If you thought the radical anti-choice movement limited their dangerous accusations of murder and genocide to late-term abortions... think again.
This Saturday is a nationwide protest in order to call attention to the nationwide mass murder that is.... birth control pills ? Seriously...
On Saturday, June 6, pro-lifers across the country will be participating in the largest protest ever against the birth control pill and other birth control products. Last year, participants across the United States shared the facts on exactly how the pill kills babies . This year, we will expose the sordid details surrounding the tragic effects these chemicals have on women. We will emphasize the truth about how the pill kills women .
These delusional folks are encouraging people to show up at Planned Parenthood clinics all over the country. Gee, I wonder if any people crazy enough to think that regular birth control murders hundreds of millions of "people" per year will resort to violence? Oh no... that could never happen from such "pro-life" role models.... right?
This is the true face of the anti-choice movement: blatant lies, scare tactics, and hyperbolic accusations of "murder".
And this is the face that the anti-choice movement often tries to hide behind a mask of mainstream "moderation". Amanda Marcotte at RH Reality Check recently discovered an anti-choice activist handbook that gives tips on how to debate people on this issue without sounding as crazy as they really are.
For example, check out how they recommend dealing with the issue of birth control:
In the section titled "Why Don't You Pass Out Condoms and Promote Birth Control?," the authors tacitly admit that sensible people might be put off by the anti-choice movement's willingness to increase the abortion rate by standing as firmly against contraception, especially the birth control pill, as they do legal abortion. So instead of allowing members to admit their hostility to all forms of contraception, they instruct them to conceal their beliefs until a target has been softened up to hear about their true message--sexual abstinence for all not trying to procreate--through a series of dodgy, misleading arguments, including misinformation about how the birth control pill works.
This tactic is a mainstay of the anti-choice movement: it shows one face to the initiated, and another to the public, especially on the topic of contraception. Once you realize this, the movement's half-hearted denunciations of Dr. Tiller's murder, coupled with the enthusiastic return to calling Dr. Tiller a monster, become all the more chilling.
Chilling indeed. Because the true face of this movement not only considers Dr. George Tiller a genocidal murderer... they consider the millions of women around the country who take birth control as murderers, too.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Pill Kills? Um... no..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14127
Bear with me a moment.
So here's what I've read, from the pro-life side:
the pill works three ways at once - preventing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus to prevent sperm from getting to eggs, and preventing implantation by making the endometrium less hospitable to implantation.
Is this true? Or are they lying about this?
If this is true, particularly the part about preventing implantation, and you also believe that a fertilized egg is a human life, then yes the pill can kill. I am not trying to convince you of this, I am only saying that the argument is consistent from the pro-life side and not dishonest.
Now, where is the pro-choice counter to this argument? Is this not how the pill actually works? If so this is a factual dispute, and the pro-lifers very well might be distributing misinformation - sadly, I know they have no problems doing this if it supports their side of things. Is the counter argument that a fertilized egg is not yet a human person? If so this is a philosophical debate.
I have seen well written arguments referring to medical sources on the pro-life side of this. This of course doesn't mean they are right.
But where is a pro-choice explanation? Does anyone have a pro-choice refutation of the pro-life argument (links, sources etc appreciated)? All I have seen on the pro-choice side is glib dismissal of the pro-life argument. This works well among people who already agree, but I'm looking for something that might sway someone who is in the middle on these issues. (full disclosure that person is me).
So watcha got?
Thanks.
I have been on the pill for a number of years and have never read the third point (preventing implantation by making the endometrium less hospitable) in any of the documentation of any of the pills that I have been on. Nor has that been described by my doctor. I am curious to know what they even mean by that. Make it less hospitable how? I would be interested in hearing a very thorough explanation of exactly what that point means before I accepted it. The main way in which the pill prevents contraception is by preventing the ovaries from releasing eggs. If the pill is taken properly, eggs should not ever be released while on the pill. I fail to see how then birth control is killing anything. It's only preventing the steps that could lead to pregnancy from occuring.
The progestin-only pill works like this -
1. It prevents ovulation.
2. It thickens the mucus between the uterus and the vagina (this makes it harder for the sperm to reach the egg in case an egg does get released).
3. It may also affect the lining of the uterus (this makes it harder for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus, in case a sperm does reach the egg).
It's a potential third line of defense.
I have read the 'thins the endometrium so a fertilized egg can't implant' in my patient info sheets. However, that's highly, highly unlikely since the main effect of the pill is preventing ovulation in the first place.
And even if it didn't, it's a whole hell of a stretch to call that 'killing a baby.' The pro-life arguments about heartbeats and fingers and toes don't hold water when we're talking about a single fertilized egg. That egg is in no way a baby - at that point it represents the potential to form a fetus under the right conditions.
The arguments about heartbeats and fingers strike me as curious, since it seems to be an implicit assumption that these things are a substantive part of being a person, yet the official pro- life line is that life begins at conception and full personhood comes into being at that moment.
If you really think about the official line adopted by the pro- life movement, it is a very extreme and brittle point of view. It ultimately requires acceptance of the notion that a newly fertilized embryo has the same moral standing as any born person. By this logic, killing 50 embryos and killing 50 people on the street are morally indistinguishable. It also explains why they believe that establishing the notion that a pill can work to reduce the chance of implantation means that it "kills." Very, very few Americans, (10-15%, tops) would actually accept this argument, and almost all of that group do so on religious grounds, not because they are persuaded by the secular argument, and the pro- lifers know it. But they cannot liberalize their position, because if they did, they would have to acknowledge that the question of when life begins in a moral, philosophical sense isn't quite so clear-cut.
And really, once you reach that point it is not a big step at all toward the notion that reasonable people can disagree on the question and that the government therefore is not competent to legislate the answer. Which is what pro- choicers have been saying all along.
I am inclined to believe that a new human life begins at conception. I believe from that point, everything should be done to help that life survive.
But I realize that this is a personal belief and more religious and philosophical than scientifically factual, and I do not support forcing a pregnant woman to bear a child.
I also do not believe a one celled human has the same moral status of a born human. I'm not a philosopher, but if a fertility clinic was burning down and I had time to save on born human person from the building or a tank of fifty frozen fertilized eggs, I'd save the person. And I think everyone would, and I think that's the right thing.
I am a christian and my views are informed by Christ. Whatever you do for the least, you do for me, he said. One cell if pretty much the least. Christ died for us, so what is dying to yourself for 9 months so that another human can live? That is my position, and I would try to convince someone else of it, but I wouldn't force them to do it. Also, it's pretty fucking easy to say when I'm a man and I will never face the decision.
It's something of a lonely position, though. I'm sure most people on this blog will think I'm nuts, all this Jesus talk and my beliefs about single celled humans. Many fellow catholics would call me pro-abortion, or even pro-death, or say the I'm not a "real" catholic because I voted for Obama and I want to "let people kill babies."
I am Catholic, pro-choice, and voted for Obama. No one, including Catholics, should be a single-issue voter; life and politics are more complicated than than.
And if you look at ALL of the Catholic social justice teachings,pretty much every one of them except the one concerning abortion is firmly liberal, so I actually often wonder how Catholics can vote for Republicans. *All* of the Catholics I've done social justice organizing with were staunch Democrats. It is people pushing a right-wing agenda for their own purposes who try to hide/minimize/ignore/reduce the social justice teachings until they erroneously center on the single issue of abortion. Unfortunately that often includes clergy.
Not to be critical, but just to understand your position, would you say that:
Given that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is intrinsically evil, and therefore outranks other social justice issues, would you say that you are not in communion with the Catholic Church on this point?
Yes, I disagree with the Church on this issue, as do many Catholics. I still go to communion and consider myself fully Catholic, though.
A fellow pro-choice Catholic put it this way: for some reason, there is room to fudge (just war doctrine) with what is and is not considered justifiable murder during state-sanctioned warfare. War is the result of decisions made (still) primarily by men, yet for some reason with abortion, which is chosen and exercised by women, there is absolutely no wiggle room and always and only considered nothing less than murder, no matter how compelling and necessary the woman deems it to be.
We are 'allowed' to choose war but not abortion, even though both are supposedly considered evil by the Church. Yet literally millions of Catholics serve in the military, vote in favor of war, and see nothing wrong with fatal combat. If they can consider themselves in communion with the Church, so can I IMO. We have to trust political leaders on the issue of war, but we can't listen to our own consciences on the issue of abortion? Doesn't make sense to me at all.
Why would you remain a member of a church if its teachings don't make any sense?
To me, choosing a church or religion is a lot like voting. You might vote for a candidate despite the fact that you don't agree with him or her on every policy detail, but the overall picture is something you're behind. And you pay the most attention to the issues that are the most important to you. I don't think there's a single church out there that I could completely, 100% agree with on all of its teachings. Compared to a lot of other religions, the Catholic Church is fairly liberal. The Catholics are down with evolution, while evangelicals claim the earth is 4,000 years old. But anyways, there are definitely Catholic teachings that rankle me a little, just like some of Obama's policies rankle me a little (but I still voted for him, and think he's a good president).
lol - given the Caholic Church's teachings on an all male priesthood, abortion, contraception, Original Sin, sin, Biblical exegesis, homosexuality, sexuality, holding virginity a virtue, marriage, hell, purgatory, Final Judgment, eternal damnation, etc. - I think that is the first time here, let alone anywhere, that I have heard the Catholic Church referred to as being more liberal than other churches - usually it's the other way around.
Catholics as a group are more liberal than others. Obama gave the commencement speech at Notre Dame this year, a Catholic University. Do you think an evangelical school would have ever invited Obama to give the commencement speech? A recent gallup poll indicated that 61% of Catholics find the death penalty morally acceptable...compared to 68% of non-Catholics. 54% of Catholics found homosexual relationships morally acceptable...compared to 45% of non-Catholics. 61% of Catholics found having a child outside of marriage morally acceptable...compared to 52% of non-Catholics. 71% found divorce morally acceptable...compared to 66% of non-Catholics. You get the picture.
In your opinion, why the disconnect between the Catholic Church teaching one thing, and her children believing the contrary?
I hate that I am contributing to the derailment of this topic, but I can't stop myself! It seems you are comparing Catholicism to evangelicals, but you also say Catholics compared to "others". I was raised in the UCC (united church of christ) which happens to also be what Obama grew up with (somewhat irrelevant tho to my point). My church IS the most liberal Christian church. Universal Unitarians I believe are the most liberal period, but I do not believe they consider themselves Christians. I think they accept a wide range of beliefs in their church. The UCC was the first church to openly accept homosexuals in the church, we've had some commercials showing our acceptance of every walk of life, every background, etc. Also, we have the basic premise that: if you believe in the bible (whatever your interpretation of it is!) and Jesus, you're cool with us. Seriously. That's it. There's no extra rules, no expectations on how to interpret the bible or christianity. Just saying.
I had to point that out, because my family would absolutely recoil at the thought that the UCC is more conservative than the Catholic Church!! Anti-birth control? Yikes! No women as priests? I mean, talk about extremes and hypocrisy, the Pope came out about a month ago against using social networking sites, and then the Catholic church launched their own!! I think if Catholics are "more liberal as a group", it would be because they are not following their religion. No offense. Just that is exactly why my mom brought us up in UCC. We didn't have to pick & choose. We just believe what we believe and that's OK in the UCC. Sorry to be kinda preachy on here.
I'm not sure if it's my computer or not, but most of the text in the comment is cut off, so unfortunately I can't respond very well, but I will say one more thing. You wouldn't assume that the actions or beliefs of the President represent the views of all Americans; you wouldn't even assume that it represents the views of the people who voted for him. It's the same way with Catholics and the pope. Most Catholics do not agree with everything the pope says or does, but they won't just up and leave the church. And yes, the no women priests thing is unfair and stupid. There are, however, some religions that allow women to be ministers but simultaneously preach that good wives are submissive and women should be kept in the home (Pentecostals, for example). I try to look at the whole picture. I know the Catholic church isn't perfect, but it's not nearly as awful as a lot of people would have you believe.
I must admit agreement with era4allNOW, that "if Catholics are "more liberal as a group", it would be because they are not following their religion."
This is very reasonable, and leaves me wondering why if someone thinks that some of the defining teachings of their church are "unfair and stupid," that they would remain a member.
Well, I'm a member because I believe in things that only Catholics believe in - Transubstantiation, for instance, and canonized saints, devotions to the Virgin Mary, and that can't simply declare oneself saved and get a free pass into heaven, etc., and especially with the *mandate* (rather than a optional suggestion) that one work for social justice in order to attain salvation.
It's probably hard for a atheist/agnostic/etc. to wrap her mind around that, but there are compelling teachings and rituals unique to Catholicism that keep me within the fold.
I'm what traditional Catholics sneeringly refer to as a 'cafeteria Catholic.' I wear the label with pride.
And seriously, look up the social justice stuff. Most of it is liberal except for abortion. Catholics who actually follow the social justice rules (as opposed to just the doctrinal ones) are indeed very liberal. Sure, most of us are not in the Church for the same reasons as the people who do only the 'faith' part and not the mandated 'action' part, but we're very much there.
http://salt.claretianpubs.org/
And no, I'm not trying to convert you (I'm not one of THOSE, LOL).
I too am a Catholic. I just couldn't understand how someone can profess to be a Catholic, and not accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church. That's why I kept asking the question, because I truly wanted to understand.
However, in your last 2 replies you wrote something that is scandalous for a Catholic: "one work for social justice in order to attain salvation". That is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. I would advice you to go to whoever taught you that and ask for proof that that is what the Catholic Church teaches. Pull out your Catechism, look under salvation and justification, and you will clearly see that that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. I must speak up on this, because I love the Catholic Church like a mother, and must speak up when fellow Catholics are, whether they know it or not, which I assume you don't, making statements about the salvation of one's soul that are in conflict with what the Catholic Church teaches. To say that we must work for social justice to attain salvation, for a Catholic, is a heretical statement.
Back to my original statement, I did want to understand, truly I did. But I now realize that there is nothing to understand; to say that you are FULLY a Catholic, yet don't FULLY accept the Catholic Church's teachings is nonsense.
I should also add, that concerning the Catholic Church's social-justice teachings, I have read ALL of the encyclicals that are the foundation of those teachings, the source from which the Catholic Church's social-justice doctrines flow, and have a copy of "The Compendium of Social Doctrine of the [Catholic] Church" on my book shelf. NOWHERE is it taught that working for social justice takes precedence over the faith aspects of the Faith, which actually come first, and social justice must be understood in light of.
I didn't say social justice takes precedence over faith; of course faith is the highest and most basic priority. I meant that faith must be put into action. Protestants believe faith alone gets them into heaven; Catholics believe in faith + works. That is a simplistic way of stating it, of course, but that is one of the basic, fundamental differences between Catholics and Protestants.
And I hate to ask this, but...if you accept ALL the teachings of the Church, how do you consider yourself a feminist? Or do you not consider yourself a feminist? Because that is something I'd like to understand also. I'm not talking just about abortion...some of the other things you cited as not liberal - all-male priesthood, etc.
I'm not a feminist. One day I was reading an article, and I realized that I didn't know what feminists believe, so I went searching and found this website. So I come here to read what feminists write, what issues are important to them, how they understnd their issues, etc. This is a feminist community, and I respect that, so I usually don't comment, but read [listen], if only to better understand feminists. That way if I did ever run into a feminist, I would at least understand where she is coming from, and even strive to find some common ground, so that we can at least have some kind of peaceful co-existance, even if there are a lot of fundamental issues we don't agree on. And by better understanding feminists, I am in a better postion to try and convert you :) lol
TWP-
The longest, tallest, thinnest, most interesting derail ever. Congrats. I too am Catholic, but I struggle to agree with the church on everything. I conform with my own actions, but I can't help but think they are wrong on some issues (my comments will show). These ladies make a lot of sense, sometimes, wouldn't you agree? A haiku:
Here, the church is wrong.
But they say they're always right!
They're wrong on that too.
I pray about it. Would you suggest anything else? How come you know so much? Are you a priest?
Thanks for your kind words. I'm not a priest, just someone who loves the Catholic Church, to read, and to think; they go together extremely well (and also defend the Catholic Faith against misinformed Protestants). Prayer is the best first start, and best place to end. I would also recommend, before rejecting any of the teachings of the Magisterium of Mother Church, to first be able to fully explain what it is you're rejecting. May the Most Blessed Sacrament strengthen you.
And if you look at this Gallup poll, you'll see that most American Catholics don't differ much from the rest of the country with respect to the percentage of the population with respect to abortion and stem cell research:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
And that was a horribly ungrammatical post! The nuns would rap me over the knuckles with a ruler for that one! :)
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you, but if someone without the ability to bear children asked me, a person with a fully-functioning female reproductive system, the following question:
"Christ died for us, so what is dying to yourself for 9 months so that another human can live?"
I would completely disregard anything else they said for the rest of the conversation.
Yep.
Why?
Because comparing Jesus dying for our sins to a woman carrying out an unwanted pregnancy is a false comparison. Anyone can choose to die for other people's sins, because anyone can die. Only women can choose to carry out a pregnancy to birth. It's like an immortal person saying to a mortal person, hey what's wrong with dying, it's not so bad!
First I would tell you to disregard my sex or reproductive ability status, because there are women with childbearing ability (ones with and without children) who would make the same point.
Second, the statement wasn't really meant to appeal to you if you aren't a christian (obvsly). I was describing my own thought process about it.
If you aren't a christian, there are a couple of christian ideas that might apply to you as they aren't exclusively christian and apply to many people. Do to others what you'd like done to you, and watch out for and protect the least in society - the downtrodden and defenseless. A one-celled human is defeneseless, unarguably. You might agree that if you were a one-celled human, you would want to live and therefor you'd want to let another one live, even at a cost to you.
If you really think it's just a cell to be discarded as easily as a skin cell, then I don't have any further argument to make here.
"First I would tell you to disregard my sex or reproductive ability status, because there are women with childbearing ability (ones with and without children) who would make the same point."
See, I can't disregard your ability (or lack thereof) to bear children when the topic at hand is whether or not the state should be allowed to require compulsory childbirth for everyone who becomes pregnant. Such a requirement would directly affect the bodies and health of those with the ability to become pregnant, so I and others like me would be punished in a way you and others like you (i.e. not able to bear children) could never experience and could only imagine.
The fact that people with childbearing ability make the same point is not really relevant, since the point in question is that Jesus dying for our sins is somehow comparable to a woman deciding to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.
"Second, the statement wasn't really meant to appeal to you if you aren't a christian (obvsly). I was describing my own thought process about it."
I don't make statements in comments that are meant to only appeal to people who agree with me, because nobody agrees with me entirely on everything. By making comments, I expect to have some people agree and some people disagree, and others feel indifferent. If, in "describing my own thought process," someone disagrees and says so, then they have the right to do that in a public forum where discussion and dissent are encouraged.
"If you aren't a christian, there are a couple of christian ideas that might apply to you as they aren't exclusively christian and apply to many people. Do to others what you'd like done to you, and watch out for and protect the least in society - the downtrodden and defenseless."
Yes, I believe in these things, though I do not identify as a Christian. To me, "do unto others what you'd like done to you" and "protect the least in society" means advocating for equal rights for born people and helping the downtrodden who are already alive.
"A one-celled human is defeneseless, unarguably. You might agree that if you were a one-celled human, you would want to live and therefor you'd want to let another one live, even at a cost to you."
If I were a one-celled human, I wouldn't be able to ponder life or death, or consider the possibility that there are others like me who may also want to live. And, it's convenient that you're referring to the "life" in question as a one-celled human, disregarding the fact that the "cost" to me entails growing that one-celled human inside my uterus for nine months until it becomes decidedly larger than one cell before its exit.
"If you really think it's just a cell to be discarded as easily as a skin cell, then I don't have any further argument to make here."
Which is fine.
"See, I can't disregard your ability (or lack thereof) to bear children when the topic at hand is whether or not the state should be allowed to require compulsory childbirth for everyone who becomes pregnant."
When did that become the topic? In my comment that you replied to I said "I do not support forcing a pregnant woman to bear a child."
When you are imploring women to be Christ-like and sacrifice their well-being, no matter what, so that their fertilized eggs may one day become actual people, and when you are arguing that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a born child, you have to realize that what you say smacks of "compassionate" anti-choice rhetoric that justifies the restriction of women's right to choose. Even if you don't believe in forcing women to bear children, your dedication to trying to convince the readers of this blog that abortion is still not a good idea very much places state-mandated childbirth at the forefront of the discussion. If this is not your intention, you could have fooled me.
Well, the main way that the combination birth control pills (estrogen + progestin) work is to suppress ovulation. The mini pill (progestin only) may prevent ovulation or it may prevent sperm from entering the uterus/preventing fertilized eggs from implanting.
I look at it like this. It is a philosophical/religious opinion whether life begins at conception. So you can have the opinion that the pill prevents life or even stops life, but it doesn't "kill babies". And since not everyone shares that belief, it's wrong to impose one's morals on everyone else. So if you consider a fertilized egg to be a person, then don't take the pill... but don't interfere with my access to it.
Although this year's campaign is "The Pill Kills Women", which is full of misrepresentations and exaggerations on how how OMG THE PILL IS GONNA KILL ME. Now there are risks to using hormonal contraception, but both campaigns are based on scare tactics and misinformation.
Yeah, I'm not even interested in the "pill kills women stuff they are selling. I know that's all just plain wrong.
I don't agree with anyone trying to limit access to the pill, or spreading misinformation about it. But I'm trying to figure out what's the truth about that one issue - does it stop implantation of a fertilized egg?
Thanks for your reply. I'll check out your slutty, evil blog. ;)
I tried finding primary research (not reviews) on the effects of oral contraceptives on implantation, and it seems pretty scanty. The primary research seems to focus exclusively on integrins, which are molecules that help certain cells bind to surfaces in the body (for example, some integrins allow white blood cells to bind to the walls of blood vessels so that they can enter the thymus). I'm assuming the integrins mentioned in these articles bind the zygote, or fertilized egg, to the surface of the endometrium, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the few papers I found said that integrin expression is different between women on oral BC and women not on oral BC, so it's feasible that oral BC could prevent implantation of a zygote.
With that being said, a significant percentage of zygotes naturally fail to implant in the uterus. When I took a sex & reproduction class, I was thought the percentage was about 66%, but the one paper I found gave the percentage as 30%. Either way, human zygotes frequently fail to implant even in the absence of BC. If the zygote is indeed to be considered "human life," then God/human biology/whatever is doing a pretty good job of "killing" life already.
Gah, that should read "I was taught the percentage was about66%."
I read it just like you meant.
I'm currently on the pill, and (like most feministing readers, I assume) adamantly pro-choice. But re: the pill "killing women"... while it is rare, the pill can cause fatal blood clots. My aunt got a deep vein thrombosis (blood clot in the leg) that her doctor attributed to the pill. They put her on a bunch of drugs and she's totally fine now (though off the pill) but they told her that if it had gone undetected, the clot could have broken off and traveled to her lung and killed her.
When I went on the pill for the first time a few months ago, I decided to finally stop smoking for good, because that increases the risk of getting clots.
What I'm getting at is that the pill isn't totally risk free for women. While anti-choicers manipulate this fact for their anti-woman agenda, I don't think it does feminists, or women, any good to completely deny that.
Just who, exactly, is denying that the pill isn't right for everyone? Who have you seen saying that it has no health risks?
The risk of blood clots with any pills containing estrogen is very well known. Furthermore, smoking increases your risk of blood clots a LOT. You should never smoke while taking birth control. If doctors aren't telling women this, I'm a little disturbed, honestly. Please, everyone, ask your doctors about the risks of your medications! Read the patient information that you get at the pharmacy! I'm one of the women who can't take the pill because I get migraines with aura, which apparently significantly increases my stroke risk as well. So no estrogen for me. But this is all readily accessible information, all told to me by doctors, and there is no reason to scare women off from using what can be a very safe and effective contraceptive for no good reason like the anti-choicers are doing.
audenc, I know you already saw my comment further down, but since it is way down there, here is the info on blood clots for others:
The main thrust of their argument that the pill kills is that it causes blood clots that can kill you, which is true. However, you are twice as likely to develop blood clots due to PREGNANCY, and you are far more likely to die from blood clots just from being a smoker (whether or not you use birth control pills). Yet they are not protesting pregnancy or cigarettes.
Second, the risk of dying from complications due to oral contraceptives (assuming you are not in a risk group- above 35 and smoker) is 0.06 people per 100,000 people. The risk of dying from pregnancy is 11.5 per 100,000. Riding a bike is far more dangerous at 0.8 per 100,000.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1146-Seattle-Eastside-Parenting-Examiners~y2009m6d5-Protest-the-Pill-Day--Hurting-women-by-spreading-lies
I have been on the pill for a number of years and have never read the third point (preventing implantation by making the endometrium less hospitable) in any of the documentation of any of the pills that I have been on. Nor has that been described by my doctor. I am curious to know what they even mean by that. Make it less hospitable how? I would be interested in hearing a very thorough explanation of exactly what that point means before I accepted it. The main way in which the pill prevents contraception is by preventing the ovaries from releasing eggs. If the pill is taken properly, eggs should not ever be released while on the pill. I fail to see how then birth control is killing anything. It's only preventing the steps that could lead to pregnancy from occuring.
I mean, I don't understand why the pro-choice movement must come up with a refutation of the "argument" that the Pill kills babies. Fertilized eggs are not people. The "pro-life" movement deals in myths and fantasies. It's not our responsibility to come up with satisfactory refutations to every hair-brained theory they put forth.
It's not your responsibility, yet here you are. Maybe think of it as a hobby.
Here I am what? I am not struggling to come up with some counter-point to those who claim the Pill = murder. Because it's unnecessary. That's my point. Or are you just being an ass?
I'm sorry. I didn't mean it that way. It was meant to be funny, but not in an asshole making fun of you way.
The pro-choice community shouldn't have to refute that claim, but yet, the anti-choice community keeps trying to pass legislation that will limit access to abortion and birth control based on that belief. So unless you're not worried about your reproductive rights, it is important to refute misinformation when you see it.
I understand that they influence public policy. But there IS no way to argue with a person who claims the Pill "kills babies." It prevents pregnancy in a couple different ways. People who want to believe fertilized eggs = "babies" are not going to be swayed by our facts. Because they are not interested in reason or logic. They are interested in mythology and they hold onto it for dear life.
Furthermore, EVEN IF the Pill "kills babies," it doesn't matter. No born baby or adult has the right to use another person's body to sustain its life, so neither should fetuses.
Mostly I am disgusted that some man is basically standing here with his hands on his hips, demanding a "satisfactory" explanation as to why women are entitled to bodily autonomy. Nothing will satisfy these people.
I guess my problem with the argument that "preventing implantation=killing baby" is that BC is hardly the only thing that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. I'm no doctor, so please correct me if I have this wrong... But don't fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant in the uterus all the time? And, as another poster already said, thinning the uterine lining is a third line of defense, not the pill's primary function.
For some people, that's a deal breaker. Cats die all the time from natural causes, car accidents, all kinds of stuff. But that doesn't make me think it's okay to just step on one's head, no big deal. I love cats. Some people might not want to use the pill because they think it's a human life from conception. I want to clearly understand the issue. It kind of gets lost in the hysteria over "the pill kills babies" vs "these morons think the pill kills babies" stuff. Pro lifers would have you believe that every time you take the pill you are killing babies. Pro choicers would have you believe that it does nothing even close.
The truth seems to be that depending on what your personal beliefs are about when life starts, there is a small chance that using this kind of birth control can hasten the demise of a new life. If you have no problem with that, or life starts a lot later, then fine. Take the pill. I support it being legal and available. But some people don't want to use that kind of birth control. And while pro-lifers seem to dominate on the lying front with this issue, a lot of pro-choicers seem to be more concerned with making sure everyone believes the pill is a-ok like they think, rather than making sure people really understand how it works.
This is part of the problem: the female reproductive system is not well-understood. A little bit of some hormone might induce ovulation, while a little bit more might eventually result in cancer. And this will vary greatly from woman to woman; some women get awful morning sickness while others do not, simply because their bodies all react differently to a given hormone. So, it's possible that implantation is prevented in some women, some times, but without invasive monitoring of each woman every month, we have no way of knowing which women are not producing eggs, and which are simply not implanting.
Also, hormones are affected by a woman's environment: stress, food, what she's drinking in the water. It is therefore conceivable that drinking coffee in the morning might make a woman's endometrial lining "less hospitable." Do we want to take this to the logical conclusion and say that every woman who might come in contact with sperm should stop drinking coffee? Should she quit her stressful job to save the potential zygotes? Should we sue milk producers for the murders of millions of potential children because the hormones they feed to cows might possibly contribute to deaths of such blastocysts? Or should we just use chastity belts on all unmarried women, so we know their eggs are not coming in contact with sperm?
This is all irrelevant anyway, for people who do not believe in souls. I am one of these people, and I believe that a 16-celled organism, human or other, should have less consideration than a chicken. A chicken feels pain, consciously eats to stay alive, has social value (to other chickens and to chicken-loving humans)--and yet, we kill and eat them every day. The zygote does none of these things, which is why I'm fine with abortion. Since I don't believe in a soul, an embryo is, to me, simply a few more cells than the egg that is flushed from my body every month, and many fewer cells than a chicken. Of course, this changes as development occurs, and the 16 cells become millions, and become, in the woman's mind, a potential baby. But without a soul, an egg is almost as much of a potential baby as an embryo.
Amen (from a fellow non-believer). If I had to choose to destroy a million fertilized human eggs or my dog, I'd choose my dog in a heartbeat. I'd choose a mouse in a heartbeat. I'd choose a deer. A snake. You get the picture. A creature's humanity means less to me than its ability to think and feel pain and/or terror. That's why appeals to "human life" have no effect on me. Born non-humans > embryonic humans, in my book. But then, I'm not trying to force my view on others (and neither are you!).
Gah! And what I mean is that I'd choose my dog to live, which is the opposite of what my comment states!
"I'm no doctor, so please correct me if I have this wrong... But don't fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant in the uterus all the time?"
I'm no doctor either, but check this out:
Kristen Philipkoski wrote in "Plan B: Ignore the Science?," Wired, 05.06.05:
"...Dr. James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University, said the studies cited by the Population Council were well-done, but said they can't prove with certainty that Plan B never affects a fertilized egg. That's because no human test exists that can determine whether fertilization has taken place, he said.
"But he pointed out that pregnancy prevention can also occur under more natural circumstances, and whether the pregnancy is thwarted before or after fertilization is equally impossible to prove.
"For example, the majority of fertilized eggs simply do not successfully implant in the uterus, even when no birth control is used. Also, breast-feeding is known to reduce the chance of pregnancy for up to six months after a woman gives birth.
"'So if one really were opposed to anything that might prevent pregnancy after fertilization,' Trussell said, 'one would need to be opposed to all hormonal methods as well as breast-feeding.'..."
As far as I can tell the "secular" pro-life argument has the following premises:
1.) Personhood begins at the point of conception.
2.) Persons have a rights.
3.) One of these rights is the "right to life" which includes the right to another person's body to sustain their own life. This right is important enough to trump the rights of other persons, namely the right to bodily autonomy.
My response to each:
1.) & 2.) Personhood is a useful philosophical and ethical tool, but it rings fairly hollow when it's reduced to just "human" and "alive." For instance, certain brain functions seem pretty important to being a person-- the ability to perceive and re-act to the world, the capacity to suffer, consciousness, ect. These kinds of traits are embodied in the two biggest secular ethical theories we have.
Kantians believe the moral status of personhood is attributed based on one being rational. Utilitarians don't emphasize rationality, but instead strive to reduce suffering and increase happiness. Therefore, a utilitarian conception of personhood would at the very least, require the individual to be capable of (and hence have in interest in being free from) suffering.
A fertilized egg alone doesn't come close to any of these things.
2.) The right to life argument is quiet bizzare and also where the pro-life movement really shows it's misogynistic streak.
The right to life doesn't just mean a right not to be killed, it means access to whatever one needs to stay alive, no matter the cost. For a fetus, this means use of a woman's body. The woman doesn't have the "choice" to not respect this right.
Make no mistake about it, this is an extreme stance to take which totally nulifies the right to bodily autonomy. It's like if someone was dying of kidney failure and you were a match with two perfectly good kidney's, this person's "right to life" would trump your right to say no to being dragged to the operating table.
Though I've heard plenty of pro-lifers purport that because fetuses are people they should get all the same rights as people, none actually seem to believe any person not in utero has any kind of right to use someone else's body, even if it's a life or death situation.
This hypocrisy is readily apparent among social conservatives who seem to believe that the right to life ends at birth if you're a baby in need of life saving medical care and you're family is too poor to pay for it. Most social conservatives (and every pro-lifer I've ever met) are opposed to socialized, free health care because they don't believe citizens should be "forced" to pay for health care through more taxes. Though they do support charity care, the principled difference between charity and duty to one's rights is CHOICE. Conservatives believe they should have a choice in whose lives and what kind of life saving treatment they should be obligated to FINANCIALLY support. However, pregnant women should get no such choice in what lives they support with their BODIES.
Why the discrepancy? Because the heart of the pro-life is biologically deterministic role for women. A woman's highest purpose and meaning in life is reduced to that of her her sex organs.
So I didn't address the ability of a the pill to prevent fertilized egg implantation.
It theoretically can (but there's no way to know or measure how often the pill works by this mechanism) and I was arguing from the assumption that it does.
My point was not to dismiss the action of the mechanism, but to offer more than a "glib" dismissal of the moral issue such a birth control mechanism raises.
Thank you very much. You make some really excellent points.
Great points, thanks.
I think you are somewhat oversimplifying the argument about right to life vs. right to bodily autonomy by phrasing it in terms of (legal) rights rather than moral obligation.
Suppose we start with the assumption (otherwise this argument is largely pointless) that personhood begins at conception and that all people are equally valuable in a moral/ethical sense. I don't believe this but many pro-lifers do.
Suppose you come across someone who is hanging off a cliff and about to fall, unless you stop to assist them (at no risk to yourself, and a cost of merely a few seconds). They may not have a legal right to be helped, but it is very strongly arguable that you have a moral obligation to help them.
Now, suppose you had to sacrifice something more to save them. Maybe it would take more time, or you might scratch your hands on rocks to help them, you'd need to take on some risk yourself, etc.
At some point, certainly, you are no longer morally obligated to help them. Few people, for example, would argue you are morally obligated to sacrifice your life for a small chance of saving them.
To summarize: if (and this is a big if) a fertilized cell is a person with the same rights as all other people, it is not at all unreasonable to argue that a pregnant woman is morally obligated to not have an abortion (note that this is NOT the same thing as "should be legally required to).
I agree with you that in cases like the cliff hanging that making a distinction between "letting die" and "killing" is trivial.
Here, I would revert to a very utilitarian kind of moral obligation: it would cost me very little to do a lot for this person. And that has everything to do with the capacity of the person's in need to suffer. Though I may suffer a slight shoulder strain, it's nothing compared to the suffering the person in peril would experience upon death.
With the case of pregnancy, a woman does "spend" a lot, and an unwanted pregnancy is a lot of suffering. A fertilized egg on the other hand, doesn't suffer at all at its death.
That the fertilized egg doesn't suffer, though, isn't really a valid argument. It's quite possible to kill a healthy adult without causing them any suffering.
I think there are very valid arguments that abortion should be legal even if human life of equal value begins at conception, but I don't think there are any valid arguments that under said assumptions, abortion is a moral choice to make for any other reason than medical safety.
Wow, I LOVED your comment. It was worded so well, I think I'm going to have to bookmark this page and reference your comments, or even borrow (OK, steal!) some of your statements for my own argumentative purposes! Thanks for posting!!
i am pretty sure you are right, actually (though i will have to research it- i know that the morning after pill, however, is a 'chemical abortion' at a very early stage), which means that yes, this is a philosophical debate about whether it is a life, which is ultimately what i think just about all arguments on the topic come down to. and so you are right for pointing this out, it should be used yet again to show the implications of the anti-choice agenda. in this case, that birth control pills would also be wrong if you agree with them.
The medication in the "morning after pill" is the exact same medication as in hormonal birth control (in fact, if you don't have access to the morning after pill, you can take a higher-than-normal dose of hormonal birth control to the same effect, although generally with more side effects because of the synthetic estrogen content). The medication in the "abortion pill", or "chemical abortion", is completely different.
One is a synthetic form of progesterone, a hormone that is naturally present in a woman's body. The other is made up of mifepristone and misoprostol. Different medications. Different purposes.
The morning after pill works similarly to hormonal birth control, in that if you haven't ovulated already, it can prevent ovulation, and if you have ovulated already, it may possibly make the endometrium less likely to allow implantation.
The "abortion pill" - that is, misoprostol and mifepristone - works by disrupting one of the hormones necessary to continue a pregnancy, and the other drug works to induce contractions to expel any tissue in the uterus.
If you believe that the morning after pill is an "early chemical abortion", then do you also believe that birth control pills are? They're the same thing, after all.
Sunday will be the second annual Screw While On Contraception! day. Pass along the word!
Sweet! Just in time for my birthday!
I wonder how people like this would feel about women in my position. I take birth control to treat my endometriosis and to, hopefully, preserve my fertility. If I were to quit taking birth control, it's very possible that I would develop scar tissue to the point where I could no longer have children.
I take the pill now (well, actually the patch) to make sure that I CAN start a family when I'm financially and emotionally ready. So my taking birth control now is directly related to my creation of future babies.
I understand your position. My wife was on the pill for years to reduce the incidence of adhesions due to endometriosis. She even had to have surgery to remove adhesions that were causing her terrible pain.
When we decided to have children and she went off the pill, we found she couldn't conceive. Not 100% definitely because of the endometriosis, but probably.
We have since adopted a son. And while it's been tough and I would not have chosen this path before, I consider us truly blessed now. I wouldn't have it any other way, and he is, well, our son, and dearly beloved.
Many of the people pushing "the pill kills" type info are not without compassion and not bad people (at least the ones I've dealt with) but many of them are too wrapped up in their ideology to realize that there are some real gray areas out there like ours.
I'm so sorry to hear that your wife was not able to conceive. But I'm really glad to hear that you adopted! That's definitely something I would want to do as well. You and your wife are very inspiring.
I also had to have surgery to laser some adhesions because I was experiencing incredible pain, and BC is what keeps it from growing back. And just like you said, the thing that can be so frustrating about the pro-life movement is their inability to recognize the existence of a gray area. It's more than offensive, it's really hurtful, to know that there are people out there who want to restrict access to my medication.
I'm glad you brought up the endometriosis issue, which is often passed over when discussing benefits of taking oral contraceptives. However, I was told something specifically opposite of what you said about those benefits. Please, correct me if I received wrong information and direct me to where I can find that information from a credible source, but:
I was told that being on oral contraceptives only covers my endometriosis SYMPTOMS - it is NOT a treatment. That means it helps my pain from the endometriosis (cramps and what not) subside, but it is not preventing any of the tissue growths from occurring. I also believe this to be the case because in college I was having some pain during urination (which they ruled out UTI and a few other things such as interstitial cystitis (sp?) and the dr thought it could be from my endometriosis - the solution was to put me on a medication that would induce my body into a fake menopause for 6 months - one of the only ways to stop the endometriosis, I was told (other than a hysterectomy, I believe. Also, I had already been on birth control for 5 years). My mother also has endo, and she is in so much pain that i am pretty sure the doctor would have wrote her a script for birth control a long time ago instead of pain medication and recommending a complete hysterectomy plus intestinal surgery if it actually treated the disease (the doc said she has one of the worst cases he's ever seen; but my mom refused the surgery because she is menopause age - why have such an invasive surgery if she will get rid of the endo with menopause right around the corner?).
Anyway, it's a complicated and scary disease, but I wanted to know that the right information was out there. Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my experiences support what I've understood birth control to do for endo.
So, is the author saying that I cannot be a Feminist and Pro-Choice if I demand that pharma companies produce products that are safe?
What about the numerous women who have either suffered massive injuries or death while taking Yasmin and using the Nuva Ring?
The article above is full of holes. If I didn't know better, I would think a sales rep for Bayer wrote it.
I think that feminists (and/or other people) who demand safe products and the self-described pro-lifers who put this campaign together are on WAY different wavelengths and have very different goals. For starters, one group demands transparency and truth and the other group purposefully hides from that.
The article above is nothing but poor journalism.
What article? Are you sure you aren't referring to the other, very similarly named post about the "pills kills" nonsense?
Oops! Yes, actually I am posting to the wrong page. My apologies!
That said, I will reiterate that women need to hold pharma accountable for producing and peddling crap that makes us sick.
I want my rights AND my health.
How exactly is that post poor journalism or full of holes? The Pill Kills campaign is full of REALLY big holes. No one has said that the pill is super duper awesome and 100% safe, but the misinformation that the ALL is pushing is dangerous to women's rights and has nothing to do with women's health.
As a Feminist, for 25 years, I believe I have a duty to demand and promote conditions and resources that are healthy and safe for my self and my sisters.
Why on earth would I not challenge the safety of the Pill when young women (not smokers and those over 35) are dying from toxic products because in doing so I might give an Anti-Choice extremist a leg up? It is insane thinking to suggest that I should accept corporate negligence and flat out lies about product safety and (falsified claims of "benefits") because doing otherwise betrays my commitment to CHOICE.
Anti-Choice extremists are liars. We know that. But I don't think it wise for us to join them by accepting and advancing corporate liars to maintain a status quo that is against our best interests. Has the author ever considered the possibility that we can expect more for ourselves?
No one is telling you to not demand safe products in good faith.
The article is complaining about the manipulation of fears in order to get everyone to stop using birth control. Does the line in the excerpt about "how the pill kills babies" before the line about "how the pill kills women" really not signal to you what these self-identified pro-lifers are doing? They specifically say they are protesting against the pill, not against unsafe products.
If you're not manipulating peoples' fears to get them to act in a way that pleases you morally, then the article isn't complaining about you.
I don't think anyone else here is really reading this and conflating people who want to remove reproductive choices with people who want safe products.
They are not protesting against the Pill in order to make pharmaceutical companies make their products safer; they are protesting against the Pill in order to keep women from having sex unless they are married and willing to conceive.
Two radically different goals. Someone truly concerned with women's health would want safe birth control so women can have sex safely on their own terms; someone unconcerned with women's health wants to makes birth control seem more risky than it is in order to control women's bodies.
Very nicely stated
The problem with the "The Pill Kills" campaigns is that it takes weight away from people who really do want safe contraception choices. If you notice, the American Life League is not using this campaign to educate women about making informed choices as to their contraception, nor is it trying to improve the current safety of contraception.
It is exaggerating the risks in order to push an anti-choice agenda. They don't give a shit about women's health, they are using us for a political goal. And while the pill definitely has risks, to exaggerate those risks does women as much of a disservice as to ignore them.
Wow.
You know, I can kind of get where someone would think abortion is wrong. I strongly disagree with them, but I can kind of understand the logic. What I cannot understand at all is the stance against birth control. One would think that in order to prevent abortions, you'd be supportive of birth control. I know some people who are like this but the majority of "pro-lifers" (or at least the most outspoken ones) are against birth control as well. I don't get it. The whole abstinence thing doesn't work. People like to fuck, and there is nothing wrong with that. And now they're lying about how the pill kills. Fucking ridiculous. Yes, there are some risks with hormonal birth control. But there are potential harmful side effects to pretty much anything you put into your body. I've been on the pill for almost a decade, and it was one of the best choices I've ever made. The whole anti-choice movement sickens me. They insult women by feeding us lies and pretending it's for our benefit.
A lot of the anti-birth-control sentiment is religious and based on interpretation of the Biblical story of Onan.
i don't even know where to start... i read the scanned pages from that anti-choice brainwashing manual-- and it's even more insane than i would have imagined. apparently, using birth control is the considered by these folks to be the moral equivalent of starving a child. and i'm not sure how much they even think of it as metaphor-- since they call a fertilized egg "the child," as in, the child travels down the fallopian tube. insanity.
I hate the way they try to twist language to make their point. Even if you believe it's a human life, it's not a "child" at that point. A child is running around outside another person's body. A fetus, or blastocyst or fertilized egg is not. They are different things. Language has meaning and I think it's disingenuous if you are trying to subvert it just to emotionally wrench people to your point of view.
Some pro-choice people do similar stuff though...
The pill has health risks, that is definitely true. However, if you get rid of every medication that has health risks, then guess what that means? No medication.
Can pro-choicers have a counter-protest?
I was wondering the same thing. That website doesn't say exactly where these protests are taking place. I'd like to show up with a sign that says, "The pill kills . . . Christian fundamentalists' attempts to control women."
See also Cristina Page's book "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America," and related content at prochoicemovement.com, for more on these issues.
1) How many women do you know who have died from taking birth control pills?
2) American Life League is a "pro-life" Catholic organization.....what would you expect them to say?
their arguements boil down to "we hate the sex!! no one should ever have the sex!!"
unless it's like twice, to make babies.
maybe they would be happy if everyone did anal?
Yeah, the pill has risks, and so does pregnancy and childbirth. I consider the risks of the pill to be completely acceptable and preferable (even if it kills me tomorrow) in order to be free of the fear of pregnancy. Of course, I'm educated and understand medical terminology, but I'm unwilling to assume that women cannot pick their risks.
Statins have risks too, as does heart disease or high blood pressure. Funny how no-one protests statins eh?
Yeah, I hate that too. Some people do the same thing with evolution. They try to pick it to bits and claim it's unscientific but the only reason they even think about it is because it conflicts with their misguided religious beliefs. None of them argue with quantum mechanics, but they'd be all over it they thought it conflicted with the bible.
My biggest problem(s) with the whole idea that fertilized egg = baby is where the line gets drawn. I mean, if a woman has a miscarriage and the law defines a fertilized egg as a person, couldn't she be arrested for involuntary manslaughter? And if The Pill is on the same level as an abortion in the eyes of the Pro-Life movement, aren't periods therefore also "immoral" because they mean that a potential "life" was unused.
Just some thoughts.
Yeah, I see that stuff as the reasons why the whole personhood thing is never going to legally take off.
I think the pro-choice side is winning. Roe v Wade is not going to change any time soon at all.
That's partially why I think it makes more sense to try to persuade women to not have abortions than to prevent them from doing so. I mean from a practical standpoint it's obvious that the best way to reduce abortions is not to try to force it but to provide more help for pregnant women. I like the Pregnant Women Support Act. I think it should be easier to adopt. I personally support crisis pregnancy centers, though regrettably they are often aligned with pro-lifers that spread disinformation.
A lot of pro-life activists I think are more interested in fighting their war against abortion than actually reducing the number of abortions.
Let's not use the term "pro-life" since that implies that pro-choice people are "anti-life" - the term should be "anti-choice" right?
also: Male masturbation kills babies! Who's with me? Let's make signs and protest... um, wherever men masturbate!
I'm trying to give them enough respect to call them what they call themselves. I would hope that they would grant you the same respect. Both groups angrily calling each other "anti-choice" and "pro-death" doesn't lead to anything productive and just breeds resentment.
I disagree. This is not about respect, this is about framing the issue. If we allow them to frame the issue as "pro life" and "pro abortion", we are fighting on THEIR terms. Words have meaning, and the way you name an issue informs people how they should perceive the issue! Check out George Lakoff's "Don't think of an Elephant!"- a short book outlining this very topic. These people are trying to hide behind a very disingenuous title to hide the true nature of their beliefs. After all, how much do you hear "pro-lifers" talking about ANY other issue that involves saving lives? AIDS? Death penalty? lung cancer research? health care for ACTUAL BORN CHILDREN? It's a joke. WE need to take control and frame the debate on OUR terms.
I think trying to redefine the opponent comes across as somewhat petty and divorced from what's really important. Like how the Republicans try to re-label the Democratic Party as "Socialists". It boils down to name-calling, really. Let's talk about the issues, not the name, you know?
The other reason not to do it is that it's reciprocal. If we don't engage in this sort of thing than any efforts by the other side can be met with genuine moral indignation. But if we do try this sort of argument, then we validate the same behavior on the other side and lose the right to criticize it. And in this case, the phrase "anti-choice" is sort of like bringing a knife to a gun fight. "Anti-choice" is weak tea compared to "pro-abortion" or "pro-death".
This isn't about "name-calling". This is about defining the reality of the debate. Take, for instance, "estate tax". Republicans have been trying to reduce the amount of money your "estate" is taxed when you die for DECADES. But the public didn't care because "estate" sounds wealthy, and who cares if the wealthy pay taxes? Eventually the Party tried a different tactic: the renamed it the ‘death tax’ because you are taxed at death. Suddenly, repealing the “estate tax” had the support of 75 percent of Americans.
How you describe an issue changes the way people look at it. Take "euthanasia" versus "death with dignity". Or the new republican frame: "exploring for energy" instead of "drilling for oil". Or the old GOP favorite- "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts". Why? relief is good. relief is the end of something burdensome. all the sudden it gets you thinking about taxes as a burden, not a civic responsibility.
Frames signal where these ideas should fit in our worldview. It's not about cutting people down, its about changing the way people think about issues (in a truthful way, just a different angle)
If your argument is that they don't support life on other fronts (which is debatable to begin with), just the one issue of abortion, then it doesn't make any more sense to call them anti-choice. They oppose choice on that same issue, but they are not against "choices."
it's about framing the debate to win the minds of others. and frankly, their real objective is to take away virtually ALL reproductive choices, not to protect "life". so i'm not going to let them cloak themselves in a falsely positive label. check out George Lakoff and his research if you want to learn more about his theories.
Lipstick on a pig.
I've been on the pill for six years. In that time I've had sex approximately zero times. I'm not dead yet (actually, I have LOW blood pressure), and if I've killed any babies ... then I'm sorry that I cost the world its next messiah.
Actually, no I'm not. I would rather die than be pregnant, and I'm not exaggerating.
I know these sites don't like it when we paint health reasons as more important than pregnancy prevention reasons, but let's be honest ... yes, they are. If you just don't want to be pregnant you have LOTS of other options. The pill is a great one, but without it you're not totally screwed.
For me, stopping to take the pill would mean ... what? Surgery (which might not work unless I had a full hysterectomy) or taking heavy duty painkillers (illegal in this country and I've never had painkillers actually WORK for my pain) or missing work several days a month. My pain doesn't even respond to ordinary pill use. I have to take it every single day or risk being incapacitated. No exaggeration.
So it really just enrages me when people get all "anti-pill" because of some moral bs about tiny single-celled babies. Taking the pill has given me a quality of life I didn't have for roughly 8 years. It has allowed me to work and enjoy life. And that's worth all the risks in the world.
You and me both. I took the Pill for years before I became sexually active. My heavy periods made me anemic, and the combination of debilitating cramps and bleeding so heavy I'd soak through a super-plus absorbency tampon backed up with a thick 'overnight' pad within an hour made it impossible for me to leave the house two or three days a month.
Makes me wonder if John McCain would put "menstrual cramps" and/or "heavy bleeding" in air quotes in a Presidential debate.
I did some research and found this:
The main thrust of their argument that the pill kills is that it causes blood clots that can kill you, which is true. However, you are twice as likely to develop blood clots due to PREGNANCY, and you are far more likely to die from blood clots just from being a smoker (whether or not you use birth control pills). Yet they are not protesting pregnancy or cigarettes.
Second, the risk of dying from complications due to oral contraceptives (assuming you are not in a risk group- above 35 and smoker) is 0.06 people per 100,000 people. The risk of dying from pregnancy is 11.5 per 100,000. Riding a bike is far more dangerous at 0.8 per 100,000.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1146-Seattle-Eastside-Parenting-Examiners~y2009m6d5-Protest-the-Pill-Day--Hurting-women-by-spreading-lies
Ah I just commented above about blood clots with an anecdote before seeing all this good info. Thanks!
Every sperm is sacred...every sperm is good...if a sperm gets wasted...God gets quite irate.
That is the song that comes to mind for me, but then again I'm a nerd who loves Monty Python.
I agree with "Kurumi & Cheese", because I too, would rather die than be pregnant.
I believe all this is an over-exaggeration to prove the point of why women should 'keep' the babies because babies make us whole...or that women should have babies because that's what women are for, etc... I don't know, whatever their point is.
The pro-lifer's (not all of them, but most of them) seem to want you to have a kid every time you choose to have the sex. It's like the consequence to sex is a baby.
Birth control doesn't kill babies. It prevents the sperm from ever reaching the egg. Thus, no baby fertilized.
Birth control doesn't kill women. It can cause problems (ie. side-effects), but I've never heard of death by the pill.
Gosh, if there's suddenly a ban on the pill, there's going to be tons of women getting hysterectomy's or getting abortions, and the condom industry is probably going to be even richer than before.
But seriously, what's next? Anti-condom? Cause, gosh, condoms kill babies too, you know?
Somewhere, sometime, somebody's probably died from a latex allergy. Don't give them any ideas! ;)
I agree with "Kurumi & Cheese", because I too, would rather die than be pregnant.
I believe all this is an over-exaggeration to prove the point of why women should 'keep' the babies because babies make us whole...or that women should have babies because that's what women are for, etc... I don't know, whatever their point is.
The pro-lifer's (not all of them, but most of them) seem to want you to have a kid every time you choose to have the sex. It's like the consequence to sex is a baby.
Birth control doesn't kill babies. It prevents the sperm from ever reaching the egg. Thus, no baby fertilized.
Birth control doesn't kill women. It can cause problems (ie. side-effects), but I've never heard of death by the pill.
Gosh, if there's suddenly a ban on the pill, there's going to be tons of women getting hysterectomy's or getting abortions, and the condom industry is probably going to be even richer than before.
But seriously, what's next? Anti-condom? Because, gosh, condoms kill babies too, you know?
it wouldnt kill babies even if it did stop fertilized eggs from attaching, because life does not start at conception, and therefore fetuses are not a baby. if you believe life starts at conception, then you might as well join the anti-choicers, because the whole debate, however much people try to deny it, rests on this fact.
Well actually I completely disagree that the entire debate rests on that fact.
Personally, I believe that life starts at conception. Anyone can argue with me if they want but I've heard both sides plenty and this is what I believe. However, I am PRO-CHOICE.
The reason I am pro-choice even though I believe life begins at conception is best described by the words of another commenter on this site, a couple months ago. They said that absolutely no one has the right to use, change, and potentially endanger my body, EVEN IF that persons' LIFE depends on it. Forcing people to give kidney transplants is the exact same thing.
This argument, to me, isn't just about the belief as to whether life begins at conception, but about what rights we have as human beings.
I am devoutly, passionately pro-choice for these reasons.
Me too, Alessa. The whole "when does life begin?" philosophical talk up above just Does. Not. Matter.
The day that we're mandated to be organ donors and participate in annual blood donation drives, that's the day I'll revisit my pro-choice stance. But we'll never get there, because could you imagine the uproar about how the government is invading our lives if we were ever legally required to donate blood every 6 months? Even if it guaranteed no hospital ever chanced running out of blood ever again? Or if all people with two healthy kidneys were required to be registered on donor lists and give up a kidney should we match anyone in need of one? Or if we couldn't make the decision to be buried with all our organs, and were legally required to pass them along to people who needed them when we died?
It Will. Never. Happen. because only pregnant women are shoved down and walked all over when it comes to issues of bodily integrity.
No, I don't believe that life begins at conception. I was just stating a point, which I didn't elaborate enough on. I didn't want to rant, so I stopped there, but perhaps I should've continued my explanation.
I'm pro-choice.
This question may very well stem from immaturity and the fact that I am not a women, but I have always wondered what the thought process behind abortions are.
To be particular, I've recently began to wonder what the reasons are that a woman would opt to abort a baby instead of endure pregnancy. Is it to avoid the pregnancy period itself, or the parenting process afterward? Or am I completely off the mark? Is there one (or a few) reason(s) that could be associated to the majority of abortions? If so, what are they, and if not, what are some of the reason you may have heard/given?
I understand that the pro-choice movement is about just that, the ability to make the choice. I therefore personally identify with being pro-choice. Now I am interested in the reason women make this choice.
I can't say what the reason for the majority of abortions are, but women get them for all kinds of reasons.
Some women get abortions because they're still just kids themselves. Others get abortions because the pregnancy could risk their lives.
Some women just don't want to deal with the parenting process that comes afterward.
Others could be getting abortions because they were raped and don't want the bastards baby.
Some even get abortions because they may not have the money to support a child once it's born.
The list can go on and on, but those are just some of the reasons that I can think of.
I hope this helps! :)
Don't forget that some were treated like crap for their genes even before they got pregnant, and refuse to sign up anyone else for that crappy treatment by passing on their genes.
Here's a site with many women's views on their abortions:
I'm Not Sorry
Every woman who terminates a pregnancy does so for a different reason. One of the many reasons that legislation is comically incapable of handling reproductive issues.
Sorry, I really don't mean to be rude, but that question strikes me as a bit silly.
They abort because they don't want to have a baby. Duh.
Think of all the reasons why ANYONE, regardless of gender, might not want to be a parent (or at least not "right now") and you have your answer. We're not some sort of alien species, you know.
Sorry if I come across as aggressive, but that question rubbed me the wrong way, like you're wondering about the habits of strange animals...
That was in reply to Deimos...
If one doesn't want to parent they can place a child for adoption.
I don't make this statement lightly, I know what mothers go through that place a child for adoption. But it is an option to parenting. It's still a difficult option, because obvsly you have to endure the pregnancy and birth, but also because ideally, with an open adoption, you still have a relationship with a child for the rest of your life, but not as the primary caregiver.
But it is an option. It's more accurate to say "they abort cause they don't want to parent or to have the baby and place it for adoption."
And your point is...?
The statement "They don't want to have a baby" obviously covers BOTH parenting and childbirth.
Duh, once again.