees or not is beside the point--what Darcy Collins is pointing out is that there are secondary functions, not just the singular function of preventing conception as you state. That’s all.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2021 19:52:21 GMT
there are secondary function Even the "secondary function" is not an abortificient as it PREVENTS pregnancy vs terminating it. True, it might terminate a fertilization (by not letting it implant) but fertilization <> pregnancy as medically defined.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Jun 29, 2021 19:55:41 GMT
If an IUD = abortion, then male masturbation = mass murder, amirite?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 29, 2021 20:06:30 GMT
there are secondary function Even the "secondary function" is not an abortificient as it PREVENTS pregnancy. True, it doesn't prevent fertilization, but fertilization <> pregnancy as medically defined. It's not me making the claim that an IUD is an abortifacient. I'm pro-choice. That's why I typed "pro-life adherents."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:50:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2021 20:14:25 GMT
Even the "secondary function" is not an abortificient as it PREVENTS pregnancy. True, it doesn't prevent fertilization, but fertilization <> pregnancy as medically defined. It's not me making the claim that an IUD is an abortifacient. I'm pro-choice. That's why I typed "pro-life adherents." All good. And I'm responding to their bs claim, which you described, on even the "secondary function".
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 29, 2021 20:30:01 GMT
Even the "secondary function" is not an abortificient as it PREVENTS pregnancy. True, it doesn't prevent fertilization, but fertilization <> pregnancy as medically defined. It's not me making the claim that an IUD is an abortifacient. I'm pro-choice. That's why I typed "pro-life adherents." Just remember that the whole point here is that these folks aren’t interested in what is medically or scientifically defined. It’s all about wanting their religious beliefs legislated on others. The same people are often opposed to IVF because it results in the destruction of embryos that will never implant. I don’t agree with this, obviously. Don’t shoot the messenger. 😃
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 29, 2021 20:32:06 GMT
If an IUD = abortion, then male masturbation = mass murder, amirite? Not defending, just explaining - but no. Masturbation doesn’t result in anything being fertilized. (The Catholic Church terms that a sin for other reasons - a distinction not immediately obvious to Monty Python fans, among others. 😂)
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 29, 2021 20:37:20 GMT
It's not me making the claim that an IUD is an abortifacient. I'm pro-choice. That's why I typed "pro-life adherents." Just remember that the whole point here is that these folks aren’t interested in what is medically or scientifically defined. It’s all about wanting their religious beliefs legislated on others. The same people are often opposed to IVF because it results in the destruction of embryos that will never implant. I don’t agree with this, obviously. Don’t shoot the messenger. 😃 I’ve always known that. That’s been at the core of the issue for decades.
|
|