Legalize Abortion?

[Hellblazer 2.1]

---

no to abortion. Yes to condoms & pills. And definitely yes to unscheduled s3x!

[joshua259]

NO to ABORTION and YES to unscheuled s3x... like s3x in the elevator, motel, public rest rooms, etc...

and especially YES to s3x EDUCATION...

[giddyboy]

No to abortion. Yes to condoms, pills, and NFP, depending on the situation... Yes to sexuality education. Yes to the REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL! And definitely yes to unscheduled s3x!

I don't believe life begins during fertilization (sperm meets the ovum). I believe instead that life begins after fertilization which is implantation (fertilized egg meets the uterus), the onset of pregnancy. American and British laws would agree to that.

so anything that prevents a fertilized egg to implant is not considered abortion, for me.

[giddyboy]

Contraceptives Are NOT Abortifacients

Reality Check:

It is believed that various birth control methods - including the pill - can work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. For all contraceptives, this is at most a tertiary function. Implantation is the critical first step in pregnancy, and is recognized by scientific organizations like National Institutes of Health (NIH), American College of Gynecologist (ACOG), American Medical Association (AMA), British Medical Association (BMA) and others as the scientific definition for the beginning of a pregnancy. Therefore, the prevention of implantation comes before the start of a pregnancy and cannot be considered an abortion.

Because these contraceptive methods work prior to implantation, they have been an accepted and widely used means of pregnancy prevention for decades and are widely accepted in the medical and scientific community as a safe and effective means of contraception.

The prevailing medical professional association-the American Medical Association-debated the subject and rejected the idea that these birth control methods are abortifacients after finding no evidence to support the claim. ("Recent Activities: 2001") Additionally, they also endorse EC as a method of contraception.

A World Health Organization report and its guidelines for EC state that a levonorgestrel-only pill has no effect on the endometrium following ovulation, suggesting that it would never work to prevent implantation-the fundamental theory that EC opponents rely on for their argument.

SOURCE: RHRealityCheck.org | Reproductive Health Information, News, Commentary and Community

---000---

Full Abstract
The Institute for Social Studies and Action of the Philippines is endeavoring to encourage the public and the Catholic Church to Recognize the differences between contraception (which prevents the union of the sperm and ovum) and abortion (which terminates pregnancy long before the fetus is viable). Nonetheless, widespread opposition to contraceptives, especially the IUD, persists because they are considered abortifacients. In terms of the IUD, there is accumulating research evidence that the device works primarily by preventing fertilization and, less frequently, by interfering with implantation. The injectable contraceptive, Depo-Provera, which is banned in the Philippines, suppresses ovulation, as does the pill. Despite the evidence that the most widely available contraceptives are not abortifacients, debate over this issue obscures a far more central issue--the right of each woman to plan her family size and the interval between births. Screening and counseling provided by well-trained health personnel can enable women to choose the contraceptive method that best suits their needs and protects their health. A lack of access to contraception is in part responsible for the 2000 maternal deaths that occur in the Philippines each year during pregnancy or delivery.

SOURCE: find-health-articles.com

---000---

Noted ob-gyne says contraceptives are not abortifacients

MANILA, Philippines – A leading Filipino obstetrician and gynecologist has stressed in an interview that contraceptives, in particular oral contraceptive pills, are not abortifacients because their action is to prevent ovulation and consequently conception, thus no abortion occurs.

Citing the debate over pending legislation that aims for greater availability and access to reproductive health (RH) education and services in the country, Dr. Santiago del Rosario, a former president of the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) and the Philippine Obstetrical and Gynecological Society (POGS), says assertions that contraceptives are abortifacients amount to disinformation, and data used to support such claims are speculative at best and contrary to scientific evidence.

full article:
Noted ob-gyne says contraceptives not abortifacients | The Philippine Star >> Lifestyle Features >> Health And Family

YES TO THE RH BILL !!! NO TO DISINFORMATION.

[erichoy]

aws.. looya gud sa mga gagmayng tawo! wa manay au nang ingon ana. tuga2 ug buhat unya pamatyon ra d i.

[joshua259]

lisoda sa thread title and sa poll woi... daghan kaayo ma mislead... BIAS kaayo...

[brownprose]

lisoda sa thread title and sa poll woi... daghan kaayo ma mislead... BIAS kaayo...

obviously, the TS has used this as a propaganda tool to promote a sick advocacy.

[mannyamador]

I don't believe life begins during fertilization (sperm meets the ovum). I believe instead that life begins after fertilization which is implantation (fertilized egg meets the uterus), the onset of pregnancy.

This claim baseless and arbitrary. If the fertilized egg is nothing but "a clump of cells", then why should it suddenly become human just because it attaches to the uterus? A changer in location does not make something human. Nothing unique is added by doing so.

The uniqueness that determines the human person occurs when the 46 chromosomes (23 from the sperm cell of the father and 23 from the egg cell of the mother) come together. That occurs at FERTILIZATION. Implantation is nothing more than further development of the human lifer that began at fertilization.

American and British laws would agree to that.

But the Philippine Constitution does NOT agree with that. The Philippine Constitution protects life from conception, and it assumes that conception begins at fertilization. US and British laws are irrelevant. Get rid of your colonial mentality.

NO to ABORTION and YES to unscheuled s3x... like s3x in the elevator, motel, public rest rooms, etc.

You'll give the police something to watch! Let's all spread AIDS too, while playing russian roulette with condoms. Goooo! <joke ha!>

[mannyamador]

The Pill – How it works and fails.
http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html
(an excerpt)

Q. I have heard some people say the pill has an abortifacient capacity. What does this word mean, and is it really true anyway?

A. Before answering this question it is very important that we all have a correct understanding of the key biological terms related to pregnancy. The following definitions have been accept by major medical texts for decades.

'Conception' refers to the moment at which the sperm penetrates and fertilises the ovum to form a viable zygote. It does not refer to the process of implantation of the newly created human embryo, which is a separate event, occurring about 7-8 day’s after conception. A woman is pregnant because conception has occurred, not because implantation has occurred. This distinction is important.

At the precise and unique moment of conception, a woman is 'pregnant' with "a new individual ". This is an accurate and informed medical description. It is the same terminology used by Prof. John Dwyer, pre-eminent Australian AIDS expert and researcher, who has described the moment that the sperm enters the ovum as the creation of a "new and unique individual". Well known medical writer, Professor Derek Llewellyn-Jones, author of Everywoman, has also written that when the male genetic material from the sperm joins with the female genetic material in the ovum, " a new individual is formed".

To stop conception occurring, that is, to stop sperm and ovum joining, is contraception. Condoms, diaphragms, spermicides, vasectomy and tubal ligation are accurately described as methods of contraception. Obviously any drug or device used after conception has occurred cannot be termed a contraceptive.

The correct term to describe any interference with the pregnancy after conception has occurred is ‘abortifacient’. This is the precise biological description for any drug or device that acts to end a pregnancy once it has begun at conception.

You might be interested to know that many major medical dictionaries have definitions of ‘conception’, ‘pregnancy’ and ‘contraception’ that are the same as those listed above.

It is medically dishonest to break from these definitions. And yet, this is precisely what some scientists have recently started to do. They seek to define pregnancy as beginning with implantation, not fertilization. But as I mentioned ealier, implantation occurs 7-8 days after the new human person has come into existence. The pregnancy, and the new human person, are already many days old by the time implantation has occurred.

Therefore, what these scientists are trying to doing is get people to think that abortifacient drugs such as the pill are really just contraceptive drugs. Do you see the clever shift in definitions these scientists are trying to make? Redefine when a pregnancy and new human life begins, and you redefine the key characteristic of the drug -- how it works!

Obviously many people object to abortifacient drugs because they can cause a loss of human life. Not so many people object to methods of contraception (condoms, diaphrams etc), because these methods prevent new human life being created. Hence, if scientists succeed in convincing people that human life begins after implantation, eventually most people will have no objection to the pill. They will have been tricked into believing that human life had not begun when the pill exerted its anti-implantation effect.

Q. So how do you prove that the pill acts as an abortifacient?

A. The answer to this question can be found by comparing the rate of break-through ovulation and the detected pregnancy rate. The ovulation rate has been reported to be about 27 ovulations in 100 women using the pill for one year. But the detected pregnancy rate is much lower at around 4 pregnancies per 100 women using the pill for one year.

As you can see, there is a big difference between the number of women who ovulation (27) and the number of detected pregnancies (4). What has happened within the woman’s body to reduce the high ovulation rate to such a low number of detected pregnancies? I suggest that one answer to this important question is that pregnancies have begun, because ovulation and fertilization have occurred, but some of these pregnancies are terminated because implantation cannot take place. The pill has damaged the lining of the womb, stopping implanation.

. . .

Q. O.K., but I think that all this talk about ‘human life’ beginning when the sperm and the ovum join is just a bit weird. Isn’t it just a bundle of cells?

A. This is a very important issue. Consider the following:

Given that it was human sperm and human ovum that joined together, you would agree that the result would have to be a human something. But what is that ‘something.’ Is it a human person even though it starts out looking just like a lump of cells? To answer this question, think about what is added to this clump of cells that attaches to the lining of the womb and grows over 40 weeks to be a born baby. This clump of cells receives only three things from its mother; somewhere to live, food and oxygen. If you say that the clump of cells isn’t human at its beginning, then you need to show that there is something magical about where you live, what you eat, or what you drink that can convert you from being non-human to human. I think you would agree that there is nothing.

Hence the only logical conclusion can be it is always human because of where it came from -- two human parents. It is very easy to be tricked by the appearance of the human embryo (‘it just looks like a lump of cells’) or its ‘address’ --floating in or newly attached to the lining of the womb. But these superficial features are irrelevant. We must look to what it is, not what it looks like. Human in origin means it is human in nature. It is a human person just like you or I; the only difference is that it just hasn’t fully grown up yet.

NO TO ABORTION. NO TO ABORTIFACIENT CONTRACEPTIVES. NO TO PRO-RH DISINFORMATION.

[eljordz]

no to abortion...yes to life...