Sabrina, suppose we believe your presentation completely. Even then, it’s still important that you present primary sources if you want any action to occur.
To illustrate, say we want to write letters and stage a demonstration tomorrow. We want to chant “Company X, Company X, we want Pharmeceutical Y!” but this is less than informative and doesn’t roll off the tongue, you see. So what company should we put in place of company X, and what is the drug name we should put in place of pharmaceutical Y?
I could scan Google with “conception prevention”, “pharmaceuticals”, “birth control”, “new development”, “FDA”, “pending approval”, and the like, or even contact the FDA about such products.
But I don’t know the development name of these products or the name of the companies.
And I really don’t need to know them to present the real concepts in this real matter.
As I said previously, I heard this announcement and the relevant pros and cons on a TV news broadcast, and I didn’t write down the particulars.
If you’d like to genuinely help in this matter, see if you can find out the names of these products – that would really be a great help.
I’ve done enough work here for now.
But if you choose not to participate, maybe someone else will, or maybe I’ll do so later – I don’t know.
Though you disparage wikipedia, it’s article onbirth control pills is better referenced (i.e. referenced at all) and much more credible that the sources you’ve provided (“TV news broadcast” is not exactly citing a source). The article states that “the method effectiveness. . . for the Pill has been measured as low as 0.3 and as high as 1.25, which means that under ideal conditions, anywhere from 0.3 to 1.25 out of 100 users will become pregnant during one year of perfect use (Pearl index = 0.3 to 1.25).” Other sources also cite incredibly high efficacy. Along with the previously cited Wikipedia article, 4women.gov states “The pill is 95 to 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy.” Smartersex.org reports that it is more effective than male or female sterilization.
On Wikipedia’s page regarding Adhudin, a promising potential male contraceptive, it points out that “When taken orally, the drug has very low bioavailability. The oral dose effective for contraception is so high that there have been side effects in the muscles and liver.” This shows at least one case where 1) research is continuing undeterred by any of the ghosts you claim are killing it, and 2) the problems with the drugs release are technical, not political.
Now, let’s talk about whose definition of abortion you’re using. Planned parenthood’s website says: “According to general medical definitions of pregnancy that have been endorsed by many organizations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the United States Department of Health and Human Services, pregnancy begins when a pre-embryo completes implantation into the lining of the uterus (ACOG, 1998; DHHS, 1978; Hughes, 1972; “Make the Distinction…,” 2001).” Wikipedia’s article on pregnancy states “pregnancy begins at implantation”, citing the American Medical Association definition of the condition. Since Dictionary.com and The American Heritage Dictionary both define abortion (in the sense we’re dealing with) to be
“1. . . the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months.”
and
“1. a.Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
b.Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion.”
respectively, it is clear that the definition of abortion that you are using to label regular birth control pills and emergency contraceptive pills as abortifacient is at the least not the accepted definition. Granted there is still contraversy, but it is hardly a word game for me to point out that you are using a specific and not a universal definition of the term.
I could not find reference to your new egg-hardening pills, nor to any contraversy surrounding them, though I admit that I didn’t look that hard. My purpose was merely to support my case that the current incarnation of the pill is effective and, when taken properly, not abortifacient. Your case up to now has been unfounded claims, and in order to progress you really are compelled to provide sources.
Again, I must question your motivation to disprove what the very existence of the new generation conception prevention pills proves: that the old pills are both ineffective in that regard and that they have undersiable side-effects.
You have already admitted to deny that a person begins at conception, so your postings will be aimed at contriving whatever it takes to negate the truth of it.
Denying reality seems to be the name of your game.
Here you pick and choose sites that you then use to extract pieces of data out of context as if it makes your point.
It doesn’t.
As I said before, this issue is so emotionally charged that even the most reliable sites, like Wiki, contain unreliable and erroneous information.
In order to properly reference applicably you have to also present the same reference that runs counter to the backed-into point you try to claim.
But, you didn’t.
That’s because you have a pro-choice agenda, which is all about trying to disprove the reality that a person begins to live at conception.
And that one of your references in your previous post is a Planned Parenthood site, notorious as they are for denying the truth of birth control function when killing a conception is involved, not even presenting that such even happens, your obvious pro-choice bias is quite evident in its power to subvert your attempt to find the truth.
In this link you will find the following about the traditional and widely prescribed progestin-only “mini-pill”:
“They may also make it more difficult for embryos to implant in the uterus. Contraceptives that deliver a low dose of progestin include traditional progesterone-only pills as well as implants Norplant and Jadelle. [size=150]These methods prevent ovulation about 50% of the time.[/size]”
There you have it, from Wiki: the standard progestin only “mini-pill” birth control pill that is widely used because it contains amounts of progestin small enough for most women to tolerate, the pill which is also prescribed for the millions of women who cannot handle estrogen, this pill that is in use by scores of millions of women, prevents ovulation only about half of the time, and then quite harshly to our system, including, as the site says, causing depression, something we are very tired of enduring just to prevent pregnancy.
And so what does this pill do to prevent pregnancy.
Well, this site doesn’t tell you in detail, saying only that “they may also make it more difficult for embryos to implant in the uterus”! That, of course, is the abortificant killing of a conceived person.
See how detailed unreliable even Wiki sites are in this matter!
Postfertilization effects of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) could involve any 1 or more of the following 3 mechanisms of action:
[size=150]1. Alteration of the endometrium, such that a preembryo that reached the uterus was unable to successfully implant into the endometrial lining of the uterus.[/size]
Alteration of the endometrium not sufficient to prevent implantation but unfavorable for maintenance of the pregnancy; a preembryo or embryo already implanted in the endometrial lining of the uterus would be unable to maintain itself long enough to result in a clinically recognized pregnancy. (Clinically recognized miscarriage rates are not higher in women who became pregnant while taking oral contraceptives.
Slower transport of the preembryo through the fallopian tube, preventing the preembryo from implanting in the uterus; this could result either in the unrecognized loss of the preembryo or in an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy if the preembryo had slower tubal transport and ended up implanting in the fallopian tube." [/b]
There you have it, the number 1 way that this widely used mini-pill prevents pregnancy is by preventing the “preembryo” from attaching to the womb.
Now we all know that an egg, “unfertilized” will not attach to the womb, that only a fertilized egg – a conception: a new person – will ever try to attach to the womb.
And look at reason number 2: ghastly! If the person attaches, that person doesn’t stay attached.
We all know that what is meant by Wiki’s misleading term “preembryo” in these instances is a conception. But wiki uses the same term in reason three that more appropriately refers to just an egg, before conception occurs.
The truth of the matter is that the widely used lower-dosage progestin pill, lower dosages which are still barely tolerable in most women, function, hereby [size=150]AS ABORTIFICANTS![/size].
That’s why the controversy. That’s why the new generation of conception prevention pills are being developed.
And that’s why you need to do your research on this topic away from the internet, away from politically charged and bias sources.
They’re hard to find.
I found them.
And what I learned jibes with the reality of the development of the new generation conception prevention pills.
Good luck to you in finding the truthful sources, Carleas – your ideological bias will be working against you.
As I presented just above here, progestin in the widely proscribed traditional “mini-pill”, the only progestin delivery amount that most women can handle, only prevents ovulation less than half of the time, and most of the rest of the time a newly conceived person is simply killed.
That’s a fact, Carleas.
The pills you prefer to reference are the comparatively seldom prescribed Cerazette pills, the Implanon implant and Depo-Provera injections. They prevent ovulation 98 to 99 percent of the time.
But they are very seldom used, because women can’t handle the high-dose progestin side-effects!
You aren’t being fair to reality by not presenting all of the facts in the matter as I am doing.
And, even then, that 1% of the time that ovulation occurs, the progestin functions to prevent uterine attachment of the newly conceived person. Even these pills have an abortificant function.
The truth remains, Carleas, that even in combo pills containing both estrogen and progestin, the estrogen functions to prevent ovulation (which it does to an undesirably low frequency), and the low-dose progestin functions to kill the conceived person by preventing attachment to the uterine wall.
Those are the facts, Carleas.
You can play favorites at site choosing all you want if leaving out relevant important details is your game.
But you’re only fooling yourself in your attempt to fool “others”.
Those of us who have done the research know the truth: that standard birth control pills have incorporate a deliberate abortificant function.
That’s reality, Carleas.
And that’s why many pro-life and anti-abortion groups not only refuse to use these old generation products, but advocate that pharmacists should have the non-punishable option of refusing to dispense these person-killing products.
This has been in the news many times, Carleas.
Again, your pro-choice agenda does seem to dumb you down.
And there you go again – doing all you can to delude yourself and others that a person doesn’t begin at conception.
I could put together a number of references that shows that abortion is always about the termination of at the very least a conception.
Common sense for those who know what abortion is is that if it is the termination of a pregnancy, it must then be, ipso facto, the termination of a conception.
It is you who plays “select out of context the quote that matches my ideology” word games, Carleas.
And you do this for the purpose of trying to promote your agenda’s delusion that a person doesn’t begin to live at conception.
In the process, you obviously do dumb yourself down to the greater reality.
You know as well as I do that the old-world definitions do not reflect new-world learned realities.
Impregnation isn’t the only prerequisite to abortion anymore.
In the past thirty some years we’ve confirmed that impregnation isn’t the start of a person’s life, but conception is.
This means that impregnation of an embryo is not required for the deliberate killing of it to be abortion.
You can quote whatever traditional old sites you wish, Carleas, but wouldn’t it be better simply to trust what you know is true at the center of your being?
I would think so.
You can’t define away reality, Carleas, no matter how hard you try.
[size=150]As it is quite clear that the only reason you attempt to split unsplitable hairs here is because in doing your site “research” you did learn that progestin functions to kill the newly conceived by preventing attachment to the womb, and you imagine that if you can just now redefine reality so that abortion doesn’t include pre-attached conceived people, then you can define away the reality you just can’t handle: that a person begins to live at conception.[/size]
But reason number two above, the ghastly reason that progestin also functions to cause attached conceptions – impregnated conceptions – to abort, is still a reality you will have to face that falls within your erroneously defined limits of the word “abortion”.
Deal with that.
See how important it is to do unbiased research to get and present the true facts, Carleas – it prevents unpleasant surprises a preknowledge of which would have saved you a lot of wasted “definition games” time.
And you didn’t look very hard because you weren’t interested in finding the truth.
You admit it.
When will you get it that your entire post is about wishing away the reality that a person begins to live at conception.
You want to wish away the reality that progestin in widely prescribed birth control pills functions to kill the newly conceived person.
You want to wish away the reality that abortion doesn’t apply to the conceived person prior to implantation.
You want to wish away the reality that the new generation of conception prevention pills are being developed to replace the old generation pills that not only have very unpleasant side-effects but that function as an abortificant, to kill the conceived person.
All of this wishing away of reality you do in the hope of somehow “proving” that a person doesn’t live from the beginning of conception.
If you can succeed in selectively defining your way into a narrow yet untrue set of conditions that negates the reality that a human being begins at conception – that there “are no” new generation conception prevention pills being developed, that abortion prior to implantation doesn’t kill the newly conceived prior to implantation, that progestin isn’t an abortificant – then you wish away your person-killing perspective’s guilt as well.
It is amazing how much people will deny that which is truthfully staring them right in the face, simply to avoid feelings they don’t like.
Your selective defining is laughable, Carleas.
It is also very sad.
At which you failed, miserably.
That the mini-pill and the progestin in the combo pill is an abortificant is true.
It has nothing to do with “when taken properly”.
The nature of the beast is what it is, even “when taken properly”: it’s an abortificant.
You’re fooling no one, Carleas.
The “puporse”, as you say, of your presentation is obvious: to deny the truth in hope of disolving attendent pro-choice guilt.
Not true, on both counts.
It is common knowledge by over 50% of the population that a person begins to live at conception. I don’t need to “reference” common knowledge, for that reason alone. And doing so is also not relevant to this thread.
When you say “in order to progress”, what you really mean is “in order to make you accept your pro-choice person-killing guilt”.
You’re way off base here, Carleas.
The very presence of the development of the new generation pills and the very fact as I witnessed on the news that the controvery exists is simply enough.
Accept it.
This thread isn’t about contending against the premises.
They simply should not rationally be in doubt.
This thread is about accepting the premises which I viewed, having me state what those were, and then talking about doing what we can to get those pills to affordable market as a practical solution to the abortion conflict.
You, however, aren’t interested in win-win solutions that, in this case, will satisfy the hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women who make up the market base that motivated the drug companies to develop these products.
Instead, you’re just interested in playing the same old same old discussion site debate a topic to death about trivial nothing games.
Why, Carleas?
The answer is obvious: you have a political and personal agenda to grind.
Hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women are hoping that the new generation of conception prevention phamaceuticals will finish development soon and be made affordably available.
Though I am neither pro-life or anti-abortion, I can understand why the standard method of birth control that not only functions as an abortificant but retains very unpleasant side-effects is simply unacceptable to them.
Though religious Catholics may not use such pills, preferring, among others, perhaps some form of “abstinence”, this thread is about 1) the hundreds of millions worldwide who would use these products because they want to have intercourse without conceiving and 2) how the religious anti-abortionists and the pro-choicers are trying to stop the development and marketing of these products.
Accepting these as facts, what is your opinion about these new products and the attempt to block their development and distribution?
Yes, the leaders of the pro-choice camp, those who would align themselves with the Planned Parenthood perspective, see the new conception prevention products as a threat to their perspective that a person doesn’t begin at conception.
The pro-life and anti-abortion factions, hundreds of millions of women, believe that a person begins a conception, and they know that standard birth control can function as an abortificant that, thereby, kills the newly conceived person, so they won’t use these products. They want products that always prevent conception.
That’s why these new conception prevention products are being developed.
One would think that the Planned Parenthood people and those who support their perspective, nearly every pro-choicer, wouldn’t really care.
Until one examines what such products mean to the average pro-choicer.
The average pro-choicer thinks that a person doesn’t begin until the third trimester or even birth.
So, they reationalize that aborting before then is not killing a human being, a person.
They are thus okay with contraceptives that function to kill the newly conceived person, as most standard birth control pills can function.
Thus the current old generation of birth control pills supports their premise that a new conception isn’t a human being, isn’t a person, so there’s no problem in “terminating” that “fertilized egg”. Nobody’s being killed.
But the very reason the new generation of pills are being developed is because hundreds of millions of women say otherwise, that a human being, a person, does begin to live at conception.
This is a crucial aspect of the issue.
The pro-choicers don’t want to feel like they’ve been killing human beings!
The old products were never a threat to them thinking that.
But the new products are indeed a threat because their very existence implies that a human being, a person, begins at conception.
And if these new conception prevention products come to market … they will be advertised as non-killing products to the masses who might therefore want to choose them.
That means that pro-choicers will have to hear over and over the advertising for these products that basically implicates them as “murderers”.
And, if these new products take off and dominate the market, they could, via simple behavior of chosing these products, cause the dominant political landscape to reflect the same opinion: that a human being, a person, begins to live at conception.
If this happens, not only will there then be a majority-spurred movement to rescind the “killing” old generation contraceptives, but as the overwhleming majority chooses these non-killing products, the collective pro-life attitude that results could be quite a force in overturning Roe v. Wade.
Not to mention that these overwhleming shifts in collective thinking will indict pro-choicers via sheer collective force with regard to the guilt they have suppressed that they really did kill someone within them when they committed first and second trimester abortions.
That guilt could be devastating.
The leaders of the pro-choicers, Planned Parent, are quite astute in awareness of these realities.
They realize from the get-go of development of these new conception prevention pharmaceuticals that the very existence of these products is considerable effort expended to create what amounts to an indictment for “murder” by abortion against them.
That is why they and people like Carleas here are so adamant about denying, not only the reality of these new generation conception prevention products presently in development, but they are doing all they can to fantastically state that there simply is no reason for these products to exist.
They know there is a reason for them to exist.
They just don’t like the reason.
And they are doing all they can to block these understandably indicting products from coming to market.
You may want to call these people “anti-choice”, but such a term can apply to anyone, and is not a valid relevant label in the abortion issue.
The reality is that those who are working to block the development of these products are the masses of pro-choicers … and those who are the most adamant pro-choicers with regard to blocking the development and marketing of the new conception prevention pharmaceuticals are women, women, who are more directly responsible for the decision to abort and would feel the most guilty if they ever began to think that they really did kill a human being, their very own offspring, when they committed, not only first and second trimester abortion, but used the standard birth control pills that can function as an abortificant.
Your figure of 50% is clearly stated as for progesterone only pills(POP), mini-pills, not combined oral contraceptive(COC) pills. COCs have more progesterone, and so are more effective at preventing ovulation. They are the pills for which the near perfect ovulation prevention numbers hold. And COCs are much more popular than POPs (click)
I refuse to trust your memory of a television news program as an unquestionable authority. I do not consider television news programs to be unbiased sources. If you’ve others, please present them. Hell, tell us what news program you were watching, what channel where, maybe we can find information about these amazing new methods you vaguely refer to.
All my objections relate directly to the topic at hand. I do not endorse a mystery product over current methods of abortion, especially when every indication is that current methods already solve the problems this mystery is supposed to solve. Without proper information, I absolutely object to the disemination of this new medication. I highly doubt that the only reasons it is delayed are political (and I referenced a specific case for the male pill where politics were not the problem).
I also don’t believe that pro-choice groups are against this rumor, because 1) they could never argue a case the way you are (at the very least, I would like to hear their side of the story, if such a story even exists) and 2) a rose by any other name. . . : calling a ‘clump of cells’ a ‘person’, a ‘contraceptive’ an “abortificant [sic]” (you mean ‘abortifacient’), it doesn’t change what it is, nor the moral value of the act. I don’t care what you call the whole bit for my sake, I know the process, I know the dilemmas involved, and I am not bought by the labels. I object to your use of labels, as I’ve said in another topic, because you are calling something a person, and then asking that it have the same moral worth as an adult human. Now you wish to call something that goes by unnoticed an abortion, and claim that it is therefor as traumatic as the surgical procedure that might have occurred 3 months on. And as I pointed out before, this is simply equivocation, and in an effort to avoid the confusion, I think that significantly different acts should have significantly different labels.
The combined estrogen and progestin pills are not better at stopping ovulation “because they have more progesterone”.
The combined estrogen and progestin pills are better at stopping ovulation than the progestin-only pills because they have estrogen, and estrogen’s only function in the pill is to stop ovulation!
The combined pill does not have more progestin in the pills than the progestin-only pills. The link you quote does not even begin to state that. Again, you are just making things up to suit your ideological agenda, misleading innocent girls and women in the process.
And, again, the combined pills do not have a “near perfect” ovulation prevention number.
The progestin in the pill is there to act as a failsafe because estrogen alone has a low rate of ovulation prevention efficacy. If estrogen was that high in that regard, there’d be no need to add progestin abortificant to the pills.
As for popularity of a particular pill, a cancer link that you referenced here (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/hormones/thepill/) is not an authority on selling trends of birth control pills, and its editorial opinion is simply shooting from the hip rhetoric that is not to be taken seriously from such a site as this. You must have searched for quite awhile to find an erroneous statement in an internet link that suited your purpose.
Many women cannot handle estrogen and that’s why the progestin only pill that acts as an abortificent exists in the first place.
The bottomline remains, that progestin in a pill functions as an abortificant.
No matter what the poor percentage of ovulation prevention is in a given pill, if there is progestin in the pill, it is there to provide an abortificant function.
But your implication that the mini-pill, as I clearly specified it before, is hardly in use at all is gross misrepresentation by deliberate minimalization.
That you would do so, violating what you know is otherwise true, well, it just goes to show that pro-choicers will do anything to keep these new pills from coming to market and convicting them of what they’ve suppressed: their guilt at having aborted a living human being.
Of course you do.
It’s really an absolute nothing of an issue – my relating what I saw on the news.
Why would I lie?
Yet you “refuse to trust”, not because there’s any indication that what I’m saying isn’t true, but because you simply can’t handle the truth.
Hell, it wasn’t Fox News, for God’s sake!
They were simply relating facts of happenstance.
Geez, Carleas – it appears that your desperate run from abortion guilt is rendering you absolutely paranoid.
I do hope that’s not your case.
And your denial just keeps on coming.
It’s getting old, Carleas.
But it does attest to my point about your desperate running from the truth.
Rational people wouldn’t question the matter, especially after reading the logical fact-smart presentation I’ve provided that corroborates my presentation.
But you, well, you really appear to be afraid of something that others simply aren’t afraid of.
You don’t endorse conception prevention pills because these pills convict pro-choicers like you of having killed a human being, a person, when you commited abortion of newly conceived human beings.
Your fantasy, that I have clearly debunked, that “current methods of” what you probably mean is “contraception” are not abortificants, is simply that: a fantasy, a fantasy that, so far, only you seem to retain.
Your objections aren’t really to the factual presentation I have given.
Your objections are that these new conception prevention products indict pro-choicers as “murderers” in your mind, and you know it.
Of course you object.
You object to what is being developed and what is nearing distribution.
And you “object” to this new medication because it indicts pro-choicers as “murderers”, and for no other reason.
You may have self-deluded that the progestin in what is likely your pill doesn’t function as an abortificant, but it does.
Deal with it. You were in error.
And deal with it without taking needed and requested options from hundreds of millions of women who will benefit from them.
Of course, you would.
But, it is all political … and personally emotional.
That particular male pill you referenced wasn’t the one presented on the news, as the one on the news acted in a different way.
Again, all of your objection is not only political but likely personally emotional as well.
Your statement here is essentially incomprehensible.
Nevertheless, these pills were presented on the news. They are not a “rumor” as you would like to belittle them into being.
If you want to hear their side of the story, then e-mail Planned Parenthood and ask them, “what do you think of the new conception prevention pharmaceuticals presently in development that will suppress sperm motility (the male pills) and harden released egg “shell” against penetration (the female pills)?”. Word it that way, and see if you get a response.
You’ll be lucky to get anything at all that presents the truth of the matter. They prefer to ignore the reality of these new pills with the consumer, just as you do.
[b][size=150]And there you go again, revealing the true foundational reason for your objection to my relating of the TV news article: you don’t think a human being begins to live at conception, and so the number of times you may have advocated abortion of this person thinking that no one was being killed is a thought that is directly threatened by the development of these pills.
It doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong (though you are wrong).
It’s that you are afraid of anything bringing to light that a human being begins to live at conception, frightens the guilty hell out of you, and that is your sole motivation for posting ridiculously in this thread.[/size][/b]
I’ve read it both ways on the internet and have yet to consultant my dictionary on the matter.
If “abortifacient” is the “really correct spelling”, then I thank you for pointing that out.
My factual presentation doesn’t “change” what is – it presents what is as it truly is, unlike your presentation which seeks to delude with fantasy and deliberate misrepresentation.
As to morals, I’m not interested in them.
I’m pro-abortion, and I most certainly, if under financial stress and between a rock and a pregnant place, will choose to kill to avoid the stone of poverty.
But I won’t deny reality about the fact that I’ve killed a conceived human being.
I’ll deal with it straight-on, honest, and directly.
I don’t know why you can’t seem to face the indisputable common evidence and your own gut center of your being that a human being begins at conception and that abortion is the killing of that person.
It just seems like you’re so focused on your “light” side and that killing is “dark” that you just have to deny the reality that you’ve behaved in some “dark” manner, even if unintentionally.
It would seem to me that facing the truth, no matter how difficult, would be ultimately very freeing for you.
You can euphemize for denial in whatever rhetoric you choose, Carleas, but your behavior is obvious and it betrays your fear of realizing that your perspective advocates the killing of human beings.
That’s what the bottomline is regarding your nit-picky behavior toward really irrelevant aspects of this thread’s requested discussion points.
There is no correlation to an objection about labels (pro-choice, pro-life, pro-abortion, anti-abortion) and an objection to the fact that a human being, a person, begins to live at conception.
If you weren’t intimidated by the thought that indeed a human being “might indeed” begin at conception, you’d never have been emotionally stimulated to post in this thread.
“I’m” not asking that it have the same moral worth as an adult human being.
I’m simply stating the facts of life, and the facts of the news.
It’s you who are telling yourself that you are afraid that a newly conceived human being will “have the same moral worth as an adult human being” should these new generation conception prevention pills become actively marketed and the dominant product chosen.
And here you go again with your denial-oriented word games.
Call it whatever you wish, Carleas, but a killing by any other name is still a killling.
And your implication that it “goes by unnoticed” is simply wishful thinking on your part.
The fact that hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women won’t do the old generation birth control pills because they can function as an abortificant proves that just because you are in “unnoticed” denial on the matter, that not everyone else is.
I never claimed it was “as traumatic”.
For the person enduring the abortion surgery, the procedure itself is much more traumatic to them then aborting via birth control pills.
You’re now reduced to putting words in my mouth that aren’t even justified by the facts.
Once again, it is you telling yourself that the very presence of these new generation of abortion prevention pills are starting to compel you to “wonder” “if indeed” a conception is a human being and that if all these scientists and administrators and business people and politicians who advocate for these pills are saying so, then … maybe … it … might … be … … true.
Your changing process is obvious … and, you’re struggling against it.
Absolute gobbldygook, Carleas.
The fact of the matter remains, that you post in this thread only because the very presence of these new generation conception prevention pills threatens to reveal your coping mechanisms as the fantasies they truly are.
Again, as I stated at the onset, it is obvious that pro-choicers are trying to derail the development and affordable marketing of these new conception prevention pills, [size=150]as your presentation in this thread so clearly illustrates[/size].
I shortened and moved around some of what you said to allow me to make some points. So my apologies if I’ve unfairly put some things out of context. The three points that I wanted to make have to do with
The crucial issue.
The current “political landscape”.
“Pro-choice” versus “anti-choice”.
The crucial issue in my opinion is the enslaving a women to force her to have a baby. Even if everyone agreed that life begins at conception, it doesn’t change the fact that women need a choice. Even if we call it “murder” it makes no difference. We still have to weigh the abomination of enslaving a women with the abomination of killing a child. That’s the issue.
That’s why I have no fear of better, safer, more preemptive contraception. The more the better. I’d say it’s more about letting those that are feeling guilt at have an abortion to lose some of their guilt (not the pro-choicers).
I was able to find no supporting web pages for the “anti-non-abortificant contraceptive conspiracy”. In fact only 711 pages showed up on a search on Google for “abortificant”. If it is a conspiracy, it’s really, really well hidden.
When Googling on “abortificant” I came across “Plan B” a non abortificant contraceptive (518 of the 711 web pages for “abortificant” were also for “Plan B”).
None of these non-abortificant methods have resulted in any meaningful “movement” by any significant number of people.
There is no reason that I can find to assume that the addition of more non-abortificant methods are going to create any kind of popular movement of the type that you are describing.
Sabrina, we both know that what Membrain just posted contains several pieces of mistaken information. But before you bite him in the ass, let me suggest you take to heart the dictum: never attribute malice where ignorance is an adequate explanation. I think you’ll make more friends that way. Good luck.
Progesterone is not in any birth control pill, POP or COC. Progestins are. From the Wikipedia article for progestin:
“The recognition of progesterone’s ability to suppress ovulation during pregnancy spawned a search for a similar hormone that could bypass the problems associated with administering progesterone (low bioavailability when administered orally and local irritation and pain when continually administered parentally) and, at the same time, serve the purpose of controlling ovulation. The many synthetic hormones that resulted are known as progestins.”
You point out that “The combined pill does not have more progestin in the pills than the progestin-only pills. The link you quote does not even begin to state that.” You’re right, nor did I intend it to. I’m sorry if I was unclear, I meant only to support the claim that the mini-pill is used by a minority of oral contraceptive users. But it seems the link didn’t convince you of that either. Here are some more sources making similar claims:
And clinical scientist Dr. Richard Anderson of the Medical Research Council in Britain, from a CNN interview (I know how you love that TV news)
Now, unless you have evidence to the contrary, it seems as though the case is decided.
You see, Sabrina, you’re making all these wild claims. Many sound implausible. Without information as to what you’re talking about, other posters are left with you simply insisting that the evidence presented is misleading or biased. Membrain provided good evidence that Planned Parenthood is supportive of non-abortifacient contraceptives. And I’ve personally found no evidence of a new from of female contraceptive pill (believe me, I’ve tried; with the amount of skewed information that I’ve seen from you so far, I’m pretty confident there’s more to the story, if such a story exists).
(I know it’s straying from the topic somewhat, but it’s been infused in your every post since the beginning, so I don’t feel that bad:)
Guilt implies wrong-doing. Killing is not necessarily wrong-doing. Euthanasia is not wrong. Execution is not necessarily wrong. Killing in self defense is not necessarily wrong. These are cases where it can be legitimate and guilt free to kill.
People are not necessarily morally valuable. A vegetable like Terri Schiavo was not a morally valuable person. Criminals might be less morally valuable than law-abiding citizens. Enemy soldiers might have less moral value than soldiers in one’s own platoon. Here, we have cases where people are not morally valuable, or less morally valuable than others.
Sabrina, you’re being bought by the labels. You attach such wrongness to ‘killing’, such value to ‘person’ or ‘human being,’ and most of the time you are right to do so. Most killing is wrong, and most people are valuable. But you cannot point to a thing, call it a person, and expect it to have a personality, nor can you similarly embezzle moral worth by affixing the label ‘person’ to a few thousand cells. And you might like to say that since it is a ‘person’, it is therefor ‘murder’ to terminate it’s progression, but the label does not carry with it the wrong-doing, the moral-repulsion, nor the guilt it generally associates. It is equivocation, plain and simple. It won’t fly.
(And a request, one made by Xunzian earlier, and one that has continued to be an issue: Could you not break my post into tiny bits? Most of the time, adjacent sentences relate to each other, and often adjacent paragraphs do as well. They tend to depend on each other for their meaning. It just makes the whole discussion silly to disagree one word at a time.
You don’t have to, I just think it would make the whole thing smoother. Please)
The reasons you were unable to find what you were looking for on the internet is a combination of few sites, inaccuarate search arguments, and the new conception prevention products are still in development testing and that process is not for public knowledge generally until marketing presents the product in its ready state with a general announcement.
The TV news investigation simply gave us a peek into the near future.
I have not conducted any search because I had no reason to doubt the news report. It all made perfect sense. But, then again, I don’t suffer from bias-oriented limitations that cause me to pretentiously doubt what is obviously true.
If you really want information, contact the FDA and ask them about what is in testing. They may tell you.
The reason you aren’t seeing a big public outcry among pro-choicers is because they don’t want to move this issue into their concsciouness.
If they do, they become more self-intimidated by the new conception prevention products.
It’s kind of like why Bush hardly says a word about Iraq’s oil when the Iraq war is mentioned. He knows that’s the only reason he invaded Iraq, and talking about it only makes him nervous about people finding that out.
Planned Parenthood also doesn’t want to make a big public matter of their disapproval of these new conception prevention products because it makes them appear insecure, thereby giving credence to the perspective that a human being really does begin to live at conception and they’ve known that all along.
They prefer to remain silent for the time being with regard to the public and instead operate behind the scenes via congressional and DEA lobbying and the like, which they will continue to do until that fails and the products finish testing and are brought to market.
The bottomline about Planned Parenthood’s objection remains true. They oppose the new conception prevention pills because 1) its very presence convicts them of killing human beings who were newly conceived, killing from either medicine or surgical abortion, and 2) the near-100% efficacy of both the male and female conception prevention product combined will drastically reduce the number of abortions requested, and that hurts their wallet, as abortion is the foundational revenue source for Planned Parenthood.
Also, if your search on “abortificant” failed, it may be because of the reason Carleas gave, that “abortifacient” is the more proper term. Try scanning on “abortifacient” instead. I too will begin using that term to see if I receive better internet hits myself.
Your presentation of Plan B is not relevant to the matter, as Plan B is an abortifacient. Once conception takes place (the creation of a new human being from the perspective of hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women) it takes a number of days until that person attaches to the uterine wall (impregnates). Plan B works by immediately forcing a “period”, a cleansing blood flow that “washes” away the conception, thereby killing that person. Everyone knows that Plan B is designed to be an abortifacient.
It takes anywhere from a few minutes to a few days after intercourse for conception to occur, depending on where the egg is at the time of ejaculation. If the egg is near the end of the fallopian tube or already in the uterus, then conception could occur within minutes. If the egg is just being released or is not yet released, then it may take hours, even days, before conception occurs.
Women only use Plan B if they think they might be ovulating and they were unprotected during intercourse – they only use it if they think they’ve conceived or are about to conceive. Thus, by usage design, Plan B is intended not just to maybe wash both sperm and egg away before conception can occur, but the majority of the time to wash away the conception after it has happened.
This is common knowledge to those who know what Plan B is.
Thus the hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women find Plan B an abomination because its intended to kill newly conceived people.
Plus, Plan B screws up our reproductive system by forcing a period, and we’re tired of medicine messing with our hormonal balance and its associated emotional equilibrium.
All women want a better way.
But the most important thing about Plan B relevant to this thread is that it is designed to function as an abortifacient: it terminates the newly conceived.
So Plan B is not used by pro-life and anti-abortion women who know what it is.
You admit to being pro-choice.
So, like Carleas, you are motivated emotionally to post in denial of the particulars that aren’t even rationally questionable.
You also seem to dislike the very valuable and accurately identifying labels of “pro-life”, “pro-choice”, “pro-abortion”, and “anti-abortion” that are relevant to this matter.
So you will attempt to downplay the obvious political and personal contention that these new conception prevention pills will bring, and you post in a way that expresses doubt for the very real need for these pills, a very real need that I have clearly and accurately presented.
Your post is thus merely based on your avoidance of facing the “possible” reality that a human being begins to live at conception.
Indeed most pro-choicers prefer to think of themselves as not being killers. But when faced with the thought that they “may have been” advocating the killing of newly conceived human beings, they react highly defensive and in a sometimes “subtle” denial way, such as trying either verbally or actively to thwart bringing a convicting pharmaceutical product to market.
Again, give these products some time to come to market, by supporting their development (if you really don’t like to “enslave” women), and when that happens, and they’re in the general public’s eye, just sit back and watch and fur fly.
But his motivation for posting as he does is not a “request for information”.
His motivation is a hope that the information I’ve presented isn’t true, and for the usual pro-choicer’s reasons.
I have thus revealed that motivation, as such is germane to this thread per the opening post where I accurately presented the pro-choice crowd as being opposed to the reality and distribution of these new generation of conception prevention pills.
As for making friends, any friends worth having are neither self-delusional or deliberately dishonest.
"The reason you aren’t seeing a big public outcry among pro-choicers is because they don’t want to move this issue into their concsciouness.
If they do, they become more self-intimidated by the new conception prevention products. "
I’d just like to point out that, so far, the only group that seems to be privy to any information about this new pill is a select group of news anchors for an as yet undisclosed channel. In order for most ‘pro-choicers’ to be consciously against these new drugs, most ‘pro-choicers’ would need to be aware of these new drugs. Are they so opposed to them that they refuse to find out that they exist?
And Planned Parenthood’s revenue (in 1993) totalled $462.5 million. Abortion only accounted for an estimated $40 million(1). That’s no small chunck of change, but given that birth control councilling and distribution also generate revenue, if they were to totally eliminate abortions because of these new pills, they would almost certainly make up for it in other areas.
Disparage it as you will, but so far we have evidence that your claims are bogus, and nothing but your claims to show otherwise. Sources are becomming ever more important.
I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but I will concede that life begins at conception. I will admit that it is killing. I am not acting defensively or subtly. My point (one of them) is that women need a period of time to choose to abort. You seem to not-so-subtly ignore this point.
The point about the “political climate” shifting in favor of choice you also seemed to ignore.
The point about non-abortifacient methods being supported by Planned Parenthood you also seemed to ignore.
The point about a complete lack of corroborative evidence for your conspiracy claim you also seemed to ignore.
For writing a lot you seem to ignore a lot.
All I really need is a link to any blog or article anywhere on the planet that supports your “conspiracy against non-abortifacient contraception”. I gave plenty of links to back my stuff up. Can you give me one? Thanks.
Why, Carleas, must you continue to beat your poor, aging parents?
False allusion to unacceptable ad hominem in an attempt to keep your motivations hidden will not garner you integrity, Carleas.
Nor will it censor me from telling the truth in this matter.
Deliberate lying is much more loathesome then revealing another’s obvious motivations could ever be.
Again, your attempt to bury the discussion in irrelevant technical hair-splitting (progesterone v the synthetic progestin) is meaningless.
Quoting a function of the hormone, a high-dose disruptive ability to prevent ovulation, does not at all present the fact that most women cannot handle this large of a dose, as it, obviously, contains very unpleasant side-effects, complete with the risk of death.
Again, your entire motivation of slice-and-dice pick-and-choose irrelevant quoting is all about keeping you free from indictment that likely the very birth control pill you’ve been using has frequently functioned to kill the newly conceived human being within you.
Yes, I am right.
I am right about not only the reality of these new pills, not only the reality of how the present old generation contraceptives work, but the reality of your motivation for posting as you do in this thread.
Again, a “minority” is a meaningless statement within the context of this discussion.
A “minority” can mean 49%, and indeed there are very many women who simply cannot handle estrogen in their pills, or the mini-pill, progestin-only pill, simply would not exist as a marketable commodity.
Again, you do all you can to keep the truth of the vast usage of the abortifacient mini-pill from your consciousness.
In the process, you do women everywhere a disservice.
Using “the same type of hormone in a much more effective and convenient way” only means that instead of popping the pill their shooting it, and the abortifacient results are still the same.
Give it up, Carleas – your deliberate attempts to mislead will not survive as long as I am here to provide the facts.
And if “popularity” is declining because people have to remember to take some of the variations of the mini-pill the same time every day, as is essentially the case with nearly all old generation birth control pills, I would think that women everywhere are growing tired of the pill’s regimen.
And, so, enter the new conception prevention pills – state of the art science, and better in every possible way. Why would you be opposed to better science, Carleas?
The answer is obvious: the state of the art new pills don’t ever kill newly conceived human beings.
That fact bothers you greatly, obviously.
Alleged anecdotes and off the cuff opinions by a “scientist” are no substitute for accurate unbiased statistical information both with regard to sales and science.
But at least you found a reference that admits to the reality of the new generation male conception prevention pill that is in development and will soon be brought to market.
Soon the word “contraceptive”, which implies the inclusion of killing new conceptions, will be replaced with a new term that specifies conception prevention, or it will be redefined just like “abortifacient” has been brought up to modern date to include any killing of a conception from that point on prior to birth.
The mini-pill is in frequent use by millions who cannot tolerate estrogen in their pills.
If you were truly being honest and in the interest of the facts, you’d research the fact that many women cannot tolerate estrogen in their pills and you’d present accurate information on that.
But, of course, we both know that your pro-choice motivations would preclude the conducting of a fair research on this topic.
The bottomline remains with the progestin pills: they function as an abortifacient.
Hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women know this, and that is why they want the new generation of conception prevention pills presently in development.
We also know that pro-choicers like you don’t want to see these pills brought to market, and, we know why.
At the very least, the presence of these new generation conception prevention pills in development by pharmaceutical companies would seem to contradict your delusion that “the case is decided”.
You aren’t going to decide a major reality against the truth of it by selectively posting inconsequential links taken out of context, Carleas.
Progestin in the birth control pills are known abortifacients.
Even you gave up on trying to prove otherwise.
Hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women want the new generation conception prevention pills, pills that also don’t screw up their ovulation cycle and hormone balance.
This “case”, as you call it, obviously has been decided in my presentation’s favor, not your sophism’s.
But talking about your resistance to the new products have revealed another reason you don’t like them: they will indeed end the game-playing with a woman’s cycle and hormone balance.
That will make them very attractive, even to many pro-choice women who could care less about how they work and who may be oblivious to the fact that the old generation birth control pills can function as abortifacients.
That makes these new conception prevention pills all the more threatening if your own ranks will greatly run to buy them.
Indeed, it won’t be long before Roe v. Wade itself will be a thing of the anachronistic past.
I believe that thought frightens you, Carleas.
Am I right?
“Wild”?
The only thing that is wild is your denial of the obvious.
Kindly keep to yourself what belongs to you and not to me.
No “other” posters (aside from what is to be expected from pro-choicers) are doubting the particulars of the news story I saw on TV.
Have any pro-life, anti-abortion or pro-abortionists who recognize that a human being begins to live at the moment of conception challenged the mere relating of the story that I provided in the opening post?
No.
Only denial-based pro-choicers have done so.
Which renders your observation meaningless by virtue of the challenge being based on obvious bias.
Membrain did not find “good evidence that Planned Parenthood is supportive of non-abortifacient” new generation conception prevention pills presently in development.
He simply experienced some of Planned Parenthood’s ubiquitous deflectives … while they work in the lobbying background to cause these new pills to die from lack of development funding.
The news article, however, presented differently.
I trust the news channel’s research over Membrain’s – they have more at stake in telling the truth.
Again, as I told Membrain, wait until the new generation conception prevention pills are more in the public eye.
Then watch the mere tip of the iceberg outcry from Planned Parenthood.
That “you” personally have “found no” evidence of the new generation female conception prevention pill is meaningless.
You have an obvious agenda that will prevent you from really trying to find what will be unpleasantly convicting for you.
As for calling my presentation “skewed”, Carleas, I would think that people who obviously live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
There is indeed more to the story than what you want to see.
I have presented the whole story as it was presented on the TV news.
I do greatly regret that I didn’t write down the appropriate names, believe me.
That you finally get directly to your point, rather than posting skewed and erroneous information about birth control pills, is somewhat refreshing.
Here, you finally present what bothers you: you don’t want to see yourself as a wrong-doer.
That’s fine.
I’m not going to disagree with you here.
Again, I’m a pro-abortionist. I will kill that person within me if I deem it necessary and for reasons many pro-life and anti-abortionists would call “murder”.
But I’m not posting here to “defend” my behavior.
I’m simply presenting a very interesting development that is contentious and thereby warranting, perhaps, some discussion.
But at least with me I recognize that there will be repercussions in my psyche for having killed someone within me.
I face that square on: I would be a killer, rationally, maybe even a murderer if I commit abortion for reasons of economics or convenience, if my life wasn’t at stake.
I still would choose to kill and deal straight and true with my resultant emotions, maybe even via therapy if necessary, rather than fall into the pro-choicer’s delusion that a human being doesn’t begin at conception when such is both scientifically and gut-center of our being obvious.
Here you broach the subject of when it is okay to kill.
Thus you are beginning to get in touch with the reality of the abortifacient function of the birth control pills you yourself may be using, or the surgical abortion you may have had.
That you broach the subject, saying “sometimes it is okay to kill” is, from my perspective, a breakthrough for you in comming to accepting terms with the abortifacient realities of old generation birth control pills and other means relevant to this subject.
It does “fly” … or you wouldn’t be so adamant about saying otherwise when such really wasn’t in contention from the opening post of this thread.
Again, it doesn’t matter whether you are wrong or right, Carleas (though you are wrong when you same a human being doesn’t begin at conception, as science and our gut-center knows better).
What matters is that your entire posting presentation is motivated to keep these new generation conception prevention products out of the hand of the hundreds of millions of people who want them.
You say your motivation is “that there is no need for them”.
But hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women won’t take your abortifacient old generation birth control pills, Carleas.
The question is why should you rationalize what is “needed” or “isn’t” needed?
If hundreds of millions of women would use these products, why should you care?
Just drop it and let these in-demand products be developed.
Why are you so obviously irrationally resistant to letting these women have what they want?
Why do you want to control them so?
These are the questions you would do well to answer in this thread, as such is germane to the opening post where I set the table for this discussion.
As to your decrying of valid labels, “pro-choice”, “pro-life”, “pro-abortion”, “anti-abortion”, “religious anti-abortion”, all accurately identify a perspective relevant to this issue.
In this case the pro-life and anti-abortion labels describe the perspective of those who want the new generation conception prevention pills, and as most know what these very common labels clearly mean, it helps in conveying the meaning of the associated issues without being too redundantly verbose.
I realize that your objection to these labels is based on your desired attempt to blur understanding of the valid reason these new pills are being developed.
But, again, such bluring is only motivated by your wanting to deny that they are wanted pills.
Such denial is part and parcel of most pro-choicers in this issue.
Your request here isn’t for the reasons you give.
Your request here is to attempt to controllingly limit my ability to present all of the “tiny bits” of your posts one by one that are in factual error and that reflect your real motivation for posting here.
With your request of me here, like with your attempt to keep these very needed and desired new generation conception prevention products out of the hands of the hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women who are demanding them, you are simply again behaving in a controlling manner.
People who do as you are doing here usually have a difficulty accepting the realities they are trying to avoid via unjustifiable controlling of the behavior of others.
How have I done anything but retrieve, present and further request information? I’ve done research that you seem incapable of providing and found your claims to be spurious. I would love to learn something new and exciting like a huge unknown conspiracy. That would be fascinating. But I’m just not seeing enough evidence (and seeing plenty of evidence to the contrary).
Your assertions of my self-delusion and/or dishonesty are just insulting.
Good point. Without reading all of your posts, I’m guessing we are coming to the same conclusion: the conspiracy claim seems far-fetched.
But the point that pro-choicers would need to be aware of these drugs in order to fight them is a valid argument. The only way it could be true is if there was a secret cabal at the highest levels of Planned Parenthood doing this under the radar of everybody else. And then there would need to be some leak that found its way to Sabrina.
I agree that it is unlikely (unless Sabrina can supply any shred of corroborative evidence).
… 
)