BS: Contraception = Abortion

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Genie
Date: 17 Nov 08 - 04:34 AM

Well, the "abortion" issue threads
part 1
and
part 2
seem to have been closed, and since that self-same broad, tangled issue seems to be reappearing in the thread about the parish priest who's denying communion to those who voted for Obama, I thought maybe we should refresh this 'oldie but goodie' -- for the sake of those optimistic, idealistic, or just plain masochistic enough to want to keep this thorny issue alive and active.

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 09:00 AM

"PoppaGator, as far as what happened to you folks in NO, Femma & Bush have failed you so badly. You & those folks trying to earn a buck rebuilding are again victums, more like rats trying to refurbish their sinking vessel with the help of a few cats who also don't want to go down with the ship but don't want to abandon or jump if there's any other way possible. Someday, some heads should/will roll for what happened there."


      And what does that have to do with Contraception = Abortion

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Aug 08 - 12:46 AM

"what if someone would have gotten hurt"

That's why you ask for a license, a cert of insurance, corporate papers otherwise if they get hurt you may as well hand over the keys to your house.

They also take the risk, that if they get hurt they aren't covered by workers comp. It's a employers job when hiring an employee to photo copy all documents that prove they're hiring someone why legal. As a home owner you do as you will but buyer beware.

But does this have anything to do with Contraception=Abortion????
We are pretty far from being on topic.

PoppaGator, as far as what happened to you folks in NO, Femma & Bush have failed you so badly. You & those folks trying to earn a buck rebuilding are again victums, more like rats trying to refurbish their sinking vessel with the help of a few cats who also don't want to go down with the ship but don't want to abandon or jump if there's any other way possible. Someday, some heads should/will roll for what happened there.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 09:34 PM

"It took a mere day and a half to finish the job; I have no idea how much of my insurance money went to each worker, but I'm sure none of them pocketed even half as much as the adjuster who signed off on the deal or the roofing contractor who persuaded him to do so."

                  I had a weird cleanup job in California a few years back, so I hired this Mexican guy (American citizen with Spanish surname who identified himself as being Mexican) to do it on a time & material basis. The first day I came out, there were something like 15 or 16 people cleaning up the site, some of them were women, and some of them looked to young to work.
                  I asked the guy about the youngsters, and he said he would document everything. The second day, there were about the same number of people, but they weren't all the same people. He finished on the third day, and I breathed a sigh of relief.
                  When he presented me with his bill, which was very reasonable for the amount of work the folks had done, he'd only charged me for 5 laborers and a foreman. I knew there were something like 3 times that many people on the job, and I suspected most of them were illegal.
                   I think he hired these guys and paid them about what an American worker would make, and then each one of them hire two other people--wives and children, maybe--and then the money was spilt between them or not.
                   I didn't feel comfortable with what had gone on, and didn't get into any more contracts like that--what if someone would have gotten hurt or something--but I suspect this goes on all over California. I don't know about other places.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 07:47 PM

"My roof's coming off
And nails my pain"

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: PoppaGator
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 01:03 PM

Well, John, we certainly do agree on one thing: one of the many ways in which the rich manage to keep getting richer and richer these days is the exploitation of migrant labor. And I certainly agree with you, also, that natural-born Americans and legal immigrants, indeed all working people, suffer from the situation almost as much as the illegals.

However, I don't agree with your classifying the agribusiness fatcats as "scapegoats," because my understanding of that word's definition includes the proviso that the scapegoat is falsely or unfairly blamed for various troubles. The employers of illegals, to different extents, can very fairly be accused of guilt. Indeed, in many cases, they're the leading scapegoaters. The biggest and most powerful among them, through their lobbists and "think-tank" front organizations, are the leading cheerleaders and sponsors of the media-blitz offense against their most wretched employees, deflecting attention from themselves while shifting the blame to those very folks upon whose backs they are building their fortunes.

The trickiest aspect of this whole scenario is that, to a cerain extent, we all benefit economically from black-market/gray-market labor. If you think food prices are high now, just imagine how much higher they'd be if agricultural employers were paying FICA taxes (social security) for all their workers, let alone any of the other benefits that are generally associated with legitimate employment.

A large share of the long, hard, house-by-house rebuilding of New Orleans has been and continues to be performed by young Hispanic men. Much of this effort is being paid for by very hard-pressed homeowners and small businesspersons. Regardless of whether their resources include a few taxpayer-paid grant dollars, these individuals determine where their money is spent, and desperately need to squeeze every penny if they hope to bring their rebuilding projects to completion. Even though things might be different in an ideal world, cheap off-the-books labors is a major factor in making anything happen around here.

It's almost impossible NOT to be complicit to some extent. My sons and I did an awful lot of work for ourselves, all day every day for almost the entire calendar year of 2006, and never once drove to the shape-up in front of Lowe's to hire any Latino workers. However, I have to admit that, when my roofer and my insurance adjuster colluded to replace my aluminum roof for half-again as high a price as I paid for it just two years earlier (but at no out-of-pocket expense to me), I came home one afternoon to find at least a dozen Hondurans and Mexicans swarming all over our house, tearing off the damaged aluminum faux-shingle panels so fast and furiously that I couldn't get to my door without dodging the falling debris. It took a mere day and a half to finish the job; I have no idea how much of my insurance money went to each worker, but I'm sure none of them pocketed even half as much as the adjuster who signed off on the deal or the roofing contractor who persuaded him to do so.

(I thought of writing a blues, "Sheet metal fallin' down like rain," but never did come up with a second line or any more verses.)

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: pdq
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 12:39 PM

Nobody seems willing to go back a little farther and blame the two-tier society in Mexico. Wealthy landowners, business leaders and most poloticians are Sppanish decent The working class folks are native or Mexican Indian decent. The elite do not do manuel labor and the "peons" do not move up in society. This is actually the European model for olden times.

The United States, despite the hysterical claims by Lefties, does allow anyone and everyone to get and education and to attempt to move upwards in society (often meaning make money). That is why most Mexicans come here. The questions are about illegal immigration and whether or not it will be controlled. People who do not want to discuss the issue honestly will intentionally mix the illegal v legal immigration issues. This is an attempt to destroy meaningful discourse.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: John Hardly
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 12:05 PM

"So now it's the hardworking, uninsured, overworked and underpaid Spanish-speaking brown folks who are the cause of all our woes. Don't dare harbor a negative thought about the millionaires working so hard to land cost-plus government contracts, maintain our entire society's dependence upon the finite supply of fossil fuels that they control, and discourage the emergence of renewable-energy technologies that could eventually free everyone from dependence upon their oligarchy!

It's those damn Messicans who are to blame for everything!"

Sorry, but at least as far as I'm concerned, you've characterized the situation 180 degrees wrong. Much of the blame goes to those "millionaires" who are exploiting Mexico's worse (than the US's) economic situation to make it even harder on the "hardworking, uninsured, overworked and underpaid" labor force that is legally part of our country.

If there's a "scapegoat" then, it is your "millionaire". At least, that, and the US government's accomodation to them, is where the blame for the situation lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 11:57 AM

Well said, Poppa.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Kent Davis
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 07:39 AM

Jack,

Watt due ewe mean? Dew ewe thank eye don't naux howe two spell? That's a laux blaux. Eye cant take it naux maux. Ive got too gaux.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 05:48 PM

Funny, I don't know anybody who feels that way!

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: PoppaGator
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 05:29 PM

It always amazes me that people can be persuaded that their woes, economic and otherwise, can and should be blamed upon those who are even worse off than themselves.

It's called "scapegoating." Hitler persuaded the German people to blame The Jews for all their problems. The fat cats in control of the one-party American South were able for decades upon decades to convince the poor exploited white population to take out all their frustrations upon the even-poorer and even-more-exploited blacks.

So now it's the hardworking, uninsured, overworked and underpaid Spanish-speaking brown folks who are the cause of all our woes. Don't dare harbor a negative thought about the millionaires working so hard to land cost-plus government contracts, maintain our entire society's dependence upon the finite supply of fossil fuels that they control, and discourage the emergence of renewable-energy technologies that could eventually free everyone from dependence upon their oligarchy!

It's those damn Messicans who are to blame for everything!

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:59 AM

But why the strange spelling?

Very funny Jack, this thread could use a bit more hummers. It could be part of the soullotion.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 11:02 PM

Poppa, if I seem "overly defensive" it is because the fight has been long and hard and I've had it, once again, with being generalised, mis-characterised, marginalised, and stereotyped.:-) (I was trying to work that into a Woody-patter, but Woody I ain't!)

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 10:39 PM

Nah, I can tell fox from Muskrat. But why the strange spelling?

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Kent Davis
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 10:36 PM

Thanks, Jack, and I believe you are right; the title of this thread was not purposely misleading, only mistaken.

Several have pointed out that many people see no significant difference between preventing fertilization and preventing implantation. I know. Many of my patients have told me that they see no ethical difference. The point I am trying to make is that some people DO see an ethical difference and the current terminology is misleading on an issue important to them.

Suppose you are ethically opposed to trapping animals for furs. Suppose I am not. Suppose I sell you a coat trimmed with what I vaguely refer to as "faux". Suppose you later find out that the coat is actually trimmed with the fur of trapped muskrats. Wouldn't you be angry?

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 09:53 PM

"Rig, I'd like to believe white folks have come to their senses and gotten back to making babies instead of worryong only about making money, but I'd hate to believe that any individuals were consciously producing offspring only to avoid "being overrun" by the offspring of other other folks whom they hate and fear."


                   I don't think it has much of anything to do with hate and fear, Pappa G. I think it has more to do with industrialized populations realizing that they needed to control population growth if they expected any kind of quality of life for their children and grandchildren.
                   But when they finally realized that their collective governments were not going to do anything about illegal immigration, and they saw the intruders sucking up the majority of all government services, while all they were allowed to do was pay, they simply threw up their hands and decided, "If you can't beat them, join them." And that, sadly, is where we are today.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 04:33 PM

Rig, I'd like to believe white folks have come to their senses and gotten back to making babies instead of worryong only about making money, but I'd hate to believe that any individuals were consciously producing offspring only to avoid "being overrun" by the offspring of other other folks whom they hate and fear.

Kat, you're betraying an overly-defensive attitude in your post of 2:34 pm; John was only saying that "there's always been at least a small but significant number" hoping that ethnic groups other than their own would turn to abortion is large numbers. His historical reference is unassailable, and we all know that "at least a small but significant number" of bigots continue to exist today.

Amos, I've seen Idiocracy, and liked the basic premise when I first heard about the film,, even before I saw it. But the film itself disappointed me; I always hope for more sophisticated humor than I usually get.

If I may digress a bit, there's one aspect of the women's lib movement that has always bothered me, especially when I read commentators who emphasize the women's movement's roots in the overall peace-and-freedom movement of the 1960s. One aspect of the effort to achieve economic equality seems to me to have involved young women stepping into positions in the corporate machine just as large numbers of hopefully-enlightened young men were rejecting them out of hand.

I don't mean to condemn every instance of economic striving, or to "blame" one gender to the complete exclusion of the other for all that's wrong with the world, but the emphasis on "career" among educated upper-middle-class youth strikes me as less than wholesome, and the fact that this phenomenon is not limited to the poor dumb male of the species is especially worrisome.

And isn't it convenient for the multinationals, and for all the smaller businesses who have to supply them and/or complete with them, that contemporary society accepts the precept that both parents in a family be working for a paycheck? They only have to pay each of their employees half the amount necessary to support a family, which is markedly different from the situation for earlier generations.

I'm all for equal-pay-for-equal-work, and I would have been glad to have spent a few years as house-husband and stay-at-home dad, taking turns with my wife as participants in the workforce. I don't want to be misunderstood as sexist, but I think that it's a terrible development that young people have come to equate "success" with such rigid conformity and blind obedience to corporate values, at the expense of domesticity. And it's especailly threatening to our continued existence as a civilization when so many young women feel compelled to dedicate their lives to Mammon in preference to motherhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 03:25 PM

"The best-educated and most privileged demographic groups on the planet are fading away into self-selected extinction..."


                            That was the case up until the last 2 or 3 years. Since that time, the Euro-centric populations have stepped on the reproductive gas. Probably because they felt they were being overrun by third world immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:45 PM

Just to be clear, your post isn't arguing against the points in my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:34 PM

John, that is a bunch of crap. Pro-choice, read my lips, FIRST and Foremost says "we NEED to promote education and easily accessible contraception." Do that and guess what, less and less of a need for abortions.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:22 PM

"The best-educated and most privileged demographic groups on the planet are fading away into self-selected extinction, employing various means including contrception, abortion, and techniques that might be considered one or the other.

Meanwhile, the wretched of the earth are multiplying like there's no tomorrow. There is work that needs to be done everywhere in the developed world, some of it poorly paid and requiring little or no training."

There've been any number of articles I've read that relate to this. One about the severe imbalance that China has created in its population as it billion only sons reach reproducing (and warring) age themselves and find that the generation of their parents left them with no females with which to mate.

Another talked about the political imbalance as the erudite liberal college-educated masses of Democrat voters have been giving way in numbers to the homeschooled conservative Republican voters.

There's always been at least a small but signicant number of "pro-choice" who can't bring themselves to say it aloud, but whisper to each other, "pst....we NEED to promote abortion -- especially in the third world and poor areas of our own country -- or else we'll be overrun by the wrong element". It was at the founding of the movement with Margaret Sanger hoping to contol "colored" populations who weren't sufficiently evolved, and it continues insidiously today.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:26 PM

A wonderful film called Idiocracy explores that very issue, Poppa. If you haven't seen it, you'll get a chuckle out of renting it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:25 PM

When someone mentioned Italy much earlier, I did not know it was leading to a discussion of the number of foreigners locked up in Italian jails.

My first thought was of an entirely different consideration, something I read about in the New York Times Magazine a couple of weeks ago. Italy has the lowest birth rate among all the world's nations; Europe as a whole is not reproducing its current native population, and Italy is the most extreme example.

I don't know where to begin discussing the many ways this pertains to the subject at hand, but I'll simply ask you to consider it as food for thought.

The best-educated and most privileged demographic groups on the planet are fading away into self-selected extinction, employing various means including contrception, abortion, and techniques that might be considered one or the other.

Meanwhile, the wretched of the earth are multiplying like there's no tomorrow. There is work that needs to be done everywhere in the developed world, some of it poorly paid and requiring little or no training.

What else could possibly be expected except the general trend of migration that seems to scare the shit out of our most xenophobic fellow citizens?

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Peace
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 11:58 AM

In this instance, Move On makes me think of PETA.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 11:32 AM

Which is why McCain is ahead in the polls now.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 10:42 AM

MoveOn members voted on which one they wanted to throw their support behind...Obama won that vote and deserves/d all of it he can get.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 10:22 AM

His website bankrolled him. Moveon donors gave to him instead of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 10:19 AM

MoveOn was the bankroll that allowed him to outspend his opponents. We keep hearing that he ran a better campaign, but the truth of the matter is, Hillary kept running out of money.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 08:00 AM

We got our current Democratic nominee because he ran a better campaign than the Clintons. Moveon had little to do with it.

He is eating Moveon's lunch, taking away their donation base. If you Don't like Moveon Obama is good news.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:35 AM

"MoveOn statement exaggerates things to the point where MoveOn is no longer a credible source."


                     Which is how we got our current Democratic nominee.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 04:42 AM

Joe,

Moveon drives me crazy, I agree with you. They are way too shrill and they tend to exaggerate. It seems their only function is to whip people up enough to pay for their ads.


Kent

You were right and I was wrong. Moveon did mislead. They did say. I don't know why i did not notice this before I was preparing a reply for Joe.

(tell him)"Contraception is NOT abortion."

I gave michaelr credit for making and honest mistake. But Moveon. Is asking for money and asking people to put their credibility on the line. Its not excusable.

Its sad that important issues like this don't get brought up and discussed in the open rather than be seized on by the fanatical fringes like Moveon and the Bush administration. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 04:20 AM

In most situations, "contraception" and "birth control" do have the same meaning. I don't think Michaelr's thread title was misleading - in two words, he summed up exactly what was in the MoveOn statement.

But MoveOn exaggerated the situation, and played loose with the facts to put more "spin" on the issue. I think this goes to show you that MoveOn is simply a propaganda organization, not a reliable source of information. It does appear that the Bush Administration is up to dirty tricks in the area of birth control, but the MoveOn statement exaggerates things to the point where MoveOn is no longer a credible source.

Too bad.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:32 AM

I have been talking with Carol about this. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding.

Kent.

In your first post you accused someone of being misleading about the Bush Administration equating contraception and abortion.

The Moveon ad says that The Bush Administration is equating "Birth control" and "Emergency contraception" with abortion.

Michaelr, perhaps equates Contraception with birth control , hence the title. I am willing to bet that he, like me, before reading this thread, thought that contraception and birth control, meant the same thing.

Thank you Katlaughing for your last post. It cleared up that confusion for me quite nicely.

I believe Kent Davis, that you were mistaken to say that Michaelr's title on this thread was misleading. Indeed it was mistaken. No one did any more than imply that it was the Bush Administration was equating contraception and abortion. So it seems that an accidental straw man was created.

I apologize for not knowing the clinical definitions of Birth control vs contraception before I spoke up. It would have saved us some time if I had recognized the misunderstanding at post ten rather than post two hundred and twenty something.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:12 PM

Thanks, Jeri!

BTW, there is an interesting editorial at National Catholic Reporter on the issue of abortion and a shift in the platform of the Democratic Party.

Here's part of what the Wall Street Journal published about this whole thing:

he Bush Administration has ignited a furor with a proposed definition of pregnancy that has the effect of classifying some of the most widely used methods of contraception as abortion.

A draft regulation, still being revised and debated, treats most birth-control pills and intrauterine devices as abortion because they can work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. The regulation considers that destroying "the life of a human being."

Many medical groups disagree. They hold that pregnancy isn't established until several days after conception, when the fertilized egg has grown to a cluster of several dozen cells and burrowed into the uterine wall. Anything that disrupts that process, in their view, is contraception.

The draft regulation, circulating within the Department of Health and Human Services, would have no immediate effect on the legality of the pill or the IUD if implemented because abortion is legal. But opponents fear it would undercut dozens of state laws designed to promote easy access to these methods of birth control, used by more than 12 million women a year.

There is a long paper about the issue HERE by pro-life ob-gyns which includes the following:

An extensive review of pertinent scientific writings indicates that there is no credible evidence to validate a mechanism of pre-implantation abortion as a part of the action of hormone contraceptives. On the contrary, the existing evidence indicates that "on pill" conceptions are handled by the reproductive system with the same results seen with "off pill" conceptions, with the exception of increased ectopic rates seen with POPs and Norplant.

and:

In order to classify COCs (combined oral contraceptives) as an abortifacient, several things must exist:

1) Conceptions must occur.
2) The abortive effect must be present with proper use as prescribed.
3) Loss of these conceptions must exceed the base-line loss for populations not using this substance, or be shown to occur due solely to the medication itself, and not other known factors.
4) The abortive effect should be consistent and reproducible by multiple independent observers.

There are no studies that we are aware of regarding combined oral contraceptives or Depoprovera that demonstrate numbers 2,3, or 4. (Increased ectopic pregnancies seen with progestin only pills (POPs) and Norplant will be discussed in the appropriate section below.)

It is a very interesting paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:08 PM

Peace,

Moveon is saying that there is a Bush administration scheme to make the morning after pill and several other birth control devices more difficult to obtain by simply calling them abortion.

Kent apparently thinks that is reasonable because he doesn't think that those devices keep sperm from fertilizing eggs. Apparently he believes every form of birth control method that does not separate sperm and eggs is abortion. I am saying that it is not abortion by law until the law says it is.

It is a silly argument. But it does affect millions of women and health care workers. that is what this country has come to. Forget being reasonable. Fight over semantics, cause that's what lawyers get paid for.

Its Skins against Shirts, shirts against skins
forget common sense as long as my team wins!

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 10:45 PM

Thanks, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 10:35 PM

Thanks, Jeri.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 10:26 PM

Peace and Rig, I think the term was misused but is actually referring to the 'morning after' pill.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:49 PM

Kent, implantation IS conception.

From Merriam-Webster: 1 a (1): the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both

From MedicineNet.com: Conception: 1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
2. The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium.

A blastocyst has to be implanted to become a fetus, which is "The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.".

Personally, I think anyone who believes preventing implantation = abortion is nuts, but by the definitions above, preventing implantation IS contraception and 'emergency contraception' would mean RU-486. I don't think they're talking about retro-active IUDs.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:22 PM

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, Peace. I kind of lost the thread of the thing at that point.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:05 PM

Keriste. You people just talkin' to hear yourselves?

"Where even rape victims are denied emergency contraception?"


WTF does THAT mean. I keep thinking it's a bit late at that point, ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 08:42 PM

Should be .... Try to change the law in Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 08:41 PM

Kent,

The problem with your argument is that the definitions of abortion that you introduced in this thread were new to me, and I am sure, unheard of by most non-fanatically anti-birthcontrol Americans.

If you are for what the administration is doing you are supporting a sneaky agenda. Your "implantation" definition of abortion has no moral or practical value. IUD's etc are birth control. Even you say that the methods sometimes work as contraceptives. So they are not abortions, they are only potential abortions. Without arguments like yours a mother of faith could use the device or pill and rely on God and her prayers to have it work as a contraceptive. Even so, fertilized eggs are not babies. John Hardly saying something is so does not make it so. Does a fertilized egg have human rights? The question alone mocks the concept of human rights.

I am sure that you have opinions different than mine on the points I have just made. That's where the debate lies. If you want to change the legal and commonly used definitions. Start an information campaign. Try to change the law. Don't have some political hack try to change the law behind closed doors..

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Kent Davis
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 08:18 PM

Jack, I have no sneaky agenda. I do not consider those agents "contraceptives" because they prevent implantation. Implantation is not conception. Do you consider it "sneaky" to call something by its proper name?

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Kent Davis
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 08:14 PM

By the way, I won't blame the left for Riginslinger's rants if you won't blame the right for Guest from Sanity's rants. Sometimes I wonder if those two are not agents provocateur.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 08:13 PM

On the contrary Kent. The thread is about the Bush administration's attempt to change the commonly accepted and legal definitions of abortion to include what is now considered by those without sneaky agendas as various types of contraceptives. Below is the thread that started the post.

In the ninth thread Kent did point out that he didn't consider certain "anti-implantation technologies" to be contraception. But he did not take into account that in most people's eyes and in the eyes of the law, that they are

The issue is whether some fanatical Bush appointee should be allowed to change these definitions by stealth and fiat or whether there should be a public debate.

The issue is whether hypocrites who will blather until the cows come home about "activist judges" should get away with end runs around the constitution as activist administrators.



>>>Subject: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: michaelr
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:45 PM

Just got this from MoveOn.org - unbelievable:


Dear MoveOn member,
Can you imagine living in a place where birth control is considered an "abortion" and health insurers won't cover it? Where even rape victims are denied emergency contraception?<<<

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Kent Davis
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 07:52 PM

Just some little reminders to those who have commented without reading the thread:

1. No one at all says that contraception = abortion, not President Bush, not the Administration, not the Roman Catholic church, not the Mormons, not the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, no one. As was pointed out in the 9th post, the issue is whether birth control products that work at least partly as anti-implantation technologies should be called "contraceptives". This distinction is important to women who want to control conception but do not want to cause the demise of a conceptus.

2. Contrary to the implication of Bobert's post of 9:59, the one who hijacked this thread with his anti-immigration rants was Riginslinger, one of the most LEFTwing members of this forum.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 07:47 PM

I think we've entered into a no-win discussion!

Subject: RE: BS: Contraception = Abortion
From: John Hardly
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 07:46 PM

"To me, the issue comes down to When is the baby-to-be a thinking and viable human creature?"

What's the earliest prematurely born child you know? (I know three who were born at six months -- one of those just a little bit less than six. All three healthy, normally developed children now. One 15 years old, the youngest of the three 3 years old)