Pro-LIFE Birth Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Kneedragger wrote:

Aragon â?? Condoms interrupt the natural mechanics of biology. What would a girl do after the condom fails? The answer is obvious.

As for birth control in all other forms, the hormone still allows the ovum to be released. If exposed to sperm fertilization takes place and the fetus fails to implant in the uterine wall so the pregnancy is ended, killing an innocent child. Birth control does NOT stop the ovum from being released. When an egg is released, nothing is in place to stop the little sperm while the egg travels to the site of fertilization…

So you know, address the words I use. You can actually learn something, or I could be proven wrong. That has happened under other subjects before, just never on the case for LIFE.
…

Birth control does NOT stop the ovum from being fertilized; it also does not allow the embryo to implant in the uterine wall. [/quote]

I don’t even know what to say to you. You are absolutely 100% ridiculously out of your mind if you think that condoms are equivalent to abortion. We are not talking about “interuption of the natural mechanics of biology”. We are talking about taking of a human life. Sperm is not human life, neither are unfertilized eggs. Therefore condoms ARE NOT and CANNOT be seen as abortion equivalent. To say anything less is not only scientifically illiterate, but downright insane.

We are NOT talking about “what would a girl do IF [my emphasis and edit] a condom fails”. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WORKING CONDOMS DO! Known fact–they prevent sperm and egg from meeting and fertilization taking place.

Do not call it abortifacient. It is not.

Further, you are absolutely quantifiably wrong about “all other birth control methods do not prevent the ovum from being released, or sperm from fertilizing the egg.” There are literally dozens of peer reviewed scientific studies looking at the mechanism of action of contraceptives. In fact, we’ve known this–or a large damn chunk of it–for decades (plural).

Combined oral contraceptives—work by preventing ovulation (ahem, they prevent the egg from being released) AND simultaneously by modifying the internal environment to prevent sperm from being able to swim up river to the site of fertilization. Essentially the EXACT BLEEDING OPPOSITE of what you’ve been stating. Even progesterone only contraception in the med and high range dose prevents 99+% of ovulation, and in addition prevents sperm from swimming upstream via mucus and other biological defense production. In fact, some even inhibit the very beginning of formation of a follicle (DepoProvera for instance). References below in quotations:

[quote]Textbooks:
Nelson, Anita L.; Cwiak, Carrie (2011). “Combined oral contraceptives (COCs)”. In Hatcher, Robert A.; Trussell, James; Nelson, Anita L.; Cates, Willard Jr.; Kowal, Deborah; Policar, Michael S. (eds.). Contraceptive technology (20th revised ed.). New York: Ardent Media. pp. 249?341.

Speroff, Leon; Darney, Philip D. (2011). “Oral contraception”. A clinical guide for contraception (5th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 19?152.

Levin, Ellis R.; Hammes, Stephen R. (2011). “Estrogens and progestins”. In Brunton, Laurence L.; Chabner, Bruce A.; Knollmann, Björn C. Goodman & Gilman’s pharmacological basis of therapeutics (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. pp. 1163?1194

Glasier, Anna (2010). “Contraception”. In Jameson, J. Larry; De Groot, Leslie J. Endocrinology (6th ed.). Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. pp. 2417?2427

scientific peer reviewed literature:

Ovulation-inhibiting effects of dienogest in a randomized, dose-controlled pharmacodynamic trial of healthy women.
Klipping C, Duijkers I, Remmers A, Faustmann T, Zurth C, Klein S, Schuett B.
J Clin Pharmacol. 2012 Nov;52(11):1704-13.

Ovulation suppression of premenstrual symptoms using oral contraceptives. Sulak PJ. Am J Manag Care. 2005 Dec;11(16 Suppl):S492-7.

The mechanism of action of hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices. Rivera R, Yacobson I, Grimes D. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Nov;181(5 Pt 1):1263-9.

Comparative pharmacology of newer progestogens. Kuhl H. Drugs. 1996 Feb;51(2):188-215.

Ovarian and endometrial function during hormonal contraception. Hum Reprod. 2001 Jul;16(7):1527-35.[/quote]

This took me like 3 minutes. We are not, repeat are NOT talking about RU486 or any post-coitus emergency contraceptive, even though there is good evidence some methods used still do not inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg. This is “normal” preventative contraception.

62

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Contraceptive use is more like sex outside of marriage, in the sense that it is a moral wrong committed upon the self. [/quote]

What?? How on earth do you figure that? I’m sorry Sloth but that is bullshit. What about the devout Christian married couple who feel too young and/or too financially unstable to have a kid and choose to use contraception? You’re telling me they’re sinning by using contraception?

And that’s for you too kneedragger—how do you possibly justify calling for married women and men to “just not commit the act that leads to pregnancy” if they don’t want to get pregnant instead of using a condom? You are aware of the scripture on the matter of abstaining from sex yes? “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” 1 Cor 7:5

Are you going to tell me that good Christian married couples should just stop the consummation of their marriage because contraception is a sin or a moral wrong?

You cannot possibly justify that. And you cannot possibly justify it using the “be fruitful and multiply” passage because I am not suggesting that they never have kids–only that they are on rocky ground or feel like they need to mature first. So don’t bullshit.

63

I’m not a Christian so I have no idea on whether or not using contraception is a sin or not. As far as I know Jesus didn’t mention birth control. Then again people see or say a lot of stuff from the Bible that I don’t remember thinking it was saying what they say it is.

From a public policy position contraceptive use has been wonderful for decreasing the number of teenage pregnancies and the number of abortions. Any politician or person who does anything to try and limit access to them in any ways is taking a very dangerous risk imo. If I had my way education of contraceptives would be taught more at all public schools instead of just some of them. I believe it’s highly important for kids to realize that abstinence is safe, but if going to be sexually active (as many people will choose) contraceptives can keep people healthy and avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Is that a conversation the parents should have? Of course. This is assuming every kid has good parents. Another horrible risk to take. In a perfect world 2 loving parents would have this conversation in depth with each kid. Again it comes down to whether we want to live in fantasy land or in reality.

64

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

What?? How on earth do you figure that? I’m sorry Sloth but that is bullshit.[/quote]

Because I’m a devout Catholic who actually believes that stuff. I’m not the guy showing up once a year to hear “spiritual” music near Christmas.

You could say what you said about anything I believe. Heck, why start with contraception?

How about that ridiculous notion I hold, where sex is a sin unless within the bounds of marriage? Yeah, I actually say that, too.

Oh, heck, that ridiculous notion of “sin” in the first place! Good and evil. Yadda-yadda. Straight up crazy town.

How about that ‘bullshit’ I believe about bread and wine becoming flesh and blood? That one there should have you prepping my padded cell.

Forget that, get this one…I believe in a God. Crazy, right?

65

Now, I’ve got class in the morning, so I’m hitting the sack. I’m already up later than I should be, but I had homework. However, before I do lay me down to sleep, I’m going to pray. Another bit of “bullshit” I believe/follow.

Take care.

66

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

What?? How on earth do you figure that? I’m sorry Sloth but that is bullshit.[/quote]

Because I’m a devout Catholic who actually believes that stuff. I’m not the guy showing up once a year to hear “spiritual” music near Christmas.

You could say what you said about anything I believe. Heck, why start with contraception?

How about that ridiculous notion I hold, where sex is a sin unless within the bounds of marriage? Yeah, I actually say that, too.

Oh, heck, that ridiculous notion of “sin” in the first place! Good and evil. Yadda-yadda. Straight up crazy town.

How about that ‘bullshit’ I believe about bread and wine becoming flesh and blood? That one there should have you prepping my padded cell.

Forget that, get this one…I believe in a God. Crazy, right?
[/quote]

You know Sloth, I didn’t malign Catholic belief at all. I didnt malign belief in God, or prayer, or sin, or marriage. Im going to apologize to you though because based on this thread I can see how you may have taken that from my post to you. That was not my intent whatsoever. I am admittedly aghast at the thought you could possibly believe it is a moral wrong against the self when used in the confines of marriage.

However, I still want you to explain to me why it is a sin for a married Christian couple to use condoms. Because whether you like it or not it is NOT the condom but when or how you use it. A condom is an inanimate object. By default it can neither be morally good or bad. You can no more say a condom is evil, sinful, or “a moral wrong against the self” than you can say a gun is evil, sinful, a moral wrong to use. You could say it can be USED for evil, but that does not make the thing itself evil.

I am still putting the question to you, and I still want to hear an explanation because it doesn’t jive. It doesn’t jive at all.

67

I don’t believe in the Bible, but what verse is being used to say contraceptives is wrong? Or is this some Catholic teaching that I just haven’t heard of?

I’m genuinely curious.

68

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

  1. The pill prevents fertilization.

  2. Without the fertilization of an egg, a fetus cannot come to exist.

  3. Therefore, the pill does not act upon a living fetus.

  4. Therefore, the pill is not an abortifacient.
    [/quote]

And if you were to consider it an abortifacient–wrongly–you would have to accept as your premise that an unfertilized egg and a sperm is a “person”. The refutation of the above–wrong and scientifically illiterate–opinion that a sperm or egg is a human is one of the defenses pro-life advocates often talk about.

But let’s leave that and come back to your comment that ALL birth control is abortifacient. This is false on the face of it and absurd. You cannot POSSIBLY believe condoms are abortifacient.[/quote]

I am thinking (but not 100% sure) that the point may be that birth control is just as bad as abortions because it prevents pregnancy (thus preventing a potential child from being born), which puts it on the same level as abortion. It is not so much of a leap from the standard pro-life stance. After all, abortion prevents a child from being born through destroying a fetus. Birth control prevents a fetus from forming, which prevents a child from being born. The problem here is that it is a rather extreme departure from the “a fetus is a human” argument since, as you yourself have pointed out an unfertilized egg and a sperm outside a fertilized egg cannot in any valid way be considered a person. At this point, it becomes a rather arbitrary line to be drawn, since all kinds of voluntary actions can and do prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg.

So the question I pose to anyone advocating this: Where is the line drawn and why? Male masturbation prevents sperm fertilizing an egg and becoming a child. Hell, any action other than eating and drinking enough to barely keep ourselves alive and continuously having unprotected sex as much as physically possible prevents potential children from being born, so is that on the same level as abortion?

Of course, I could be wrong in my take on this and kneedragger just does not understand what an abortifacient(sp?) is.
[/quote]

It’s an interesting debate in a sense, but also absolutely stupid as shit. If masturbation is murder then you need to lock up almost every male born ever. In fact I bet kneedragger’s crazy ass has masturbated before (if he can be honest with us).

I’m just so happy people like that don’t make public policy. It’s one thing to have beliefs, but what he is talking about (imo of course) is absolute lunacy.
[/quote]

Not only that, but remember only 1 sperm fertilizes the egg, so are the other’s all murdered? That’s pretty ludicrous.

69

An unborn baby is trespassing… What has this world come to?

I’d better back out of this thread to avoid a sudden spike in blood pressure.

70

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
An unborn baby is trespassing… What has this world come to?

I’d better back out of this thread to avoid a sudden spike in blood pressure. [/quote]

On the one hand, an unborn baby is a trespasser. On the other, my girlfriend and I are aborting a fetus every time we have sex, because she is on birth control.

If this thread isn’t a defense of the moderate middle of the politico-ideological spectrum, nothing is.

71

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
An unborn baby is trespassing… What has this world come to?

I’d better back out of this thread to avoid a sudden spike in blood pressure. [/quote]

On the one hand, an unborn baby is a trespasser. On the other, my girlfriend and I are aborting a fetus every time we have sex, because she is on birth control.

If this thread isn’t a defense of the moderate middle of the politico-ideological spectrum, nothing is.[/quote]

Whatever it is, I think my doctor would tell me to avoid it :wink:

72

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
An unborn baby is trespassing… What has this world come to?

I’d better back out of this thread to avoid a sudden spike in blood pressure. [/quote]

On the one hand, an unborn baby is a trespasser. On the other, my girlfriend and I are aborting a fetus every time we have sex, because she is on birth control.

If this thread isn’t a defense of the moderate middle of the politico-ideological spectrum, nothing is.[/quote]

Your last point is absolutely spot on. Extremism whether it is to the left or to the right is very dangerous in my opinion.

Right now in Kansas we are being governed almost exclusively by far right wing people. (We used to be governed by a few far righties, a few righty moderates, and a few democrats.) The results haven’t been pretty at all and the future looks even worse (impending budget insanity from a clueless governor). The results in states ran by the far left are also horrible.

“Moderate” has become a cuss word in both parties as one has to prove how far left or how far right they are on everything. This does not bode well for us.

I don’t view myself as moderate on some things, but I truly believe it is usually the best way to govern a large population.

73

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
An unborn baby is trespassing… What has this world come to?

I’d better back out of this thread to avoid a sudden spike in blood pressure. [/quote]

I’m already sucked into the swirling vortex. Wait, I can’t use that phrase without a spike in blood pressure. Swirling whirlpool. There we go.

74

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I’m already sucked into the swirling vortex
[/quote]

Where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed?

By the way, take a look at how he twirls that phallic object hes always twiddling when he delivers that opening line–and then tell me I’m wrong in my suspicions of his innermost desires.

75

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I’m already sucked into the swirling vortex
[/quote]

Where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed?

By the way, take a look at how he twirls that phallic object hes always twiddling when he delivers that opening line–and then tell me I’m wrong in my suspicions of his innermost desires.[/quote]

Those who are most against gays seem to be the ones who get caught with members of the same sex the most. Funny that way.

76

[quote]H factor wrote:

“Moderate” has become a cuss word in both parties as one has to prove how far left or how far right they are on everything. This does not bode well for us.

I don’t view myself as moderate on some things, but I truly believe it is usually the best way to govern a large population. [/quote]

Well in general I would agree with you, but there are some things in which moderation is a major cop-out. I view abortion as one of these. However I also view kneedragger’s stance as both fringe extremism(as opposed to ‘solidly in one camp’, which is the only truly ethical way to approach a question of life and death–fence riding is bullshit) and patently ludicrous, both scientifically and otherwise.

77

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

“Moderate” has become a cuss word in both parties as one has to prove how far left or how far right they are on everything. This does not bode well for us.

I don’t view myself as moderate on some things, but I truly believe it is usually the best way to govern a large population. [/quote]

Well in general I would agree with you, but there are some things in which moderation is a major cop-out. I view abortion as one of these. However I also view kneedragger’s stance as both fringe extremism(as opposed to ‘solidly in one camp’, which is the only truly ethical way to approach a question of life and death–fence riding is bullshit) and patently ludicrous, both scientifically and otherwise.
[/quote]

I can definitely see that point, but in general moderation in almost all instances is better for the general public than extremism (far to the left or far to the right). And I say that as a person who may be considered extremist on some of my personal preferences!

78

[quote]H factor wrote:
I can definitely see that point, but in general moderation in almost all instances is better for the general public than extremism (far to the left or far to the right). And I say that as a person who may be considered extremist on some of my personal preferences! [/quote]

Moderation is definitely better in almost all instances. However, the government is not moderate. When talking about legislation, we better take the possible consequences of the proposed legislation to their most extreme conclusion…because that’s what our rulers will do. It would be much easier to discuss how A, B, and C should be handled if the government was not involved. Our government is involved in everything, so that is not possible.

79

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I can definitely see that point, but in general moderation in almost all instances is better for the general public than extremism (far to the left or far to the right). And I say that as a person who may be considered extremist on some of my personal preferences! [/quote]

Moderation is definitely better in almost all instances. However, the government is not moderate. When talking about legislation, we better take the possible consequences of the proposed legislation to their most extreme conclusion…because that’s what our rulers will do. It would be much easier to discuss how A, B, and C should be handled if the government was not involved. Our government is involved in everything, so that is not possible.[/quote]

Can you name 1 law that our government has take to the most extreme conclusion?

80

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

You know Sloth, I didn’t malign Catholic belief at all. I didnt malign belief in God, or prayer, or sin, or marriage.[/quote]

Wouldn’t matter if you did, I’m not offended. But my point–well, my question really–was why in the world isn’t all the rest of it “bullshit.” I mean, I believe pre-marital sex, porn, masturbation, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, etc., etc., are all sinful. And, again, I believe in sin, good and evil, yadda, yadda. I just thought it strange that THIS was the straw that broke the camel’s back. My response wasn’t meant to be read as lashing out.

I honestly wasn’t expecting or looking for an apology. An apology, even the need for one, never crossed my mind. I’m an observant Catholic, so your response to me is common.

I didn’t suspect it was. Again, my response isn’t meant to be read as an angry retort.

I sort of got the impression you felt that way…

[quote]However, I still want you to explain to me why it is a sin for a married Christian couple to use condoms. Because whether you like it or not it is NOT the condom but when or how you use it. A condom is an inanimate object. By default it can neither be morally good or bad. You can no more say a condom is evil, sinful, or “a moral wrong against the self” than you can say a gun is evil, sinful, a moral wrong to use. You could say it can be USED for evil, but that does not make the thing itself evil.

I am still putting the question to you, and I still want to hear an explanation because it doesn’t jive. It doesn’t jive at all.
[/quote]

I don’t post nearly as much anymore. And I tend now not to make the lengthy posts I used to. And, with the semester going, I have to be even more disciplined. Anything I might say, will probably already be found below.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0663.html

Ich machte Hausaufgaben jetzt fur (u-umlaut) deutsch Vorlesung.

Auf wiedersehen!

Feel free to pick it apart, german speakers! I’d welcome it. Just keep in mind, this is the first month of my first semester of german.