Will the Supreme Court Ignore the Evidence? Facts vs. Beliefs in the ‘Hobby Lobby’ Case


Read more of our coverage on the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases here.

In the religious and political fervor surrounding the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties cases, which the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on any day now, three simple statements of fact about women’s health and reproduction seem to have gotten lost: Contraceptives prevent pregnancy, abortifacients terminate a pregnancy, and a pregnancy begins at implantation. So contraceptives by definition are not abortifacients because they prevent a pregnancy; if they work, there is no pregnancy to be terminated.

These statements are not up for debate. They’re not subject to any “well actually” muddying of the waters. They are incontrovertible facts based in science.

Nevertheless, should the Supreme Court rule in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood’s favor, and allow them to avoid their obligations under the Affordable Care Act because they are opposed to abortion-inducing drugs and they “believe” that certain emergency contraceptives qualify as such, those three factual statements will become mere matters of opinion.

Undermining these basic scientific facts has been crucial to the strategy that Hobby Lobby and other corporations have employed during their holy crusade against the birth control benefit. And partisan organizations like the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the virulently anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List, are eager to assist. They conduct “research” and propagate agenda-driven nonsense from non-credible scientists, all the while ignoring and dismissing actual scientists: The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which is world renowned for being comprised of premier experts in women’s health, and whose definition of pregnancy has been the standard since 1970, for example, is dismissed as “rabidly pro-abortion.”

Birth control benefit opponents obfuscate basic concepts about reproduction and women’s health. They attempt to turn a discussion about when pregnancy begins—and therefore when and how a pregnancy can be terminated—into a discussion about when life begins. But as RH Reality Check’s own Jodi Jacobson wrote in an article entitled “Life Begins At Conception. That’s Not the Point”:

Human life has to begin with conception, but conception is not the same thing as pregnancy, the latter of which reason, science, and medical evidence agree begins when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterus and develops into a healthy embryo.

Reason, science, and medical evidence are dangerous to the anti-contraception agenda. Simple biological truisms—that pregnancy begins at implantation, for instance—become, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, “Orwellian new-speak” designed to obscure the “reality” that all hormonal contraceptives potentially are abortion pills. The fact that this “reality” is actually a fantasy doesn’t matter.

In pursuit of their fantasy, birth control benefit detractors dismiss any person or organization that doesn’t march in lockstep with their junk science agenda. They happily ignore that the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association, and the medical community writ large agree that emergency contraceptives are not “abortion-inducing drugs.” They ignore the legal opinions of judges like Edward Korman, who, in Tummino v. Hamburg—which ultimately required that Plan B be made available over-the-counter—called the idea that Plan B could affect implantation “scientifically unsupported speculation.” 

Birth control benefit opponents even ignore people in their own camp: The official journal of the Catholic Health Association, for example, published an article stating that Plan B works only as a contraceptive and is not “abortion-inducing.”

Dennis Sullivan, who is the director of the Bioethics Center at Cedarville University, and an abortion foe, published an article stating that he had found no evidence that Plan B causes abortion. He even told Christianity Today, ”Our claims of conscience should be based on scientific fact, and we should be willing to change our claims if facts change.” 

That, too, doesn’t matter to birth control benefit naysayers.

Given the concerted effort by anti-contraception forces to introduce as much confusion as possible to the issue of whether contraceptives cause abortion (they don’t), it is unsurprising that Hobby Lobby, and the family that owns it—the Greens—maintain beliefs about contraception that don’t reflect scientific reality.

What is surprising, however, is that no court seems willing to address whether or not the beliefs held by the Greens and other plaintiffs who have filed similar lawsuits are based in fact.

Hobby Lobby and the Greens make two assertions in their lawsuit. First, they allege their belief that life begins at conception and that any action that might potentially harm a fertilized egg, including any action that might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, is immoral. Second, they assert that Plan B and ella “could prevent a human embryo … from implanting in the wall of the uterus.”

The first assertion is a religious belief, and the Greens are welcome to it. It’s not my place to quibble with their religious beliefs no matter how absurd I think they are. So sacred are individuals’ religious beliefs that courts rarely challenge or question them.

The second assertion, however, is one of scientific fact and must be subject to court inquiry. 

David Green, in an editorial for USA Today, wrote, “Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions. Which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill.” This is a scientific claim.

So why hasn’t any court required Hobby Lobby or the Greens to substantiate the claim that Plan B and ella “might cause abortions”? Both the district court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals simply accepted this claim at face value. As Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe noted in her opinion dissenting from the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, “plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the abortion-causing potential of the challenged drugs are subject not only to examination but evidentiary proof.”

Had any court subjected the Greens’ claims to evidentiary proof, it surely would have reached the same conclusion shared by the scientific community: None of the mandated contraceptive devices to which the Greens and Hobby Lobby object are “abortion-inducing.”

As a group of health-care professionals with expertise in women’s health, including ACOG, concluded in an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court:

Abortifacient has a precise meaning in the medical and scientific community and it refers to the termination of a pregnancy. Contraceptives that prevent fertilization from occurring, or even prevent implantation, are simply not abortifacients regardless of an individual’s personal or religious beliefs or mores.

I don’t doubt that the Greens and plaintiffs like them are sincere in their beliefs that Plan B and ella are abortion-inducing drugs. But a sincerely held belief can be wrong, and courts must challenge the facts underlying a religious belief—otherwise there’s virtually nothing constraining religious believers from seeking legal protection based on whatever they pull out of thin air.

Imagine the chaos that would reign if people could bring religious challenges to laws based on their sincere belief in something that has no basis in reality. Today, Hobby Lobby and the Greens believes that Plan B and ella are abortifacients and refuse to provide insurance plans that include coverage for the drugs. What’s to stop them from refusing to provide insurance plans that include coverage for ibuprofen based on a far-out claim that ibuprofen causes abortions?

At what point does this madness end?

The Greens may be sincere in their religious beliefs, but to the extent that their “religious beliefs” are actually scientific claims, courts should require them to provide evidence to support those claims just like any other factual question. And in this case, the Greens’ supposed religious beliefs are actually no such thing—they are sincerely held, but wrong, scientific views. And should the Supreme Court rule in their favor, it will have signaled to every subsequent litigant that science has no place in the courtroom.

That should scare us all.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Imani Gandy on twitter: @AngryBlackLady

  • Donnie McLeod

    Belief, a false perception of reality, is a product of our fear based thinking process. If a false perception of reality is challenged with another belief or reality itself our fear based thinking process grasps tighter to the belief. If the confrontation continues our fear based thinking process turns to hate. Our fear based thinking process makes us common with all animals. It is part of our evolutionary progression. A cornered rat and a confounded Christian behave the same. We are the one species that can park our fear based thinking process. We can give our reason based thinking process time to consider. This is the essence of liberalism and toxic to conservatism. As liberalism is to inquiry conservatism is to inquisition.

    • prolifemama

      Donnie, people can believe in something that is actually provable. People used to “believe” that the is round, before they were able to prove it to be factual.

      Specifically, what belief mentioned in the comments on this article do you claim to be false, or at least, not provable? Curious…

      • Donnie McLeod

        I have been toying with the idea of changing the meaning of belief. If conservatives can change the meaning of liberalism why not discredit the word belief.

        • prolifemama

          Hi, Donnie!
          How do conservatives define liberalism?
          How do liberals define conservatism?
          How would you redefine “belief”?

          • Donnie McLeod

            I wrote something earlier. It answers your questions I think.

            In politics left and right must be eliminated from the lexicon. There is no balance between the left and right. There is no centre.

            Conservatism utilizes our fast thinking process. Liberalism utilizes our slow thinking process.

            Our fast thinking process is fear based. It is suppose to latch on to a perception of reality and if it seems threatening hang on. If that false perception is challenged by reality it grasps tighter to the perception. If the challenge continues it has us acting like a cornered rat.

            Our slow thinking process separates us from the cornered rat. We can park our fear based thinking process to give reason time to consider what is a false perception and what is reality. That is our species advantage. It enables us, and only us, to be inter-reliant to confront threats instead of being self reliant which means we must flee threats.

            The words left and right hide how we behave. As self reliant individuals we think like cornered rats, fear-full. As inter reliant individuals we are fearless. There is no centre between fear-full and fear-less. Conservatism preaches self-reliance because its marketing types know how to manipulate our fear based thinking process. Liberalism is a work in progress, as it should be.

          • Donnie McLeod

            I would redefine belief to be any product of our fast, fear based thinking process

          • prolifemama

            Are your comments your own; or have they been developed by a think tank? I have not come across them before.

          • fiona64

            Are your comments your own

            That’s rich, coming from the woman whose primary contribution to this discussion has been to cut-and-paste unscientific bullshit from her CPC volunteer handbook …

          • Donnie McLeod

            Read about “Thinking, Fast and Slow”

          • prolifemama

            The book by Daniel Kahneman?

          • Donnie McLeod

            Start there.

          • prolifemama

            Without yet having read Mr. Kahneman’s book, it doesn’t seem plausible to me that all so-called “fast thinking” is “fear-based.”

            As I commented earlier, persons can believe things that are provably true, without needing that proof to buttress their belief. Is this just an accidental stumbling-upon-truth?

            It seems to me that in order to not merely survive but grow in knowledge of our world and its truths, we humans have been equipped with a consciousness that has an inner ring for the truth.

          • fiona64

            we humans have been equipped with a consciousness that has an inner ring for the truth.

            What complete nonsense. Infants are completely amoral. They only recognize *right now* and noxious stimuli: hunger, discomfort, etc. They don’t lie there thinking “Hmm. Mom is tired, it would be wrong for me to cry in the middle of the night and wake her up.” No, they just let loose with a bellow that would wake the dead.

            You are insane if you think that there is some “innate sense of truth.” Otherwise, there would be no sociopaths … who, BTW, all believe that their actions are perfectly appropriate, regardless of whether or not that is objectively so.

          • Donnie McLeod

            Most of us don’t need God to be good. Most have regrets for hurting others. Psychopaths can learn about this but they will rely on their native behaviour. They don’t regret. I contend they have some purpose in the complexity that is evolution. Being a nasty is good for the species in famines maybe.

            I suggest psychopaths are attracted to authoritarian Christian believers because of our fear based thinking process. This fear based thinking process is easily exploited for profit and sex.

  • fiona64

    If your “sincerely held belief” can be proven factually inaccurate, you’re beyond stupid to keep holding onto it.

    • Thomas Sharpe

      How can a device or drug that works after conception possibly be called a contraceptive?
      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376040/contraception-after-conception-donna-harrison

      • Jennifer Starr

        Conception takes anywhere from 24-72 hours after sex. Not immediately during the act. So yes, it is a contraceptive.

        • Thomas Sharpe

          . A mans seed can live up to seven days within a woman. The seven to ten days before ovulation a womans body provides a hospitiable environment for the sperm to survive. Ovulation happens only once a month for 24 to 48 hours. After conception the newly conceived human life travels down the Fallopian tube and attached itself to the uterine wall.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Conception still takes place within 24-72 hours. Plan B won’t work if you’re already pregnant. It is a contraceptive.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Again, the words conception and implantation mean different actions.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And until an egg implants, the woman is not pregnant. If it doesn’t implant it’s not even a miscarriage. It’s certainly not an abortion.

          • fiona64

            Let me try to make this easy for you to understand: WITHOUT IMPLANTATION, THERE IS NO PREGNANCY.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Contraceptives act against conception. Contra?implantations act against implantation. A woman may not become pregnant after conception, but any device or drug that prevents that cannot be rightly be called a contraceptive. When we describe when our own life began, we don’t say I was “implanted” we say we were conceived.

          • Ella Warnock

            Without implantation conception is irrelevant.

          • prolifemama

            Sorry for coming in late… been busy.
            “Without implantation conception is irrelevant” is similar to saying that without a 7th birthday, a three-year-old is irrelevant.
            If pregnancy does not begin until implantation, precisely what is implanting? What happens at fertilization? Mom’s given a biological IOU?
            If Jennifer Starr’s life did not actually begin until her birth, then just who or what was growing within Jennifer’s mother’s uterus, kicking, urinating, practice-breathing, sleeping, forming fingerprints, making a fist…all those fetal milestones?

          • Jennifer Starr

            And if I hadn’t implanted, my mother would not have been pregnant. It wouldn’t have even been a miscarriage because it wouldn’t have been a pregnancy–it would’ve been a failure to implant.

          • prolifemama

            All true, Jennifer. However, you yourself would still have existed, for that short time, with your life ending after you were not able to implant.

          • vulgarism

            Zygotes have no self. The zygote was only a potential Jennifer. Jennifer is much much more than a genetic blueprint.

          • prolifemama

            Unlike the blueprint of a house, which does not become the house, a zygote IS the house. The zygote contains the instructions as directional programming in every cell, not mere lists of directions for ‘someone’ to follow. Zygote Jennifer built herself, herself.

            Rather than a “potential Jennifer,” Jennifer at her zygote stage was a very young Jennifer, with great potential.

          • vulgarism

            So? Dog zygotes build themselves too – does that make them people ad well?

          • prolifemama

            So, v, are you now acknowledging that the zygote IS the creature, not a mere IOU?

            Re the dog: Although many pet owners treat their pets as they would, or better than they would a human being, no… dogs are not people. The DNA is different.

            The point being that the zygote of any mammal is not that mammal’s “potential” self, but its/his/her actual self, developing as, not “into” that being for as long as it/he/she lives.

          • vulgarism

            Clumps of DNA do not have a self. A mind is required for that.

            Clumps of DNA are not people because human is not synonymous with person. By your reasoning, a hydatidiform mole is a person.

          • fiona64

            And if her parents had sex on a different day, that zygote might never have existed, or it might have been a potential Johnny.

            Stop with your homunculus theory of human development already; it makes you look even more ridiculous.

          • prolifemama

            Yes, that zygote might have been Johnny, or never have been conceived at all. Now you’re getting it, fiona dear.
            As for my “theory” of human development making me look ridiculous, ask a human embryologist, of your choosing.
            Then get back to me, and we’ll discuss.

          • fiona64

            WTF does this even mean? Zygotes do not have a “self.”

          • prolifemama

            Dear, dear fiona, a zygote IS the self – himself or herself.

            The zygote who was you — your self.

          • fiona64

            “Without implantation conception is irrelevant” is similar to saying
            that without a 7th birthday, a three-year-old is irrelevant.

            Only to a moron.

          • kitler

            If you truly believe that a baby is created at th moment of fertilization, then I have to wonder why you don’t seem to be the least bit concerned about the billions of microscopic zygote babies that never implant:
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

          • Jennifer Starr

            If you hadn’t implanted, you wouldn’t be. Your mother never would’ve been pregnant. You wouldn’t have died, or been miscarried. You simply wouldn’t have been.

          • prolifemama

            Hold on a sec, here… Jennifer, I quote you:

            “If you hadn’t implanted, you wouldn’t be.”
            So you admit that Thomas Sharpe’s life began before he implanted, that he existed before implantation. And if this is so (which it is – ask any biologist for the precise moment a human being’s life begins), then had Thomas not implanted, he would have indeed, died.
            If something has a beginning, it also has an end.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, he wouldn’t have died. He never would’ve been a pregnancy, period.

          • fiona64

            “Well, kids, Bubba and me was messin’ around in the back of his Buick and one thing led to another. The condom done busted, and, well, my daddy had him a shotgun. So, we got married right away and you were born eight months later. It’s okay, though, because we knew we were going to get married anyway. But don’t *you* do that. No sirree. And don’t you use no rubbers, neither. This story is proof that contraception is bad.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            *LOL* Reminds me of this from the very funny Christopher Titus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQakUwIOHWI

          • prolifemama

            What an unbelievably racist comment.

          • fiona64

            How so? Are you poor white trash, and I somehow struck a nerve? God knows most of my family are; I avoid spending time around that part of the family for a reason.

            Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what constitutes racism, though. It was very entertaining.

          • prolifemama

            Dear fiona, last time I checked, “white” was a race.

          • Jennifer Starr

            How so?

          • prolifemama

            People aren’t pregnancies. Pregnancy is the time during which a woman carries her unborn daughter or son within her before birth.

            People say lots of things that aren’t true, Jennifer. For instance, a family member disgraces her family by some action, causing her parents or siblings to say “She is dead to me.” Does this statement actually result in that person’s death?

            And yes, Jennifer – I do tell our children the stories of their lives, beginning with their conceptions – when and where and all the precious details. And I can’t WAIT for you to tell me this is somehow improper… :)

          • fiona64

            And yes, Jennifer – I do tell our children the stories of their lives, beginning with their conceptions – when and where and all the precious details.

            It may not be improper, but it’s creepy as all get-out.

            “Well, there I was. I hadn’t put on my face cream yet, and I was wearing my good robe … your dad, well, he just couldn’t wait. And bang, there you were.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            So, if it was a quickie in the back of the car, you would tell them? If it was make-up sex after an argument you would let them know? Really? And no, it’s not a question of ‘improper’, it’s a question of TMI. My parents have a good sex life–I have said that before The details I don’t need or want to know.

          • Shan

            ” Contra?implantations act against implantation”

            Which drugs and/or devices have been proven scientifically to do that?

          • lady_black

            There is no such thing. If you conceive, you have a 30-50% chance pregnancy will happen. There is nothing that can “stop” that process, other than nature.

          • Wendy B

            I have NEVER described my life as having began when my unknown father’s “seed” met my unknown mother’s egg. I don’t even describe it as when my abusive mother and neglectful father adopted me.

            My life is what I have done despite all of that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            When I was in the eleventh grade, we had to write a brief autobiography as part of an English class assignment–so I had to ask my parents about when I was born. Mainly my mom, since dads being in the delivery room simply was not done at that time. Honestly, I can’t even imagine asking them about my conception–a very weird thing to ask and an even weirder thing to share. On a need-to-know basis, I really don’t need to know that.

          • lady_black

            Ya think, Dick Tracy???

          • Wendy B

            Well, then can you have a pregnancy, and thus life, without implantation?

          • P. McCoy

            A mind controlled fetus, zygote, fertilized egg idol worshipping Catholic judging and prolyeztizing here – it is as interesting as reading some poor soul babbling about being Napoleon
            Say what are you.doing about your child predator.priests? Blaming the “homo-sexuals? Or the Communists homo-sex-uals?

            Anything to deny the fact you’re part of a bottom feeder cult!

          • Shan

            “After conception the newly conceived human life travels down the Fallopian tube and attached itself to the uterine wall.”

            Not if the contraception she’s taken prevents ovulation or fertilization which is how EC methods work.

          • fiona64

            A man’s “seed”? Really? Are we so repressed that we cannot use the words sperm and ovum?

            Hormonal contraceptives, which is what we are talking about, *prevent ovulation* because they mimic a state of pregnancy. Don’t be daft. No ovulation means there is no conception.

          • expect_resistance

            I had to giggle at “seed” when he said it. I can’t really think of a “man’s seed” without thinking about sunflower seeds.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m betting that he gets off on thinking that he’s ‘planted’ them.

          • expect_resistance

            Ewww gross.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Sex is an awesome thing. That awesomeness is more the woman than the man. A new life may result. and that new life is not limited to this world. believe in life after death.

          • Ella Warnock

            Yes, sex has always been plenty awesome, sans conception. There is no life after death.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Whatever happens after death happens to all regardless of what we might think. Not believing in hell does not mean that one will not end up there. If it did then the safest way of saving ones soul would to simply not believe.

          • Ella Warnock

            All you need to do is prove your assertion. If you’re right, it should be simple enough.

          • Thomas Sharpe
          • Suba gunawardana

            EVEN IF god existed, why should anyone kowtow to it? Any god who created this world has to be cruel sadistic and idiotic.

          • fiona64

            No, one really cannot … despite Mr. Kreeft’s philosophizing.

          • Ella Warnock

            “I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God”

            He *believes* it. Well, there you go, Kreeft’s *belief* scientifically proves there’s a god. I’m so glad we got that all cleared up.

          • purrtriarchy

            Drew is so incredibly dumb over at Personhood USA. He can’t even keep track of his own bullshit.

          • Ella Warnock

            I noticed that. Now he’s telling me **I** don’t understand ‘logic.’ That’s right, Drew, I don’t understand the word salad trainwreck that you try to pass off as ‘logic.’ The funny thing is, Drew – you don’t either.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Thomas is not Sharpe. Badda bing.

          • Ella Warnock

            I think I made a really corny joke about that somewhere on this thread. ;->

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Great minds think alike.

          • Shan

            Oh, the intarwebs saves all our souls! Finally, a links to the Proof of God!!!

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            “God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.”

            There is no proof that God exist, even according to your source.

            All the non-scientific proof in the world is not proof, but opinion.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            What gets me today is that many uneducated some how found it easier to worship science and technology. Having taken classes in special relativity and quantum mechanics I’m really not all that mystified by an IPhone. Seems to me a strange regress for an advanced culture to worship science. I mean science is about studying the laws of nature and building tools and toys, it’s about Creation, not the Creator. Seems a bit misguided. Don’t you think?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You have a choice Thomas, you may save innocent born babies or you can choose to let them die and save a fetus instead. That is a scientific fact. It disproves your belief that you are saving life by being pro life. In fact it makes it clear you are letting babies die, intentionally. That is a sin, if you are a Christian

          • prolifemama

            Russell, ever heard of the philosophical study of phenomenology?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You can continue to use ad hominem attacks so that you can continue to murder innocent children if you wish. I can’t help you stop your murders if you think killing is a joke.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            There is no proof that God exists. It is a “belief”.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            The evidence is overwhelming, and so to the reasoning.
            It is your assertion that God does not exist, that is incredulous.

          • Suba gunawardana

            As I already pointed out, IF god exists he has to be a cruel sadistic prick who tortures innocent defenseless victims, and impotent to boot.
            Why would you worship such a being unless you have similar qualities of cruelty & impotence?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            It is my assertion that it is impossible to prove that God exists. Perhaps God made it that way.
            My personal belief is that the laws of physics allow for the existence of God. But proving He exists is impossible. If you want to try, I will gladly show you your errors.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Laws imply a Lawgiver!

            A million monkeys typing on a million type writers for a million years might… Produce a Hamlet.

            But seriously Russell, if you found Hamlet written in a fossil, would you believe it was a million monkeys!

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Laws do not imply a lawgiver. They imply a natural relationship between the forces of nature. Laws could have created God, God could have created laws or neither could have happened.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Incredulous. Very hard to believe…
            Lucky for us original scientists did believe in a lawgiver, and thus had faith to guide them in deducing that must be laws.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Who created the lawgiver?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            No one. God is The uncreated and necessary Being.

            And God is Triune. God is Love.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Then God has not been created and does not exist. If God did exist, then He would have been created either in your mind or in reality. Perhaps you can explain where God came from and what evidence you have that he is not created and is necessary and is a “Being” that is not yet created.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Good luck.

          • Shan

            “If it did then the safest way of saving ones soul would to simply not believe.”

            HAHAHAHAHAHA! If that’s the truth, your god is absolutely too stupid to believe in.

          • lady_black

            According to the Bible, everyone is going to “hell.” The words translated as “hell” mean the abode of the dead (sheol, hades), in other words, the grave. Everyone goes there. There is a third word translated as “hell” that is symbolic of everlasting destruction (gehenna), and “death” is going there too, so we know it isn’t a literal place. I’m an atheist, but I have studied the Bible and know what it says. Jesus needed to be resurrected and we are no better than he was. When we die, we’re dead. That’s it. It’s all over your Bible, Old and New Testaments. Any “hope of future life” depends upon resurrection. That’s what your Bible says. I believe when you’re dead, you’re dead. And I do not believe anything comes after. Life’s a bitch. And then you die.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            We never die. I am sure.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, we do die.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            No. Not really. And life begins. … At…. Implantation?
            Of course not. Everyone knows, indeed one cannot not know that life begins not at implantation but at conception.

            If you want to get to heaven, seek the truth, all who seek find. Those that love the darkness do not seek.

          • expect_resistance

            There is no heaven and no hell. These are man made ideas to control people.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What do heaven and hell have to do with contraception?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Life and eternity

          • Suba gunawardana

            That’s a non-answer. BTW why are you so concerned with the death of zygotes if they go to heaven anyway?

          • Wendy B

            Who really cares when life begins?
            The real issue is that anti-choicers think that life, well some life, is precious. They assume they control the conversation on “life” because they assume that they somehow care more about life than the rest of us; that they and they alone know its secrets.

            Wrong. Life to most anti-choicers has a very limited definition, that in my opinion, renders it almost meaningless. They bring it down to an egg and a sperm as if that is magical rather than so commonplace as to be hardly worth talking about as a starting point.

            My “life” is truly about me, what I make of it and how I connect to the planet; the universe. My life is not about the chance encounter of sperm and egg.

            These assholes should spend more time trying to raise up the quality of life. Certainly, Hobby Lobby could do more.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Well said. Now what are we going to do about this is my question. I do not have an answer yet.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            What was it before it was life. Was it dead? Did life come from death or what.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You misrepresent the meanings of words. There is a profound difference between “life” and “a life” and “human life” and you equate the terms. You are dishonest and not very intelligent.
            AND YET YOU FEEL YOU MUST BE IN CHARGE OF MY SEXUAL/FAMILY LIFE. When dirtbags like you fly.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            It’s not dishonest to believe that life begins at conception, mean to have respect for human life and bad to respect conscience.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Which life begins at conception? Is the ovum dead? Is the sperm dead? Is the womb and its owner dead? Life is a continuum that began eons ago. Proof:

            ‘In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in thegerm cell mtDNA since the conception of the original “Mitochondrial Eve”.

            An individual human life begins when a fetus survives to and through birth and takes its first breath. That is biblical. That is legal.

            When you get pregnant you are free to govern your body and choose to gestate to term or abort, if you do not miscarry. I have the same freedom to govern my body.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            So you believe in (Adam and) Eve?
            You should know then that they sinned by “I want to do what I want and let God mind His own Divine Business”. That didn’t work so well then and now.
            Only in doing Gods Will can we have Peace.

          • Suba gunawardana

            As I already mentioned & you ignored, doing “god’s will” includes abortion. God loves abortion, considering he performs billions himself, and never lifts a finger to stop abortions done by humans.

            What proof do you have showing that god disapproves of abortion? NONE.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            God has said what awaits those who harm little ones…
            What you may not know is fetus is Latin for “little one”

          • Suba gunawardana

            So what? How does some future punishment of the perps help the zefs being killed here and now?

            Are you admitting that your god doesn’t give a rats behind about the zefs being killed here and now? If he does, obviously he should be STOPPING it, instead of “possibly punishing the perps later”, while god himself performs billions of abortions.

            Oh furthermore, where in the bible does it say “abortion is wrong”? And where does it say “what awaits those who commit abortion”? I think you just out & out lied. :)

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You do not understand the Adam and Eve fable. Stop teaching the Bible if you do not actually read and study it. IMO doing your kind of Bible exegesis is a form of blasphemy.

            God and I are having a mad love affair. Two is company and three’s a crowd. A word to the wise …

          • catseye

            Valar Morghulis. (Game of Thrones reference. Old Valyrian for “All men must die.)

          • Jenn Filip

            If we never die, then why are you concerned about abortions? If you hold that abortions actually do kill sentient life rather than just a cluster of cells (they don’t), and that “life” begins at conception ( I do not believe this), wouldn’t it be a blessing to skip all this mortal world nonsense and get straight to heaven?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Our life begins on earth and we never die. We all will live forever. What awaits each of us is either the beautific vision of miserferic vision for eternity. What we should fear most of all is our own stupidity in a rejection of God.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So we are supposed to suck up to the big bad boss lest he’d put us in hell forever? Even if we disagree with the boss’s demands & consider them unethical?

            What kind of wimpy spineless cowardly attitude is that?

          • Christine smith

            “What we should fear most of all is our own stupidity in a REJECTION of God” pure wisdom in that statement

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Father John Hardon-

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            There is nothing to be saved from. Everybody goes to heaven.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Heaven and hell start here on earth, one is walking towards one or the other. People fall down, may go the wrong way, but if they repent they’ll end up in heaven.

          • Wendy B

            An eternity of anything sounds horrific- something only the sickest of human brains could conjure up.

            No thanks.

            Listen, I was raised a Lutheran and even early on I thought that the “rules” for entry to Heaven were pretty lacks. Baby f*ckers can be baptized and repent and granted access to an eternity….of what? What is that eternity like and are you sure you’re equipped for it? (btw: those babies might wish they’d been aborted….which brings up another point, if one doesn’t have time or the mental capability of repenting, is one doomed to a shitty eternity?)

          • Suba gunawardana

            What about the defenseless victims who have no say in what happens to them (such as animals)? Are they forever stuck in hell through no fault of their own? Why does your god allow that?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            The earliest evidence of mans work are cave drawings. drawing pictures of reindeer. When we see this we immediately recognize the humanity of the artist. Mind and free will.

            There are no drawings of men by reindeer or any other animal and there never will be. Men sense like the beasts and think with the angels.

            If you want to be just a beast.. Fine. Just don’t drag me down with you. And that means don’t deny my and others conscience and respect for human life.

          • purrtriarchy

            Koko the gorilla and various other species including corvids and even dolphins have demonstrated the rationality and self-awareness of a 2 year old human toddler.

            A human toddler can’t paint either. In fact, some humans NEVER become self aware due to cognitive disabilities or a gap in their nurturing ( feral children are essentially animals)

            So, why the prejudice, when not all humans are capable of rationality, yet many animals are?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I have a Norwegian Forest Cat that just completed some fantastic artwork using nothing but a roll of paper towels and his claws and teeth–spread it out on the kitchen floor. Much more artistic than the stick figures drawn by me. Of course, now I have to go out and buy more paper towels, but such is life.

          • purrtriarchy

            And elephants create artwork. As do various birds, with their nests and whatnot.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That didn’t answer my question at all. Animals can suffer just like humans. They feel pain, fear, distress. Why is it ok for them to be tortured forever? If your god has compassion, why does it allow this kind of suffering for the defenseless?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Animals don’t suffer as we do because they do not have a mind as we do. It is morally wrong to cause an animal to suffer for no reason, but it is also morally wrong to treat a man as though he were an animal. Man has a rational soul. A free will. An eternal life. We are created in the image of God and as such can reject God. An animal can’t sin, because an animal is not a moral agent.

          • purrtriarchy

            Some animals can suffer as we do. Some animals are self-aware. Many animals are capable of empathy and suffer severe anxiety in times of distress.

            A human baby can’t suffer as we do either. Would it be acceptable to torture a human baby, since it suffers like a mere animal?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Animals (mammals) have a central nervous system just like we do, capable of the same emotions. Their PHYSICAL suffering is exactly the same as ours, sometimes worse depending on the number and type of pain receptors present in a given area.

            “It is morally wrong to cause an animal to suffer for no reason”
            So is it OK to cause any amount of suffering to animals as long as you have a “reason”? Or make up a reason? In that case why doesn’t the same logic apply to humans?

            More importantly, why do animals have to suffer at all?THEY get nothing out of it. Why did your god create innocent defenseless beings to be tortured by everyone for no reason? Obviously your god is a sadist.

          • fiona64

            treat a man as though he were an animal.

            I’ve got news for you, sweetie: we ARE animals. We’re highly functioning primates. No more, no less.

          • fiona64

            There are no drawings of men by reindeer or any other animal and there never will be.

            I think you need to get out more … http://www.elephantartgallery.com/

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You have no respect for human life. You murder humans to save fetuses.

          • lady_black

            Then you do not believe your own Bible. That was the first lie ever told.

          • fiona64

            Wow … there are a whole lot of living people underground in places like Colma, CA, then …

          • JamieHaman

            We may never die, even though no one comes back to say differently, but the body not only dies, it rots.
            No one is left in that body either. Dead.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            You’re confusing bodily death with life after death. We never die. Sorry?

          • JamieHaman

            Body death is the one that counts. Your religion may tell you that the soul goes on.
            Maybe it does. Maybe not.
            Not everyone’s religion does that. Not everyone believes that.
            All sane people recognise that the body dies. If (Big if) those aborted babies go straight to heaven, then they missed plenty of bad things in this vale of tears.
            Why would you wish that on infants?

          • Miss.Anne Thropee

            Tell that to the corpses I work on as a living.
            Trust me…Our body dies.

            Now if you are talking about energy, life force, a ‘soul’ perhaps?
            That is what up for debate.

          • Wendy B

            And that’s exactly how I saved my soul.

          • Expatmom

            If you believe in hell, then, your god is psycho.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            You probably don’t know this, but Satan will always say “he’s a god”.. So in a way, you’re right!

          • Suba gunawardana

            If your god is both good & powerful, why does he allow Satan to exist? Maybe god & satan are the same?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            The angels, which are most like God in being spiritual beings with a mind and free will, were created when the Universe came into existence. They underwent a test as we all must, but for them it may have only been an instant, whereas we require a lifetime. In that instant some angels disobeyed God and became demons. The most powerful demon is Satan who’s name was Lucifer which means light bearer. All angels and men are created for eternity, men do physically die, but their soul does not. God is Love and God is Just. There is something of insanity to reject God, but none the less, Satan and the other fallen angels are allowed to tempt man, they wish for us to join them in hell. Make no mistake the demons will not love us in hell, they will hate us and especially hate us because God chose to become a man.

            St. Augustine has it right when he stated that “repentance is impossible for an angel”. There is no groping for knowledge or weak will with an angel. Angels have and were created with infused knowledge and a determinate will. An angel never looks back never reconsiders, always sees and wills. We’re all eternal, angels and men, it’s not a matter of no eternity, it’s a matter of where we spend eternity. That’s the “choice”.

          • purrtriarchy

            Do angels qualify as people?

          • Suba gunawardana

            You didn’t answer my question. If god is good & powerful, why doesn’t he get rid of all the mischief-makers?
            Why would a loving god sit around while all the “evil angels” he created tempt humans? That’s just cruel and sadistic.

            BTW you never answered my previous question. Why did god create animals? They suffer and get nothing in return. That alone proves your god is evil.

          • JamieHaman

            Seems to me that if angels are able to decide to continue to follow God, or decide to revolt against God, then angles must have free will. Without free will, there can be no decision.
            Seems too, that if angles are able to decide, then they must also be able to repent.
            For St. Augustine to state that it is impossible for an angel, is to take the most arrogant position available. He was not God, and is not the person to judge.
            Seems to me that if there is no free will for angels, how did Lucifer decide to revolt? If he didn’t make that decision himself, who did?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Nope

          • Thomas Sharpe

            The devil was created good and became the devil of his own free will. The sin is unforgivable because the devil is incapable of repentance. If God could save the devil, he would, as He did for us by dying on a cross. When we leave this earth and enter into eternity we’ll be fixed as well. Time is the measure of change, the only possible time for change is now. The only possible repentance is now.

          • JamieHaman

            “The sin is unforgivable because the devil is incapable of repentance.” You (& St. A.) deny the power of God to forgive?
            So, what you (& St. A.) are really saying is that God has NO power to forgive unless there is repentance?
            Wow. I’ve been a thinking Catholic for over 50 years, and never have I heard any priest or nun make any such claim.
            “God has no power to forgive, unless someone repents.”
            Utterly amazing to me that you would deny God his ability.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Contradicting yourself again. If the devil sinned of his own free will, why can’t he “repent” of his own free will too? Apparently the big bad boss allowed his free will just until he became the devil, then TOOK THE FREE WILL AWAY. Yet another sadistic act of the guy you worship…..

            “If God could save the devil, he would, as He did for us by dying on a cross.”

            Why can’t he? Isn’t god supposed to be all-powerful?

          • Expatmom

            You think you said something clever, but you’re wrong–again. I hope as up you grow up, you will also mature. That you will have the courage to question your beliefs & investigate what you have been told to believe. Basing your life on the fear of hell, is no way to live.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            I questioned. That’s how I ended up Catholic.

          • Expatmom

            You have my pity.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Then how come you cannot answer some of the simplest questions asked of you here?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            There is nothing to be saved from. Everybody goes to heaven.

          • prolifemama

            Is this a “belief” of yours, Ella, or do you have substantive proof?

          • Lmaris

            Prove it exists first.

          • Thomas Sharpe
          • expect_resistance

            I prefer non-procreative hot sex.

          • Shan

            Women choose when new life results because it comes out of them. It’s very simple.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Yes, women can choose to have sex during a fertile time. Usually 7 days a month.

            No women should not kill the unborn child.

          • Wendy B

            It’s actually the trained medical professional who ends the pregnancy.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You have yet to give a clear reason WHY “women should not kill the unborn child”.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Couples can choose to have sex whenever the hell they want to. Whether or not they choose to use contraception is their decision. Not everyone is bound to the rules of your particular church, no matter how much you imagine that it’s the ‘one true whatever’.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            The Church is not forcing you to not use contraceptives and abortifacients.. Your trying to force your believes down everyone’s throat..

            To us there is no difference between abortion and abotifacients, and you know this .. And still you try to impose your will.

            You worship your gods let me worship Mine.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Tommy, I am not trying to force you or your wife to use contraception. I’m not trying to force the Greens to use it either. So you can calm down now.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Tom.. I’m not forcing you and your wife to keep slaves.. I’m just asking you to pay for free slave benefits for everyone else…

          • Jennifer Starr

            False equivalence aside, health insurance is part of an employee’s compensation, like a salary. No one is paying for any free benefits, the employee earns that. How they use it is up to them.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            So, if you have a moral objection to slavery or abortion, you are still obliged to have these services available directly in your employee compensation?
            This makes no sense. Why can’t an employee purchase these things on their own?

          • purrtriarchy

            I have a moral objection to healthcare, period. I believe in faith healing. Therefore, I don’t think medical care and insurance should be offered to ANYONE at all. That is to enslave me.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Only no one is talking about slavery or abortion. We’re talking about contraception, which the employee is paying for on their own.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Your wrong. Contraception prevents life from beginning, abortion is killing new life that has begun. And even if it were about contraception, I believe it is against the 1st Commandment.

            Lets be honest this whole debate is to crush individuals conscience and gain a demand for them to pay directly for other people’s abortion. That’s really what this is all about.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, sorry–I’m not wrong. Contraception is not equivalent to abortion, and no one is trying to force you–or anyone– to pay for someone’s abortion. You are being dishonest.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            In a few years or less, if the Mandate doesn’t stand against a Constitution that more and more is sapped of any meaning…

            They’ll be a push for full abortion because many s called contraceptives really do kill.

            Anyway contraceptives are an anti life act. It’s war! The dreaded child! Enemy of sex! We need rubber gloves, pills and maybe even surgery to protect us from this disease! Kill it if it lives! The dreaded catholic hospitals and schools must be forced to handout medications and surgery!

            FAM methods work fine. Seven days of abstinence. Not that difficult really. Can be sometimes. But God will give us the grace we need if we ask. Whether to have another child or not have any more.

          • Jennifer Starr

            What is it with conservatives and their persecution fantasies? You need more histrionics to make it entertaining, though. And maybe one day you’ll learn to use grown-up words like condoms and sperm–not holding out much hope for that last one.

            And I’m sure FAM methods work just fine–for you and your wife. Please allow other people to choose what’s best for them.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If your god cares about the unborn, why does he never step up to stop abortion? Furthermore, why does he cause so many abortions himself in the form of miscarriage?

          • Ella Warnock

            If you like FAM, bully for you. Tubal slash & burn plus vasectomy worked well for us. To each his/her own.

          • Shan

            “FAM methods work fine. Seven days of abstinence. Not that difficult really.”

            Major derp. You are SO on the wrong discussion forum.

          • purrtriarchy

            Why do we get the DUMBEST fundies?

          • Suba gunawardana

            You keep saying contraception is wrong because “it is the same as abortion”.
            Well, you still haven’t provided a clear reason why abortion is wrong.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If you have a moral objection to slavery, you would never force women to carry pregnancies against their will.

            I have a moral objection to indiscriminate breeding. As a taxpayer I still pay for you to breed. Your “moral objection to abortion” is just another term for your desire to control women.

          • Shan

            “Why can’t an employee purchase these things on their own?”

            Because they’ve already paid for it via their insurance premiums. It’s not like if BC isn’t covered then suddenly everybody’s insurance premiums are going to go DOWN. Why should they have to pay for it TWICE, just because their employer thinks it’s icky and/or doesn’t understand how it actually works?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            You could make the same argument, indeed some have, with repect to abortion.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Exactly. Insurance SHOULD pay for abortion. Do you object to that?

          • Shan

            “You could make the same argument, indeed some have, with respect to abortion.”

            I know, right? Insurance premiums don’t go down when abortion isn’t covered. Why should anybody have to pay extra for an “abortion rider” ever, even if it’s just in the case of rape?

          • purrtriarchy

            Contraception isn’t slavery. dumbfuck. And just because you happen to *believe* that contraception is abortion DOES NOT MAKE IT SO

          • Suba gunawardana

            If everyone else pays for you to breed, I see nothing wrong with you paying your part for others to REFRAIN from breeding, which is a thousand times cheaper than breeding after all.

          • lady_black

            Whoop-de-friggen-doo.

          • Shan

            “Sex is an awesome thing. That awesomeness is more the woman than the man. A new life may result.”

            No, I’m pretty sure the sex I have is a lot more awesome when my man is involved. And we’ve been quite diligent about making sure that our sexytimes do NOT result in a new life.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Demographics is destiny.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Care to explain exactly what that means?

          • Ella Warnock

            Too many heathen brown people, not enough christian white people.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Actually it’s the wealthy contracepting white people that are going apostate. The brown and black are doing just fine.

          • fiona64

            Oh, I see … this is about a racist pig (you) thinking that white folks need to hurry up before the people of color “outbreed us.”

          • purrtriarchy

            I’ve only been skimming his posts because he is a fruitbat (insult to fruit bats, they are kyootie pies)..but uh yeah. racist.

            Not enough white people are breeding!

            Last year, the wife of a southern white republican let it slip that her husband opposed abortion because white people were becoming an endangered species:P

            And, I have also spent a looooooooooooooot of time on right wing forums and blogs, just reading, and whenever they talk about contraception and or abortion, they usually say stuff like 1) population of the great ol’ USA is below replacement level, and Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s communist plan is to fill in the gaps with *immigrants* (of course, this is a dog whistle for, inferior non-white non-christians) 2) or they will just flat out say, as you stated, that muslims are outbreeding whites, and this is why Europe is going down the ‘shitter’.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That’s something they openly say here in the south.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So all your blather about demographics is just basically “Oh noes!! We’re going to be in the minority!!” crap. Is this what you’re telling me?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Black. White. It doesn’t matter. The meek will inherit the earth. The post Christian masturbating selfish non procreative are destined for oblivion.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You were typing that one-handed, weren’t you? Probably while humming ‘Every Sperm is Sacred’.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Who are the “meek”? Certainly not the vocal religious fanatics who cram their ideology down everyone’s throat, control & subjugate anything that doesn’t move quick enough & try to breed everyone else to extinction.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I have yet to meet a conservative Christian who is actually meek. Most of them have a extremely inflated opinion of themselves. I’ve even had some of them tell me that they’re going to be the one of the people judging me on judgment day..

          • Ella Warnock

            I didn’t say they weren’t prodigiously reproducing, I said that the fact that they are is what’s so troubling to pro-natalists.

          • fiona64

            It means that Tommy is a racist POS.

          • fiona64

            You, sirrah, are a racist pig.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If there’s life after death, why such concern for the embryos who die? They just go on to the next life after all.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Why is a new life “awesome”? And if a new life is not limited to this world, what’s wrong with killing it? It will just go on to the next life.

          • Jean Sparrow

            Makes me think of historical romance novels, which is erotica for women!

          • lady_black

            I’ve been pretty kinky in my life. But I guarantee you I never had seeds inside me.

          • Ella Warnock

            Man’s “seed.” Snork. That tells me everything I need to know about Thomas Sharpe.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            The Pill works three ways. First it try’s to stop ovulation. Second it works to make the environment for a mans seed inhospitable. Third it hardens the uterine wall to prevent implantation. The IUD always works this third way. This third method is always abortifacients because conception has already occurred.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’re an adult–presumably. It really is okay to say sperm. Seed just sounds a bit silly.

          • Lmaris

            It is also a completely incorrect term. A “seed” is a the plant version of a zygote, the result of the male flower parts fertilizing the female flower part. The seed is a potential plant, which will only grow if the seed is planted in conducive environment.

          • purrtriarchy

            The woman as flowerpot belief. The almighty seed has a right to her body.

          • Wendy B

            “…..must…..plant…seed….Ahhhhhh!!!!!!”

          • purrtriarchy

            These two guys are fucking fucknuts. I just scroll past their bullshit now. Utter nonsense.

          • Wendy B

            So in Thomas’ world, that seed is actually a plant.

          • expect_resistance

            I especially like #2 making my uterus inhospitable to “seed.”

          • lady_black

            oh noooooooooooes!

          • fiona64

            Here we go again with the “seed” business. Good lord. The word is *sperm.* Sperm. See, no one will die if you use the right word. What is it with you anti-choicers and your aversion to actual medical terminology?

            In any event, you are wrong on far too many counts to be believed. Here is how birth control pills work: http://health.howstuffworks.com/sexual-health/contraception/birth-control-pill1.htm

            And here is an important quote from the article:

            Anti-abortion groups have claimed that the pill is an abortifacient, or abortion-causing agent. Some believe that one of the secondary effects of taking the pill is that it can make the endometrium hostile to a fertilized egg that would otherwise implant itself.

            It’s true that the pill may result in a thinner uterine lining.
            However, most researchers agree that if woman still ovulates while on the pill, that means that she also has high enough levels of the hormones to create a normal endometrium. This remains a highly controversial topic.

            Here is how IUDs work: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/iud-intrauterine-device

            And here’s an article the explains why you are wrong about IUDs being abortifacients: http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Patient-Resources/fact-sheets/IUC-Myths

            Quote: IUC prevents pregnancy. ParaGard, Mirena, and Skyla work by keeping a woman’s egg and a man’s sperm from meeting. With ParaGard, copper repels sperm, so they don’t have a chance to fertilize an egg. The hormone in Mirena and Skyla thickens the mucus in the cervix, and that keeps sperm
            from reaching the uterus.

            You’re welcome.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            IUC, per the article, stands for intra uterine contraceptive. Since conception does not take place in the uterus, this at best a confused understanding of the words: conception and implantation; at worst it is a lie.

          • fiona64

            You are beyond stupid, sweetie. Hell, you can’t even type the word *sperm,* and you think I’m going to believe you over actual physicians?

            The device goes into the uterus (hence, intra-uterine) … and that is where the contraceptive action takes place — because that’s where the SPERM go in their attempts to meet up with a receptive ovum. Honestly, were you asleep in high school biology class or something?

            I’ll bet you didn’t even read the article. I’m not even surprised.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            All these chemicals and devices to stop fertility of a woman for seven days a month. All these deceptive rewording to confuse when life begins. All these methods to kill newly conceived human life. All the ways to kill children inn the womb.

            Who is really the slave here? Who is really acting stupidly?

          • Wendy B

            I killed a child in the womb 27 yrs ago to better enable the actual life of the child I had 28 years ago. You don’t get to hear the horrific details of why I became pregnant either time, but it was not planned nor welcome (the sex part, the pregnancies were nearly a death sentence for me).

            I did the right thing. No shame. No worries. No myths keeping me, or my 28 yr old son, down. You have my pity.

          • fiona64

            All these chemicals and devices to stop fertility of a woman for seven days a month.

            And what business is it of yours if a given woman does not wish to have children at a given time?

            Who is really acting stupidly?

            The oaf you see in the mirror each morning.

            The rest of your post is fact-free waddle.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What does it matter so much “when life begins”? It would matter only if you protect life at all times at all cost. Do you?

            You never answered my question before. Is taking a life absolutely wrong, under any circumstance?

          • Shan

            Oh, FFS. Fertilization usually takes place in the fallopian tube. Then, IF the conditions are right, it implants in the uterus. You are talking SHITE to women who have had this happen MULTIPLE TIMES and to women who have been preventing it for DECADES. You are an egregious mansplainer.

          • Ella Warnock

            Bu . . . but . . . the SEED! The seed must not be
            rejected !!11elevnty!!111. Blasphemy!!!!

          • expect_resistance

            Yes, thou shalt not waste seed!

          • Wendy B

            Thomas keeps his in a jar in the fridge.

          • Ella Warnock

            That’s about as close as his seed will ever get to anything female. When his mom reaches into the fridge for the pickle jar.

          • lady_black

            I hate mansplainers. Uffffff!

          • lady_black

            Um… what are you babbling about? There are two types of IUD. They work differently, but both work by PREVENTING CONCEPTION. One by hormonal action and one by natural spermicidal action. Neither prevent implantation. HOWEVER pregnancy with an IUD in place is life-threatening and requires immediate medical treatment.

          • Wendy B

            My opinion is that they used terms like “seed” because it’s part of their fantasy realm; like LOTR fans learning Elvish.

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh, dear, not a hostile environment for a “man’s seed!” Your overwrought pearl-clutching is duly noted.

          • Lmaris

            You have no idea how any of this works. There is no “seed”, and a woman’s uterus does not “harden”. Try learning some actual science in an actual classroom rather than a church pew.

          • catseye

            B’deh…b’deh…
            Joker probably also believes the Internet is a series of tubes. (Anybody besides me remember that one?)

          • Wendy B

            We say it around my house all the time. Don’t forget about dump trucks.

          • P. McCoy

            How can he? He’s being controlled by a cult as surely as if he.were a member of People’s Temple. Relying on a “celibate” clergy to instruct one about sexuality is like depending on a plumber perform brain surgery- an act of insanity.

          • Shan

            “Third it hardens the uterine wall to prevent implantation. The IUD
            always works this third way. This third method is always abortifacients
            because conception has already occurred.”

            Wrong. Nothing “hardens the uterine wall” ever. BIOLOGY, dude. Science. Check it out.

          • lady_black

            Um NOPE. Abortion can only happen to someone who’s already pregnant. And there is no such thing as “uterine hardening.” Jeeeeeeze Louise. The IUD releases hormones that suppress ovulation and thicken cervical mucus to provide a mechanical barrier (Mirena type) or alternatively provide a natural spermicidal effect (copper IUD).

          • Shan

            “This third method is always abortifacients because conception has already occurred.”

            Oh, and you may want to contact the Green family and remind them that they should drop The Pill from their health plan as well.

            As Arekushieru would say: “Ooops!”

          • Joshua Thirteen

            he used the word sperm in the second sentence. read before you strike.

          • fiona64

            I think you may be replying to the wrong person??

          • lady_black

            No sir. Up to five days maximum. That’s how Plan B works. It suppresses ovulation for five days.

          • Ella Warnock

            Mr. Sharpe is not the “sharpe”ist knife in the drawer.

          • expect_resistance

            Thank Goddess I don’t want “seed” in my uterus one more day. ;)

          • Jenn Filip

            I’m sorry sir, but the woman’s body is anything but hospitable to sperm. Why do you think it takes thousands of them to fertilize one egg? A woman’s body treats sperm as invaders. Moreover, it is entirely inaccurate to refer to sperm as seed, as a seed is already a fertilized embryo, whereas a sperm is only one cell, that will most likely never fertilize an egg or ovum. You would do much better to refer to it as “a man’s pollen” which is far more accurate in your analogy.

          • Wendy B

            He imagines the female body as a delicate bud that only blossoms once he fills her with his seed. The bud then gracefully, willingly opens up to be bathed in manseed. Unless it’s a legitimate rape, then her bud has a way of shutting that whole process down.

          • JamieHaman

            Nope, that’s just a fertilized egg. Most don’t make it to implantation.

          • kitler

            The ‘seed’ thing is still creepy as fuck.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You don’t know if there was a human life produced in the conception or if there was simply a product of conception. 42 percent of conceptions end in products of conception without enough human DNA to produce a child and only 30 percent end up with enough human DNA to produce children. So your fantastical understanding is severely flawed. Conception does not end in life most of the time. In fact 70 percent of the time it ends in death. It is not life at conception, it is death at conception. Living human haploid life comes together and is killed by conception. That is a fact.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Someone once said “when a person doesn’t believe in God, they’ll believe in anything.”
            I guess that’s true….

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            That was Satan that said that.

          • Rachael

            An as such then all progestins that have multiple indications approved by the FDA should be banned because if it doesn’t have anything to do with sperm then the non-contraceptive indications should be completely ignored. What determines a drugs medical uses or indications are NOT up to a CEO of a craft chain.

      • Snexas

        Facts are your friends. Go learn how conception happens.

        • Jennifer Starr

          I went to see ‘Look Who’s Talking’ back when I was 16 and used to have the impression that it showed how conception happened–right during the sex act, minus the Beach Boys music, of course. I didn’t know much then. Thankfully I grew up and learned.

          • lady_black

            I wondered where the pro-liars were getting their nonsense from. Still LOVE that movie! Especially the scene where she sits bolt upright during labor and says (in her best Exorcist voice) “F*ck my breathing”

          • purrtriarchy

            And look at you now. Stalin, Hitler and Barack HUSSEIN Obama rolled into one!

      • DaddyO_969

        Did you read the article? If you had you wouldn’t be asking such a stupid question.

        • Timothy Michael Jackson

          Would you talk like this to someone in person? Try being respectful.

          • goatini

            Would you aggressively advocate for the forcible stripping, from patriotic US citizens, of inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive justice, in person?

            Oh, that’s right, you WOULD, and you’d try to get your seditious anti-American hate speech “protected” under the First Amendment so you can do it right in the face of an innocent patient attempting to exercise her rights.

            And YOU think YOU deserve for patriotic Americans to be “respectful” to you. Sick.

          • expect_resistance

            Well said!

        • Thomas Sharpe

          It’s a rhetorical question. Many so called contraceptives are actually abortifacients.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No they aren’t.

          • Shan

            No they aren’t.

          • expect_resistance

            No, wrong.

          • lady_black

            No. They are NOT “abortifacients.” Such a drug or device that functioned by preventing implantation would properly be labeled a contraceptive because it would prevent pregnancy. At this time, there are no such drugs or devices that prevent implantation. They ALL work by various mechanisms (barriers, suppression of ovulation, spermicidal) to prevent conception. If a conception occurs, it has the same 30-50% chance of implanting as any other conceptus.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            If conception has already occurred, and implantation awaits.. Any device or drug that prevents implantation of a new conceived life cannot in science or in plain English be called a contraceptive because conception has already occurred. Contra-ception literally means to act against the beginning. Implantation is not the beginning of life.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Implantation is the beginning of pregnancy. No pregnancy =no abortion.

          • lady_black

            A contraceptive prevents pregnancy. There is presently no drug or device that prevents implantation. Implantation doesn’t necessarily “await” just because fertilization takes place. It has to take place during a specific point in the woman’s cycle, AND the conceptus must be developing properly for that to happen. These two conditions are of such importance that at least half and as many as seventy percent of all blastocysts fail to implant. It isn’t all as simple as you’re implying. If her ovulation is successfully delayed by emergency contraception, conception will not happen. If ovulation has already occurred, it’s too late and nothing will alter the natural course. In fact, the synthetic progesterone in EC tablets will make implantation more likely. That’s why for every hour the administration of EC drugs are delayed, the chances of pregnancy increase. For full efficiency, a woman has mere hours to obtain EC. Any delay could result in unwanted ovulation, and the pills will be no more effective than doing nothing.

          • Shan

            ” Any device or drug that prevents implantation of a new conceived life
            cannot in science or in plain English be called a contraceptive”

            Exactly which drugs/devices prevent implantation of a fertilized egg?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            You’ll have to look that up. Know that these are deceptively called contraceptives when they are not. There is enough evidence of that here.

          • Jennifer Starr

            There is absolutely no evidence here.

          • Ella Warnock

            Propaganda =/= evidence.

          • Shan

            “You’ll have to look that up.”

            Um, no. YOU are the one making the claim (by backing up HL) so YOU are the one who needs to do the homework proving which drugs/devices have been scientifically proven to prevent implantation.

          • fiona64

            No, they really aren’t. You’re just being absurd now.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        You can’t use national review as a source, NR deletes information that proves it is wrong.

      • JamieHaman

        Conception is usually considered to occur at the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine wall.
        Catholics consider (as do some other religions (Belief, not facts)) to occur at the moment of fertilization.
        You are free to believe the world is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that men and women of any color other than your own are somehow lessor than you.
        While you may choose to believe those things, none of those things are facts.

        • Thomas Sharpe

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conception

          I not only believe the above is true, because it is , I am very close to believing that you purposely lie, distort and injure.

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s basically what I’ve been thinking about you, Mr. Sharpe.

          • fiona64

            Looks like someone needs to learn the difference between Merriam-Webster and a medical dictionary: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conception. Emphasis mine:

            conception

            the onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst; the formation of a viable zygote.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            There was no “scientific” discovery that changed the medical definition of conception, it was and is all about marketing contraceptives that really act as abortifacients. You know this, I know this, so what’s your point?

          • fiona64

            There was no “scientific” discovery that changed the medical definition of conception,

            Nope, it’s always been the same: the implantation of the blastocyst.

            it was and is all about marketing contraceptives that really act as abortifacients. You know this

            I don’t know any such thing, since it is 100 percent factually inaccurate. What I do know is that you are a liar.

          • Thomas Sharpe
          • fiona64

            Really? You’re quoting a whackjob like Ken Ham?

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            You’re funny.

          • Shan

            “it was and is all about marketing contraceptives that really act as abortifacients.”

            When they were marketed back in the 1960s, nobody cared IF that’s how they worked, just that they DID work. And the “hostile endometrium” idea was just a GUESS they made at the time. Which has, in the decades since, been scientifically proven to be inaccurate.

            Unfortunately, because that’s how they were marketed – and approved by the FDA – the labeling has remained the same. As I understand it, it’s up to the manufacturers to get the FDA labeling requirements changed and it doesn’t seem they have any incentive to do it.

          • Thomas Sharpe
          • Shan

            No, what’s true is that the FDA labeling is wrong because it’s woefully out of date.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            FDA ? You ignore the truth and embrace a lie because you want to.

          • Shan

            Scripture over science, eh? Next you’ll be telling me the earth is flat and only 6000 years old.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            I’m not a Sola Scripture Christian.
            I’m Catholic and have a degree in Science and Mathematics.

          • Shan

            Whatever, man. Stop making strawman arguments against birth control by pretending it’s “embryocidal” or “abortifacient” when you’ve already admitted you’re against ALL of it.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Nothing wrong with birth control. FAM works fine. Don’t you want a man to respect you as a woman and not use you?

          • JamieHaman

            FAM works fine only if the woman is as regular as clockwork. A lot of women’s bodies are unable to count to 28 for a nice even cycle.
            BTW, do you have any idea what the hazards are for a pregnant woman?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            “That’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works.”
            - I love that commercial .

            FAM is about fertility awareness and appreciation, with it you know when fertility begins and day by day when it ends.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Why go to all that inconvenience when there are condoms pills IUDs & all kinds of contraceptive methods available? I see you got that “subjugate women” part down to a tee.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            That fertility to bring forth another human life is first and foremost in the woman. It’s out of respect for this fertility. You don’t do away with the fertility just to have sex. That’s like stealing. It’s dishonest. Contraception is an anti life act, and reduces sex to mutual masturbation, instead of what it’s supposed to be: a total self giving of man and woman, unitive and open to life.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You don’t do away with the fertility just to have sex.

            Sure you do, if you you don’t want to have children.

          • purrtriarchy

            Anatomy is not destiny. Women are not easy bake ovens.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            I don’t treat my wife like an “easy bake oven”, I respect her. I don’t treat her like a sexual “object” either, I respect her.

          • Shan

            “I don’t treat her like a sexual “object” either,”

            Really? Aren’t you “using” her every time you have sex with her when you KNOW she can’t conceive?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Not at all. There’s nothing wrong at all with having sex in an infertile period, there’s still a total self giving, an I respect her totally, and a commitment that I will be there for her no matter what. That’s very different from my telling her to ditch her true self so I can “do it”.

          • Shan

            “telling her to ditch her true self so I can “do it”.”

            *vomits delicately*

          • Suba gunawardana

            Why is it that contraception is “ditching your true self” but cancer treatment is not?
            Nature/god makes you fertile, the same nature/god gives you cancer. If it’s wrong to control fertility, it’s wrong to control cancer or any disease.

          • Shan

            She wouldn’t have to “ditch her true self” if he used condoms, either.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Apparently he doesn’t feel man enough to have sex if his “seed” doesn’t get to go wreak havoc in someone’s life.

          • Shan

            I wouldn’t attribute that feeling to the poster himself but to the tenets of the religion he’s newly subscribed to. There’s none so pious as the recently converted, and all that.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            The fertility to bring forth another human life into this world and into eternity is a great good. It’s not a disease. A child is not a cancer.

          • Shan

            “A child is not a cancer.”

            Then why do you avoid sex with your wife 7 days each month?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Because for us, in regard to circumstances, It would be imprudent for us to have relations during the fertile time, we are avoiding having another child. We’ve prayfully considered it, but no, not at this time.

            There is nothing wrong with “birth control” meaning self control and being responsible, but as always

            The end does not justify the means..

          • purrtriarchy

            It is anti life to avoid having another child.

            Your wife should be popping out one baby a year until she dies.

          • Shan

            Yeah. You just keep enjoying all that sex with your wife as best you can while she’s “not fertile” and you just continue praying you don’t get her pregnant during that imprudent fertile time because what happens ultimately might not be up to you.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Ultimately it’s either “Thy Will be done” or “my will be done”.

            FAM is 99% effective, as effective as the Pill. Let’s say that a couple using each were to conceive. The FAM couple might be taken back but would think it a miracle and that God really wanted them to have this child. The couple who used contraception might think that, but they might also consider killing a life that has begun.

            Very different approaches. One works with God, the other simply says “No!”

          • Suba gunawardana

            You never answered this question that I asked many times.
            If “human life is eternal” what’s wrong with killing a zef? They will just go onto their eternal life.

            For that matter, what’s wrong with murder?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            I believe your question is:

            “What’s wrong with me playing God?”

          • Suba gunawardana

            Put it any way you like, but answer the question please. If human life is eternal, logically there’s nothing wrong with abortion. The zefs you clamor about will just go on to eternity, so killing them is NOT a disservice to them in any way. Why do you consider it wrong?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sure, as long as she’s capable of popping out babies.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Nope. It’s been quite a number of years since we’ve had our last child, I’m still here, and sex is as good as it was years ago, there’s some fasting involved, but that only deepens the pleasure and mutual respect.

          • Shan

            Well, that’s ever so nice for you. The rest of us are happy to have great sex lives with our partners, too, because we don’t worry about getting pregnant.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That contradicts what you said before, i.e. sex is supposed to be “open to life” and ” That fertility to bring forth another human life is first and foremost in the woman”.

            After all that preaching, are you claiming that you are having sex WITHOUT procreation? Oh NO!!!! What would god think???

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Nope. There’s nothing wrong with having sex in an infertile time. But it is cheap and wrong to render a fertile time infertile for sex. It’s an anti life act and mutual masturbation where women are treated as an object.

          • purrtriarchy

            Too much life = anti life.

            Too many people = genocide and famine.

            Resources are not infinite.

          • Suba gunawardana

            As I already asked:
            What’s wrong with masturbation, mutual or otherwise?

            You seem to assume that “masturbation is wrong” or “sex for pleasure alone is wrong”. WHY? What’s wrong with pleasure?

            Oh BTW, using women as breeding machines is somehow NOT treating them as an object? Hilarious!

            Also, how is it “treating women as an object” if the woman WANTS to have sex and doesn’t want the burden of procreation?

          • Shan

            “It’s an anti life act and mutual masturbation where women are treated as an object.”

            So if a woman goes “Hm. I can’t conceive right now, so…WHOOOEEE! I can have SO MUCH SEX with my SUPERHOT STUDMUFFIN HUSBAND and not get pregnant! Bring it ON!!!”

            What is that? Anti life? Mutual masturbation? Someone being treated as an object?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Apparently you are supposed to go to hell for enjoying sex. At least that’s what I got from his last post on masturbation.

            Maybe that rule is just for women too :)

          • fiona64

            Maybe not, but you sure as hell are treating women you’ve never met as EasyBake Ovens … because you think we’re nothing but the meat around a uterus.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So you have no objection to your wife using contraception? What if she chooses to have an abortion?

          • Suba gunawardana

            That’s one of the most misogynistic and transparently manipulative statements I’ve ever heard. (Not to mention false & ridiculous).

            -Stealing from whom? Dishonest to whom?

            -What’s wrong with enjoying sex? Does your god get jealous when people enjoy sex?

            -If it is dishonest to prevent pregnancy, is it also dishonest prevent diseases (plagues sent by your god for the express purpose of torturing his creation)? Do you think washing hands should be illegal?

          • purrtriarchy

            Thomas is actually a textbook example of that other RHRC article regarding men who believe they are entitled to women’s bodies…

            In Thomas’s world, everyone and everything is entitled to a woman’s body but the woman herself. Why? Cuz biology!

          • Suba gunawardana

            Yes, and even making the biology argument he is lame & manipulative, trying to claim it’s “dishonest” to be safe.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Nothing wrong with sex, but you need to be with the right person, at the right time and in the right circumstance. It’s enjoyable to have a good meal, but if you act as a glutton, over eat, and vomit that’s not good or healthy.

            Couples that use FAM actually have better sex than those that contracept. Haven’t you ever fasted from something? Hasn’t it tasted so much better later? FAM is also much much more fulfilling. There’s no using the other person as an object, and there’s a total self giving that is totally satisfying. Sex is about babies and bonding, remove the procreative principle in any way and you loose the bond. Keeping FAM and sex to infertile periods keeps the bond. Two becoming one makes for awesome sex.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You understand that any time you consent to sex you consent to abortion, right?
            70 percent of all conceptions end in natural abortion. So when you consent to sex you consent to killing 70 percent of what you believe are babies. So if your consent was intentional then the deaths were intentional.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You do understand that by using FAM you are murdering innocent babies. IVF shows us that each sperm and egg are in fact babies in the waiting. Any viable sperm and egg that is allowed to take its natural course is a baby at an early stage of life. In fact every viable sperm and every viable egg are an earlier stage of a baby individually. They just need to come together, as they are programed to do. FAM kills these innocent babies.
            What we know from science is that a choice to have sex is consent to abort what you believe is a baby. Why, because 70 percent of conceptions abort naturally. So any choice to have sex regardless of the method of birth control is a choice to create and let die an innocent baby. You would not be responsible for that baby’s death had you not participated in sex. http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

          • purrtriarchy

            Why is it stealing? Are your sperm entitled to a woman’s body? Is that it Thomas?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Contraception is taking the pleasure, but not the purpose. It’s like stealing.

          • Shan

            “Contraception is an anti life act, and reduces sex to mutual
            masturbation,”

            Isn’t that what you’re doing with your wife every time you have sex and you KNOW she’s not in the fertile part of her cycle?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Your problem is that any choice to have sex is consent to abortion.

            http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?page_id=31

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Your greatest error, personally, is to fail to read and learn about this issue before you speak. The scientific fact is that before Roe, there was a decrease in life and after Roe there was an increase in life. There are more lives now because of abortion, than there were before abortion became illegal. It doesn’t matter if you use the FAM method of using instruments to estimate when to kill what you call a baby of if the killing you want occurs with other birth control or abortion. What you want is to control your births and the only way to do that is to kill what you consider to be your babies.
            http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?p=79

          • JamieHaman

            What you seem to be missing in all this ‘men using women’ crap is that a lot of women enjoy sex. It’s a good thing, some may go so far as to say a great thing.
            As a result, women who do enjoy sex don’t want to use some primitive FAM method. Those women and their partners want to have sex to show love, affection, to give comfort, and caring.
            And they want to do that without all the attendant costs of a child.
            Still not a word of recognition concerning the real risks of childbearing and birth from you.

          • JamieHaman

            What you seem to be missing in all this ‘men using women’ crap is that a lot of women enjoy sex. It’s a good thing, some may go so far as to say a great thing.
            As a result, women who do enjoy sex don’t want to use some primitive FAM method. Those women and their partners want to have sex to show love, affection, to give comfort, and caring.
            And they want to do that without all the attendant costs of a child.
            Still not a word of recognition concerning the real risks of childbearing and birth from you.

          • fiona64

            Again, NFP only works when a woman’s cycle is 100 percent identical every single month … which is NOT the case for most women. NFP has a known failure rate of 25 percent … which means that it DOES NOT WORK.

          • Thomas Sharpe
          • fiona64

            Your link has already been refuted … by one from the CDC, a reputable site, which shows (as I said) a failure rate of 25 percent.

            You are pitiful.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Science Daily, is pitiful?

          • fiona64

            Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said you were pitiful, and that your site is not reputable (which it is not).

            Let me try to put it as simply as possible: when something has a 25 percent failure rate, it is dishonest *at best* to say that it works as well as something with a 3 percent failure rate.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            I quote “science daily” and your response is the site is not reputable? Science Daily? Are you kidding?

          • fiona64

            Thomas, you are being deliberately obtuse at this point. I am no longer going to bother with your non-responsive replies.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            What is the difference, you use tools to murder what you call a baby rather than chemicals? You still murder, right?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Behind ever murderer is a lie, that’s what Christ meant when He spoke of the devil “he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning”.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Thomas, one of us is lying. I say you have a choice to save innocent born babies, children and adults or to let them die and save a fetus instead. Is that a lie. Could you save real babies? I think you would be lying if you said you didn’t have this choice, right?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Russell, your suggestion that FAM kills newly conceived is so absurd, that I cannot imagine anyone else thinking that to be true, unless they were so despaired in trying to find something.. anything.. they come up with that.

            Because, when a married couple is in a fertile time and they are not looking not to have a child, this is what they do.
            They go for walks, they hold hands, they do the dishes together. You got that? Do I have explain anything?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Thomas, you claim to be a science and math guy, right? So why aren’t you aware that most zygotes die in the first trimester? The fact is that if you have sex with your wife, 70 percent of her conceptions die of abortion. And if the sex was intentional as it is with FAM then the deaths of your zygote is intentional. You got that? Do I have to explain anything

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            FAM kills what you believe are innocent babies. 70 percent of the conceptions that are created in FAM die. A choice to use FAM is a choice to consent to the abortion of 70 percent of your babies.

          • fiona64

            He doesn’t give a crap about the dangers of pregnancy; that’s blatantly obvious. If a woman dies of pregnancy complications, well, that’s just “God’s will.”

          • JamieHaman

            True that. I always think it’s ‘God’s Will’ to use our very own brains, hearts and talents to solve problems.
            Crazy Xtians seem to think dying is ok for every one but them. I do notice that that they don’t generally say, oh, heart attack, no intervention, just let me pray.
            Question for you, I responded earlier to his comment, and now, it’s among the missing. WTF?

          • fiona64

            I think Disqus has the hiccups again.

          • Shan

            “Nothing wrong with birth control. FAM works fine. Don’t you want a man to respect you as a woman and not use you?”

            LOL! Thanks for concern-trolling me and back-handedly implying that I don’t have enough self-respect to recognize an asshat “suitor” just because I’m not willing to rely on birth control methods that don’t involve having to smear my own vaginal secretions around between my fingers to determine whether I’m fertile or not.

            How does your wife like doing that? Or do you do it for her? Inquiring minds want to know.

          • purrtriarchy

            Men use women all the time. As baby factories. it’s called reproductive objectification. They get women pregnant through coercive sexual behaviour, and then the woman is stuck with them.

            Men like you. Pieces of shit who only view women as walking flower pots for their seed.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What’s birth control got to do with respect? Your comments are getting weirder by the minute…

          • Jennifer Starr

            How would the man be ‘using’ me? Maybe I don’t want children either, so him wearing a condom would be quite respectful. Although you probably think a woman’s only value is in her fertility and childbearing. But as usual, you would be wrong.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            With contraception, women end up being used as a method of masturbation, there’s no total self giving, women end up being sexual objects.

            FAM works and its healthy. Trust the science!

          • fiona64

            With contraception, women end up being used as a method of
            masturbation, there’s no total self giving, women end up being sexual
            objects.

            FAM works and its healthy. Trust the science!

            First of all, NFP only works if you want to be pregnant, not if you want to avoid pregnancy. It has a known 25 percent failure rate … because ::wait for it:: science has shown that not all women’s cycles are identical.

            BTW, nice way to reduce women to nothing but life support systems for a uterus, since you insist that all pregnancies must be gestated and no contraception is allowable in your world. You are a misogynist pig.

          • Thomas Sharpe
          • fiona64

            Poor Thomas … http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

            Quote (emphasis added): Natural family planning or fertility awareness—Understanding your monthly fertility pattern
            can help you plan to get pregnant or avoid getting pregnant. Your
            fertility pattern is the number of days in the month when you are
            fertile (able to get pregnant), days when you are infertile, and days
            when fertility is unlikely, but possible. If you have a regular
            menstrual cycle, you have about nine or more fertile days each month.
            If you do not want to get pregnant, you do not have sex on the days you
            are fertile, or you use a barrier method of birth control on those
            days. Failure rates vary across these methods. Overall, typical use
            failure rate: 24%.

            In other words … just like I said. NFP is the *least* effective method of contraception. Period, full stop.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That statement makes no sense at all. “Total self giving” does NOT require procreation or the potential of procreation.

            For those who don’t wish to procreate, total self giving is possible ONLY when there’s no fear of procreation, i.e. with contraception.

            More importantly, if you respect a woman you would be putting HER wishes first (whether it is pleasure alone, procreation alone, or pleasure plus procreation), rather than YOUR need to feel she is being a “good little brood-mare”.

            I am curious, what’s your definition of masturbation again?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Sex is about the total self giving between a man and woman, and that means open to life. Otherwise it becomes self absorbed and anti life… Reduces sex to mutual mastubation.

            There are infertile times and they can be known with 99 percent accuracy, as good or better than any contra-ceptive.

          • purrtriarchy

            All lies.

            Purpose of sex = pair bonding.

            A healthy sex life minus procreation is good for emotional and physical wellbeing

            Masturbation is also quite healthy

          • Thomas Sharpe

            And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.*

          • purrtriarchy

            Religious arguments are not worthy of consideration.

            Stick to science and logic please.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            If it weren’t for Christianity, there would be no Science.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Stop lying please. Christianity is the biggest deterrent to science.

            And how about answering my question? If human life is eternal, what’s wrong with killing a zef?

          • purrtriarchy

            I said. No religious arguments

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Science is impotent on many questions and truth can be known apart from any scientific method.

            If one looks at the History of the World, the sciences as they arose in Civilizations… Science only arose in cultures that believe in a absolute meaning in the universe, a Creator, a Logos in Christ.
            Thus, remove Christianity, and you have no Science.

          • purrtriarchy

            Then why did non-christian cultures have science and wonderful inventions for thousands of years before christianity?

            Egyptians
            Greeks
            Chinese
            Sumerians

          • fiona64

            Science only arose in cultures that believe in a absolute meaning in the universe, a Creator, a Logos in Christ.
            Thus, remove Christianity, and you have no Science.

            Which surely explains why, for many centuries, the only way to study medicine was to go to a non-Christian country in the Middle East …

            Oh, wait. It doesn’t explain that at all, does it?

            in fact, we can thank medieval Islam for the majority of Western medicine. http://www.euppublishing.com/book/9780748620678

            You’re welcome.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1610170024?pc_redir=1403594789&robot_redir=1

            The Muslim Mind is closed, that was the problem then and is a problem now.

          • Suba gunawardana

            And the Christian mind is not? Then how do you explain your “loving & powerful” god who tortures children (among other things)?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            That’s right, the Christian mind, Catholic, is not closed. What We know is constantly expanding. People sometimes complain about Dogma as if its constraining, it’s not, it’s freeing. We know, and we move on.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Didn’t answer my question again. With your so-called “open mind”, can you explain why your your “loving & powerful” god tortures the innocent?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            God doesn’t torture the innocent, nor does He inflict evil. But why is evil allowed to occur? This is in some ways a mystery and in some ways not a mystery.
            1- We have free will, and God is Love. Because of this evil is allowed to exist and is permitted by God at least temporally.
            2- God permits (not causes) evil. In his Mysterious Providence He allows it, but always in regard to some greater Good that will occur, rather than if He hadn’t allowed it in a given instance and surprise is not in the the divine vocabulary.
            Often, we do not know why something was allowed. We’ll find out when we die.

          • purrtriarchy

            God tortures the innocent with natural disasters and genetic defects that kill babies at birth or shortly after.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Nope. that too is the Mystery of Evil. Remember that the devil will always claim to be a god, will always accuse us and God, and there is wishful thinking in hell.

            There’s also the Fall. When our first parents sinned, that wounded not only our nature but affected nature itself in relation to us.

          • purrtriarchy

            If god is a perfect, all loving, good being, ze would not allow innocents to suffer.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If god doesn’t torture, why does he give children cancer? Why does he create pathogens (bacteria, viruses, parasites), new and more powerful ones each time? Why does god create diseases of all kind (infectious, genetic, metabolic)?

            Also why did god create animals in the first place? Your cop-out answer was “for our food”, and you never addressed my rebuttal. WHY DOES OUR FOOD FEEL PAIN? Why would your god knowingly create food with the ability to feel pain & fear, except for the sole purpose of torturing them? It’s not like an all-powerful being couldn’t create NON-SENTIENT food.

            And when god “permits” evil, who suffers? The innocent & the defenseless. Why does your god not care about them?

            I have asked all these questions before & you keep avoiding them. “Mysterious” is a lame justification.

            Anyone who tortures the innocent is a sadist & a pervert, regardless of how “mysterious” you think it is. Isn’t it idiotic & cowardly to worship a sadist?

          • fiona64

            God doesn’t torture the innocent, nor does He inflict evil.

            I’m guessing you’ve never read the Book of Job …

          • Thomas Sharpe

            The Book of Job is all about God “allowing” the devil to inflict Job. Job looses everything, but is restored in the end. I love Job

          • fiona64

            I suggest you re-read it … God tells Satan to go after Job. Start with Chapter 1, verse 8. Just do it.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Allows..

          • Suba gunawardana

            For the 10th time, why would a loving god allow the innocent & defenseless to be tortured?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Yes, mysteriously sometimes God allows evil. I answered this already. What God does not do is Will it. God is Love.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Sidestepping a valid question with a lame excuse such as “it’s a mystery” is NOT answering. If you are confident in your belief, and if you claim “Christianity unlocks all doors” you BETTER have the answers.

            Here’s my post again. Please rebut properly this time:

            If god doesn’t torture, why does he give children cancer? Why does he create pathogens (bacteria, viruses, parasites), new and more powerful ones each time? Why does god create diseases of all kind (infectious, genetic, metabolic)?

            Also why did god create animals in the first place? Your cop-out answer was “for our food”, and you never addressed my rebuttal. WHY DOES OUR FOOD FEEL PAIN? Why would your god knowingly create food with the ability to feel pain & fear, except for the sole purpose of torturing them? It’s not like an all-powerful being couldn’t create NON-SENTIENT food.

            And when god “permits” evil, who suffers? The innocent & the defenseless. Why does your god not care about them?

            I have asked all these questions before & you keep avoiding them. “Mysterious” is a lame justification. Anyone who tortures the innocent is a sadist & a pervert, regardless of how “mysterious” you think it is. Isn’t it idiotic & cowardly to worship a sadist?

            You keep claiming “god is love”. OK so if it’s “love” to commit/allow cruelty, what’s wrong with humans doing the same? They are following your god’s example after all.

          • fiona64

            Wow … talk about a non sequitur.

            You didn’t read anything I wrote, did you? You just used it to make an Islamophobic statement that demonstrates yet another area in which you are completely ignorant.

            I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you’ve never met a single Muslim in your life. Well, Tommy, guess what? I have. I have Muslim friends *and family members.* My aunt is a noted Islamic scholar, who has taught at Harvard and is now teaching at Colgate.

            You don’t know jack shit about Islam if you believe that Muslims are closed-minded. In fact, you demonstrate with every post how closed-minded Catholics can be. So, how do you like that?

            (I’ll bet you hate Pope Francis, with his more liberal attitudes about a good many things, don’t you?)

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Nope. I have a good friend that is Muslim.

          • fiona64

            Does your “good friend” know that you think that s/he is closed-minded, Tommy?

            Why am I reminded of all of the racists who claim that “some of their best friends” are people of color?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

            The first person to propose that the earth went around the sun was Copernicus, not Galileo. The latter got into trouble for telling the Church that They needed to reinterpet the Bible.

          • purrtriarchy

            We can thank Indians and Arabs for the number system
            https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Arabic_numerals.html

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Yes. And….
            There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that know binary and those that don’t…

          • fiona64

            Don’t try to be clever, Thomas; you lack the capacity.

          • fiona64

            And who, exactly, said anything about either Copernicus or Galileo?

            Oh, that would be no one. (You are doing a great job of making yourself look like you believe in a geocentric universe, though …). So, what precisely, does this have to do with anything?

            You are not disproving my point, Tommy. You’re just making an ass of yourself.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            It means that the case for Catholic Christianity being against Science, usually being brought up with Galieo, is unsubstantiated.

            We love Science; Science is about a search for the Truth.

          • fiona64

            No one said anything about Catholic Christianity but you.

            You made the assertion that there could be no science without Jesus — you were very specific.

            And you were, very specifically, incorrect. Avicenna, Galen, and Imhotep (just to name three off the top of my head) put the lie to your assertion.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Christ Founded the Church. And it’s Catholic.
            Only with Chirst can we have an understanding of Logos, and only in Christian Culture has Science really taken off.
            It’s obvious .

          • fiona64

            Your willful ignorance is making Baby Jesus cry.

          • purrtriarchy

            Add the knowledge contained in the library of Alexandria to Fiona’s list

            Along with Archimedes and Pythagoras.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Now we’re talking. Everything that was true the Church accepted and synthesized, but only with Christuanity does one obtain the key that unlocks all doors.

          • purrtriarchy

            Making shit up again, I see.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Nope. Take Christmas, that was a pagan holiday that celebrated the coming of Spring in the dead of winter. Now Christs birth. Take all hallowed eve, that was a pagan holiday of the dead, now the eve of all Saints day and then all Souls day. Take the philosophy of the Greeks and Aristotle. Understand that all these Cultures were waiting for the Son of God to be born in a little town called Bethlehem, a town in Judea, the Jewish nation being the only monotheism (one God) Culture on earth and that’s no accident.

          • kitler

            Christianity co-opted those holidays because people had been celebrating them for thousands of years and would not stop.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Only Germanic tribes were celibrating the coming of light, Christmas, this way. Only the Druids were celibrating the dead, Hallowed eve, this way.
            The Church took the best of the pagan cultures around them, remember Christ died for everyone.

          • kitler

            Yeah. They stole the holidays and even lied about when your fake Jesus was born because people refused to give up pagan celebrations in favour of Christianity.

          • Suba gunawardana

            No. Science arose due to people using their brains to think and question. That happened IN SPITE OF Christianity, NOT because of it. (Had it not been for religion, science would have progressed in leaps & bounds).

            The evidence? You, right here. See how you repeatedly avoid valid questions and promote blind belief? That’s the OPPOSITE of science.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            You’re missing the first step. In order to think and question you have to first know that the universe is real and created, and not a dream of the gods or subject to the whim of the gods.
            You have to believe that things can be known and they are knowable in an ordered universe. Without Faith, no Science.

          • Suba gunawardana

            No one but you here believes in god/s, or the whim of god/s.

            You keep saying you have to “believe” in order to know. That’s the exact opposite of science/logic. In order to believe something you have to first KNOW about it, at least whether that thing exists or not. That’s why no rational individual can believe in your imaginary god.

            Anyone with rational thinking has to QUESTION first and find out the answers. Then only can one KNOW. In fact when there’s KNOWLEDGE there’s no need for belief.

            Blind belief is needed only when there’s no knowledge.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            If one went out for a walk in the woods in NE, it’s not unusual to find a stone wall. Would one think the stones fell in order by: 1- chance? 2- someone created?
            It’s the same with Nature; there’s just no way it’s all chance. In fact believing in mere chance for Natures Creation requires more incredulity than believing in a Creator. Not to mention foolish pride.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So you missed EVERYTHING I’d been saying all along in your blind belief.

            The point is, it doesn’t matter whether this world was created by design or not.

            If it was created: The creator is a sadistic prick who tortures the innocent. Why would you worship a cruel unethical entity (i.e. suck up to a bad boss) rather than stand up for the victims? The only reason is fear & greed.

            If it was not created: The innocent & defenseless still continue to suffer in a random world. Instead of sucking up to an IMAGINARY god, shouldn’t you stop being selfish & help those in need?

            Regardless of whether a god exists, the believer’s way of life is greedy, selfish & cowardly. That has been my point all along.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So now you are claiming “masturbation will put you in hell”???

            Are you a real religious nut, or just pretending to be a religious nut just for laughs?

            I can’t imagine even a religious nut being this stupid.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            It could. For a sin to be Mortal, it has to be serious, with full knowledge and full consent of the will.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So if you masturbate knowing that you are masturbating, then you go to hell?

            Now WHY is masturbation a sin? You never addressed that (among a bunch of other questions).

          • Suba gunawardana

            Do you not realize you keep contradicting yourself? According to your own logic, “it’s wrong to have sex without the potential to procreate”. Therefore, having sex during infertile times is WRONG. Just as wrong as using contraceptives.

            If you & your wife are done procreating, YOU are now committing “mutual masturbation”.

            So what’s wrong with masturbation, mutual or otherwise? You seem to assume that “masturbation is wrong” or “sex for pleasure alone is wrong”. WHY?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            It’s a sin
            “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.*

          • Shan

            “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away;
            it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole
            body go into hell.”

            So it’s okay if you’re left-handed?

          • Shan

            “If you & your wife are done procreating, YOU are now committing “mutual masturbation”.

            As a peri-menopausal woman, I need to know this. I mean, just because once I’m clearly done ovulating, am I supposed to be done having sex just because I can’t get pregnant anymore? My husband and I have hopefully another 20 to 30 years together. Are we supposed to stop having sex now just because all my eggs are used up and we don’t want anymore babies?

          • fiona64

            as good or better than any contra-ceptive.

            This has already been DISPROVEN. With links and everything. What you promote has a known 25 percent FAILURE rate. Why? Because it is USING NOTHING TO PREVENT CONCEPTION.

            (Maybe if I shout at you, it will get through your thick skull.)

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Nope. Three days after ovulation has occurred there is 0% chance of conception. It’s called the Luteal Phase. For all women the Luteal phase in entirety is consistently 14 days in length, a few 13 or 15 days. It’s the length of time leading to ovulation that varies. NFP is scientific and allows one to measure and know when ovulation has occurred. And it’s the time before ovulation that allows for a 2% rate of pregnancy with NFP.

          • fiona64

            Christ on a fucking bicycle, Thomas. Is anyone this stupid? Really?

            Once again, for the terminally ignorant: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

            Failure rate of NFP/FAM: 24 PERCENT. That means that one out of 4 women who use NFP *perfectly* will become pregnant.

            Stop telling lies, Tommy. Just fucking stop.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            The CDC is wrong, and that doesn’t surprise me, they’re the center for disease control not obstectrics.

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luteal_phase
            The luteal phase occurs after ovulation, ie after the possibility to become pregnant. In most women the luteal phase itself is always 14 days, its the time before ovulation that varies. Once ovulation has occurred and the egg is gone after 2-3 days, counting for double ovulation, there is 0% chance of a woman becoming pregnant. She will have another egg and ovulation only after her next menstral cycle. Thus making NFP confined to luteal phase only THE MOST effective form of birth control (babies and Self control) on the planet.
            (Why don’t you trust the Science)

          • fiona64

            That’s right, Tommy .. .wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone, is a much better source than actual scientists. /sarcasm

            Just a few more sources to disprove your assertion that NFP, with its 25 percent failure rate is just as effective as the pill, with it’s 1 percent failure rate (that you can even make such an asinine assertion boggles my mind, but here we are anyway):

            http://americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/fertilityawarenessnfp.html – “Typical use, which refers to the average use, shows a failure rate
            of approximately 25%.”

            http://www.acog.org/~/media/For%20Patients/faq024.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20140627T1956096446 – Yep, Tommy, the doctors who actually work with pregnant women? They also say that 1 in 4 women who use this method will get pregnant (in case you’re as bad at math as you are at everything else, that’s a 25 percent failure rate)

            http://www.un.org/popin/popis/journals/network/network171/nfp171.html – Cites the WHO finding of 22.5 percent failure rate … which is still pretty much one in 4.

            I’ve proven you wrong with numerous references, Tommy. So, now, why don’t you STFU instead of continuing to spread lies that are potentially dangerous to women?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            The problem with “your” statistics is that they are mixed. They are a mix of calendar (rhythm) methods and NFP.
            I hope that someone reads your responses someday just to realize how silly they are.

            You entire argument is based on two totally false statements easily proven wrong and an assertion that also can be proven wrong.
            These two statements are true for all women everywhere, they are indisputable:
            1. A woman only ovulates once a month, after ovulation has passed there is no chance of her getting pregnant.
            2. Abstinence is 100% effective.

            3. The assertion that you’re making is that there is just “no way” to measure a woman’s fertility on a day by day basis, that scientifically we lack the knowledge and the means.

            The accuracy of NFP ( again NFP is not rhythm), since abstinence is 100% effective, is a function of the accuracy of measuring a woman’s fertility. Period.
            Get out of the dark ages. Trust the Science.

          • fiona64

            Get out of the dark ages. Trust the Science.

            Dumbfuck, take your own advice. You’ve been proven wrong. Stop doubling down on your own stupidity.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Here’s an article on luteal phase 14 days.
            http://www.yourdays.com/luteal-phase.htm

          • fiona64

            And this changes the FACT that NFP has a 25 percent failure rate how, exactly?

            I know that logic and intellect are not your strong suit, Tommy, but you’re spreading dangerous lies at this point. You claim that NFP is as effective as the pill, and there might be some young person who believes that bullshit.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That is exactly the intent of religious nuts; knowingly spreading lies with the hope that some gullible individual would believe them and act in a certain way. (Some even believe their own lies).

            A tactic that works quite well unfortunately, considering all the misinformation that abounds even in this age of advanced science & technology. Forced-birth through CPCs is a perfect example.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            I just replied with 3. Statements on why your argument is false.

          • fiona64

            No, you didn’t. You just doubled down on your own dumbfuckery.

            Stop it.

          • purrtriarchy

            THE CDC SAYS YOU ARE WRONG

            read Fiona’s link

          • Suba gunawardana

            What good are degrees when you don’t think for yourself?

          • JamieHaman

            Perhaps I should have been clearer. The medical profession (Doctors etc) usually consider conception occurring at the implantation.
            So you are “very close to believing that you purposely lie, distort and injure”
            Well sweetie, I am very close to believing that you failed Biology I in H.S. and that you spend way too much time congratulating yourself on saving fertilized eggs, without bothering with the born children of this world.
            Also, I do believe you need to work on your reading and comprehension skills.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        The problem is with your fantastical view of conception and when it completes —- AND CAN BE CONFIRMED. You obviously believe conception can be confirmed. The problem is that conception that will lead to a living human child can never be confirmed to have been successful until there is a live birth. The fertilization process yields a diploid DNA structure that must go through the process of “expression” before one can tell if it is a human life where fertilization was complete or simply a product of conception. So your question is answered by the fact that one cannot tell if conception is or was complete at any time before birth. It may have paused, and the contraceptive could have caught up and stopped the process at any point prior to implantation or proof of a successful, complete, fertilization. The point at which confirmation of a successful conception is possible is at birth.

        • Thomas Sharpe

          Human life begins at conception, a new unique human life. All your word twisting and long hyperbole will never change that scientific fact.

          • kitler

            So what. Every animals life is unique.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            People who wish to believe that human beings are mere animals are afraid of being human, I.e. afraid of the moral implications.

          • kitler

            Humans are animals. Clever animals.

            You are afraid of the moral implications because you like to see animals tortured and exploited for your needs and wants

          • Thomas Sharpe

            No, but the animals are constantly debating this moral issue!
            Get it.

          • kitler

            Idiot.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You are simply lying. At conception two living human gametes fuse and most of the time they die. So at conception most of the time human life dies. 30 percent of conceptions may live, but you can’t tell which will live and which will die until they do live or die.

      • Rachael

        It really doesn’t matter. The contraceptive progestin IUD’s like Mirena in this case has another FDA approved indication besides contraception. It is NOT up to a CEO of a craft chain store to determine what drugs are indicated for what medical condition based upon a ‘religious belief’.

        • Thomas Sharpe

          Opening a business does not require one to check his/her conscience at the door….
          These drugs act as abortifacients; a child is not a “medical condition” like cancer. No one is preventing a woman from obtaining the drug. The business owner simply should not have to provide it.
          The woman can visit any Planned Parenthood office for the drug, so why force a business owner to provide it, this is a war on conscience not a war on women. The real war on women is a war on her fertility.

          • Rachael

            Ella is also indicated for pre procedural Uterine fibroid treatment. An indication which actually improves fertility. I’ve just fond out that also some christians believe that the unfertilized egg is a child. This is the kind of nonsense that I can’t stand.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Christians believe in the Incarnation and Catholics the Imaculate Conception.

            Ie Life Begins at Conception

          • Rachael

            I don’t care what they believe, they can go get their medicines from their pastors and parishioners for all I care just please make sure employers place a mark on their employees forehead/hand so I will know NOT to even talk about the ‘taboo’ subjects.

          • Rachael

            Also, if you feel like reproductive success is only based upon a woman passively accepting a male sperm and voila a woman has a child then you can go ahead and worship that belief. Just don’t call on a woman who has uterine fibroids and must use ella pre-procedurally in order to be able to have children that she isn’t allowed to and then claim you are ‘anti-abortifacient’ and ‘pro-life’ jeez-you are so moronic!

          • Rachael

            Ahhh, and if a women cannot conceive would you deny her the medicine she needs to improve her reproductive success even if one of it’s indications is actually contraception? If a woman has ovarian cancer/ or endometriosis and would eventually like to conceive in the future would you deny her the right to receive the medicine to treat this cancer/endometriosis without having to remove her ovaries/uterus? If a woman has uterine fibroids would you deny her right to medicine which will help resolve uterine fibroids so she may avoid a hysterectomy and therefore be able to conceive in the future? You claim pro-life and forget that involves a womans organs and the health of those organs.

      • Rachael

        BTW: Ella is also used for uterine fibroids,..it’s called off-label use. These are legitimate applications of a drug through medical practice.

    • Thomas Sharpe

      A person who holds a logical and true belief is still right even when he stands alone. The entire argument here, with all the illogical and untrue statements made, is proof of that.

      • Jennifer Starr

        And you haven’t held a logical belief yet.

      • fiona64

        A “logical and true belief” is one that can be proven factually accurate.

        Unlike anything you have posited, Tommy … which has all been a steaming pile of excrement.

  • purrtriarchy

    Inside your mind is a fantasy. Outside a reality is happening.

  • Ella Warnock

    This is timely. I just ran across a pro-liar who opines that:

    “We don’t know why embryos fail to implant. It may because conception
    didn’t go well and failed to create a new human being. If that’s the
    case, then these non-human beings are not persons because they don’t
    have the capacities that we’ve been discussing.”

    ORLY? Now hang on just a dingdang minute. What are two human beings producing other than **another human being**? Since when, according to any pro-liar worth her salt, does a lack of ANY sort of capacity render one “non-human?” Well, isn’t it just convenient that, possibly, all who fail to implant aren’t necessarily human after all. Miscarriage, schmiscarriage – it simply wasn’t human!

    Eh, I just can’t be bothered because my brain exploded. If you can, here’s the link:

    http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/unborn-babies-inherent-capacity-means-theyre-persons/

    • purrtriarchy

      Drew Hymer is an idiot who reads Secular Pro Life Perspectives and he steals all of his blog posts and arguments from there.

      The “all zygotes have the inherent capacity for rationality” is nothing new. It is also fatally flawed, in that it assumes that all human organisms will develop into rational beings by virtue of h.sapiens DNA. Well if that is true, then miscarried zygotes = dead rational babies.

      • Ella Warnock

        Well, if “all” zygotes have that capacity, then how is it the non-implanted ones aren’t human? They’d be included in “all,” wouldn’t they? That’s not exactly logically or philosophically consistent. Oh, I’m sure he’s got some sort of explanation that fan-wanks consistency, but still.

        • purrtriarchy

          As I just pointed out to him, the zygotes that fail to implant are disabled unborn babies.

          • Ella Warnock

            I saw that. I asked him how two humans could produce a “non-human.” I’m sure I’ll be sorry I asked.

    • purrtriarchy

      I replied.

      Oh, and Drew is the guy who said that a woman with uterine ablation should go to jail for murder if blastocysts fail to implant.

      • Ella Warnock

        Heh, Carmelita Spats from FA needs to give ol’ Drew a shout. She’s had a uterine ablation and is pretty militant about it. She’d make his head explode.

        • purrtriarchy

          She is the reason I started asking the question. Stole it from her.

          Myintx, when asked the same question, replied that it can’t be murder because it is ‘natural’.

          BTW, female athletes and models with amenorrhea are also murderers

          • Ella Warnock

            A procedure performed specifically to make the uterine lining hostile to baybees is “natural?” She’s such a lying tool.

          • purrtriarchy

            I responded on Camels with Hammers as well.

            Valerie Tarico and Daniel Fincke make some kickass points. Worth bookmarking.

          • Ella Warnock

            Always love Valerie. I’ll bookmark that for tomorrow.

          • lady_black

            Well, uterine ablation is not performed for reasons hostile to fertility. It’s a treatment for specific medical issues not related to contraception.

          • Ella Warnock

            Apropos of nothing, I’d love to have a band named Carmelita Spats.

      • Jennifer Starr

        How exactly would he know if a blastocyst failed to implant?

        • purrtriarchy

          I guess we will have to wait for the appropriate technology to be invented.

          He did say that women with uterine ablations should get tubal ligations to prevent any blastocysts from implanting. Otherwise its manslaughter.

          But he is wrong. As is Ingrid Heimark on the subject. A tubal ligation is still murder or at least reckless endangerment because an ectopic pregnancy is more likely – and that is basically forcing an innocent unborn baybee to implant where it should not. Ingrid said that abortion in the case of ectooic pregnancy is OK because those zygotes are not viable. But she is wrong. They very well could be – and it is the s1utty woman’s actions that coerced the poor microscopic baybee to implant in the wrong spot. So why kill it to save her? If a woman is dangling her child off a cliff, would it be ethical to throw the child to its death when SHE made the decision to endanger it??

    • DaddyO_969

      It didn’t become human, in any case…

  • Timothy Michael Jackson

    Imani, you are missing the point. Implantation is an arbitrary distinction. Location does nothing to change the nature of the being. The real question at stake is whether the “contraceptive” kills an unborn human being. Hobby lobby should not be forced to partake in the killing of a human being. Whether the unborn has had the opportunity to implant before she is killed is irrelevant. It is clear that some of these “contraceptives” kill unborn human beings before they can implant. To force Hobby Lobby to pay for this is ridiculous. This is anything but “pro-choice”. Embryology tells us that life starts at conception. This is not a question of religious belief, not that a belief is false because it is deemed “religious” anyways. It is simply true that life starts at conception.

    • fiona64

      What part of “contraceptives prevent ovulation” is lost on you?

      Oh, all of it. Sorry.

      And no one is “forcing Hobby Lobby to pay” for ANYTHING. Health insurance is part of the employee’s compensation package.

      Life, BTW, is a continuum. *Pregnancy* starts at conception.

      • purrtriarchy

        You mean implantation?

        • fiona64

          Yep. Corrected.

    • purrtriarchy

      Human beings are not single celled organisms.

    • purrtriarchy

      Timothy Michael Jackson purrtriarchy
      6 minutes ago
      A zygote a living human being at the earliest stage of development. Embryology tells us this.
      .

      No sweetie. All embryology tells us is that a zygote is a genetic blueprint containing the instructions for the creation of a placenta and a potential human being in the future.

    • purrtriarchy

      What is a person aka human being, Timmy?

      List as many objective characteristics as you can.

      • Timothy Michael Jackson

        Your question reveals your flaw in the conception of what a human being is. There is not a characteristic that makes you or me any less of a human being. A human being is not like a chair. Can you name any characteristics that can make you less human? A human being is a living being of the species homo sapiens. Question: were you ever a zygote?

        • purrtriarchy

          You failed to answer my question with any precision.

          Try again sweetie.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I answered your question directly. I just didn’t give the answer you wanted. On the other hand, you have given no attempt to answer my questions. I will ask the last question again. Were you ever a zygote?

          • purrtriarchy

            You answerd with some vague platitudes and then asked me a question.

            List the OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS of personhood.

            I’ll get you started:

            Can only humans be people?

            How are people different from animals?

            Is a brain needed to be a person? Or just h. sapiens DNA?

            I’ll be gone for the day, but I expect some thoughtful input when I get back. Not more empty bullshit.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Dude. I asked a yes or no question that you will not answer and you are criticizing my answers as inadequate? I am not afraid to address these questions. However, most of your concerns would properly be addressed by answering this simple yes or no question: Were you ever a zygote?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes I was. And?

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            see my edited comment that you responded to for the answer.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Once you explain to me what question 1 has to do with questions 2 and three. I’m getting the feeling that this is a roundabout way of asking ‘What if you had been aborted?’–a question that I used to think was absolutely brilliant when I was a teen. And then I grew up.

          • lady_black

            Yes, and the obvious answer is you wouldn’t have an opinion. I think it’s akin to asking someone “Aren’t you glad your father didn’t use a condom on the night you were conceived?” It’s a nonsensical question, and rooted in egocentric thought. “OMG, if mom had an abortion, there wouldn’t be any meeeeeeeee!” Yep. And the world would have gone on just the same.

          • Jennifer Starr

            There’s a poster over on Jill Stanek’s site named Ken–goes under various monikers but it’s the same guy–his idea of a ‘gotcha’ question is ” When your mamma was pregnant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her womb?” I mean, he really imagines that is an intelligent query. It’s kind of sad.

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh, yeah, Ken the Birther. Or as Reality calls him, Ken the Burper. Hee!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yep, that’s the guy :)

          • purrtriarchy

            If WWII had not happened, millions would not be alive today. Therefore, it is a wonderful thing that WWII occurred, because otherwise many precious snowflakes would not bless us with their presence!

          • lady_black

            1) Yes, I was once a zygote.
            2) My mother didn’t *owe me* the use of her body to protect me. She did it willingly, and before you even ask, NO I would not have wanted her to be forced to gestate me. I’m not even close to being that egocentric.
            3) The answer to that question is too detailed to fully answer here. I’ll just state that being unable to survive without scavenging from the body of another is de-facto unqualified to have any rights whatsoever, because nobody has that right. Bodily donation must require consent.
            I hope that helps.

          • purrtriarchy

            It was not an answer just some vague bullshit.

            Why can animals also be persons?

          • lady_black

            My kittehz are definitely persons. They all have different voices and personalities. One of them, I am convinced, is a lesbian. She always tried to mate with the other females when they were in heat.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I am addressing all your questions directly. Please respond.

            1. Everyone was a zygote once. So what?
            2. Innocent humans beings should have protection under the law, AS LONG AS they are not invading/occupying/using the body of another human being.
            3. Violating the rights of another human being, as ZEFs do by default.

            Considering the above, zefs have no innate right to life. Whether they live is totally upto the person hosting them.

          • DaddyO_969

            Your question is meaningless. Anything born of woman qualifies as a human being, regardless of it’s state of being.

          • purrtriarchy

            Since when are zygotes born, dumbfuck?

            And explain anencephalic babies while you are at it.

        • purrtriarchy

          Still waiting for that list, of learned one.

    • lady_black

      No, none of these methods “kill unborn human beings before they can implant.” There absolutely IS no such drug or device that can do that. YOU are the one “missing the point.”

    • SimbaLover

      Implantation is NOT arbitrary, because at the end of the day if it does not implant, it does not develop. Implantation is the deal breaker – if it doesn’t happen then the conceptus will be flushed out in the menstrual cycle. There will never be an instance where a failed implantation led to a birth.

      You do not get to redefine established science to suit your delusions.

      • DrRosemaryEileenMcHugh

        As a physician who has done a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology and obstetrics, the reality is that obstetricians and others have been the ones to redefine established science. Incredibly, over the last several years, the definition of conception has been changed from meaning the time of fertilization of egg and sperm to form a unique human being, to meaning the time that a “conceptus” actually implants in the uterus.

        So, it is important to realize that the word conception now has a totally different meaning than it had in the past. I think it is deceptive to redefine conception to meaning at the time of implantation in the uterus, instead of the more accurate meaning of conception being at the time of fertilization. We know that a frozen embryo has all the necessary DNA of a unique human being, even if it is never implanted in the uterus.

        Words have meaning. Scientists and others have chosen to redefine the meaning of conception to meaning implantation and not fertilization. So, I no longer use the word conception, because I think it causes confusion, since even dictionaries have redefined what it means. I use the word fertilization and mean when the egg and sperm meet to create a unique human being.

        • Jennifer Starr

          No one is defining conception as implantation. Conception is conception. But there is no pregnancy if implantation does not occur. It’s not even a miscarriage because the woman was never pregnant.

          • DrRosemaryEileenMcHugh

            You are right! There is no pregnancy if implantation does not occur. The fertilized egg, which had all the DNA to be a unique individual person, for some reason was unable to implant and died.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Happens to over half of all fertilized ovum. And in all honesty, it’s not really even a death if a pregnancy never occurred. And since contraception primarily works by stopping ovulation, women who don’t contracept lose more than women who do.

          • expect_resistance

            Are we supposed to feel guilty that we don’t hold monthly tampon funerals?. *eyeroll* personally I like to use a diva cup or some other way to capture my blood to use in the garden. I know it sounds gross but it’s good for the soil.

          • lady_black

            Yep. That doesn’t transform a contraceptive into an abortifacient. A woman has always needed to be actually pregnant to abort. That hasn’t changed, either.

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Even if most die. . Purposely killing newly conceived human life is immoral.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Why is newly conceived life any more important than existing life?

          • goatini

            Because “existing life” already has thoughts, beliefs and opinions. “Newly conceived life” are tabula rasa, fresh for theocratic brainwashing.

          • Shan

            So what? Most of them fail to implant in the first place. Unless you are willing to go to the place where doing anything to cause them to fail to implant is illegal, your whole “moral” argument is pointless other than for people who are willing to either do (or not do) these things. Which way are you going here?

          • lady_black

            That is NOT POSSIBLE either. So, being, well, impossible and all, how “immoral” could it actually be?

          • Thomas Sharpe

            Human life begins at conception. A rose bud is still a rose; kill either one and you’ve killed a rose.

          • Wendy B

            BINGO!! I knew that rose buds would be a part of Thomas’ thinking!!!! *LOL* (see my earlier comment regarding his seed)

          • lady_black

            No too bright, are you?

          • Jennifer Starr

            You have some sort of gardening fetish there, don’t you?

          • expect_resistance

            If it was true that fertilized eggs are persons, a large percentage fail to implant (therefore no pregnancy) we would constantly be attending tampon funerals.

            Fertilized eggs are not persons.

            Should women surrender their tampons and pads as evidence of a possible crime?

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh, they’ll never go for that, as it would put the onus on them to prove that a failure to implant is “killing.” They’re not *that* serious about it.

          • lady_black

            Send them to Thomas Sharpe c/o The Happy Home. He has a lot of time on his hands. He can search through the used Kotex looking for “human beings.”

          • fiona64

            What are you a “dr” of, exactly? It sure as hell isn’t obstetrics …

          • Jennifer Starr

            She’s a family practitioner, apparently. In Wheaton, Illinois.

          • expect_resistance

            You don’t sound like a doctor to me. I’ve never heard any doctors I know say a failed implantation was a death. It’s a reality of life that a majority of fertilized eggs fail to implant.

        • lady_black

          Conception STILL means the fusing of ovum and sperm. It doesn’t mean (and has never meant) the same thing as pregnancy. You’re playing semantics games here.

          • DrRosemaryEileenMcHugh

            It is true that word conception in the past meant the fusing of ovum and sperm, which is more accurately called fertilization. The confusion now is that so-called experts have re-defined the word conception to meaning the same as implantation, not the same as fertilization.

          • Shan

            Why is that confusing? It’s easily understandable.

          • lady_black

            Fertilization and conception are the same thing. NEITHER is the same thing as pregnancy. Conception has not been “re-defined.” It has always been what it is. I went to nursing school long before :the last several years” and that has always been my understanding. Neither has “pregnancy” been re-defined, but several posters are attempting to do just that. Conception/fertilization =/= pregnancy. Never have, never will.

        • Thomas Sharpe

          And was the “scientific” finding?
          $$ from abortifacients.

          • lady_black

            Well, we all know YOU still have no idea what’s going on. Go color some pictures while the adults are talking. Take your homunculus theory of reproduction with you.

        • Suba gunawardana

          Conception was never defined at implantation. What does it matter anyway?

        • expect_resistance

          Point being, a fertilized egg is not a person and doesn’t have rights over a real live person, being the woman.

          • Ella Warnock

            What woman? Where?

    • comeon2013

      Thank you!!!

    • Jennifer Starr

      No implantation, no pregnancy. It doesn’t even count as a miscarriage because you were never pregnant to begin with.

      • Timothy Michael Jackson

        This means you need to read what I said again.

        • lady_black

          SO WHAT? Yes, life begins at conception. It usually also ends there.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            How is this a response to any of my points? Help me out here. If life usually ends when a human being is a toddler, does it follow it is ok to kill a toddler?

          • Shan

            *facepalm*

          • lady_black

            Yeah, I’ll admit to facepalming on that one. It takes a supreme amount of stupid to get that response from me.

          • lady_black

            What it means is that I do not have to give a toddler ANYTHING from my body to sustain it’s life.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Do parents have a unique responsibility to take care of their children?

          • lady_black

            There is NO CHILD until I build one out of my blood and bones. You’re an IDIOT.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Nice. Ad hominem attacks. Please study some embryology.

          • Shan

            Oh, dear…

          • lady_black

            There is no child. All children, ever, have already been born. A zygote that never implants is not a “child” it’s not a “baby” it’s not a “person.” It’s not even a gestation.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            A declaration is not an argument.

          • lady_black

            Well, the fact that there are no “children” resulting from non-pregnancies IS an argument. Sorry I forgot to crayon you a frigging picture.

          • fiona64

            Please study some embryology.

            You first.

          • goatini

            Aw geez, another ridiculous amateur “embryologist” spewing nonsense.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually, once a child is born, pretty much anyone can take care of that child. Only one person can carry a pregnancy.

          • P. McCoy

            No parent breathes, eats, excretes, nor makes a skeleton for their born child. These acts are done by the blastocyst, zygote, embryo and fetus-the parasite. Keep your Christian Taliban misinformation out of our medical laws!

          • Ella Warnock

            If they birth them and choose to parent them, indeed they do. They can, if necessary, also hand them off to others more qualified to care for them, as parenting is not “unique” to any one person.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Nothing is ‘killed’ if implantation doesn’t occur. There was no pregnancy, and therefore no abortion.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Again, implantation is does not give the embryo life. This is just a change in location. The embryo already had life.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A uterus is not just a location. It is a lot more. And if the embryo fails to implant there, there will never be a child from that embryo. There will be no pregnancy. It doesn’t even count as a miscarriage. It’s not anything at all.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I agree a uterus is not merely a location, but is a location. I am saying location does nothing to change the nature of a human being.

          • lady_black

            *facepalm*

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            ok

          • Jennifer Starr

            And it doesn’t change the fact that no implantation=no pregnancy. If an egg fails to implant–and most do fail for a variety of reasons–you didn’t lose a child. You didn’t have a miscarriage. You’re not going to meet hundreds of little ‘Umbert the Unimplantables’ in Heaven one day saying ‘Mommy, why couldn’t I implant?’. Nothing was ‘killed’, because nothing ever was.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Let me put it to you this way. Life begins at conception. Conception begins before implantation. Embryology tells us this.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Still doesn’t change the fact that it wasn’t a pregnancy.

          • lady_black

            SO WHAT?

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Your “so whats” ad nothing to this conversation.

          • lady_black

            I’m telling you, yes life does begin at conception. SO WHAT? Please proceed…

          • fiona64

            So, a woman is just an EasyBake Oven, then? Her job is to just sit around and wait for the infant to show up, as though it were a tiny cake heated by a light bulb?

          • lady_black

            No it is not “just a change in location.” Implantation does give the embryo any shot it has at living. You seem to view a zef as merely occupying space in a woman’s body. That’s not what’s going on. She is building it out of her blood. It’s taking everything it needs from her body.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            The embryo is self-directing itself towards maturity. She is a separate and distinct living human being.

          • lady_black

            Does the term “epigenetics” ring any bells in that empty head of yours?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Fine, then. If it’s totally ‘self directing’ without any effort from the woman, then there’s no problem. It can move out and get an apartment.

          • annalee

            Or it can be implanted into the testicles of the man who believes a zygote is a separate and distinct human being so he can prove just how separate and distinct it is.

          • Jennifer Starr

            They don’t seem to understand that ‘separate’ implies that something is able to be separated.

          • annalee

            Seems there is a whole lot they don’t understand. From the complex down to the obvious.

          • lady_black

            If it’s so damn “self-directing” then explain why that Frankenstein experiment down in Texas didn’t work out. I’ll wait.

          • Melissa Blank

            Up to 30% of fertilized eggs will be ‘aborted’ naturally due to having an abnormal number of chromosomes, making the “life begins at conception” argument patently false in as much as 70% of cases.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            To say a life ends before implantation is not to say life never began to exist.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A life didn’t end. Without implantation there is nothing.

          • Melissa Blank

            Life technically existed prior to fertilization, too. Sperm is “life”. An ovum is “life. So what? The further stage of development, the more value it has. But still doesn’t have value as an individual person prior to viability.

          • goatini

            And you are a vicious nut job who sees women as nothing more than gestation systems, that from menarche to menopause should be under surveillance and monitoring at all times, to ensure that ALL fertilized eggs be gestated to full term, with severe penalties for ALL fertilized eggs that do not implant into the uterine lining. Even though 50-80% of fertilized eggs NEVER implant. With your “definition” of “life”, women are rendered as a permanent criminal subclass. Sick.

          • lady_black

            Says the guy who isn’t aware that sex and gender aren’t carved in stone at conception. Consult that “embryology text” I am very sure you do NOT possess, and use it to look up the term “intersex.”

          • P. McCoy

            Sucking the life elements out of a host body is what cancer cells do, what parasites do- parasites have NO rights!

          • fiona64

            You can stop trying emotional appeals by referring to a zygote as “she.” It just makes you look absurd.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            This is not about emotional appeal. From the point of conception the unborn is a male or a female, not an “it”.

          • lady_black

            Are you really so sure about that? Better get back to your embryology text and study up on that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            They seem to be under the impression that all is settled and set in stone from conception onward, and all the woman provides is a pad to hang out in for nine months.

          • lady_black

            They are actually being told that. Some bloggers have characterized pregnancy as the embryo “nestling” into the uterus’s “nutrient-rich lining” or some such nonsense as that. Like pregnancy is no more than a full-body hug and a warm bottle of formula. They are being fed a kindergarten-level understanding of pregnancy that might be given to a curious five-year-old asking his mommy where babies come from.

          • purrtriarchy

            Yes and the zef is magical and special and wonderful because it constructs itself. All the passive women provides is shelter and nutrients!

            They somehow think that this self construction is proof of personhood- and that since a zef has the potential to develop a brain, it already has a brain, because self construction is the same as already having a specific capacity or trait!

          • lady_black

            And ambiguous gender never, EVER occurs, cuz… DNA.

          • purrtriarchy

            Arent cat embryos also people since they too “build themselves”????

          • Ella Warnock

            My cats definitely think they’re people. Superhuman people, at that.

          • catseye

            Dogs have owners; cats have staff.

          • lady_black

            You got THAT right.

          • fiona64

            Oh, sweetie. You’re funny.

          • purrtriarchy

            Its a mindless it.

          • goatini

            Not a person, not a citizen, has no rights.

          • http://www.twitter.com/orbitalflyby flyby

            But it’s not an embryo until it implants. Prior to implantation it is a blastocyst. The blastocyst may by the luck of the meiotic draw have 46 chromosomes and be potentially capable of developing into an embryo and viable fetus, and even so it might still not implant. Alternatively it may have 69 or 96 chromosomes, or a fatal trisomy or monosomy, and either fail to implant entirely or spontaneously abort in pregnancy. It might have no genetic material at all, and either fail to implant or result in a molar pregnancy. Does a hydatidiform mole have life?

            You know, since you were talking about embryology and all.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            “But it’s not an embryo until it implants”. This is simply factually incorrect.

            Obviously a hydatidiform mole doesn’t have life. Never made this claim. A zygote is not a hydatidiform mole and does not contain 69 or 96 chromosomes.

          • DaddyO_969

            IT IS NOT embryo UNLESS it implants, otherwise it’s a zygote. Get your science straight. Oh, that’s right, you don’t understand or believe science.

          • lady_black

            Sorry, but zygotes and blastocysts are embryos. At the point where the embryo is capable of implanting, it’s a blastocyst. About that point he’s right.

          • http://www.twitter.com/orbitalflyby flyby

            You’re right, I made a typo. Zygotes can have all kinds of numbers of chromosomes, though the probabilities skew heavily toward diploidy. Triploidy (69) and tetraploidy (92. Not 96. My bad.) are things that can happen, and in most cases the blastocyst fails to implant. Where pregnancy does occur, it usually aborts in the first trimester.

          • Ella Warnock

            Yes, let’s discuss location. Of a frozen embryo, for example. No one disputes the legal fact that a frozen embryo, residing inside a building, is the property of those who paid for its creation. Their permission must be sought to transfer custody of it to another or dispose of it.

            However, that same embryo implanted into a woman’s uterus somehow magically ceases to be her property. Anti-choicers wish for the state to decide on issues of fetal custody where it had no right to interfere when the embryo was in a different location. Curious, no?

          • lady_black

            “Human beings” cannot be frozen, thawed out and pick up where they left off, either.

          • Ella Warnock

            Word.

        • goatini

          Reading BS twice doesn’t magically make it fact.

    • Shan

      “It is clear that some of these “contraceptives” kill unborn human beings before they can implant.”

      No, it isn’t. And even if they DID, they still PREVENT more implantation failures by preventing ovulation and fertilization in the first place. Every woman who doesn’t use contraception has more implantation failures than the women who DO use contraception that happens to occasionally fail. You can bet Michelle Duggar has had more implantation failures than I have in the 25 years or so I used hormonal contraceptives.

    • http://www.angryblacklady.com/ ABL

      Implantation is not an arbitrary distinction. Implantation is the point at which pregnancy occurs — as a matter of medical science. Contraceptives prevent pregnancy. The real question at stake as a matter of law and science is not whether contraceptives kill an unborn human being. It’s whether contraceptives are abortion-inducing. They categorically are not.

      I understand why you (and the Greens) are reframing the question: it’s to obfuscate the distinction between pregnancy and conception. Life may start at conception, but pregnancy starts at implantation. Abortifacients end pregnancies. Contraceptives prevent pregnancies. Try as you might to reframe the question, your reframing is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. I suggest you read Jodi Jacobson’s article on the matter: <a href="http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/11/04/life-begins-at-conception-thats-not-point-0/Life Begins At Conception. That's Not the Point."

      • Timothy Michael Jackson

        That is precisely the point and I appreciate someone conceding this fact. The “contraceptives” in question end a human life. Location in the uterus is not necessary to call the killing of the unborn an abortion. By this definition, partial birth abortion would not be an abortion either. You are simply playing with semantics and avoiding what you know is the key issue: the killing of a human being.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Nothing is killed if it fails to implant.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            This is not true. We are at an impasse here. Ok, you don’t believe they cause abortions. So you are pro-life then?

          • Jennifer Starr

            You can’t have an abortion if you were never pregnant. Which you never were if there is no implantation.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I don’t concede this point but I am asking you if you believe abortions after implantation should be restricted save for a few exceptions.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, I don’t believe that. Any more than I believe that you can be pregnant if a fertilized ovum fails to implant.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            If it could be shown that the embryo exists before implantation would you agree with hobby lobby’s position?

          • Shan

            “If it could be shown that the embryo exists before implantation would you agree with hobby lobby’s position?”

            No.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Appreciate the honesty

          • Shan

            Just to clarify. My “No” is because Hobby Lobby’s position is that the forms of birth control they object to function by causing (whatever) to fail to implant and are therefore “abortifacient” in nature. Not only has there never BEEN any evidence that they function this way, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence indicating that they do NOT.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, because it’s not a question of its existence. No implantation=no pregnancy. No pregnancy=no abortion.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Again, I don’t concede this, but you are ok with ending a human life as long as it doesn’t end a “pregnancy”?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Ending a pregnancy is a woman’s decision, which I cannot make for anyone’s pregnancy but my own. Prior to implantation/pregnancy–there is no ‘human life’ to end. It doesn’t even equal a miscarriage.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            What is your source material for saying conception is not the beginning of human life?

          • lady_black

            It’s not a pregnancy. Therefore no abortion is possible.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Name a pregnancy that successfully came to term without implanting in the uterus. I’ll wait.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I’m not sure what you think this proves. You thinks this somehow shows life doesn’t begin at conception?

          • lady_black

            I keep telling you life does begin at conception, and I keep asking you so what? I never get an answer.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I am responding to Jennifer Starr not you. I honestly think your points are silly and not worth responding to. Don’t mean to be mean, just being honest. I can’t respond to every one of you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Jenner? And actually, she has more medical qualifications than me. Her points are not silly.

          • lady_black

            How convenient. No children ever resulted from *non-pregnancies* and that is too silly to respond to. See I can give you facts. I cannot make you think. You do not answer because you HAVE no answer. “Life begins at conception” is not an answer because we all KNOW that. That being said, if implantation never happens there is no pregnancy, therefore “abortion” isn’t even possible. And don’t you dare question my knowledge, sonny. I’ve forgotten more about pregnancy than you’ll know on your best day. You don’t know who you’re arguing with.

          • P. McCoy

            Non sentient entities have no innocence. Again, talking to cult brainwashed religious fanatics is like talking to insane- if you’re so pro life, just what are you doing about the victims of sexual abuse done by Catholic priests?

          • lady_black

            I can’t believe you up-voted this comment.

          • P. McCoy

            If I helped that troll it was sheer accident. Apologies.

          • goatini

            But since zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are not and cannot be, by definition, “innocent”, you’re full of lying BS.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, I just want you to show me any pregnancies that have ever occurred without implantation.

          • fiona64

            Reality. As has already been pointed out to you, life is a continuum.

          • Wendy B

            Let’s discuss the definition of “human life.”
            Are you for preserving the sanctity of all life on this plant and others?

          • lady_black

            Well, you can “not concede this” until the cows come home. The definition of pregnancy has never changed, and it won’t change no matter how many times you stamp your feet. It is what it is, darlin’,

          • lady_black

            What the hell would you suggest we do about it? It happens. There is nothing to be “done.” It’s natural, and nothing can change it. Get a grip Carrie, it’s ONLY your period.

          • fiona64

            What’s up with putting pregnancy in “scare quotes,” Timmy?

            More of your process of erasing women from their own lives, I guess …

          • DaddyO_969

            Meaningless. Absurd. Any zygote that does NOT implant in the uterus, implants in the fallopian tubes, and that’s fatal to the mother and the fetus and is stopped to prevent that. HL’s position is one of RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE ONLY. As such, it is prohibited from impacting the general public, including employees who do not share that ‘belief.’ No one is being forced to use BC or terminate a pregnancy, but you and HL are trying to force others to your ideas. That’s neither American nor ‘christian.’

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Obamacare is doing all the “forcing”. Hobby Lobby was never compelled to partake in such activities until Obamacare. That is why this is taking place. I agree that HL should not say this is only a “religious belief” because it is not. It also happens to be true.

          • Jennifer Starr

            They’re making the Greens ingest contraception? I wouldn’t think that would be a concern at their age.

          • lady_black

            It is NOT true. Although if, some day, something would be developed that could render the uterus inhospitable to implantation, I would STILL not have a problem with it. I’m not pregnant? Yippee! Mission accomplished.

          • Shan

            “Hobby Lobby was never compelled to partake in such activities until Obamacare.”

            Yes, they were. In all the states they operate in (over half of them, IIRC) where state law already required exactly the same coverage the ACA does.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            The court case is “hobby lobby v. sebelius”. This indicates to me they have not participated in this coverage yet.

          • Shan

            “This indicates to me they have not participated in this coverage yet.”

            They not only had the coverage on their plans already, even if they hadn’t, they would have had to include it for their employees in all the states that already had what’s called “contraceptive equity” laws before the ACA came along. And they never made a peep about it.

          • lady_black

            How exactly does that indicate they have never provided that coverage before? If they operated in states where it’s required, they absolutely did provide it. It’s a fact that Georgetown always provided their employees with coverage for contraception before the ACA. Only since the black guy in the White House said they had to, that they suddenly have an issue with it. Hmmmm. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

          • Ella Warnock

            Well, no, it doesn’t make everybody think. Obviously. ;->

          • Wendy B

            Or have not raised a fuss until the black man was elected.

          • lady_black

            NO.

          • DaddyO_969

            No. It’s no one’s business but the woman’s.

          • lady_black

            There simply is no such thing as “an abortion before implantation.” It is a biological impossibility. Don’t take my word for it. Consult a medical dictionary.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I’ve already consulted embryology.

          • lady_black

            OK. Fair enough. What does your embryology text tell you about what an “abortion” is. It should say so if it’s a legitimate textbook. Otherwise, you’re pulling stuff out of your hiney and throwing it at the wall to see what sticks.

          • Nerdsamwich

            What you haven’t consulted is the meanings of the words you use. The word “abortion” means a terminated pregnancy. The word “pregnancy” means the state of being pregnant. The word “pregnant” means hosting an implanted embryo that is in the process of developing into a new member of its species. Therefore, by definition, an abortion cannot occur until after an embryo has implanted. According to the definitions of the words involved, you cannot have an abortion until you have a pregnancy, and you cannot have a pregnancy until implantation. Whether or not the blastocyst is alive is immaterial to the definitions of the relevant terms. You are wrong because your entire argument relies on ignoring the meanings of the words that you are using. Find words whose definitions fit the uses to which you wish to put them. Until then, be quiet and let the literate speak.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So very well said. Thank you.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            An embryo already is a member of the species homo sapiens from conception. She is not becoming a human being. She is a human being that is maturing. By your definition of abortion partial birth abortion does not qualify. Have you not heard the recent term, “after birth abortion” either? You are playing semantics when we are dealing with human lives. You are not dealing with the purpose and question of such laws in the first place. In other words, Hobby Lobby should not be forced to partake in the taking of innocent human lives.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Implanting in the uterus is not semantics. It is the beginning of a pregnancy. And without a pregnancy there can be no abortion.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            My point is there is no moral difference in ending a life before or after implantation. We both should able to agree on that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No. Afraid not. And again, more fertilized eggs are lost by women who don’t use contraception.

          • fiona64

            The only point you have is the one atop your cranium.

            You are, however, doing a fabulous job of demonstrating how easy it is to be an anti-choice male. You sit there and wave your big, stupid paw and make pronouncements about how 51 percent of the populace should have to risk life, limb and health to gestate pregnancies, wanted or unwanted. Risks, I hasten to point out, that YOU WILL NEVER HAVE TO ASSUME.

            Sometimes I wish that idiots like you would have to endure just two hours of the hyperemesis gravidarum that nearly killed me during my pregnancy. Pregnancy is NOT a state of wellness. It is always risk-ridden, and more often than not some of the numerous risks inherent with the condition manifest. Every single pregnancy causes permanent physiological changes to a woman’s body; forensic anthropologists can look at skeletal remains and see how many times a woman was pregnant because of the striations on her pubic symphysis.

            Tell you what, Timmy; you are welcome to gestate every single pregnancy that happens in your body. As for me, should my tubal ligation fail (they can, and do), there will be an abortion so fast that your ignorant, misogynistic head will spin right off of your shoulders. I will NOT go through that again. Ever.

          • lady_black

            Bless your heart. In three pregnancies, I never had even one episode of morning sickness. I do have a good idea what it’s like to not be able to keep anything down (even water) for a few days, though. I ended up in the ER because I was going to have to miss a nursing shift. The doctor gave me a shot that settled my stomach, but it made me so goofy I couldn’t even talk. I can’t imagine feeling like that for months on end. I would never want to go through that again either.

          • Shan

            “My point is there is no moral difference in ending a life before or after implantation. We both should able to agree on that.”

            The science is already out there that proves that the MOA of BC that Hobby Lobby (the Greens) disapprove of is not causing fertilized eggs to fail to implant. So there is nothing to agree on.

          • Wendy B

            If there can be moral differences, then what is morality but an opinion.

          • lady_black

            There can be no such animal as an “after-birth abortion” either, because it does not occur during pregnancy. After birth is de facto “not during pregnancy.” A partial birth abortion? There is no such medical term. That is a political term. An intact D&E takes place during a pregnancy. It is an abortion.

          • goatini

            1. Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are not and cannot be, by definition, “innocent”. Innocence requires sentience in order to exist. Anyone with common sense knows that if a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, that the product of conception is NOT “guilty”. Therefore, it also cannot be “innocent”.

            1. Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are NOT persons, NOT citizens, and have NO rights. The ONLY entity with rights in the equation is the living, breathing WOMAN.

          • Ella Warnock

            To be “innocent” implies that one is also capable of being “guilty.” A zef is neither. A cypher, if you will.

          • lady_black

            Embryos are not moral agents and therefore cannot be innocent or guilty.

          • Shan

            “Have you not heard the recent term, “after birth abortion” either?”

            If you’re equating pre-pregnancy “abortion” (which doesn’t exist) to post-pregnancy “abortion” (which also doesn’t exist) your hysteria is showing VERY badly.

          • fiona64

            An embryo already is a member of the species homo sapiens from conception.

            Wrong again. All viviparous vertebrates go through the same stages of development, both in utero and ex utero.

            Of course, you are the embryology expert here, according to your own writings, so do let us know how you do on the quiz: http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html

            And be honest with us. You see, most *honest* people admit that they picked the skink … although I’ve seen a couple of people say that they picked the chicken or the dog.

          • lady_black

            And a skink is a type of lizard, right? Yikes. I guess I did better picking the dog. At least it’s a mammal.

          • Jennifer Starr

            *Raises her hand as being the one who picked the chicken* Yes, I’m weird.

          • lady_black

            Not really. Almost everyone gets it wrong.

          • fiona64

            Yep … which is pretty much the point. :-)

          • expect_resistance

            I like weird. :)

          • fiona64

            Yep, a skink is a type of lizard.

          • catseye

            I picked the chicken. At least the one I clicked on went, “Buk-AWWWWWWWKKKKK!!”

          • purrtriarchy

            You still have to list the objective traits associated with personhood.

          • fiona64

            You haven’t consulted jack shit.

          • goatini

            Another ridiculous amateur “embryologist” posting BS lies and hate speech. The hateful forced-birth politicians are all ridiculous amateur “gynecologists”, and their mindless sheep are all ridiculous amateur “embryologists”.

          • lady_black

            Timmy is a gynotician.

          • Ella Warnock

            Rather more emphasis on the “tician” and a lot less on the “gyno.”

          • lady_black

            It’s sort of a comparison between the eye doctor and the person who measures you for glasses. Big difference in knowledge and skill level. Timmy knows just enough to be dangerous.

          • DaddyO_969

            You’re not pro-life. you’re just anti choice. All you people want is to force more unwanted and unnecessary pregnancies on people who are not education in BC and how to prevent pregnancies. Your misogynistic views are disgusting.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            All you do is troll. You are not worth responding to.

          • goatini

            But since YOU are the troll on this reproductive justice website, you’re just doing what forced-birthers do best – project their own faults and shortcomings on the innocent opposition. We don’t want vicious, depraved, amoral trolls here, spouting hate speech and advocating for the forcible stripping, from half of America’s patriotic citizens, of inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive justice. Hit the road, troll.

        • DaddyO_969

          No they don’t. You’re lying through your teeth by repeating what REAL SCIENCE has proven wrong. You don’t want to acknowledge that you’re completely wrong and you wont’ give up your ridiculous notion because it interferes with your religious belief. Proof that you and HL are in the same boat and it’s sinking fast.

        • lady_black

          No, the contraceptives do NOT work by ending a human life. And by the way, the medical term “abortion” doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means ending a PREGNANCY prior to viability, and that’s without regard to the life status of the embryo/fetus. The embryo/fetus may already be dead, may die during the abortion process, or die immediately upon expulsion. The key word here is *PREGNANCY.* Without a pregnancy, there can be no abortion. Full stop. Your silly “location” argument fails, as a *pregnancy* can take place outside the uterus. Unfortunately, that pregnancy is going to go nowhere. It must be ended because it’s a threat to the life of the mother. Too bad if it’s “killing.” A tubal pregnancy has no value to anyone.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Do you realize that women who don’t use contraception have more eggs that fail to implant than women who do?

          • Shan

            I already pointed that out to him.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I wonder if he and his spouse give a respectful burial to menstrual products just in case there is ‘life’ there.

          • fiona64

            I wish HM were here to ask him about tampon funerals …

          • Jennifer Starr

            I wish that too. I miss her.

          • expect_resistance

            Me too.

          • lady_black

            Did anyone ever contact her? :(

          • expect_resistance

            I don’t think he understands.

          • lady_black

            Much of anything.

    • DaddyO_969

      Gods below you’re stupid. Location matters completely. Look it up and if you read the article, you’d know that HL is being deceitful and obfuscating because the items they are protesting DO NOT cause abortions. They PREVENT conception. That’s what the word contraceptive means. Your sense of clarity is very foggy and distorted and shaped by the lies told by the religious right. When the ASOG says it’s not abortive, then it’s not abortive. Just because a religious fanatic doesn’t agree doesn’t make them correct. Religious fanatics swore that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around earth and guess what? BOTH ARE COMPLETELY WRONG as are the assertions of HL and the other religious fanatics determined to force your values and ‘moral’ on others, contrary to the Constitution. As the next responder points out, you’re wrong about embryology, too.

      • Timothy Michael Jackson

        Troll much?

        • Jennifer Starr

          No, he’s not trolling. He made very sound points.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Ad hominem attacks (name calling) is trolling. I tire of nothing but name calling. DaddyO is also attacking straw men. I never mentioned religion, not that that should matter. I guess MLK was wrong because his views were “religious” too right? This conversation has deteriorated into ridiculousness. The conversation now is “NO, YOUR WRONG. NO YOUR WRONG. This silliness is old.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Petulance does not become you. I’m sorry if your little debating points weren’t quite as perfect as you thought they were, but that’s not our problem. Most people here have been civil to you.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            You have been civil. I mean mr. DaddyO. These arguments are not mine but they are correct. The fact that you are not convinced by them does nothing to take away their truth value.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Whose arguments are they? Just curious here.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Other philosophers that are smarter than me. I didn’t come up with them myself. Robert P. George and Hadley Arkes to name a couple.

          • lady_black

            I would posit that they aren’t smarter than you.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I’ll take that as a compliment :) In an hour I see you must have already delved deep into their writings.

          • lady_black

            It certainly wasn’t one.

          • goatini

            Two vicious, amoral theocrats spewing homophobic and misogynistic hate speech, who advocate for forcing all female US citizens back to the state of chattel property livestock – and somehow, this troll is proud of referencing these hatemongers.

          • lady_black

            I wasn’t familiar with those names, so I had to research them. One is a law professor and the other one is a political science professor. Neither are physicians, or any type of medical professional. Both are Catholic wingnuts and they dispense Catholic reproductive fuckery as though they had any idea what they’re talking about.

          • lady_black

            Where did these two, ahem, “gentlemen” attend medical school and residency, and in what state are they licensed to practice medicine?

          • fiona64

            Calvin Freakburger’s and Liar Rose’s. Little Timmy here is our latest visitor from LieSiteNews.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Makes sense now. I was wondering where the dimbulb “Were you ever a zygote?” question came from. Cal’s mom probably fed that to him with his morning indoctrination/breakfast cereal.

          • DaddyO_969

            I said you were lying and misogynistic. I didn’t call you stupid or a moron. I stated fact. You may not know you’re lying, but repeating things that are false constitutes lying. Intentionally NOT researching the information and ignoring ACCEPTED SCIENCE in favor of myth and religious belief, constituted deceiving yourself.

          • catseye

            You didn’t call him stupid or a moron, but if the foo shits…….

          • lady_black

            That’s the saddest part of the whole thing, DaddyO. The self-deception. If you can’t be honest with yourself, who else can ever trust you?

          • goatini

            Your “arguments” are lying, vicious BS hate speech against the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive justice. NO truth in any of the depraved hate speech you’ve posted.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I am dumbfounded by what is liked on this site. You only want to talk to those that already agree with you? What’s the point?

          • lady_black

            Agreement isn’t necessary. Either something is a fact or it isn’t. Nobody here will agree with you, because for you, facts are strictly optional. We don’t roll like that.

          • goatini

            I speak out against radical theocratic misogynist anti-American hate speech. There is NO room for such hate speech in our nation. There is NO excuse for anyone to advocate for the forcible stripping, from patriotic female US citizens, of their inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive justice. I’ve been a reproductive justice freedom fighter for over 40 years, and I will NOT sit idly by and watch vicious, vile spewers of lying BS hate speech try to push women back to the status of chattel property livestock.

          • Ella Warnock

            Brava!

          • fiona64

            I don’t have a lot of patience with some dude who I’m never going to meet in real life thinking he has the right to dictate what I, my nieces, cousins, etc., should be allowed to do with our own bodies.

          • Wendy B

            You are so utterly misinformed, what would be the point in talking to you? (btw: why do you care what is liked or not?)

          • lady_black

            Yeah, here facts aren’t optional. You can have your own opinions. You can’t have your own facts.

          • DaddyO_969

            Well, you are wrong and you did mention religions when you pointed out HL’s argument, which is entirely based on their religious preferences, and that is stated IN their complain. Any time someone repeats the same thing over and over and over again, and expect different results they are either stupid or insane. You just don’t like being wrong. No one does. However, intelligent, open minded people recognize when they are wrong: facts not feeling or beliefs, they change their position. What they don’t do is continue to raise specious, dis-proven myth as if repetition makes it correct. That’s like whistling through a cemetery to keep the ghosts away.

          • P. McCoy

            MLK defended the rights of human beings not parasitic non persons.Religious fanatics are tiresome

          • fiona64

            Golly sakes, little Timmy! Did you stamp your feet and hold your breath as you wrote that little temper tantrum?

          • goatini

            Coming to a site dedicated to the protection of the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive justice, with the specific intent of spreading hate speech propaganda advocating for the erasure of those inalienable rights, IS TROLLING. Hit the road, we don’t tolerate anti-American hate speech against half of America’s citizens here.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Wow. Never been accused of hate speech before. Congratulations, you are officially the first. Never imagined arguing for the right to not participate in the killing of innocent human beings would ever be construed as hate speech. You are right. I am convinced there is no tolerance on this site.

          • lady_black

            If that’s what you were talking about, you might have a point. You think women should be denied contraception because of how you imagine they work. They work that way only in your mind. Outside, reality happens.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And reality is not what he wants to hear about, apparently.

          • goatini

            Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are not and cannot be, by definition, “innocent”. Innocence absolutely requires sentience in order to exist. When a woman’s life is threatened by a pregnancy, the product of conception is not “guilty” – because it has no ability to be “guilty”. Therefore, it likewise cannot be “innocent”. So you’re playing puerile, deceptive word games in an impotent attempt to catapult hypocritical fake sentimentality to be “fact”.

            And aggressively advocating for the forcible stripping, from patriotic US citizens, of inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive justice, IS un-American seditious hate speech. NO patriotic citizen should tolerate such hate speech against his or her fellow citizen.

          • Ella Warnock

            Certainly there’s little tolerance for those who wish to dictate what contraceptive methods women are “allowed” to use. It is a reproductive health and rights website, after all.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            They are allowed to use whatever methods they wish. The case is about forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for it.

          • Ella Warnock

            They, and you, are paying for all forms of contraception, including sterilization, through taxpayer-funded Tricare military insurance. I’m curious as to why those with religious or pro-life based concerns haven’t called upon the military to cease providing contraception they find illicit. Those provisions are much more widespread, yet apparently not on pro-life’s radar.

          • lady_black

            Hobby Lobby is not paying for it. The employee is earning it.

          • Shan

            “The case is about forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for it.”

            Pay for what?

          • fiona64

            You really have no idea how insurance works, do you?

          • fiona64

            A fetus is not conscious; therefore, it lacks the capacity to be either guilty *or* innocent. It simply *is.* However, since you are so clear on the idea that the fetus is “innocent,” of what is the pregnant woman guilty? You’ve spent a good deal of time erasing her from the picture in your various misogynistic screeds, so I’m curious to hear what you have to say on the matter.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            The mother is a valuable human being. As the mother she is not guilty of anything. As a parent, she has a unique responsibility to the welfare of her child. The only question is whether she has a child or not. I also believe your concept of guilt and innocence is mistaken. A human being is by nature a moral creature. By your construct of guilt and innocence, you would have to deny that newborn babies are innocent. Do you believe newborn babies are innocent?

          • goatini

            Do YOU believe that products of conception that threaten the life of the pregnant woman are “guilty”?

          • lady_black

            Newborn babies aren’t moral agents. They act on instinct and reflexes. I will stipulate one thing, from experience, though. A baby very quickly learns to manipulate adults. I have video proof of my granddaughter being “a big pink faker” who quickly goes from “crying” to smiles and laughter at the first moment she sees a familiar face. Then if the person backs up, she starts fake crying again. She’s not even a year old.

          • Wendy B

            *smile*
            That sounds adorable.

          • lady_black

            Oh yes she is!

          • fiona64

            I do not assign guilt or innocence to a creature that is not self-aware. Here’s a clue for you, Timmy; newborn infants are not self-aware.

            A pregnant woman is neither a mother nor a parent; those statuses confer when there are born children. But thanks for erasing the woman from the picture again.

          • lady_black

            No. They lack moral capacity of any kind.

          • Shan

            I think that’s why Catholics only administer some of the Sacraments after children have reached the “age of discretion” or the “age of reason” at around age 7 (some say up to 14) and are considered capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

          • lady_black

            You have been informed that no “innocent human beings” are ever “killed” by using contraception. You have offered no proof that anyone is being killed. Therefore, you are calling women who use contraception “killers” and stating very plainly that they are morally wrong. That’s pretty close to being hate speech. It’s pretty close to insinuating that a free-floating cell with no means of life on it’s own is of more value than a female US citizen. It’s a minority view that you can’t expect much respect for ANYWHERE, much less here. So take it elsewhere, among other gutter-dwellers such as yourself. You’re free to not use a hormonal contraceptive or and IUD for yourself.

          • CajunRay

            Actually, we do tolerate anti-American hate speech even if we don’t agree with it. Remember something called the 1st Amendment?

          • lady_black

            You have zero first amendment rights here. RHRC isn’t the government.

          • CajunRay

            If you are talking about this site as a private entity, you may be right because they can set whatever rules they like. Are you speaking as an official representative of this site? If you are taking about America, you are wrong.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She’s talking about this board.

          • lady_black

            I’m talking as a person who understands what the first amendment means. Hate speech need not be tolerated by American citizens. It only means the government cannot prosecute you for your speech. Others can mock you, vilify you, shun you or fire you for your speech.

          • CajunRay

            Absolutely correct as we have seen. A person is free to say whatever they want as long as they are prepared to deal with the civil consequences but there are very few cases of speech that the law can or should be involved in.

          • goatini

            Are you actually DEFENDING anti-American hate speech against over half of America’s citizens?

          • goatini

            I said here. On RHRC. And I especially don’t tolerate anti-American hate speech against half of America’s citizens by an aggressive advocate of theocratic civil law whose depraved, amoral worldview is shaped by a radical misogynist foreign theocracy (i.e., the Vatican).

            And before you get started on a “Catholic intolerance” rant, I’m Catholic, with 60+ years in, and my views of the Magisterium – particularly, from the Magisterium of the Wojtyła era to today – are based in personal knowledge and experience.

          • CajunRay

            That’s nice but I don’t really care because you may still call yourself Catholic but you are not.

          • Shan

            “That’s nice but I don’t really care because you may still call yourself Catholic but you are not.”

            Nope.

            https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

            “You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

            “In this form of faulty reasoning one’s belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn’t apply to a supposedly ‘true’ example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one’s argument.

            “Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.”

          • purrtriarchy

            Pro-choicers sprinkle embryos on their porridge before the little fuckers can implant.

          • CajunRay

            I was making an observation based on this statement, “And I especially don’t tolerate anti-American hate speech against half of America’s citizens by an aggressive advocate of theocratic civil law whose depraved, amoral worldview is shaped by a radical misogynist foreign theocracy (i.e., the Vatican).” Anyone who feels that strongly about the Holy Father and the Vatican (the seat of the Catholic Church), they can call themselves whatever they want but they can’t legitimately call themselves Catholic and expect anyone to believe it.

          • purrtriarchy

            Plenty of catholics don’t follow the vatican. Most only pay lip service – and then use contraceptives.

          • Shan

            “they can call themselves whatever
            they want but they can’t legitimately call themselves Catholic and
            expect anyone to believe it.”

            You get to define who is and isn’t Catholic now?

            Wait, what did I post before?

            Yeah.

          • CajunRay

            Ok. We’re done.

          • purrtriarchy

            waaaaaaaaaa

          • CajunRay

            LOL. I’m laughing at your childishness.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And I thought we were seeing a display of yours.

          • purrtriarchy

            Yeah. I’m the childish one, yet he won’t talk to Shan now because she isn’t salivating at his feet.

          • Shan

            To be fair to CajunRay, I was in a foul frame of mind last night.

          • CajunRay

            Then you would be wrong.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh, I don’t know–I sense a ‘flouncing off’ somewhere in your future.

          • CajunRay

            LOL. Flouncing off…that’s a good one.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually, I am going to thank you for bringing some good conversation here–felt like we actually got somewhere on some discussion points, which is good. I’d go into more detail, but I’m still working through coffee cup #1, But thank you :)

          • CajunRay

            Thank you! I know the feeling. I’m at work and I’m almost through my first cup. Have a great day!

          • Suba gunawardana

            OK what’s a true Catholic?

          • CajunRay

            Why do you care? You are atheist.

          • purrtriarchy

            I dunno…because she wants to have a fucking conversation with you because we are on a goddamn message board where people exchange ideas??????????

          • CajunRay

            I’ve exchanged ideas with that person before. So mind your own fucking business.

          • purrtriarchy

            I know. And she still has the right to have a conversation with you here. fucker.

          • CajunRay

            Not if I choose to not have a conversation with her. Notice how I didn’t sink to your level with the name calling.

          • purrtriarchy

            Want a cookie?

          • CajunRay

            I am partial to white chocolate chip macadamia nut cookies.

          • Suba gunawardana

            LOL this is hilarious. If you recall you left that conversation unfinished, many of my questions unanswered.
            Perhaps you “choose not to have a conversation with me” because I made you think outside the box a little bit?

          • CajunRay

            Yes. Comments were closed by the time I had time to respond. I think outside the box frequently. It comes with my job.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Touchy, aren’t we?

          • CajunRay

            Not especially but I decided to respond in kind to her comment to me.

          • Suba gunawardana

            By claiming someone is not a true Catholic, you imply a true Catholic has to behave a certain way. Obviously anyone has a right to ask what way that is.

          • purrtriarchy

            I can’t remember if I showed you this already or not but…

            http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm

            Since you talk about unwanted children a lot…it is relevant.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Thanks I will check it out..

          • Suba gunawardana

            Yes infanticide/filicide is so much a part of human culture that it seems to be the norm rather than the exception. With all these abortion restrictions I’m sure the US would see much more of this in the near future..

          • purrtriarchy

            In Medieval times, if people had too many children, they could simply give them to the church. In fact, the church demanded children as a form of tithe. In the absence of a church, kids were either left to die from the elements, or simply abandoned.

            Today, in developing countries, babies are either outright abandoned or, when they reach the appropriate age, sold into prostitution. Or simply married off at the age of 8.

            When resources are finite, people do what they have to do to survive – and it doesn’t matter what ‘laws’ or ‘morality’ exist – where survival is concerned, nature/people can be brutal, because there exists no other choice.

            Oh, and are you familiar with the street children of Brazil? Brazil, pro-life country. Anti-contraception, anti-abortion. This has lead to thousands of street children – parents simply drop their children off in the slums and say ‘fend for yourself’.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I know, every place with blatant pro-life agenda is filled with miserable children, many of whom then grow up & repeat the cycle.

          • Ella Warnock

            Quite so. Anti-choicers hand-wave that reality and believe that “well, **someone** will take care of them.” Depends on what your definition of *someone* and *care* is, I suppose, but it certainly isn’t always milk and cookies and a warm tuck-you-in at night. Not that that really matters a whit.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            It really should surprise no-one that there are so many school shootings and unhappy humans when one takes into consideration that so many forced births occur.

          • CajunRay

            Ok, I’ll play your game. A Catholic, I never use the phrase “true Catholic”, would not denigrate our religion.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            LOL

          • goatini

            Sorry, fella, but that’s not a judgment YOU get to make. Bergoglio himself says, “Who am I to judge?” You certainly aren’t so arrogant as to hold yourself above the Holy Father.

          • CajunRay

            I stated my opinion. I do get to do that.

          • goatini

            You don’t get to have an opinion on that. The Holy Father knows that even he doesn’t get to have an opinion on that.

          • CajunRay

            Actually, I’ll have an opinion on whatever I want to have an opinion on.

          • goatini

            No, you do not get to decide who is Catholic and who is not.

          • CajunRay

            I have an opinion on whether or not YOU are Catholic based on your denigration of the Vatican and Catholicism. I’m not deciding if you are Catholic.

          • goatini

            You don’t get to have an opinion on who is Catholic and who is not. You don’t get to decide who is Catholic and who is not.

            I think that as a foreign theocracy, the Vatican, just like Saudi Arabia (another foreign theocracy), should have absolutely NO say whatsoever on US law.

            I think that the latter-day Magisterium, from the Wojtyła era to today, is utterly corrupt.

            I think it is a crime against humanity that aider and abetter of child rapists and molesters Wojtyła has been elevated to sainthood, while the canonization of Oscar Romero languishes in a holding pattern. Bergoglio may accelerate this process.

            I think the Church’s steadfast denigration of females as second-class members of the Faith is another crime against humanity.

            In other words, I’m a highly educated and knowledgable Catholic, after the manner of Roncalli and Luciani. I admire Fr Roy Bourgeois, Fr Hans Kung, Sr Elizabeth Johnson, Sr Joan Chittister, and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, among many other Catholic thinkers.

          • CajunRay

            Uh huh…call yourself whatever you want.

          • goatini

            Wojtyła showed not only NO respect, but depraved indifference, to the victims of Marcial Maciel, his great friend and notorious bigamist, pederast, dope fiend, and plagiarist.

          • CajunRay

            He was removed by Pope Benedict due to an investigation started under Pope John Paul.

          • goatini

            And all of your anti-Catholic bigotry has been flagged. You do NOT get to have an opinion, nor decide, as to whether anyone else is Catholic. Let me put it to you straight in pure Douay-Rheims:

            Judge not, that you may not be judged, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

          • CajunRay

            “And all of your anti-Catholic bigotry has been flagged.” Flagged for what? I haven’t said a single word against Catholics since I am one myself. I called you out for denigrating our leadership.

          • goatini

            Flagged all your anti-Catholic bigotry again, because you do NOT get to have an opinion, nor decide, as to whether anyone else is Catholic.

            As for your amoral “denigrating our leadership” whining, (1) The Church is its people, NOT its “leadership”, and (2) Wojtyla aided and abetted sex criminal Maciel, and Maciel’s Legion of Christ strengthened Wojtyla’s evil efforts to remove socially or liberal priests from positions of power and give ascendancy to his hateful brand of “conservative” Catholicism.

            Keep calling me out for my Catholicism and I will keep flagging each and every one of your anti-Catholic bigoted messages. The many, many Catholics like me will NOT let you Taliban Catholics (as John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter calls them) run us off from OUR Church.

          • CajunRay

            Hey, Dipshit, flag this. I’ll have whatever fucking opinion I want. You don’t get to tell me what opinion I’m allowed to have. My messages aren’t anti-Catholic. They are anti-you. I normally don’t use this kind of language with old people especially women but I had to say something to snap you out of your deluded sense of self-righteousness.

        • lady_black

          You have repeated yourself throughout this thread with identical posts, some under your name and some under “guest” which implies you attempted to delete them. That’s a troll trick. Daddy-O is not trolling. He was responding to your statements.

        • cjvg

          Facts and reality is trolling?
          Just another religiously inspired redefinition, reality really is optional for you isn’t it

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            My point is there is no moral difference in ending a life before or after implantation. It is not proper to call a medication that ends life before implantation a mere “contraceptive”.

          • lady_black

            Well, actually if there were such a medication (and there isn’t) it would STILL be a contraceptive. A free-floating blastula is impervious to medication. It’s not attached to it’s mother yet. It just floats along, and has a 30-50% chance of implanting in the uterus. If it fails to implant, that’s a natural death, though not the same as the death of a born human, or even the loss of a pregnancy. By design, it has no chance of continuing to live if conditions don’t allow for implantation. Those conditions could be related to the mother’s normal hormonal levels, or that the embryo isn’t fit. It doesn’t matter why.

          • goatini

            What is not “proper” is for a vicious, vile radical misogynist male troll, who will never be pregnant, to actively and aggressively attempt to strip from female US citizens their civil, human and Constitutional rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive justice. We do NOT tolerate seditious hate speech against female citizens and their inalienable rights here. Go back to Lie Shite Spews and whine to your fellow vicious radical misogynists.

          • CajunRay

            “Reproductive justice”, really? Is that a thing?

          • Wendy B

            Yes.

          • fiona64

            Yes, actually, it really is a thing.

          • CajunRay

            Never heard of it before. Please define and explain it. Thank you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            From reading your past comments, I think you’re being a mite disingenuous here.

          • CajunRay

            Can you elaborate?

          • Jennifer Starr

            It would be rather like me going to a pro-life site and pretending that I didn’t know what pro-life meant and asking them to define it for me. People have used that method to try and kick-start a debate but I find it dishonest, myself.

          • CajunRay

            I was being sincere in my lack of knowledge of the term “reproductive justice”.

          • fiona64

            Well, if you were really that sincere, you could have put the term into your favorite search engine. Amongst other sites, you would have found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_justice

            You’re welcome.

            Edited add a quote, ibid.:

            “Reproductive Justice is the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social, and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality, and reproduction for ourselves, our families, and our communities in all areas of our lives.”

          • CajunRay

            Based on your provided definition, the term “reproductive justice” is inadequate.

          • Shan
          • CajunRay

            I read it. You should read the first comment following the article.

          • Shan

            “You should read the first comment following the article.”

            I did. I also read lots of the others. What’s your point?

          • CajunRay

            Done.

          • Shan

            “Done.”

            Where?

          • fiona64

            Well, isn’t it just too bad that women aren’t defining ourselves and our issues in ways that men like you find adequate?

          • CajunRay

            I don’t know if you have a disability that keeps you from comprehending so I’m going to help you out a bit. In my opinion, the term “reproductive justice” is inadequate to convey they full meaning to which it is assigned. You don’t know me so you don’t know what I’m like.

          • fiona64

            That’s right, Ray; anyone who doesn’t agree with your trolliing twaddle must have some sort of a disability. ::rolls eyes::

          • CajunRay

            First, not trolling. Second, it’s my opinion which you don’t seem to understand.

          • lady_black

            Reproductive justice means women are not your gestational slaves. Plain and simple. They aren’t property of men or the state.

          • CajunRay

            Ok. I don’t think that phrase is the best at conveying what you said it means.

          • lady_black

            Oh I think it absolutely fits. Civil rights, baby!

          • fiona64

            Reproductive justice means that women decide for themselves when or whether to have children, rather than being enslaved to biology. I am really rather amazed that one needs to explain this to you, but I am guessing you are male and thus blissfully unaffected by the hundreds and hundreds of laws proposed in the past couple of years to prevent women accessing a full range of health care options, including contraception and abortion.

          • CajunRay

            I am male. I have my own personal views of abortion. I do not support or condone either side because I choose to stay out of the fight.

          • Shan

            ” I do not support or condone either side because I choose to stay out of the fight.”

            Why?

          • CajunRay

            Because I’m against abortion except in three specific types of cases but I also am against the government getting in the business of telling American citizens what to go in their personal lives.

          • Shan

            So which? Spill.

          • CajunRay

            What difference does it make to you?

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s a fair question. You might–oh, I don’t know–consider answering it?

          • CajunRay

            Fine.
            1) Rape
            2) Incest
            3) Life/health of the woman

            I don’t find abortion an acceptable form of birth control.

          • Shan

            “Fine.
            1) Rape
            2) Incest
            3) Life/health of the woman

            I don’t find abortion an acceptable form of birth control.”

            So are you just the typical proponent of “If you’re a woman who had sex on purpose without the express intention of getting pregnant, you should be legally required to go to term and give birth whether you want to or not.” ?

          • CajunRay

            No, I’m more the “try using birth control” type. I also support the use of RU486 and other forms of emergency contraception.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You do realize that RU486 is not emergency contraception. It is actually an abortion pill.

          • lady_black

            RU486 is not an emergency contraceptive.

          • CajunRay

            Mifepristone is another name for RU 486. “Mifepristone is a progesterone receptor antagonist used as an abortifacient in the first months of pregnancy, and in smaller doses as an emergency contraceptive.”

          • Shan

            Link please.

          • CajunRay
          • Shan

            Login required.

          • CajunRay

            It didn’t require a log-in when i clicked on it.

          • Shan

            So? Fix it or find and post a new one.

          • CajunRay

            No. Do it yourself.

            From the site. Best I’ll do.

            Hormonal Emergency Contraception
            Melissa Sanders Wanner, Pharm.D., Rachel L. Couchenour, Pharm.D. Disclosures Pharmacotherapy. 2002;22(1)

            “Mifepristone (RU-486) is a progesterone and glucocorticoid antagonist derived from norethindrone. Since its discovery in the early 1980s, it has been studied for a variety of clinical applications, including cervical ripening, labor induction, contraception, medical abortion, endometriosis, and emergency contraception.[33-36] Mifepristone has several pharmacologic actions that play a role in its effectiveness as an emergency contraceptive. It competes with endogenous progesterone and binds with very high affinity to progesterone receptors. This leads to a conformational change in the mifepristone-progesterone receptor complex.[33] Since progesterone receptors are located predominantly in the reproductive organs, the effects of mifepristone are primarily in the uterus.[36] The conformational change in the receptors block the effects of endogenous progesterone on endometrial development and prevents the promotion of transcription of cellular DNA.[35] When administered during the follicular phase, mifepristone inhibits folliculogenesis and the normal surge of luteinizing hormone that triggers ovulation. These disruptions prevent further follicular development and ovulation.[33,35] When mifepristone is administered to women during the early and midluteal phases of the menstrual cycle, endometrial changes occur that are consistent with the withdrawal of progesterone and that disrupt or prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum.[35,37] In addition, these antiprogestogenic actions prevent further development of an implanted embryo.[36] Unlike the Yuzpe, progestin-only, and high-dose ethinyl estradiol regimens, mifepristone is an effective emergency contraceptive when given before or after implantation has occurred and may be effective up to 12-17 days after a single episode of unprotected intercourse.[33,36]“

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You understand that none of that matters, right. In order for you to force a woman to gestate, you must let an innocent baby, child or adult die.
            You must also steal the bodily autonomy of the woman and vest the autonomy in a non human life.

            You understand, right?

          • CajunRay

            I offered my opinion. If you had read everything I posted, you would see that my opinion is my own and I do not advocate for the position of either side.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I don’t care which side you are on. If pro choice people were killing babies to save fetuses, then what I say would apply to them. If you are of the belief that you can save a fetus by spending your time here, then you are spending seconds saving fetuses and in those seconds, babies die.

          • CajunRay

            You are using a hypothetical as your argument. No one is actually killing anyone when they save a fetus. You know what the third world needs? Education. Several studies have shown that when women become educated the birth rate goes down because the women use methods to ensure they do not become pregnant.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            When a person knows a baby is dying and refuses to save it, they are actually killing someone. There is a legal basis for my argument. There is both murder by omission and murder by commission. A person that has a duty to save the life of another person and fails to do so has murdered by omission. Pro lifers have a duty to save innocent babies, because that is what they claim to do. So pro lifers are guilty of murder by omission.

          • CajunRay

            How? By not giving their money to the appropriate causes to fight world hunger. Very few people actually have a duty to save a life. Medical personnel, first responders, and in some states they first on the scene of an accident.

            When I was in Iraq, I worked at the Army hospital in Baghdad. We treated everyone from U.S. personnel, to coalition, to local civilians, to the enemy. When we first arrived all of us were blood-typed so we could be used if there was a patient that needed blood. I’m O-neg – universal donor. I told my Command that I would not donate my blood to anyone brought in as the enemy. I would only be involved in the saving of our forces and friends as well as the innocent civilians. Does that mean that I killed every POW that died needing blood? I don’t think so.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If you have the right to refuse your blood being used by another (specific) person, why shouldn’t a pregnant woman have the exact same right? i.e. to refuse her body being used by another individual without her consent.

          • CajunRay

            Did you read all of my posts? Am I not entitled to my own opinions? Let me say again. I have my opinions about abortion. They clash with my opinions about the government telling people what to do or how to live. Therefore, I have opinions but do not offer support of any kind to either side. I was asked my opinion. I gave it. I am not trying to advocate for the pro-life side.

          • Suba gunawardana

            And you know who’s holding back that education? Religion.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And in a lot of those countries the Catholic Church holds a great deal of influence in assuring that contraception will not be available.

          • CajunRay

            Really? Do they hold a lot of influence in Africa? I’m Catholic but I’m pro-contraception. I believe that anything that reduces the number of abortions should be promoted.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes , they hold quite a lot of influence there, as well as in many Latin American and South American countries. Countries with legal but low rates of abortion have contraception that’s widely available and strong social programs and health programs that benefit both children and mothers.

          • CajunRay

            I never did get the Catholic Church’s resistance to birth control while at the same time being against abortion. It seems to me that they should promote birth control to reduce abortions.

          • Suba gunawardana

            They certainly should. The fact that they DON’T, shows that their real motive is to create as many people as they can, at whatever cost.

          • CajunRay

            I don’t think you have any idea what their motive is.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It has to do with issues of doctrine –that they believe that sex should always be unitive and procreative–open to life– and that contraception blocks that, which is sinful in their eyes–having never been Catholic I’m really not too clear on all the details–just repeating what I have heard from others. But I agree that contraception does reduce abortions.

          • CajunRay

            I am Catholic and I still don’t really get their reasoning.

          • Shan

            ” I believe that anything that reduces the number of abortions should be promoted.”

            Regarding the subject of the article, what do you think of Hobby Lobby’s objection to their employees having health insurance coverage for EC and IUDs?

          • CajunRay

            I disagree with it. I’m for reducing the number of abortions not limiting or denying access to measures that prevent the need for abortions. It would also be cheaper in the long run for everyone involved.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If all “pro-lifers” thought that way and took active measures to provide sex education and contraception to all, abortion would dramatically decrease simply from reduced need.

            Considering many “pro-lifers” make active efforts to restrict contraception & sex-ed, it’s obvious that their real motive is not necessarily to reduce abortion but to increase the numbers of births by whatever means possible.

          • CajunRay

            I am not one of those. I think it is asinine to limit a woman’s access to contraception and then decry the fact that they have abortions.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Thank you! :)

          • Shan

            Not only is that article over a dozen years old, it’s about RU486 which the ACA doesn’t require to be covered and which Hobby Lobby is not, therefore, objecting to.

          • CajunRay

            I was only responding to this statement. “RU486 is not an emergency contraceptive.” That is all.

          • Shan

            You should have replied to the original poster, then.

          • CajunRay

            I did reply to the original poster.

          • lady_black

            In the USA it is NOT an emergency contraceptive. Something that isn’t available to the public at a pharmacy is not convenient as emergency contraception. Laws would need to change for that to happen.

          • CajunRay

            It may not be available or used as one here but it doesn’t change the fact that emergency contraception is one of its off label uses.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The second part of RU486 is misoprostol, which causes contractions resulting in a miscarriage.

          • CajunRay

            ok

          • lady_black

            He is correct with a huge caveat. Mifepristone is not used as EC in the USA. In fact, it’s not even available to the general public in pharmacies. That would make it’s use as EC here extremely inconvenient. It’s a good idea, but in the USA it’s not available and not approved as EC. And you know that the anti-choicers would totally have a cow if it were suggested, and approval would fail on political (not medical) grounds. Where mifepristone is used as EC, it’s highly effective.

          • lady_black

            RU486 is actually a two drug regimen used for medication abortions. Levonorgestrel and ulipristal are commonly used as emergency contraception and act by suppressing ovulation. IUD insertion is also 99% effective as emergency contraception, but much more expensive and intended to be used long-term thereafter. Insertion of an IUD is the best method of EC for a sexually active person. The drug forms are single doses only effective for five to ten days depending on type. A period will usually ensue and the woman’s cycle will begin again when using Plan B or Ella.

          • CajunRay
          • lady_black

            Look. Plain and simple, mifepristone is not approved for that particular purpose in the USA. Furthermore, it makes a crappy EC method because of it’s limited legal status in the USA. Specifically, a doctor cannot just write a script for it that the patient can take to a pharmacy and get filled like Ella. It’s not even available to consumers through pharmacies, and is distributed only to specialty doctors. It *can* be used as EC, but in the USA, it is NOT being used for that purpose. You have pointed out something that is interesting (an alternative EC that is apparently highly effective). I sincerely hope the legal status of this drug will change so that it can be used as EC here. Right now, the best (as far as effectiveness) is an IUD. If the use of mifepristone is suggested for use in the USA for emergency contraception, I fully expect the right wing to completely lose their minds, and it will fail to be approved not for medical reasons, but for political reasons. In short, I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime. Currently, the only approved use is medication abortion.

          • Shan

            “No, I’m more the “try using birth control” type.”

            So, you think that only people who used birth control and it FAILED should be legally allowed to have an abortion? What are you getting at here?

          • CajunRay

            That is a “straw man fallacy”. You are putting words in my mouth.

          • Shan

            Correct me, then.

          • CajunRay

            What is there to correct? I believe my statement speaks for itself.

          • Shan

            Your statement was that you think the only women who should legally be allowed to have an abortion are those who were 1) raped, 2) the victim of incest, or 3) are at risk of death. You don’t seem to include women who used birth control in the first place, but which failed.

            Why? What statement is THAT making?

          • CajunRay

            Properly used, there is only a 3% failure rate. No, I do not include women that have a birth control failure. The reason is because the failure rate of contraception would shoot up. If the failure is due to condom breakage, the emergency contraceptive should be used if a pregnancy is not desired.

          • Shan

            The numbers don’t matter. Unless I have totally misunderstood you (which I hope I have) you are still saying that only women who meet YOUR criteria (i.e., women who did not have sex on purpose) should legally have the right to have an abortion.

          • CajunRay

            I did say that was my opinion. As my Dad says, “Opinion are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.”

          • Shan

            Right, again…so if you’ve got no dog in the hunt, why are you here?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Not everything spoken is “opinion.” It is scientific fact that you have a choice to save innocent babies or let them die. Your choice to let them die is also a fact.
            Your excuses are opinions.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So what about all those irresponsible women who never used birth control or neglected to get emergency contraception? Should they be “punished” with an unwanted baby? If so what about the baby? Why punish a baby by forcing them on irresponsible parents who didn’t want that baby in the first place?

          • CajunRay

            There are plenty of people who would adopt a baby. As for the first part of your statement, my position remains that abortion should not be a means of birth control.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If there are plenty of people who would adopt a baby, why does the US foster system overflow? Why do so many children age out of the system & never find a home?

            I agree it is rather stupid to use abortion as birth control. My question remains whether you would punish a child by forcing them on an irresponsible parent who doesn’t want them.

          • Jennifer Starr

            There are 100,000 foster kids in the US who are available for adoption and would love to have a permanent home–the state will even help with the cost.

          • CajunRay

            You probably know that most couples want infants.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So the older kids languishing forever are chopped liver? They will be getting homes IF the forced-birthers didn’t keep a steady stream of unwanted infants coming in.

          • CajunRay

            If you think that then you are deluding yourself. Very few people are willing to take on older kids because of the possibility of emotional or other issues.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You could end up giving birth to a kid with emotional or other issues–there are no guarantees on that front. And adoption should ultimately be about a child who needs a home, not about people who want to snag themselves an untouched newborn.

          • CajunRay

            That is true but if I were to adopt a kid (and my wife and I have discussed it) I would have to consider how they fit into my family with the three boys that I already have. (Ok, the third is due next month.) We couldn’t take on that requires a great deal of attention beyond what any kid would need.

          • lady_black

            And you are guaranteed that the child your wife is carrying now will not be emotionally and socially disturbed, requiring more attention than the average child… just HOW, exactly?

          • CajunRay

            If that is the case then we’ll do the best we can. There are no genetic markers for any kind of genetic abnormality. Other than that there are no guarantees but I won’t knowingly bring someone into my home that might be a danger to my boys.

          • Suba gunawardana

            - Children should not be commodities to be picked & chosen on their best qualities. That’s degrading to the children. People who are that picky don’t deserve the privilege of parenthood.

            -More importantly, if it weren’t for the steady stream of newborns coming in, current babies would not be getting older in the system and “less desirable” & less marketable. How disgusting!

          • CajunRay

            That’s also your opinion. If my wife and I were to adopt a kid, we would have to consider the safety of our children first. We could not take on a kid that required much more attention than our own boys.

          • lady_black

            An infant you give birth to can have emotional issues and often do. There is no guarantee with an infant. What are they going to do? Return the child like a defective piece of furniture? This is adoption, not ordering a new living room suite. I tell you honestly, I wouldn’t give people like that a puppy or kitten to raise, much less a human being. Thankfully the gay couples are willing to adopt the children that selfish couples don’t want, and they do a great job with them.

          • CajunRay

            As I said to another post of yours, it’s also about what the adopting family can handle especially if there are other children involved.

          • goatini

            Well, if there are “other children” involved, then those selfish greedy vultures don’t NEED to exploit an innocent woman in indentured servitude, do they?

          • CajunRay

            How are they selfish or greedy?

          • goatini

            Because they wish to exploit an innocent woman in unpaid indentured servitude – instead of minding their own business so she can safely and legally terminate her unwanted pregnancy, and then adopting an older child that really NEEDS a home and family.

            Because they DON’T CARE about how an innocent woman coerced into gestational slavery suffers, and they DON’T CARE how a child old enough to know s/he is abandoned suffers.

          • CajunRay

            I think “unpaid indentured servitude” is a little, or a lot, over the top. I’m sure the couples DON’T THINK about where the baby comes from and why should they care about someone they have never met?

          • goatini

            Well, then, it would seem that very few people are qualified to be adoptive parents. ONLY those prospective adoptive parents who are willing to take in ANY child in need, should be permitted to adopt. Selfish greedy vultures who demand ONLY a brand new shiny infant are NOT qualified to adopt – these entitled vultures have NO moral qualms about exploiting an innocent woman with an unwanted pregnancy and coercing her into indentured servitude, without compensation – when SO many children desperately NEED loving homes. If adoption worked the way it it supposed to, each and every selfish vulture who demands an infant to adopt would be forever disqualified from adopting, and should probably be kept away from children in general.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Unfortunately I do know that. But adoption should be about kids who need homes, and these children do, more than anyone. I used to watch quite a lot of these kids as a part-time nanny for various foster families. Sure they’re not perfect, some had issues but on the whole they were great kids–kids who deserve to be part of a family and know they belong somewhere.

          • lady_black

            Yep. They don’t want children. They want “accessories.” If someone is that selfish that they refuse to adopt a child who needs parents and a forever home, they deserve exactly this: NOTHING. In any case, no woman with an unwanted pregnancy owes them an infant to adopt. We aren’t public baby ovens.

          • CajunRay

            I agree with you on your last point. My wife and I wanted a girl but in about a month we’ll be having our third son. Since I am 14 years older than she is, I told her the shop is closed. By the time our youngest turns 18 I’ll be 64 so we have started having preliminary discussions about adopting a girl but we can’t take a child that has vastly greater needs than our own. It’s not about acquiring an accessory. It’s about taking in someone who will mesh with the rest of the family.

          • fiona64

            we have started having preliminary discussions about adopting a girl but
            we can’t take a child that has vastly greater needs than our own.

            Well, that’s interesting. I can’t help wondering what you would do if you had a biological child with “vastly greater needs than your own.” would you worry about how well that child would “mesh with the rest of the family”?

            No?

            Well, you just proved my earlier point perfectly. Thank you.

          • CajunRay

            When it come to biological children, you take what you get. That is not necessary when adopting.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Ah-Ha! Only because the forced-birthers keep a steady stream of newborns coming in, to be sold like so many pieces of meat to the highest bidder.
            And they expect women to be nice little brood-mares & keep supplying those pieces of meat. Why else would they fight so hard against sex-ed & contraception?

          • CajunRay

            Your psychosis runs deep. No one is sold to the highest bidder. I’m personally for contraception and sex-ed because it DOES reduce the number of abortions.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Have you looked at “adoption fees” lately? And can you think of any logical reason why the forced-birth movement is dead-set against contraception & sex education?

          • CajunRay

            Have you looked at what adoption fees cover? I don’t know. I’m not a member of the forced birth movement.

          • purrtriarchy

            Black babies often go for 10-20k cheaper than white babies.

          • CajunRay

            I’m not interested in procuring a baby of any race but thanks. ;-) If my wife do decide to adopt once we own our own place again, we’d like an older child.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That’s what I was about to say…

          • goatini

            Then those couples are not qualified to be adoptive parents. They are not interested in adoption. They are selfish, entitled vultures who have absolutely no moral qualms about coercing an innocent woman with an unwanted pregnancy into indentured servitude, without compensation, to exploit her as a public baby oven to be abused and discarded. ANY prospective “adoptive parent” who will accept ONLY a brand new shiny infant should be immediately disqualified and never be allowed to adopt, EVER. One either wants to be a parent (in which case one would feel blessed to welcome ANY child in need), or they’re just greedy users who should never be allowed near children at all.

          • CajunRay

            Do you respond to anything without spewing venom?

          • goatini

            Do YOU think of females as anything more than gestation containers that do not deserve to have rights?

          • CajunRay

            If you would actually take the time to read some of my posts then you would see that I do

          • fiona64

            Then those couples don’t want to parent; they want an infant as a status symbol.

          • CajunRay

            Supposition is not fact. Some people would like to experience every aspect of raising a child including the early, sleepless period.

          • fiona64

            Nope … they don’t want to parent. Otherwise, they would not worry about things like the “problems” you allege … which can come up with biological children as well.

          • CajunRay

            You went back to your original thought with addressing my last statement. To address your last comment, it can and that’s the chances we take but some people choose to start without any known problems.

          • fiona64

            Then those people do not want to parent very badly; they should just get a plant.

          • CajunRay

            Do you have adopted or biological children?

          • fiona64

            Yes, as a matter of fact, I do — not that it’s any of your business. I have a son who will be 28 years old next week. I assume you missed the posts in which I pointed out that pregnancy is not a state of wellness; my pregnancy almost killed me due to hyperemesis gravidarum. Should my tubal ligation fail (they can, and do) there will be an abortion so fast that your misogynistic, ignorant head would spin right off … because I will NOT go through that again.

            In conclusion, I know from primary experience that there is no such thing as problem-free parenting … which is why people who think they are owed a perfect child should get a plant. It’s a far more realistic position to take.

          • CajunRay

            You either didn’t read or didn’t comprehend the posts where I explained my position. It is possible for an individual to not like something that affects only women without being a misogynist. If men who don’t agree with abortion are misogynists, what are women who disagree with abortion?

          • fiona64

            If men who don’t agree with abortion are misogynists, what are women who disagree with abortion?

            Do you really think that misogyny is limited to men? I’ll bet you think everyone who marched with MLK was a person of color, too.

            PS; No one said anything about “liking” abortion. I don’t “like” going to the dentist, but I recognize that dental procedures are a necessity. So are abortions — and only the pregnant woman gets to determine the level of necessity/case of need. Not you, me, or anyone else.

          • CajunRay

            mi·sog·y·nist [mi-soj-uh-nist, mahy‐] Show IPA
            noun
            a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.
            I don’t know any women that hate their own gender. I never said that I our anyone else should tell a woman what to do with her body.

          • fiona64

            I don’t know any women that hate their own gender.

            Then you need to read up on people like Phyllis Schlaffly. It’s really not my fault that you are ignorant of such matters.

          • CajunRay

            I don’t think she is representative of those women who disagree with abortion. It sounds like she was quite a bit over the top.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Misogynists.

          • CajunRay

            So, you are saying that every woman who disagrees with abortion hates her own gender?

          • Suba gunawardana

            To disagree with abortion (i.e. attempt to take a constitutional right away from women) is to mistreat and discriminate against women. That fits in with the definition of misogyny.

          • CajunRay

            There is a difference between disagreeing with something and taking action. If a person has an opinion but takes no action, they have not mistreated or discriminated against anyone.

          • Suba gunawardana

            True to some extent, but their opinions CAN influence the decisions other people make; actions others take. Sometimes those decisions can be life-changing, and can have a ripple effect on many lives.

          • CajunRay

            A person who takes no action other than having an opinion is not responsible for the actions of others.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Hypothetically, your daughter might opt against abortion due to your opinion, and that decision might end up ruining her life and that of an innocent child.

          • CajunRay

            You are assuming that I share my opinions with my kids. That is a bad assumption because my kids were/are taught to think for themselves. They don’t need my opinions. They can form their own.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Great! I agree.

          • CajunRay

            Finally, a point of agreement between us. LOL.

          • Shan

            Yes, but they also say “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

          • CajunRay

            Aren’t you against people trying to ban abortions?

          • Shan

            Generally, yes. For, I think, the same reasons you are.

          • CajunRay

            In this case I don’t think yiur quote applies. I don’t believe there is any “evil” in this instance.

          • Shan

            Jesus, people! CajunRay has ALREADY SAID that he doesn’t think abortion should be illegal. The only thing he’s done here is say exactly under what conditions he PERSONALLY thinks abortion is a bad idea. SO F*CKING WHAT? I, myself, have my OWN conditions where a) I would or would not do it and b) I would THINK someone else should or should not and, like CajunRay, I don’t think my personal opinion on it should be the law of the land.

            Stop using the dude as a lightning rod. Focus on the REAL bad guys.

          • purrtriarchy

            Like Thomas and Timmy.

          • fiona64

            some people choose to start without any known problems.

            Then, as I said, they do not want to parent. Parenting is not all fairy farts and chocolate ice cream. Problems *will* happen.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You have been brainwashed into believing something that is not true. There are 210 million orphans that need to be adopted, right now. If you force another birth, then there will 210,000,001.
            http://www.orphanhopeintl.org/facts-statistics/

          • CajunRay

            How many of them are in the United States? It is too costly for Americans to adopt foreign children and Russia has even banned us from adopting their children.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You can feed and clothe them from anywhere. Spend your time and money helping those already alive, don’t simply kill them and find excuses for your murders.

          • CajunRay

            I don’t kill anyone and I won’t be guilt tripped into spending money and resources on others that I need for my family.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            But you don’t mind letting your babies suffer to save a fetus. You are here spending your time encouraging others to murder children just like yours. What does that make you?

          • CajunRay

            I’m not encouraging anyone to do anything. I’m not a Messiah. No one is doing anything because I think it is or is not a good idea. It doesn’t make me anything

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Well, what are you doing on a public debate page that deals with abortion? Would “lying” be too strong a word for your claim?

          • CajunRay

            Lying about what? I was here to see people’s opinions about the legal case. I also gave my opinion when asked.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If you (and the forced-birth movement in general) stop forcing unwanted children into existence, the need for money & resources for existing children would go down dramatically, since the steady influx of new children would stop.

          • CajunRay

            When did having an opinion become forcing of anything?

          • fiona64

            There are in excess of 100K children currently available for adoption in the United States alone, according to the most recent AFCARs statistics. A significant majority of those children will “age out” of the system without ever having permanent homes … while “deserving couples” whine that there are no children available to adopt … where “children” means, of course, a perfectly healthy Caucasian male neonate.

          • CajunRay

            Actually, my wife and I would settle for a perfectly healthy female. The race is negotiable.

          • fiona64

            Oh, isn’t that gracious of you? You’d “settle” for a female infant, as long as she was perfectly healthy … and consider a race other than your own. Your generosity is remarkable. @@ <– Those are my eyes rolling.

          • CajunRay

            This is my not giving a fuck about your opinion.

          • fiona64

            Oh, aren’t you cute? You try to tone-police women for telling you to fuck yourself … but now that I’ve pointed out the flaw in your argument, you’re practically frothing at the mouth.

            You are proving my point splendidly, Ray-ray. Keep it up.

          • CajunRay

            You would likely have a valid point if you’d ACTUALLY pointed out a flaw in my argument.

          • fiona64

            Really? Have you forgotten what you said?

            I wrote: There are in excess of 100K children currently available for adoption in
            the United States alone, according to the most recent AFCARs
            statistics. A significant majority of those children will “age out” of
            the system without ever having permanent homes … while “deserving
            couples” whine that there are no children available to adopt … where
            “children” means, of course, a perfectly healthy Caucasian male neonate.

            You then said that you and your wife would settle for a perfectly healthy female infant. Which proved my point. You don’t care about actually parenting an adopted child; you want an accessory. The purpose of adoption, as has already been explained to you, is to provide a good home to a child, not to find a kid that meets some selfish jerkwad’s shopping list of acceptable qualities.

          • CajunRay

            Read it again. I never said infant. IF we were to decide to adopt, it would be our choice and no one else’s business who we choose to open our home to.

          • CajunRay

            When I said “settle”, it was a sarcastic response to your post. My wife and I have two boys now and a third son due in a month. If we decide to adopt, we’ll WANT a girl. You seem to care very little about the fact that a child is being removed from the system through adoption. You care more about the adoptive parents taking any child rather than ensuring that the parents AND the child are a good fit.

          • fiona64


            You care more about the adoptive parents taking any child rather than ensuring that the parents AND the child are a good fit.

            The purpose of adoption, little Raymond, is NOT to provide parents with a child that meets their checklist of acceptable traits, but to provide a child with a good home. You seem to be incapable of understanding that, with your ranting nonsense.

          • CajunRay

            You’re saying that I am ranting nonsense? LOL. You know how it’s no one’s business if you choose to have an abortion. It’s equally none of your business what a couple chooses to look for in the child they want to adopt.

          • fiona64

            It’s equally none of your business what a couple chooses to look for in the child they want to adopt.

            You continue to prove my point perfectly.

            Get a plant, buddy. You have no business parenting.

          • CajunRay

            Too late. I already have an adult sin the Navy and a daughter about to graduate (from my first wife.) I also have a 4 year old, a 2 year old, and my wife is due July 27th…all boys. I don’t know how you think “It’s equally none of your business what a couple chooses to look for in the child they want to adopt.” proves any points of yours. You want people to stay out of your uterus, you should try staying out of their family choices.

          • fiona64

            PS: What reason would you have to be sarcastic about the facts I posted?

            Oh, yeah … that would be that you’re a misogynistic jerk who does indeed see adopting a female infant as “settling.”

          • CajunRay

            You didn’t post facts. You posted your opinion. (i.e. “where “children” means, of course, a perfectly healthy Caucasian male neonate.”) By the way, it wouldn’t be “settling” if that’s what my wife and I want.

          • fiona64

            You need to read a whole lot more than you evidently do. You can start by visiting http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/afcars

            What you dismiss as mere opinion is actual fact. Not that you are worried too much about such things.

          • CajunRay

            I only looked at the gender percentages because I’m not on a computer but the numbers look pretty statistically close. It appears there is a slight edge toward males but it’s close. I’d have to take a look again by age group to see if a statistically significant pattern emerges but from what I’ve seen there is no strong support for your statement.

          • lady_black

            Adoption isn’t an answer to unwanted pregnancy.

          • CajunRay

            Can you tell me, and this is an honest question, what percentage of the women who have abortions regret it? I’ve heard that the number is fairly high but I don’t know for sure. Do you know if there has ever been study done?

          • goatini

            Several conclusive studies have been performed that prove that the vast majority of patients experience RELIEF after a safe, legal pregnancy termination.

          • CajunRay

            Can you give me a citation to one of your conclusive studies?

          • fiona64

            Well, isn’t it lucky that just such a study has been conducted? 90 percent of women who have had abortions feel nothing but relief. That leaves 10 percent who “regret” it … which is not “fairly high” at all. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/06/2418181/study-abortion-emotions/

          • Jennifer Starr

            Most people who regret it were probably those who were conflicted or reluctant about their decision to begin with. I wonder if the ten-percent also include people with wanted pregnancies that went horribly wrong–in that case you might regret even while knowing that you made the right decision.

          • fiona64

            Yep, those folks are included in the “regret it” cohort. It’s very unfortunate.

          • CajunRay

            Thank you for the information. I will pass the link on to anyone I come across that may think as I did. I would like to see the results at the end of the 5-year study though.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            What about your choice to let innocent babies die. Are there any cases in which you would save the innocent baby. And how do you determine which should be murdered to save a fetus?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            What about when you choose to have sex. Should that be banned, because you know you will cause a baby to die most of the time. If you don’t ban sex, then how do you determine the punishment for those who have sex knowing it will lead to the death of what you consider a baby?

          • Shan

            Major omission on my part and my apologies for not trying to get clarification before: In reading some of your other posts, am I correct in understanding that you do NOT think abortion should be illegal?

          • CajunRay

            Ok, let me try to explain my position one more time. I’m against abortion on a personal level. On that same personal level, I am strongly opposed to the government being involved in people’s personal decisions AT ALL. Therefore, although I am against abortion I do not think it should be illegal.

          • Shan

            “Therefore, although I am against abortion I do not think it should be illegal.”

            That’s the thing about being pro-choice. One can feel and think all kinds of things about abortion OR giving birth – whether or not you would do or have done those things and under what conditions – but, as far as I’m concerned it’s about whether all options should remain legal and accessible to who are pregnant no matter how they got that way. That’s what being pro-choice is about, as far as I’m concerned.

            I’m sorry if I misunderstood you yesterday.

          • CajunRay

            Thank you. The most important thing for me is to keep the government from trying to control every aspect of our lives. If I want a 44oz Big Gulp, that’s my choice. I can feel no less for things I personally disagree with.

          • Shan

            “If I want a 44oz Big Gulp, that’s my choice.”

            *wince*

            Not a very good comparison on a discussion forum about abortion.

          • CajunRay

            Yes, I agree. I wasn’t really trying to make a comparison as much as I was trying to illustrate the stupidity of people in government.

          • lady_black

            What about fetal indications?

          • Shan

            “What about fetal indications?”

            We’re supposed to give birth to ALL of them, no matter what. Where have you been?!?!?

          • lady_black

            Um yeah. I think not.

          • CajunRay

            That is tougher because in those cases the parents (or mother at least) most likely want a child that is unlikely to survive. That would be a hard decision for any parent. My wife is pregnant with our third. We have never discussed that scenario. We have only discussed what she would want me to do if a choice had to be made between her and the baby.

          • Shan

            “My wife is pregnant with our third. We have never discussed that scenario.”

            What state do you live in? Honestly, I’m not trying to be an asshat. It’s important.

          • lady_black

            Well of course they (likely) wanted a child if the pregnancy went that far. But they aren’t going to get a child if the fetal condition is incompatible with life, and there could be suffering involved depending on the condition affecting the fetus. I see nothing positive in forcing a family to continue a doomed pregnancy and the woman to continue risking her life and health in pregnancy and childbirth. I would NOT be willing to do that. Better to get it over with and move on with the grieving process. Of course it would be difficult, and heartbreaking. Tough choices nevertheless… still have to be made.

          • CajunRay

            I agree with that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            My wife is pregnant with our third. We have never discussed that scenario. We have only discussed what she would want me to do if a choice had to be made between her and the baby.

            Exactly as it should be–a privately made decision without any government intrusion.

          • CajunRay

            How many times have I said my opinions about abortion strongly conflict with my opinions about government intrusion and that is the reason I stay on the sidelines?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You are not on the sidelines, you are making a pro life pitch.
            The fact remains, you have a choice of which life to save, the fetus or the baby and you choose to let the baby die.

          • CajunRay

            Whatever you say there, Hoss.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            It is not what I say that matters here. What matters is if you make the right choice, Hoss.

          • CajunRay

            I don’t need to make any choice.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            What if the zygote does not contain enough human DNA to live as a human. Should the woman be forced to carry a fetus not human enough to live as a human?

          • CajunRay

            Without enough human DNA, the fetus would most likely spontaneously abort.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            The key to your statement is found with the use of the words “most likely spontaneously abort.”

            Many do not spontaneously abort. Should women be forced to give birth to non human life? You are aware that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype you can’t tell if the life is human or not, right? You know that you are just guessing if the fetus is human or not and you are willing to let babies die based upon your guess.
            For example you have a choice, you can save real live babies or you can let the real babies die and save fake babies (fetuses) instead. Which do you let die?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You have a choice CajunRay, you may choose to save an innocent born baby or you may choose to let it die and save a fetus instead. What is your choice. You know that if you spend 1 second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born people die. So you know you can’t save both, right?

          • CajunRay

            What is your point? And , I don’t have that choice.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Every person has that choice, if they claim to be pro life or to save fetuses. Only pro lifers have a duty to save innocent babies, because that is their claim.

            Why do you think you have no choice?

          • CajunRay

            Two things. First, I never said I was pro-life. If I were going to label it, I would say I’m anti-abortion. Second, I don’t know of any pro-lifers, as you call them, who say they have the market cornered on saving babies.

          • Suba gunawardana

            True, pro-lifers i.e. forced-birthers, are NOT in the business of saving babies. Their sole purpose is to force women to carry pregnancies to term. What happens to the babies is not their concern.

          • CajunRay

            I disagree about what you claim their sole purpose is.

          • Suba gunawardana

            OK what are their other purposes?

          • CajunRay

            They ARE in the business of saving babies.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Forcing unwanted babies on irresponsible parents who might neglect/abuse them, or poor parents who are unable to care for them, is not “saving babies”. It is willful premeditated child abuse.

          • lady_black

            No they are NOT in the business of saving babies. They are in the business of forcing women to give birth, and after that, they don’t give a fat rat’s ass what happens to that baby. Someone in the business of “saving babies” would be working tirelessly to make sure real babies have everything they need to grow up healthy and paying no attention whatsoever to abortions.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Many pro-lifers (note that I didn’t say all)–see no hypocrisy or contradiction between wanting to end abortion while at the same time cutting financial aid to children, health insurance for kids, school lunches, early childhood education, pregnancy nutrition programs, subsidized child care and anything that might make it easier for a pregnant woman to keep and raise her child. I tend to call these people ‘pro-birth’–they want the kid to be born, but don’t wish to do a thing to help them afterwards.

          • lady_black

            There are some exceptions, Ray. But that is pretty much what most so-called “pro-lifers” are all about. They are natalist but they are not “pro-life.” Once the baby is born, they don’t give a damn about it.

          • CajunRay

            You may be right but that is not my position.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Answer my question, please.

          • CajunRay

            It’s not a choice I have to make. Does that satisfy your need for me to answer you?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You don’t have to make the choice, you can continue to let both the fetus and the baby die. So what is your goal here? Are you here to make a point or to let both fetuses and babies die and just waste time?

          • CajunRay

            I don’t have a point to make. I was asked my opinion and I gave it. No amount of talk from you will change my opinion.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I don’t believe I can make you change your opinion. But I can draw out your reasoning so everyone can see your true character. A person of character would change their mind, stop murdering babies and help born babies, children and adults. So keep talking.

          • CajunRay

            Well, since I don’t murder anyone and as a retired Soldier I have an extreme and instant dislike for anyone who tries to paint me as a “baby killer”.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I have an extreme dislike for people that let innocent babies die. So stop.

          • CajunRay

            I’m not letting anyone die. I have no say in the matter. What exactly have you done to stop letting innocent babies die?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Of course you are letting babies die. You make the intentional choice to let babies die so that you can save fetuses.

            I give to my Church, support missionaries, have donated one of my Patents to help supply water, have employed many people through my business and have given to Planned Parenthood to help save the lives of women.
            Have you done anything other than encourage others to murder babies?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You have a choice, you can choose to save innocent babies or you can choose to let them die and save a fetus instead. You claim to be anti abortion. But abortion in fact has been proved to save life. It is a fact that before Roe the number of births dropped and after Roe the number of births increased. So abortion has lead to an increase in life and pro life ideas lead to less life. Why be anti abortion unless you are for less life.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford
          • CajunRay

            I am actually for less life overall.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Less life is a good thing for everyone and the planet. But if you are for less life you would not wish every pregnancy to be carried.

          • CajunRay

            It is a contradiction, isn’t it?

          • Suba gunawardana

            How is it a contradiction? We need to STOP creating new life willy nilly, and take care of the EXISTING life first.
            Being against abortion is to create new life with no concern for their safety & well-being.

          • CajunRay

            I meant it’s my contradiction. I think there should be fewer people on the planet but I don’t support abortion.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I see..

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Then continue to murder innocent babies.

          • CajunRay

            Thanks for your permission. I will.

          • fiona64

            No one, outside the fevered fantasies of the anti-choice, using abortion as a “form of birth control.”

          • CajunRay

            Riiight!

          • fiona64

            You know, with just a tiny bit of effort, you could stop being such a dumbfuck.

            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

            The majority of women who seek abortions (about 21 percent of pregnancies) were using contraception when they conceived. You can read the rest of the statistics at the link above.

          • Shan

            “What difference does it make to you?”

            LOL! You say ” I’m against abortion except in three specific types of cases” and then I ask which ones and you play all coy and refuse to answer? Why are you here?

          • CajunRay

            I’m not here to be ganged up on. I answered the question when pressed by Jennifer Starr.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No one is ganging up on you.

          • CajunRay

            Ok, just badgering me then.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I see. Would you be more comfortable on a board where no one asked you any questions?

          • CajunRay

            Can you tell the difference between asking a question and badgering? Here’s an example. If you ask me a question and I decline to answer it, that should be the end of it. If you ask a question and I decline to answer it and you keep trying to get me to answer the question, that’s badgering.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Forgive me, but it seems rather strange to come on a board where abortion is frequently discussed and not want to discuss your views on abortion. What exactly did you come here to discuss?

          • CajunRay

            To be honest, I didn’t really know what this website was about. I follow Supreme Court cases.

          • Shan

            “Can you tell the difference between asking a question and badgering?”

            LOL! You think you’re being badgered because…why?

          • CajunRay

            I explained that but I’ll go over it once more. When I decline to answer a question and someone keeps pressing me to answer it, that is badgering.

          • Shan

            You’re not at home, it doesn’t count.

          • CajunRay

            Location doesn’t change a definition.

          • Shan

            LOL! Yes it does. We’re not your wife.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            “I’m not here to be ganged up on. I answered the question when pressed by Jennifer Starr.”

            You admit to answering when “pressed”, what is the difference in being pressed and badgered?

          • CajunRay

            As far as I’m concerned, they are synonymous

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Perhaps the best thing for you to do if you believe being pressed is the same as being badgered is to simply answer questions without being pressed. That would solve the problem, right?

          • CajunRay

            Or, I can answer by saying go fuck yourself.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Your choice is to kill innocent babies, so you cursing is no surprise.
            The babies you let die can be seen here: http://www.poverty.com and you can search “real dead children” on Google images if you want to look at dead children.

          • CajunRay

            I saw enough death in Iraq so I’ll pass. I don’t choose to kill anyone.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You understand that if you choose to have sex, you have chosen to abort innocent babies. Each person knows that if they have sex, most of their conceptions will end in the death of a zygote/embryo/fetus or even a late term natural abortion. So consent to sex is consent to abortion, not pregnancy. Your choice, if you choose sex, is to abort what pro lifers call babies. You know that, right?
            And you know that a choice to be pro life is a choice to let innocent born life die.

            So you do choose to kill people if you follow the pro life creed.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            And thanks for your service, my son was a Marine in Iraq.

          • CajunRay

            Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse? There can be no other explanation for you equating a natural act (i.e. spontaneous abortion) to an unnatural act (i.e. medical abortion). You know that, right?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            No, I am being accurate and you are being obtuse. The natural act of sex is a choice you have and can engage in or not engage in. If you engage in the act of sex, then you have consented to the natural outcome of sex. The natural outcome of sex is abortion most of the time. That is a scientific fact. Your choice to be obtuse is simply based upon your “wish” that your choice would have no consequences. You are responsible for making a choice that ends the life of what you believe is a baby. You are responsible for its death.

          • CajunRay

            Let me reiterate. There is a difference between spontaneous abortion and medical abortion. In spontaneous abortions, the people having sex do not make a conscious decision to have the abortion while that is not the case in medical abortions. Most people do not even know that a pregnancy was on-going at the time of the spontaneous abortion.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Wake up to what you are doing. If you know that you will cause an abortion by having sex and you have sex, then you have intentionally caused an abortion. Do you understand that if you had chosen not to have sex, a baby would not have been aborted.

            Your “conscious decision” to have sex was a conscious decision to abort what you claim is a baby.

          • CajunRay

            You logic is circular if it can even be called logic.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You need to learn what circular logic is. My statement above is not circular logic. I am stating that if a person knows “A” will cause “B” to occur and then participates in “A” they should expect “B” to occur. In circular logic one claims that A is proved by B that is proved by A.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            test

          • lady_black

            I wouldn’t be too sure about that, Ray. The reason my mother ended up having a surgical abortion is because her body was incapable of expelling the pregnancy on it’s own. She kept right on bleeding and also kept right on being pregnant, as demonstrated by serum HCG levels (a hormone secreted by functioning placentas). Since a person cannot continue hemorrhaging without eventually dying from it, she needed a surgical abortion, and yes it was a conscious decision and at the time, abortion wasn’t yet legal. This is very common, even now.

          • CajunRay

            I know what HCG is. I worked in the Radiology Department of hospitals for several years. Although technically that was surgical, I wouldn’t personally include it because it was necessary due to a medical complication from a natural process.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You imply that intent is all that matters, and that unintentional killing is fine. Does that apply to babies & children too? If a living child dies by accident, does it not matter and do the parents grieve less?

            IF the death of zefs matter (Big if), then intent should be irrelevant and ALL deaths should be prevented as much as possible. Pro-lifers claim zefs matter while ignoring the huge numbers that die without intention.

            Children’s charities focus not only on murdered children but preventing death from any and all problems such as poverty, disease, starvation, accidents. If pro-lifers really care about zefs, why focus only on the small percentage intentionally killed? As I said their purpose is not to save babies but to control women.

          • CajunRay

            If people are going to eventually die anyway, why exercise and eat right? It doesn’t affect the eventual outcome.

          • Suba gunawardana

            How does that address my point at all? My point was: If you claim to care about the safety & well-being of a certain group, you should help any/all individuals in that group, regardless of whether their suffering is caused intentionally or not. To the individuals who are suffering or dying, help is all that matters, and it’s horribly unfair to be excluded/denied because “your plight is natural or accidental, not intentional”.

            People who CLAIM to care about zefs should treat zefs the same way, otherwise their motives look hollow & hypocritical.

            In response to your question: As we discussed on the other thread, there’s a big difference between death & suffering. Staying healthy spares you from physical suffering through illness, but more importantly it spares emotional suffering to loved ones by hopefully preventing your early death.

          • CajunRay

            I addressed your point. You say that an act should be avoided if there is a potential to cause harm to a zygote or fetus. What I said is the same thing. You exercise to have good health and live longer but die in the end anyway so what’s the point. People frequently drop dead from heart attacks after they exercise.

          • Suba gunawardana

            No, it was you who made a distinction between spontaneous vs induced abortion, and implied spontaneous abortion is OK while induced is not.

            I personally don’t think fetal life matters at all (UNLESS the woman carrying the zef specifically wants to keep it alive), and its irrelevant to me whether people’s acts kill zefs intentionally or unintentionally.

            However for those people who claim that fetal life MATTERS, it is hypocritical to care ONLY about those zefs killed intentionally while ignoring the much larger numbers killed unintentionally. It is tantamount to a child welfare organization ignoring all the children suffering/dying from starvation, disease, poverty, accident etc. & focusing only on the smaller number of children being murdered.

          • CajunRay

            Your logic, which is stretching the definition, is circular and irrelevant.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You tend to say that when you have no rebuttal… :)

          • CajunRay

            Yes…and when people’s arguments are set up to be unanswerable.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Then what exactly are you doing here if you don’t wish to discuss your views?

          • CajunRay

            I have been discussing with some people.

          • lady_black

            That’s best, because you will never be subject to the need for an abortion.

          • CajunRay

            That is correct. I have opinions as everyone does but I do not support legislation based on my opinions.

          • fiona64

            And yet, here you are, either trolling or being deliberately disingenuous. “I do not support or condone either side because I choose to stay out of the fight” indeed.

          • CajunRay

            Explain your post, please.

          • fiona64

            Nope.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Do you claim that ending a life is absolutely wrong, under any circumstances?

          • purrtriarchy

            Are female athletes and models guilty of murder since their uterus is often inhospitable to an embryo due to amenorrhea?

          • fiona64

            If I were a wagering woman, I’d bet you are pro-death penalty …

          • lady_black

            There simply is no such medicine. The embryo at that point has no route of administration and cannot be affected by medication taken by the mother. You’re just lying and it won’t work here.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            The problem you have is that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life. The first point at which the phenotype is confirmed is at birth. Until birth, fetuses die and often time they die because of genetic problems. In such cases the fetus could never have lived as a human. http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

          • Shan

            “My point is there is no moral difference in ending a life before or after implantation.”

            Exactly which drugs and/or devices are capable of ending a life before implantation?

          • cjvg

            Except that FACTS and MEDICAL SCIENCE agree that contraception does NOT prevent implantation. It prevents ovulation, no ovulation (release of an egg) means that the sperm can not fertilize an egg since there are none to fertilize!

            Again facts and reality really are optional for you!

        • fiona64

          Since when does posting facts constitute trolling?

          Oh, wait. it does over on LieSiteNews … which is where you came from. Why don’t you go back there now, since YOU are the one trolling?

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Don’t get any of my information from lifesitenews. Yes, lets stifle conversation and attack caricatures of the opposing position. Only talk to those you already agree with. Great idea. You are succeeding.

          • fiona64

            No one has to “attack caricatures of the opposing position.” You make a caricature of yourself.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Your attempt at yet another insult reveals you don’t know what caricature means.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You understand that you have a choice, Timothy, you may save an innocent born baby, child or adult or you may let it die and save a fetus instead. You cannot save both at the same time because more people die than can be saved.

            So you are simply killing born life to save fetuses you cannot prove are alive or human.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Life site news and National Review delete from public view all the arguments that disprove their beliefs. They are simply out to get your money and vote, they could care less about the truth or babies.

          • purrtriarchy

            Pour some sugar on me

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            In the name of love.

          • purrtriarchy

            You give logic a bad name.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I play my part, and you play your game.

          • fiona64

            Oh, sweetie. Aren’t you a funny, condescending little POS?

          • Wendy B

            Who called who a troll? Also, I read your post way up there when you accuse Daddy-O of being “mean.” Grow up. You’re on the internet, baby, and we don’t have to agree with you.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Life site news deletes posts that prove scientifically they are wrong. So you cannot depend on anything they post.

          • fiona64

            Yep. I wasn’t even there 12 hours before I was banned for emphatically proving Calvin Freakburger wrong … with links, references, and actual scientific data.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I hope you understand that your arguments, in fact all pro life arguments, fail and can only remain in public discourse because you refuse to open and fair debate.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Russell. What do you think I am doing now? I have jumped into the lions den. :)

          • lady_black

            What are you doing right now? Failing miserably.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, you are not Daniel.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            No, I am not. We can finally agree about something.

          • purrtriarchy

            Its hard out here for a pimp.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            It always is. Sorry, I don’t know the other words to that song.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You haven’t jumped into any lions den. You are here because you are destined to hear the truth. Whether or not you learn from exposure to the truth is you choice.
            You have a choice as a pro lifer, you may choose to save innocent babies or you may choose to let them die and save fetuses instead. Pro lifers choose to let the innocent babies die. What is your choice?

        • goatini

          But YOU are the troll here.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Trolling is not daring to engage in a congenial conversation with those you disagree with. Trolling is insulting, mocking and demonizing those you disagree with. This site is full of people who cannot have an honest intellectual conversation without digressing to insults. It’s the way of online conversations these days. This site is no exception. Most of you would not have such a demeanor when conversing with someone in the same room. It’s the youtube commentator effect. But I’m learning to expect such treatment when conversing on controversial topics online.

          • lady_black

            I don’t consider mischaracterizing women who use contraceptives as engaging in “killing” very congenial. I’d recon nobody would.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Arguing about the fact of the matter is not a question of being congenial. If it is true that some contraception kills unborn human beings, it is simply telling the truth.

          • purrtriarchy

            Its neither truth nor fact because not everyone agrees that zygotes are human beings.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Surely you don’t believe that you are a human being simply because everyone agrees that you are. It is a truth independent of what anyone thinks.

          • purrtriarchy

            Human beings ie people all share certain objective, observable traits. A zygote is a single cell genetic blueprint. It does not qualify as a person.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Were you a zygote?

          • purrtriarchy

            A zygote contained the genetic blueprint that had the potential to give rise to me. *I* was not a zygote.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            So if the zygote was destroyed, you believe you would be the next conception?

          • purrtriarchy

            Try reading for comprehension.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Why not just reply to my question rather then hurl an insult? It is a yes or no question. Shouldn’t take too much effort I hope.

          • purrtriarchy

            Its a yes or no question which has nothing to do with my statement because you clearly misunderstood.

            And no.

          • Jennifer Starr

            What if your mom had said “Not tonight honey, I have a headache?” on the night you were conceived? What if they’d used a condom?

          • lady_black

            If the zygote is lost (not “destroyed” because that implies willful acts where none are even possible) that particular “person” would never exist. PERIOD. I think you really ARE speaking out of existential angst. Get over it. It’s childish.

          • Jennifer Starr

            That question doesn’t become any less silly the more you ask it. Obsessing over your possible non-existence is pointless, not to mention extremely egotistical, which is why it plays well with teens. Rather like thinking you’re a ‘survivor’ just because you were born after 1973.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I don’t remember. Did you ever answer this question?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, I did. I was a zygote. I think my mom should have had a choice. I’m not self-centered enough to be upset by this fact, because I’ve grown up. Next?

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            This argument has to do with more than my existential angst. Which I admit I do have.

            Do you agree that persons cannot share an identity with non-personal objects? For example, it is intrinsically impossible to say that you were ever a rock or a football. Do you agree?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, there is a former teen pro-lifer on this site whose favorite question was “That thing inside you isn’t going to come out a toaster, is it?” She thought that was such an intelligent question. She grew up too.

            Aren’t you a bit old for existential angst? You look to be at least in your mid-twenties.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Why not just answer the question? I am even older than that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, I wasn’t going to be a rock or a football. And–so what?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Thirties? Then you are way, way too old for existential angst.

          • fiona64

            If you’re over the age of 20, you are too old for existential angst.

          • purrtriarchy

            Jennifer was a unicorn.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            That would be awesome.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh, hey–I like that.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            I gotta take a break for awhile. Good conversation. Started to actually enjoy it when I got a few responses in a row that didn’t insult my intelligence. I will try to reply later if you have more to say. Later.

          • purrtriarchy

            You were a drunken, cigarette smoking unicorn. I have evidence:
            Charlie the Unicorn: http://youtu.be/CsGYh8AacgY

          • lady_black

            Timothy, you are here because you were meant to be here. If you weren’t here, neither you nor anyone else would know the difference. In your heart, you know that’s true. “What if your mom had used birth control or had an abortion?” is a juvenile question. It might sound like great argument to a teen, but grownups are supposed to be able to think things through and look past the tips of their own noses. In my lifetime, I might have lost more than a dozen zygotes, and even a few very early gestations. Almost every woman has had a late, heavy “period” that was probably a miscarriage before she was even aware of a pregnancy, at least if she has been sexually active. I was neither aware of their presence, nor can I expend any sorrow for them. They weren’t meant to be. I have enough REAL problems without making one up. Just grow up and realize there really are things that you can’t control. This is one of them.

          • fiona64

            I’m beginning to think you are a rock or a football, to be honest, since you are incapable of rational thought or dialogue.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Can you provide a clear reason why you think abortion is wrong?

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            My basic reasoning is this:

            1. Every innocent human being’s life should be protected under the law.
            2. The unborn is an innocent human being.
            3. Therefore, the unborn’s life should be protected under the law.

            I agree that IF the unborn were not a human being, then there would be nothing to object to.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Fair enough, except that: NO individual (innocent human being or not) has the right to invade/occupy/use another person’s body without their consent.
            Once any human being invades the body of another, the invader loses their innate “right to life”. Whether they live or die is now totally upto the person whose body they invaded.

          • Shan

            “1. Every innocent human being’s life should be protected under the law.
            2. The unborn is an innocent human being.
            3. Therefore, the unborn’s life should be protected under the law.”

            How do you think that would be accomplished?

          • fiona64

            Your syllogism fails. As has already been explained to you, a zygote/embryo/fetus is incapable of either guilt or innocence, as it is not conscious and thus not a moral agent.

            So your attempts at Aristotelian logic are out the window, buddy, because the second point of your syllogism is factually inaccurate. Of course, the fact that you make an emotional appeal in the first point also renders it a failure, because an emotional appeal is an opinion, not a verifiable fact.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            “My basic reasoning is this:”
            There is no “reasoning” in your statements below.

            “1. Every innocent human being’s life should be protected under the law.”

            Your choice is to let innocent babies die. People should be protected from you and your inability to reason clearly. You have a choice, you can save innocent born babies or you can let them die and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let innocent babies die. We should be protected from people like you that cannot reason clearly.

            “2. The unborn is an innocent human being.”

            Looking retrospectively, every born human can be traced back in time to an unborn zygote/embryo/fetus. However, not every sperm/egg/zygote/embryo/fetus can be prospectively expected to become a human baby. The fact is that only 30 percent of zygotes become babies. Your definition is that a zygote is a baby. So your definition is false. A zygote 70 percent of the time will not become a baby.

            3. Therefore, the unborn’s life should be protected under the law.

            I agree that IF the unborn were not a human being, then there would be nothing to object to.

          • lady_black

            Out of sheer morbid curiosity, what “punishment” under the “law” would you apply to contracepting women, and failed zygotes? I expect a coherent answer, not goobledegook or asking whether “I was ever a zygote.”

          • lady_black

            OMG, if mom had an abortion, there wouldn’t be any MEEEEEEEEEEE! Absolutely unthinkable! Are you “grateful” your dad didn’t use a condom or pull out on the night you would have been conceived? What a total mass of egocentric you are.

          • fiona64

            And you want to pretend that you aren’t here from LieSiteNews? That whole “were you a zygote” that you and your compatriots think is so clever is anything but.

          • lady_black

            More precisely, they cannot be “killed” by any action taken by the woman. They are not yet attached to her body, thus cannot be affected by any medication.

          • purrtriarchy

            Amanda Marcotte discussed this once in an RHRC podcast. She talked about the rights of the “sacred sperm” and how misogynists believe that sperm and by extension zygotes are ENTITLED to a woman’s body. And here that attitude is..in all its glory.

            I was looking up some articles by pro life bullshittet Dr Maureen Condic (do it, you will have a laugh) and I came across a posy from a catholic doctor who was really upset with her because she said that pregnancy begins at implantation. He was annoyed because we can’t have women doing ANYTHING that might prevent fertilization or implantation…

            So there you have it. Sperm owns women’s bodies

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            There is no such thing as sacred sperm. Would never make such an argument.

          • purrtriarchy

            That is the argument you and your buddy have been making this entire time.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Thomas Sharpe went off on a ramble about non-procreating masturbators going to hell–if that’s not a sacred sperm speech, I don’t know what is.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            And I would disagree with him. You probably don’t agree with all pro-choicers.

          • lady_black

            LOL. Did he really? How charming. The homunculus theory of reproduction brought back from the Dark Ages.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yep. His words were that the meek would inherit, and ‘post Christian masturbating selfish non procreative are destined for oblivion’.

          • fiona64

            ROFLMAO. That’s pretty much the argument you make with every post.

          • Shan

            “There is no such thing as sacred sperm. Would never make such an argument.”

            I don’t think you even realize that’s exactly what you’re doing by repeatedly stating that once it’s deposited in a woman and this “sacred sperm” does its thing of fertilizing the egg, it’s immoral to do anything to interfere with it. And since you haven’t responded to repeated requests to prove that there actually ARE any drugs or devices which have been scientifically proven to interfere with the implantation of an egg that has been freshly sanctified by a sperm cell (I’m going with your perpetual erasure of the woman’s contribution here), I’m going to presume that you have something to gain (as the Greens do and hopefully the SCOTUS doesn’t) from deliberately ignoring scientific evidence.

            Why are you doing this?

          • lady_black

            When donkeys fly, it will!

          • lady_black

            Prove it. Cite your sources. Peer-reviewed medical journal articles. No Catholic religion sites. I’m calling b.s. because a zygote 1) has no available route of administration, therefore 2) cannot be “killed” by anything ingested my the woman.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Only it’s not true.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Of course, That is what I am discussing.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The fact that it’s not true is what you’re discussing? Contraception does not kill anything.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Why do I get the feeling you intentionally misunderstand what I am saying? Good grief. And of course this comment gets a like. Rain is wet. Do you agree?

          • lady_black

            It got a “like” because she’s correct. Contraceptives have no effect on the conceptus/zygote. There is as yet, no placental attachment. Therefore the zygote is unaffected by anything the woman does, whether she ingests a contraceptive or gets blind stinking drunk. The only thing that can “kill” a zygote or blastocyst is natural death.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            This is obviously wrong. You act as if “natural death” is a mysterious thing that has no cause. Natural death still involves an actual cause. You are basically defining “natural death” as “any method that kills a zygote.

          • purrtriarchy

            A zygote is not entitled to a woman’s body.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Is a child entitled to the care of her parents?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Anyone can care for a child after it’s born. Only one woman can carry a pregnancy. I’ve looked after lots of kids–including many newborns. I have never babysat a zygote, embryo or a fetus.

          • purrtriarchy

            If the parents contract to care for the child, yes. If they do not, they can leave the kid at the hospital – which is what people do if they don’t want the job. That or adoption.

            BTW, parents are not required to let their children live inside them as part of that care

          • lady_black

            As a matter of fact, NO she is not. Pretty much anyone can care for a child. Even a dullard like yourself. Upon birth, you can drop them off at a fire station, an EMS, or any hospital. Only one person can be pregnant. We do not force the unwilling to parent. Of what value would that be?

          • fiona64

            Learn the difference between a zygote and a child. Hint: anyone can care for a child, which is a born entity. Only the woman (whom you keep erasing from the picture) can be pregnant.

          • someone45

            A child is not the same as a zygote/embryo/fetus. The embryo has no right to reside in my body without my consent.

          • lady_black

            Yes I most assuredly AM referring to anything that causes zygote loss to natural death. There’s a great reason for my doing so. It’s totally out of the control of the woman unless and until it attaches to her bloodstream. She can neither help it, nor harm it. Therefore what ELSE could it be but a natural death? What would YOU call it? A suicide?

          • purrtriarchy

            Zygotes as lemmings.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If a zygote doesn’t implant, it didn’t die.

          • Ella Warnock

            Now you want to tone-troll upvotes. Why is that not the least bit surprising?

            Sigh.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Yes, rain is wet. Can I get an amen? Where are my likes? Oh, wait. Rain can’t be wet because a pro-lifer says so.

          • fiona64

            If it is true that some contraception kills unborn human beings, it is simply telling the truth.

            Well, since it is NOT true, that makes you a liar.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I addressed many points you brought, and asked several questions. So far I see no responses at all.

          • Timothy Michael Jackson

            Don’t interpret this as being unwilling to engage. If you haven’t noticed, I am talking to about ten people. I am not going to spend all my day making sure I address every point. Although I will try to look up your responses at some point.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You keep saying things like “This site is full of people who cannot have an honest intellectual conversation without digressing to insults.” Not true. I addressed many of your points and so did others, WITHOUT insults.
            For all your lengthy posts, so far you have provided no clear reason why abortion is wrong.

          • fiona64

            His only reason that abortion is wrong is because he says so.

          • fiona64

            You, sirrah, are trolling a reproductive justice website with your misogynistic, anti-choice, fact-free bullshit rhetoric.

            And if you don’t like the insults, then you can start by NOT insulting women who refuse to be enslaved by their biology as you demand.

            And yes, I would say the same thing to your cowardly, misogynistic face.

          • goatini

            //Trolling is insulting, mocking and demonizing those you disagree with.//

            Words cannot describe the cognitive dissonance of this sentence, given its source. This guy comes to a site that defends that which he vehemently disagrees with, to post about his aggressive advocacy for stripping citizens of their civil, human and Constitutional rights – based SOLELY on gender – and in doing so, insulting and mocking those citizens and their rights, as he demonizes a perfectly safe and legal minor outpatient medical procedure.

            It would be hilarious, were it not so tragic.

    • Melissa Blank

      You use the term “human being” like it has unquestionable value. It’s just a fact that we don’t value all human life equally as a society. The insensate and non viable brain dead kept alive on life support for the purposes of keeping their organs viable to be harvested at a later time don’t have the same value as the living, breathing conscious beings awaiting those organs to sustain their lives. We don’t keep them alive simply because they are “human beings”. Same with a fertilized ovum. It’s an insensate, nonviable form of life without a whole lot of value. So what it’s technically “human life”? That’s a meaningless catchphrase and not much more.

      • Shan

        “Same with a fertilized ovum. It’s an insensate, nonviable form of life without a whole lot of value.”

        The only value it has is to the woman (and whatever family members she has chosen to involve) who has decided to invest all the physical, emotional and financial resources required to carry to term and give birth to a child.That’s not even addressing whether she’s decided to raise it herself.

        • Melissa Blank

          Thank you. Precisely.

  • Renee Goodwin

    They should have made the Greens show them where it says in the bible that birth control causes abortions : )

    • pbfa

      or that their god proscribes birth control, for that matter.

  • purrtriarchy

    Fail.

  • purrtriarchy

    More fail.

  • purrtriarchy

    Failed again.

    • expect_resistance

      Or epic fail.

  • lady_black

    Well yes, actually they do. That’s how they work. They prevent fertilization. That’s why they all have a failure rate.

  • Snexas

    I actually do doubt that the Green’s actually believe what they claim to believe. For example it has been reported on that their employee retirement benefits plan invests in companies that make the same contraceptives they don’t want their employees to have access to. This is a right wing corporation trying to fight “obamacare” because they hate the president & the idea that the government has any power.

    • KARockhound

      You are probably more right than not. It blows my mind that they question plan b, but the alternative is MUCH more costly.

    • Wendy B

      Oh, but we’re expected to buy the line that they don’t know what’s in their investment portfolio – and because they’re rich, they shouldn’t even have to care how their money is made.

      Americans have been convinced that, with hard work, we too can be rich as hell so we don’t want to inhibit them in any way, lest we inhibit our future selves.

      • Shan

        “and because they’re rich, they shouldn’t even have to care how their money is made.”

        And yet they care SO much about how their employees use theirs.

  • Jen

    Guest

    purrtriarchy

    2 hours ago

    Read quickly because someone will delete any of my replies.

    Two hours and counting. Have you considered getting professional help for your severe paranoia issues?

  • Jennifer Starr

    Why do you keep removing your name off of your posts? We know it was you. This is childish, Timmy.

    • Timothy Michael Jackson

      I couldn’t see any of my replies. They wouldn’t post. I thought they were getting deleted. Then they all posted at once. Obviously I am not trying to remove my name. The post delay can be annoying.

      • annalee

        So can a period delay.

      • Jennifer Starr

        I’m sorry if post delays are annoying–they happen to us all–once to me over a five-day-period. And no they weren’t being deleted by moderators–sometimes there is simply a delay. Mercury is in retrograde, after all. But when you try to delete your posts they stay under the name of ‘guest’. They don’t go away.

        • catseye

          Mercury went retro on 6/7 and will go direct on 7/2. Expect SNAFU’s in communications and travel plans.

  • Jen

    Guest

    purrtriarchy

    3 hours ago

    I will say again before someone tries to delete this.

    Three hours and counting. Have you considered getting professional help for your severe paranoia issues?

  • Dan

    typical regressive buIIshlt. This isn’t about life. Its about controlling women.

  • lady_black

    Nope, it really is sort of a potential human being. Without the uterus of a woman, that potential is zero, zip, nada, nyet.

  • lady_black

    Human life began to exist millions of years ago, and has been on a continuum ever since. Life can only come from life, never from non-life. Ovum and spermatozoa are haploid living cells. When they fuse they become a diploid cell, the zygotic embryo. There has been life all through the process. But a single cell is never “a human being” in the usual sense of the word. Is it alive? Yes. Is it a human being? No. It’s a cell with the potential to be a human being. Or two or three or more human beings. Or, most of the time, nothing at all. It is human TISSUE at the most basic level.

  • DaddyO_969

    NO, it’s a case of you hypocritical ‘christians’ attempting to force your view of morality on people who do not share it. That is prohibited by the Constitution. In case you think you’re an American, you’re not, not with those ‘beliefs’. And (chosen or not) you’re misconstruing what a continuum is.

  • Nerdsamwich

    If this goes through, what is to prevent Christian Scientists or other faith-healing sects from refusing to allow their employees access to hospitals at all? They could lodge a complaint against Worker’s Comp for infringing on their sincerely held belief that hospitals are evil.

    • Shan

      That always gets lots of rational answers from the pro-Hobby Lobby crowd.

  • P. McCoy

    A zygote is as human as a cancer cell .Personhood is acrrured at birth. Since the zygote is in a parasitical relationship with the host body ( the.woman), it should be up to her and her alone to continue that relationship- not the entity. Forced birth is SLAVERY!

    • Christine smith

      So if a zygote is not human ,why abort? What’s the purpose of abortion ? What are you removing from the body? A liver? An old shoe? If it’s not human ,why not leave it there? If it is human ,guess what?

      • purrtriarchy

        Indeed. And if a rapist is human, and you don’t want his penis inside you, why remove him using lethal force, because he’s human after all, and he has a right to your body, agreed?

        • Christine smith

          That statement doesn’t really make sense but ill humor you ,are you calling a penis human?

          • purrtriarchy

            It belongs to a human. It is composed of human cells.

            And if it is inside you, you cannot remove it, because the owner has a claim on your body, being human and all.

            That’s your logic. Which is the same as a rapist.

          • Christine smith

            Too funny! A penis is not a human,It might be composed of cells ,but until it meets the egg it’s a penis .haha haha sorry I couldn’t help myself

          • Shan

            I think a penis meeting an egg might cause some serious damage.

          • Christine smith

            Just for you Shan .i will insert the word “sperm ” are you ok with that?

          • Shan

            I was just joking.

            And thanks for using the word “insert” there. Yes, I’m behaving like a 12yo.

          • purrtriarchy

            Your dumbfuckery is charming.

      • P. McCoy

        Answer: a zygote is in a paracitic relationship with a female’s host body. If you do not wish to continue the relationship then you should be able to remove it from your body as you wish. If the law makes it a person then just as one is NOT FORCED to be a donor to keep anothet person alive, equally one should not be forced to stay pregnant until birth. We are not imprisoned for refusing to donate to keep anyone alive, we are NOT considered murderers either. So to it should be the same with abortion. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

        • Christine smith

          Relationship ? Hmmmm interesting . Do you have a “relationship with a dog? A table ? Your definition of a relationship is? Why remove the ” relationship “from your body ? Why not let it be ? Could it be that it becomes a HUMAN if you leave it alone.I won’t call you a murderer even if that’s how I feel .we will leave that up to the “imaginary friend” that you so called atheist say

          • P. McCoy

            Correction: I am not an atheist. As for relationship, it is said in certain circles that a parasite is in a relationship (in an exploitative sense) with its host body. That is relationship that I am talking about vis a vis a zygote, embryo or fetus until birth . No I don’t have an imaginary friend either. I attempted to explain to you from two viewpoints, the former as the law stands now zygote as non human as well as from a hypothetical view point as you anti choicers are trying to CHANGE the law to be , which is zygote as a sentient human being whose “right to life” supersedes that of a woman’s bodily Integrity

          • P. McCoy

            Comment continued:
            Even regardless of facing death or permanent injuries or at the disgust of being forced to give birth to a child forced upon them via sexual assult. But you are too obtuse to realize what I meticulously wrote out about the illegality of forced donorship of human resources in order to save another’s life. Well I have scant time to waste arguing with brainwashed religious fanatics and pharasicial busybodies who obsess over the sex lives of complete strangers posing as believers, so called Christians in the main. If you are Christian, why not help born children. If you are a Catholic, you need to be concentrating of getting rid of the youth and child molesters amongst your clergy instead of being in denial about the problem, blaming homo-sexuals ( a slur word used now like the n-word in reference to Gays), blaming Communists or worse defending the priests as poor sinners. How cavalier and decidedly most un- Christ like.

          • Suba gunawardana

            No individual (human or not) has the right to invade/occupy/use another person’s body without their consent. Once they do that, the person whose body is invaded has every right to get rid of the invader, by killing it if necessary.

  • P. McCoy

    Troll is as troll troll does-religious raving fanatic. If you’re so pro life don’t you.know that Hobby Lobby is happy to supplies from China and makes a profit from that country? Do you think that they are telling them how “evil” abortion is? No, for them it’s all about wanting to impose their hypocritical and double minded beliefs and control upon women.

  • fiona64

    No, what we both know is that you are full of crap.

  • fiona64

    If a zygote is a “human being with potential,” then it can move out of the uterus, get a job and a cute apartment.

    You clearly don’t know jack shit about embryology, other than what you learned (incorrectly) from Calvin Freakburger on LieActionsNews. A zygote is the genetic blueprint for an embryo and, later, a fetus. Actual embryology tells us this.

    PS: It’s cute how you upvote your own posts.

  • expect_resistance

    Hobby Lobby is a business. They pay their employees. Health insurance is part of compensation. They don’t get a say in how their employees spend their compensation. Hobby Lobby paid for birth control previous to this law suit. They are grandstanding to make a sexist point.

  • expect_resistance

    Why did they pay for it before? Suddenly it’s moral now?

  • expect_resistance

    A zygote/embryo/fetus is not a person. A woman is a person not a ZEF.

  • Jessica Murlock

    Reading this comment section has been very entertaining! I think we should just sum up to Mr. Thomas Sharpe and Mr. Timothy Michael Jackson (since they seem to barely contain themselves from yelling at every woman that outsmarts them, “I think abortion is wrong, and you should too, so you can’t do it!!”) one very simple concept.: Are either of you professional doctors? Did you go to school and study to become a practicing OB/GYN? Did you complete a full residency at your local hospital to gain any field experience in the subjects you claim to be “experts” on? Did either of you receive full credentials along with your Doctorate’s degree so you could be legal, certified doctors? If the answer to the follow questions is no, then YOU sirs, have absolutely no business telling (or deciding) what a woman can or cannot, should or should not, do with her own body! I know that’s hard to accept for you both, what with your surplus of Male Privilege that causes you to assume you can tell women what to do with their bodies, but the fact-of-the-matter is, what a woman does with her body is between HER and HER DOCTOR! NOT YOU, NOT ANY COMPANY’S, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, and NOT ANYONE ELSE! If a woman decides to have an abortion, it’s HER choice to do so. If she wants to take birth control, whether to prevent pregnancy, to regulate her periods, or for any other reason, it is, again, HER CHOICE.

    You can attempt to guilt-trip a woman into not taking birth control, or not to have an abortion, but at the end of the day: IT’S HER CHOICE TO MAKE. NOT YOURS!! And if you don’t like it, then I suggest you kindly blow it out your ass, because it’s none of your business!

  • margaritalane

    Here is an aside: Hobby Lobby issues a credit card http://www.cardhub.com/d/hobby-lobby-credit-card-646c/ There is a passage in the bible which says “You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.” (Deuteronomy 23:19-20) So, good Christians that they are, one would assume that Hobby Lobby would let you use your Hobby Lobby credit card to buy things at Hobby Lobby but not actually pay them off until you feel like it. Hobby Lobby should be okay with that because the bible says they cannot charge interest to people. Actually the fact that they issue a credit card that levies interest is already going against the bible. Hm. Pick and choose the parts you like indeed.

    • CajunRay

      Or maybe they read it as “Don’t charge interest to your family.”

      • Wendy B

        And to them, (them that purport that life is precious) we will never be a family of man….cuz some of us ain’t white.

      • margaritalane

        Generally in the bible “brother” means “another Christian”.
        Whatever one’s feelings about contraception are, the court case is based on whether Hobby Lobby can refuse to pay for something based on religious objections. I don’t understand how they can faithfully make that argument while also making money in a way the bible clearly prohibits.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Hypocrisy, thy name is the Religious Right.

        • lady_black

          They don’t administer the credit card.

  • Denise Bouschor

    Stunningly ignorant……

    • lady_black

      How so?

    • Jennifer Starr

      Elaborate, please.

    • fiona64

      Timmy and Tommy? Why yes, they are stunningly ignorant.

      If you’re referring to something else, since those two are the only examples of stunning ignorance I’ve seen relative to this article, I invite you to elaborate.

  • purrtriarchy

    Here is the ‘sacred sperm/s1ut-shaming’ argument (that I mentioned earlier) from some catholic dudes, in an attempt to admonish a pro-life ally over her statement that pregnancy begins at implantation:

    http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_172responsetocondic.html

    Relevant excerpt:

    The question of “person” and “personhood” are not within my expertise. I
    am a scientist. These are philosophical issues and, therefore, may be
    arbitrary. Yet, as a scientist I view a “person” as a human being, and
    an embryo as a human being from the first moment [first contact] of
    fertilization. It seems to me that the issue of what leads to
    fertilization is virtually never discussed: that is, sexual intercourse,
    which leads to pregnancy. It appears that some women want the pleasures
    of sexual intercourse without the attendant responsibility of a
    possible pregnancy. If human rights were to be considered for the
    embryo, perhaps some women would be more discriminating in their
    activities leading up to the assignment of rights for the new,
    individual human being.

    I totes heart the blatant s1ut-shaming at the end.

    • Suba gunawardana

      As a scientist I am insulted at his blatant judgment of others that has nothing to do with science after all.

    • Shan

      “I totes heart the blatant s1ut-shaming at the end.”

      Yeah. Because presumably it’s otherwise all science-y and perfectly okay from a human rights perspective to have an abortion if the woman didn’t engage in “the pleasures of sexual intercourse without the attendant responsibility of a possible pregnancy” there.

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      “Yet, as a scientist I view a “person” as a human being, and
      an embryo as a human being from the first moment [first contact] of
      fertilization.”

      The fact is that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype one cannot prove there is human life. For example the DNA may “express” nothing more than a “product of conception” and not a human life or a life that can produce a living human. In fact until the DNA transforms the fetal heart into a human heart, the fetal digestive system into a human system and the fetal respiratory system into a human system one cannot tell if it has expressed human life or life that cannot live as a human. The point at which that occurs is at birth.

      One cannot tell even a single second before birth if the fetus will be capable of becoming a human baby. If the reason it does not live is because of genetic flaw, then it could never have become a human and was therefore never human life. Of the 70 percent of conceptions that die in the first trimester, 60 percent could never have produced human life.

      • purrtriarchy

        You should read this article Russell:

        http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          I read it years ago, but re-read it and am reminded of how well it explains early life. Life does not begin at conception, life is a continuous process with no marked beginning and no foreseeable end.

      • goatini

        //One cannot tell even a single second before birth if the fetus will be capable of becoming a human baby. //

        And thank you for that nugget of indisputable fact. These forced-birth nitwits think pregnancy and birth are about as difficult and risky as, pardon my French, taking a dump.

    • Ella Warnock

      OF COURSE “it appears that some women want the pleasures of sexual intercourse without the attendant responsibility of a possible pregnancy.” That’s the WHOLE POINT of contraception, especially the kind that ACTUALLY WORKS.

      Oh, how I do love the “apparently SOME women” line . . . yes, SOME of those shameful, s1utty women – YOU know the kind – who just won’t buckle under and do what god and men and nature TOLD them to do. Jebus H. Chuck Norris, I really cannot believe any of this is still an issue.

    • lady_black

      Damn right I “want the pleasures of sexual intercourse without the attendant responsibility of a possible pregnancy.” This person, whoever they are, can kiss my big white ass. I’m not a prize brood sow. I’m a human female US citizen and I have rights.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    The right to autonomy is proved by the fact that in order to grant a fetus equal autonomy a pro lifer must let an innocent baby die. Pro lifers regularly let innocent babies die in an effort to steal the right to autonomy of women.

    • CajunRay

      I don’t understand your correlation between letting a baby die if a fetus is granted equal autonomy.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        Pro lifers claim that the fetus has equal autonomy with the woman. But to save a fetus from abortion, a person must let an innocent baby die. For example you have a choice of whom to save, the fetus or a baby. If you choose to spend 1 second saving a fetus then 1.8 babies die. So a choice to save a fetus involves killing a baby. The intent of the pro life claim to fetal autonomy is only applicable if the baby dies and the fetus lives to claim autonomy.

        • CajunRay

          You are not making any sense and saying the same thing in the same way does nothing to clear anything up. Why does a baby have to die in order to save a fetus from abortion?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You need to read closely what is written.
            Both a baby and a fetus are dying at the same time. In fact 1.8 babies and 1.4 fetuses die each second. They die so quickly that you are unable to save both. So you must choose which to save, the fetus or the baby. Pro lifers usually let the babies die and save the fetuses, I save the babies.
            Do you understand the difference in what you said and what I say? Your failure so far has cost the loss of many lives. Will you try to focus on this and attempt to understand?

          • CajunRay

            Yeah, I think I’m beginning to see your point. It’s kind of like the people who spend all that time and money trying to get a murdered off death row when they could be using their time and money to save innocent people who’ve never hurt anyone.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            No, put on your thinking cap. Both the criminal and innocent person would have to be dying in your analogy.
            In the abortion issue, both a baby and a fetus are dying at the same time. You simply must choose which to save. Do you get it now?

          • Shan

            “In the abortion issue, both a baby and a fetus are dying at the same time.”

            Russell, while I’m sure lots of us appreciate your support, your continued hyper-focus solely on the baby and the fetus STILL completely leaves out the fact that there is a live, already-born, completely sentient and self-directing human woman who should really be the main subject of the conversation.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Perhaps you missed my point that it is impossible to deny autonomy to a woman without killing a baby. My intent is to support not only a woman’s autonomy, but to make it clear that a fetus does not have autonomy.
            The main arguments of the pro life movement deal with autonomy and life at conception. Both of those are issues that I am able to address.

          • Shan

            “Perhaps you missed my point that it is impossible to deny autonomy to a woman without killing a baby.”

            Apparently I did miss your point, several times. You just make in a really strange way. But, hey, what’s life without variety, right?

          • goatini

            Fetuses are not “innocent”, they are not “people”, and they’ve killed quite a few women over the previous millennia, so they’ve hurt people.

          • CajunRay

            I never used the phrases “innocent” or “people” in regards to fetuses. I am well aware of the dangers of child birth currently and in the past. Without modern medicine and C-sections, my wife and babies would not survive.

          • lady_black

            I believe what he means is that too many resources are put toward “saving” embryos and fetuses from abortion, instead of being spent to treat actual babies who are dying. He doesn’t literally mean that if a woman changes her mind and decides not to abort, that means a living baby dies. But the resources being spent to stop women from aborting could go to much better purposes, such as providing prenatal care and treatment to save actual children. The actual child is already here and may be dying. The fetus may or may not survive to birth, and there isn’t much you can do for it anyway. I agree with him. In fact, if even SOME of the resources spent on “pro-life nonsense” were directed toward providing long-acting contraception for every woman who doesn’t desire pregnancy for at least several years, abortion rates would drop sharply, and the rest could go toward improving the lives of living persons. It would also be more “pro-life” than what’s being done right now.

          • CajunRay

            I understand what he’s getting at. It is like the analogy I used about all the money spent trying to get murders off of death row rather than spending that money to help the victims.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            It is — nothing — like your analogy.

            The distinction is vitally important.
            Your analogy is about “opinion” where your opinion can be as valid as another person’s opinion.

            I am speaking of scientific law and fact. If the laws are violated, there is a cost to society and if the laws are not violated there is a benefit to society.

            It is a scientific fact that you have a choice of which life to save. If you make the wrong choice, people die. There is no harm to society if you make the right choice. The right choice is to save innocent babies, the wrong choice is to let them die.

          • CajunRay

            There is likewise no harm to society if the “wrong” choice is made either.

          • lady_black

            Wrong. Nobody is trying to get “murders” off death row. Only those who don’t belong there.

          • CajunRay

            Actually, this is a subject that I think I have more knowledge of than you. Rather than aid the victims of violent crimes, there are groups that actively try to get death sentences for convicted murders commuted to life without parole.

          • fiona64

            Why? Are you posting from death row?

          • CajunRay

            I don’t know if you are trying to piss me off or not but it won’t work. You seem to just try to goad people into losing their temper. It just shows that you can not form an intelligent question or response.

          • fiona64

            You keep telling yourself that, sweetie. I’m sure it provides you great comfort, when the reality is that every woman here can out-think you 10 ways from Sunday.

            I don’t think you know nearly as much as you claim. Otherwise, you would be keenly aware that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, and that changing a sentence from the death penalty to life without parole is not somehow rewarding a criminal or causing harm to a victim. Furthermore, there are indeed wrongfully accused people on Death Row … many of whom have been exonerated *after* their executions. You may want to look up a little something called the Innocence Project instead of talking out your tukkus.

          • CajunRay

            Point to where I said the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. I don’t care about deterrence. I’m more Old Testament when it comes to justice. I know about the Innocence Project and I never said wrongly convicted haven’t been exonerated or that wrongly convicted weren’t sitting on death row. I will say that as time goes by there will be fewer erroneously convicted individuals. As for the first part of your post, it may be your reality but it’s far from the truth and the statement alone shows your sexism.

          • fiona64

            Shorter CajunRay: blahblahblahblahblah.

          • CajunRay

            It’s been nice reading your babble. Have a great day! Kisses. :-X :-X

          • goatini

            You haven’t posted an intelligent question of response during your entire stay here. Just loads of vicious anti-American, misogynistic hate speech. Also anti-Catholic hate speech against Catholic women.

          • CajunRay

            Whatever you think. By the way, I wasn’t addressing you in the first place. Anti-American? Hate speech? You have demonstrated that you use words you’ve heard before but don’t actually know their meaning. If that’s what you think, you should see a doctor.

          • goatini

            Aggressively advocating for the forcible stripping of civil, human and Constitutional rights from US citizens IS anti-American hate speech.

            Your problem is that you don’t like to see what it is that you do here, described in non-nonsense factual terms.

            Your disgusting inference that a female who speaks out against exactly what it is you are doing here – which is aggressively advocating for the forcible stripping of civil, human and Constitutional rights from US citizens – is mentally ill (“see a doctor”), just further clarifies your utterly depraved lack of respect for over half of American’s citizens. The sad and sick part is that for centuries, women WERE put away, because brave, unafraid female truth-tellers were slandered by the misogynistic patriarchy as “sinners”, “witches”, and “mentally ill”. You’re just carrying on a sordid and evil tradition, that you just happen to think that YOU are ENTITLED to. Sick.

          • Shan

            “Aggressively advocating for the forcible stripping of civil, human and
            Constitutional rights from US citizens IS anti-American hate speech.”

            That’s not actually what he’s said. He doesn’t think abortion should be illegal and he stated that quite clearly in response to my direct question.

          • CajunRay

            I’m not aggressively advocating for anything. My “depraved lack of respect” is only directed at you because you think that your view is the only “correct” one. You are don’t want to have a civil conversation. You want to try to prove that you are superior to others especially men. You are not superior to anyone male or female. I am not superior to anyone either. You seem like you just want to take your man hating as far as you can.

          • goatini

            Standing up against radical theocratic misogynists to defend my rights is, ahem, “man hating” ONLY to men who don’t WANT women to have those rights.

            There is NO “civil conversation” to be had with a person who believes that because I am female, civil law should force me into gestational slavery against my will should I not want to be pregnant, and Church law should continue to subjugate me as a second-class member of my faith.

            You seem like you just want to take your misogynistic hate speech as far as you can, and then disingenuously whine some nonsense about “civil conversation”, when YOU in fact are attacking the rights that protect the dignity of women as fully realized persons and full equals to males.

            And the “superior” blather? ALL projection on YOUR part of what YOU perceive as YOUR superiority. You wouldn’t be on a reproductive justice website advocating for gestational slavery and female subjugation, if you DIDN’T think you were so, so superior to women who bravely stand up for their rights and their dignity as fully realized persons.

          • CajunRay

            If you were smart enough to actually read everything I’ve posted, you would see how ridiculous you sound because it doesn’t apply to me. My first comment to you was about YOUR anti-Catholic rant and was in no way an attempt to subjugate you or force anyone into “gestational” slavery. My personal views on abortion in no way affect my opinion that the government should not be running people’s lives out telling them what they can or can’t do with their body’s or in their personal lives as long as they are not hurting anyone. And just for clarification, I do not consider a fetus an “anyone” when it comes to keeping the government out of everyone’s business.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If you can see a problem with spending money on saving murderers instead of helping victims, why don’t you see the same problem with spending money on preventing abortions instead of helping children?

          • CajunRay

            I don’t spend money on either other than my own.

          • Suba gunawardana

            But do you see a problem with the pro-life movement spending resources on adding more children to the system; resources that could have been better used on taking care of the existing children?

          • CajunRay

            It really doesn’t matter what I see or understand. I have nothing to do with how they allocate their resources.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Whether or not there are enough resources is not an issue. The issue is that abortion is controlled by scientific laws. Those laws control regardless of the number of resources that can be used. Allocation of resources that violate the laws are what matters.
            The primary law that covers abortion is the fact that there are more people dying than can be saved. The theory that accompanies that law is based on the idea that because more are dying than can be saved, one must choose whom to save. And because more are dying than can be saved, one cannot save a fetus without causing the death of a born person.
            The simplest way to visualize it is to see that if a person is not saving one of the dying born people, then that person continues to die.

          • fiona64

            Pretty simple: infant mortality is a real thing (an infant dies somewhere in the world every 1.8 seconds), yet anti-choicers (almost all of them male, BTW) are all about stopping women having the right to terminate a pregnancy. In other words, they’re more concerned about saving embryos than saving actual infants.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    This site is as bad as life site news when it comes to deleting arguments that they don’t like. If you have a disagreement with what I say, then debate it, don’t delete it.

    • Jennifer Starr

      There currently isn’t anyone here with the power to delete anything. People may flag posts which then get put into moderation and deleted if the mods decide they violate the TOS. I haven’t flagged anything personally.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        My arguments are not showing. Period.

        • lady_black

          Yeah that happens to me sometimes too. Try going into your profile and see if they appear there. If they appear in your profile, they are visible to others and you can link directly to them. I haven’t even seen any of YOUR comments marked as “in moderation.”

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            My arguments are still being deleted. I have checked this site from different computers and at different times.

    • fiona64

      Posts are only deleted here for flagrant violations of TOS … and believe me, they have to be pretty flagrant, given the absurd anti-choice views that are allowed to stay up.

      If your posts are not showing up, it is possibly a Disqus hiccup; that happens periodically. If your post is deleted, there will actually be an italicized comment that says “This comment has been deleted.”

    • purrtriarchy

      You will know that your comment has been deleted if it says ‘comment deleted’ or is missing from your disqus toolbar.

      Every time I refresh my comments are ‘missing’ but that’s because Disqus is a poorly coded piece of shit. Get used to it.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    The main issues regarding abortion are:
    1) A woman’s right to autonomy over her body.

    Pro lifers claim that the fetus has autonomy that offsets the woman’s autonomy. But there is no scientific proof that the fetus is alive and human at any specific time. There is also indisputable proof that in an effort to force a fetus to possible birth, a born person must die. There is also the problem of consent to abort. The scientific fact is that consent to sex is consent to abort.
    2) Whether or not the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person.

    The scientific fact is that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype there is no human life. For example a person can view a fetus at 28 weeks on a sonogram but that person cannot tell from the sonogram, DNA test or any other test that the fetus will be born as a human life. The fact is that until the DNA expresses the correct phenotype, the phenotype is not known for certain. Implicit in human life is a human heart, human digestive system and human respiratory system. At birth the fetal heart, lungs and digestive track must change into human systems or a fetus cannot become a baby. The only time one can be certain that the correct systems exists is at birth.

    The scientific fact is that the cells that make up the zygote are comprised of about 100 to 200 trillion atoms. Each of those atoms arrived with the egg and sperm. The future human will contain about 100 trillion cells or 100 trillion times the trillions of atoms in the zygote. Each of those new atoms comes from the female. Each must be supplied at the proper moment to be used by the woman to produce a human life. Each of those atoms is the property of the woman and comes only from her body at her discretion. Everything that is the z/e/f with the exception of the sperm is in fact the woman’s and is not the property of the fetus unless the woman consents. A woman does not have to give life to a z/e/f unless by her consent. She may at any point stop furnishing cells and atoms. As a result, she has the innate power to control the life of the z/e/f.

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      The point is that the zef is in fact a part of the woman in that it is comprised after fertilization only of matter that is from the woman. For that reason it cannot have its own autonomy. Its natural state is that it exists entirely at the discretion of the woman’s mtDNA and her will.

  • Shan

    “Hobby Lobby and the Greens make two assertions in their lawsuit. First, they allege their belief that life begins at conception and that any action that might potentially harm a fertilized egg, including any action that might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, is immoral. Second, they assert that Plan B and Ella “could prevent a human embryo … from implanting in the wall of the uterus.”

    I hope someone points out (or has already) to the SCOTUS that, currently, the standard daily-dose birth control pills that Hobby Lobby does NOT object to still have the same FDA-mandated verbiage on the package inserts that emergency contraception does, namely that it MAY function by making implantation more difficult. I suppose it’s too much to hope for that someone has their wits about them and is able to point out that the whole “hostile endomentrium” idea was just a guess the medical community made at the time the pill came out, but which has since been scientifically proven to be incorrect. Repeatedly. And which is why the EMA recently changed the labeling on their version of Plan B to state that, based on actual scientific evidence, it does NOT function by preventing implantation.

    But nevermind science, right?

    • purrtriarchy

      From what I understand, Georgetown University initially covered contraception as well…but once the contraception mandate was put forward, they suddenly had a problem with it…

      Because this is all political. Nothing more. It’s all about the rights of corporations to control their employees – and it’s easy to go after contraception, vs say, blood transfusions, because sex is the dirty.

      • Shan

        ” It’s all about the rights of corporations to control their employees –
        and it’s easy to go after contraception, vs say, blood transfusions,
        because sex is the dirty.”

        True. And one of the things that always makes me go “?” is that even the people who are ACA-positive as far as the contraceptive mandate is concerned always frame in terms of the “female employees” of whatever organization without recognizing that there are MALE employees (and female ones) who have dependents on their health insurance plans.

        Where are THOSE guys in this discussion?

        • lady_black

          Good question, because even when I have had insurance available through my job, I often declined it because my husband’s coverage was better.

          • Shan

            And we don’t hear anybody saying “Dude, I’m not paying for your wife’s birth control! Use a condom!”

            Also, vasectomies should be covered. That’s a major omission, IMO.

  • purrtriarchy

    For those of you who are always looking for new debates:

    http://www.alternet.org/comments/belief/fetal-personhood-religious-rights-new-dangerous-word-trap-abortion-debate#comment-1449146867

    Fuckwits galore, ready to be eaten alive.

    • TMJack

      Schadenfreude. Obviously not looking for fruitful conversation.

      • purrtriarchy

        Why don’t you go over there and read it instead of acting like an asshat.

        • fiona64

          I don’t think little Timmy is just acting …

      • fiona64

        Obviously not looking for fruitful conversation.

        Neither are you.

  • TMJack

    Since I have come to realize there is no hope for fruitful dialogue on this site, I have one last comment: those who insist it is idiotic to think that life begins at conception is also calling the author of this article an idiot. She conceded that life begins at conception in a response to me. This is literally the most hateful site I have ever been on. Later.

    • Ella Warnock

      Nailed the flounce. +10.

    • Jennifer Starr

      You know, if you really wish to debate people on this subject, you need to grow a thicker skin. Not stomp off in a huff because of insults and some language.

    • fiona64

      Shorter TMJack: no one kissed my tukkus when I posted a bunch of twaddle, so I’m taking my pail and shovel and leaving the beach.

    • Suba gunawardana

      All points you brought were addressed, and you have not countered. Looks like you are leaving in a huff because you have no rebuttal.

    • purrtriarchy

      Grow up. The world does not revolve around you.

    • goatini

      LIE Shite Spews and Stanek’s vile cesspool of anti-American misogyny are the most hateful sites I have ever been on. RHRC is a breath of fresh, honest, factual air.

  • JamieHaman

    Thomas Sharpe would probably be ok with all women of childbearing age not being allowed to have aspirin, etc. Just in case.
    Pretty sad he cares so much for fertilized eggs, when there are so many born children who need so much to be able to live productive, sane, contributory lives.

  • purrtriarchy

    So TMJACK flounced over to alternet, where he made proclamations about the value of life, and how parents have a unique obligation to their children…

    http://www.alternet.org/comments/belief/fetal-personhood-religious-rights-new-dangerous-word-trap-abortion-debate#comment-1451236953

    Yet, amazingly, his concern about prenatal well being *and life in general* went out the door once i asked if *men* should also be forced to donate their bodies to save prenatal life.

    You see…women were MADE TO GIVE BIRTH. Men weren’t. So, it’s ok to force women to give birth, because it’s what they are for.

    Nope. Not misogynist at all!

    • fiona64

      He’s a pig. Period.

      • purrtriarchy

        Wait until you scroll down and see what Thomas Sharpe said.

        The sacred sperm thing was so not a joke…

        • fiona64

          There are not enough facepalms in the world to cover Thomas Sharpe/David Sharples.

  • Jay DeGraaf

    “Contraceptives prevent pregnancy, abortifacients terminate a pregnancy, and a pregnancy begins at implantation.”

    Most of the polled obstetrician-gynecologists believe pregnancy begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. But a minority say it doesn’t begin until a week later when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus — the definition given by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).

    Most of the doctors, 57 out of every 100, said that pregnancy begins at conception, while 28 out of every 100 said it begins at implantation. The rest were unsure.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-when-does-pregnancy-begin-idUSTRE7AG24B20111117

    • Shan

      Hm.

      “In this case, the science shows exactly what happens, but what you define as pregnancy is not what science can settle,” Curlin told Reuters Health.

      My thoughts exactly. Pregnancy can’t be defined as happening at fertilization because it can’t be measured in every instance. Implantation CAN, by measuring HCG levels.

      • prolifemama

        Science can’t settle it, as long as there are groups who ‘decide’ it means one thing, while others arbitrarily adhere to a differing definition. One wonders if an agenda is driving this odd behavior…
        You know there is.
        It seems then, that while docs can’t agree upon the beginning of pregnancy, they could reach consensus on when each individual human being’s life begins, and that would be fertilization.

        • kitler

          Everyone agrees that the life of a human organism begins at fertilization. Not everyone agrees that that human organism is a person. Person’s tend to have minds. Persons are also capable of surviving independently as fully autonomous individuals.

          A zygote/embryo/fetus is mindless. They are no different from a beating heart cadaver where the cerebral cortex is gone, but the brainstem remains. The body is alive, but no one is home. Those patients are routinely left to die, and organs often harvested, because they are no longer people.

    • lady_black

      Perhaps the doctors were overthinking the issue. Of course, every pregnancy ever, has been as the result of a conception (or fertilization, if you prefer). HOWEVER, those 57% would be very quick to inform you that fertilization does not EQUAL pregnancy, which is the state of gestating. Therefore “pregnancy” begins at implantation, when the woman begins to gestate. Therefore, perhaps a more concise question ought to be asked. Doctors know that not every conception becomes a pregnancy, in fact, most do not.

      • prolifemama

        Fertilization is the more accurate term, as some say conception to refer to implantation.

        Gestation has two acceptable definitions, one that represents the mother’s point of view, and the other, the fetus’.

        1) the act or period of carrying young in the
        uterus from conception to birth; pregnancy

        and

        2) The period of time during which an infant
        animal or human physically develops inside the mother’s body until birth.

        Thus, “gestation” refers not only to the time the woman is pregnant/carrying her child within her uterus, but also to the process of development of the baby her/himself.

        Since the new human being’s development begins at fertilization, that is the beginning of gestation.

        Finally, it would be more accurate to say that not every zygote reaches term. If a human being’s life begins at fertilization (which it does), then the woman is pregnant/with child from that moment on, whether or not implantation is the ‘agreed-upon’ beginning of pregnancy.

        This is such an odd, almost embarrassing word-dance for medical people to be doing, it begs the question, “What is the medical/scientific community’s agenda, their investment, in attempting to form consensus on when pregnancy begins, when it is obvious to the general populace, that pregnancy begins at fertilization…?”

        • lady_black

          Are petri dishes “pregnant?” Are petri dishes “gestating?” They can contain embryos. They cannot be pregnant. You lose. Gestation begins at implantation.

        • goatini

          Says the hate-filled, seethingly angry fetus fetishist, who wants theocratic law legislating the status of females to be BELOW SEWAGE.

    • prolifemama

      Hey, Jay!

      I’ve even seen the statement that the word ‘conception’ has pretty much lost its meaning, as the debate over fertilization -vs- implantation grows.

      I think it’s interesting to speculate on the reasons for saying that pregnancy begins at implantation, rather than at fertilization, which is what embryologists learn, and teach.

      P.S. DeGraaf is a Dutch name, yes? My Opa was born in Helenaveen, Netherlands.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    Why are my posts deleted?

    • fiona64

      I’m still seeing them, Russell. I think you may be suffering a Disqus hiccup.

  • prolifemama

    Can you tell me if it’s possible to incorporate font styles in posts submitted here?

    • goatini

      I don’t think there’s a font that makes lying BS forced-birther propaganda magically “true”.

      • prolifemama

        I’m sorry you’ve chosen to make the response you did.

        • goatini

          TBSS, forced-birther.

    • fiona64

      Do you mean italics and bold? Yes. It’s called HTML tags.

  • prolifemama

    “As a group of health-care professionals with expertise in women’s health, including ACOG, concluded in an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court: — ‘Abortifacient
    has a precise meaning in the medical and scientific community and it refers to the termination of a pregnancy. Contraceptives that prevent fertilization from occurring, or even prevent implantation, are simply not abortifacients regardless of an individual’s personal or religious beliefs or mores.’

    The statement: “Abortifacient has a precise meaning in the medical and scientific community” implies universal agreement among all members of said community. The unwritten but very real truth is, any definition of “abortifacient” or “beginning of life” or “pregnancy” which differs from this particular community’s “precise meaning” instantly disqualifies its holder from community membership.

    It is doubtful, therefore, that members of AAPLOG – American Association of Pro-life
    Obstetricians & Gynecologists – would be acknowledged as members of this exclusive “medical and scientific community” regardless of the fact they receive their degrees from institutions common to both groups.

    The featured quote decries “an individual’s personal or religious beliefs or mores, yet no religious dogma is more rigidly enforced than agreement upon the “precise” definitions of a handful of terms, jealously guarded by the doorkeepers of ACOG, and the like.

    The simple facts are these: the woman whose ovum has been successfully fertilized by a man’s sperm carries within her from that moment on and for the next 9 months, a brand-new living member of the human family, identifiable as such by human DNA, long before this new human being implants him/herself in his/her mother’s uterine wall. Forty weeks hence she will, if all goes well, give birth to her son or daughter, who will continue to grow and develop AS – not “into” – a human being: an infant, a toddler, a kindergartner, a fifth-grader, a newly-licensed driver, a first-time voter, etc.
    Implantation is not the beginning of this person’s life, but only an event along his/her life’s timeline.

    Anything that prevents this newly-conceived human being from implanting in Mama’s uterine wall, ends his or her life just as completely as a perfectly executed surgical abortion
    would, a few weeks later.

    Should not biological fact be the foundation of accurate definitions of medical terminology, rather than the “agreement” of members of an ideologically-driven “community” on what
    the terms mean? If truth exists here, shouldn’t it, rather than “consensus of opinion” be upheld?

    Incidentally, the Patient Information Pamphlet (PIP) published by Plan B’s manufacturer, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, contains the following information:

    “CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
    12.1 Mechanism of Action

    Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant. Plan B One-Step is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.”

    • purrtriarchy

      So is a uterine ablation murder?

      How about tubal ligation – sometimes an egg breaks through, is fertilized, but implants in the fallopian tube requiring abortion?

      • prolifemama

        “So is a uterine ablation murder?”

        Of course not. Its primary intent is to destroy the endometrium to prevent
        excessive bleeding, or menorrhagia. If excessive endometrial bleeding occurs during pregnancy, the result is usually a miscarriage, and so this procedure is rarely performed during pregnancy.

        How about tubal ligation…sometimes an egg breaks through, is fertilized, but implants in the fallopian tube, requiring abortion….”

        Even with an ectopic pregnancy (what you’ve described), the primary intent of the removal procedure (surgically termed an eccyesis, not an abortion, and not a tubal ligation, which is a sterilization procedure) is to save the mother’s life, not destroy the embryo, though the embryo loses his/her life in the process. A salpingostomy (small tubal slit) or salpingectomy (removal of part of fallopian tube) is done to remove the embryo. Since the primary intent of an eccyesis is to save the mother’s life, it is not considered an abortion even by physicians who perform it, as the embryo’s death is a
        secondary result.

        Because of our current level of support technology, only one life can be saved in this situation – the mother’s. Since we are unable to support these very small human beings, they soon die, if not already deceased at the time of their removal. Fetal viability, therefore, is a measure of our ability to support a very young pre-term infant, not a measure of his or her humanity.

        • purrtriarchy

          Uterine ablation prevents blastocysts from implanting.

          If a woman has unprotected sex, and an ovum is fertilized, but it can’t implant due to the ablation, has she just murdered a blastocyst?

          Same goes for tubal ligation – sometimes ovum are fertilized, but the tubal ligation is a death sentence in every case.

          • prolifemama

            Murder/abortion is the deliberate destruction of another human being. A lifesaving procedure such as uterine ablation definitely saves a woman from hemorrhaging to death, while it may also indirectly and unintentionally result in the loss of an embryo who is unable to
            implant. In this case, the woman may choose to abstain from sexual intercourse during her fertile period so as to avoid conceiving another child who has little to no chance for survival and birth.
            When you mention tubal ligation being “a death sentence in every case” do you refer to the woman dying from an ectopic pregnancy as a result of the sterilization surgery, or the embryo trapped in the tube due to same?

          • purrtriarchy

            Is a woman a mass murderer if she KNOWINGLY has sex after a uterine ablation, KNOWING THAT ALL BLASTOCYSTS WILL DIE??

            same goes for tubal ligation – its a death sentence for an embryo.

          • fiona64

            Murder/abortion is the deliberate destruction of another human being.

            You’re big on specific definitions (per your post above), so let’s deconstruct what you posted here.

            Murder has a very specific definition: the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person’s life with malice aforethought.

            Abortion is a legal medical procedure, so your bullshit statement fails on that point alone, since that which is legal cannot simultaneously be unlawful.

            Furthermore, a zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT a person. If you are unclear on that, check out the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which makes very clear that rights accrue at birth. So, you fail a second time.

            I would suggest that you stop digging the hole you’re in *before* you reach rock bottom and have to drill … but most anti-choicers aren’t that bright.

          • prolifemama

            “…that which is legal cannot simultaneously be unlawful.”
            Slavery was once legal in the U.S. Many slaves’ descendants would argue this point quite vigorously.

          • fiona64

            You are now being deliberately disingenuous. If that’s the best you can do, I suggest you STFU until you can contribute something intelligent to the discussion.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Is a slave attached to the slavemaster by umbilical cord and sucking its blood? What a crappy analogy.

          • prolifemama
            <