[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning: a method for spacing births (if absolutely necessary) or achieving pregnancy involving monitoring of physical signs of fertility, so that you can know when you (as a couple) are fertile. It is the only family planning method that does not work against the sexual act of intercourse. In effect what you do is use the information to avoid fertile periods (again only if absolutely necessary, but it is a question of conscience). This is usually about 8 to 10 days a month as a woman is only fertile for about 48 hours each month and sperm are viable for about 6 days per month. This is also the only method approved by the Catholic Church for the spacing of births (again only if absolutely necessary).
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning: a method for spacing births (if absolutely necessary) or achieving pregnancy involving monitoring of physical signs of fertility, so that you can know when you (as a couple) are fertile. It is the only family planning method that does not work against the sexual act of intercourse. In effect what you do is use the information to avoid fertile periods (again only if absolutely necessary, but it is a question of conscience). This is usually about 8 to 10 days a month as a woman is only fertile for about 48 hours each month and sperm are viable for about 6 days per month. This is also the only method approved by the Catholic Church for the spacing of births (again only if absolutely necessary).[/quote]
Maybe I’m speaking totally out of my ass, but I’ve heard it’s ineffective compared to other forms of birth control.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning: a method for spacing births (if absolutely necessary) or achieving pregnancy involving monitoring of physical signs of fertility, so that you can know when you (as a couple) are fertile. It is the only family planning method that does not work against the sexual act of intercourse. In effect what you do is use the information to avoid fertile periods (again only if absolutely necessary, but it is a question of conscience). This is usually about 8 to 10 days a month as a woman is only fertile for about 48 hours each month and sperm are viable for about 6 days per month. This is also the only method approved by the Catholic Church for the spacing of births (again only if absolutely necessary).[/quote]
Maybe I’m speaking totally out of my ass, but I’ve heard it’s ineffective compared to other forms of birth control.[/quote]
Not so, perhaps you are thinking of the older rhythym method? I don’t remember the exact statistics, but properly practiced it is close to 99.9% effective. If I have time I’ll track down some numbers for you, but it is far and away more effective than any other form. I won’t lie to you though that it can be difficult, but most good things are some times. Additionally, it is also one of the most effective ways for couples with fertility issues to conceive. There is one particular form of NFP I would highly recommend anyone read about if they have an interest. It is known as the Creighton Model (there are other similar methods, but I believe this one to be the best given the following) and the beauty of it is that there is a body of medical science developed along side it known as NaPro Technology that can help identify and treat all kinds of hormonal issues that plague women.
http://www.creightonmodel.com/
http://www.naprotechnology.com/
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning ( http://www.nfpandmore.org/ ) basically you have conjugal acts during infertile periods and you abstain during fertile periods (if you are looking to not have children at the moment) and know when the fertile periods are if you’re looking to conceive and then that is when you have conjugal acts during that time.
A little more information if you go to the Method section here: Natural family planning - Wikipedia
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning: a method for spacing births (if absolutely necessary) or achieving pregnancy involving monitoring of physical signs of fertility, so that you can know when you (as a couple) are fertile. It is the only family planning method that does not work against the sexual act of intercourse. In effect what you do is use the information to avoid fertile periods (again only if absolutely necessary, but it is a question of conscience). This is usually about 8 to 10 days a month as a woman is only fertile for about 48 hours each month and sperm are viable for about 6 days per month. This is also the only method approved by the Catholic Church for the spacing of births (again only if absolutely necessary).[/quote]
Maybe I’m speaking totally out of my ass, but I’ve heard it’s ineffective compared to other forms of birth control.[/quote]
It is the “Rhythm Method” that you’re thinking of which is ineffective, because as you may know a woman’s cycle can move early or forward in time.
They Rhythm Method basically you use a Calender to figure out when a woman had her cycle and put it up on the Calender and base it off that, which is ineffective. However, using the actual symptoms that a woman will show when fertile is an effective method.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning ( http://www.nfpandmore.org/ ) basically you have conjugal acts during infertile periods and you abstain during fertile periods (if you are looking to not have children at the moment) and know when the fertile periods are if you’re looking to conceive and then that is when you have conjugal acts during that time.
A little more information if you go to the Method section here: Natural family planning - Wikipedia
[/quote]
I did used to practice something similar with a girlfriend of mine. I’d just figure out roughly when her period would be, based on the previous, and not have sex for like 5 days before and after. I don’t know how similar this is, as far as timelines are concerned, but I’ve never had a legitimate pregnancy scare(thank God).
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.
The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?
And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.
If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.
Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]
And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]
Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]
They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]
So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]
Again, it relates to personhood.
Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.
To be honest, I think it should be up to the mother/parents.
If they don’t want the kid, they don’t want it. Regardless of it’s before or 3 hours after the birth.
I think this is equivalent to capital punishment. Instead of a bullet through the head, which is quick and relatively painless, we gotta go through a lengthy pain free drug injection process so it can be ‘completely painless’.
A child is born severaly retarded. The most merciless thing to do is end its life. It will bring pain to everyone.
Your kid is born, and it has Harlequin-type ichthyosis.
What would you realistically think? “Oh noooo…”. You’d feel crushed, probably. No one wants their kid to be born like that. No one wants a retarded kid. So why force people to have to keep these kids?
Those are my two cents.
People will think I’m a monster, but I try to be completely objective. These concepts of abortion is murder are religious in nature and they are fucking stupid.
[/quote]
Incorrect. The question is whether abortion is murder, which it is. Religion is little issue to it. If you agree with killing folks in certain situations I have no beef with that. At least you do not deny the truth. If you are trying to deny what is evident, then I have an issue with that.
Quite frankly, I am more comfortable with someone who accepts the termination of human life vs. those who deny it. The dishonesty is what I find repulsive.
[quote]pat wrote:
Incorrect. The question is whether abortion is murder, which it is. Religion is little issue to it. If you agree with killing folks in certain situations I have no beef with that. At least you do not deny the truth. If you are trying to deny what is evident, then I have an issue with that.
Quite frankly, I am more comfortable with someone who accepts the termination of human life vs. those who deny it. The dishonesty is what I find repulsive.[/quote]
What makes it right or wrong is whether it’s a ‘full human’ or ‘potential human’. That’s the whole debate.
In the end, I don’t care. I just argue it because some people are more willing to accept my view if these ‘babies’ are labeled as non-human.
Human or not, abortion is a solution to many social problems and I fully embrace it.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning ( http://www.nfpandmore.org/ ) basically you have conjugal acts during infertile periods and you abstain during fertile periods (if you are looking to not have children at the moment) and know when the fertile periods are if you’re looking to conceive and then that is when you have conjugal acts during that time.
A little more information if you go to the Method section here: Natural family planning - Wikipedia
[/quote]
I did used to practice something similar with a girlfriend of mine. I’d just figure out roughly when her period would be, based on the previous, and not have sex for like 5 days before and after. I don’t know how similar this is, as far as timelines are concerned, but I’ve never had a legitimate pregnancy scare(thank God).
[/quote]
That’s the Rhythm Method and isn’t really effective.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Incorrect. The question is whether abortion is murder, which it is. Religion is little issue to it. If you agree with killing folks in certain situations I have no beef with that. At least you do not deny the truth. If you are trying to deny what is evident, then I have an issue with that.
Quite frankly, I am more comfortable with someone who accepts the termination of human life vs. those who deny it. The dishonesty is what I find repulsive.[/quote]
What makes it right or wrong is whether it’s a ‘full human’ or ‘potential human’. That’s the whole debate.
In the end, I don’t care. I just argue it because some people are more willing to accept my view if these ‘babies’ are labeled as non-human.
Human or not, abortion is a solution to many social problems and I fully embrace it.
[/quote]
I do not think you understand the medical and scientific term “human.” There is no such thing as full or potential human.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning ( http://www.nfpandmore.org/ ) basically you have conjugal acts during infertile periods and you abstain during fertile periods (if you are looking to not have children at the moment) and know when the fertile periods are if you’re looking to conceive and then that is when you have conjugal acts during that time.
A little more information if you go to the Method section here: Natural family planning - Wikipedia
[/quote]
I did used to practice something similar with a girlfriend of mine. I’d just figure out roughly when her period would be, based on the previous, and not have sex for like 5 days before and after. I don’t know how similar this is, as far as timelines are concerned, but I’ve never had a legitimate pregnancy scare(thank God).
[/quote]
That’s the Rhythm Method and isn’t really effective.[/quote]
Would you provide what the outline of NFP looks like, as you understand it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Incorrect. The question is whether abortion is murder, which it is. Religion is little issue to it. If you agree with killing folks in certain situations I have no beef with that. At least you do not deny the truth. If you are trying to deny what is evident, then I have an issue with that.
Quite frankly, I am more comfortable with someone who accepts the termination of human life vs. those who deny it. The dishonesty is what I find repulsive.[/quote]
What makes it right or wrong is whether it’s a ‘full human’ or ‘potential human’. That’s the whole debate.
In the end, I don’t care. I just argue it because some people are more willing to accept my view if these ‘babies’ are labeled as non-human.
Human or not, abortion is a solution to many social problems and I fully embrace it.
[/quote]
I do not think you understand the medical and scientific term “human.” There is no such thing as full or potential human.[/quote]
I am using those terms incorrectly, but mean to imply fully or non fully formed human.
Either way, it doesn’t matter.
[quote]pat wrote:
The dishonesty is what I find repulsive.[/quote]
People that disagree with you is what you find repulsive.
Oh, look! Irony!
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning ( http://www.nfpandmore.org/ ) basically you have conjugal acts during infertile periods and you abstain during fertile periods (if you are looking to not have children at the moment) and know when the fertile periods are if you’re looking to conceive and then that is when you have conjugal acts during that time.
A little more information if you go to the Method section here: Natural family planning - Wikipedia
[/quote]
I did used to practice something similar with a girlfriend of mine. I’d just figure out roughly when her period would be, based on the previous, and not have sex for like 5 days before and after. I don’t know how similar this is, as far as timelines are concerned, but I’ve never had a legitimate pregnancy scare(thank God).
[/quote]
That’s the Rhythm Method and isn’t really effective.[/quote]
Would you provide what the outline of NFP looks like, as you understand it.[/quote]
I’m not an expert on it, I just have seen the research on the use of it. Basically, you take several things into account her basal body temperature, her cervical mucus, and her cervical position. You go off the symptoms instead of the pattern.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Incorrect. The question is whether abortion is murder, which it is. Religion is little issue to it. If you agree with killing folks in certain situations I have no beef with that. At least you do not deny the truth. If you are trying to deny what is evident, then I have an issue with that.
Quite frankly, I am more comfortable with someone who accepts the termination of human life vs. those who deny it. The dishonesty is what I find repulsive.[/quote]
What makes it right or wrong is whether it’s a ‘full human’ or ‘potential human’. That’s the whole debate.
In the end, I don’t care. I just argue it because some people are more willing to accept my view if these ‘babies’ are labeled as non-human.
Human or not, abortion is a solution to many social problems and I fully embrace it.
[/quote]
I do not think you understand the medical and scientific term “human.” There is no such thing as full or potential human.[/quote]
I am using those terms incorrectly, but mean to imply fully or non fully formed human.
Either way, it doesn’t matter.[/quote]
How can you tell the difference between a fully formed human and a non fully formed human?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning ( http://www.nfpandmore.org/ ) basically you have conjugal acts during infertile periods and you abstain during fertile periods (if you are looking to not have children at the moment) and know when the fertile periods are if you’re looking to conceive and then that is when you have conjugal acts during that time.
A little more information if you go to the Method section here: Natural family planning - Wikipedia
[/quote]
I did used to practice something similar with a girlfriend of mine. I’d just figure out roughly when her period would be, based on the previous, and not have sex for like 5 days before and after. I don’t know how similar this is, as far as timelines are concerned, but I’ve never had a legitimate pregnancy scare(thank God).
[/quote]
That’s the Rhythm Method and isn’t really effective.[/quote]
Would you provide what the outline of NFP looks like, as you understand it.[/quote]
Matty, Look at the links in my post above. No offense to Chris as he is knowledgable in this area, but I have put several of these methods into practice with my wife and we found the Creighton Model to be the best for the reasons in my post above.
[quote]Not so, perhaps you are thinking of the older rhythym method? I don’t remember the exact statistics, but properly practiced it is close to 99.9% effective. If I have time I’ll track down some numbers for you, but it is far and away more effective than any other form. I won’t lie to you though that it can be difficult, but most good things are some times. Additionally, it is also one of the most effective ways for couples with fertility issues to conceive. There is one particular form of NFP I would highly recommend anyone read about if they have an interest. It is known as the Creighton Model (there are other similar methods, but I believe this one to be the best given the following) and the beauty of it is that there is a body of medical science developed along side it known as NaPro Technology that can help identify and treat all kinds of hormonal issues that plague women.
http://www.creightonmodel.com/
http://www.naprotechnology.com…
[/quote]
Moved it down for ya. It is also a bit less invasive as there is no constant cervical monitoring.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Incorrect. The question is whether abortion is murder, which it is. Religion is little issue to it. If you agree with killing folks in certain situations I have no beef with that. At least you do not deny the truth. If you are trying to deny what is evident, then I have an issue with that.
Quite frankly, I am more comfortable with someone who accepts the termination of human life vs. those who deny it. The dishonesty is what I find repulsive.[/quote]
What makes it right or wrong is whether it’s a ‘full human’ or ‘potential human’. That’s the whole debate.
In the end, I don’t care. I just argue it because some people are more willing to accept my view if these ‘babies’ are labeled as non-human.
Human or not, abortion is a solution to many social problems and I fully embrace it.
[/quote]
Killing people has always been a solution to social problems. The mafia seems to find great use for it. Historically, killing problematic people has always been a solution. It doesn’t make it right.
But as long as you admit is killing a person, but you are ok with it; we’re on the same factual page. We are just not on the same ethical page. But you see it for what it is. Now if we ever meet in person, remind me not to turn my back on you.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The dishonesty is what I find repulsive.[/quote]
People that disagree with you is what you find repulsive.
Oh, look! Irony![/quote]
More so deliberate, willful stupidity.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
NFP?[/quote]
Natural Family Planning ( http://www.nfpandmore.org/ ) basically you have conjugal acts during infertile periods and you abstain during fertile periods (if you are looking to not have children at the moment) and know when the fertile periods are if you’re looking to conceive and then that is when you have conjugal acts during that time.
A little more information if you go to the Method section here: Natural family planning - Wikipedia
[/quote]
I did used to practice something similar with a girlfriend of mine. I’d just figure out roughly when her period would be, based on the previous, and not have sex for like 5 days before and after. I don’t know how similar this is, as far as timelines are concerned, but I’ve never had a legitimate pregnancy scare(thank God).
[/quote]
That’s the Rhythm Method and isn’t really effective.[/quote]
Would you provide what the outline of NFP looks like, as you understand it.[/quote]
bloody…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Mattyg35 wrote:
Would you provide what the outline of NFP looks like, as you understand it.[/quote]
bloody…[/quote]
Care to explain more? I’d like to hear your opinion/experience on the matter.