Sisters are doing it for themselves! – Aretha Franklin
You know me. I don’t get in the middle of other bloggers’ junk, but I think you should be aware of this.
It is human nature to want pleasure without responsibility and to expect our actions to have no negative consequences. Living with what we’ve done and finding the good in it despite how inconvenienced we might be is what responsible and mature humans do. But this hostile feminist blogger (profanity alert) wants no part of that, as she publicly announces on her blog an intent to have her unborn baby, who she calls a “parasite” and a “tick,” slaughtered.
Apparently, the chick was denied emergency contraception after the condom broke. Oh, the horror of having sex and actually conceiving!
After she kills her child, perhaps she can sign the “We Had Abortions” petition with the rest of her proud sisters.
Disgusting, the whole lot of them. 
But if you’re so inclined, pray for them.
(Also see Riehl World View and Right Wing News)
Update: Women like this should be forcibly sterilized.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 95 comments }
You’ve got to admire their child like conviction that other people are responsible for their problems.
Well I read a little bit of her blog and her personal story. I’d like to hear the analysis of a trained psychologist on this woman’s story. For some reason, I don’t believe her. I don’t believe she’s even pregnant. I think the whole thing is a sham designed to get attention or draw readers. I don’t have time to thoroughly review her blog, but this particular story just doesn’t have that ring of truth to it.
It astounds me that people who fight so vehemently for choice can, in the same breath, claim that others have forced that choice.
What’s more disturbing are the comments to the post. Her readers are appalled at the behavior of her critics, and yet give a resounding ‘You go, girl!’ to her own savage diatribe.
Whether for real or not, the attitude and actions are despicable, of course, but don’t despair: such folk are breeding themselves out of existence. Western ‘liberalism’ is of necessity a momentary aberration, carrying within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Something like 80% of children share the basic worldview and political opinions of their parents. When given a fair hearing in comparison with sensible views (it’s wrong to kill babies; self-defense is good, not bad; marriage is foundational to society and consists of one man and one woman; etc) liberalism bites the dust. It’s hard to reproduce when you abort many of your offspring, encourage same sex ‘marriage’, and have one designer baby at 39. All this means that in 20 years we may need to declare the authentic Western liberal abortionist pacifist an endangered species.
Dr. Mike pointed out in the previous thread that such women display psychopathic tendencies because they can kill without it affecting their conscience.
If a woman is pregnant and married. And both husband and wife can either not afford to have another children, or it is dangerous for the woman to have another child, or there is some defect in the both of them that will affect another child.
Would you suggest they never have sex again in order to resolve any of the above from happening? Or have operations to remove their reproductive organs? I know birth control is against Catholic tenants and most pro lifers are against abortion, but what do pro-lifer’s think about medical procedures that remove or curb the function of reproductive organs?
dianne, I gotta agree. I read it an it has a Frank Mandiola feel to it. (Who is Frank Mandiola? Scroll to the bottom here.)
If you’re married and pregnancy becomes physically dangerous, the Christian has the option of going to God to find out what to do. The non-Christian can choose surgery or some other recourse.
There are options that don’t require the death of a child.
“Would you suggest they never have sex again in order to resolve any of the above from happening?”
Why not? You are positing that this hypothetical couple know these reasons, therefore, if they engage in activities that can result in undesired children, it is the fault of no one but themselves. Why should the child be put to death for their “choice?”
Zakia, from what I understand the Catholic church does allow tubal ligations for married women who have health problems that make pregnancy dangerous. It’s viewed as corrective action to deal with the health problem. Whereas sterilization or the Pill or Norplant or whatever for social reasons is treating a healthy body disrespectfully.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Her three kids will have the benefit of mother’s rant (whether real or made-up) a few years from now when mother is a bit of a burden to them. Instead of feeling any need to make small or large sacrifices to care for her and extend her life, they can pull-the-plug and send her on to whatever “glory” and “reward” she’s earned without feeling guilty at all. They will feel free to get on with whatever pleases them. “Bye Mom. Bye-bye!”
Christina writes, “Whereas sterilization or the Pill or Norplant or whatever for social reasons is treating a healthy body disrespectfully.”
The Pill and Norplant are both abortifacients, that is, they do not prevent conception but only implantation, hence from the Christian perspective they cause the death of an already-existing person.
Sterilization for reasons other than dealing with an extant health problem are a contravention of God’s will for human life, in which we are to pair up, reproduce, and learn through all of the attendant experiences to love one another and love God at deeper and more altruistic levels.
Manipulation of these life events turns the wholesome order of the universe on its ear and gives we human “sorcerer’s apprentices” merely the illusion of control. That is, we have enough control to seriously muck things up, but that’s about it. Yet we always think we know better how life should be conducted than the One who designed and built us and our world. Like the saying goes, “Don’t argue with Reality. Reality always wins!”
The problem I have with forced sterilization in the case of the woman from Erie–27, already had five kids–is that it seems like a reward for her reprehensible behavior. Especially if the government does it on a larger scale: have one kid, endanger it, free tubal ligation, get to spend the rest of your days bed-hopping with no risk of inconvenient morning sickness. Woo-hoo!
>>Especially if the government does it on a larger scale: have one kid, endanger it, free tubal ligation, get to spend the rest of your days bed-hopping with no risk of inconvenient morning sickness. Woo-hoo!>>
That’s one way to look at it…but things rarely have a single pure cause/effect/motive. There are almost always “and not only that but…” things. I understand your feeling that this rewards the wrong-doer in a way, but really, the important thing is not the individual person, but the children and society.
Personally, I think that a condition of welfare should be an implant to prevent conception, which will be removed only upon 1 year of successful self support. If a person if found guilty of child abuse/neglect, I might be willing to approve a permanent sterilization, but bureaucracy being what it is, I’d be much slower on this one…. Habitual drug use (meaning multiple offender) or alcololism, implant time or sterilization, depending on the seriousness and duration of the use.
Her position is sinful, immoral; a perfect expression of self-centeredness. But, given the legal and social environment in which she lives, her position is also perfectly logical. And shame, shame, on us who have allowed that lethal logic to become normative.
Derek J Simmons
These people frankly need their heads examined. This is one reason why I don’t subscribe to the notion of “pro choice”. I value my life to much to say that I would have been OK if my mother would have decided to abort my existance. Only a feeble minded moron would call a fetus a “parasite”. Yet some mentally deranged people do see it has that. So are they saying that they were once parasites or are they saying they still are? Biology wasn’t my strongest subject in college, but I think a parasite doesn’t evolve into a human being.
This probably goes without saying, but the obscene comments the woman listed that ostensibly came from pro-life people (which I would tend to doubt, honestly) are absolutely wrong, no matter what she did. Such vicious and disgusting comments violate God’s moral order just as her treatment of her unborn baby does, and should be roundly condemned by Christians in the strongest terms.
Her rant about people valuing the life of the fetus more than her life is purely anecdotal and based solely on those horrible comments. The pro-life consensus view should be that the unborn baby has just as much intrinsic value as the mother or her other children or anyone else, for that matter.
Taking her history at face value (dangerous, I know), it’s not really a surprise that her perspectives on sex, children and life are so perverted. Particularly striking was the comment that she resents “the man” she had sex with for not having to deal with the, er, “complications”. Lovely.
I should also point out that the view that the fetus is a “parasite” is fairly widely held among the pro-abortion-rights movement. It’s utterly indefensible from a scientific perspective, but it’s not shocking to hear someone say that. Of course, the woman’s post even alludes to the long-discredited recapitulation theory, so she’s not exactly science-savvy.
I think I believe her. The amorality of some people is so far off base that you automatically give them a pass.
I wonder if she would support infanticide on the “convenience” basis? She appears to be ready to cast off anything (men, friends, children) that mess with her view of her comfort in the world.
This woman is a sad case of “liberalism gone wild. Accountability is a “dirty” word to folks like her. Real sad. I found her blog and had to click off of it after reading it for only about 30 seconds. She’s a bitter and angry woman with some deep inner turmoil issues.
Did anyone notice that she’ll accept Paypal donations for her abortion? The first commentor asks if she has a Paypal account so they can help out with her expenses. A few comments later, her co-blogger ..somebody named Dubhe..comes on and says,
“As for Paypal, we are uncomfortable asking for donations of any sort…if someone wishes to donate something minor in spite of that, we will not refuse and B.B’s e-mail address is associated with a Paypal account. However, we will not mention it on the blog page nor shall we we putting up any sort of link request…”
Well, a Paypal account is simply an e-mail address addressed to paypal so it won’t be too hard for her fans to figure out where to send their donations to the “poor” woman.
Give me a break ….
Doc, I think the phenomenon you are describing has been called “The Fertility Gap” and it is truly something worth rejoicing over! I love the idea of liberals shrinking their own voter base by their stupid and ill thought out decisions.
As an Orthodox Jew, abortion is a complex moral problem/question that requires consultation with a knowledgeable rabbi. We do NOT prohibit all abortion the way that many conservative Christians do, but abortion is rare among religious Jews and certainly is not done as an answer to promiscuity’s unwanted consequences (we simply do not have promiscuity in our community).
Sometimes it has struck me that Christians tend to focus on the event of abortion and preventing it, whereas religious Jews tend to focus on the events leading up to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place, and trying to prevent those. To me, that latter is a more sensible approach — people have to learn how to live a MORAL life so that the vast majority of pregnancies are not “unwanted” in the first place. Our girls and boys do not date until they are ready for marriage, so “dating” is a carefully controlled and focused way of obtaining a marriage partner — it is not a recreational activity that can be tempting to young people who have raging hormones. We also do not touch our fiances at all until after the wedding. You may think that very bizarre, but, it works and most of us are not mentally traumatized because we waited until our wedding night to express our physical affection for our wife or husband. Children are a blessing (the same is true in Christian idealogy). The idea of screwing around for fun and defending the right to do so and avoid the natural consequences is just something totally, totally foreign to us.
But, considering the way many people live and conduct their lives today, including this blogger — you really don’t want these people having children. Trust me! I mean, I don’t want to sound shocking and come right out and say “be glad they are killing their kids,” but the idea of these kind of immoral and amoral people having precious little children’s souls in their care is just too horrifying to contemplate. We already see what happens when the wrong people procreate.
Ack! That should be “For an Orthodox Jew” not “as an Orthodox Jew.” I wish we had the ability to edit or at least proofread comments!
I apologize if I have read anyone wrong – but it appears that Believers are relunctant to pray for the “We Had Abortions”, (BB) the feminist blogger & those of their ilk.
Believers should never be relunctant to pray for anyone (1 Tim 2:1), in fact, the lost need our prayers (Rom 10:1-3) moreso. Let us not forget where we once were (Tit 3:3) before we came into the light.
As I was reminded yesterday, Believers have a tendency to be unloving. The ranting we do against abortion will probably never ever bring those who believe in abortion to see the truth. (No, I am not condoning sin or the right to it) Without a doubt abortion is wrong however, how are we going to change the hearts of those who think otherwise if we are constantly blasting them telling them how disgusting they are?
I pray that others will be lead to believe that abortion is wrong and it will never be a point of contention in our society.
I think it goes without saying that this is sick in the extreme, no matter what your position on abortion is. Batyah, thanks for the educational comment. I was going to make a comment along the same lines, but you’ve said it better than I could.
Scott G your not making any sense. How can a child be put to death that could never exist? A woman can’t get pregnant if she has had her reproductive organs removed, or had her tubes tide, or if the husband has had a successful Vasectomy.
I’m talking about sterilization.
I’m still not clear
A married couple, for whatever reasons, that does not want to have children or any more should not have sex during the course of the rest of their marriage?
A medical procedure to remove or inhibit the functions of the reproductive organs of the husband or wife is not Christian? And birth control (pills, condoms, implants, Foams, spermicides, diaphragm) are neither allowed, in this where a couple is neither for abortion but wishes not to have children or any more they should refrain from sex?
So is it a pro-life/Christian position that in such cases where there is no issue of sexual immorality (having sex outside the bounds of marriage) that prevention of children or anymore children, for whatever reasons, should be only resolved by abandoning sexual practice within the marriage? Also what about having sex solely in times when a woman is not ovulating to prevent pregnancy(Rhythm method)? How is that addressed? Or is that also wrong?
Do you consider sex with having a sole purpose or reproduction and would you be able to continue your life in the bounds of a marriage if there were no sexual intercourse(lets say 5-50 years)?
Is sex for pleasure inherently wrong
I’ve consulted my bible and I see that refraining from sex within marriage seems to be against God’s will and even deemed dangerous because it can cause one to stray outside of marriage. The only example I can see that God punished someone for using a method of birth control is the story of Tamar and On an, but that even feels like God was more displeased with Onan being selfish and not wanting to split his inheritance, than by fact of him preventing himself from impregnating Tamar.
Is it okay for a couple to have sex and have children in which might take resources away from their current children? Or in this case should those children be given up for adoption?
This is really not an abortion question. Its about pregnancy prevention. I tend to see pro-lifers focus opinions on abortion in itself and not the prevention of pregnancy outside or within a marriage.
Arlyn.
birth control pills or hormone birth control stop ovulation mainly. That is why on such medications a woman’s period is usually lighter than normal, because only the uterine lining is being shed. An egg can’t be fertilized if its not released. The backup is if an egg breaks through is fertilized, the pill causes the uterine lining to be to thin to allow implantation. This event is low, perhaps 4 percent.
Let me see if I understand this right. Contraception is the equivalant of “Medical care”? So I guess being denied “emergency” contraception is the same thing as “being denied emergency medical care”? Since this warped lady calls herself a feminst, I’m surprised she didn’t blame the guy instead. Now that I think about it, I thought femenist weren’t so hot on guys to begin with. She’s definitely a liberal. Blame everybody else for her own stupidity. I’m truly beginning to think Michael Savage was right when he says “Liberalism is a mental disorder”. This line says it all:
“No doubt the entire process was engineered so that no one would be held responsible if BB should end up with a serious medial problem (i.e., pregnacy)” So pregnacy is now unoffically a “serious medical problem” This world is doomed.:-(
[Gratuitous remark deleted - Admin] This woman was trying, for 2 days apparently, to be responsible and prevent the pregnancy from taking place in the first place. Instead, she was subject to questioning and interrogation about her marital status (which should have nothing to do with whether she should receive the medicine — if people have a problem about the medicine’s effects her marital status has nothing to do with anything), and given the run-around. Now she’s pregnant. Is that what people who revere life want? To force unwanted pregnancies?
I’m appalled. I’m saddened. And there is a double standard. Condoms can be bought in any gas station bathroom. Viagra patients are not grilled about their marital status. Roadblocks like the ones experienced by BB seem to be designed to punish women for the crime of having heterosexual sex. But not the men, of course. Where are the critics of her partner, who participated in this act and who used a condom?
The people standing in the way of her getting EC opened the door for the abortion. If the goal is to prevent abortions, it seems that this tactic isn’t very effective. It also shows the depth of hatred and contempt towards women. Appalling.
What would Jesus do? For sure it would NOT be to act like this woman’s critics or like the medical professionals who stood the way of her receiving contraceptives. I have faith in that.
I certainly don’t condone sending the woman nasty comments, but don’t presume the senders are Christians. If they are, they’re unlike any I’ve ever met. And check your Bible; it is not “un-Christian” or unbiblical to criticize people who murder or advocate it. – Admin
I just don’t understand how a woman can view her child in that manner. I know…cultural conditioning, selfishness in the name of empowerment… but still, what part of a mother is destroyed to excuse calling her child a parasite?
Lord have mercy. ::: that’s a sincere prayer :::
Lashawn,
I think what Mei is saying is that people blocked this woman from receiving something that would have prevented her from getting pregnant in the first place, thus preventing a pregnancy, thus preventing an abortion in the first place.
I personally think her reference to her pregnancy is because she is bitter about the way she was given the run around trying to prevent it in the first place.
Mei
When she first posted about this event, she was criticized for having sex. Not everyone believes that each sex act should result in a child. In one does believe that, one should feel free to have as many children as one conceives. If one does not, there is contraception.
This medical marvel exists and BB was denied access to it. Her desire to avail herself of contraceptives doesn’t make her “stupid” as Tyrone said above. It seems the logical next step of someone who does not want to become pregnant.
And her pain at being pregnant is not mock-worthy. Not at all.
The people who don’t want to use EC should not. The people who want to punish consensual sex acts with unwanted pregnancies and disease (I’m thinking of the objections to the HPV vaccine) — I don’t understand such people. I truly don’t.
#30 EC is an abortion. It’s a fertilized egg that’s being blocked from implanting in the uterine wall.
I’m puzzled by the repetition of “I am angry that people think the fetus’ life is worth more than my life or that of my children.”
I don’t get it. How is her life threatened? Or her children’s lives? What she is really saying is that she is angry that people think she has no right to terminate a pregnancy rather than disrupt her life. She arguably has the right to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy (I don’t think I would do it, but I wouldn’t judge another mother for doing it). But to argue that she must terminate rather than suffer the inconvenience of carrying a child, bearing it and placing it up for adoption because the later involves risk to the pleasant ordering of her life is absurd.
And I join in the other commenter who suspects her truthfulness (not about the pregnancy, I have no opinion there). But all these hateful emails she claims to have received? If someone threatened to rape/torture/murder me, you can be darn sure I’m posting their email address and the entire contents of the email on my blog AND notifying the proper authorities.
That’s very nice of you E.
Whenever anyone you meet in person talks about wrongs they’ve suffered, do you just say “I don’t believe you, that would never happen, you’re a liar”?
So why do you do it now? Just to make you feel better?
The choice is having sex unprotected and risking getting pregnant. She made that choice, now she doesn’t want to accept resposiblity for it. I smell a lie. This sex was not with her husband, but I am guessing that because of her rage, it was with a man of another race, and the child would prove her a whore. Read between the lines here, this woman is sick and the only person important to her is herself. Self centered, she diffentently needs our prayers, and our prayers for the one she is going to murder.
Kempermanx
She had protected sex. The condom broke. Why is no one criticizing the man that didn’t have a condom that fit him or for doubling up?
Non-Catholic pro-lifers may not have a problem with birth control, i.e., condoms and the Pill. As noted above, the Pill prevents ovulation. It MAY cause the uterine liner to thin to the point that if ovulation occurs the embryo can’t implant, but I’ve known women for whom the Pill failed, they got pregnant (and stopped taking it, obviously) and had healthy babies. A healthy woman who uses no BC at all probably loses more embryos that don’t happen to implant than a woman on the Pill, simply because breakthrough ovulation doesn’t happen very often. IUDs, in contrast, work primarily by preventing implantation, and I see a distinction there. I realize other people may not.
As a pro-lifer, I would have no problem at all with a woman getting her tubes tied, or a man a vasectomy. It’s the responsible thing to do if you know you must not risk a pregnancy. I think that if a person knows she doesn’t want a baby right now but it wouldn’t be the end of the world if one came along, she should use a reliable form of birth control; if she sincerely can’t have a baby right now, she should abstain from sex until her situation changes; and if she shouldn’t or really doesn’t want to get pregnant forever, she should consider tubal ligation. Just my opinion.
Birth control pills first introduced 1967. I think this story is BS. I have NEVER heard of any condom breaking with NORMAL sex.
This story does not pass the smell test. We are to believe that she had sex and the codom broke and he or she didn’t know that and continued with there sex and she was having sex with her husband, who clearly has had sex with her before (3 kids) and we are to believe that this time his condom broke but as a married couple never thought to use birth control pills, foam, the patch, etc. BULL****. Oh and when they finished lightning stuck the house and she conceived that very moment. And the next morning they bought the Brooklyn Bridge for only $10. GIVE ME A BREAK.
Laura,
Thanks for you reply. Frankly I was on birth control pills for the first two years of my marriage until we had the necessary resources, housing, and financial stability to provide for any child we bring forth. I never heard any pro-life opinions about birth control methods within the bounds of marriage.
Kempermanx
LOL
Condoms can break and tear, Its normally because its too small or too old and the latex has begun to break down. Its relatively small,(3 out of 100 women) but not unheard of. And when your in the throws of going at it, it can go unoticed. Especially at the point of orgasm.
If condoms are too big the can slip off during, it can also do this is the erection is not sufficient to hold it on.
And I find nothing untruthful about her story. And she made no mention of the individual being her husband or not. So I’m not sure where the rest of your reply came from.
And frankly, what is NORMAL sex?
*L*
actually your wrong walt,
EC prevents the egg from leaving the ovary(ovulation),mainly. Ovulation occurs one day out of a normal 28 day cycle and a woman usually only has two days after ovulation to get pregnant, after that the egg breaks down. EC taken immediately will prevent ovulation or prevent sperm (whom can hang around for 3 days)from combing with the egg. But its primary purpose is preventing ovulation
Same as birth control pills the byproduct of the hormones weakens the uterine lining. If the fertilized egg manages to implant, EC has no effect. Another byproduct is not allowing the sperm and egg to meet in the first place.
It is not the same thing as RU-486, which is the abortion pill. Which blocks a production of a hormone needed to substain a pregnancy and opens the cervix, and contractions happen to allow the tissue and embroyo to be expelled.
I don’t really know anybody who’s anti-choice.
I support a woman’s choice as to whether or not to have sex (assuming she has a willing partner.) The alternative would be rape. I don’t support that.
I support her choice as to whether or not to use birth control.
If she gets pregnant, I support her choice as to whether to keep her baby or allow it to be adopted out. If she elects adoption, I support her choice as to whether to plan an open adoption, in which case she may choose the lucky family that adopts her baby.
The only choice I don’t support is the choice to kill her unborn.
#35 wrote:
>>Whenever anyone you meet in person talks about wrongs they’ve suffered, do you just say “I don’t believe you, that would never happen, you’re a liar�
Go back and read what I wrote. Did I say that it would never happen? Certainly not. Threats abound on the blogosphere — one gentleman and his young son were recently the recipients of very base threats. His actions were immediate — he revealed the perpetrator’s identity so there would be witnesses if the threats were carried out and notified law enforcement. The abortion blogger didn’t do that. Either she is incredibly careless with her safety or the threats never occurred. She’s capable of killing a child, I doubt lying would be that difficult for her.
>>So why do you do it now? Just to make you feel better?
Using my critical reasoning faculties feels great! I suggest you use yours, for a refreshing change of pace. I note you didn’t actually respond to my assessment of her underlying argument.
Her post implied it was with her husband, maybe I am reading too much into that. Normal sex would mean she did not ALSO engange in ANAL sex during the same session. If she was having sex with her husband, this story is BS. What, her husband suddenly forgets what size condom he uses and they never heard of any other contreception methods? or she’s such a bitch that they only have sex once a year and last year’s condom broke? The last one sounds the most reasonably, but I am not buying any of it. Her whole story is too perfectly PC to be true. Sounds like Planned Parenthood wrote the whole thing up. That’s my bet. No mother calls a pregnancy a tick. This probably was written for a feminist rights class at Columbia to see what sort or response it could get.
kempermanx, nothing of what you just said made any sense. conservatives are always the first ones to point out how often condoms break and how ineffective they are, but now that it happens, you can’t seem to believe it. i don’t see what anal sex has to do with this either. you obviously read nothing that this woman wrote; she described the awful side effects that came with various hormonal contraception methods, and that’s why she couldn’t use them. as a result of surgery, she barely has a cervix anymore, which precludes any kind of contraception device fitted to her cervix (and i imagine would make a pregnancy more complicated).
but what makes me really angry (and really the only reason i’m commenting) is that to you, if this woman doesn’t have sex, or does so “once a year,” she’s a “bitch.” as if it’s her duty to have sex. but if she does, she’s a “whore” who should have kept her legs closed, because the pregnancy would be all her fault. that, to me, is really offensive.
Whoa, what a man-hating site. Her views are so ridiculous that it is almost comical.
Pregnancy is not an unheard of result from coitus.
The law permits adults to engage in consensual sex, so long as it is not solicited for money or personal gain.
Contraception is permitted under the law. There are various prohibitions of it under religious law. Those prohibitions are a matter only between the believer and his religion.
Abortion is permitted under the law, but not without stipulations.
This “treasure of humanity” has engaged in coitus for the purpose of lust and depended on faulty contraception to prevent a pregnancy. Ooops! Her love-thump produced a child.
Now she has decided to kill the child. She may do so legally. She has even gone so far as to name it: Tick-Parasite.
She is angered by the roadblocks that she has encountered in the abortion route and is doubly frustrated by having to have the “trash” taken out and all the creeps with their morality chatter annoying her. After all, having an abortion in her world is no different than picking her nose or cleaning out ear wax.
When we got the full play by play of Monica and Bill and how the amoral libs reacted to it all, why should this “piece of work” come as any surprise? Her reaction is like having gotten a parking ticket when she was only five minutes late after the meter ran out.
#44 “to you, if this woman doesn’t have sex, or does so “once a year,†she’s a “bitch.†as if it’s her duty to have sex. but if she does, she’s a “whore†who should have kept her legs closed, because the pregnancy would be all her fault. that, to me, is really offensive.”
And that kind of witch-hunting, woman-hating, “if she floats she’s guilty, if she drowns she’s innocent” nonsense, Dear Watson, is one of the main reasons that uber-feminists like these exist.
To the ardently Abrahamic, womanhood is framed by a ‘Whore’ or ‘Madonna’ stereotype. I always find this type of kneejerk thinking to be superstitious, skewed and most often poisonous.
And round and round we go.
Heliotrope
She is angered about the roadblocks she encountered trying to prevent a pregnancy, which would equal no abortion.
Kempermanx,
So lets assume her story is BS
Then she has no plans for an abortion and doesn’t really think of her baby as a tick
right?
You really not making sense and I doubt you read her full story.
You are the type of person that she probably has encoutered to form her toxic feminist opinions.
And you seem very niave or uneducated about sexual practices and contraception. I’m not sure what Anal sex versus your “normal” sex has to do with a condom breaking or not. There are not special razors in a person anus that makes condoms break. So what does that have to do with anything?
When we got the full play by play of Monica and Bill and how the amoral libs reacted to it all
Heliotrope, who gave us the play-by-play of Monica and Bill? Hint: not the ‘amoral libs.’
You say:
Contraception is permitted under the law. There are various prohibitions of it under religious law. Those prohibitions are a matter only between the believer and his religion.
But emergency contraception IS contraception, and she could not get it. That’s why she’s so angry — because others were forcing their ‘religious laws’ on her — the laws that are supposed to only concern a believer and his religion — and the result is that she is now pregnant despite doing her very best to get her hands on the contraception she is legally allowed to have.
Z,
There are not a razor is you anus that make condoms break, there is no lubercate in your anus. This causes friction the breaks the condom. Yes any woman that has a web site called “Biting Beaver” is by definition a bitch. She clearly admits that by her posts. I believe this entire story is TOTAL BS. We are falling into a trap of talking about a made up story by a radical femmist who calls herself the biting beaver. What is there here for you all not to figure out, we’ve been had, this story is BULL****.
There is one thing that mystifies me about this situation. The woman in question has three children, and says that she doesn’t want and can’t afford to raise a fourth. She says that she has had bad effects from various forms of hormonal contraception, having used it for a number of years, and so she and her partner reverted to the use of condoms. Given these circumstances, I don’t see why either a tubal ligation or a vasectomy wasn’t a better option for them.
Mostly, I feel sorry for her. Of course, I don’t have a problem with emergency contraception – I don’t consider preventing implantation to be the same as abortion. I suspect that that puts me in a minority here. I do have a problem with the nonsense that she mentioned about “well, we have one doctor that prescribes EC, and he’ll interview you, and you have to meet his criteria. Are you married?” I don’t understand the confusion of thought that could lead a doctor to agree to provide EC to a married woman, but deny it to an unmarried one.
I am happy for people to have different opinions on the morality of emergency contraception. I am happy for doctors and pharmacists to have the right to refuse to provide certain “services” if they consider them to be immoral or sinful, as long as they make very clear (large notices posted by entrance to offices etc.) which procedures they refuse to conduct on moral or religious grounds. I am not at all happy that a particular service (emergency contraception) is asserted to be available, except that it isn’t, or it might be, but only if you talk nicely to the doctor and he approves of your way of life.
I am also somewhat mystified that the woman in question seems to be able to find an abortionist within reasonable travelling distance of her home, but can’t find someone to prescribe emergency contraception. That makes no sense at all – if you’re happy to perform abortions, you must be happy to prescribe emergency contraception.
But then why do anti-choice people NOT believe that the unborn are people? No church baptizes them, no one advocates fetal property rights, no one wants an inquest for a miscarriage, or a death certificate, or estate administration, as we would have for the born. Anti-choicers even celegrate birthdays, that should be a meaningless event for them. They should be celebrating conception. But then the count down to legal drinking and the age of consent.starts then, not at birth.
I think this story is a hoax but the attitude is not far from that of Randall Terry or John Ashcroft when you get to the bottom of it.
On the issue of the “I had an abortion” t-shirts and petitions, one question keeps coming to mind. No matter what one’s position is on the legality of abortion, how can one be proud and want to brag about having one? That agenda seems to me to be that of a disturbed mind.
What a nasty piece of fiction.
Redbeard
I’m with you on that. I understand that there are some women who have no pride in themselves and they think abortion makes them feel liberated. I think that is more of a reaction to beat on a feminist drum and sort of like a stick out their tongues to pro-lifers (and even decent pro choicers). As if they did this great thing to defy them.
Sorry, LaShawn. IMHO what she is doing is responsible and wholly morally proper: She had protected sex, the condom broke and she was denied (in her words) emergency contraception.
When I read the Bible, there is nothing in it that would say that this woman is a murderer.
#52 Alexandra emphasizes: “But emergency contraception IS contraception….”
No it is not. “Emergency contraception” is a term used to blur the facts; it is abortion.
Contraception covers a wide variety of devises and methods ranging from chastity belts to the pill, condoms, implants, tubal ligation, vasectomy, spermicides, fertility charts, diaphragms or Casanova’s reamed out lemon half. All of these methods are subject to failure resulting in pregnancy.
Once the sperm has been released in the friendly zone for mitosis with the egg, there is no more contraception in the picture. The only alternative is to abort the pregnancy.
There are methods of keeping the early life of the fetus from surviving. In olden days, a douche of vinegar and kerosene was one such method of killing the embryo. Modern chemistry has developed pills that cause the female to abort the embryo.
This is not contraception. This is killing the embryo after contraception failed.
We have added a new phase to the slippery slope. There is a short period between conception and the point when we can confirm pregnancy. This is the post coital period that some want to change the word “abortion” into the phrase “emergency contraception.”
The female reproductive system is not like a radial tire. You can shock it just so many times before it kicks back.
Any woman who thinks she can flush out her womb with impunity is a fool.
Heliotrope
what is your defintion of abortion? Once a sperm is released, and means of keeping it from fertilizing an egg is abortion? I thought you believed life begins at conception. How is that possible without conception? A sperm alone is nothing.
or I am to believe it is a Pro-Lifer’s stance that a sperm release in the womb is in itself conception? Or prevention of a pregnancy period is an abortion. That is not only false, it is also a dangerous for women.
Its amazing how uninformed people are about EC vs the Abortion pill, or what an abortion actually is. I would say your flat our wrong. Did you know ECs main effect is prevention of ovulation. Did you know an egg is only good for 12 hours before it begins to erode? Did you know that after ovulation it prevents the sperm and egg from meeting by changing the mucus the sperm swim in and flow of the cilia the move the egg? Did you know that EC has minimal effect after conception (fertilization), and zero effect if there is implantation?
Did you also know that Ibuprofen, many allergy medications, and other anti-inflammatory drugs can interfere with implantation of an embryo Do you suggest a woman taking these is taking an abortion drug? A woman’s dietary habits affect implantation probably causing more “abortions” than EC.
I and other people have explained how these things work. It is very telling when science and fact are blantantly ignored just to harp on abortion. If this woman had EC available to her right away there is extremely high chance should would have not gotten pregnant in the first place.
Jim, #59: “When I read the Bible, there is nothing in it that would say that this woman is a murderer.”
When could be yesterday or 20 years ago, in which case, perhaps memory is failing you. We’d be more interested in where in the Bible there is something that would say that this woman is not a murderer.
R.S.V.P when you do find it. Don’t worry, you have all the time you need to find it. Or take my word for it that nonsuch exists, and by extension your original claim is flawed.
# 59 Found it for you bro.
Ex 20:13, The sixth commandment
Andy, what about Exodus 21:22? If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]. Exodus 21:23 And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
We could get into a long argument about how that should be read, but to me (and my Protestant denomination) I read it as saying pretty clearly that the death of a fetus was not to be treated as the death of a human.
Andy and Walt, what about Exodus 21:22 and 23: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]. :23 And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
I know we can argue for days about when and how that should apply, but to me (and my Protestant denomination) those are fairly clear words that the death of a fetus was not considered the death of a human being.
#62 Zakia:
Once the sperm is set free in the environment conducive to conception there is precious little time to do much of anything to prevent it. (Many times the conception simply does not take place without any interference from the outside world.)
It is possible to poison the environment with spermicides or hormonal adjustments that corrupt the cytoplasm and render the egg useless.
This is a sloppy form of birth control that has a history of damaging the female.
There is a small window of time before mitosis when the pregnancy can be prevented by killing the sperm or destroying the viability of the egg. The amount of time available can not be known outside of the laboratory.
Your love affair with the concept of “emergency contraception” is to warp the meaning of the word “contraception”.
You are talking about emergency pregnancy prevention. It involves killing one or both of the players in mitosis immediately before, or during or just after the process begins. It is not contraception and may slip in short of abortion in a few rare instances.
I agree that many people are ill informed about abortion.
That is why so many people play fast and loose with language when it comes to the subject: partial birth abortion, emergency contraception, etc.
#62 Zakia states: “If this woman had EC available to her right away there is extremely high chance should would have not gotten pregnant in the first place.”
You are entirely correct. If she were prepared to immediately follow ejaculation with a spermicidal douche, which has been around for a long time, it would have had a high percentage of effectiveness in preventing mitosis.
Have you any concept of how long a window of time she had to get this job done?
The abortion pill would have given her more time to kill the results of conception. I suspect that if it can be made distinctly safer, that some women will keep a supply on hand.
But a lot of people are so wrapped up in their attitudes that they ignore the potential harm that overuse of toxic substances can do them.
#66
Negative. OT laws are either moral or typological. This was a typological law fulfilled in Christ, the true Israel. By typological, I mean they were given to God at Mt. Sinai and apply only under the Mosaic economy, looking toward fulfillment in Christ. America didn’t make a covenant with God at Mt. Sinai, did it? See Meredith Kline: “Kingdom Prologue” for help.
Heliotrope, you are assuming the woman has ovulated. If she hasn’t ovulated no sperm in the world is going to impregnant her. EC does not KILL anything, an egg or a sperm. Hence when trying to get pregnant you should have sex a day or two BEFORE ovulations. I really don’t know what your talking about and what your saying makes no sense to me because it doesn’t include how a woman’s menstrual cycle actually works and how the EC pill works within that.
You think ejacualtion automatically equals pregnancy.
My husband can ejaculate in me all day long for a month. If there is no egg release from my folicles his sperm will just swim around and die. If something is preventing an the egg from meeting the sperm, both will just sit around and die.
Any by the way, there is no such thing as a spermicidal douche, coca-cola douching is an ineffective wives tale if not a myth from the 1950s and it isn’t a spermicide.
once are splashed against and enter the cervix no amount of douching is going to do anything to them. Onces sperm hit the cervix their are about a hundred thousand of them already in the uterus. Women use spermicides as a barrier between the cervix and the vaginal canal to kill or weaken sperm splashed against the cervix. Once sperm is ejaculated it can’t be douched out to prevent pregnancy.
Sex Ed people.
This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn. Or two.
#69
Moreover, that passage in Ex 21 is referring to premature birth, hence the phrase “.. but there is no serious injury …” either refers to manslaughter of the baby, or premature birth of the baby resulting in no serious birth defects, or no serious injury of the mother. It’s also in the section entitled “Personal Injuries”. Verse 23 is the most interesting. It clearly demands the guilty party’s life if death occurs (either the mother or the baby, it’s not clear from the English translation). It’s pretty clear that the Bible isn’t even sanctioning lighter punishments for manslaughter, though it’s not entirely clear to me what “gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury” means.
Walt, what makes you think “fruit depart from her” means premature birth. The way I see it, it’s much more likely to mean “miscarriage”.
FYI: Here’s how the verse is translated in several other Bibles. There’s significant disagreement.
Revised Standard : When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
New International (NIV): If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.
New English Translation (NET): And if men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband will put on him, and he will pay what the court decides.
New Advent Bible (Catholic): 21:22. If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. 21:23. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life,
#70 Zakia —- Whew!
This woman sure thought she was fertile, which is why she went into a frenzy after the condom mishap. That is what the post is all about. She did not want the pregnancy and tried mightily to prevent it. But not mightily enough.
Had she cared, her physician could have provided her with the progestin pills to take immediately after sex. It has an effectiveness rate of slightly greater than 66%. She could also have taken emergency doses of her birth control pill with her doctor’s directed advice. (Messing with estrogen is risky business.)
However, she hit the streets and looked for the emergency room to deal with her “emergency.” The emergency room in the hospital I am associated with can not take someone off the street and flip them progestin or estrogen treatments. I do not know about all emergency rooms, but the laws are fairly clear about the requirements and liability. As I understand it, she was not raped, was not married, was not the victim of incest. Therefore, I doubt the magistrate would have been of much help to her with her emergency room problems.
Plan B progestin treatment can keep the sperm from reaching the egg if it is used in time. It can interrupt the egg. It can keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.
The window of time involved is mentioned in my comment above. No human outside of laboratory monitoring has any idea of what it is, but it isn’t very long.
There is a brief period of emergency pregnancy prevention. The sperm is on the loose in a friendly environment. There is no diaphragm, spermicide, IUD or vaginal condom in place. Please remember, this woman felt she was at a peak point for pregnancy. These remarks should not be misdirected again to include a woman who is weeks aways from ovulation.
If you are using a spermicide, you must not douche after sex. There are emergency spermicides that are introduced via douche in given circumstances.
I am done with all of this banter. There is no “emergency contraception”. It is all last minute pregnancy prevention and for the vast majority of cases it works by aborting the fertilized egg by preventing it from attaching to the uterus. (Not that it doesn’t sometimes attach elsewhere.)
One final cautionary note: any female who undertakes “emergency contraception” using the shock dosage of birth control pills should be closely monitored by her physician. It is far from being a handy home remedy to pregnancy.
#73 Fair enough. Let’s suppose it does.
If he does accidentally cause the death of the baby, he’s still punished by the court and subject to the husband regarding compensation. It’s a manslaughter, not a deliberate killing.
If the passage is referring to a miscarriage that results in the death of the mother, his life is still demanded of him (v 23), whether accidental or no.
Either way, this passage is referring to manslaughter, not murder. The Bible makes that distinction.
Jim, I’m with Walt on this.
I would also point out that there is a plug for father’s rights as well for reparations to the damage done to his family. Certainly blows a hole in the women’s sole right to ‘privacy’.
Bottomline, your original simplistic statement needed to be challenged for the simple reason that any casual reader might interpret it as Biblical fact without any understanding of the underlying exegis.
Plain and simple, there are two things we need to know:
1) plenty of verses about imperfect/sinful man- for all have sinned… none are righteous… Satan is your father… knowing good & evil by its fruit etc
2) God knows the heart of man, thereby the intent.
Put those together and the woman is indeed murderous. If that is too hyperbolic, it would suffice to say that judging by her fruit, she’s lost in sin and on her way to hell, even if she never caused anyone to die. Her only chance at redemption is thru Jesus’ saving grace.
As Walt mentioned, these are the Laws that the Jews were put under. Christians are not under the law, yet we can infer plenty about how we should live by looking to the Law as waypoints.
I’m going to try and excerpt two commentaries and hope that the hebrew text comes thru.
Emphasises are mine
John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:
As for the semantics and interpreting ancient words, context matters.
Keil and Deliztsch Commentary on the Bible
Note: Anyone can go to E-Sword and download free bibles, commentaries etc.
Thanks for the bandwidth, La Shawn
I’m sorry, Andy and Walt. I just disagree with you (and so does my denomination, by the way).
I can find no verse in the Old Testament that says that unintentional killing was not considered murder and penalized as such. Take a look at Exodus 21: 13, where death is still the penalty for an accidental killing, although the killer may flee for protection. (There are examples where the injury or death of slaves might be penalized by monetary compensation, though).
There is no other verse in the Bible that deals with the point about whether miscarriage or abortion is considered the killing of a human being.
The other verses that are usually cited such as the “before you were formed, I knew you” don’t touch on this issue. And the Bible is very clear in Revelations about the punishment for people who add things to the Bible, so we’re stuck with this verse.
So I do believe there is good Biblical Christianity to support my beliefs.
JMHO.
Uh, we’re not Muslims. There’s not verses in the Bible for a lot of things, but we’re governed by the law of Christ, conscience, and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Andy, if you’re allowed to use bandwidth, so am I
If this doesn’t suffice, read “The Marrow of Modern Divinity”
Just because the punishments are the same doesn’t mean the crimes are the same, or as offensive to God. Just because your denomination stands behind your beliefs doesn’t make them right. There’s denominations that ordain practicing homosexuals, that protect child molesters, etc, etc. We’re not adding anything to the Scriptures by saying that abortion is murder – It’s clearly a violation of God’s moral law. Neither does the burden of proof rest on us to prove it so. Moreover, Ex 21 rests in the sphere of typological (or civil as defined in WCF) laws given to Israel, and is not binding on mankind as a whole. It’s not an echo of the covenant of works God made with Adam. It’s abrogated in Christ, the true Israel, the last Adam.
Why are you all wasting so much time on a BS story? Here’s one that matches the “Biting Beavers” lies.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RAPE_LIE?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-10-11-18-02-25
I have not addressed the issue of how the Bible plays into this whole abortion discussion, and I will not.
We are a nation of laws. We the people are not all believers in the Bible as the sole word of God. Nor are all of us who make up we the people obedient to any God.
Christians differ among themselves about abortion. Witness the chapter and verse exchanges above.
When the day is done, we the people will decide the rules concerning abortion with or without religious influence.
Roe v. Wade is dreadful law. It must be overturned because it does not have any legitimate footing in the Constitution. The cases it depends upon for its foundation are bad law as well.
I am interested in the back and forth about the Bible verses, but I understand why the amoral feminists would look at the comments as coming from villagers carrying torches and pitchforks.
Good point Heliotrope. Ultimately, in this earthly life, we the people have to decide the future of RvW thru the politicians we elect to represent us and in accordance with the Constitution.
Heliotrope:
There is no “emergency contraceptionâ€. It is all last minute pregnancy prevention and for the vast majority of cases it works by aborting the fertilized egg by preventing it from attaching to the uterus. (Not that it doesn’t sometimes attach elsewhere.)
Can you identify one study that shows that EC works primarily — or even at all — by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg? I have never seen a single one. Every study I’ve seen observed no effect on uterine lining. It is most likely listed as a possible side effect on the medication primarily because, as you note, many things can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, and it’s safer to list it as a possibility for legal purposes.
I like Serge’s series on this whole issue: http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2006/08/plan-b-emergency-contraception-review.html
You keep saying that emergency contraception is, in fact, emergency pregnancy prevention, but isn’t that the same thing? Contraception is a catch-all term for the various methods of pregnancy prevention. Thus, emergency pregnancy prevention could logically be called emergency contraception.
#84 Alexandra gets down to the nitty gritty on just how progestin operates. The studies are necessarily inconclusive. They are inconclusive because there is no possible way to create a human control group.
My battle with “emergency contraception” is that it turns the concept of contraception upside down.
Contraception is a contraction of two age old word forms: “conception” and the “contradiction” of conception.
Those who use traditional contraception are engaging in sex with the expectation of a very low failure rate. They should be well aware of the consequences of failure and also be psychologically and physically prepared for the consequences of contraception failure.
There is no emergency involved. “Emergency contraception” is a last minute, last ditch effort to prevent pregnancy.
Emergency contraception refers to that little span of time between coitus and fertilization. This is not an emergency at all. The abortion pill is now available, if the female is willing to court its risks. Beyond that, the abortionist is readily available in many places.
Many in our society have relied on abortion for ending the pregnancy. That is not a service that most physicians or any emergency rooms offer. Therefore, those using that last ditch method of birth control must go to abortionists.
In fact, if the female is suddenly anxious to prevent pregnancy immediately after coitus, she has to have a ready physician at hand to get her the Plan B progestin ASAP. That is not contraception by traditional terms. That is an extraordinary intervention to prevent/end mitosis.
Shall we have school nurses provide this service for girls who just got laid in the back of the auditorium?
What is the big push to bally-hoo “emergency contraception”? I suspect it is a pressure move to popularize another bullet in the “choice” arsenal.
It does put the emergency room concept under stress. I imagine feminists expect Med-Quick, Inova, etc. to offer this as an on demand service. Well, even if these services legally could offer the treatment, most women would conceive sitting in the waiting room! (Besides which, the failure rate of the treatment is far greater than nearly all forms of contraception.)
Heliotrope, forgive me for not understanding a few of the points you’re trying to make.
In fact, if the female is suddenly anxious to prevent pregnancy immediately after coitus, she has to have a ready physician at hand to get her the Plan B progestin ASAP. That is not contraception by traditional terms. That is an extraordinary intervention to prevent/end mitosis.
But the function of the medication is not to prevent mitosis, rather to prevent ovulation. That’s why the failure rate of Plan B is so much higher than safer forms of contraception — if taken after ovulation, there’s not a whole lot it can do. It’s a gamble, but in an emergency situation, a gamble may sound like a decent last resort for some women.
I don’t necessarily think that Plan B should be over-the-counter, because I think that there’s a lot of room for abuse. But I think that, if making it OTC is the only way to make it readily available to women and not ‘held hostage’ by pharmacists or simply unavailable due to lack of access to medical resources, then that’s the lesser of two evils.
#86 Alexandra
Just how do you propose to use Plan B? Abuse of progestin is a ticket to a medical horror show.
No woman is “held hostage” by lack of access to Plan B. As you seem to know, Plan B is useful only during the height of the fertility cycle. If a woman is being so cautious as to know when that time is, she can certainly manage her coital affairs affairs accordingly.
Just because a woman presents herself as being at that sensitive time of fertility does not mean that she is not mistaken or dissembling.
Doctors, pharmacists and emergency rooms are all legally liable for prescribing or administering drugs without the necessary tests to back up their decision.
Plan B is there primarily for the incest or rape victim.
The time differential between coitus and the abortion pill is very short. Plan B is wedged into that short time span.
For those who want to end the pregnancy, what is the issue about catching it immediately before mitosis? I swear this all sounds like some kind of hang up over being free to have sloppy sex, but trying to escape having it fall into the realm of abortion. To me, it is a distinction without a difference.
I sit as a medical ethics officer in a medium/large hospital. We encounter all manner serious challenges that keep me in counsel with my counterparts throughout the country. Frankly, I would not give Plan B much time at all as the FDA has made it largely a side show since the approval of the abortion pill.
My issue here is with the concept of “emergency contraception.” It is a farce. Contraception fails. That is a fact. A broken condom is lousy contraception, but unless the fertility gods are at work, it is just a broken condom.
If Little Mary Sunshine is out there having “protected” sex at the drop of a hat and the protection goes awry, I do not favor having her run to the pharmacopeia to overwhelm the possible results. I see that as no different from douching with kerosene and arum root. If Little Mary Sunshine runs to the medical community to try to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together, she is only engaging in trying to suck an honorable community of healers into her travails.
I do not like abortion. But that is beside the point here. It won’t take Little Mary Sunshine very long to discover whether her romp in the hay has resulted in pregnancy. At that point, the FDA has made drugs available to her to “dump the hump.”
I meet with “sex ed” specialists more often than I would like. Sex is really very simple and has been accomplished for milleniums without any special instruction. However, there are those who wish to engage in blameless sex. Their out is that if their wombs get encumbered, society at large has some sort of responsibility to clear up the problem.
As prejudiced as it may sound, “emergency contraception” is a selfish, meaningless, distraction when compared with the true ethical conundrums that confront the medical world.
Plan B, if used like M&M’s by loose women and hookers will do them great harm. Are physicians or pharmacists expected to buy into that program?
No woman is “held hostage†by lack of access to Plan B. As you seem to know, Plan B is useful only during the height of the fertility cycle. If a woman is being so cautious as to know when that time is, she can certainly manage her coital affairs affairs accordingly.
Yes, but accidents do happen. Hence the term ‘emergency.’ That you do not sympathize with a woman in an emergency situation does not mean that the situation doesn’t ever exist.
At that point, the FDA has made drugs available to her to “dump the hump.â€
So you can understand why women would be cautious about taking a high dose of progestin, but not why they would want to avoid RU-486? Medical abortion is expensive, painful in multiple ways, and carries clear risks. Plan B makes many women nauseous, and carries risks as well, but to my knowledge the risks aren’t as severe. I have yet to hear of any woman dying from taking Plan B, although I admit I haven’t researched this thoroughly.
Not to mention, even if emergency contraception reduces the number of abortions by preventing ovulation, you don’t see that as a worthy goal? Why bother taking every step possible to prevent a pregnancy that, if it occurs, will be aborted anyway? I don’t like abortion either — that’s why I’m all for access to emergency contraception: I see it as distinctly different than abortion. The only similarity between the two things is that both prevent a baby being born; however, one depends on the creation of the baby while the other prevents its creation. I see a world of difference there.
As prejudiced as it may sound, “emergency contraception†is a selfish, meaningless, distraction when compared with the true ethical conundrums that confront the medical world.
Yes, how horrible that doctors are asked to prescribe medication that isn’t absolutely vital to the immediate survival of their patients. It will be nowhere near as large a distraction once it’s available OTC, so I guess that’s one thing you should be happy about with regards to this issue.
Plan B, if used like M&M’s by loose women and hookers will do them great harm. Are physicians or pharmacists expected to buy into that program?
This is why I do not wholeheartedly support the medication becoming OTC. Almost every single medication on the market today has the potential to do ‘great harm,’ and it’s the job of doctors and pharmacists to educate their patients about the risks of over-using medication. Their job is to tell so-called “loose women” what the risks of over-use are, but you seem to think that’s too meaningless a distraction when it’s the same courtesy given to any other consumer of any other medication on the market.
For those who want to end the pregnancy, what is the issue about catching it immediately before mitosis?
Do you have any evidence that Plan B ends a pregnancy? As I said, I have not seen any hard evidence that it prevents implantation.
Heliotrope
So you rather those women get pregnant and have abortions? And if you were a pharmecist would you dispense the abortion pill to a pregnant woman? Or as a Doctor would you prescribe it? Would you rather prescribe RU-486 than Plan-B?
I think understand your position in that you think if someone has sex they should pay for the concequences and it is the duty of the those that would provided EC to make sure these women do pay for the concequences, or rather they are not obligated to help her elude the consequences because of potential abuses?
I mean prescription pain killers, used like m&ms, have caused physical harm,has caused people to commit manslaughter, created a new drug trade, and addiction issues. Would you say the medical community should not supply pain medications to people anymore based on the above?
Let’s agree to disagree. Plan B is a very specific intervention that it aimed at a very small window of time. It is nearly impossible to know if Plan B and that window are in alignment.
Women are blessed with the ability and responsibility of continuing the human race. If they choose not to risk pregnancy, they must take careful precautions. If a woman keeps rough track of her fertility times, she can abstain from coitus for a few days, which is the best form of contraception.
If the woman takes a risk on the viability of other forms of contraception during her peak fertility times, she also takes the responsibility of accepting the consequences.
I am opposed to most forms of abortion; particularly when it is used as nothing more than birth control. The abortion pill is therefore anathema to me. However, it exists and for the Little Mary Sunshines out there who want to get rid of the “parasite” it is a viable solution.
I suggest you women talk with your physicians about Plan B. I will be shocked and amazed if you are given an “emergency” supply.
When you have failed to take responsibility for your own well being, it is not an “emergency.” It is the crisis of consequences.
I suspect that many feminists do not like clear and precise language, because it harms their crusade.
Men should take responsibility to the max for their “wild oats.” But, biologically, women are the ones who pay the most for the fling. If that makes a woman angry, perhaps she should seriously consider having herself made barren.
Zakia, your non sequitur about pain killers is disturbing. Pain killers are addictive and cause nasty problems. Hormone abuse is in a league of its own. You should study it a bit on the net, Start with cancer.
But I agree
Lets agree to disagree, you don’t have to answer my last post
I am opposed to most forms of abortion; particularly when it is used as nothing more than birth control. The abortion pill is therefore anathema to me. However, it exists and for the Little Mary Sunshines out there who want to get rid of the “parasite†it is a viable solution.
I don’t understand why you can express such concern over the over-use of emergency contraception, yet you throw abortion out there as though it is a safer and easier option than not getting pregnant in the first place. I view hormonal birth control like cigarettes — I won’t touch it — but I view EC like a smoke-filled room in a house on fire: far stronger than a single cigarette, but necessary in hypothetical circumstances that I hope never to find myself in. I don’t like oral contraceptives or emergency contraception, but I like them a lot more than I like a high abortion rate; and I certainly like the idea of getting EC from a doctor in an emergency more than I like the idea of an unwanted pregnancy or, heaven forbid, an abortion.
I suggest you women talk with your physicians about Plan B. I will be shocked and amazed if you are given an “emergency†supply.
I have an emergency supply. I don’t ever plan to use it, but I got a prescription for it in case some situation should ever arise that would make me feel like I need it for some reason.
When you have failed to take responsibility for your own well being, it is not an “emergency.†It is the crisis of consequences.
I agree, but I do not think that every situation in which a woman would want emergency contraception results from a failure to take responsibility for herself. Many do, and those women bother me, but there’s not much I can do about them without preventing women who ‘deserve’ the medication from getting it.
(sigh) “Emergency contraception” is a feel good construct. It is last ditch pregnancy prevention……if it works.
I never said there was over-use of Plan B. But in the hands of many women, it would be like taking aspirin.
You got your little stash. Now it is your responsibility entirely if you use it and suffer adverse reactions.
Apparently many women long for the mythical “morning after” pill. Such a pill should be effective and have no adverse effects. Mothers can put them in their daughter’s orange juice in the morning, “just in case.” Well, it hasn’t been discovered. Just like the pill that will let you eat anything and lots of it without gaining weight.
The abortion pill creates very, very harsh adverse reactions in many women. Other forms of abortion are physically and psychologically damaging as well. And yet, all of this is breezily treated as a mere “choice.”
The “choice” occurred when the woman did not abstain during her most fertile days of the month.
In the meanwhile, when contraception fails (as it sometimes does) there are women demanding “emergency” ……. What is the difference between the pregnancy being possibly averted at the last minute and the abortion pill a day or so later? As I stated before, it is a distinction without a difference.
What will the woman who demands and is able to acquire “emergency contraception”, yet turns up pregnant do next? Give up and have the child and be a wonderful parent?
You got your little stash. Now it is your responsibility entirely if you use it and suffer adverse reactions.
Apparently many women long for the mythical “morning after†pill. Such a pill should be effective and have no adverse effects. Mothers can put them in their daughter’s orange juice in the morning, “just in case.†Well, it hasn’t been discovered. Just like the pill that will let you eat anything and lots of it without gaining weight.
I know these things. I take responsibility for my own health, and as I’ve mentioned before, I don’t use hormonal contraception at all. I don’t understand why you switch to lecturing me on obvious side effects, that I have clearly demonstrated knowledge of, when all I said was that I did not have the difficulty you predicted in securing an emergency supply of medication I hope never to use. The hospital near me is a Catholic hospital. I’m comforted by the knowledge that if I were ever raped and could not get to a doctor willing to prescribe the medication, I would still have access to it.
In the meanwhile, when contraception fails (as it sometimes does) there are women demanding “emergency†……. What is the difference between the pregnancy being possibly averted at the last minute and the abortion pill a day or so later? As I stated before, it is a distinction without a difference.
Well, there are vast financial differences and, as I’ve mentioned before, I’ve never heard of a single case of a woman dying as a result of taking Plan B, which I can’t say for RU-486. The physical effects of medical abortion are more painful than the physical effects of Plan B. And, of course, there’s the obvious, where in one situation a child is not created and in the other a child is created and killed. I guess I don’t see a dead baby to be the same thing as no baby.
And i’ll bet the same ones that support killing their fetuses are the same ones who have SAVE THE WHALES, SAVE THE RAINFORSTS, SAVE THE REDWOODS, SAVE THE SPOTTED OWL, bumper stickers or belong to PETA and are radical animal rights wackos and veggie freaks
#96 BIRDZILLA
They claim that it is “emergency contraception” and any death to an embryo is coincidental.
They seem to have a sixth sense about whether conception has taken place.
And, what the “hey” if contraception has taken place, they are only thinking of what is best for…… for…… for……. for…….
This was sure a lot of hot air wasted on a total bull shit story. Do you all just want to debate? Why do you give the “biting beaver” the time of day or waste your time on this crock of Bull? Were you all born yesterday? HELLO??
Comments on this entry are closed.