So, if abortion is murder...

[Chuz Life]

I'm not talking about the value of a life to society. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the perceived and completely subjective value of any creatures life to any particular society. It's irrelevant.

Is it fair to ask what it is that you do consider as being relevant?

 

[Demon of Light]

I'm not talking about the value of a life to society. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the perceived and completely subjective value of any creatures life to any particular society. It's irrelevant.

I have said your position is irrational including that this is somehow irrelevant. All value is subjective, but if you are human and have similar desires to other humans then within those parameters the value makes objective sense.

 

[Gina]

Can you cite any studies that actually support the claim they prevent implantation? I have looked and haven't found any. I have found plenty that indicate it doesn't.

The reason I am arguing it is a myth is because it is a myth. There are no studies that in any way vindicate this claim of it preventing implantation, but some do indicate it only acts by preventing fertilization.



There is no real question. It is just a popular myth that keeps getting repeated despite it falling before scientific inquiry. If you can show me a study that clearly establishes that it acts after fertilization and before implantation I might reconsider my position. Every authoritative source I have looked at only notes this is a theoretical possibility, not a medical certainty.

Magnetic resonance imaging scans of the uteri of women reveal that the OC users have endometrial linings that are consistently thinner than the endometrial linings of nonusers,48-50 up to 58% thinner.51 Of the first 4 studies published, the first did not find a relationship between endometrial thickness and in vitro fertilization implantation rates52; however, subsequent studies noted a trend,53,54 and one demonstrated that a decreased thickness of the endometrium decreased the likelihood of implantation.55 Larger, more recent, and more technically sophisticated studies56-65 all concluded that endometrial thickness is related to the functional receptivity of the endometrium. Furthermore, when the endometrial lining becomes too thin, then implantation does not occur.56-58,64,65 The minimal endoendometrial thickness required to maintain a pregnancy in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization has been reported, ranging from 5 mm55 to 9 mm65 to 13 mm,53 whereas the average endometrial thickness in women taking OCs is 1.1 mm.50 These data would seem to lend credence to the Food and Drug Administration–approved statements that “ . . . changes in the endometrium . . . reduce the likelihood of implantation.” 11 We considered this level II.2 (good to very good) evidence (Table).

Three cycle-dependent integrins (a1b1, a4b1, aVb3) have been shown to be “ . . . coexpressed apparently only for a brief interval of the cycle that corresponds with the putative window of maximal uterine receptivity” and “ . . . have emerged as reliable markers of normal fertility.”68 Of these 3, the aVb3 integrin seems “to be an excellent marker to study the molecular events leading to the establishment of uterine receptivity and successful implantation.”68,69 These3 integrins are conspicuously absent in the endometrium of most patients with luteal phase deficiency, endometriosis, and unexplained infertility.68 In addition, integrin expression is significantly changed by OCs. Integrins have been compared using endometrial biopsy specimens from normally cycling women and women taking OCs. In most OC users, the normal patterns of expression of the integrins are grossly altered, leading Somkuti et al68 to conclude that the OC-induced integrin changes observed in the endometrium have functional significance and provide evidence that reduced endometrial receptivity does indeed contribute to the contracep-tive efficacy of OCs. They hypothesized that the sex steroids in OCs alter the expression of these integrins through cytokines and therefore predispose to failure of implantation or loss of the preembryo or
embryo after implantation. We consideredthis level II.3 (good) evidence (Table).

If breakthrough ovulation occurs while using the COC, then to some extent ovarian and blastocyst
steroidogenesis could theoretically “turn on” the endometrium, causing it to normalize prior to implantation in the ovulatory cycle. However, after discontinuing use of COCs, it usually takes several
cycles for a woman’s menstrual flow to approach the volume of women who have not taken hormonal
contraception,71 suggesting that the endometrium is slow to recover from its COC-induced atrophy. Furthermore, in women who have ovulated secondary to missing 2 low-dose COCs, the
endometrium in the luteal phase of the ovulatory cycle has been found to be nonsecretory.23

Since there is evidence to support the existence of postfertilization effects and because it is impossible
to know in advance which patients would find the potential for this effect objectionable, we believe
that the lack of information regarding postfertilization effects in patient information materials about
OCs represents a potential failure to provide complete informed consent. Furthermore, if this mechanism of an OC violates the moral requirements of a woman, then failure to disclose this information seriously jeopardizes her autonomy. If information about the mechanism of an OC is deliberately withheld or misstated, then an unethical deception occurs. Failure to disclose information
that might lead a patient to choose a different method of treatment is generally considered to be
unethical.12,13 Therefore, it seems clear to us that failure to inform patients of a possible postfertilization mechanism of an OC is a failure to provide informed consent.

CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking OCs, postfertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. Physicians should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization. Since it would be difficult
to predict which patients might object to being given an OC if they were aware of possible postfertilization effects, mentioning the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs to all patients and providing detailed information about the evidence to those who request it is necessary for adequate informed consent.

Accepted for publication March 18,
1999.

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/9/2/126.pdf

Another:

The evidence to date supports the contention that use of EC does not always inhibit ovulation even if used in the preovulatory phase, and that it may unfavorably alter the endometrial lining regardless of when in the cycle it is used, with the effect persisting for days. The reduced rates of observable pregnancy compared with the expected rates in women who use hormonal EC in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase are consistent with a postfertilization effect, which may occur when hormonal EC is used in any of these menstrual phases.

The Polycarp Research Institute (TPRI): Postfertilization Effect of Hormonal Emergency Contraception

I am a strident pro-lifer, but I am not going to accept a claim just because most believe it, especially when evidence directly contradicts the claim.

When I first learned of this myth it made me think they should be banned, but then I looked into it and have found nothing to justify the myth hence why I do not think they should be banned.

But there are many, many more strident pro-lifers who are assured of BCP's abortifacient effects:

birth control pills cause abortion - Google Search

This guy wrote an entire book on the subject:

Amazon.com: Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? (9780970001603): Randy…

Here are the reviews from doctors:

"From medical textbooks and pharmacy references, to statements from the Pill-manufacturers themselves, this book proves, beyond any doubt, the abortion-causing action of birth control pills. This book should be read by everyone interested in knowing the truth." -- Paul L. Hayes, M.D., Board Certified Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians/Gynecologists

"I endorse Randy Alcorn's book with gusto. He has answered the title question with the care and compassion of a pastor, having searched out the facts with the diligence of an experienced researcher. He has provided all women in their reproductive years with an invaluable resource which will allow them to be fully informed about the birth control pill." -- William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University Medical Center

It appears there is enough clinical proof for doctors and to recommend for ethical reasons that BCP's have a postfertilization effect.

 

[Orion]

Good luck enforcing any kind of miscarriage law. You'll have to invent an electronic uterine device to control all women in order to get what you want.

It would be far simpler to make birth control mandatory for all women until marriage, or until such point they are actively trying to have a child. I mean, if they don't have control of their bodies anyway, might as well go full throttle and take their reproductive rights away. That is what this is about at its core, not saving innocent life.

Of course, the religious right would never want that. To them, women are little more than baby making machines.

I swear... our society is moving backwards.

 

[1069]

Men are just scared ****less because not only have women now won equality in society, but we control- in a very real, biological sense- the fate and the future of the human race.
Only we decide whether or not to have children. Men have no say.
Only we decide how many to have. Men have no say.
I'm sure it bothers them. It would bother me, if I were them.
They can't really do anything about it, however, except talk a bunch of crap about how women are unethical whores, sluts, and baby-murderers and how they wish they could abrogate women's human rights, and all the ways they'd do so if only they had the power to.
That's the thing, though; they no longer have the power to.
Women have more than adequate representation in government and in society to ensure that our human rights will never be infringed upon by men again.

So: suck it up, Buttercup, pay your child support like a good little sperm-donor, and bitch and moan about all the terrible things you'd like to do to women, if only you weren't so powerless and impotent, a mere adjunct- and an increasingly unnecessary one- in the game of Perpetuation of the Species, a game in which females are ultimately the sole arbiters.

:kitty:

 

[Chuz Life]

Good luck enforcing any kind of miscarriage law. You'll have to invent an electronic uterine device to control all women in order to get what you want.

It would be far simpler to make birth control mandatory for all women until marriage, or until such point they are actively trying to have a child. I mean, if they don't have control of their bodies anyway, might as well go full throttle and take their reproductive rights away. That is what this is about at its core, not saving innocent life.

Of course, the religious right would never want that. To them, women are little more than baby making machines.

I swear... our society is moving backwards.

It's all a big fat red herring anyway.

Banning doctors from performing elective abortions would not automatically require police to investigate every perceivable incident where a miscarriage takes place.

Lawmakers would be fully aware of the fact that miscarriages frequently occurr on their own.

Marijuanna is for the most part a banned and controlled substance,... do the police have to investigate every time someone fires up an everyday cigarette because at a distance it looks like it could be someone getting high?

 

[Chuz Life]

Men are just scared ****less because not only have women now won equality in society, but we control- in a very real, biological sense- the fate and the future of the human race.
Only we decide whether or not to have children. Men have no say.
Only we decide how many to have. Men have no say.
I'm sure it bothers them. It would bother me, if I were them.
They can't really do anything about it, however, except talk a bunch of crap about how women are unethical whores, sluts, and baby-murderers and how they wish they could abrogate women's human rights, and all the ways they'd do so if only they had the power to.
That's the thing, though; they no longer have the power to.
Women have more than adequate representation in government and in society to ensure that our human rights will never be infringed upon by men again.

So: suck it up, Buttercup, pay your child support like a good little sperm-donor, and bitch and moan about all the terrible things you'd like to do to women, if only you weren't so powerless and impotent, a mere adjunct- and an increasingly unnecessary one- in the game of Perpetuation of the Species, a game in which females are ultimately the sole arbiters.

:kitty:

Lovely.

Note to any other men who read this,...

She didn't get pregnant by herself,....

 

[1069]

Lovely.

Note to any other men who read this,...

She didn't get pregnant by herself,....

But I could've if I'd wanted to.
I could just march right into a fertility clinic any time and use anonymous donor sperm to get pregnant.
As I said, men are increasingly irrelevant to the equation.
They've been pushed to the sidelines, made redundant and practically obsolete in the only game that really matters.
I don't blame them for being pissed about it, nor for grumbling and wishing they somehow had the power to get revenge.
By the same token, don't blame me for knowing exactly what bug is up their butts and finding their inane rantings amusing.

 

[Orion]

But I could've if I'd wanted to.
I could just march right into a fertility clinic any time and use anonymous donor sperm to get pregnant.
As I said, men are increasingly irrelevant to the equation.
They've been pushed to the sidelines, made redundant and practically obsolete in the only game that really matters.
I don't blame them for being pissed about it, nor for grumbling and wishing they somehow had the power to get revenge.
By the same token, don't blame me for knowing exactly what bug is up their butts and finding their inane rantings amusing.

I don't think misandry is the solution to misogyny, 10. And I did value the presence of my father growing up, even if his only biological contribution to my existence was his sperm. He was stay at home and if my mother was a single parent I probably would've grown up in the hands of daycares and babysitters.

Maybe I am just an idealist, but I think considering the roles of both men and women in society as sacred is forward thinking. We all have our roles. I do agree that bodily sovereignty is also sacred which is why every pregnant woman has the right to decide for herself the human spiritual questions surrounding her fetus, for which there are no universal right/wrong answers. If we just look at men as being obsolete, then we are diminishing their responsibility in child rearing as well as the contribution of men throughout human history. There are a lot of good guys out there who believe in womens' rights.

 

[1069]

I don't think misandry is the solution to misogyny, 10.

How is the truth "misandry"?
You know perfectly well that's the bug that's up their butts.
Am I just supposed to be too polite to mention it?
It's all about control, and the more control they lose, the wilder their talk about what they're going to do to women becomes.
It's poignantly funny.

Are you suggesting that what I stated is somehow inaccurate, or is it merely my nonsympathetic tone you object to?
Because you know, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who call me a murderer and wish they could take away my civil and human rights and relegate me to subhuman status.
I have empathy, as I've just demonstrated: I am capable of putting myself in their shoes and recognizing why they're like that; I even mentioned I'd probably be pissed too, if I were them.

But, no: no sympathy. Just rueful amusement.

 

[OKgrannie]

It's all a big fat red herring anyway.

Banning doctors from performing elective abortions would not automatically require police to investigate every perceivable incident where a miscarriage takes place.

Lawmakers would be fully aware of the fact that miscarriages frequently occurr on their own.

Marijuanna is for the most part a banned and controlled substance,... do the police have to investigate every time someone fires up an everyday cigarette because at a distance it looks like it could be someone getting high?

LOL, the effectiveness of laws prohibiting marijuanna are probably about equal to the effectiveness of laws prohibiting abortion. Because they are equally impossible to enforce.

 

[Chuz Life]

LOL, the effectiveness of laws prohibiting marijuanna are probably about equal to the effectiveness of laws prohibiting abortion. Because they are equally impossible to enforce.

Rape, molestation, murder, recreational drugs, etc....

All continue regardless of the laws against them.

A thinking person knows and understands that there has to be more of a reason to prohibit something like elective abortion,... than just an attempt to keep it from taking place.

Same as it is with all our other laws, by the way.

 

[OKgrannie]

Rape, molestation, murder, recreational drugs, etc....

All continue regardless of the laws against them.

A thinking person knows and understands that there has to be more of a reason to prohibit something like elective abortion,... than just an attempt to keep it from taking place.

Same as it is with all our other laws, by the way.

The reason for the law is to deter the action and provide a means of punishment when the law is broken. The threat of punishment is a deterrent. It is not the purpose of ANY law in this country to make an empty moral statement. When citizens do not believe the law will or can be enforced, it is not a deterrent.

 

[Demon of Light]

Accepted for publication March 18,
1999.

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/9/2/126.pdf

I love it. You cited one of the very studies I was thinking of that only says it is a theoretical possibility with no definitive proof. The fertilization rate itself when these methods are used under the proper conditions should be zero or at least so close to zero that instances of it failing would be infinitesimally small. The fact pregnancies occur, which are also far from guaranteed under any circumstances, and are carried to term without incident despite all this provides little confidence that there is a contragestive effect. Also, if the endometrium is so essential to implantation how the hell are ectopic pregnancies even possible?

But there are many, many more strident pro-lifers who are assured of BCP's abortifacient effects:

I don't care. Really, why should I care what their position is on the subject?

It appears there is enough clinical proof for doctors and to recommend for ethical reasons that BCP's have a postfertilization effect.

There is no clinical proof. It's all conjecture and the first source you gave clearly says this is the case.

Men are just scared ****less because not only have women now won equality in society, but we control- in a very real, biological sense- the fate and the future of the human race.
Only we decide whether or not to have children. Men have no say.
Only we decide how many to have. Men have no say.
I'm sure it bothers them. It would bother me, if I were them.

I cannot say definitively given the considerable changes necessitated in my history given me being born with a different gender, but I think if the circumstances of my childhood development were roughly the same my values would be as well. More to the point if my perspective on the value of life was the same I doubt my perspective on abortion would change. I could really care less if women have more power than man, so long as they do not abuse said power against men.

They can't really do anything about it, however, except talk a bunch of crap about how women are unethical whores, sluts, and baby-murderers and how they wish they could abrogate women's human rights, and all the ways they'd do so if only they had the power to.

Actually I think most women are quite ethical and do not fit any of those descriptors. Of course, most women apparently consider abortion immoral and as I recall there is some indication that more women are for banning abortion than against. Funny how that works. I love how you apparently believe preventing women for getting abortions mean they do not have any rights at all. I believe in empowering women, I simply don't believe anyone should be empowered to kill another human being no matter how small.

How is the truth "misandry"?
You know perfectly well that's the bug that's up their butts.
Am I just supposed to be too polite to mention it?
It's all about control, and the more control they lose, the wilder their talk about what they're going to do to women becomes.

You know, I haven't said a single thing against any of the women here and honestly I don't recall anyone else doing so either. It seems the only gender-bashing on this thread is coming from you and maybe some of the other "pro-choice" women.

But I could've if I'd wanted to.
I could just march right into a fertility clinic any time and use anonymous donor sperm to get pregnant.
As I said, men are increasingly irrelevant to the equation.
They've been pushed to the sidelines, made redundant and practically obsolete in the only game that really matters.

Do you even contemplate that the end of men as a reproductive necessity also means the end of women as such? I guess this also means you want to give up sex huh?

The reason for the law is to deter the action and provide a means of punishment when the law is broken. The threat of punishment is a deterrent. It is not the purpose of ANY law in this country to make an empty moral statement. When citizens do not believe the law will or can be enforced, it is not a deterrent.

There would be many ways to enforce such a law, not least of all would be through certain abortifacients becoming controlled substances and thus subject to considerable monitoring.

 

[Chuz Life]

Rape, molestation, murder, recreational drugs, etc....

All continue regardless of the laws against them.

A thinking person knows and understands that there has to be more of a reason to prohibit something like elective abortion,... than just an attempt to keep it from taking place.

Same as it is with all our other laws, by the way.

The reason for the law is to deter the action and provide a means of punishment when the law is broken. The threat of punishment is a deterrent. It is not the purpose of ANY law in this country to make an empty moral statement. When citizens do not believe the law will or can be enforced, it is not a deterrent.

This is true,... and I would hope that the punishment for providing illegal abortion services will be severe enough so as to make it cost prohibitive.

Your point?

 

[Orion]

This is true,... and I would hope that the punishment for providing illegal abortion services will be severe enough so as to make it cost prohibitive.

Your point?

As has been brought up in previous debates by myself, there are simple abortion methods available that do not require one to seek services of another. There are herbs that grow in the wild all over your country, pressure points, and lifestyle factors that can all trigger abortion; and if abortion is illegal, I would encourage all women who want one to use those methods in order to circumvent the religious right.

You may be able to close the clinics but you will never stop it from happening, and you cannot monitor and control all pregnant women 24/7. Good luck enforcing such draconian morality.

 

[Chuz Life]

As has been brought up in previous debates by myself, there are simple abortion methods available that do not require one to seek services of another. There are herbs that grow in the wild all over your country, pressure points, and lifestyle factors that can all trigger abortion; and if abortion is illegal, I would encourage all women who want one to use those methods in order to circumvent the religious right.

Religion and morality doesn't have anything to do whether or not a person's rights begin when their life does. Or whether elective abortion is contrary to the 14th. Equal protection and Due process clauses.

You may be able to close the clinics but you will never stop it from happening, and you cannot monitor and control all pregnant women 24/7. Good luck enforcing such draconian morality.

I'll take this as an acceptable starting point.

You're right,... many women (and their men) will resort to other means.

Just as child porn and other underground activities folourish.

The battle to protect prenatal children from those who seek to deny them and kill them is no less a noble and worthy cause for those of us who have a harder time turning a blind eye to abortion than you seem to have.

 

[molten_dragon]

Religion and morality doesn't have anything to do whether or not a person's rights begin when their life does.

Yes, they really do. There are no hard scientific facts that prove one way or the other when a fetus becomes a person and has rights. Every stance on abortion is simply an opinion, generally based on morals. You can never prove to someone that their stance is wrong, and yours is right. It would be like ttrying to prove that god exists. And that's why anti-abortion laws will never be successful, even if the punishment is severe. Laws generally only work when people believe that people support them. Laws against murder work because the vast majority of people believe murder is wrong. There isn't a large majority that believe abortion is wrong though. Combine that with the fact that it would be easy to get an abortion and not get caught, and laws making abortion illegal would be nothing more than a hollow moral victory for those that desire them.

 

[OKgrannie]

This is true,... and I would hope that the punishment for providing illegal abortion services will be severe enough so as to make it cost prohibitive.

Your point?

My point is that no matter how severe the punishment for abortion is, women do not believe that they will be caught. And they won't be unless they die.

 

[Gina]

I love it. You cited one of the very studies I was thinking of that only says it is a theoretical possibility with no definitive proof. The fertilization rate itself when these methods are used under the proper conditions should be zero or at least so close to zero that instances of it failing would be infinitesimally small. The fact pregnancies occur, which are also far from guaranteed under any circumstances, and are carried to term without incident despite all this provides little confidence that there is a contragestive effect.

There is no clinical proof. It's all conjecture and the first source you gave clearly says this is the case.

We are not talking about fertilization when we are discussing the failure of the embryo to implant in the womb. They are two separate matters.

BCP's work in three ways, here are the first two:

MECHANISMS OF OCs

The literature discusses several mechanisms for OCs. While the primary effect of OCs is the inhibition of ovulation via suppression of pituitary gonadotropin secretion (this mechanism is operative most of the time),1,10,12 secondary effects are implicated at times of breakthrough ovulation to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy.17,18 We classified these secondary effects as occurring either prefertilization or postfertilization. Secondary prefertilization effects may include alterations in cervical mucus that limit sperm penetration2,17-20 and changes in the endometrium and fallopian tube that may impede normal sperm transport.2,17,18,21

The third method of prevention is the "post fertilization effect", making the womb a hostile environment for implantation. So any discussion of fertilization, which takes place before the embryo makes its way to the uterus, is off topic to the discussion at hand.

As for evidence and clinical proof of the "post fertilization effect", which you have called a myth, I posted the sections regarding the study and the conclusions drawn from the evidence:

1.

Larger, more recent, and more technically sophisticated studies56-65 all concluded that endometrial thickness is related to the functional receptivity of the endometrium. Furthermore, when the endometrial lining becomes too thin, then implantation does not occur.56-58,64,65 The minimal endoendometrial thickness required to maintain a pregnancy in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization has been reported, ranging from 5 mm55 to 9 mm65 to 13 mm,53 whereas the average endometrial thickness in women taking OCs is 1.1 mm.50 These data would seem to lend credence to the Food and Drug Administration–approved statements that “ . . . changes in the endometrium . . . reduce the likelihood of implantation.” 11 We considered this level II.2 (good to very good) evidence (Table).

2.

These3 integrins are conspicuously absent in the endometrium of most patients with luteal phase deficiency, endometriosis, and unexplained infertility.68 In addition, integrin expression is significantly changed by OCs. Integrins have been compared using endometrial biopsy specimens from normally cycling women and women taking OCs. In most OC users, the normal patterns of expression of the integrins are grossly altered, leading Somkuti et al68 to conclude that the OC-induced integrin changes observed in the endometrium have functional significance and provide evidence that reduced endometrial receptivity does indeed contribute to the contracep-tive efficacy of OCs. They hypothesized that the sex steroids in OCs alter the expression of these integrins through cytokines and therefore predispose to failure of implantation or loss of the preembryo or embryo after implantation. We consideredthis level II.3 (good) evidence (Table).

These are the two methods in which observed evidence lead the researchers to conclude that BCP's thin the endometrial lining, making it substantially less likely implantation will occur. The evidence, and they cite measurement of the lining and the expression of integrins to be "grossly altered" in OC users, lead them to conclusions that are substantiated as they are causes of infertility in women who are not on BCP's. Infertility studies and the conclusions made using the same data and evidence, have decades of proof behind them, thus legitimizing the conclusion that BCP's have a "post fertilization effect".

Also, if the endometrium is so essential to implantation how the hell are ectopic pregnancies even possible?

The endometrium is in the uterus. By definition, ectopic pregnancy is:

Ectopic means "out of place." In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus. The egg settles in the fallopian tubes in more than 95% of ectopic pregnancies. This is why ectopic pregnancies are commonly called "tubal pregnancies." The egg can also implant in the ovary, abdomen, or the cervix, so you may see these referred to as cervical or abdominal pregnancies.

So given there is no endometrium in the fallopian tubes or any other location an ectopic pregnancy occur, BCP's can have no effect on implantation there.

I purposely did not muddy the waters with the discussion of ectopic pregnancy contained in this study as it had nothing to do with endometrial thickness or integrins effecting receptivity of the uterine lining.

 

[Chuz Life]

My point is that no matter how severe the punishment for abortion is, women do not believe that they will be caught. And they won't be unless they die.

I won't profess to speak for others.

But it is my opinion and experience that those of us who seek to overturn Roe, ban elective abortions, etc. are neither intending or interested in controlling women and what they do in the privacy of their homes.

Is it a concern that some women will seek other measures or worse yet,... try to abort themselves?

You better ****ing believe it's a concern.

But our goal is to first right the wrong (correct the injustice) of the institutionalized denial of the childrens rights and personhood,.... to punish the doctors who know better and to educate society as a whole as to when personhood and rights begin,.. and why elective abortions are illegal.

It is our beliefe (again in my opinion) that this when combined with the charitable and financial efforts to help women keep a child they want result in even fewer abortions than we have now.

We believe that childrens rights and personhood is being denied them....

And you expect us to look the other ****ing way....

It's never going to happen.

 

[OKgrannie]

I won't profess to speak for others.

But it is my opinion and experience that those of us who seek to overturn Roe, ban elective abortions, etc. are neither intending or interested in controlling women and what they do in the privacy of their homes.

Is it a concern that some women will seek other measures or worse yet,... try to abort themselves?

You better ****ing believe it's a concern.

But our goal is to first right the wrong (correct the injustice) of the institutionalized denial of the childrens rights and personhood,.... to punish the doctors who know better and to educate society as a whole as to when personhood and rights begin,.. and why elective abortions are illegal.

It is our beliefe (again in my opinion) that this when combined with the charitable and financial efforts to help women keep a child they want result in even fewer abortions than we have now.

We believe that childrens rights and personhood is being denied them....

And you expect us to look the other ****ing way....

It's never going to happen.

You think you're going to stop abortions or greatly reduce them by passing a law....well, it's never going to happen. Probably it would stop licensed doctors from performing them, but that's all.

 

[Chuz Life]

You think you're going to stop abortions or greatly reduce them by passing a law....well, it's never going to happen. Probably it would stop licensed doctors from performing them, but that's all.

I disagree with your predictions,...

And I'll take it (stopping licensed doctors) as a starting point towards educating people and striving for further reductions,.... any day!


It's better than where we are now.

 

[OKgrannie]

I disagree with your predictions,...

And I'll take it (stopping licensed doctors) as a starting point towards educating people and striving for further reductions,.... any day!


It's better than where we are now.

I am well aware that pro-lifers believe that passing a law will have magical effects. They have an amazing ability to hide their heads in the sand and ignore what is really happening. Some, however, don't really care about changing the numbers of abortions performed, they merely want the law to reflect their own moral stance.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am well aware that pro-lifers believe that passing a law will have magical effects. They have an amazing ability to hide their heads in the sand and ignore what is really happening. Some, however, don't really care about changing the numbers of abortions performed, they merely want the law to reflect their own moral stance.

I want equal rights and justice for all.

Do you?