bush's statement on birth control

mizzou

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2008
9,734
54
91
Apparently he signed some type of presidential rule, etc., stating birth control pills amounts to abortion?

I just want to say it is ABOUT TIME that our president had stepped up to the plate of american values!

Birth control if taken effectively will 100% prevent the fertilization of an egg and sperm into a human baby child, that is essentially "Aborting" the process. Birth control pills kill babies because they don't let eggs fertilize!

You know what else? My kleenex box kills millions of potential babies, maybe we should sue kleenex for supporting the murder of our little boys? I feel so awful letting them all dry up and go to waste every day, and sometimes twice a day. Sometimes I just want to store them in a freezer because you know what? Each sperm in my body deserves it's right to live and make babies.

I also heard that women each month will independantly abort their potential eggs out of their body with NO drugs whatsoever! Is this true!? This must stop because each egg is a potential human being and we can NOT stand idle and let this happen!

Lastly, since we all know that human life exists at the time of pre-conception (even your thoughts of babies should be fulfilled to their fruitation), we should give rights to each cell in our bodies because those are essentially fully functioning beings in their own right.

If you negligently cut yourself with a tatoo or a sharp object, you are DESTROYING the potential for cells to divide and multiply!

Oh we are only in the first step of a right direction my friends!
 

mizzou

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2008
9,734
54
91
Originally posted by: conehead433
You should use something besides Kleenex. Think of all the trees you're killing as well.
ahhh!!!!!!

*Cries and moves into fetal position*
 

GenHoth

Platinum Member
Jul 5, 2007
2,106
0
0
When you cut yourself don't the cells grow more quickly to repair the damage?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
This one of those moments where you have people on your side but make you cringe. :disgust:
 

LostUte

Member
Oct 13, 2005
98
0
0
OP, birth control will not prevent pregnancy 100% of the time, even if taken effectively. In addition, it works in 3 ways. Usually it prevents ovulation. It also thickens mucus to slow the sperm. Finally, it can prevent implantation even after fertilization. I think most people who compare birth control to abortion are stuck on that last point...the egg was in fact fertilized, but not allowed to develop.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
If I eat a fried egg sandwich, even if the egg was fertilized, I wouldn't consider it a chicken sandwich.
Does that make my girlfriend a cannibal?
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
If I eat a fried egg sandwich, even if the egg was fertilized, I wouldn't consider it a chicken sandwich.
Does that make my girlfriend a cannibal?
You're girlfriend is a chicken? :confused:
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
Originally posted by: mizzou
Apparently he signed some type of presidential rule, etc., stating birth control pills amounts to abortion?

I just want to say it is ABOUT TIME that our president had stepped up to the plate of american values!

Birth control if taken effectively will 100% prevent the fertilization of an egg and sperm into a human baby child, that is essentially "Aborting" the process. Birth control pills kill babies because they don't let eggs fertilize!

You know what else? My kleenex box kills millions of potential babies, maybe we should sue kleenex for supporting the murder of our little boys? I feel so awful letting them all dry up and go to waste every day, and sometimes twice a day. Sometimes I just want to store them in a freezer because you know what? Each sperm in my body deserves it's right to live and make babies.

I also heard that women each month will independantly abort their potential eggs out of their body with NO drugs whatsoever! Is this true!? This must stop because each egg is a potential human being and we can NOT stand idle and let this happen!

Lastly, since we all know that human life exists at the time of pre-conception (even your thoughts of babies should be fulfilled to their fruitation), we should give rights to each cell in our bodies because those are essentially fully functioning beings in their own right.

If you negligently cut yourself with a tatoo or a sharp object, you are DESTROYING the potential for cells to divide and multiply!

Oh we are only in the first step of a right direction my friends!
:thumbsup::laugh:

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,384
11,535
136
Originally posted by: Deeko
I really hope this is joke?
Sadly, it's not. The Op-Ed in my newspaper has been complaining about this since it was first proposed by the Bush admin about a month ago. The issue is a bit more complex that how the OP presents it though.

Text

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
19
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Deeko
I really hope this is joke?
Sadly, it's not. The Op-Ed in my newspaper has been complaining about this since it was first proposed by the Bush admin about a month ago. The issue is a bit more complex that how the OP presents it though.

Text
I can't find anything on Bush making any rule regarding this, just a letter HHS Sec Leavitt wrote to the Natl OBGYN org regarding them withholding certification from any doctor who refused to refer a patient where the doc felt performing a procedure violated their conscience. Apparently Leavitt sought comments on a proposal that would bar federal funding to any clinic/hospital that required it's docs to make referrals in cases of abortion, claiming that forcing the doc to even refer someone for a procedure they deemed against their conscience was in essence making them a party to the procedure.

WaPo article on the Draft Regulation

The Slate authored a sarcastic "modest proposal" to Leavitt regarding the wording of the proposed regulation, and highlights the practical results of said wording, namely that refusing to recommend breast feeding would be covered.

The good part:
http://www.slate.com/id/2196784/

My concern, Mr. Secretary, is that the proposal does not go far enough.

As you know, the risk that oral contraception will prevent implantation of an embryo is purely theoretical. There is no documented case of such a tragedy, since we have no way to verify conception inside a woman's body prior to implantation without causing the embryo's death. Even theoretically, the risk is vanishingly small, since the primary effect of oral contraception is to prevent ovulation, and the secondary effect is to prevent fertilization. To classify oral contraception as abortifacient, one would have to posit a scenario in which the drug fails to block ovulation, then fails to block fertilization, and yet somehow, having proved impotent at every other task, manages to prevent implantation.

It is a tribute to the president's courage that despite this profound implausibility and total absence of documentation, he is protecting the right of employees to refuse to facilitate any such risk, no matter how small.

Based on this generous standard, I hope you will agree that employees deserve protection when they decline to facilitate additional activities that pose an equal or greater risk to the embryo. Specifically, I call to your attention the problem of breast-feeding.
Thousands of people working at hospitals, lactation centers, maternity-product retailers, drug stores, and supermarkets are presently required by their employers to participate in breast-feeding, either by teaching it or by providing products that facilitate it. Those who refuse can be terminated at will. They endure this discrimination despite clear scientific evidence that breast-feeding poses the same abortifacient risk as oral contraception.

Breast-feeding, like oral contraception, alters a woman's hormonal balance, thereby suppressing ovulation, fertilization, and, theoretically, implantation. These results were documented in a 1992 research paper, "Relative Contributions of Anovulation and Luteal Phase Defect to the Reduced Pregnancy Rate of Breastfeeding Women." The authors concluded: "The abnormal endocrine profile of the first luteal phase offers effective protection to women who ovulate during lactational amenorrhea within the first 6 months after delivery." In other words, breast-feeding prevents pregnancy despite ovulation.
He then goes on to also call for protection for people serving caffeinated beverages or who own gyms for not serving women since caffeine and exercise have also recently been documented to increase the chances of miscarriage.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Deeko
I really hope this is joke?
Sadly, it's not. The Op-Ed in my newspaper has been complaining about this since it was first proposed by the Bush admin about a month ago. The issue is a bit more complex that how the OP presents it though.

Text
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

An affront to women and families
A last-ditch effort to redefine birth control as abortion isn't a matter of conscience; it's just unconscionable
Tuesday, August 12, 2008

... the Health and Human Services Department appears eager to dramatically expand that conscience clause, according to draft regulations leaked this summer.

Under the new rules, medical providers would be free to refuse to provide birth control as a matter of conscience. The rules would also define common forms of birth control, including the pill, as abortion. Abortion would be defined to include any drug or procedure "that results in the termination of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

I'd say GOP ""Under the new rules, medical providers would be free to refuse to provide birth control as a matter of conscience"" and ""abstinence-only education"" now moves front and center in the 2008 Election.


So much for The Economy, The Federal Debt, The War, Energy, Education, Heathcare, et al ...
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Big deal? What about a float nurse being floated to assist in an abortion and she finds it repulsive, should she have to do it? It's a choice for those who object to it so they don't have to participate in it. It's not going to stop it, just giving those with those strong convictions to not take part.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,507
7,596
136
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Big deal? What about a float nurse being floated to assist in an abortion and she finds it repulsive, should she have to do it? It's a choice for those who object to it so they don't have to participate in it. It's not going to stop it, just giving those with those strong convictions to not take part.
Then she should find a different job. It is like someone in the military refusing to go to war. Or someone working for a military contractor refusing to work on weapons.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Big deal? What about a float nurse being floated to assist in an abortion and she finds it repulsive, should she have to do it? It's a choice for those who object to it so they don't have to participate in it. It's not going to stop it, just giving those with those strong convictions to not take part.
I guess proposed rules that ""would also define common forms of birth control, including the pill, as abortion"" is not a 'big deal' as you put it ...

LOL - - Fail
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Once again, the politics and logic are at odds.

The pill, by causing a fertilized egg to be lost that would otherwise not be lost, for those who believe human life begins at conception is equally abortion as other abortions.

They're actually being quite logical/consistent in taking this position.

Politically is another matter, where things such as the pill being widely accepted and the far lower amount of development of the fertizlied egg are relevant factors.

This is analogous to the issue of abortion for rape victims, where logicially it makes sense to oppose it for pro-life people, but politically it's worse.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY