jem
Registered: Sep 2001
Posts: 14030 |
10-16-12 08:53 PM
2. Since you have no background to judge the constitutionality of a law, we will leave it up to the Supreme Ct.
1. regarding abortifacient... you are full of shit.
IUDs and the pill may cause the death of fertilized eggs.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_fac...cause_abortion/
In 1965, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a bulletin to redefine the term "conception." That bulletin stated that conception should be understood to mean "the implantation of a fertilized ovum."1 Why this change? The timing of their decision makes it almost certain that it was politically rather than scientifically motivated. The FDA had recently approved the sale of hormonal birth control pills, but "the pill" didn't fit the traditional definition of "contraceptive." Why? Because it doesn't just prevent conception; it also inhibits implantation–or at least purports to. If breakthrough ovulation and fertilization occurs (which is the biological beginning of individual, human life), the embryo may find it difficult to implant because of changes the pill makes to the endometrium. This created an ethical problem for doctors who wanted to assure their patients that the pill is a contraceptive and not an abortifacient. How did they deal with the dilemma? They changed the definition of "conception." By saying "conception," but meaning "implantation," it became possible to market hormonal birth control pills as contraceptives – as something that prevents "conception."
If you look through the ACOG website today, you won't find a glossary of terms, but you will find numerous references to their altered definition of pregnancy and conception. In a pregnancy FAQ , they state that "fertilization, the union of an egg and a sperm, is the first step in a complex series of events that leads to pregnancy" (emphasis added).2 On a page titled, "Contraception ," they state that the IUD "can stop pregnancy" by "thin[ning] the lining of the uterus making it harder for a fertilized egg to attach."3 On their Birth Control Pills FAQ , they state that one way the pill can "prevent pregnancy" is by making the uterus lining thin, "making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it."4 By redefining the recognized beginning of pregnancy, birth control methods that would have otherwise been said to end pregnancy, can now be said to prevent pregnancy. These semantic changes do nothing to alter the biology of prenatal development, but they do plenty to confuse the ethical implications. In a 2005 Guttmacher Report on Public Policy , Rachel Benson Gold argued that "according to both the scientific community and long-standing federal policy, a woman is considered pregnant only when a fertilized egg has implanted in the wall of her uterus."5 She goes on to say that though conception is "often used synonymously with fertilization… medically, (it) is equated with implantation." This is clearly an overstatement.
Quote from stu:
Yes you are wrong and insisting on being wrong repeatedly doesn't make you right. Contraceptives still aren't abortifacients and they're not going to be.
|
