|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 167 of 526:
| 
Feb 27 18:03 UTC 2006 |
Re #165: I've always found the "no male birth control pill" argument
to be pretty un-persuasive. Leaving aside that there is such a pill
in development, it's hardly surprising that the mechanics of stopping
the release of 1 egg (for which there is already an existing hormonal
trigger, activated during pregnancy) is simpler than the mechanics of
stopping the production of zillions of sperm, for which there is not
such an obvious trigger available. But the trial results I've seen
indicate that the male BCP is pretty darned effective.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 168 of 526:
|
Feb 27 18:12 UTC 2006 |
> Why isn't there a birth control pill for men? Why are there no
> studies or reasearch being conducted as to how to go about doing
> this?
You mean like a vasectomy? What about the IVD being developed that
should be on the market soon? Also, if you Googled around you would
probably find at least 2 male birth control pills being tested in the
U.S. right now. So, the studies and research is being conducted.
I think making pro-lifers out to be slut-haters dodges the issue and
only serves to make pro-choice people feel better about their decision.
|
edina
|
|
response 169 of 526:
|
Feb 27 18:23 UTC 2006 |
Oh please. "Feel better about my decision"? You mean my decision to think
that abortion is not a good thing, but at times a necessary thing? Or my
decision to educate every young person I am in the life of on sex education?
Or my thoughts that I can't believe that people *totally* miss the point and
harp on abortion? I'm so serious when I say that I'd lay odds that the most
vocal people in the world on abortion aren't half as involved with things
like, oh, education (you know, which might help reduce abortion rates), or
healthcare (again, possibly helping reduce abortion rates).
I don't like abortion. I really don't. I see it as a breakdown in our
society.
That being said - I'm not taking that right away from people. Not just women,
but people, because some couples make the decision together.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 170 of 526:
|
Feb 27 18:25 UTC 2006 |
> Oh please
My sentiments exactly.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 171 of 526:
|
Feb 27 18:26 UTC 2006 |
Nathan, have you figured out whether you are pro-life or pro-choice yet?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 172 of 526:
|
Feb 27 19:33 UTC 2006 |
resp:167 Yeah, it's real simple to stop ovulation... And for that small
precentage of women who have no secondary side-effects (weight gain,
decreased libido, problems with lubrication during intercourse, sore
breasts, migraines, painful cramps, heavier periods, acne breakouts,
massive to slight mood swings, depression, etc), it's great. For those
that experience even better cycles- it's even better. Still messing big
time with hormones. I'm not a huge fan of hormonal birth control at the
moment. For some women it's great, for others- not so much.
resp:166 John- in many ways you and I really do agree about abortion- I
hate it. I wish it wasn't considered necessary. That's why I am ALL for
ways to prevent pergnancy in the first place. And why I am in favor of
Plan B- which is a mega-dose of normal hormonal birth control pills. The
difference is that while agree that in the ideal world abortions
wouldn't take place because everyone would be in a situation to care for
the resulting child- I realize that we aren't there yet. We're not even
close.
|
slynne
|
|
response 173 of 526:
|
Feb 27 19:43 UTC 2006 |
Making pro-lifers out to be "slut haters" isnt really all that far
fetched of an idea. They often tend to be just that. In fact, what I
find interesting about this discussion is that it is Plan B which is
the drug that is found morally objectionable. Plan B is not a drug that
causes an abortion. Plan B is a birth control pill. Taking Plan B is
likely to prevent the need for a woman to have an abortion. So why are
the pro-lifers in support of laws that protect pharmacists from being
required to dispense Plan B? Could it be because they are "slut haters"
who want to punish women who have sex? I mean, it obviously isnt
because they want to prevent abortion. If that were the case, they
would REQUIRE pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 174 of 526:
|
Feb 27 19:47 UTC 2006 |
Err ... "Plan B is not a drug that
causes an abortion. Plan B is a birth control pill. Taking Plan B is
likely to prevent the need for a woman to have an abortion."
I'm not one of them, but based on what I can see, most of those who oppose
"Plan B" say that it *is* an abortion.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 175 of 526:
|
Feb 27 19:51 UTC 2006 |
resp:174 It's only abortion if you consider a fertilized egg that has
NOT implanted to be the begining of life. That particular scenario is
the last ditch for hormonal birth control anyway- as there are two steps
prior to that which would prevent an egg from getting fertilized.
It seems to me that most pro-lifers against Plan B have no CLUE what the
science behind it is.
|
slynne
|
|
response 176 of 526:
|
Feb 27 19:53 UTC 2006 |
They say it is an abortion but it isnt. Those same people often claim
that all hormonal birth control causes abortion as well as other
methods such as an IUD. I think it is important to get on the same page
about when pregnancy actually starts. Generally, the beginning of
pregnancy is when the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall. Many
right to lifers, however, seem to believe that it begins with
fertilization of the egg or even before (you might laugh at the whole
MOnty Python "every sperm is sacred" but they were making a parody of
an actual view held by many people in the Right-to-Life crowd).
(Anne keeps slipping in, saying what I planned on saying. I am going to
post my post anyways though even though it might look like I am copying
her.)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 177 of 526:
|
Feb 27 19:55 UTC 2006 |
Yes, some people like to define words like "abortion" to mean that
which suits their argument rather than using the generally accepted
definition. It makes conversation impossible, so such people are
annoying.
The "slut haters" idea is a hypothesis which attempts to explain the
views of pro-lifers who think that abortion is OK if it's the result of
rape or incest. If someone can present a better hypothesis then that's
fine, but so far I haven't heard one.
|
tod
|
|
response 178 of 526:
|
Feb 27 19:58 UTC 2006 |
These people using the bible to defend their foetus is a human life argument
are of the same ilk that used the bible to defend owning slaves.
bible bible bible bible bible bible bible bible babble bible babble babble
|
happyboy
|
|
response 179 of 526:
|
Feb 27 20:01 UTC 2006 |
whah do yew hate th' bobble?
|
bru
|
|
response 180 of 526:
|
Feb 27 20:05 UTC 2006 |
All you have to do is get the Religious pro-lifers to agree that life begins
when the bible says it does, when the feotus starts producing blood! Then
you can dispense the day after pill and the other methods without fear of
ending a life.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 181 of 526:
|
Feb 27 20:11 UTC 2006 |
> It seems to me that most pro-lifers against Plan B have no CLUE what
> the science behind it is.
I think that is a better explaination of that side of the argument
than "oh, they're just jealous cuz they dont have SEX...slut haters!"
I consider myself pro-life, but am not against early pregnancy
termination, birth control, Plan B, sex education in schools, condom
dispensers, etc. I simply don't see an unborn human life as being less
like an infant, and more like a pimple.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 182 of 526:
|
Feb 27 20:38 UTC 2006 |
resp:181 Most people have their 'hot points' or topics that cause the
fury first- then the thinking. This happens to be one for me. ;) I do
think that many of the more vocal pro-lifers do have issues with women,
hatred/fear/jealousy, combinations therein perhaps.
There also seems to be a trend to dscount scientific information. So
they don't bother to learn anything about it. I also think that the
numbers regarding late-term abortions are inflated by the pro-life side
of things. I know one person who had a late-second trimester abortion.
In that case she was so a- irregular that she didn't know she was
pregnant right away, and b- sure that the fetus was harmed by the
activities that took place before she even knew she was pregnant.
There are also very few women who have no negative feelings regarding an
abortion they've had. If it is as easy as popping a pimple- perhaps they
wouldn't be the best parents in the world anyway...
|
marcvh
|
|
response 183 of 526:
|
Feb 27 20:39 UTC 2006 |
So you're a pro-choice person who, for some reason, is uncomfortable
with that label and you prefer to call yourself pro-life even though you
think that most abortions should remain legal. I find that weird and
confusing.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 184 of 526:
|
Feb 27 20:42 UTC 2006 |
Jep, your limited comprehension skills are slipping further. My example
about alcohol was a waitron, not a bartender. And the scientology
reference was based on that religion's frequent and recent public
statements against the drugs I described, so I fail to see how it is silly
(BTW, implying Mormons don't believe in prescription drug use is far
sillier). My point, for those like you who seem unable to grasp what
others readily see, is that even if you put aside the issue of whether the
goverment should compel companies to dispense certain drugs, the "get out
of work free" exemption based on relgious beliefs creates a ridiculous
burden on employers. It basically says employees can use their religion to
dictate the terms of their employment. Are you saying you support that?
Those who claim companies shouldn't be burdened with mandatory dispensing
laws should also, if they are intellectually honest, recognize that the
so-called "religious freedom" laws impose burdens at least as great on
those employers whose rights they claim to support.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 185 of 526:
|
Feb 27 20:49 UTC 2006 |
> So you're a pro-choice person <snip>
Feel free to label me all you want Marc.
|
tod
|
|
response 186 of 526:
|
Feb 27 21:20 UTC 2006 |
re #180
All you have to do is get the Religious pro-lifers to agree that life begins
when the bible says it does, when the feotus starts producing blood!
You know that's bullshit, Bruce.
Life begins with the first breath.
Genesis 2:7 "..formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
You get a birth certificate when you are born and breath.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 187 of 526:
|
Feb 27 21:27 UTC 2006 |
Fetuses breath amniotic fluid to flex their lungs. So there you go.
|
edina
|
|
response 188 of 526:
|
Feb 27 21:27 UTC 2006 |
There we go what?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 189 of 526:
|
Feb 27 21:43 UTC 2006 |
#186: Not that I hold the position myself, but that is wide open to the obvious
criticism that *Adam's* life began with his first breath, but he wasn't born.
Birth certificates have nothing to do with when life begins; you have a birth
certificate when you are born alive. Breathing is one of the evidences of life
but does not define it any more than "talk-and-build-a-fire" defines sentience.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 190 of 526:
|
Feb 27 21:50 UTC 2006 |
I'd like to see Nathan go to a pro-life rally and talk to some real
pro-lifers, where he can tell them that he thinks that early term
abortions (which is something like 98% of them) should be considered
legally and morally OK. Do you think they would label him pro-life?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 191 of 526:
|
Feb 27 21:55 UTC 2006 |
bru: book, chapter, verse, AND version of the bobble, please.
|