Birth Control, Abortion and John Miskell et al
Beckie Bush
control? That is the most contradictory statement I have ever seen.
With more effective birth control, we could see less, and maybe no more
at some point in time, abortions.
You people do nothing to further the actual purpose of being pro life.
You want everyone to give birth no matter what the circumstances, yet
you do nothing to further their circumstances.
It's like you take one step forward and then two steps backwards.
You're losing ground and you're losing it fast.
Here is a simple equation:
Birth Control = less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions
Isn't that what we're after??
--
Beckie Bush
-Life, what a beautiful choice...even if it means I have to get a shot
every 3 months
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Salomeh
righteous PL's have more interest in *forcing* women to live by their
moral standards and *punish* those who don't (by forcing them to
continue unwanted pregnancies).
As for the religious ones, religion has a long history of oppressing
women and I think it makes these PL men uncomfortable that we no
longer "obey". Trying to eliminate birth control is their way of
attacking our independance.
An ulterior motive such as this is the only reason I can come up with
to explain this illogical stance.
In article <7km0m6$hsq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
John Sweet
You bring up an interesting point,
> Birth Control = less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions
> Isn't that what we're after??
Of course I can't speak for the whole pro-life movement...
But here are some of my thoughts on this issue...
I am not working towards a goal of "less abortions".
While I am certainly opposed to it, I am not willing
to compromise on other issues within my own life.
I am opposed to abortion because I want to protect
the rights of the unborn child.
I am opposed to birth control because it has done me
a great deal of harm, and I have a 5-year old daughter
now. I want her to grow up protected and knowing
the truth about artificial birth control.
Regarding birth control...
I am working towards a world that truly values each
person. This includes women and children, and in a
particular way those who are weak and defenseless.
It is on the basis of this value - the value of the person -
that I am opposed to all forms of abortion. And, like
it or not, many contraceptives act as abortifacients.
By recognizing that each person is a gift of infinite value
I have come to a deeper appreciation of life. I have
also found a tremendous source of inspiration. This
understanding inspires me to act sometimes. I want
to promote a culture of life and an environment that
promotes the development of each person.
In this regard, I have come to see birth control for
what it truly is... a diminuation of the dignity that
rightfully belongs to women. We owe a tremendous
debt of gratitude to women and to mothers in
particular because without them none of us would
be here. I for one am indebted to two women,
my biological mother and my adopted mother.
For unmarried women, birth control creates an
environment where it is "ok" for a man to shower
his affections on a woman, and then having had
a pleasurable encounter with her, leave her. He
is even allowed to her as a stranger afterwards
"if necessary".
This hedonistic attitude is rampant in today's
society, and it does tremendous damage to men
and women. But it is particularly damaging to
women because in many cases they are the one left
with the incurable STD, and they are the one left
pregnant and without a suitable partner.
These things are contrary to the dignity of women.
They act to destroy the beautiful image of God that
exists within each of us. They are contrary to the
culture of life that each person longs for. Christians
pray for this kingdom when they pray, "Thy
kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven."
And what sort of kingdom is this?
A kingdom of harmony and dignity. A kingdom
where healing and reconciliation have won out
over discord and all the baser desires that we
see within ourselves. These springs of turmoil
lie at the root of our unhappiness. And a lifetime
of self-discipline and self-mastery are required to
tame them and bring them into conformity with
a civilization of love.
Birth control pills prevent men and women from
acquiring this self-mastery. The sexual urges that
men and women both experience are fundamentally
good and healthy. However, they are, like the
competitive urge, meant to be channeled in a certain
way. Without this moderation competition can
become the sort of aggression and anger that
destroys a person, and the sexual urge can become
perverted into a simple exchange of goods.
Instead of being a force for good, a source of mutual
support and comfort between spouses, sexuality can
be reduced to something that is nothing more than a
means of pleasure. Herein lies a very great danger for
women, namely they can become "an object of lust".
When this happens women are no longer accorded the
dignity that is rightfully theirs. They have lost that
pricelessness that is rightfully theirs. They are no longer
treasured.
Women who use birth control are, in part, responsible
for this sad state of affairs. By artificial means they rob
themselves of the fertility that is rightfully theirs. They no
longer demand to be treated with the respect they
deserve. In a way, they are consenting to be passed
from man to man and treated as a mere object. They
have surrendered a part of their identity as mother -
a gift that is rightfully theirs.
Husbands are also to blame here. Unwilling to
undertake the difficult journey of self-mastery, in many
cases they are content to let their wives take medications -
drugs that can endanger the health and lives of their
spouse and even the very lives of their future children.
For many people the idea that "true love waits" is
considered a mere joke. When this happens both
sexes end up "trading their birthright for a lie".
The many problems women face today are startling
evidence of this exchange: the horrific spread of
STDs among our young people, and particularly
among our young women, the startling decline
in morality....
Our society has almost come to accept promiscuity,
trial marriages and divorce as the norm!
The prevalence of birth control in our culture runs
contrary to the journey of "self-mastery" that is required
from each of us. Both men and women are required to
make this journey, when they are single, and when they
are married.
Perhaps this is merely "a religious opinion"...
Perhaps it is not shared by many people...
In any case, those are some of the reasons why I
personally am against birth control. I hopes this
helps you understand how some of us PL's feel.
As always....
Best wishes,
John
--
"Your name, O God, like your praise, reaches to the ends of the earth."
Psalm 48:10
Carl J. Cincera
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> Regarding birth control...
>
> It is on the basis of this value - the value of the person -
> that I am opposed to all forms of abortion. And, like
> it or not, many contraceptives act as abortifacients.
>
Like it or not, no they don't. You can not abort a pregnancy until you are
pregnant. You are not pregnant until a fertilized egg has completed the
conception _process_ and is _implanted_ in the uterus. It is likely that a
majority of fertilized eggs never do this even when there are no
contraceptives being used. These are not spontaneous abortions or
miscarriages, these are simply pregnancies that never happened.
Get over this fact and deal with it.
As per your argument that you are concerned about the value of women, I have
one word. BULLSHIT.
--carl
Salomeh
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> I am not working towards a goal of "less abortions".
> While I am certainly opposed to it, I am not willing
> to compromise on other issues within my own life.
> I am opposed to abortion because I want to protect
> the rights of the unborn child.
So you are opposed to abortion, but are unwilling to work towards a
compromise that will help achieve that goal?
> I am opposed to birth control because it has done me
> a great deal of harm, and I have a 5-year old daughter
> now.
How? Most people on birth control have families and children. They
just realize it is possible to enjoy their sexuality without
reproducing themselves into the poorhouse.
> I want her to grow up protected and knowing the truth about
> artificial birth control.
The real truth or just your distorted version of it?
>
> Regarding birth control...
>
> I am working towards a world that truly values each
> person. This includes women and children, and in a
> particular way those who are weak and defenseless.
> It is on the basis of this value - the value of the person -
> that I am opposed to all forms of abortion. And, like
> it or not, many contraceptives act as abortifacients.
As I said....your distorted view of what Birth Control is. It has
nothing to do with how a woman is valued....and your opinions do not
matter to the rest of the women out here who value their sexual freedom
in addition to their families.
> In this regard, I have come to see birth control for
> what it truly is... a diminuation of the dignity that
> rightfully belongs to women.
I think treating a woman as if she is incapable of making a decision in
her own best interest is a far far worse offense.
<Irrelevancies snipped>
> For unmarried women, birth control creates an environment where it
> is "ok" for a man to shower his affections on a woman, and then
> having had a pleasurable encounter with her, leave her. He is even
> allowed to her as a stranger afterwards "if necessary".
Are you speaking from personal experience here??? How many women have
you loved and left? You act as if women as unwitting victims of men.
Give women a little credit. We make our decisions just like you men
do. If we turn out to be wrong, we use that experience to help giude
us the next time.
In any regards, Women are perfectly capable of taking care of
themselves, and their romantic relationships without your "assistance".
> This hedonistic attitude is rampant in today's society, and it does
> tremendous damage to men and women.
In your opinion.
> But it is particularly damaging to women because in many cases they
> are the one left with the incurable STD, and they are the one left
> pregnant and without a suitable partner.
Oh, I see.....men don't get "incurable STD"s from women??? Men have
been leaving women for hundreds of years. Is it right? NO, of course
not, but that is why the empowerment of birth control and choice of
whether or not to continue a pregnancy is necessary to a woman's
independance and survival. Then if the man does bolt, she is not left
with an unmanageable situation.
<religious irrelevancies snipped>
> Birth control pills prevent men and women from acquiring this self-
> mastery. The sexual urges that men and women both experience are
> fundamentally good and healthy. However, they are, like the
> competitive urge, meant to be channeled in a certain way. Without
> this moderation competition can become the sort of aggression and
> anger that destroys a person, and the sexual urge can become
> perverted into a simple exchange of goods.
Again..all your opinion. Stop expecting the rest of the world to live
by the prudish, mysoginist standards set for you by your pope or your
god.
> Instead of being a force for good, a source of mutual
> support and comfort between spouses, sexuality can
> be reduced to something that is nothing more than a
> means of pleasure. Herein lies a very great danger for
> women, namely they can become "an object of lust".
And men do not???? Seems to me as though it's the mens problem fromt
he way you describe it...why not focus your attentions to men who can't
keep their pants up and leave the women alone?
> When this happens women are no longer accorded the dignity that is
> rightfully theirs. They have lost that pricelessness that is
> rightfully theirs. They are no longer treasured.
In your opinion. Too bad you think so lowly of women.
> Women who use birth control are, in part, responsible for this sad
> state of affairs. By artificial means they rob themselves of the
> fertility that is rightfully theirs. They no longer demand to be
> treated with the respect they deserve. In a way, they are consenting
> to be passed from man to man and treated as a mere object.
Hmm...does this include married women on birth control???? Or just
those of us who have chosen to remain single? You just assume because
we choose to protect our futures by controlling our reproduction that
we are sluts??? You really do hate women, don't you? It's obvious you
have no comprehension of us at all.
> They have surrendered a part of their identity as mother - a gift
> that is rightfully theirs.
And is wonderful-if it is something they CHOOSE.
<snip>
>
> The prevalence of birth control in our culture runs
> contrary to the journey of "self-mastery" that is required
> from each of us. Both men and women are required to
> make this journey, when they are single, and when they
> are married.
And just WHO requires this of us???? Stop mandating YOUR religion to
those of us who could care less.
> In any case, those are some of the reasons why I
> personally am against birth control. I hopes this
> helps you understand how some of us PL's feel.
> As always....
Right...You are overzealous woman hater who thinks women can't take
care of themselves. So you want to take away our choices to
reproductive freedom and birth control to ensure our need for you.
Not in my lifetime.
Ron Nicholson
> Dear Beckie,
>
> You bring up an interesting point,
> > Birth Control = less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions
> > Isn't that what we're after??
>
> Of course I can't speak for the whole pro-life movement...
> But here are some of my thoughts on this issue...
>
> I am not working towards a goal of "less abortions".
> While I am certainly opposed to it, I am not willing
> to compromise on other issues within my own life.
> I am opposed to abortion because I want to protect
> the rights of the unborn child.
Which rights, John? It seems to me that the pro-life movements can't event
defend the unborn's right to life.
Tell me, if an embryo is a human baby and has rights --at least the right
to life -- then what part of the constitution, or justifiable homicide laws
allow for the elective execution of a child by its mother, and the
participation of a doctor. Not looking here for the rationale, but the
legalities.
John Miskell
<bec...@presortservices.com> wrote:
>How is it that the group of anti abortionists here can be against birth
>control?
I'm not against birth control. I'm against certain kinds of birth
control. Is abortion birth control? If you answered "no" then why is
it that almost all abortions are done as a matter of birth control,
and not because the life of the mother is in danger, rape, incest, or
defect?
"The Pill" is also objectionable for a number of reasons.
1. It's an abortofacient. The pill works by suppressing ovulation but
fails to do this about 25% of the time, so it's backed up with a drug
to prevent the already living zygote from implanting in the uterus,
causing it's death. The pill causes millions of early abortions and
the woman never realizes it.
2. The pill is hazardous to ones health. Fully half the women taking
the pill stop doing so in the first year because of unpleasant
side-effects.
3. The pill hasn't done diddly to reduce abortions, or increase the
quality of marriages, nor has the pill done anything to reduce
sexually transmitted diseases.
4. About one third of the women I speak to going into the abortion
chamber claim that they were using the pill when they got pregnant.
Yeah, the package insert and the manufacturer all claim to have a 99%
success rate but they do not like to talk about the statistics
regarding real world actual usage.
5. The pill is degrading and anti-woman. People claim that it
LIBERATES women but the reality it makes them sex objects. Here we
give a pill to a woman that tricks her body into thinking it's already
pregnant in order to prevent ovulation. The result is weight gain,
tender breasts, mood swings, depression, reduced libido, and an
increased chance of death or injury from blood clots and cancer. If
that's not bad enough, according to the British study recently
released and publicized the risks to the user's health remain with her
for at least 10 years after she stopped taking the pill. And we say
that we are making the pill available to her to liberate her? FROM
WHAT? What a crappy deal for a woman.
On top of all of this -- Planned Parenthood and like minded ghoulies
want to be able to go into our schools and give our children the pill
without the parents knowledge or consent. And you guys here say WE are
trying to force our beliefs on YOU? No way Jose!
>That is the most contradictory statement I have ever seen.
>With more effective birth control, we could see less, and maybe no more
>at some point in time, abortions.
>You people do nothing to further the actual purpose of being pro life.
Baloney!
>You want everyone to give birth no matter what the circumstances, yet
>you do nothing to further their circumstances.
Not true -- not at all true.
>It's like you take one step forward and then two steps backwards.
>You're losing ground and you're losing it fast.
>Here is a simple equation:
>
>Birth Control = less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions
>Isn't that what we're after??
And since birth control has already become widely available, what has
it done to reduce the number of abortions? NOTHING!
John Miskell
"Oh the times they are a'changing"
John Sweet
What you call *punish*... ???
I call taking responsibility for your actions and
living with the consequences of your life.
Do you think poor unwed mothers are the only
people on this planet who have to learn this
lesson?
Abortion only appears to be "an easy way out".
It's not. And that's not simply my opinion...
That's what the majority of women say who
have had one.
As far as "religion" oppressing women goes...
Compare the legal codes written by the
Babylonians and the Hittites and then compare
it to the "harsh" laws found in the Old Testament.
Add to it that the Jewish people were living a
nomadic lifestyle while these laws were authored
and then tell me how abusive they were to women.
The way Jewish law treated women was horrible by our
standards [and this is no excuse], but it was a huge leap
forward by the standards of their day. [Hard to believe
I know, but it is true.] As always...
Warmest regards,
John Sweet
> So you are opposed to abortion, but are unwilling to work
> towards a compromise that will help achieve that goal?
Yes! Exactly!
Pro-life, pro-woman, pro-child.
No exceptions. No compromise. No apologies.
I know it's rare to see somebody take a principled
stand here in America, but there it is.
Norma McCorvey of Roe-v-Wade now wears
a t-shirt that says it this way, "100% Pro-life,
Without Exception, Without Compromise,
Without Apology."
Read "the rest of her story" at,
http://www.catholic.org/pfl/columns/conversionofnorma.html
Yours truly,
Beckie Bush
you need it, between you and John Sweet.
Beckie goes to her OB/GYN when she is 19 years old and pregnant with
her first cild. The OB/GYN exclaims, my aren't you a fertile one! It
turns out that for every ONE sperm a male produces I just happen to
produce a gazillion. My OB and my family jokingly call me Fertile
Myrtle. Had I not been on an effective birt control after the birth of
my second child, I would have had probably 10 children by now, as I was
married and probably having sex every other night. Effective birth
control made it so I did not bear 10 children as finances would not
have allowed for that many children, I have a hard enough time with one
child (did I mention that I gave the first child up for adoption?)
Not too long ago my old insurance company decided to stop coverage of
my depo shot. They offered to pay for the pill, which I agreed to. I
was not sexually active at the time, and the shot was more to control
the bleeding than for birth control. However, during the year I was on
the pill I had a one night stand with an old friend. Mistake, yes. What
happened? Low and behold I got pregnant, on the pill no less!!! This
time around I could not go through the agony of bonding with a child
for nine months and then giving it away. I also could not bring a child
into a world with no father, no money, and no hope. (This was a low
point in my life) After careful consideration and after talking with
the people I care about and love, I chose to abort. Now, I am back on
the shot, covered by insurance, and I have no worries about getting
pregnant. I am married again and happy with my situation. My only
regret was that my situation was not this good when I was pregnant the
third time.
The point of this biology lesson is that bearing children, while it is
a blessing, can for some women be a pain. I do not want to bear more
children right now, although my husnad and I are on a waiting list to
adopt and I am quite happy with it that way. Birth control lets me
enjoy my husband and not have the worry about getting pregnant.
Beckie
Salomeh
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> What you call *punish*... ???
Forcing a woman to carry a preganancy to term against her will. It's
akin to slavery...certainly a punishment. And that's how you PL's
approach it also..."serves her right for not keeping her legs shut"
> I call taking responsibility for your actions and living with the
> consequences of your life.
I have taken responsibility for my actions...and I believe in a
womans's right to take responsibility as she sees fit in this
circumstance.
> Do you think poor unwed mothers are the only people on this planet
> who have to learn this lesson?
You mean being ina position to have to decide what to do? it happens
to all women in all walks of life....married couples, people with kids,
and single women of all classes. It's is unfortunate our birth control
isn't perfect yet...but I refuse to suffer for faulty science.
> Abortion only appears to be "an easy way out". It's not. And that's
> not simply my opinion...That's what the majority of women say who
> have had one.
BULLSHIT. Millions of women have had the procedure done...some of them
more than once. If the majority felt as you say then you wouldn't have
to be fighting (and lying) so hard.
It is not treated as an "easy way out" by women considering it...it is
simply the best option available in a bad circumstance....the lesser of
2 evils.
Women are relieved when it is done and the majority of them go on with
their lives and never give it another thought...then when the time is
right for THEM, they get pregnant again and have their kids. I can tell
you this is 100% among the people I have met who have had the
procedure...including myself.
> As far as "religion" oppressing women goes...
It is common knowledge that women were not even 2nd class citizens in
the biblical times. They were property. And that attitude has been
pervasive for thousands of years....We have only become equal citizens
in the eyes of the law in the last century but still get paid less for
the same job as men.
Look at the Muslim countries..where women can not become educated,
work, drive, leave the house unchaperoned....women in some places can
not even get proper health care because male doctors are not allowed to
touch the women.
These attitudes have been around as long as man-kind has and man has
interpreted the scriptures to enforce this belief for centuries.
Salomeh
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> > So you are opposed to abortion, but are unwilling to work
> > towards a compromise that will help achieve that goal?
>
> Yes! Exactly!
Well...IMHO, that is counterproductive and just plain stupid.
> Pro-life, pro-woman, pro-child.
I see pro choice as being pro-child. The children are wanted by their
parents who are prepared to devote themselves because they were able to
control the timing of the pregnancy.
> No exceptions. No compromise. No apologies.
No freedom, No choice....
> I know it's rare to see somebody take a principled stand here in
> America, but there it is.
Lots of people take principled stands...they just don't all agree with
yours.
> Norma McCorvey of Roe-v-Wade now wears
> a t-shirt that says it this way, "100% Pro-life,
> Without Exception, Without Compromise,
> Without Apology."
How convenient....she would seek to take away from other women what she
fought to have for herself. How selfish.
Salomeh
that you have sex for *pleasure*....
Don't you know that is a sin? We are ONLY supposed to allow men to use
us when we want to procreate. We are *not* permitted to enjoy the
experience as then we may want to do it often...but the man can enjoy
it all he wants since it is the *woman's* responsibility to keep her
legs shut if she does not wish for a child at the time.
To do otherwise is a grievous sin for which all women will burn in
hell, right Sweet? Miskell?
Salomeh
I've conceived twice on the pill (and one of those was with a rubber as
well-you think YOU'RE fertile? :> ) I see no other option. So I'll
have to pay for it myself-an option which is not available to lower
income women (Thank God for Visa).
I just want to thank you for admitting (realizing) that there is a
common sense solution to abortion. IF the PL's would focus on birth
control as a solution, abortions would continue their decrease.
I'm sure PL's would classify me as a "Pro-abort" because I support a
woman's right to choose. Having been through it I can honestly say it
is NOT a preferable alternative to not getting pregnant in the first
place.
IOW (simply stated for some of our readers)....not getting pregnant
because your birth control works is good....invasive, expensive, and
painful medical procedures because of failed birth control is
bad...being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is really
really bad.
In article <7ko11r$820$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Beckie Bush
It's pathetic that some "pro lifers" see a woman who has an abortion as
a slut who should've said no, should've kept her legs shut blah blah
blah...
In all honesty I have had sex with 4 men. My first was with someone I
really loved and should have married but didn't (baby up for adoption)
the second was my ex-husband (kept baby, beautiful 3 year old who now
claims that mommy has cooties) and the third was the infamous one night
stand (baby aborted) and the fourth obviously is my current husband,
and he is rather sterile (of course, I still take birth control just in
case one of my many eggs decides it's gonna make a run). Note that 3/4
partners has equaled pregnancy and I am far from what I am consider a
slut who couldn't keep her legs shut. With two guys it took one time of
having sex.
This is why we need to approach birth control differently, both for men
and women. Women are not wholly to blame, men have a responsibility
when they opt to have sex with someone.
In article <7kofvl$eav$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> But Beckie....THAT constitutes sexual freedom....and it implies (gasp)
> that you have sex for *pleasure*....
>
> Don't you know that is a sin? We are ONLY supposed to allow men to
use
> us when we want to procreate. We are *not* permitted to enjoy the
> experience as then we may want to do it often...but the man can enjoy
> it all he wants since it is the *woman's* responsibility to keep her
> legs shut if she does not wish for a child at the time.
>
> To do otherwise is a grievous sin for which all women will burn in
> hell, right Sweet? Miskell?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
--
Beckie Bush
-Life, what a beautiful choice...
Salomeh
and underscores why abortion has to be kept as an option for the time
being.
In article <7koogt$hui$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Brian Charles Kohn
<sal...@my-deja.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
<7koflo$e6r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>In article <376F1006...@neo.rr.com>,
> John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> > So you are opposed to abortion, but are unwilling to work
>> > towards a compromise that will help achieve that goal?
>Well...IMHO, that is counterproductive and just plain stupid.
No, it is very smart, Salomeh. It relieves John of the
feeling of civic responsibility, and makes him less
apprehensive about the intolerance and tyranny that he is
trying to propagate.
>> Pro-life, pro-woman, pro-child.
>I see pro choice as being pro-child. The children are wanted by their
>parents who are prepared to devote themselves because they were able to
>control the timing of the pregnancy.
Indeed. John's idea of "pro-woman" is to keep folks
celibate or pregnant. I sure hope that idea takes hold in
the pro-life community, since it will surely be its eventual
downfall.
>> No exceptions. No compromise. No apologies.
>No freedom, No choice....
>> I know it's rare to see somebody take a principled stand here in
>> America, but there it is.
>Lots of people take principled stands...they just don't all agree with
>yours.
Indeed. John confuses "principled stand" with anything he
believes and therefore any other beliefs are righteously
trampled on.
>> Norma McCorvey of Roe-v-Wade now wears
>> a t-shirt that says it this way, "100% Pro-life,
>> Without Exception, Without Compromise,
>> Without Apology."
>How convenient....she would seek to take away from other women what she
>fought to have for herself. How selfish.
I never thought of it that way. Personally, I don't put any
weight on the beliefs of any one person. There were
thousands and thousands of other women willing to be the
test case that eventually became Roe v. Wade.
just bickerŽ
hereti...@my-deja.com
Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <376F0DF1...@neo.rr.com>,
> John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> > What you call *punish*... ???
> Forcing a woman to carry a preganancy to term against her will. It's
> akin to slavery...certainly a punishment. And that's how you PL's
> approach it also..."serves her right for not keeping her legs shut"
Especially ironic, considering that they invariably also
insist on rigid gender roles, which includes the impossibility
of refusing sex from one's husband/sig other. They tend to believe
the 'rape myths' so that a woman is wrong no matter what, basically
she can't say no and is punished if she does, and then blamed for
the consequences. Takes all responsibility from men, and in the
thousands of years this mentality has existed, hasn't prevented
unwanted pregnancy. .. just blames women for it, no matter what
they do.
> > I call taking responsibility for your actions and living with the
> > consequences of your life.
And since the "consequence" of pregnancy is something WhackBoy
here never has to deal with, as the Church Lady used to say,
isn't that CONVEEEEEEEENIENT!
> I have taken responsibility for my actions...and I believe in a
> womans's right to take responsibility as she sees fit in this
> circumstance.
Whackboy will tell you that women are invariably wrong, the
only good woman is the V. Mary, or a dead virgin who died
horribly saying "no" . . .
> > Do you think poor unwed mothers are the only people on this planet
> > who have to learn this lesson?
Does he think any man EVER has to?
> You mean being ina position to have to decide what to do? it happens
> to all women in all walks of life....married couples, people with
kids,
> and single women of all classes. It's is unfortunate our birth
control
> isn't perfect yet...but I refuse to suffer for faulty science.
But you're SUPPOSED to. You're a woman and everything is your
fault. Didn't you know that?
> > Abortion only appears to be "an easy way out". It's not. And that's
> > not simply my opinion...That's what the majority of women say who
> > have had one.
> BULLSHIT. Millions of women have had the procedure done...some of them
> more than once. If the majority felt as you say then you wouldn't have
> to be fighting (and lying) so hard.
They just can't win the hearts and minds of people, because essentially
their mission is an indefensible one. Fetuses aren't people.
No one, not even the most loony rtlers, really believes it, and
the cognitive dissonance makes 'em cranky.
> It is not treated as an "easy way out" by women considering it...it is
> simply the best option available in a bad circumstance....the lesser
of
> 2 evils.
No kidding. And since unwanted children, as shown in the Czech
study, and an earlier Swedish study I found, tend to have
"poor outcomes" and since we already don't care for THOUSANDS
of children already, I really think rtlers HATE children.
They insist the "sins of the mother" be visited on the children,
by forcing unwanted children to be born.
> Women are relieved when it is done and the majority of them go on with
> their lives and never give it another thought...then when the time is
> right for THEM, they get pregnant again and have their kids. I can
tell
> you this is 100% among the people I have met who have had the
> procedure...including myself.
and there are women who simply don't want children, and there
are many who shouldn't have them, but since this is a demently
pro-natalist society, a lot of women (and men) have children
"automatically"; ask them why they had kids, and get a Dan Quayle
look and a muttered "idunno" answer. Look, kidz, we are WAY
overpopulated, and the world needs LESS kids not more.
> > As far as "religion" oppressing women goes...
> It is common knowledge that women were not even 2nd class citizens in
> the biblical times. They were property. And that attitude has been
> pervasive for thousands of years....We have only become equal citizens
> in the eyes of the law in the last century but still get paid less for
> the same job as men.
And mofos who thump their bibles use it to rationalize
their essential misogyny. Look at the Taliban. Hell, look
at those fatassed polyesterbutt sobabtist types . ..
what roles do THEY have for women?
> Look at the Muslim countries..where women can not become educated,
> work, drive, leave the house unchaperoned....women in some places can
> not even get proper health care because male doctors are not allowed
to
> touch the women.
>
> These attitudes have been around as long as man-kind has and man has
> interpreted the scriptures to enforce this belief for centuries.
Well, it must be a rush, knowing no matter how much of a loser putz
you are, you're still better than half the population, and 'sides,
this way he can blame women for unwanted pregnancy, because men
are so perfect, it HAS to be the woman's fault!
hereti...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> > So you are opposed to abortion, but are unwilling to work
> > towards a compromise that will help achieve that goal?
> Pro-life, pro-woman, pro-child.
Well then, please do something about the horrible maternal
mortality rate in America. Universal health care would
be the place to start, NOW.
Please make sure all women have access to safe, affordable
contraception, without exception. That's prowoman.
Prochild? Yeah, right. As if. Let's just pretend the
thousands of children with no homes don't exist, let them
rot in institutions until they "graduate" to San Quentin.
No more homelessness, that harms children, and homeless
women are raped at over 20X the rate of women in homes,
and do remember that MOST women are raped by husbands/b-friends,
so make sure that women ALWAYS have the ability to a safe,
secure, PRIVATE home, and don't have to be subjected to any
man's abuse.
> I know it's rare to see somebody take a principled
> stand here in America, but there it is.
YOu haven't taken a stand, you just farted out propaganda,
with no way of actually implementing what you say.
You seem to think that making abortion expensive and dangerous
will help them, yet refuse to understand anything at all about
the woman's life. And it's so fucking easy for an asshole like
you, Mr. XianTaliban, to make WOMEN totally responsible for
"morality" while making sure they have few, if any, options
to control their OWN lives.
> Norma McCorvey of Roe-v-Wade now wears
> a t-shirt that says it this way, "100% Pro-life,
> Without Exception, Without Compromise,
> Without Apology."
So she is a rather dimwitted dyke past menopause, who,
like you, thinks that because she doesn't have to fear
pregnancy, no woman should have a safe abortion,
after all, that braindead ho didn't . . .. and like
many other braindead hos, she wants other women to suffer.
Salomeh
Long time no hear...hope you are well...
Have you kept up with the other things this guy has been saying in the
other threads??? You should check it out...he is against Abortion AND
birth control....he is completely convinced women can not tend to
serious issues in their lives themselves....he also lied to me outright
about his intentions re: birth control...
All I can think is he's probably doing wonders for the side of choice.
In article <7kovs7$l0e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
hereti...@my-deja.com
Oh, yeah. Getting a bit hectic in The City, the Parade is coming
up next Sunday . . . I told the Folsom Street Mac store some
months ago they should have a float with the IMac Rainbow and
have portable modems so people could post ngs and chatrooms
RIGHT FROM THE PARADE! Hope they do! Put in some of those
real time cameras, it would be fun. Think different, I guess.
> Have you kept up with the other things this guy has been saying in the
> other threads??? You should check it out...he is against Abortion AND
> birth control....he is completely convinced women can not tend to
> serious issues in their lives themselves....he also lied to me
outright
> about his intentions re: birth control...
Oh, he is just another nutcase woman hating biblebator, didn't
take many posts to figure that out. Like those assholes in Pakistan,
women are never raped there, because a woman who reports a rape
invariabley is killed for violating "honor".
It's a great system. Make women completely responsible for
sexual honor, and make sure they have no authority, so no matter
what, it's always their fault.
> All I can think is he's probably doing wonders for the side of choice.
Yeah, they really show what's under the rock, the interesting thing
is how most rtlers use them as Myrmidons, and disavow all knowledge . .
Come ON now, when you look around at a party and notice that many
of the guests are really pale and have long canine teeth, don't
accept the offer to stay over! Sheesh!
I guess since the irrepressible Lesley and the effervescent
Kim and the perky Becky have been shamed into relative calm,
perhaps 'tis time to take some shots at the biblebating
boy . . . not that it will do any good. The man sounds really
lackwitted and has a lot of personality disorders, which are
extremely resistant to tx.
hereti...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> You bring up an interesting point,
> > Birth Control = less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions
> > Isn't that what we're after??
No, Beckie, that is NOT what Biblebator Boy is after.
> Of course I can't speak for the whole pro-life movement...
> But here are some of my thoughts on this issue...
>
> I am not working towards a goal of "less abortions".
NO surprise there. You want unsafe, very expensive ones.
After all, the rate of abortion did not change much after
Roe.
> While I am certainly opposed to it, I am not willing
> to compromise on other issues within my own life.
It's not your life that matters, fuckwit.
YOU are not the one endangered and harmed by pregnancy,
wanted or unwanted.
> I am opposed to abortion because I want to protect
> the rights of the unborn child.
NO such thing as an unborn child, and fetuses don't
have rights. Never did.
> I am opposed to birth control because it has done me
> a great deal of harm,
How? Birth control has no effect on you whatsoever.
Unless we implement castration for men, which HAS been
shown to eliminate unwanted pregnancy, in livestock,
pets, and in harems.
> and I have a 5-year old daughter
> now. I want her to grow up protected and knowing
> the truth about artificial birth control.
Protected? Sounds like she needs protection from YOU.
> Regarding birth control...
>
> I am working towards a world that truly values each
> person.
Fine, get back to us when you get there. IN the meantime, we
are way overpopulated, the pollution and environmental
degradation continue, the economies of the world force
women adn children to starve, and little girls are sold
by parents into prostitution.
> This includes women and children, and in a
> particular way those who are weak and defenseless.
YOu just LOVE them, don't you?
Yeah, makes your manhood stand right up, fantasizing
about "protecting" young women and little girls, eh?
Especially since the weak and defenseless are not going
to able to STOP you from "protecting" them . ..
> It is on the basis of this value - the value of the person -
> that I am opposed to all forms of abortion. And, like
> it or not, many contraceptives act as abortifacients.
Cite your source. And it better be a peer-reviewed
medical source. BTW, since the risk of pregnancy is
FAR greater than any risks from contraception, all
you are saying is you want more dead, injured women.
You are one sick-O motherfucker, aren't you, Norman?
> By recognizing that each person is a gift of infinite value
> I have come to a deeper appreciation of life. I have
> also found a tremendous source of inspiration. This
> understanding inspires me to act sometimes. I want
> to promote a culture of life and an environment that
> promotes the development of each person.
Fine. Bully for you. The rest of us are stuck in reality,
where men, women and children are brutalized and discarded,
killed with impunity and their suffering ignored.
> In this regard, I have come to see birth control for
> what it truly is... a diminuation of the dignity that
> rightfully belongs to women.
OK, then let's do the old fashioned castration instead.
Much safer, after all. No side effects. Oh, well, pattern
baldness will be eliminated, and there MAY be a reduction
in all types of violence, but that remains to be tested.
BECAUSE, YOU FATOUS RAPIST CHILD ABUSER,
women and children are NOT given any "dignity" by that
cult you are a part of.
And some women actually enjoy sex, although not with YOU,
I'm SURE.
> We owe a tremendous
> debt of gratitude to women and to mothers in
> particular because without them none of us would
> be here. I for one am indebted to two women,
> my biological mother and my adopted mother.
One dumped you, and the other spent a lifetime of regret
for not letting you die, I take it.
> For unmarried women, birth control creates an
> environment where it is "ok" for a man to shower
> his affections on a woman, and then having had
> a pleasurable encounter with her, leave her.
Get sodomized, mofo. They did that before there was
decent contraception, it's just that the women, usually
of a lesser economic caste, got dumped in whorehouses
or worse when they woman got pregnant. And poor women
HAD NO RIGHT TO REFUSE SEX. Nor did wives.
> He
> is even allowed to her as a stranger afterwards
> "if necessary".
>
> This hedonistic attitude is rampant in today's
> society, and it does tremendous damage to men
> and women.
Prove what you are saying is factually correct, that
there has been an actual societal change in how women
are treated, and then prove what "damages" have been
done, showing a causal link, remembering POST HOC ERGO
PROPTER HOC is a fallacy.
> But it is particularly damaging to
> women because in many cases they are the one left
> with the incurable STD, and they are the one left
> pregnant and without a suitable partner.
Not a new thing, it's just now we have better ways of
treating STDs and safe abortions.
Does that bother you, that women are not suffering as
much as they used to?
> These things are contrary to the dignity of women.
How the fuck would you know what that is?
Or that it exists?
Fuck "dignity" biblebator, give me RESPECT or I'm shoving that
bible up your gaping ass, rammming it home with a cattle prod.
> They act to destroy the beautiful image of God that
> exists within each of us.
If God looks anything like YOU send me straight to HELL.
> They are contrary to the
> culture of life that each person longs for. Christians
> pray for this kingdom when they pray, "Thy
> kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven."
So fucking what?
This is not a theocracy, you Jesus-fucking loser.
> And what sort of kingdom is this?
> A kingdom of harmony and dignity. A kingdom
> where healing and reconciliation have won out
> over discord and all the baser desires that we
> see within ourselves. These springs of turmoil
> lie at the root of our unhappiness. And a lifetime
> of self-discipline and self-mastery are required to
> tame them and bring them into conformity with
> a civilization of love.
Fine. YOu go do that, and then we'll talk about banning
abortion and contraception. OK?
> Birth control pills prevent men and women from
> acquiring this self-mastery.
Most people don't. Men never have to.
I tkae it that you don't give a rat'[s ass about what
happens to the children of those without "self-mastery"
> The sexual urges that
> men and women both experience are fundamentally
> good and healthy. However, they are, like the
> competitive urge, meant to be channeled in a certain
> way.
Yeah, rape the children of the poor and say they asked for it,
suppress all homosexual impulses, reward women with the
damage of childbirth, and let men do exactly what they want and
let women pay for it.
Sorry, little jackoff, we tried that method, and it sucked.
Which if your biomother had done, she would not have had
to dump your sorry ass on some idiot womban who thought wiping
shit was her only talent.
> Without this moderation competition can
> become the sort of aggression and anger that
> destroys a person, and the sexual urge can become
> perverted into a simple exchange of goods.
And you can prove a causal link?
And since sex has been gladly been commodified by
MEN, don't you think you should start by going after
THEM? Blow up a few "porn mills" so men are brainwashed
into thinking women are an entitlement.
Picket the Mustang Ranch in Nevada, throw yourself in front
of the cars of the men who gladly will pay money to get laid.
Much easier than being nice to a woman, just force some
woman who is desparate using money . . .. and as more women
get cut off from welfare, lots more desparate women out there.
Fucking A, neoDickens time . . .
> Instead of being a force for good, a source of mutual
> support and comfort between spouses, sexuality can
> be reduced to something that is nothing more than a
> means of pleasure. Herein lies a very great danger for
> women, namely they can become "an object of lust".
WE are, and that is because that is how MEN want it.
So do something to the MEN who promulgate the commodification
of women.
> When this happens women are no longer accorded the
> dignity that is rightfully theirs. They have lost that
> pricelessness that is rightfully theirs. They are no longer
> treasured.
Fuck being treasured, just treat me as an equal, I don't
want your "treasuring" nor your phoney "respect"
> Women who use birth control are, in part, responsible
> for this sad state of affairs. By artificial means they rob
> themselves of the fertility that is rightfully theirs.
Get fucked. The world is WAY overpopulated, and no one is
stopping women from being fertile.
> They no
> longer demand to be treated with the respect they
> deserve.
No, better to get raped, sent to a "home" for unwed mothers,
or sent to some offshore bordello, like they used to.
> In a way, they are consenting to be passed
> from man to man and treated as a mere object.
Why do men pass them on? Besides, only the young and
beautiful are treated that way, if they are not pretty,
and once they get old, they aren't an object any more.
Or anything ELSE, since women are valued only as much
as men want to fuck them . .by MEN anyway.
> They
> have surrendered a part of their identity as mother -
> a gift that is rightfully theirs.
A gift? NO thanks. You can have it.
> Husbands are also to blame here. Unwilling to
> undertake the difficult journey of self-mastery, in many
> cases they are content to let their wives take medications -
> drugs that can endanger the health and lives of their
> spouse and even the very lives of their future children.
Oh, gee, you mean MEN might be part of the PROBLEM?
You are KIDDING, aren't you?
> For many people the idea that "true love waits" is
> considered a mere joke. When this happens both
> sexes end up "trading their birthright for a lie".
Actually, it's a joke beacuse most of them don't.
And no one is stopping them from waiting, although
many young men use a bit of force, but it isn't rape,
oh, no, she wanted it, right?
> The many problems women face today are startling
> evidence of this exchange: the horrific spread of
> STDs among our young people,
STDs have been common for thousands of years.
> and particularly
> among our young women, the startling decline
> in morality....
I suppose asking men to take any responsibility would be too much,
after all, everything IS women's fault.
> Our society has almost come to accept promiscuity,
> trial marriages and divorce as the norm!
And that is new? Gimme a break! It's just now that women
are given a few more rights as a second/third/etc wife
as they did when they were just mistresses.
> The prevalence of birth control in our culture runs
> contrary to the journey of "self-mastery" that is required
> from each of us. Both men and women are required to
> make this journey, when they are single, and when they
> are married.
Who says so?
> Perhaps this is merely "a religious opinion"...
> Perhaps it is not shared by many people...
No, most of us are sane.
> In any case, those are some of the reasons why I
> personally am against birth control. I hopes this
> helps you understand how some of us PL's feel.
Yeah, you are raging motherfucking womanhating assholes
who should be forced to become Priests of Cybele.
Hey, Becoming A Eunuch For Christ may be your calling, why
don't you show other men how it's done, and then force them
to join you?
John Sweet
Of course you can call me names and think poorly of
me - like you like to say "it's your choice". And you can
claim that I'm "a misogynist" and other sorts of kooky
crap. You can even think that I think that sex is only for
pro-creation and women should never enjoy sex. And you
can say that I think that women who have sex are basically
sluts. And you can claim that abortion is simply a choice...
And you'd be wrong on all counts.
You see I was married, and I know my wife enjoyed herself
when we "had sex". And I know how great sex is.
I know that women "burn" for their husbands, and I know
that chastity is just a tough for women sometimes as it is for
a man. I know about many things women think are secret
about their bodies, and that's a really good thing.
I think it's a good thing because it will help me teach my
daughter. And if, by some miracle, I would recover my
health and find a fiancé, I would make a damn fine husband.
Becky it's too bad somebody didn't teach you about the
signs your body gives when your fertile and infertile. Perhaps
it would have helped you. And I'm very glad you've found
forgiveness and peace with God. So please pray for me.
You seem like a pretty smart lady - quick with a comeback
for sure - so you probably knew when you're ovulating and
not any way. As one woman told me, "you'd have to be
stupid not to know" (her opinion, not mine).
I would simply like to see that more women are taught these
things. I would like to see "accepted" medical practice change
to a degree that women are always taught NFP first. Women
should be encouraged to take these hormones as a last resort -
not a first. And as for the other health risks they run, they
should be full informed (along with their spouses).
In my opinion, doctors should strongly recommend that a
women try NFP for a year or so - even if they are unmarried.
Once they do so perhaps a note could be made in their
medical records. A similar thing happens when a couple
goes to see a fertility specialist. They are required to wait
and try natural methods first.
I am really opposed to abortion as birth control - and I feel
most people are. But I am not trying to take away anybody's
BC. Most of the material I write is to educate other
Christians and other people who don't want to use artificial
birth control. It's also to educate people who have been
lied to by big pharmaceutical companies. And if you think
it ain't been happening you are naive.... just look at what
the tobacco companies did.
Sex is for BOTH things....
fun, enjoyment, pleasure, healing, mutual support, AND
children. (btw - the church has always taught this)
Women who enjoy sex aren't sluts... they are normal just
like you and me. That being said our sexuality isn't just
"plumbing for hedonists" (I forget who coined this phrase).
It's an integral part of who we are, and just like the words
that come from our mouths... it says alot about who we
really are.
Warmest regards,
Al Borges
kinds of birth
control. Is abortion birth control? If you answered "no" then why is
it that almost all abortions are done as a matter of birth control,
and not because the life of the mother is in danger, rape, incest, or
defect?<<
I see no problem with a woman who simply can't grasp the concepts of
birth control using abortion as a type of birth control. I do not wish to
see more women with IQ's of 70 having families of 10 or more.
<<1. It's an abortofacient. The pill works by suppressing ovulation but
fails to do this about 25% of the time, so it's backed up with a drug
to prevent the already living zygote from implanting in the uterus,
causing it's death. The pill causes millions of early abortions and
the woman never realizes it.<<
"Early abortions"? Shit, John... don't be so... ((( radical ))). If this
is the case, then God is guilty of "aborting" 3 eggs for every one that is
sent wandering down the fallopian tubes. Since He's in charge of each and
every woman's cycle, then that makes him abortionist # uno. Everytime you
wack off you "abort" millions and millions of John Miskell grade A sperm.
That puts you second only to GOD!!! We can go on an on down the slippery
slope (actually, you've already fallen!)... but the point is that the pill
is an excellent method to prevent pregnancy. It's interesting how with one
hand you wish to make it more difficult for women to protect themselves, and
with the other you want to prevent them from having the abortion option.
<< 2. The pill is hazardous to ones health. Fully half the women taking
the pill stop doing so in the first year because of unpleasant
side-effects. <<
Bullfeathers, John. Citation, please? Pregnancy is even more hazardous
to one's health than the pill. Birth control pills with progesterone will
actually (((( decrease )))) the incidence of breast cancer by a slight
margin. It can cause thromboembolic problems in older women, but this is
offset by their 1) decreased prevalence of osteoporosis in the BCP group, 2)
decreased incidence of heart disease in women on BCP's, and 3) decreased
incidence of Alzheimer's in BCP taking women. And, of course, women can
avert becoming mommies if they don't want to be.
<< 3. The pill hasn't done diddly to reduce abortions, or increase the
quality of marriages, nor has the pill done anything to reduce sexually
transmitted diseases. >>
How do you know? Have you a study which has compared the abortion rate
of one group of Americans on the pill to another group off of the pill? What
is known is that in industrial countries, where BCP's are more used, the
overall birthrate has declined. The "quality of marriages" has very little
to do with the pill. The advancement of women in today's modern society,
though, was brought about thanks to the pill.
<< 4. About one third of the women I speak to going into the abortion
chamber claim that they were using the pill when they got pregnant.
Yeah, the package insert and the manufacturer all claim to have a 99%
success rate but they do not like to talk about the statistics
regarding real world actual usage. >>
Nothing is perfect, John, even PCers! What are you suggesting that women
do (besides turning into nuns)? Women love sex... men love sex... God, in
His infatuated wisdom, put us both together into the orgy sexpot called
earth. Then God threw us the pill. For 6 days and 6 nights everyone had a
blast then on the 7th night everyone rested. And He said- this was good.
(Now you're getting me to sound like my preacher!)
<< 5. The pill is degrading and anti-woman. >>
So are you- but it doesn't stop you from posting.
<< The result is weight gain, tender breasts, mood swings, depression,
reduced libido, and an increased chance of death or injury from blood clots
and cancer. >>
Without it, women would *really* get pregnant, with an even higher
comorbidity. The cancer risk is almost nill in estrogen/progesterone pills,
and in numerous studies have demonstrated a slight *decrease* incidence of
certain cancers.
<< If that's not bad enough, according to the British study recently
released and publicized the risks to the user's health remain with her
for at least 10 years after she stopped taking the pill. And we say that we
are making the pill available to her to liberate her? FROM
WHAT? What a crappy deal for a woman. >>
Are you talking about the DECREASED risk of bone fracture, heart
attacks, and Alzheimer's disease? Yup, these effects are long lasting,
alright... Cancer? Not significant a risk...
Al.
bicker...@replay.com
Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> escribió en el mensaje de
noticias <37702451...@neo.rr.com>:
>In my opinion, doctors should strongly recommend that a
>women try NFP for a year or so - even if they are unmarried.
And what do you propose be done if NFP fails?
just bicker®
John Miskell
>In article <7kof10$du8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <376F0DF1...@neo.rr.com>,
>> John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> > What you call *punish*... ???
>> Forcing a woman to carry a preganancy to term against her will. It's
>> akin to slavery...certainly a punishment. And that's how you PL's
>> approach it also..."serves her right for not keeping her legs shut"
>
>Especially ironic, considering that they invariably also
>insist on rigid gender roles, which includes the impossibility
>of refusing sex from one's husband/sig other. They tend to believe
>the 'rape myths' so that a woman is wrong no matter what, basically
>she can't say no and is punished if she does, and then blamed for
>the consequences. Takes all responsibility from men, and in the
>thousands of years this mentality has existed, hasn't prevented
>unwanted pregnancy. .. just blames women for it, no matter what
>they do.
Baloney -- no one's "blaming women" for getting raped. Rape related
abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions.
>
>> > I call taking responsibility for your actions and living with the
>> > consequences of your life.
>
>And since the "consequence" of pregnancy is something WhackBoy
>here never has to deal with, as the Church Lady used to say,
>isn't that CONVEEEEEEEENIENT!
The consequence of pregnancy is temporary. The consequence of abortion
is permanant.
>
>> I have taken responsibility for my actions...and I believe in a
>> womans's right to take responsibility as she sees fit in this
>> circumstance.
>
>Whackboy will tell you that women are invariably wrong, the
>only good woman is the V. Mary, or a dead virgin who died
>horribly saying "no" . . .
You've bought into some real twisted logic.
>
>> > Do you think poor unwed mothers are the only people on this planet
>> > who have to learn this lesson?
>
>Does he think any man EVER has to?
Do you think men are incapable of understanding? Who's the sexist?
>
>> You mean being ina position to have to decide what to do? it happens
>> to all women in all walks of life....married couples, people with
>kids,
>> and single women of all classes. It's is unfortunate our birth
>control
>> isn't perfect yet...but I refuse to suffer for faulty science.
>
>But you're SUPPOSED to. You're a woman and everything is your
>fault. Didn't you know that?
Twist again, like we did last summer . . . .
>
>> > Abortion only appears to be "an easy way out". It's not. And that's
>> > not simply my opinion...That's what the majority of women say who
>> > have had one.
>> BULLSHIT. Millions of women have had the procedure done...some of them
>> more than once. If the majority felt as you say then you wouldn't have
>> to be fighting (and lying) so hard.
>
>They just can't win the hearts and minds of people, because essentially
>their mission is an indefensible one. Fetuses aren't people.
Of course they are people
>No one, not even the most loony rtlers, really believes it, and
>the cognitive dissonance makes 'em cranky.
Oh there's a cranky one here alright
>
>> It is not treated as an "easy way out" by women considering it...it is
>> simply the best option available in a bad circumstance....the lesser
>of
>> 2 evils.
>
>No kidding. And since unwanted children, as shown in the Czech
>study, and an earlier Swedish study I found, tend to have
>"poor outcomes" and since we already don't care for THOUSANDS
>of children already, I really think rtlers HATE children.
>They insist the "sins of the mother" be visited on the children,
>by forcing unwanted children to be born.
There's no such thing as unwanted children -- stop telling lies.
>
>> Women are relieved when it is done and the majority of them go on with
>> their lives and never give it another thought...then when the time is
>> right for THEM, they get pregnant again and have their kids. I can
>tell
>> you this is 100% among the people I have met who have had the
>> procedure...including myself.
>
>and there are women who simply don't want children, and there
>are many who shouldn't have them, but since this is a demently
>pro-natalist society, a lot of women (and men) have children
>"automatically"; ask them why they had kids, and get a Dan Quayle
>look and a muttered "idunno" answer. Look, kidz, we are WAY
>overpopulated, and the world needs LESS kids not more.
Then get responsible and don't get pregnant. If you get pregnant, get
responsible and do the right thing. The right thing does not include
killing the child. 4,400 abortions every day in the USA and 99% are
just for a matter of convenience and have nothing to do with the
hperbolic trash you've been spewing.
>
>> > As far as "religion" oppressing women goes...
>> It is common knowledge that women were not even 2nd class citizens in
>> the biblical times. They were property. And that attitude has been
>> pervasive for thousands of years....We have only become equal citizens
>> in the eyes of the law in the last century but still get paid less for
>> the same job as men.
>
>And mofos who thump their bibles use it to rationalize
>their essential misogyny. Look at the Taliban. Hell, look
>at those fatassed polyesterbutt sobabtist types . ..
>what roles do THEY have for women?
Look at the 49% of all abortions that are done on women going back to
the mill for their 2nd, 3rd and 4th abortion.
>
>> Look at the Muslim countries..where women can not become educated,
>> work, drive, leave the house unchaperoned....women in some places can
>> not even get proper health care because male doctors are not allowed
>to
>> touch the women.
>>
>> These attitudes have been around as long as man-kind has and man has
>> interpreted the scriptures to enforce this belief for centuries.
>
>Well, it must be a rush, knowing no matter how much of a loser putz
>you are, you're still better than half the population, and 'sides,
>this way he can blame women for unwanted pregnancy, because men
>are so perfect, it HAS to be the woman's fault!
Tards like you will be fun to watch when abortion becomes illegal
again.
bicker...@replay.com
mis...@voicenet.com (John Miskell) escribió en el mensaje
de noticias <37702ae2...@netnews.voicenet.com>:
>The consequence of pregnancy is temporary. The consequence of abortion
>is permanant.
I disagree on both accounts. I believe the consequence of
pregnancy could be permanent. The mother could die in
childbirth (far more likely than dying due to abortion); the
impact of a baby on her family is surely permanent; and I
also wouldn't minimize the permanent emotional impact of
giving a child away after carrying it for nine months, not
to mention when it comes looking for its birth mother.
By the same token, I believe the consequence of abortion is
likely to be temporary. Indeed, many women who have
abortions have children later in life, thereby recreating
that life and the latter time allowing it to develop into a
real Human being.
I believe that I'm right and you're wrong; you probably
believe that you're right and I'm wrong. I respect that.
I'm willing to let you and yours live in accordance with
your beliefs. Can you say the same?
just bicker®
John Miskell
>A Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:40:16 GMT, en alt.abortion,
>mis...@voicenet.com (John Miskell) escribió en el mensaje
>de noticias <37702ae2...@netnews.voicenet.com>:
>>The consequence of pregnancy is temporary. The consequence of abortion
>>is permanant.
>
>I disagree on both accounts. I believe the consequence of
>pregnancy could be permanent. The mother could die in
>childbirth (far more likely than dying due to abortion); the
>impact of a baby on her family is surely permanent; and I
>also wouldn't minimize the permanent emotional impact of
>giving a child away after carrying it for nine months, not
>to mention when it comes looking for its birth mother.
>
>By the same token, I believe the consequence of abortion is
>likely to be temporary. Indeed, many women who have
>abortions have children later in life, thereby recreating
>that life and the latter time allowing it to develop into a
>real Human being.
>
>I believe that I'm right and you're wrong; you probably
>believe that you're right and I'm wrong. I respect that.
>I'm willing to let you and yours live in accordance with
>your beliefs. Can you say the same?
No way. Nor would I agree to let a avowed child-molester just "live
and let live." Would you?
bicker...@replay.com
>Nor would I agree to let a avowed child-molester just "live
>and let live." Would you?
Of course not, because a child-molester is actually harming
a living, breathing, self-aware Human being--someone who
warrants our protection. That isn't the case in abortion.
just bicker®
El QueSabe
Vote Libertarian!
El QueSabe
<bec...@presortservices.com> writes:
>How is it that the group of anti abortionists here can be against birth
>control? That is the most contradictory statement I have ever seen.
Only if not having sex is an option for you. But some people are still animals
at heart and can't stop themselves from bedding anything that comes along.
Vote Libertarian!
El QueSabe
>Exactly. Except, that it is becoming apparent that those self-
>righteous PL's have more interest in *forcing* women to live by their
>moral standards and *punish* those who don't (by forcing them to
>continue unwanted pregnancies).
Don't kill.
I'd hate to think that you would have to be forced "to live by [our] moral
standards."
One would think that a man or woman would know *before* a chance at sex if the
possible pregnancy is wanted or not--and make a decision based on that desire.
You paint women as really stupid. No wonder men have problems committing to
such women--those women are committed only to themselves.
Vote Libertarian!
John Miskell
wrote:
>RTL MISKELL wrote: << I'm not against birth control. I'm against certain
>kinds of birth
>control. Is abortion birth control? If you answered "no" then why is
>it that almost all abortions are done as a matter of birth control,
>and not because the life of the mother is in danger, rape, incest, or
>defect?<<
>
> I see no problem with a woman who simply can't grasp the concepts of
>birth control using abortion as a type of birth control. I do not wish to
>see more women with IQ's of 70 having families of 10 or more.
There you have it. Abortion as a method of contraception, by Borges
the Doctor of Eugenics. Borges decides who gets to have children and
who doesn't. Beware people -- the Borges' of the world want to control
you.
>
><<1. It's an abortofacient. The pill works by suppressing ovulation but
>fails to do this about 25% of the time, so it's backed up with a drug
>to prevent the already living zygote from implanting in the uterus,
>causing it's death. The pill causes millions of early abortions and
>the woman never realizes it.<<
>
> "Early abortions"?
Indeed!
>Shit, John... don't be so... ((( radical ))). If this
>is the case, then God is guilty of "aborting" 3 eggs for every one that is
>sent wandering down the fallopian tubes. Since He's in charge of each and
>every woman's cycle, then that makes him abortionist # uno. Everytime you
>wack off you "abort" millions and millions of John Miskell grade A sperm.
A sperm cell is a sperm cell, not a living human being. An egg cell is
an egg cell, not a living human being. Too bad you didn't go to
medical school in the United States, you might have learned something.
>That puts you second only to GOD!!! We can go on an on down the slippery
>slope (actually, you've already fallen!)... but the point is that the pill
>is an excellent method to prevent pregnancy. It's interesting how with one
>hand you wish to make it more difficult for women to protect themselves, and
>with the other you want to prevent them from having the abortion option.
>
><< 2. The pill is hazardous to ones health. Fully half the women taking
>the pill stop doing so in the first year because of unpleasant
>side-effects. <<
>
> Bullfeathers, John. Citation, please?
I already gave them -- and you're to stupid and callous to understand
them anyway
>Pregnancy is even more hazardous to one's health than the pill.
I'm so glad none of my family members are forced by circumstance to
see you as their physician. I'll bet the cemetaries are starting to
fill with your patients.
> Birth control pills with progesterone will
>actually (((( decrease )))) the incidence of breast cancer by a slight
>margin. It can cause thromboembolic problems in older women, but this is
>offset by their 1) decreased prevalence of osteoporosis in the BCP group, 2)
>decreased incidence of heart disease in women on BCP's, and 3) decreased
>incidence of Alzheimer's in BCP taking women. And, of course, women can
>avert becoming mommies if they don't want to be.
So what was the British study about the negative side-effects of the
pill lasting for 10 years after cessation?
>
><< 3. The pill hasn't done diddly to reduce abortions, or increase the
>quality of marriages, nor has the pill done anything to reduce sexually
>transmitted diseases. >>
>
> How do you know?
Divorce rates.
> Have you a study which has compared the abortion rate
>of one group of Americans on the pill to another group off of the pill? What
>is known is that in industrial countries, where BCP's are more used, the
>overall birthrate has declined. The "quality of marriages" has very little
>to do with the pill. The advancement of women in today's modern society,
>though, was brought about thanks to the pill.
Muahahaha -- what a crock!
><< 4. About one third of the women I speak to going into the abortion
>chamber claim that they were using the pill when they got pregnant.
>Yeah, the package insert and the manufacturer all claim to have a 99%
>success rate but they do not like to talk about the statistics
>regarding real world actual usage. >>
>
> Nothing is perfect, John, even PCers! What are you suggesting that women
>do (besides turning into nuns)? Women love sex... men love sex...
Fine, but live up to your responsibility -- quit killing the children.
>God, in
>His infatuated wisdom, put us both together into the orgy sexpot called
>earth.
Orgy sexpot? You have a very revealing viewpoint. I'd never trust you
alone with a young girl.
> Then God threw us the pill. For 6 days and 6 nights everyone had a
>blast then on the 7th night everyone rested. And He said- this was good.
>(Now you're getting me to sound like my preacher!)
"Your" preacher? I bet.
>
><< 5. The pill is degrading and anti-woman. >>
>
> So are you- but it doesn't stop you from posting.
Heh -- I'm slain
>
>
><< The result is weight gain, tender breasts, mood swings, depression,
>reduced libido, and an increased chance of death or injury from blood clots
>and cancer. >>
>
> Without it, women would *really* get pregnant, with an even higher
>comorbidity. The cancer risk is almost nill in estrogen/progesterone pills,
>and in numerous studies have demonstrated a slight *decrease* incidence of
>certain cancers.
hooooweee
>
><< If that's not bad enough, according to the British study recently
>released and publicized the risks to the user's health remain with her
>for at least 10 years after she stopped taking the pill. And we say that we
>are making the pill available to her to liberate her? FROM
>WHAT? What a crappy deal for a woman. >>
>
> Are you talking about the DECREASED risk of bone fracture, heart
>attacks, and Alzheimer's disease? Yup, these effects are long lasting,
>alright... Cancer? Not significant a risk...
You're an idiot Borges. Do you know about the big pro-life rally
coming to Fairfax County this summer. I intend on coming for it -- are
you going to come out and say "hey"?
El QueSabe
>
>Which rights, John? It seems to me that the pro-life movements can't event
>defend the unborn's right to life.
>
>Tell me, if an embryo is a human baby and has rights --at least the right
>to life -- then what part of the constitution, or justifiable homicide laws
>allow for the elective execution of a child by its mother, and the
>participation of a doctor. Not looking here for the rationale, but the
>legalities.
>
We know that the rights of the unborn are not respected legally--that is the
problem. We can't get society to defend the rights of the unborn and it hurts
us to the core. That's why we fight.
Laws, being what they are, can be changed. I doubt that Choicers would accept
abortion being against the law. I have no doubt that they would argue for
rights that are not respected legally.
This legal tact is poor support for choice.
Vote Libertarian!
John Sweet
2) Being informed which contraceptives CAN act as
abortifacients...
They should be allowed to chose.
Again, Catholics and other Christians can follow the
demands of their conscience regarding BC without
passing legislation.
The problem with abortion is that ANOTHER PERSON
is involved, and we [society] are obliged to protect the
innocent. As always....
John Sweet
Little problem with your theory...
God can't be "guilty" of anything!
God can't be "guilty" of anything!
God can't be "guilty" of anything!
Who can contend with God?
Who can contend with The Almighty?
Where is there a court that could contain him?
Where is there a judge who could punish him?
To whom do you have recourse to O Man?
Daniel has a nice song that illustrates this..
"Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of our fathers, praiseworthy
and exalted above all forever; And blessed is your holy and
glorious name, praiseworthy and exalted above all for all ages.
Blessed are you in the temple of your holy glory, praiseworthy
and glorious above all forever.
Blessed are you on the throne of your kingdom, praiseworthy
and exalted above all forever.
Blessed are you who look into the depths from your throne upon
the cherubim, praiseworthy and exalted above all forever.
Blessed are you in the firmament of heaven, praiseworthy and glorious forever.
Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord, praise and exalt him above all
forever.
Angels of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever.
You heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever.
All you waters above the heavens, bless the Lord, praise and
exalt him above all forever.
All you hosts of the Lord, bless the Lord; praise and exalt
him above all forever.
Sun and moon, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Stars of heaven, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Every shower and dew, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him
above all forever.
All you winds, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Fire and heat, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Cold and chill, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Dew and rain, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Frost and chill, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Ice and snow, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Nights and days, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Light and darkness, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Lightnings and clouds, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Let the earth bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever.
Mountains and hills, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Everything growing from the earth, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above
all forever.
You springs, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Seas and rivers, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
You dolphins and all water creatures, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above
all forever.
All you birds of the air, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all
forever.
All you beasts, wild and tame, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all
forever.
You sons of men, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
O Israel, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Priests of the Lord, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Servants of the Lord, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all
forever.
Holy men of humble heart, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all
forever.
Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all
forever.
For he has delivered us from the nether world, and saved us from
the power of death; He has freed us from the raging flame
and delivered us from the fire.
Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy endures forever.
Bless the God of gods, all you who fear the Lord;
praise him and give him thanks, because his mercy endures forever."
Hearing them sing, and astonished at seeing them alive,
King Nebuchadnezzar rose in haste and asked his nobles,
"Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?"
"Assuredly, O king," they answered.
Cordially yours,
Al Borges
news:377042d7...@netnews.voicenet.com...
> There you have it. Abortion as a method of contraception, by Borges
> the Doctor of Eugenics. Borges decides who gets to have children and
> who doesn't. Beware people -- the Borges' of the world want to control
> you.<<
Remember- you PLers are the guys wanting the *control* of women's
ability to choose.
> A sperm cell is a sperm cell, not a living human being. An egg cell is
> an egg cell, not a living human being. Too bad you didn't go to
> medical school in the United States, you might have learned something.<<
Yes indeedee, Dr. Miskell. You really know so much! (NOT!!!)
ME: Bullfeathers, John. Citation, please? <<
MISKELL: > I already gave them -- and you're to stupid and callous to
understand them anyway<<
Nope- you are just too frightened to admit that you simply took your
"facts" from a PL advisory board. You have no facts. You're just a lier.
On the other hand, the truth is found everywhere... in fact, tonight I
got home and found on my nighttable the magazine "Internal Medicine News",
which is distributed to all docs here in the USA (underwritten by the NY
Times). One major front page article that caught my eye was called
"Contraception Until Age 52?". In it, Dr. Patricia Sulak was quoted at the
annual meeting of the American College of Physicians- American Society of
Internal Medicine:
"OCs are one of the most important preventive health care measures in all of
medicine. There's no medicine that offers reproductive age women more
benefits; there's nothing out there that even touches OCs. I think that OCs
are as beneficial to reproductive age women as hormone replacement therapy
is to menopausal women."
Benefits cited by Dr. Sulak:
* 60-80% reduction in ovarian cancer risk with 10 years of OC use.
* there is also lessened risks of uterine cancer
* lessened risk of polycystic ovary syndrome
* decreased osteoporosis
* decreased acne and hirsutism
* decreased risk of pelvic inflammatory disease and ectopic pregnancy
* decreased risk of fibroadenomas and fibrocystic diseases of the breast
and less breast pain, and fewer breast biopsies
* breast cancer risk: nil to none
* better menstrual cycle symptom control
* BEST CHOICE FOR CONTRACEPTION
Risks / side effects:
* most minor side effects that cause patients to stop taking the pill go
away within the first 3 months-> nausea, mood swings, breast tenderness.. so
if they put up with this initial period they will do just fine afterwards
* deep venous thrombosis-> only 3 cases per 10000 nonsmoking women...
this is the most common "serious" disorder, yet it's rare. When it does
occur, it tends to be nonfatal (ie 90%), unlike the case seen with other
disorders ("It's not like the DVT you can get after surgery or after having
a baby...")
What a timely article! It ends well, too- comparing the DVT of the pill
with the DVT after pregnancy (the latter can be fatal). Their link is
http://www.medmeetings.com/Search/search.asp (it's the 6/15/99 issue)
<< I'm so glad none of my family members are forced by circumstance to
see you as their physician. I'll bet the cemetaries are starting to
fill with your patients.>>
Pure bullshit; no substance, all lies.
<< So what was the British study about the negative side-effects of the
pill lasting for 10 years after cessation? >>
Find it, post it, and we'll discuss it after I review it. It would fly
totally against what is preached in all medically peer reviewed journals and
textbooks.
> Divorce rates.<<
There are many things that affect divorce rates - 2 worker couples,
societal stressors. You can't plow all psychosocial ills onto one little
itty bitty pill.
> Fine, but live up to your responsibility -- quit killing the children.<<
Nobody is "killing children"; they are just having abortions.
> Orgy sexpot? You have a very revealing viewpoint. I'd never trust you
> alone with a young girl.<<
ROFL!!! (I was thinking the same thing about you.) BTW, when you come
to Fairfax, VA, watch out for a handsome looking guy with a PL-hating little
vicious dog. I've already shown him your letters, so if he sees you, he'll
piss on your feet.
>>You're an idiot Borges. Do you know about the big pro-life rally
coming to Fairfax County this summer. I intend on coming for it -- are
you going to come out and say "hey"?<<
Yup, with my PC dog Toto. Do wear goloshes.
> Heh -- I'm slain<<
You sure are!!! <g>
Al.
Al Borges
This is really a discussion group, not a Christian prayer group section.
<g> God isn't guilty of anything; its his portrayal by supposed loyalists
that persecute, kill, and maim in His name. Then there are those that write
that He slew whole communities- I really doubt that a loving God would fall
into this picture.
Regards, AL.
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:37706030...@neo.rr.com...
Salomeh
elqu...@aol.com (El QueSabe) wrote:
> In article <7km42n$je3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Salomeh <salomeh@my-
deja.com> writes:
>
> >Exactly. Except, that it is becoming apparent that those self-
> >righteous PL's have more interest in *forcing* women to live by their
> >moral standards and *punish* those who don't (by forcing them to
> >continue unwanted pregnancies).
>
> Don't kill.
>
> I'd hate to think that you would have to be forced "to live by [our]
> moral standards."
Your standards give a microscopic fetus superior rights to that of a
born woman. I disagree. In that manner you are trying to force women
to live by your standards.
> One would think that a man or woman would know *before* a chance at
> sex if the possible pregnancy is wanted or not--and make a decision
> based on that desire.
So do YOU only have sex to procreate??? I don't. I actually ENJOY
it. And I use birth control because at this time I do not want
children. If/when it fails, I have options at my disposal. Again...if
you believe sex is ONLY for procreation then go ahead and either be
celibate or have 25 kids....don't force your beliefs on the rest of us.
> You paint women as really stupid. No wonder men have problems
> committing to such women--those women are committed only to
> themselves.
No I don't.....John Sweet does. Where in my statement do you feel I
paint women to be stupid? I believe these extremists are trying to
force women back into a puritanical hell by trying to outlaw abortion
and get rid of birth control. How does that paint them as stupid? If
yuo can't commit to a woman that's your problem.
John Miskell
>In article <19990622215824...@ngol07.aol.com>,
> elqu...@aol.com (El QueSabe) wrote:
>> In article <7km42n$je3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Salomeh <salomeh@my-
>deja.com> writes:
>>
>> >Exactly. Except, that it is becoming apparent that those self-
>> >righteous PL's have more interest in *forcing* women to live by their
>> >moral standards and *punish* those who don't (by forcing them to
>> >continue unwanted pregnancies).
>>
>> Don't kill.
>>
>> I'd hate to think that you would have to be forced "to live by [our]
>> moral standards."
>
>Your standards give a microscopic fetus superior rights to that of a
>born woman.
Nope. We recognize that one living human being, the fetus, has the
same and equal rights as another living human being, the mother.
> I disagree. In that manner you are trying to force women
>to live by your standards.
If you call banning abortion force then so-be-it. We have lots of laws
"forcing" people to do or not to do things. When a person attempts
suicide, we involuntrarily incarcerate them in a mental hospital --
even though suicide only affects "their body." We arrest illegal drug
users and prostitutes. We "force our standards" on lots of people for
lots of different reasons.
>
>> One would think that a man or woman would know *before* a chance at
>> sex if the possible pregnancy is wanted or not--and make a decision
>> based on that desire.
>
>So do YOU only have sex to procreate???
No
> I don't. I actually ENJOY
>it. And I use birth control because at this time I do not want
>children.
We use NFP
> If/when it fails, I have options at my disposal.
So do we. Move over and set another plate.
> Again...if
>you believe sex is ONLY for procreation then go ahead and either be
>celibate or have 25 kids....don't force your beliefs on the rest of us.
We've been married almost 20 years and we have 3 children. No
artificial birth control either.
>
>> You paint women as really stupid. No wonder men have problems
>> committing to such women--those women are committed only to
>> themselves.
>
>No I don't.....John Sweet does. Where in my statement do you feel I
>paint women to be stupid? I believe these extremists are trying to
>force women back into a puritanical hell by trying to outlaw abortion
>and get rid of birth control. How does that paint them as stupid? If
>yuo can't commit to a woman that's your problem.
It sure as hell paints Pro-Lifers as extreme and puritanical. Hey,
just because we don't like the fact that millions of living, healthy
children are literally being slaughtered doesn't make us puritanical.
Salomeh
mis...@voicenet.com (John Miskell) wrote:
> >Your standards give a microscopic fetus superior rights to that of a
> >born woman.
>
> Nope. We recognize that one living human being, the fetus, has the
> same and equal rights as another living human being, the mother.
It is not a human being....it is a human fetus. Big differnece in my
opinion.
> > I disagree. In that manner you are trying to force women
> >to live by your standards.
>
> If you call banning abortion force then so-be-it. We have lots of laws
> "forcing" people to do or not to do things. When a person attempts
> suicide, we involuntrarily incarcerate them in a mental hospital --
> even though suicide only affects "their body." We arrest illegal drug
> users and prostitutes. We "force our standards" on lots of people for
> lots of different reasons.
Yes..and all these apply to BORN people.
> >So do YOU only have sex to procreate???
>
> No
>
> > I don't. I actually ENJOY
> >it. And I use birth control because at this time I do not want
> >children.
>
> We use NFP
Which may be fine for you...for the rest of the world it has up to a
50% failure rate.
> > If/when it fails, I have options at my disposal.
>
> So do we. Move over and set another plate.
Again..your CHOICE....in my current situation mine would probably be to
terminate.
> > Again...if you believe sex is ONLY for procreation then go ahead
> > and either be celibate or have 25 kids....don't force your beliefs
> > on the rest of us.
> We've been married almost 20 years and we have 3 children. No
> artificial birth control either.
You are the exception I would think...I do not have any statistics
handy but, you know..some people are just a whole lot more fertile than
others and that method will not work for them as it has worked for
you. You choose NFP..fine....stop trying to take more reliable birth
control away from the rest of us.
> >No I don't.....John Sweet does. Where in my statement do you feel I
> >paint women to be stupid? I believe these extremists are trying to
> >force women back into a puritanical hell by trying to outlaw abortion
> >and get rid of birth control. How does that paint them as stupid?
> > If you can't commit to a woman that's your problem.
>
> It sure as hell paints Pro-Lifers as extreme and puritanical.
Well many of you are.... Geez..do read any of the posts from some of
your compatriots? Well..it's not YOUR uterus that's affected, so I can
see you not taking this to heart...but answer this
How will getting rid of birth control DECREASE the demand for abortion?
What do YOU have to say to the men who say "If you don't want to get
pregnant keep your legs shut"-sounds puritanical to me...as in
everything being the woman's fault for enjoying sex.
> Hey, just because we don't like the fact that millions of living,
> healthy children are literally being slaughtered doesn't make us
> puritanical.
No..it just makes you stupid....fetuses are not living breathing
children...the ones starving to death on our own street are, however.
And what are you doing for them?
Patrick L. Humphrey
>1) After being informed of the risks, and
>2) Being informed which contraceptives CAN act as
> abortifacients...
>They should be allowed to chose.
>Again, Catholics and other Christians can follow the
>demands of their conscience regarding BC without
>passing legislation.
Exactly -- because it's not the RCC's business in the first place.
>The problem with abortion is that ANOTHER PERSON
>is involved, and we [society] are obliged to protect the
>innocent. As always....
You're not society, Sweet, and you goddamn sure don't speak for me or mine.
You apparently do your best to ignore history, as well -- since as far back as
history goes, societies have assigned personhood (which *is* a social and
legal concept) at birth. You've got an opinion that you can't force on anyone
else -- choke on that, theocrat.
--PLH, why mince words when you can be honest?
hereti...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> 1) After being informed of the risks, and
> 2) Being informed which contraceptives CAN act as
> abortifacients...
Name one form of contraception that acts by removing
an implanted zyogote. And do cite a decent source
for your info. Medical, peer reviewed, etc.
> They should be allowed to chose.
> Again, Catholics and other Christians can follow the
> demands of their conscience regarding BC without
> passing legislation.
Then why do your leaders try to get laws changed
and take over the running of hospitals?
> The problem with abortion is that ANOTHER PERSON
> is involved, and we [society] are obliged to protect the
> innocent. As always....
A fetus is not another person, nor is a fetus considered
a person in any scripture. Therefore, your assertion that
the fetus is a person is just a personal opinion, and as such,
of no consequence to anyone.
John Sweet
Rebutting you in your own words,
> You've got an opinion that you can't force on anyone else
FYI: It's been a crime to kill an unborn child since the
13th Century BC. Again the person harming the fetus was
fined and not the mother. Under Jewish law it was a felony.
Abortion had been abhorred by every Christian nation from
325 AD on. It was a felony to kill a child in Britain from the
moment of conception onward post 1860. And it became a
felony in America from the moment of conception onward
from circa 1875.
In other words, Blackmun claimed in Section VI of Roe-v-Wade
that the Texas laws were of recent origin. He claimed that they
had no origins in ancient or even common law. But he was
absolutely 100% wrong!!! And anybody who has looked
into this matter knows Blackmun was wrong. Roe-v-Wade
was a terrible piece of judicial legislation that was based on
a number of serious errors, and time has proven this to be
true. And more and more people will recognize this truth
as we move forward.
I am writing a paper on this topic and would gladly forward
you a copy. Just send me a personal e-mail and let me know
what format you want. That is of course if you are interested
in the history of jurisprudence and abortion.
Yours truly,
John
PS: My essay is in MS-Word right now with hyperlinks so you
can check my references on-line if you want. I think its kinda
nifty myself.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Dear Pat,
You're talking to Patrick. Pat's last name is Winstanley. (It helps to keep
the confusion level down, even if only by a little.)
>Rebutting you in your own words,
>> You've got an opinion that you can't force on anyone else
>FYI: It's been a crime to kill an unborn child since the
>13th Century BC.
This ought to be interesting, considering that that predates YOUR little book.
>Again the person harming the fetus was fined and not the mother. Under
>Jewish law it was a felony.
Maybe there was a supposition that the woman didn't get injured with her
consent, no? Why you're wandering off on this tangent, I don't know, but
please confine yourself to the issue of the pregnant woman and _her_ choice.
>Abortion had been abhorred by every Christian nation from
>325 AD on. It was a felony to kill a child in Britain from the
>moment of conception onward post 1860. And it became a
>felony in America from the moment of conception onward
>from circa 1875.
Really? So much for the other anti-abortion clowns claiming they've always
had their way until that evil Supreme Court deprived them of their "right" to
force their horseshit on the rest of us.
>In other words, Blackmun claimed in Section VI of Roe-v-Wade
>that the Texas laws were of recent origin. He claimed that they
>had no origins in ancient or even common law. But he was
>absolutely 100% wrong!!! And anybody who has looked
>into this matter knows Blackmun was wrong. Roe-v-Wade
>was a terrible piece of judicial legislation that was based on
>a number of serious errors, and time has proven this to be
>true. And more and more people will recognize this truth
>as we move forward.
Tiem has proven that you and your dim-witted cohort have your heads impacted
further up your asses than ever, you mean. Women have the right to take the
responsibility for making their own choices, and there's not a goddamned thing
you or your impotent control-freak friends can do about it -- and that chaps
your hide, doesn't it? Maybe that's why your "movement" is increasingly being
relegated to the circus freaks and crazies, as more and more people realize
the advantages of moderation. You couldn't give a damn about actually doing
something to make abortions as unnecessary as possible, no -- you just want
everyone to bend over and let you make the rules. Unfortunately for you, too
many people in this country still believe in that pesky little Constitution
you'd apprently love to toss in the dustbin.
>I am writing a paper on this topic and would gladly forward
>you a copy. Just send me a personal e-mail and let me know
>what format you want. That is of course if you are interested
>in the history of jurisprudence and abortion.
>PS: My essay is in MS-Word right now with hyperlinks so you
>can check my references on-line if you want. I think its kinda
>nifty myself.
Sorry, but if you're going to tell me anything, you'll have to do it in
public, in front of your god and everyone else. You _definitely_ aren't
allowed in any of my mailboxes.
--PLH, that's just the way I am
John Miskell
>In article <3770e40f...@netnews.voicenet.com>,
> mis...@voicenet.com (John Miskell) wrote:
>> >Your standards give a microscopic fetus superior rights to that of a
>> >born woman.
>>
>> Nope. We recognize that one living human being, the fetus, has the
>> same and equal rights as another living human being, the mother.
>
>It is not a human being....it is a human fetus. Big differnece in my
>opinion.
Your opinion. The view of Medical Embryology and of
Genetics and Biology are that a living fetus is a human being.
>
>> > I disagree. In that manner you are trying to force women
>> >to live by your standards.
>>
>> If you call banning abortion force then so-be-it. We have lots of laws
>> "forcing" people to do or not to do things. When a person attempts
>> suicide, we involuntrarily incarcerate them in a mental hospital --
>> even though suicide only affects "their body." We arrest illegal drug
>> users and prostitutes. We "force our standards" on lots of people for
>> lots of different reasons.
>
>Yes..and all these apply to BORN people.
Yes, and you discriminate against those people who are living but in
the womb.
>
>> >So do YOU only have sex to procreate???
>>
>> No
>>
>> > I don't. I actually ENJOY
>> >it. And I use birth control because at this time I do not want
>> >children.
>>
>> We use NFP
>
>Which may be fine for you...for the rest of the world it has up to a
>50% failure rate.
Very credible research has been done by secular British medical
researchers in India where NFP has been taught on a wide scale basis
by a diminutive Catholic nun named Teresa and and her sisters. The
tests show that NFP when used is just as effective if not more
effective than the pill. This being the case, the big advantage over
the pill is NFP has no undesirable side-effects and hazards and
doesn't put a barrier between the wife and husband. People said that
third world "macho men" wouldn't cooperate with NFP but this hasn't
proven to be the case
.
>> > If/when it fails, I have options at my disposal.
>>
>> So do we. Move over and set another plate.
>
>Again..your CHOICE....in my current situation mine would probably be to
>terminate.
You say "terminate" but why don't you call it what it really is. You
would probably kill your child if you became pregnant. You might not
want to think of it as your child but the fact remains it is a living,
growing, developing human being.
>>
>> > Again...if you believe sex is ONLY for procreation then go ahead
>> > and either be celibate or have 25 kids....don't force your beliefs
>> > on the rest of us.
>
>> We've been married almost 20 years and we have 3 children. No
>> artificial birth control either.
>
>You are the exception I would think...I do not have any statistics
I do -- you want them?
>handy but, you know..some people are just a whole lot more fertile than
>others and that method will not work for them as it has worked for
>you.
Heh, we're an Irish/Filipino mix -- very fertile people.
>You choose NFP..fine....stop trying to take more reliable birth
>control away from the rest of us.
My aim is to stop abortion.
>
>> >No I don't.....John Sweet does. Where in my statement do you feel I
>> >paint women to be stupid? I believe these extremists are trying to
>> >force women back into a puritanical hell by trying to outlaw abortion
>> >and get rid of birth control. How does that paint them as stupid?
>> > If you can't commit to a woman that's your problem.
>>
>> It sure as hell paints Pro-Lifers as extreme and puritanical.
>
>Well many of you are.... Geez..do read any of the posts from some of
>your compatriots?
Have you read many of the posts from YOUR compatriots? Are you in
total agreement with everything they say?
> Well..it's not YOUR uterus that's affected, so I can
>see you not taking this to heart...but answer this
It doesn't have to be MY uterus for it to affect me.
>
>How will getting rid of birth control DECREASE the demand for abortion?
By education. Planned Parenthood and similar groups have gone to
schools for years and taught "safe-sex" and contraception, yet
"unwanted" pregnancies sky-rocketed and as has sexually transmitted
diseases. By teaching abstinance before marriage (or making a
commitment), living up to one's responsibilities, and by banning
elective abortion on demand. Presumably people will be much more
careful when they can't just go down to the local PP clinic and vacuum
their "unwanted" pregnancy away like they were in years gone by and in
countries where abortion on demand is still illegal.
>
>What do YOU have to say to the men who say "If you don't want to get
>pregnant keep your legs shut"-sounds puritanical to me...as in
>everything being the woman's fault for enjoying sex.
It is puritanical but it has a ring of truth. It shouldn't surprise
anyone when a healthy young woman of child-bearing age gets pregnant
after having sexual intercourse. When this happens it means something
in her reproductive system went right, not wrong. One can and should
enjoy sex -- but we all need to put sex in it's proper context -- the
same goes for food, booze, drugs, gambling, etc....
>
>> Hey, just because we don't like the fact that millions of living,
>> healthy children are literally being slaughtered doesn't make us
>> puritanical.
>
>No..it just makes you stupid....fetuses are not living breathing
>children...the ones starving to death on our own street are, however.
>And what are you doing for them?
You're talking about two different issues, yet it's people like me who
do most for those who are less fortunate -- including starving
children. The pro-abortionists answer to starving children is to abort
them before they're born. Still, 4,000 plus abortions are done every
single day in affluent America.
To ask what I'm doing for starving children is just an attempt at
shifting the focus. I'll bet you find the fact that thousands of
elderly people are abused, mistreated, and starving. So do I. That
being said, what exactly are YOU doing to prevent these things from
happening. How many abused elderly people have YOU personally rescued
and taken into your home. The same can be said for clean air and
water. How many factories have YOU cleaned up -- you see what I'm
getting at?
And I remind you that fetuses ARE living human beings whether you
want to own up to that fact or not. It makes no one look stupid to
stand up for those that cannot stand for themselves. The U.S. Supreme
Court once ruled that Black African slaves are not persons -- was the
court right?
Most people would say that humans begin at conception, and grow from
there. The baby in the womb before birth is the same baby as when he
or she is held in his mother's arms after birth. Birth causes a change
in the baby's method of getting food and air, but does not cause a
change in the baby itself. However, the pro-abortionists frequently
denies the humanity of the unborn baby, apparently in order to feel
more comfortable about killing him. Here are some citations on when
human life begins from various textbooks on Medical Embryology (a
branch of Biology dealing with embryos and their development):
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." [Keith L. Moore, The
Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, PA:
W.B. Saunders Co., 1988), p. 13.]
"At the moment of fertilization there has been determined not only the
existence of this new human being, but also his individuality."
[Margaret Shea Gilbert, Biography of the Unborn (Baltimore, MD: The
William & Wilkins Co., 1939), p. 5]
Human development begins at fertilization (conception) when an oocyte
(ovum) from a woman is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a
man." [Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud and Kohei Shiota, Color Atlas
of Clinical Embryology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1994), p.
1.]
"Production of a new human being starts with the union of a
spermatozoon and an ovum to form a single cell." [Anthony and
Thibodeau, Textbook of Anatomy & Physiology, p. 754]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process
by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male
and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism,
the zygote." [Jan Langman, Medical Embryology: Human Development -
Normal and Abnormal (Baltimore, MD: The Williams & Wilkins Co., 1977),
p. 3. (Dr. Jan Langman, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Anatomy at the
University of Virginia. This book has been translated into nine
languages.)]
These are not quotations from antiabortion literature; they come from
scientific textbooks on medical embryology used around the world. None
of the texts state that human life begins at birth, the third
trimester, viability, the eighth week, ovulation, or any stage of
development other than fertilization.
Not a single text states that when human life begins is unknown,
disputed or even uncertain. The textbooks date from 1919 to 1994,
indicating not only that this is not a new discovery, but it has been
unchanged for at least three quarters of a century.
The textbooks show that experts on human development agree as to when
human life begins. They all agree that the life of a new human being
begins at fertilization with the production of a zygote. When human
life begins is a subject on which there seem to be many opinions, but
there is only one fact. The lack of agreement among people is,
therefore, not because the scientists have not been able to determine
when human life begins, but because some people are mistaken.
The view of Genetics and Biology
In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on
the very question: When does human life begin? Appearing to speak on
behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally
known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell,
namely, that human life begins at conception and they told their story
with a profound absence of opposing testimony.
Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave a
confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology
and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.
"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To
accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human
has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion... it is
plain experimental evidence."
Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic,
added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is
present from the moment of conception."
Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of
Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood
and of the human body is at the moment of
conception."
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages
represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the
child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty... is not a human
being."
Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot
be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro
Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life
one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling - Roe v. Wade - "To
deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for
legalized abortion."
Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods
biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific
certainty."
John Miskell
"Oh the times they are a'changing"
When Does
Human Life
Begin?
The view of Medical
Embryology
and of
Genetics and Biology
Beckie Bush
>
> Becky it's too bad somebody didn't teach you about the
> signs your body gives when your fertile and infertile. Perhaps
> it would have helped you. And I'm very glad you've found
> forgiveness and peace with God. So please pray for me.
I have conceived in the beginning, the middle and the end of the month.
Tell me I ovulate regularly and I'll have to hit you over the head with
a frying pan. I can often tell when my period is going to start, maybe
a few days before (ask my husband, he's gotten real good at staying out
of my way then) but that has not helped my fertility at all. Even my OB
has told me that I basically have a 100% chance of getting pregnant
even in a blue moon.
Natural methods have not worked for me, and I will not give up sex with
my husband simply because I shouldn't take birth control.
--
Beckie Bush
-Life, what a beautiful choice...
Beckie Bush
> Only if not having sex is an option for you. But some people are
> still animals at heart and can't stop themselves from bedding
> anything that comes along.
People like you make me ill. So because I want to enjoy sex with my
husband without worrying about getting pregnant that makes me an animal
at heart?
Perhaps you should stop whacking off with yourself and get a grip on
reality. Not everyone having sex is doing it because they're animals.
Apparently you aren't doing it at all...
>
>
> Vote Libertarian!
Salomeh
mis...@voicenet.com (John Miskell) wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:57:52 GMT, Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >It is not a human being....it is a human fetus. Big differnece in my
> >opinion.
>
> Your opinion. The view of Medical Embryology and of
> Genetics and Biology are that a living fetus is a human being.
Well, there are hundreds of medical experts on each side of the fence.
I read what I can and make my decisions as to where I thnk the truth
lies. As is my right, unless you want that right stripped away too?
> >Yes..and all these apply to BORN people.
>
> Yes, and you discriminate against those people who are living but in
> the womb.
Because "people" do not live in wombs. Blastocysts, zygotes, fetuses,
embryos...they all live in wombs....but not people.
> >NFP may be fine for you...for the rest of the world it has up to a
> >50% failure rate.
>
> Very credible research has been done by secular British medical
> researchers in India where NFP has been taught on a wide scale basis
> by a diminutive Catholic nun named Teresa and and her sisters. The
> tests show that NFP when used is just as effective if not more
> effective than the pill. This being the case, the big advantage over
> the pill is NFP has no undesirable side-effects and hazards and
> doesn't put a barrier between the wife and husband. People said that
> third world "macho men" wouldn't cooperate with NFP but this hasn't
> proven to be the case
And I suppose the fact this method was so effectual in India had
nothing to do with poverty and malnutrition in that 3rd world country?
As opposed to the US where it fails an average of half the time and the
people are very well fed?
> >Again..your CHOICE....in my current situation mine would probably be
> >to terminate.
>
> You say "terminate" but why don't you call it what it really is. You
> would probably kill your child if you became pregnant.
No..I would have an abortion. It would be wrong to bring it into the
world then kill it. Terminate...abort...it's all the same..the willful
ending of a pregnancy.
>You might not want to think of it as your child but the fact remains
>it is a living growing, developing human being.
It has the potential to develop into a human being, but that does not
make it so. I have the potential to be a millionaire, but that does
not make it so, unfortunately.
> >You are the exception I would think...I do not have any statistics
>
> I do -- you want them?
Only if they are unbiased, current peer reviewed and medically accurate.
> >handy but, you know..some people are just a whole lot more fertile
> >than others and that method will not work for them as it has worked
> >for you.
>
> Heh, we're an Irish/Filipino mix -- very fertile people.
Congrats. But fertility has nothing to do with nationality.
> >You choose NFP..fine....stop trying to take more reliable birth
> >control away from the rest of us.
>
> My aim is to stop abortion.
You have also posted quite openly that you are opposed to birth control.
And I quote...
In article <374bf1e5...@netnews.voicenet.com>,
mis...@voicenet.com (John Miskell) wrote:
"I'm very much opposed to artificial birth control. I help them get
medical, financial, legal, and social assistance. You help them kill
their offspring -- it's your only solution."
Your aim is to make all women barefoot n' pregnant because that's the
way you think it should be.
> >Well many of you are.... Geez..do read any of the posts from some of
> >your compatriots?
>
> Have you read many of the posts from YOUR compatriots? Are you in
> total agreement with everything they say?
Hmm...hard one...well since they support my right to reproductive
freedom, and my choice to procreate when I decide it is right for
me....Yeah I'd have to say I agree with most of them to some extent.
> It doesn't have to be MY uterus for it to affect me.
How does a woman you do not even know having an abortion directly
affect you?
> >How will getting rid of birth control DECREASE the demand for
abortion?
>
> By education. Planned Parenthood and similar groups have gone to
> schools for years and taught "safe-sex" and contraception, yet
> "unwanted" pregnancies sky-rocketed and as has sexually transmitted
> diseases. By teaching abstinance before marriage (or making a
> commitment), living up to one's responsibilities, and by banning
> elective abortion on demand. Presumably people will be much more
> careful when they can't just go down to the local PP clinic and vacuum
> their "unwanted" pregnancy away like they were in years gone by and in
> countries where abortion on demand is still illegal.
Even in comitted relationships people stil do not want a kid every year
just because they want to have sex. Forcing your morals down their
throat won't change anything.
> >What do YOU have to say to the men who say "If you don't want to get
> >pregnant keep your legs shut"-sounds puritanical to me...as in
> >everything being the woman's fault for enjoying sex.
>
> It is puritanical but it has a ring of truth. It shouldn't surprise
> anyone when a healthy young woman of child-bearing age gets pregnant
> after having sexual intercourse. When this happens it means something
> in her reproductive system went right, not wrong. One can and should
> enjoy sex -- but we all need to put sex in it's proper context -- the
> same goes for food, booze, drugs, gambling, etc....
Back to "sex is ONLY for procreation" eh? Well...something did not
go "right" if she gets pregnant because her birth control failed. Glad
to see you admit to trying to force women to submit to your puritanical
views.
> >No..it just makes you stupid....fetuses are not living breathing
> >children...the ones starving to death on our own street are, however.
> >And what are you doing for them?
>
> You're talking about two different issues, yet it's people like me who
> do most for those who are less fortunate -- including starving
> children.
It's not an unrelated topic since we already have way too many people
on this planet, and too many homeless and hungry kids in this country.
Forcing women to have kids they do not want is only going to make this
situation worse. When we can not handle the problem now, how will we
handle it when there are an additional 1-2 million a year added into
the fray?
> The pro-abortionists answer to starving children is to abort them
> before they're born. Still, 4,000 plus abortions are done every
> single day in affluent America.
And not so affluent America. Those women who chose to terminate were
aware enough of their own situation to not bring a child into the world
they could not care for...financially or emotionally. It's a difficult
choice to make. I'm happy they have the courage and right act on their
choice.
> To ask what I'm doing for starving children is just an attempt at
> shifting the focus.
No..I want to know why you think we should make it worse than it is.
> I'll bet you find the fact that thousands of elderly people are
> abused, mistreated, and starving. So do I. That being said, what
> exactly are YOU doing to prevent these things from happening. <snip>
No...because I'm not trying to worsen the situation. You are.
> And I remind you that fetuses ARE living human beings whether you
> want to own up to that fact or not
In your opinion. They are "human", but not "a human being".
<snip>
John Sweet
You asked,
> Name one form of contraception that acts by removing
> an implanted zyogote. And do cite a decent source
> for your info. Medical, peer reviewed, etc.
Source: Medline.
Author: Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, Magee-Womens Hospital,
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Citation: http://www.medscape.com/Medscape/WomensHealth/
journal/1996/v01.n10/w160.creinin/w160.creinin.html
My extract:
There are only two IUDs approved for use in the US.
Paraguard and Progestasert. Paraguard is implanted
and left in place for up to 10 years, and Progestasert
is replaced every year. The first works on a copper-
based principle, and the second uses progesterone.
When a woman does become pregnant with Paraguard
there is a 6% chance her pregnancy is ectopic. This is a
three-fold increase when compared the pregnant women
in general. It also indicates that Paraguard is acting as
an abortifacient, preventing the embryo from attaching
to his/her mother's womb for nourishment.
When a woman becomes pregnant on Progestasert
there is a 24% chance her pregnancy is ectopic. This
is a twelve-fold increase when compared to pregnant
women in general. It should be noted that ectopic
pregnancies account for 9% of maternal deaths. These
pregnancies almost always result in the death of the
child. This article acknowledges that both IUDs act as
abortifacients, quoting from the article, the "spontaneous
abortion rate for women wearing IUDs is approximately
50%, versus approximately 15% for all pregnant women."
This means your baby is 3-4 times less likely to be
able to attach his/herself to your womb and find
nourishment.
*begin quote*
Pregnancy. If a woman who has an IUD in place becomes
pregnant, the clinician should immediately suspect ectopic
pregnancy. Copper-containing IUDs are associated with a
much lower ectopic pregnancy rate than progesterone-releasing
IUDs. About 6% of IUD pregnancies are extrauterine with
a ParaGard, and 24% with a Progestasert....
Spontaneous abortion is a more likely complication of
pregnancy with IUD use than is ectopic pregnancy. The
spontaneous abortion rate for women wearing IUDs is
approximately 50%, versus approximately 15% for all
pregnant women.[21] Because of the high risk for spontaneous
abortion, IUDs should be removed if pregnancy is diagnosed
and either the retaining or indicator string is visible. After
removal of an IUD with visible strings, the spontaneous
abortion rate decreases to about 30%.[22] If an IUD is left
in place, the relative risk of premature birth is increased
3- to 4.5-fold.[22-24] However, leaving an IUD in place
will not raise the risk of birth defects.[25,26]"
*end quote*
I hope this helps. By the way Medline is free.
You only have to register.
Regards,
John
Salomeh
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Dear HfromSF,
>
> You asked,
> > Name one form of contraception that acts by removing
> > an implanted zyogote. And do cite a decent source
> > for your info. Medical, peer reviewed, etc.
>
>
> My extract:
> There are only two IUDs approved for use in the US.
> Paraguard and Progestasert. Paraguard is implanted
> and left in place for up to 10 years, and Progestasert
> is replaced every year. The first works on a copper-
> based principle, and the second uses progesterone.
>
> When a woman does become pregnant with Paraguard
> there is a 6% chance her pregnancy is ectopic. This is a
> three-fold increase when compared the pregnant women
> in general. It also indicates that Paraguard is acting as
> an abortifacient, preventing the embryo from attaching
> to his/her mother's womb for nourishment.
This is not the same as removing an implanted embyo. It PREVENTS the
implantation. Different thing.
> When a woman becomes pregnant on Progestasert
> there is a 24% chance her pregnancy is ectopic. This
> is a twelve-fold increase when compared to pregnant
> women in general. It should be noted that ectopic
> pregnancies account for 9% of maternal deaths. These
> pregnancies almost always result in the death of the
> child. This article acknowledges that both IUDs act as
> abortifacients, quoting from the article, the "spontaneous
> abortion rate for women wearing IUDs is approximately
> 50%, versus approximately 15% for all pregnant women."
> This means your baby is 3-4 times less likely to be
> able to attach his/herself to your womb and find
> nourishment.
Again..it is not implanting...not the same as being implanted then
removed.
<irrelevancies snipped>
Also..you make no mention of the other methods of birth control which
yuo are seeking to take away from the women of this country.
Al Borges
> Genetics and Biology are that a living fetus is a human being.
fence.
I read what I can and make my decisions as to where I thnk the truth
lies. As is my right, unless you want that right stripped away too?<<
Hi Salomeh!
He he... watch your back end with these PLs! <g> I specifically went to
the medical library located in the biggest community hospital near my home
and found only ONE textbook that referred the fetus as a "human being", with
the 2 dozen other pathology, gynecological, and pediatric textbooks
referring to it as a "fetus" or "conceptus". That one book was written by a
PLer physician that believed that we should force women with congenitally
defective fetuses to have mandatory intrauterine operations to correct such
defects (the cost burden, of course falling upon the woman). It was
definitely made for good neo-Nazi like reading... true assholery.
Regards, AL.
John Miskell
wrote:
>MISKELL: > Your opinion. The view of Medical Embryology and of
>> Genetics and Biology are that a living fetus is a human being.
>SALOMEH: Well, there are hundreds of medical experts on each side of the
>fence.
>I read what I can and make my decisions as to where I thnk the truth
>lies. As is my right, unless you want that right stripped away too?<<
>
>Hi Salomeh!
>
> He he... watch your back end with these PLs! <g> I specifically went to
>the medical library located in the biggest community hospital near my home
>and found only ONE textbook that referred the fetus as a "human being", with
>the 2 dozen other pathology, gynecological, and pediatric textbooks
>referring to it as a "fetus" or "conceptus".
Big deal - a fetus is a human being. Hey, if your books refer to an
infant as such without specifically refering to it's humanity does
that make an infant a non-human being too? Evidently in your opinion
is does. You'd better go back to the Dom Rep and ask for your tuition
back.
> That one book was written by a
>PLer physician that believed that we should force women with congenitally
>defective fetuses to have mandatory intrauterine operations to correct such
>defects (the cost burden, of course falling upon the woman). It was
>definitely made for good neo-Nazi like reading... true assholery.
That's why it was in the library Al. There's certainly true assholery
being exhibited around here -- and it's all coming from a tired fat
FMG called Borges.
John Miskell
"Oh the times they are a'changing"
Fairfax '99
John Sweet
Next time try reading the rest of the article instead of just
skimming it. With an IUD there is a 50% chance of
spontaneous abortion, I presume this means after
implantation although the author doesn't make this
absolutely clear. After implantation and diagnosis
of pregnancy, when the IUD is removed there is a
30% risk of spontaneous abortion (a.k.a. miscarriage).
Again this is compared to a 15% chance for normal
mothers. Conclusion? IUDs increase the risk of
miscarriage after implantation.
*begin and repeat quote*
Because of the high risk for spontaneous abortion, IUDs
should be removed if pregnancy is diagnosed and either the
retaining or indicator string is visible. After removal of an IUD
with visible strings, the spontaneous abortion rate decreases
to about 30%.[22] If an IUD is left in place, the relative risk
of premature birth is increased 3- to 4.5-fold.[22-24]
*end quote*
Skimming... It's an easy thing to do in this NG.
Sometimes it just doesn't pay off.
Melanie
self-control... the consequences are permanent...
choice for abortion or not. She can't get the baby she aborted back, and
she can't abort the ones that were born now
(at least not without legal charges.) I don't see how that underscores the
necessity to keep abortion as an option for the
time being. It has nothing to do with her sexual activity level... it has
to do with what an abortion does....takes the life of
her unborn child.
--Melanie
Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7koq6f$ikq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> It just goes to show it happens to women of all sexual activity levels
> and underscores why abortion has to be kept as an option for the time
> being.
>
> In article <7koogt$hui$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Beckie Bush <bec...@presortservices.com> wrote:
> > I hear ya loud and clear!
> >
> > It's pathetic that some "pro lifers" see a woman who has an abortion
> as
> > a slut who should've said no, should've kept her legs shut blah blah
> > blah...
text cut...
John Sweet
In case you want to know more about the Billings method
(a type of NFP) here is a very detailed web-site:
http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/bc_701.htm
Because of you situation it may not help you. But you
may be able to help someone else with this knowledge.
I know artificial birth control is no picnic for some
people. Some of the side effects of the hormones -
especially the estrogen - are very troublesome.
I hope we can both agree that NFP first is a good
philosophy for women. It protects their health, saves them
money, and involves their husbands. I have heard that
many women feel better and they experience less
stress when their husbands know what is going on
with them.
Melanie
Beckie Bush <bec...@presortservices.com> wrote in message
news:7koogt$hui$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I hear ya loud and clear!
>
> It's pathetic that some "pro lifers" see a woman who has an abortion as
> a slut who should've said no, should've kept her legs shut blah blah
> blah...
I'm glad that you said "some." By the way, I've seen plenty of people who
say the support abortion
rights with similar attitudes about people "sleeping around." I do think
that a lot of problems are
avoided by keeping sex within marriage including the need for a large
percentage of the abortions.
> In all honesty I have had sex with 4 men. My first was with someone I
> really loved and should have married but didn't (baby up for adoption)
> the second was my ex-husband (kept baby, beautiful 3 year old who now
> claims that mommy has cooties) and the third was the infamous one night
> stand (baby aborted) and the fourth obviously is my current husband,
> and he is rather sterile (of course, I still take birth control just in
> case one of my many eggs decides it's gonna make a run). Note that 3/4
> partners has equaled pregnancy and I am far from what I am consider a
> slut who couldn't keep her legs shut. With two guys it took one time of
> having sex.
Yep.... that's all it takes sometimes.
>
> This is why we need to approach birth control differently, both for men
> and women. Women are not wholly to blame, men have a responsibility
> when they opt to have sex with someone.
Men do/should have a responsibility when they have sex with someone. They
should also show
proper respect. On the other hand, even if birth control issues could be
wholly transferred to men, women
would still have to be careful or deal with the consequences. IMO, leaving
the abortion decision totally with the
woman really leads to irresponsibility... after all, why should the man be
responsible for her decision? However,
since I do not support abortion on demand, I would expect men to be
responsible and support their children whether
they wanted them or not.
> In article <7kofvl$eav$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > But Beckie....THAT constitutes sexual freedom....and it implies (gasp)
> > that you have sex for *pleasure*....
> >
> > Don't you know that is a sin? We are ONLY supposed to allow men to
> use
> > us when we want to procreate. We are *not* permitted to enjoy the
> > experience as then we may want to do it often...but the man can enjoy
> > it all he wants since it is the *woman's* responsibility to keep her
> > legs shut if she does not wish for a child at the time.
Where'd you get that crazy idea? Certainly not from any of my prolife
friends.
--Melanie
> >
> > To do otherwise is a grievous sin for which all women will burn in
> > hell, right Sweet? Miskell?
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> >
>
> --
> Beckie Bush
> -Life, what a beautiful choice...
>
>
Ron Nicholson
> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:57:52 GMT, Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3770e40f...@netnews.voicenet.com>,
> > mis...@voicenet.com (John Miskell) wrote:
> >> >Your standards give a microscopic fetus superior rights to that of a
> >> >born woman.
> >>
> >> Nope. We recognize that one living human being, the fetus, has the
> >> same and equal rights as another living human being, the mother.
> >
> >It is not a human being....it is a human fetus. Big differnece in my
> >opinion.
>
> Your opinion. The view of Medical Embryology and of
> Genetics and Biology are that a living fetus is a human being.
>
No such evidence has been provided, included the various pro-life amicus
briefs presented in RvW. The beginning of human life and human being are not
the same thing. Do you have a medical definition from these specialties that
clearly define what a human being is.
> >> > I disagree. In that manner you are trying to force women
> >> >to live by your standards.
> >>
> >> If you call banning abortion force then so-be-it. We have lots of laws
> >> "forcing" people to do or not to do things. When a person attempts
> >> suicide, we involuntrarily incarcerate them in a mental hospital --
> >> even though suicide only affects "their body." We arrest illegal drug
> >> users and prostitutes. We "force our standards" on lots of people for
> >> lots of different reasons.
> >
> >Yes..and all these apply to BORN people.
>
> Yes, and you discriminate against those people who are living but in
> the womb.
The constitution discriminates, in defining personhood, and in who is is
eligible for protection with enumerated rights. It reads to the effect: those
born or naturalized.
> >> >So do YOU only have sex to procreate???
> >>
> >> No
> >>
> >> > I don't. I actually ENJOY
> >> >it. And I use birth control because at this time I do not want
> >> >children.
> >>
> >> We use NFP
> >
> >Which may be fine for you...for the rest of the world it has up to a
> >50% failure rate.
>
> Very credible research has been done by secular British medical
> researchers in India where NFP has been taught on a wide scale basis
> by a diminutive Catholic nun named Teresa and and her sisters. The
> tests show that NFP when used is just as effective if not more
> effective than the pill.
Given this is god's plan wouldn't he provide a system that is 100% perfect,
know that Catholic and other women use abortion. Omniscience and all that.
> This being the case, the big advantage over
> the pill is NFP has no undesirable side-effects and hazards and
> doesn't put a barrier between the wife and husband.
Which doesn't protect a spouse who has partner and strays bringing in
homosexuality, prostitution, STDs, and pregnancy for that 2% of the time that
this method is reported to fail.
> People said that
> third world "macho men" wouldn't cooperate with NFP but this hasn't
> proven to be the case
Evidence please. Rape doesn't occur, has been drastically reduced.
> >> > If/when it fails, I have options at my disposal.
> >>
> >> So do we. Move over and set another plate.
> >
> >Again..your CHOICE....in my current situation mine would probably be to
> >terminate.
>
> You say "terminate" but why don't you call it what it really is. You
> would probably kill your child if you became pregnant. You might not
> want to think of it as your child but the fact remains it is a living,
> growing, developing human being.
>
the medical definition is termination. I refer to aborting an ectopic
pregnancy as killing an embryo. Interestingly many have a problem with this
while it is correct.
> >> > Again...if you believe sex is ONLY for procreation then go ahead
> >> > and either be celibate or have 25 kids....don't force your beliefs
> >> > on the rest of us.
> >
> >> We've been married almost 20 years and we have 3 children. No
> >> artificial birth control either.
> >
> >You are the exception I would think...I do not have any statistics
>
> I do -- you want them?
>
Yes, I would. NFP is artificial. The conscience choice to to abstain in
artificial. The word doesn't require the use of a device or medication. Mouth
to mouth respiration for example uses no devices yet is artificial
respiration just the same.
> >handy but, you know..some people are just a whole lot more fertile than
> >others and that method will not work for them as it has worked for
> >you.
>
> Heh, we're an Irish/Filipino mix -- very fertile people.
> There is evidence that culture or race are more fertile than others, not
> withstanding environment, behviouar and the like.
> >You choose NFP..fine....stop trying to take more reliable birth
> >control away from the rest of us.
>
> My aim is to stop abortion.
You states earlier that you aren't will to compromise for better, safer, and
cheaper birth control. Stopping abortion is not you sole concern, or even the
primary one. BTW, you are only infested in stopping certain abortions.
> >> >No I don't.....John Sweet does. Where in my statement do you feel I
> >> >paint women to be stupid? I believe these extremists are trying to
> >> >force women back into a puritanical hell by trying to outlaw abortion
> >> >and get rid of birth control. How does that paint them as stupid?
> >> > If you can't commit to a woman that's your problem.
> >>
> >> It sure as hell paints Pro-Lifers as extreme and puritanical.
> >
> >Well many of you are.... Geez..do read any of the posts from some of
> >your compatriots?
>
> Have you read many of the posts from YOUR compatriots? Are you in
> total agreement with everything they say?
>
> > Well..it's not YOUR uterus that's affected, so I can
> >see you not taking this to heart...but answer this
>
> It doesn't have to be MY uterus for it to affect me.
> In what sense? What right of yours is being violated? What 'damage do you
> suffer that justifies controling the lives of others. That is criminal law,
> rather than civil law.
> By education. Planned Parenthood and similar groups have gone to
> schools for years and taught "safe-sex" and contraception, yet
> "unwanted" pregnancies sky-rocketed and as has sexually transmitted
> diseases.
Nonsense. BTW each new year of 14 and 15 years olds brings the same problems
that existed in the year before. No different that the education on heart
disease must be repeated as new people enter risk factors, and reasons to be
concerned.
> By teaching abstinance before marriage (or making a
> commitment), living up to one's responsibilities, and by banning
> elective abortion on demand. Presumably people will be much more
> careful when they can't just go down to the local PP clinic and vacuum
> their "unwanted" pregnancy away like they were in years gone by and in
> countries where abortion on demand is still illegal.
Why the comments on PP. My understanding they perform only 10% of all
national abortions, and that abortions are a very small segment of their
business.
You evidence that sluts who'll spread them at the drop of a hat have more
abortions. Whose idea of responsible, and why would better education, better
birth control required a ban without reducing abortion number, assuming such
a reduction is necessary or desired.
> >What do YOU have to say to the men who say "If you don't want to get
> >pregnant keep your legs shut"-sounds puritanical to me...as in
> >everything being the woman's fault for enjoying sex.
>
> It is puritanical but it has a ring of truth. It shouldn't surprise
> anyone when a healthy young woman of child-bearing age gets pregnant
> after having sexual intercourse. When this happens it means something
> in her reproductive system went right, not wrong. One can and should
> enjoy sex -- but we all need to put sex in it's proper context -- the
> same goes for food, booze, drugs, gambling, etc....
> >
> >> Hey, just because we don't like the fact that millions of living,
> >> healthy children are literally being slaughtered doesn't make us
> >> puritanical.
> >
> >No..it just makes you stupid....fetuses are not living breathing
> >children...the ones starving to death on our own street are, however.
> >And what are you doing for them?
>
> You're talking about two different issues, yet it's people like me who
> do most for those who are less fortunate -- including starving
> children. The pro-abortionists answer to starving children is to abort
> them before they're born. Still, 4,000 plus abortions are done every
> single day in affluent America.
Prove that assertion.
> To ask what I'm doing for starving children is just an attempt at
> shifting the focus. I'll bet you find the fact that thousands of
> elderly people are abused, mistreated, and starving. So do I. That
> being said, what exactly are YOU doing to prevent these things from
> happening.
Nothing, other than my taxes and supporting laws to end this. My personal
time and money goes to other charitable cause.
> How many abused elderly people have YOU personally rescued
> and taken into your home. The same can be said for clean air and
> water. How many factories have YOU cleaned up -- you see what I'm
> getting at?
I've welcomed street kids into my home, for a simple meal, regular visits,
and temporary shelter -- ain't no room for others. No I don't see.
> And I remind you that fetuses ARE living human beings whether you
> want to own up to that fact or not.
I disagree, but so what. The constitution hasn't been rewritten, or the
statutes on justifiable homicide or medical ethics.
> It makes no one look stupid to
> stand up for those that cannot stand for themselves.
It does at the expense of born people with rights. Establish that all fetuses
are persons and demonstrate this in each and every law -- or at least try --
and you would be consistent.
> The U.S. Supreme
> Court once ruled that Black African slaves are not persons -- was the
> court right?
>
Cite this please. The amendment against slavery in no way assigned personhood
to blacks. No such decision made blacks and whites subject to the whims of
the north as slaves. The laws of the south were unconstitutional -- period. I
think a war took place
> Most people would say that humans begin at conception, and grow from
> there.
Begin and are -- two very different concepts.
> The baby in the womb before birth is the same baby as when he
> or she is held in his mother's arms after birth.
False.
> Birth causes a change
> in the baby's method of getting food and air, but does not cause a
> change in the baby itself.
Sure it does. Brain functioning, aware, independence as a biological life
form...
> However, the pro-abortionists frequently
> denies the humanity of the unborn baby, apparently in order to feel
> more comfortable about killing him.
Nonsense. I'll get into the debate, but it is an assumption on your part.
> Here are some citations on when
> human life begins from various textbooks on Medical Embryology (a
> branch of Biology dealing with embryos and their development):
>
> "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." [Keith L. Moore, The
> Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, PA:
> W.B. Saunders Co., 1988), p. 13.]
>
Beginning and is! The definition of a human being is in this text.
> "At the moment of fertilization there has been determined not only the
>
> existence of this new human being, but also his individuality."
> [Margaret Shea Gilbert, Biography of the Unborn (Baltimore, MD: The
> William & Wilkins Co., 1939), p. 5]
Definition for human being by this author is...
> Human development begins at fertilization (conception) when an oocyte
> (ovum) from a woman is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a
> man." [Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud and Kohei Shiota, Color Atlas
> of Clinical Embryology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1994), p.
> 1.]
>
Begins, not is. What is the definition of a human being by this author.
> "Production of a new human being starts with the union of a
> spermatozoon and an ovum to form a single cell." [Anthony and
> Thibodeau, Textbook of Anatomy & Physiology, p. 754]
>
Starts, not is.
> "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process
> by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male
> and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism,
> the zygote." [Jan Langman, Medical Embryology: Human Development -
> Normal and Abnormal (Baltimore, MD: The Williams & Wilkins Co., 1977),
> p. 3. (Dr. Jan Langman, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Anatomy at the
> University of Virginia. This book has been translated into nine
> languages.)]
>
Begins and is.
> These are not quotations from antiabortion literature; they come from
> scientific textbooks on medical embryology used around the world. None
> of the texts state that human life begins at birth, the third
> trimester, viability, the eighth week, ovulation, or any stage of
> development other than fertilization.
> They don't dispute that a human being is present at birth, only that the
> beginning stages is conception.
> Not a single text states that when human life begins is unknown,
> disputed or even uncertain. The textbooks date from 1919 to 1994,
> indicating not only that this is not a new discovery, but it has been
> unchanged for at least three quarters of a century.
>
No pro-choicers to my knowledge says that when this begins is in question.
Sexual maturity can also be said to begin with the egg, conception, the fetus
(eggs are present), birth, or the onset or completion of puberty.
> The textbooks show that experts on human development agree as to when
> human life begins.
Begins.
> They all agree that the life of a new human being
> begins at fertilization with the production of a zygote.
Begins.
> When human
> life begins is a subject on which there seem to be many opinions, but
> there is only one fact. The lack of agreement among people is,
> therefore, not because the scientists have not been able to determine
> when human life begins, but because some people are mistaken.
>
False. I'll try to dig up my sources but 'every human being owes its
existence to the human egg' is an excerpt from a pro-life doctors book.
Indicating the beginning. Other embryologist determine that meiosis is the
the point when new human life beings. Others determine that no human life has
been present for hundreds of thousands of years.
El QueSabe
>Your standards give a microscopic fetus superior rights to that of a
>born woman. I disagree. In that manner you are trying to force women
>to live by your standards.
>
Not superior. The same. The right to not be killed by another *just* because
the other wants to.
Vote Libertarian!
El QueSabe
>> One would think that a man or woman would know *before* a chance at
>> sex if the possible pregnancy is wanted or not--and make a decision
>> based on that desire.
>
>So do YOU only have sex to procreate??? I don't. I actually ENJOY
>it. And I use birth control because at this time I do not want
>children. If/when it fails, I have options at my disposal. Again...if
>you believe sex is ONLY for procreation then go ahead and either be
>celibate or have 25 kids....don't force your beliefs on the rest of us.
>
The purpose of sex is procreation and pair bonding. Sex should never be
treated lightly--it is treated this day like a sport. Want to have sex? Go
for it. But be responsible for all possible outcomes.
Vote Libertarian!
Ron Nicholson
> In article <7kqnc3$6qg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >Your standards give a microscopic fetus superior rights to that of a
> >born woman. I disagree. In that manner you are trying to force women
> >to live by your standards.
> >
>
> Not superior. The same. The right to not be killed by another *just* because
> the other wants to.
>
> Vote Libertarian!
Too bad rape, incest and medical health are just that.
Ron Nicholson
> In article <7kqnc3$6qg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
The purpose? Your numbers for women treating sex as a sport?
And what do you mean by all possible outcomes. Every women should know AIDS and
gonorrhea are possible outcomes of sex with a spouse or a long term relationship.
what is her responsibility? Suffer in silence? Be denied medical attention? No
criminal or civil prosecution?
Ron Nicholson
Yes, I've read it. And have seen an interview, plus his computer program in
operation.
It is still artificial, fallible, and although lacking in many side effects
doesn address when two people view sex differently.
Husband participation is not required, past saying no. There is no
definitive prove that it strengthens marriage (excluding other factors).
It is an alternative, with benefits for some, and it just happens to be
approved by the Catholic Church. Although I am still wondering how it is
different that rhythm under double effect doctrine.
Al Borges
news:37716045...@netnews.voicenet.com...
> Big deal - a fetus is a human being. Hey, if your books refer to an
> infant as such without specifically refering to it's humanity does
> that make an infant a non-human being too? <<
Hey John- you're finally catching on. I'm proud that the few neurons
that you have can finally grasp a concept. It's incredible how easy it is to
debunk your lies. Al.
Ron Nicholson
By George, he is getting it. Now the challenge is which human beings have
rights, why, and when one's rights override another.
Question: In you area what STDs is a doctor required to report to the CDC for
tracking and notification of partners. Or the illnesses and patients that must
be reported to the public health authority. And does syphilis during pregnant
required reporting, or just c-section for delivery.
Thanks
Beckie Bush
Actually John it's a moot point as far as I am concerned. You see, my
husband is sterile. He can't have kids. Well, actually there is about a
25% chance to he could impregnate me. I am not on Depo for birth
control reasons although I used to be. The shot has helped control
BLEEDING. If this shot were to be illegal, or if all the pharmacies
John Miskell won support from were to stop carrying this shot, I'd be
shit up a creek.
I stated in an earlier post somewhere that before I got on the shot I
would get so weak that I would end up in the hospital. I had
complications after my son was born and the only thing that has helped
at all is taking the Depo.
That is only part of my point of not taking birth control away. We want
to see less abortions, not more unwanted pregnancies. What John Miskell
wants is total control - he could care less about who is involved. He
wants to take away birth control and safe legal abortions so that women
will have to go to the back yard butchers. Whether John succeeds in
making abortion illegal or not women are always going to get them, and
while I do not always agree with them, they need a safe legal procedure
or else we will see our death tolls raise considerably.
Think about that. Instead of at least saving one person, you would be
losing two. Where is the logic of that?
Beckie
Ron Nicholson
> In article <3771B737...@home.com>, Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
>
> snip
> >Every women should know AIDS and
> > gonorrhea are possible outcomes of sex with a spouse or a long term
> relationship.
> > what is her responsibility? Suffer in silence? Be denied medical attention? No
> > criminal or civil prosecution?
>
> Pregnancy is not a disease.
Agreed. So, what. Syphilis is a disease and affects the outcome. Rape, Incest are
not diseases - but supported by pro-life, as is the complication of ectopic pregnant
a disease of either party. What your point. I seem to recall asking a general
question of a doctor, Al, not insinuating pregnancy is a disease. I asked the
outcome, and reporting.
John Miskell
wrote:
>John Miskell <mis...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
>news:37716045...@netnews.voicenet.com...
>> Big deal - a fetus is a human being. Hey, if your books refer to an
>> infant as such without specifically refering to it's humanity does
>> that make an infant a non-human being too? <<
>
> Hey John- you're finally catching on. I'm proud that the few neurons
>that you have can finally grasp a concept. It's incredible how easy it is to
>debunk your lies. Al.
There you have it folks. According to Al Borges, even an infant is not
yet a human being and deserving of protection under the law. Oh what
ghoulish reasons does Big Al have for such a twisted assertion? Could
it be organ harvesting?
Brian Charles Kohn
elqu...@aol.com (El QueSabe) escribió en el mensaje de
noticias <19990623235804...@ngol06.aol.com>:
>>born woman. I disagree. In that manner you are trying to force women
>>to live by your standards.
>Not superior. The same.
How is it the same? The woman wants the unwanted pregnancy
terminated. YOU SAY the fetus "wants" to "not be killed."
If you want I'll break out my Symbolic Logic textbooks and
demonstrate graphically how there is no way to respect both
"wants" equally. There is no way not to have superior and
inferior rights, when the rights are directly in conflict
with each other.
This is like when two cars approach an intersection at
right-angles to each other, you might think that they have
the same rights to pass through the intersection, but they
don't. In most if not all states, the car on the right has
the right-of-way.
If I have to choose, and I have to, between giving
"right-of-way" to a self-aware Human being or a fetus which
has no uniquely Human behavioral qualities yet, I'll choose
the former, thankyouverymuch.
just bicker®
Brian Charles Kohn
>The purpose of sex is procreation and pair bonding. Sex should never be
>treated lightly--it is treated this day like a sport. Want to have sex? Go
>for it. But be responsible for all possible outcomes.
I don't think anyone is saying anything to contradict this;
using birth control is a great way to take such
responsibility, and when birth control fails, there is
abortion to cover for medical science's failings. No one is
suggesting anything irresponsible.
just bicker®
Brian Charles Kohn
ss...@waterw.com (s) escribió en el mensaje de noticias
<ssing-24069...@amax32.vramp.net>:
>Pregnancy is not a disease.
Neither is appendicitis. What does that have to do with
anything?
just bicker®
John Sweet
It sound like you are taking Depo for medical reasons and
not for contraception. I personally do not know much about
Depo - although some of the side effects I've heard about in
alt.contraception make me shrudder.
I am certain that Congress will not ban the use of female
hormones for therapeutic reasons. This appears to be the
case in your situation - so no need to worry.
If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-abortion by
contraception as well. It's the only position that is
consistent and makes sense from a moral perspective.
That being said, I want to put the abortionists out of
business first. Then I would like to tackle the big
drug companies who are preying off of women this
way.
I have no objection to using hormones to treat certain
diseases. I myself take prednisone regularly so I
know it's no picnic. Therapy is one thing. Abortion
as birth control is another thing all together.
The frightening thing is that your case is atypical.
Over 60% of women in this country use birth control
according to the CDC [ages 16-40 or something like
that]. Do you realize the promiscuity this represents
and the resulting threat to women's health?
It's truly tragic. Women in this country have given up
on being mothers, and many of them have given up on
begin chaste. Being chaste is not a dirty thing - or
something to be ashamed about.
This in my opinion is where the real problem lies.
It's not just the health risks and the suffering that women
have to endure. It's being promiscuous and being closed
off to new life. I firmly believe women long for and
deserve so much more than this.
Brian Charles Kohn
Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> escribió en el mensaje de
noticias <377257A2...@neo.rr.com>:
>If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-abortion by
>contraception as well. It's the only position that is
>consistent and makes sense from a moral perspective.
I really wish that was true John, since it would go further
to secure abortion rights than anything I could say.
just bicker®
Brian Charles Kohn
Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> escribió en el mensaje de
noticias <377257A2...@neo.rr.com>:
>Over 60% of women in this country use birth control
>according to the CDC [ages 16-40 or something like
>that]. Do you realize the promiscuity this represents
>and the resulting threat to women's health?
How does your question relate to the statement you made
before it? You jump from a statistic about the number of
women who use birth control and then imply that those women
are promiscuous. Promiscuity is "sexual activity not
restricted to one sexual partner." So your statistics do
nothing to support your assertion. You're simply blowing
smoke.
I don't doubt that promiscuity represents a health risk to
women; but that has nothing to do with birth control. As a
matter of fact, women having sex without birth control
represent a much greater health risk.
>Being chaste is not a dirty thing - or
>something to be ashamed about.
It is also not something that is particularly noble, though
you'd love to present it as such. I'm sure, in its day,
flagellation was considered noble too.
just bicker®
hereti...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Dear HfromSF,
>
> You asked,
> > Name one form of contraception that acts by removing
> > an implanted zyogote. And do cite a decent source
> > for your info. Medical, peer reviewed, etc.
>
> Author: Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, Magee-Womens Hospital,
> University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
> Citation: http://www.medscape.com/Medscape/WomensHealth/
> journal/1996/v01.n10/w160.creinin/w160.creinin.html
>
> There are only two IUDs approved for use in the US.
> Paraguard and Progestasert. Paraguard is implanted
> and left in place for up to 10 years, and Progestasert
> is replaced every year. The first works on a copper-
> based principle, and the second uses progesterone.
>
> When a woman does become pregnant with Paraguard
> there is a 6% chance her pregnancy is ectopic. This is a
> three-fold increase when compared the pregnant women
> in general. It also indicates that Paraguard is acting as
> an abortifacient, preventing the embryo from attaching
> to his/her mother's womb for nourishment.
>
It means that the method failed. This does not prove
that the IUD works by removing an implanted embryo.
All methods of contraception, including sterilization,
fail. That does NOT mean that the method of contraception
works by removing an implanted embryo.
> there is a 24% chance her pregnancy is ectopic.
Also true when a tubal ligation sterilization fails;
the rate of ectopic pregnancy is significantly higher.
Does this mean that a tubal ligation works by removing
an implanted embryo?
> This
> is a twelve-fold increase when compared to pregnant
> women in general. It should be noted that ectopic
> pregnancies account for 9% of maternal deaths. These
> pregnancies almost always result in the death of the
> child.
An embryo is not a child. No medical source refers
to an ectopic pregnancy as a "child" . ..
> This article acknowledges that both IUDs act as
> abortifacients, quoting from the article, the "spontaneous
> abortion rate for women wearing IUDs is approximately
> 50%, versus approximately 15% for all pregnant women."
A spontatneous abortion is not an induced abortion.
So your conclusion is incorrect. I am going to check on the numbers
you quote, btw.
> This means your baby is 3-4 times less likely to be
> able to attach his/herself to your womb and find
> nourishment.
Nope. Abortion means that an implanted embryo is removed.
Failure to implant is NOT an abortion.
And a zygote is not a "baby" unless you have been abusing
gasoline fumes or smoking crack ...
> *begin quote*
> Pregnancy. If a woman who has an IUD in place becomes
> pregnant, the clinician should immediately suspect ectopic
> pregnancy. Copper-containing IUDs are associated with a
> much lower ectopic pregnancy rate than progesterone-releasing
> IUDs. About 6% of IUD pregnancies are extrauterine with
> a ParaGard, and 24% with a Progestasert....
Another thing a lot of women don't know about IUDs is that
there is a much higher failure rate in nulliparous women.
Don't know the exact reason why that is, though.
> Spontaneous abortion is a more likely complication of
> pregnancy with IUD use than is ectopic pregnancy. The
> spontaneous abortion rate for women wearing IUDs is
> approximately 50%, versus approximately 15% for all
> pregnant women.[21] Because of the high risk for spontaneous
> abortion, IUDs should be removed if pregnancy is diagnosed
> and either the retaining or indicator string is visible. After
> removal of an IUD with visible strings, the spontaneous
> abortion rate decreases to about 30%.[22] If an IUD is left
> in place, the relative risk of premature birth is increased
> 3- to 4.5-fold.[22-24] However, leaving an IUD in place
> will not raise the risk of birth defects.[25,26]"
> *end quote*
>
> I hope this helps. By the way Medline is free.
> You only have to register.
Actually, I just use a university medical library, it's free
too.
John Sweet
I quoted some recent statistics concerning IUDs and
ectopic pregnancies. The number indicated that the ectopic
pregnancy rate was 6% for Paraguard and 24% for
Progestasert. These are the only two IUDs approved
for use in the USA (according to this 1996 report).
You replied,
> It means that the method failed. This does not prove
> that the IUD works by removing an implanted embryo.
> All methods of contraception, including sterilization,
> fail. That does NOT mean that the method of contraception
> works by removing an implanted embryo.
You are mistaken my friend, and any good physician can
confirm this. I will try to explain this the best I can, but if
you are going to school for this you should certainly ask
your teachers.
To determine if a contraceptive acts to prevent implantation
[a.k.a. causes an induced abortion to pro-lifers], we only
need to look at the fertilized egg. We can do this with a
simple formula that describes each possible outcome.
NE = EUP + FI + MC + NP where
NE = the number of embryos conceived (by natural
means or birth control "failure")
EUP = extrauterine pregnancies (i.e. ectopic pregnancies)
FI = embryos that fail to implant
MC = miscarriages after implantation
NP = normal pregnancies (result in live births)
Note: Many ob/gyns define the total number of
pregnancies (TP) as MC + EUP + NP.
In normal women EUP (ectopic) is around 2% of TP.
And MC (miscarriage) is about 15% of TP.
FI (failure to implant) is unknown. For women not
using contraceptives it equals FIN (failed to implant,
naturally). For women using contraceptives it equals
FI plus IFI (induced failure to implant). [Pro-lifers
call this what it is... an induced abortion.]
What's the use of this formula?
Well if EUP (ectopic) is high...
which it is for both types of IUD...
there are only two possible explanations.
One is biological: hormonal changes (induced
by the contraceptive) has decreased the mobility
of the embryo in the tubes. This caused the
ectopic pregnancy. [Again this is a form of
induced abortion, secondary to an ectopic
pregnancy that is 99% of the time fatal to the
infant].
The second is based on the fact that the contraceptive
changed the mothers womb and prevented implantation.
This means that IFI increased substantially. Because
IFI increased, NP must decrease. Thus the increase
in the ectopic pregnancy rate is due to a decrease in
the overall number of pregnancies. This is a clear sign
that an induced abortion has taken place because the
natural rate for ectopic pregnancies is only 2%.
Of course for women who have been sterilized also
have an increased rate of ectopic pregnancies. But
the mechanism in that case is the sperm goes in but
the embryo not come out. Simple enough. So in
that case we agree that sterilization does not:
(a) change the lining of the mothers womb preventing
implantation, or
(b) cause an implanted embryo to abort
Finally, your comment that
> That does NOT mean that the method of contraception
> works by removing an implanted embryo.
Is directly contradicted by the report I quoted.
To reiterate...
*begin quoting from the report*
Spontaneous abortion [a.k.a. a miscarriage] is a more likely
complication of pregnancy with IUD use than is ectopic
pregnancy. The spontaneous abortion rate for women wearing
IUDs is approximately 50%, versus approximately 15% for all
pregnant women.[21] Because of the high risk for spontaneous
abortion, IUDs should be removed if pregnancy is diagnosed
and either the retaining or indicator string is visible. After
removal of an IUD with visible strings, the spontaneous
abortion rate decreases to about 30%.[22] If an IUD is left
in place, the relative risk of premature birth is increased
3- to 4.5-fold.[22-24] However, leaving an IUD in place
will not raise the risk of birth defects.[25,26]"
*end quote*
Again, I hope this helps.
El QueSabe
>
>The constitution discriminates, in defining personhood, and in who is is
>eligible for protection with enumerated rights. It reads to the effect: those
>born or naturalized.
>
Having just read the consitution--again--I can find no definition of personhood
in it at all.
Vote Libertarian!
El QueSabe
>In article <3770e40f...@netnews.voicenet.com>,
> mis...@voicenet.com (John Miskell) wrote:
>> >Your standards give a microscopic fetus superior rights to that of a
>> >born woman.
>>
>> Nope. We recognize that one living human being, the fetus, has the
>> same and equal rights as another living human being, the mother.
>
>It is not a human being....it is a human fetus. Big differnece in my
>opinion.
>
What's the difference between a human being and human fetus and *why* does the
difference allow you to kill?
Vote Libertarian!
El QueSabe
<bec...@presortservices.com> writes:
>EQS the undersexed wrote:
>> Only if not having sex is an option for you. But some people are
>> still animals at heart and can't stop themselves from bedding
>> anything that comes along.
>*****
>People like you make me ill. So because I want to enjoy sex with my
>husband without worrying about getting pregnant that makes me an animal
>at heart?
>
>Perhaps you should stop whacking off with yourself and get a grip on
>reality. Not everyone having sex is doing it because they're animals.
>
>Apparently you aren't doing it at all...
>
How sweet.
You and your husband can pair bond all you wish...so long as you don't kill the
results of your pair bonding. You would sully an act of love with an act of
death.
How sweet.
Vote Libertarian!
Ron Nicholson
> In article <3771A1B0...@home.com>, Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> writes:
>
> >
> >The constitution discriminates, in defining personhood, and in who is is
> >eligible for protection with enumerated rights. It reads to the effect: those
> >born or naturalized.
> >
>
> Having just read the consitution--again--I can find no definition of personhood
> in it at all.
Amendment on naturalization and birth. Try the dictionary on what is required to
define such.
Ron Nicholson
Biological independence. And a human fetus infringing on a human beings rights.
Medical ethics. Justifiable homicide statutes -- the perception of the individual,
not the crime.
Brian Charles Kohn
elqu...@aol.com (El QueSabe) escribió en el mensaje de
noticias <19990624184357...@ngol04.aol.com>:
>You and your husband can pair bond all you wish...so long as you don't kill the
>results of your pair bonding.
Says who? Do you consider yourself a god? Or perhaps you
consider yourself a slave master and the rest of us your
slaves?
just bicker®
Al Borges
neurons
>that you have can finally grasp a concept. It's incredible how easy it is
to
>debunk your lies. Al.
infant is not yet a human being and deserving of protection under the law.
Oh what ghoulish reasons does Big Al have for such a twisted assertion?
Could it be organ harvesting?<<
Don't tell me you're one of those intellectually blighted 3rd generation
Moonies against the use of dead fetal organs to save the life of an actually
*person*! Tsk tsk, John. You're about as right about this as you are about
the pill. Yup, I'll have to get my PC dog Toto revved up for the PL march in
Fairfax.
Regards, Al.
John Sweet
I have been treated by at least a dozen doctors in my
life. I will wager you $100 that you NEVER make it
past residency. No matter what your grades are.
Best of Luck,
John
PS: I'm guessing you'll drop out out of frustration as soon
as your mentor sees what kind of person you really are.
If you think this newsgroup is "stressful" - notice all your
cursing? - wait to you see what real life is like my friend.
You will never, ever make it without some major help
from the Lord.
John Sweet
I don't do free research for rude med students.
I already have my degree already - thanks.
Time to earn your own. As always...
Yours truly,
John
hereti...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Dear Becky and Salomeh,
>
> Of course you can call me names and think poorly of
> me - like you like to say "it's your choice". And you can
> claim that I'm "a misogynist" and other sorts of kooky
> crap.
It's not "kooky". You write like a rapist with literary
and religious pretentions.
> You can even think that I think that sex is only for
> pro-creation and women should never enjoy sex. And you
> can say that I think that women who have sex are basically
> sluts.
So you do hate your mother.
How does that make you feel?
btw, what are MEN who have sex then?
> And you can claim that abortion is simply a choice...
> And you'd be wrong on all counts.
No, for once I agree with them. You are a certifiable
misogynist, and abortion is a choice, and women who have
sex are no more sluts than the Virgin Mary was.
> You see I was married, and I know my wife enjoyed herself
> when we "had sex". And I know how great sex is.
So is your wife a slut?
After all, she has sex, so by your rules, she is basically a slut.
Probably faked an orgasm, too.
> I know that women "burn" for their husbands, and I know
> that chastity is just a tough for women sometimes as it is for
> a man. I know about many things women think are secret
> about their bodies, and that's a really good thing.
Actually, your knowledge is probably as fucked up about
women's body as your knowledge of the law and medicine.
> I think it's a good thing because it will help me teach my
> daughter.
You better NOT teach her about sex and their "secret" bodies.
When I was doing an internship at Adult Probation, one of the
POs who worked with molesters told me that a typical excuse
is "I was just teaching her about sex."
> And if, by some miracle, I would recover my
> health and find a fiancé, I would make a damn fine husband.
Why did wifey dump your sorry ass anyway?
Hope she has the sense to deny you visitation, in case
you decide to start your "lessons".
> Becky it's too bad somebody didn't teach you about the
> signs your body gives when your fertile and infertile. Perhaps
> it would have helped you. And I'm very glad you've found
> forgiveness and peace with God. So please pray for me.
I pray you get exactly what you deserve.,
> You seem like a pretty smart lady - quick with a comeback
> for sure - so you probably knew when you're ovulating and
> not any way. As one woman told me, "you'd have to be
> stupid not to know" (her opinion, not mine).
So she's a dumb ho. Many women CAN'T tell. So say people
who have knowledge in the field. Most women can tell when
their PERIOD is about to begin, but all of us have been caught
out with no tampons at some time or another. As for the cues
of ovulation, they are FAR more subtle.
> I would simply like to see that more women are taught these
> things.
I would simply like men like you to have your testicles
ripped off and fed to rats. For starters.
> I would like to see "accepted" medical practice change
> to a degree that women are always taught NFP first.
That would be insane as well as bad medicine.
Come back when you are the head of the AMA, wanker.
> Women
> should be encouraged to take these hormones as a last resort -
> not a first. And as for the other health risks they run, they
> should be full informed (along with their spouses).
Or we could just castrate men and store sperm.
> In my opinion, doctors should strongly recommend that a
> women try NFP for a year or so - even if they are unmarried.
You are completely insane. Where did you go to medical school?
> Once they do so perhaps a note could be made in their
> medical records. A similar thing happens when a couple
> goes to see a fertility specialist. They are required to wait
> and try natural methods first.
Not always.
> I am really opposed to abortion as birth control - and I feel
> most people are.
But most people want abortion legal.
> But I am not trying to take away anybody's
> BC.
Only because we don't let the legally insane decide what medical
tx people will use. NFP is contraindicated in many cases,
and it just doesn't work. It's fine if an unintended pregnancy
is acceptable, but most women don't find that to be acceptable.
> Most of the material I write is to educate other
> Christians and other people who don't want to use artificial
> birth control.
You? Educate someone? Oh, please. You haven't proven
any knowledge or expertise, so why should anyone listen to you?
Unless they are even more fucked up than you are.
> It's also to educate people who have been
> lied to by big pharmaceutical companies.
Prove it court, wankboy.
> And if you think
> it ain't been happening you are naive.... just look at what
> the tobacco companies did.
The tobacco companies lied about what tobacco did.
Pharmaceutical companies are legally obligated to inform users
of side effects, and they do.
YOU in fact seem in dire need of pharmaceuticals, say megadoses
of Prozac and lithium.
> Sex is for BOTH things....
> fun, enjoyment, pleasure, healing, mutual support, AND
> children. (btw - the church has always taught this)
Nope. Sex is for procreation only according to the books.
And divorce is verboten, btw. So you should never have sex
again, right?
> Women who enjoy sex aren't sluts... they are normal just
> like you and me.
That's not what you wrote earlier.
> That being said our sexuality isn't just
> "plumbing for hedonists" (I forget who coined this phrase).
> It's an integral part of who we are, and just like the words
> that come from our mouths... it says alot about who we
> really are.
Yeah, and what you are is insane and possible criminal.
hereti...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Dear HfromSF,
>
> I quoted some recent statistics concerning IUDs and
> ectopic pregnancies. The number indicated that the ectopic
> pregnancy rate was 6% for Paraguard and 24% for
> Progestasert. These are the only two IUDs approved
> for use in the USA (according to this 1996 report).
Haven't read the report, but will do so if it can be found.
I'll also check primary sources.
> You replied,
> > It means that the method failed. This does not prove
> > that the IUD works by removing an implanted embryo.
> > All methods of contraception, including sterilization,
> > fail. That does NOT mean that the method of contraception
> > works by removing an implanted embryo.
>
> You are mistaken my friend, and any good physician can
> confirm this.
You are not any sort of physician.
> I will try to explain this the best I can, but if
> you are going to school for this you should certainly ask
> your teachers.
Siince you don't even understand the basics of reproductive
biology, I don't think you can in any way contradict what
my teachers have already taught me.
> To determine if a contraceptive acts to prevent implantation
That is not what this was about. You said that the IUD
works by inducing abortion, ie removes an implanted embryo.
> [a.k.a. causes an induced abortion to pro-lifers],
Which is completely wrong. Abortion is not preventing implantation.
Therefore, since you have no basic understanding, your
online wanking off about subjects you know nothing of is of
no consequence.
> we only
> need to look at the fertilized egg. We can do this with a
> simple formula that describes each possible outcome.
Pregnancy is hardly a simple formula.
snip
> In normal women EUP (ectopic) is around 2% of TP.
> And MC (miscarriage) is about 15% of TP.
Source?
> FI (failure to implant) is unknown. For women not
> using contraceptives it equals FIN (failed to implant,
> naturally).
Nope. Many things can do that. Not all are "natural"
> For women using contraceptives it equals
> FI plus IFI (induced failure to implant).
If you are not smoking crack, you are completely whackawhacka
naturally.
> [Pro-lifers
> call this what it is... an induced abortion.]
Nope. More proof you are insane. Abortion is not a failure to implant.
> What's the use of this formula?
> Well if EUP (ectopic) is high...
> which it is for both types of IUD...
> there are only two possible explanations.
No, the real explanation is that you don't know fuck-all about
the subject but think such elaborate pseudo scholarly bullshit
will convince anyone that you know something. You don't.
> One is biological: hormonal changes (induced
> by the contraceptive) has decreased the mobility
> of the embryo in the tubes.
Never heard of that one. First of all, the embryo HAS
NO MOBILITY. An embryo has already implanted. A fertilized
egg, AKA zygote, has to go through a certain number of cell
divisions and re-organization before it can become an embryo.
Now please cite a source that says that contraception slows
mobility of anything. Actually, the term "mobility" is used
about sperm. The ovum is moved by the cilia in the Fallopian
tubes, if I recall some of my early courses.
> This caused the
> ectopic pregnancy.
An ecotopic pregancy is caused when an embryo implants
outside the uterus.
> [Again this is a form of
> induced abortion, secondary to an ectopic
> pregnancy that is 99% of the time fatal to the
> infant].
An ectopic pregnancy is not an infant.
> The second is based on the fact that the contraceptive
> changed the mothers womb and prevented implantation.
Source? Besides, preventing implantation is not abortion.
> This means that IFI increased substantially. Because
> IFI increased, NP must decrease. Thus the increase
> in the ectopic pregnancy rate is due to a decrease in
> the overall number of pregnancies.
Funny, the CDC says that the main reason there are more
ectopic pregnancies is the increase in STDs, esp. chlamydia,
which does not have a lot of symptoms and so women don't even
know they have it. It's an epidemic in some parts of the country.
> This is a clear sign
> that an induced abortion has taken place because the
> natural rate for ectopic pregnancies is only 2%.
What's "natural" and provide a source for this.
And you are completely insane asserting that an ectopic
pregnancy is an induced abortion! What drugs are you taking?
> Of course for women who have been sterilized also
> have an increased rate of ectopic pregnancies.
Yeah, because of the scar tissue, same as with the IUD
and women who have had STDs.
> But
> the mechanism in that case is the sperm goes in but
> the embryo not come out.
Same as the above. One theory in how an IUD works is that
it induces a low-grade infection. Or serious infections,
like a friend of mine who had the Dalkon shield. Lost her
uterus eventually. Why is an ectopic pregnancy an induced
abortion in one case and not in the other? INtent of the woman?
> Simple enough.
But completely wrong.
> So in
> that case we agree that sterilization does not:
>
> (a) change the lining of the mothers womb preventing
> implantation, or
> (b) cause an implanted embryo to abort
You still haven't shown that an implanted embryo is aborted
by any contraception method. All methods of contraception,
including sterilization, change something. Technically I
suppose you could call sterilization a barrier method, which
doesn't alter physiology.
> Finally, your comment that
> > That does NOT mean that the method of contraception
> > works by removing an implanted embryo.
>
> Is directly contradicted by the report I quoted.
Nope. You still haven't shown that.
Preventing implantation is NOT removing an implanted embryo.
> To reiterate...
>
> *begin quoting from the report*
> Spontaneous abortion [a.k.a. a miscarriage] is a more likely
> complication of pregnancy with IUD use than is ectopic
> pregnancy. The spontaneous abortion rate for women wearing
> IUDs is approximately 50%,
Now I will have to look that up.,
That is completely against anything I've read in an OB text,
and I have 'em all here . ..
> versus approximately 15% for all
> pregnant women.[21] Because of the high risk for spontaneous
> abortion, IUDs should be removed if pregnancy is diagnosed
Meaning it didn't work.
In cases of a woman who gets pregnant on the pill, she is
advised to stop taking that, too. A successful outcome
to pregnancy is difficult with an IUD in place, although
there are apocryphal stories about babies born holding on
to the IUD . .. a woman I knew had something like that happen.
You see, at the time they didn't realize that IUDs don't work
as well on women who have never had a child . .. .
> and either the retaining or indicator string is visible. After
> removal of an IUD with visible strings, the spontaneous
> abortion rate decreases to about 30%.[22] If an IUD is left
> in place, the relative risk of premature birth is increased
> 3- to 4.5-fold.[22-24] However, leaving an IUD in place
> will not raise the risk of birth defects.[25,26]"
> *end quote*
>
> Again, I hope this helps.
Yeah, more proof you should be locked up in a nice padded room
with nice nurses bringing you nice big pills. Don't worry, they
won't prevent implantation, so take your meds.
El QueSabe
>> Not superior. The same. The right to not be killed by another *just*
>because
>> the other wants to.
>>
>> Vote Libertarian!
>
>Too bad rape, incest and medical health are just that.
>
Just what?
Rape. Don't kill the child for the sins of the father.
Incest. Same as above.
Medical health. Only in cases of danger to the life of the woman, not just any
health reason.
Vote Libertarian!
El QueSabe
>The purpose? Your numbers for women treating sex as a sport?
The purpose of sex is procreation and pair bonding in humans. That's a fact.
Anything else is disfunctional. The joy of sex with a loving partner is part
of the meaning of life. To blow an orgasm for shits and giggles with no
thought as to the consequences has almost distroyed the family in the US.
Children poping out all over with no supporting structure of a mom and dad is
the bane of civilization.
We need to go back to the old common law. A woman who bears a child out of
wedlock cannot claim the resources of the father. If the woman cannot care for
the child then she looses it forever. A child born into a marrage is the child
of the husband even if he is not the biodad. The biodad has no legal claim in
any form or fashion on the child.
That will keep some pants on and legs closed.
Vote Libertarian!
El QueSabe
>
>And what do you mean by all possible outcomes. Every women should know AIDS
>and
>gonorrhea are possible outcomes of sex with a spouse or a long term
>relationship.
>what is her responsibility? Suffer in silence? Be denied medical attention?
>No
>criminal or civil prosecution?
Diseases have no right to life. Kill them all you want. A child is not a
disease though you want to treat them as if they were.
Vote Libertarian!
El QueSabe
>Question: In you area what STDs is a doctor required to report to the CDC for
>tracking and notification of partners. Or the illnesses and patients that
>must
>be reported to the public health authority. And does syphilis during pregnant
>required reporting, or just c-section for delivery.
>
The CDC requires *all* infectious diseases to be reported to them. Hepatitus,
Chicken pox, genital warts, you name it. If it is an infectious disease it
must be reported.
Congress made this a law under the authority of what clause in the consitution?
(20 points)
Vote Libertarian!
El QueSabe
writes:
>Pregnancy is not a disease.
But that's how they see it. Sad really.
Vote Libertarian!
Ron Nicholson
Okay, on rape and incest. I see this. Could you describe why medical ethics allows
this if an embryo is a person? How the laws of justifiable homicide allow this? Or
the rights of two conflicting people would allow this third example.
And what do you mean by danger. How urgent? Any doctor's opinion is good enough?
Certain conditions only?
Ron Nicholson
> In article <3771B737...@home.com>, Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> writes:
>
> >The purpose? Your numbers for women treating sex as a sport?
>
> The purpose of sex is procreation and pair bonding in humans. That's a fact.
> Anything else is disfunctional.
Sure. It serves other purposes, and is well documented -- question what you mean by
bonding. Other sex is not dysfunctional, at least not by those professionals
qualified to make such an assessment.
> The joy of sex with a loving partner is part
> of the meaning of life.
Says who? While I agree to the importance and benefits. What meaning of life
defines this?
> To blow an orgasm for shits and giggles with no
> thought as to the consequences has almost distroyed the family in the US.
> Children poping out all over with no supporting structure of a mom and dad is
> the bane of civilization.
>
Could you provide numbers. Only 5 million pregnancies taken to birth out of 270
million hardly seems like this situation, not mention your stats on of two parent
homes, the evidence that both parents are not necessary is your opinion. Otherwise
please describe exactly such destruction?
> We need to go back to the old common law. A woman who bears a child out of
> wedlock cannot claim the resources of the father.
Common law of where. The US, and ancient civilization. Why? Threats of prison
didn't stop abortion, why would such an act stop anything that you want? Are you
are aware of adoption, and the massive birth centres of the 1920s in the US.
> If the woman cannot care for
> the child then she looses it forever.
That is not the only alternative. And historically just judgments were not made.
Plenty of widows, single mothers, absent fathers (war, illness) didn't lose their
babies but families, and agencies, and churches aided them.
> A child born into a marrage is the child
> of the husband even if he is not the biodad. The biodad has no legal claim in
> any form or fashion on the child.
>
Not true since DNA. Parentage in question before then was determined by more than
the marital status for responsibility.
>
> That will keep some pants on and legs closed.
Bull. Care to prove stats that demonstrate this.
Ron Nicholson
> In article <3771B737...@home.com>, Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> writes:
>
> >
> >And what do you mean by all possible outcomes. Every women should know AIDS
> >and
> >gonorrhea are possible outcomes of sex with a spouse or a long term
> >relationship.
> >what is her responsibility? Suffer in silence? Be denied medical attention?
> >No
> >criminal or civil prosecution?
>
> Diseases have no right to life. Kill them all you want. A child is not a
> disease though you want to treat them as if they were.
Bite me, I said no such thing. I made a comparison on the known or possible
consequences of sex.
An embryo has no right to life. Not in law, not in medicine, or biology. Perhaps in
your moral code. It will be a cold day when you code dictates my beliefs. If it
does please demonstrate the right, how it is enforced, and why I must observe it.
Ron Nicholson
Proof? Or who believes this here?
Ron Nicholson
I called three clinics today. Who make no such reports -- the clinics don't. At
least with the names of those who are positive. In fact, in Maryland only three are
reported, all others are confidential. They are required to contact the public
health department. In New York -- Erie county, AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and TB
are reported to the public health authority. Who is required to report to the CDC.
Not sure -- Canadian you know. Congress doesn't require a clause of the
constitution to make a law, although they may cite one as justification.
Gallery Gold Ltd
John Sweet wrote in message <377257A2...@neo.rr.com>...
>Dear Beckie,
>
>It sound like you are taking Depo for medical reasons and
>not for contraception. I personally do not know much about
>Depo - although some of the side effects I've heard about in
>alt.contraception make me shrudder.
>
>I am certain that Congress will not ban the use of female
>hormones for therapeutic reasons. This appears to be the
>case in your situation - so no need to worry.
>
>If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-abortion by
>contraception as well. It's the only position that is
>consistent and makes sense from a moral perspective.
>business first. Then I would like to tackle the big
>drug companies who are preying off of women this
>way.
>
>I have no objection to using hormones to treat certain
>diseases. I myself take prednisone regularly so I
>know it's no picnic. Therapy is one thing. Abortion
>as birth control is another thing all together.
>
>The frightening thing is that your case is atypical.
>Over 60% of women in this country use birth control
>according to the CDC [ages 16-40 or something like
>that]. Do you realize the promiscuity this represents
>and the resulting threat to women's health?
>
>on being mothers, and many of them have given up on
>begin chaste. Being chaste is not a dirty thing - or
>something to be ashamed about.
>
>It's not just the health risks and the suffering that women
>have to endure. It's being promiscuous and being closed
>off to new life. I firmly believe women long for and
>deserve so much more than this.
>
>
>Regards,
>John
>
>--
>"Your name, O God, like your praise, reaches to the ends of the earth."
>Psalm 48:10
>
>
So, women shouldn't be allowed to use birth control and they should not be
allowed to have an abortion either. Go figure.
JB
Gallery Gold Ltd
John Sweet wrote in message <3772F315...@neo.rr.com>...
>Dear HfromSF,
>
>I have been treated by at least a dozen doctors in my
>life. I will wager you $100 that you NEVER make it
>past residency. No matter what your grades are.
>
>Best of Luck,
>John
>
>
>PS: I'm guessing you'll drop out out of frustration as soon
>as your mentor sees what kind of person you really are.
>If you think this newsgroup is "stressful" - notice all your
>cursing? - wait to you see what real life is like my friend.
>You will never, ever make it without some major help
>from the Lord.
>
>
>
>"Your name, O God, like your praise, reaches to the ends of the earth."
>Psalm 48:10
>
>
Well there's an intelligent answer for you. I think you are getting your
hopes mixed up with reality.
JB
Gallery Gold Ltd
El QueSabe wrote in message
<19990624184356...@ngol04.aol.com>...
>In article <7kr05o$amj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Salomeh <sal...@my-deja.com>
writes:
>
>>In article <3770e40f...@netnews.voicenet.com>,
>> mis...@voicenet.com (John Miskell) wrote:
>>> >Your standards give a microscopic fetus superior rights to that of a
>>> >born woman.
>>>
>>> Nope. We recognize that one living human being, the fetus, has the
>>> same and equal rights as another living human being, the mother.
>>
>>It is not a human being....it is a human fetus. Big differnece in my
>>opinion.
>>
>
>What's the difference between a human being and human fetus and *why* does
the
>difference allow you to kill?
>
>
>
>
>Vote Libertarian!
>
>
One is capable of sustaining its own life, the other isn't, as well as all
the other very obvious reasons.
Why is it that pro-lifers have to use all the emotive words like "kill" and
"murder" and even "infant" and "child" when speaking of an embryo or foetus?
It is because your case is all emotive and has no logic.You attempt to prey
on women's emotions which is exploitation, just what you accuse pro-choicers
of doing.
JB