Guest charlie Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 If people insist on having sex, use protection. Why is that so hard to do? Especially if you don't want to get pregnant. The morning after pill sounds like something you would take for a hang-over. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with that but unfortunately people "do it" on the spur of the moment sometimes and don't plan appropriately; married people as well as teenagers, then they panic afterward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted July 3, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2005 If people insist on having sex, use protection. Why is that so hard to do? Especially if you don't want to get pregnant. The morning after pill sounds like something you would take for a hang-over. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with that but unfortunately people "do it" on the spur of the moment sometimes and don't plan appropriately; married people as well as teenagers, then they panic afterward. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So they should be able to take a pill that can and sometimes does abort? Charlie, you're simply disagreeing in order to disagree. YOu see what you consider a bunch of Chrisitan fundamentalist against something, so you go out of your way to find a way to disagree with them (because of your hatred towards that paradigm) The simple fact is, you can't be pro-life and support this pill. It does abort implanted eggs. While it doesn't abort in every case, it holds the capability to abort just in case the egg has been fertilized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest charlie Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Charlie, you're simply disagreeing in order to disagree. I've been thinking the same thing about you; only I think you go out of your way to disagree with me personally. YOu see what you consider a bunch of Chrisitan fundamentalist against something, so you go out of your way to find a way to disagree with them (because of your hatred towards that paradigm) I don't hate anyone but I do think fundamentalism is extremeism and whether it be Christian or Islamic it is dangerous imo. The simple fact is, you can't be pro-life and support this pill. It does abort implanted eggs. While it doesn't abort in every case, it holds the capability to abort just in case the egg has been fertilized. Wrong again SJ. I oppose Roe vs Wade; I'm against abortion on demand and I do support the use of the day after pill because overall it does prevent pregnancy and abortion. Some people argue against the birth control pill for the same reasons they argue against the day after pill which you stated: It does abort implanted eggs. While it doesn't abort in every case, it holds the capability to abort just in case the egg has been fertilized. Are you against birth control pills too SJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted July 3, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2005 Charlie, you're simply disagreeing in order to disagree. I've been thinking the same thing about you; only I think you go out of your way to disagree with me personally. YOu see what you consider a bunch of Chrisitan fundamentalist against something, so you go out of your way to find a way to disagree with them (because of your hatred towards that paradigm) I don't hate anyone but I do think fundamentalism is extremeism and whether it be Christian or Islamic it is dangerous imo. The simple fact is, you can't be pro-life and support this pill. It does abort implanted eggs. While it doesn't abort in every case, it holds the capability to abort just in case the egg has been fertilized. Wrong again SJ. I oppose Roe vs Wade; I'm against abortion on demand and I do support the use of the day after pill because overall it does prevent pregnancy and abortion. Some people argue against the birth control pill for the same reasons they argue against the day after pill which you stated: It does abort implanted eggs. While it doesn't abort in every case, it holds the capability to abort just in case the egg has been fertilized. Are you against birth control pills too SJ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not all birth control pills are abortive. The "morning after pill" is specifically made to be abortive. It kills the egg, fertilized or not. While some birth control pills can and are abortive, some aren't. Some simply prevent implantation. Like I said, you're looking for a way to disagree. I can't believe you are pro life when you say, "Oh, it's okay, it only holds the capability to kill". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest charlie Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 (edited) Not all birth control pills are abortive. The "morning after pill" is specifically made to be abortive. It kills the egg, fertilized or not. While some birth control pills can and are abortive, some aren't. Some simply prevent implantation. Wrong again SJ (why does that not surprise me?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning-after_pill Morning-after pill From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The morning-after pill, more properly termed emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs), is the use of high doses of the hormones found in regular oral contraceptive pills which, when taken after unprotected intercourse or sex in which a contraceptive failure (such as a torn condom) occurs, may prevent pregnancy from occurring. There are several ways ("mechanisms of action") by which emergency contraceptive pills may work. Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are taken, this drug may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the lining of the uterus), thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. In this respect, emergency contraceptive pills work by triggering the same hormonal changes in the body as regular birth control pills (only they require a higher dose and are less effective than ongoing hormonal contraceptives) or even breastfeeding. The phrase morning-after pill is a misnomer that is falling out of use due to the fact that it can be effective for up to 120 hours after sexual intercourse. Emergency contraception or "emergency contraceptive pills" is more accurate and preferred by the medical community. The morning-after pill should not be confused with other abortifacient pills, such as mifepristone (aka RU-486) or methotrexate, which always cause an abortion after implantation has occurred. The morning-after pill can prevent a pregnancy, or it can end one at its earliest stage. It can prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation. However if ovulation occurs, it can function as an abortifacient to end a pregnancy by preventing implantation of the embryo. The article is quite long but here's the paragraph on the controversy: Controversy in relation to abortion It is likely that this drug sometimes functions as an abortifacient by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. Although many groups (including the US FDA, NIH, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) now define pregnancy as beginning with implantation, many medical professionals and embryology texts retain the traditional definition and consider pregnancy to begin at fertilization. Recent medical studies in animals (the rat and the monkey) were inclonclusive as to how often or whether the morning-after pill prevents implantation; however, this mechanism of action cannot be ruled out in all cases, and it has been impossible to carry out this kind of study in humans. Therefore, women who have moral reasons to avoid taking an abortifacient may wish to avoid use of this drug. The morning-after pill is not to be confused with RU-486, an undisputed abortifacient which ends a pregnancy by inducing a chemical abortion of an implanted embryo. ............. It seems to me to boil down to whether you consider pregnancy to be a fertilized egg or an implanted fertilized egg. Like I said, you're looking for a way to disagree. Pot-kettle-black I can't believe you are pro life when you say, "Oh, it's okay, it only holds the capability to kill". Haha....Oh SJ, open mouth insert foot.... I'm not the war-monger or chickenhawk here. Being pro-life imo doesn't and shouldn't automatically stop once a person has made it thru the birth canal. I'll leave it at that so as not to derail this particular thread; I couldn't just totally "let that statement" go.. especially in light of the "spirit" in which you meant it. Now getting back to the topic: "Oh, it's okay, it only holds the capability to kill" So are you against birth control pills too? Edited July 3, 2005 by charlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work in Progress Posted July 3, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 123 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,111 Content Per Day: 0.39 Reputation: 35 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/29/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2005 The fact is this pill holds the potential to abort. Contraceptives work perfectly and if you're doing this inside of marriage and the contraceptive fails....oh well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True SJ!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think we, as Christians who should show Christ's compassion, should be very careful of having this attitude. Not every woman is living a perfect American dream with a husband making a comfortable income so she can stay home and raise her children, a house big enough to hold another child, a car big enough to transport another child or able to afford another one, the emotional and physical health to carry another child right now...........or maybe she simply does not have the control to be able to say "no" right now.........perhaps she is in a marriage where she doesn't get asked and what she wants or doesn't want doesn't matter. Or maybe she is simply thrilled with her family and has no desire for another. Or maybe she's 47 years old. The point is, not every woman is blessed as many of us have been blessed, and it is far from an "oh well" if she finds herself pregnant - it may be devasting, and she will be in need of much compassion. Didn't mean to get on a soapbox, but that just jumped out at me. I am totally, 150% against abortion for any reason, including health of mother and rape/incest etc. But my heart hurts for any woman who, for whatever reason, does not want another child, or is simply unable to have another and does everything responsible she can, and ends up pregnant anyway. I think she deserves sympathy and compassion, as Christ would show her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work in Progress Posted July 3, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 123 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,111 Content Per Day: 0.39 Reputation: 35 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/29/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2005 Charlie, your answers are intriguing. You are a Christian, so therefore you believe in the sanctity of life, right? That life is a gift from God and to be protected, honored, is sacred, right? And your definition of this pill does say that sometimes it prevents fertilized eggs from implanting. So how can you be anything other than against it? It is preventing a life from going it's natural course - thus ending it. What does God say about that? I really had no opinion about this pill because I knew nothing about it, and even was believing that it's just another birth control pill - before I got to your definition. Now I have a firm opinion. Since you've posted that it sometimes ends life, how do you reconcile that with God's word? You do believe live begins when the sperm penetrates the egg, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest charlie Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 (edited) Good questions WIP. Charlie, your answers are intriguing. You are a Christian, so therefore you believe in the sanctity of life, right? That life is a gift from God and to be protected, honored, is sacred, right? Yes, I believe in the sanctity of life and that it is a gift from God to be protected and honored. I think the morning after pill prevents pregnancy. The sperm and the egg sometimes take up to twelve hours to meet; also, by making it unable to attach to the uterus wall it is doing the same thing as birth control pills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_pill The Pill works by preventing ovulation, as well as making the uterus less likely to accept implantation of an embryo if one is created, and thickens the mucus in the cervix making it more difficult for sperm to reach any egg. I have also thought about some of the things you said in your first post. Some women are under the thumb of a "not so nice husband" who takes sex whether she consents or not. I think this option, the morning after pill, should be available to her to prevent a pregnancy. Since you've posted that it sometimes ends life, how do you reconcile that with God's word? You do believe live begins when the sperm penetrates the egg, right? No I don't. Biologically speaking the smallest unit of "life" is a single cell; therefore, an egg alone or sperm alone is also "life". We certainly wouldn't dream of prosecuting teenage boys for masturbating or try to "capture" every unfertilized female egg that is lost every month thru natural bodily functions. I think once the egg attaches to the wall you have a pregnancy and it should be protected; however, in order to protect EVERY single egg that attaches we'd have to outlaw both the morning after pill and birth control pills......that's just not gonna happen. By what I've read it's rare but not impossible for birth control pills to dislodge an egg that has already attached. I'm sure you're aware that some pharmarcists are now refusing to fill perscriptions for birth control pills and this appears to be picking up steam imo. The majority of fertilized eggs do not result in a baby, they either don't attach for reasons other than birth control or they attach only to miscarry, sometimes without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant. At some point the soul enters the body but I've never been able to answer when; it's probably very early. Dad Ernie sure gave an interesting response about "when life begins" on this thread the other day, page 2, post #15: http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.p...pic=21517&st=10 He brought up some things I'd never thought of and it made sense to me. I also posted a link to an interesting article: http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules...rticle&sid=1095 Edited July 3, 2005 by charlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacob Posted July 3, 2005 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 68 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/08/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2005 Sorry to get off tract. Just the tought off people supporting the morals behind Wal-Mart is gross. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted July 3, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Biologically speaking the smallest unit of "life" is a single cell; therefore, an egg alone or sperm alone is also "life". Charkie - biologically speaking, for a single cell to be considered "life", that single cell in and of itself needs to be self-replicating. An unfertilized egg is not self-replicating. A sperm by itself is not self-replicating. A fertilized egg (egg joined by sperm cell) is self-replicating, and is therefore life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts