Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

---

Given the volume of evidence on both sides and the high stakes involved, the burden of proof is on those who claim that contraceptives are not abortifacient. And you have NOT been able to submit any proof whatsoever.

That is EXACTLY my point! The excuse people use to justify the claim that certain contraceptives are no abortifaicnet is to re-define "pregnancy" or use an ARBITRARY definition of when human life begins. That is why these terms are unacceptable to pro-lifers. Can't you even understand what your quoting?

i don't have to claim or submit any further proof here. i'm just here to express my beliefs trying not to step on other's toes. besides, i'm not in the position to do that. i'm not a physician nor a scientist. are you?

can't you even understand what i'm quoting?

that first part is talking about all physicians in general and what they would say that some pro-life physicians (in general) would not accept.

but the second part is talking about pro-life physicians w/ varying views. mao btaw ni oh:

"A second reason that pro-life physicians may not hold the position that oral contraceptives cause abortions is that they are unconvinced by the evidence.

There is a third reason that a pro-life physician who is convinced that life begins at conception may reject the notion that OCs are abortifacient: he is convinced that there are less, not more, unintentional abortions in woman on OCs compared to women who are not. For a drug to be classified as abortifacient, conception must occur, and the loss of these conceptions must exceed the baseline loss for populations not using the drug, or be shown to occur solely as a result of the drug.

In conclusion, even in the pro-life community there is considerable disagreement on whether oral contraceptives cause abortions."

don't you get it? or won't you get it?...and don't even think about tagging them as fake pro-lifers or trying to discredit the article just to make an excuse.

in the article i mentioned, it even said: "The purpose of this article is to point out that there is disagreement among sincere pro-life physicians, including members of the APP, over the answer to this question: do oral contraception cause abortion?
APP means Association of Pro-Life Physicians, July 16, 2009"

IT IS NOT FAKE!!! THEY'RE NOT FAKE! YOU ARE THE FAKE Mr. Emmanuel Roxas Amador! you are not even a physician for cryin out loud. yeah brag all u want w/ your being an Atenista, your 1965 Mustang, your being internet savvy, the awards u had from PLDTi. hold them dear but u can never force us here to shove up our Cebuano arses about your anti-contraceptive stance...maypa mudagan nlng kha ka ig election 2010...(sorry mods can't help it)

JUST LOOK AT YOUR ONLINE PETITION AGAINST THE RH BILL. manghambog nka sa imong 4,585 Total Signatures? can that even represent the entire Filipino population?

Not all people believe that contraception is detrimental to humans. And you do not have a right to force your beliefs on them. If you think the problem is that people are being mislead, then promote awareness. All you can and should do is to urge people to choose what you want them to choose by informing them with your data. But if they choose to do otherwise, you should NOT interfere with their decisions. The bill simply seeks to inform people. If you think the bill is misleading people with wrong information, then the proper proposal is to amend what is to be taught not to shun the entire bill completely.

You are also invoking Christian morality in this issue. If you want to talk about religion, pls spare me.

[mannyamador]

kung ibutang ta lang (if and only if) nga 90% Catholics ang wa mo support sa anti-contraceptive nya 10% ra ang ni support, that means 90% ang dissenters sa whole Catholic population diay...hahaha. where does that leave the church? that undermines the church's legitimacy.

Are you still quoting that FALSE number of 90% that yiou got from the FLAWED SWS survey? You really are in the habit of relying on wrong information to make your point, aren't you? What a LIAR!

And, NO, the Church's legitimacy is NOT based on how many people agree with it. When the Church started, almost EVERYONE did NOT agree with its doctrines. It has NOTHING to do with popularity. But it has EVERYTHING to do with Christ's treachings, which CANNOT be determined by a popular vote or a survey. Your claim is absurd and shows a total lack of understanding of the basis of the Church's legitimacy.

and oh yeah, i would rather err on the side of the condom.

In other words, you would rather risk killing innocent children just so you can please your selfish desires. Just goes to show how selfish you are (in addition to being a proven liar).

Abortion is terminating a pregnancy. Contraceptives on the other hand is preventing pregnancy to happen.

There is a clear logical error there. You are assuming that once something is a contraceptive it can never be an abortifacient.

That assumption, of course, is totally false. There is no 100% effective contraceptive, so women CAN and DO conceive even when using them. This is when the well-known third mechanism of hormonal contraceptives and IUDs comes into play: they prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg (the embryo). Therefore, a contraceptive CAN have an abortifacient function.

This abortifacient mechanism is in practically every textbook on contraceptives and is openly acknowledged by the contraceptive manufacturers themselves!

The bill simply seeks to inform people.

That is a bald-faced LIE.

The anti-life RH bill does the following:

• HB 5043 violates freeodm of conscience. The bill FORCES doctors to dispense abortifacient and artificial contraeptivesa gainst their conscience.
  
  If they refuse, they must still refer the "patient" to another person who will do the dispensing. This forces doctors to be FORMAL COOPERATORS in the objectionable act. It is like allowing a person to refuse to be an assassin, but then require him to provide another assassin to do the dirty work! (Section 21, #5)
  
  
• The bill violates freedom of speech. It punishes people for speaking out against the bill, calling it "disinformation." There is no formal definition of that kind of disinformation under our laws and so this can be used to suppress any opinion that the bill's proponents want to silence. (Section 21 part e)
  
  
• The bill wastes scarce resources on unnecessary, purely elective drugs and devices that do NOT cure any disease, thus taking away funds for medicines that DO cure real killer diseases. Why should we provide free contraceptives when the government does NOT provide free drugs for REAL killer diseases?
  
  
• The bill promotes abortion through the de facto legalization (through funding) and forced distribution of ABORTIFACIENT CONTRACEPTIVES. (Section 17, 10, 21)

HB 5043 is NOT a harmless, benign bill meant only to inform. It is COERCIVE, VIOLATES OUR CIVIL RIGHTS, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You can see this in the text of the gbill itself. Those who deny it either have not read the bill or are lying outright (just like our "family man" friend here).

NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING, ANTI-LIFE RH BILL (HB 5043)

[mannyamador]

The purpose of this article is to point out that there is disagreement among sincere pro-life physicians, including members of the APP, over the answer to this question: do oral contraception cause abortion?

Here's Randy Alcorn's reply that totally demolishes the so-called "disagreement among pro-lifers" that our resident master at deception has been peddling.

A Condensation of Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? by Randy Alcorn
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/p...bortions.shtml

Statement by Twenty Prolife Physicians

Five months after the original printing of my booklet, in January 1998 a statement was issued opposing the idea that the Pill can cause abortions. According to a January 30, 1998, email sent me by one of its circulators, the statement "is a collaborative effort by several very active prolife OB-GYN specialists, and screened through about twenty additional OB-GYN specialists."

The statement is titled "Birth Control Pills: Contraceptive or Abortifacient?" Those wishing to read it in its entirety, which I recommend, can find it at our web page, at http://www.epm.org/doctors.html. I have posted it there because while I disagree with its major premise and various statements in it, I believe it deserves a hearing.

The title is misleading, in that it implies there are only two possible ways to look at the Pill: always a contraceptive or always an abortifacient. In fact, I know of no one who believes it is always an abortifacient. There are only those who believe it is always a contraceptive and never an abortifacient, and those who believe it is usually a contraceptive and sometimes an abortifacient.

The paper opens with this statement:

Currently the claim that hormonal contraceptives [birth control pills, implants (Norplant), injectables (Depo-Provera)] include an abortifacient mechanism of action is being widely disseminated in the prolife community. This theory is emerging with the assumed status of "scientific fact," and is causing significant confusion among both lay and medical prolife people. With this confusion in the ranks comes a significant weakening of both our credibility with the general public and our effectiveness against the tide of elective abortion.

The assertion that the presentation of research and medical opinions causes "confusion" is interesting. Does it cause confusion, or does it bring to light pertinent information in an already existing state of confusion? Would we be better off to uncritically embrace what we have always believed than to face evidence that may challenge it?

Is our credibility and effectiveness weakened through presenting evidence that indicates the Pill can cause abortions? Or is it simply our duty to discover and share the truth regardless of whether it is well-received by the general public or the Christian community?

The physicians' statement's major thesis is this: The idea that the Pill causes a hostile endometrium is a myth.

Over time, the descriptive term "hostile endometrium" progressed to be an unchallenged assumption, then to be quasi-scientific fact, and now, for some in the prolife community, to be a proof text. And all with no demonstrated scientific validation.

When I showed this to one professor of family medicine he replied, "This is an amazing claim." What's so amazing is it requires that every physician who has directly observed the dramatic Pill-induced changes in the endometrium, and every textbook that refers to these changes, has been wrong all along in believing what appears to be obvious: that when the zygote attaches itself to the endometrium its chances of survival are greater if what it attaches to is thick and rich in nutrients and oxygen than if it is not.

This is akin to announcing to a group of farmers that all these years they have been wrong to believe the myth that rich fertilized soil is more likely to foster and maintain plant life than thin eroded soil.

It could be argued that if anything may cause prolifers to lose credibility, at least with those familiar with what the Pill does to the endometrium, it is to claim the Pill does nothing to make implantation less likely.

The authors defend their position this way:

[The blastocyst] has an invasive nature, with the demonstrated ability to invade, find a blood supply, and successfully implant on various kinds of tissue, whether "hostile," or even entirely "foreign" to its usual environment-decidualized (thinned) endometrium, tubal epithelium (lining), ovarian epithelium (covering), cervical epithelium (lining), even peritoneum (abdominal lining cells).... The presumption that implantation of a blastocyst is thwarted by "hostile endometrium" is contradicted by the "pill pregnancies" we as physicians see.

This argument misses the point, since the question is not whether the zygote sometimes implants in the wrong place. Of course it does. The question, rather, is whether the newly conceived child's chances of survival are greater when it implants in the right place (endometrium) that is thick and rich and full of nutrients than in one which lacks these qualities because of the Pill. To point out a blastocyst is capable of implanting in a fallopian tube or a thinned endometrium is akin to pointing to a seed that begins to grow on asphalt or springs up on the hard dry path. Yes, the seed is thereby shown to have an invasive nature. But surely no one believes its chances of survival are as great on asphalt as in cultivated fertilized soil.

According to the statement signed by the twenty physicians, "The entire 'abortifacient' presumption, therefore, depends on 'hostile endometrium.'"

In fact, one need not embrace the term "hostile endometrium" to believe the Pill can cause abortions. It does not take a hostile or even an inhospitable endometrium to account for an increase in abortions. It only takes a less hospitable endometrium. Even if they feel "hostile" is an overstatement, can anyone seriously argue that the Pill-transformed endometrium is not less hospitable to implantation than the endometrium at its rich thick nutrient-laden peak in a normal cycle uninfluenced by the Pill?

One medical school professor told me that until reading this statement he had never heard, in his decades in the field, anyone deny the radical changes in the endometrium caused by the Pill and the obvious implications this has for reducing the likelihood of implantation. According to this physician, the fact that secular sources embrace this reality and only prolife Christians are now rejecting it (in light of the recent attention on the Pill's connection to abortions) suggests they may be swayed by vested interests in the legitimacy of the Pill.

The paper states "there are no scientific studies that we are aware of which substantiate this presumption [that the diminished endometrium is less conducive to implantation]." But it doesn't cite any studies, or other evidence, that suggest otherwise.

In fact, surprisingly, though this statement is five-pages long it contains not a single reference to any source that backs up any of its claims. If observation and common sense have led people in medicine to a particular conclusion over decades, should their conclusion be rejected out of hand without citing specific research indicating it to be incorrect?

On which side does the burden of proof fall-the one that claims the radically diminished endometrium inhibits implantation or the one that claims it doesn't?

The most potentially significant point made in the paper is this:

The ectopic rate in the USA is about 1% of all pregnancies. Since an ectopic pregnancy involves a pre-implantation blastocyst, both the "on pill conception" and normal "non pill conception" ectopic rate should be the same-about l% (unaffected by whether the endometrium is "hostile" or "friendly.") Ectopic pregnancies in women on hormonal contraception (except for the minipill) are practically unreported. This would suggest conception on these agents is quite rare. If there are millions of "on-pill conceptions" yearly, producing millions of abortions, (as some "BC pill is abortifacient" groups allege), we would expect to see a huge increase in ectopics in women on hormonal birth control. We don't. Rather, as noted above, this is a rare occurrence.

The premise of this statement is right on target. It is exactly the premise proposed by Dr. Larimore, which I've already presented. While the statement's premise is correct, its account of the data, unfortunately, is not. The studies pointed to by Dr. Larimore, cited earlier, clearly demonstrate the statement is incorrect when it claims ectopic pregnancies in women on hormonal contraception are "practically unreported" and "rare."

In fact, "a huge increase in ectopics" is exactly what we do see-an increase that five major studies put between 70% and 1390%. Ironically, when we remove the statement's incorrect data about the ectopic pregnancy rate and plug in the correct data, the statement supports the very thing it attempts to refute. It suggests the Pill may indeed cause early abortions, possibly a very large number of them.

[giddyboy]

Are you still quoting that FALSE number of 90% that yiou got from the FLAWED SWS survey? You really are in the habit of relying on wrong information to make your point, aren't you? What a LIAR!

OMG, can't you even understand Bisaya? i said "pananglitan lang nga 90%". kung sa English pa "if and only if", bakak ba diay nang moingon ko ug pananglitan lang? and now u r talking about SWS. pag chure Mr. Emmanuel oi!

In other words, you would rather risk killing innocent children just so you can please your selfish desires. Just goes to show how selfish you are (in addition to being a proven liar).

WOW! USING THE CONDOM TO MY PARTNER IS SELFISH DESIRE DIAY? WERE YOU WATCHING US IN BED WHEN ME AND MY WIFE MADE LOVE? HAHAHA

People of the Philippines, sulitihi ko ninyo sa unsang paagi selfish ang usa ka tawo nga mogamit ug condom to his wife!!! pero kabalo nako unsay inyong tubag: GUSTO NI MISIS DILI MEDYASAN!!!

but that is not mannyboy's point. dili gyud kno angay mogamit og condom coz it's against nature daw. toinks!

na hala, don't worry mannyboy, once i ejaculate i will bring it to church, akong pa blessingan and give it (aw them diay) proper burial...

[flanker]

People of the Philippines, sulitihi ko ninyo sa unsang paagi selfish ang usa ka tawo nga mogamit ug condom to his wife!!! pero kabalo nako unsay inyong tubag: GUSTO NI MISIS DILI MEDYASAN!!!

but that is not mannyboy's point. dili gyud kno angay mogamit og condom coz it's against nature daw. toinks!

na hala, don't worry mannyboy, once i ejaculate i will bring it to church, akong pa blessingan and give it (aw them diay) proper burial...

Lolage PWNAGE!


Nganu kaha ang church pirti man jd tyabaw aning RH bill.. nga sa ilang BACKYARD nag kalat mga ABORTION DRINKS.... double standards? naay patong c Pader sa vendors dha?

[giddyboy]

Here's Randy Alcorn's reply that totally demolishes the so-called "disagreement among pro-lifers" that our resident master at deception has been peddling.

A Condensation of Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? by Randy Alcorn
A Longer Condensation of Does The Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?

PAG CHURE OI! AYAWG BALIHA ANG ISTORYA PRE! The article i mentioned was written this month July 2009, more than 10 yrs after Randy Alcorn wrote his book. That book by Randy was written in 1995 if i'm not mistaken. the article i cited was dated July 2009! so how can Randy's book be a reply to my article huh? unsa via time travel?

and in that same article, there was even a statement from pro-life Ob/Gyns, wherein they strongly disagree with those who purport that oral contraceptives cause abortions. This statement was sent to Randy Alcorn in response to his book, "Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?" SEE?

here it is:

Pro-Life Physicians’ Statement to Randy Alcorn:

There are l,200,000 medical and surgical abortions of unborn babies that take place every year in the United States. The "hormonal contraception is abortifacient" theory is not established scientific fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error. How happy the abortionists must be to find us training our guns on a presumption, causing division/confusion among pro-life forces, and taking some of the heat off the abortion industry. Ought we not rather be spending our energies to eliminate the convenient destruction of the innocent unborn?

In Summary:
l. We know of no existing scientific studies that validate the "hostile endometrium is abortifacient" theory.
2. There is regular successful implantation of the invasive blastocyst on surfaces a great deal more "hostile" than "hostile endometrium" (e.g., fallopian tube lining). "Hostile endometrium" is not a demonstrated clinical reality.
3. The almost total absence of reporting of ectopic pregnancies associated with hormonal contraception would indicate the rarity of actual conception by patients using these modalities. (Minipill and norplant apparently are less effective in preventing pregnancies and ectopics).
4. Many factors play a part in how a family plans and spaces their children. It is not the purpose of this paper to promote, nor to oppose hormonal contraception. However, if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient.
5. This paper is not meant to be the "final word" on this issue. If scientific study should validate that a hormonal contraceptive agent is partly abortifacient in its action, we would oppose that agent just as we oppose elective medical and surgical abortions.

We must constantly examine valid data as it becomes available in our effort to discern what is abortifacient vs. what is appropriate birth control to be used or prescribed by those who hold to the sanctity of human life from the time of conception.

Co-signators (alphabetically). All signators are specialists in obstetrics and gynecology, and a number have sub-specialty recognition and/or are on the faculty of teaching hospitals or Universities. This information may be distributed freely to Crisis Pregnancy Centers or other individuals or groups who may have an interest in the subject matter.

Watson A. Bowes,Jr,MD,Professor,Maternal-Fetal Medicine,Chapel Hill, N.C.
Matthew J. Bulfin, MD, general OB-GYN, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Byron Calhoun, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Tacoma, Washington
Steve Calvin,MD,Asst. Prof Maternal-Fetal Medicine,Minneapolis, Minnesota
Denis Cavanagh, MD, Professor, Gynecologic Oncology, Tampa, Florida
Curtis Cook, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Asst Clin. Prof, Grand Rapid, Mi.
Susan A. Crockett, MD, Assistant Clinical Professor, San Antonio, Texas
Steven Cruikshank, MD, Professor OB-GYN, Dayton, Ohio
Joseph L. DeCook, MD, general OB-GYN, Holland, Michigan
Bill Dodds,MD,Reproductive Endocrinology, Asso.Clin. Prof,Grand Rapids,Mi R.
Don Gambrell, Jr., MD, Clinical Professor, Augusta, Georgia
David Hager, MD, Professor/Consultant OB-GYN, Lexington, Kentucky
Donna Harrison, MD, general OB-GYN, Berrien Springs, Michigan
Camilla Hersh, MD, Clinical Professor OB-GYN, Vienna, Virginia
Antony Paul Levitino, MD, .Asso. Prof,.OB-GYN, Rensselaer, New York
Joe McIlhaney, MD, Obstetrician-Gynecologist, Austin, TX
Gwendolyn Patterson-Hobbs, MD, OB-GYN Clinical Associate, Vienna, VA
William Stalter, MD, Associate Clinical Professor OB-GYN, Dayton, Ohio
Roy Stringfellow, MD, general OB-GYN, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Robert L. Weeldreyer, MD, general OB-GYN, Holland, Michigan

January 1998

SO DON'T TELL ME THE "disagreement among pro-lifers" is a deception that I've been peddling. IT IS IN FACT TRUE!!! AND THIS FACT YOU'VE BEEN HIDING FOR YEARS THRU YOUR TEETH!

here's more:

"We also include a position statement from the Christian Medical and Dental Association on this issue:

Possible Post-conceptional Effects of Hormonal Birth Control

CMDA holds firmly that God is the Creator of life, that life begins at conception, and that all human life is of infinite value. We support measures to protect life from its earliest beginnings.

CMDA recognizes that there are differing viewpoints among Christians regarding the broad issue of birth control and the use of contraceptives.(MAYPA CLA NI RECOGNIZE KOMPARA NIMO NGA DILI) The issue at hand, however, is whether or not hormonal birth control methods have post-conceptional effects (i.e., cause abortion). CMDA has consulted many experts in the field of reproduction who have reviewed the scientific literature. While there are data that cause concern, our current scientific knowledge does not establish a definitive causal link between the routine use of hormonal birth control and abortion. However, neither are there data to deny a post-conceptional effect.

Because this issue cannot be resolved with our current understanding, CMDA calls upon researchers to further investigate the mechanisms of action of hormonal birth control.

Additionally, because the possibility of abortive effects cannot be ruled out, prescribers of hormonal birth control should consider informing patients of this potential factor. (THAT'S RIGHT!)

We recognize the difficulties of providing informed consent while handicapped by lack of definitive information. However, counseling of patients may simply involve asking if they have concerns about potential post-conceptional effects of these methods of birth control. In cases where concern exists, an explanation may follow that includes the known mechanisms of action (e.g., inhibition of ovulation and decreased sperm penetration), as well as the concern about the unanswered question of whether hormones negatively effect the very early stages of life.

CMDA respects and defends the right of our colleagues to refuse to prescribe hormonal birth control when they do so with the concern of a post-conceptional effect.

We recognize that scientific reasoning is not the only factor that influences opinions about the use of hormonal birth control. But, while additional investigation is needed, current knowledge does not confirm or refute conclusions that routine use of hormonal birth control causes abortion. CMDA will continue to monitor new developments."

NYA MAS NGILNGIG PA DIAY KA RON SA ANING MGA PHYSICIANS?

[froilan1000]

mga pipol, wala ko ka subay sa inyong discussion, pero murag supak ko nga i legalize ang abortion. ma luoy ta sa bata nga posible ta na nga mahimong maaung lider sa atong nasud. dili pud lalim, kung kita ang bata nga naa sa tiyan sa inahan, nya paksitan lang ug kalit..

[anne2x]

NO to abortion! YES to contraceptives.

mag himo unta lain poll.
a. YES to Abortion YES to Contraceptives
b. YES to Abortion NO to Contraceptives
c. NO to Abortion YES to Contraceptives
d. NO to Abortion NO to Contraceptives.

kay naa jud uban nga like me, no to abortion but yes to contraceptives.

[gracia_online]

yep, me too.. letter C ko ana. No to abortion, yes to contraceptives!

[cebulifer]

Letter C ko!