Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Pro Life Atheists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jedidiah
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    I know they exist - I used to be one. Any hanging around here?
    To be completely honest I do not claim to be "pro life." I am anti abortion. Baby killers have perverted the term "pro life" beyond what it means to those opposed to abortion.

    Leave a comment:


  • theatricalA
    replied
    I think going secular probably is a good approach. People can't throw religion in your face in my case I don't have one to throw. I believe you can prove abortion to be wrong using science.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    A few weeks ago, I came across somebody online who turned out to be active in the secular pro-life movement in my state, and we got to talking. She invited me to check the movement out, and I asked whether there was any hostility to religion inherent in the movement. She assured me that, no, this wasn't the case. (This person wasn't a Christian, but actually has converted to Christianity within the last few weeks, interestingly.)

    I've been keeping an eye. I liked "Secular pro-life" on Facebook and the arguments being posted are presented logically without a hint of distortion. Since I genuinely do not understand the viewpoint of professing Christianity from a pro-choice perspective, I think I could do more approaching it from a secular perspective than in the expressly religious manner others do. (I'm obviously not discounting these people; just that simultaneous differing approaches are good.)

    Leave a comment:


  • theatricalA
    replied
    I wasn't here before but I'm here now! Glad I'm not alone on this one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Now I don't consider this a hijacking, y'unnerstan'. It's more like creatively bumping the poll.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    Thanks for looking deeper, CP.
    Not done yet. The problem is that things are stated as "facts" by people with obvious biases on both sides. And "most doctors agree" does not sway me. Still looking into this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I don't think that's accurate, Jesse.

    Source: SunTimes

    Hobby Lobby provided coverage for 18 different methods of birth control. What both the Greens and the Hahns objected to were the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services that would have required them, on pain of severe fines, to cover four more methods, including the morning after pill, that the litigants consider abortifacients.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Sure, that's possible, but I don't think the Hobby Lobby case as it actual IS supports your argument.
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    OK, after some more research on this, the fine line is not about preventing ovulation, but between whether the 4 contested methods work to...
    A) prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus
    2) prevent the egg from being fertilized by the sperm
    Thanks for looking deeper, CP. The morning after pill inspires a lot of misconceptions ... sorry about that!

    Birth control pills and IUDs are designed to prevent eggs from being fertilized, either by delaying ovulation or by killing sperm, respectively. In fact, the morning after pill is just a birth control pill with a higher dosage. It's possible to use regular birth control pills as morning after pills, too.

    Like IUDs, while it's possible they may also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, there's no good evidence that this occurs, and if it occurs, it's not by design. Somewhere between a half and three-quarters of fertilized eggs fail to implant anyway, and we don't know why. That's a recipe for confounded studies. It's also why pregnancy according to the medical definition begins with implantation.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Source: USAToday

    The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case doesn't currently affect the birth control methods that are most commonly used. But Planned Parenthood Federation of America spokeswoman Justine Sessions says the decision "opens the door for other corporations to be able to opt out of providing any form of birth control."

    It doesn't affect:

    • Most birth control pills

    • Condoms

    • Sponges

    • Sterilization

    It does affect:

    • Plan B "morning-after pill"

    • Ella "morning-after pill"

    • Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

    The companies in the case and their supporters object to IUDs and morning-after pills, saying they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Groups that lobby for reproductive rights contend the drugs and devices prevent fertilization from occurring, which can lead to unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions.

    © Copyright Original Source

    What they say isn't supported by science. If they want to engage in "alternative medicine" for themselves, hey, that's their right, but requiring it for their employees is a bridge too far for me. I'll stick with the FDA, which, though imperfect, doesn't decide medical issues by faith alone.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I don't recall it, Jesse, but the "rare" is a joke. Even the Democrats have given up on the "rare" claim.

    Source: Bloomberg

    Why has the party removed the sentence “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” from its platform? It was in the 2004 document but not in 2008’s or this year’s. Can’t Democrats just throw a crumb to the many millions who are pro-choice but not pro-abortion?

    © Copyright Original Source

    "Rare" was the pivot for that thread. It was a fairly decent discussion, but required a lot of effort to keep the derailers at bay ... (Thanks, Nick, no, really thanks for not trying to derail this ... I'm serious, thanks for not trying to derail ... please?) I was looking for practical methods for cutting the number of abortions in half.

    I consider myself a displaced Republican. Whenever they stop their wars on science and arithmetic, I'll come back. I didn't quit; I was fired. It would be nice if they also put out a welcome mat for the 20 percent of us who are amusingly labeled "nones," but not necessary. When they stop denying evolution, global warming, and the fact that lowering taxes lowers revenue, I'll ride the elephant again. Until then, I'll hold my nose and vote for the donkey instead.

    As ever, Jesse

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    It's important to differentiate between such methods correctly. For instance, all of the methods at issue in the Hobby Lobby case work by preventing ovulation.
    OK, after some more research on this, the fine line is not about preventing ovulation, but between whether the 4 contested methods work to...
    A) prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus
    2) prevent the egg from being fertilized by the sperm

    Source: TheAtlantic/health


    So, does an IUD kill the would-be fetus or simply prevent the egg and sperm from becoming a fetus? It depends on your definition of pregnancy. Most doctors agree that a pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus, but many people, including Hobby Lobby executives, think it happens when the egg becomes fertilized by the sperm. To them, if something interferes with a fertilized egg’s assemblé to the uterus, it’s an abortion.

    ACOG representatives told me in an email that copper IUDs mostly work before implantation occurs—copper is toxic to sperm and kills it before it gets to the egg.

    But the copper IUD can also be used as emergency contraception if it’s inserted up to five days after unprotected sex (and then simply left in to serve as longer-term birth control). And when used in that way, the copper-laden environment might also prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. It might. We just don’t know. The dance of the egg, the IUD, and its molecules changes on a case-by-case and whoopee-by-whoopee basis.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    It's important to differentiate between such methods correctly. For instance, all of the methods at issue in the Hobby Lobby case work by preventing ovulation.
    I don't think that's accurate, Jesse.

    Source: SunTimes

    Hobby Lobby provided coverage for 18 different methods of birth control. What both the Greens and the Hahns objected to were the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services that would have required them, on pain of severe fines, to cover four more methods, including the morning after pill, that the litigants consider abortifacients.

    © Copyright Original Source



    So it's quite possible to think one is against "birth control that terminates the development of the fertilized egg" while actually being against birth control that doesn't.
    Sure, that's possible, but I don't think the Hobby Lobby case as it actual IS supports your argument.

    I don't question their sincerity, just their science. Scored by intention, it's not self-contradictory. But in practice, the bottom line is that it's sure to increase the number of abortions.
    Source: USAToday

    The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case doesn't currently affect the birth control methods that are most commonly used. But Planned Parenthood Federation of America spokeswoman Justine Sessions says the decision "opens the door for other corporations to be able to opt out of providing any form of birth control."

    It doesn't affect:

    • Most birth control pills

    • Condoms

    • Sponges

    • Sterilization

    It does affect:

    • Plan B "morning-after pill"

    • Ella "morning-after pill"

    • Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

    The companies in the case and their supporters object to IUDs and morning-after pills, saying they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Groups that lobby for reproductive rights contend the drugs and devices prevent fertilization from occurring, which can lead to unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions.

    © Copyright Original Source



    I had exactly one "abortion" thread on the pre-crash TWeb. I think I titled it "Two out of three ain't good," referring to the trinity "safe, legal, and rare." I'm wondering if you ever read it?

    As ever, Jesse
    I don't recall it, Jesse, but the "rare" is a joke. Even the Democrats have given up on the "rare" claim.

    Source: Bloomberg

    Why has the party removed the sentence “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” from its platform? It was in the 2004 document but not in 2008’s or this year’s. Can’t Democrats just throw a crumb to the many millions who are pro-choice but not pro-abortion?

    © Copyright Original Source

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I don't see androids on the poll.
    I just voted with my Android.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Meh.... not necessarily. I mean, yeah, there ARE people who are both, but a lot of us (don't know the percentage) are against the birth control that terminates the development of the fertilized egg. THAT is not self contradictory.
    It's important to differentiate between such methods correctly. For instance, all of the methods at issue in the Hobby Lobby case work by preventing ovulation. So it's quite possible to think one is against "birth control that terminates the development of the fertilized egg" while actually being against birth control that doesn't. I don't question their sincerity, just their science. Scored by intention, it's not self-contradictory. But in practice, the bottom line is that it's sure to increase the number of abortions.

    I had exactly one "abortion" thread on the pre-crash TWeb. I think I titled it "Two out of three ain't good," referring to the trinity "safe, legal, and rare." I'm wondering if you ever read it?

    As ever, Jesse

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    There are folks who call themselves pro-life who are also anti-birth control. One contradicts the other.
    Meh.... not necessarily. I mean, yeah, there ARE people who are both, but a lot of us (don't know the percentage) are against the birth control that terminates the development of the fertilized egg. THAT is not self contradictory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    That's cuz I am not.
    Wait, that's my line.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X