I hope your wife's doctors told her it's not 100% foolproof. You can conceive if you take them every day. It's unlikely that it will fail, but it's possible. THEN you can have all those moral and ethical dilemmas.
I wasn't paying attention to what? I don't think that the effects of the pill is abortive and lots of people disagree with me. I'm also pro-choice, and perhapse in a more radical way than you. Still I respect people who think diffrently. If a woman has moral issues with taking birth-controle-pills then she should find an alternative. But whatever that alternative is it's only a different way to achive the same thing. What I really dislike is people who try to force their morality on others.
So you are pro-Murder and pro-Rape and pro-Extortion then? What other immoral actions don't bother you? You know some (most?) people's take on being pro-Life primarily has to do with protecting the unborn child rather than controlling the woman's decision-making process (who cares about that, really!).
I don't know if they mentioned it specifically -- I think that much information is assumed to be common knowledge (and again, should it be?). It doesn't much matter in her case since she does have the wherewithal to get the requisite information on her own and maybe it's just that the doctor could see plainly enough that she was already well-educated on the subject (but then, why insist that there are minimal side-effects when it is obvious anecdotally (see Mrs. JB's post) that there are significant side-effects?). As for the failure rate, it is hard to tell exactly what it is. How much of the Pill's effectiveness can be attributed to preempting ovulation, how much to slowing conception, and how much to preventing attachment? The woman taking it won't be able to tell the difference.
Mrs JB: there are regular picketers at Planned Parenthood? Honestly? It's such an innocuous organisation to me... huh. Well, there's a do-it-yourself morning after pill anyway. Take four of your normal pills morning and night for a day... same dosage, same effect (depending on the regular dosage of your original pill, of course, which you should know anyway). Pretty simple. Makes you nauseous on an epic scale (and that was the normal dose women got in the early sixties! Yikes!). I'm never taking the pill again anyway. I'm convinced it actually works by making your sex drive non-existent. Ohhhh, I think that's a dangerous assertion... abortion was really only illegal in western countries for a century, and that century was filled with unprecedentedly widespread feminist movements... I don't think that's necessarily coincidence. I would have to research that more... By the way, it would be *incredibly* unlikely for someone to conceive taking the pill every day *unless*: they had diarrhea or vomiting; their time taking the pill was irregular; *or* (and no one in this country appears to know this) they take a lot of Vitamin C (I was specifically warned not to take Vitamin C tablets by my doctor when I was on it, because for some reason the pill's effects are lessened by it). Wacky.
Ok...I read this thread the other day...and I must say, given my views on the topic, it did concern me. Talked about it with my wife a little. So what's the rundown here exactly??? SOME pills (but not all?) can actually allow for conception, but just disallow the ability of the fertilized egg to attach??? Which pills do that??? Which ones don't do it??? Does anyone else have any more info on this??? thanks in advance for your help....
Ok, I think we need some solid numbers on this. I've heard the "*incredibly* unlikely" line before which sounds to me a lot like the "oh, the side effects are minimal." What's the % chance? I personally don't know and don't know where I can find honest data either. If you can bring some numbers, I'll send you a check for fifty dollars (checks will not be honored) ! I think it is important to the discussion because I've seen quite a few people now hide behind the it-never-happens argument. Max, it is my understanding that different manufacturers rely on the two hormones to different extents but most if not all use both at least somewhat. My understanding is only minimally informed, however. I believe my wife is probably lurking and when she reads this, she can email me any web addresses she knows and I'll post the links.
Moral is something individual and personal. You think these actions are immoral - and I happen to agree - but more importantly they are forbidden by law. An action can not be immoral, it can only be considered to be immoral.
And abortion used to be forbidden by law. When will we flip-flop on the other issues (murder et al)? Of course, I hope we don't. The point is that the short-sightedness of a woman's right has trampled over the child's right to life. So what caused an action once considered immoral to become considered moral?
So what caused an action once considered immoral to become considered moral? Times change. Same thing that caused pre-marital sex to go from immoral to moral. Or slavery to go from moral or immoral. It used to be acceptable to treat women as second-class people. As women gained more rights, someone else had to lose those rights (if women have the the right to vote, then men have less voting power, etc). In the case of abortion, women's rights trumped a fetus' rights in many people's minds. Is it right? That's a question that can only be answered by an individual. It still really all comes down to whether someone thinks a fetus is a human being or not, and while everyone likes to believe they are right on that issue, there is no right answer to the question.
It's a tough one, I know. I err on the side of caution for the loss of innocent child/human life on the abortion issue but I won't hesitate to go to war if necessary and suffer the loss of innocent life that is unavoidable there. What really rubs me is the willingness of people to sacrifice the life of a child rather than suffer the inconvenience of delivering the baby-- even if it means turning it over for adoption. Whether or not you believe it is a child in the 10th week of pregnancy or not, IT WILL COME OUT A HUMAN CHILD 100% OF THE TIME IF LEFT ALONE. Isn't allowing abortion just a plainly self-serving point of view? It devalues life-- something we are typically critical of. How is it easer to live with the fact that you have terminated the life of your offspring rather than living with the knowledge that somewhere it has loving parents that sing him/her to sleep, smother him/her with kisses, and make him/her animal-shaped pancakes on beautiful Saturday mornings? That just bewilders me. In my opinion, we are less humane for this national position. Is that the kind of advancement/ improvement that we wish to be credited for?!?
Well, the sad fact is that most kids put up for adoption don't get this. If we knew that every child would, I'm guessing abortions would be even lower than they are now (there aren't that many of them).
How do you know? I am generally aware of many eager and qualified adoptive parents who still cannot get children to adopt. Are you trying to say that women abort babies because they don't think there will be someone to adopt them. Quick, someone get me a glass of water... and a chair!
What really rubs me is the willingness of people to sacrifice the life of a child rather than suffer the inconvenience of delivering the baby-- even if it means turning it over for adoption. I agree with you on this. I *wish* less people would choose to have abortions. I just don't think it's right to make it illegal. The way I look at it is that there are two types of laws: safety/reality laws and morality laws. The first set is things like speed limits, seat belts, littering, business regulations, etc. These are all things that are done to make society a nicer and better and "more fair" place to live. The second set includes things like drug laws, rape, murder, assault, burglary, etc. That second bunch is illegal primarily because there is a dominant morality that everyone agrees with. Safety laws don't really need popular support to work, but the morality laws do. 99.9% of Americans think murder is wrong and rape is wrong, etc. Drugs are kind of a middle road right now, but still a vast number of Americans think they should be illegal (as a whole). Abortion would fit here, but there's no dominant belief with abortion, so I think it's hard to make a law against it. Prohibition is an example of this. It was a morality law that was done without the support of the people. What happens is basically a revolt against the law. If 90% of Americans were anti-abortion, I would have no problem with abortion being illegal, personally. But if it's 50/50, I feel like it's something that just needs to be left alone until a strong majority appears on either side.
Have to ask: would you look askance at rape and slavery as crimes if the popularity of those moral crimes waned. As our mothers used to say, "Just because it's popular, doesn't make it right!" Are there any absolutes?
Actually abortion was forbidden by law in some states (probably most states) and legal in others. You could go to a state with legal abortions and have one performed with no legal consequences. As a matter of fact, that was one of the arguments of "Roe". She lived in Texas where most abortions were illegal and claimed she could not afford to travel to a jurisdiction where abortions were legal. If I am not mistaken, the supreme court decision allows abortions for any reason in the first trimester and leaves it up to the states for trimesters 2 and 3. With respect to the actual law, I find it interesting that it is a federal issue the first trimester and a state issue the remaining times. Also, the supreme court leaves it up to the states as to whether or not to have a death penalty. NOTE: I am not comparing the two actions. I am simply remarking as to why the laws seem inconsistent. It would seem better for these situations (and others) to either have it all be federally mandated, or all be state mandated.
I think Major's point was that it is hard to change an exisiting law when there is not an overwhelming majority in favor of the change, so why attempt to make a change that would be difficult to enact. In order for your example to fit, then rape and slavery would have to be condoned by a huge majority. I find it hard to believe that would ever happen.
Have to ask: would you look askance at rape and slavery as crimes if the popularity of those moral crimes waned. As our mothers used to say, "Just because it's popular, doesn't make it right!" Are there any absolutes? If 50% of Americans thought rape or murder was OK, then yes, I think we'd have to reevaluate things. Our society would be in deep trouble if that ever occurred (assuming any people were left, given that half of Americans thought it ok to kill people randomly ). However, things like murder have been illegal in every society because they are universally considered immoral. Slavery certainly used to be acceptable -- while it's a horrible thing to our current standards, I'm not going to go back and say they were all immoral people back then. It was just a different time with a different standard. Disgusting to us now, but that's what people thought was normal back then. The problem that you've created is this. If half of Americans thought things like rape and murder were OK, then that means there's a hell of a lot of rapes going on and people are being murdered left and right. Rather than trying to fight to keep it illegal, I wouldn't be willing to live in the country. I -- and probably a chunk of the other 50% who agreed -- would probably get the hell out.
