# Abortion in the 1700's Colonial America



## starrynights (Oct 7, 2021)

*Birth Control*
America’s continuing roiling debate over the issue of abortion was non-existent in colonial days prior to the Revolution, indeed prior to the 1800s. Surprisingly to many, this is not because abortion did not yet exist. It’s because there were no laws against abortion. In the colonies, abortion was readily available, relatively safe given the medical knowledge and practices of the time, and completely legal up to the time when the mother felt the first kick of her baby, the quickening. Falsification of the history of abortion notwithstanding, the evidence of the legality and availability of abortion in colonial America is there for whoever wishes to know the truth.

One reason that the punishments for premarital and extramarital sex lessened over time, when they were punished at all by the late 1700s, is that they were so common. Even as far back as the Pilgrim days of Plymouth Colony, premarital sex is evident in the number of so-called premature births, which throughout the entire colonial era was around 40%. Agreeing with English law and practice, the Puritans allowed abortion up to quickening, believing that to be the point of life beginning.

Most babies were born in the colonial era through the assistance of midwives, who were far more prevalent than doctors, and when it came to childbirth usually more skilled. These midwives were also aware of the methods to induce abortion, usually through the use of herbal potions. Surgical abortions were both rare and dangerous, as were all surgeries at the time, given the rate of post-surgical infection.

Nor was there present in colonial American any stigma attached to the woman who chose to terminate her pregnancy through abortion. Strong healthy families were prized in the early American communities, but it was also recognized that families unable to provide their own support could be a burden on the community. Abortion was accepted in these communities without question and were accomplished openly, the midwife a valued member, rather than a pariah lurking on the edge of town.

There were other forms of birth control, none of which were particularly effective given the birth rates of the colonies, which were among the highest in the western world. Abortion was simply not an issue in colonial America, and it was practiced for the most part as a method of birth control, rather than as a medical necessity, as medicine was not far enough advanced to understand most of the dangers presented by some pregnancies. Not until the early 1800s, following the War of 1812, would laws affecting abortion be enacted in any of the former colonies.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

A link to the article would help because it is obviously written to try to show abortion has been accepted in US going back to colonization.

I am not a zealot one way or the other, but I think conservatives would be smart to make sure there is sufficient money and support for women who forgo an abortion and agree on adoption. If one wants abortions to be rare, which I do, then make sure the environment is available that encourages that to happen.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> A link to the article would help because it is obviously written to try to show abortion has been accepted in US going back to colonization.


Much of it is from historycollection.com I've seen a number of references to induced abortions in early diaries, but I can't cite nor name the off hand.

There are many fallicies regarding colonial and early america, ie. nobody living past 45 y.o., premartial sex, interracial sex, etc.


----------



## Solar_Toad (10 mo ago)

I do not have a dog in this fight.

wife and I are childfree.

I am also a "Hard Right Consevative" by most standards promoted in society today.

I also hope that the Supreme Court rules to overturn FEDERAL laws on abortion. I would like to see Roe V Wade overturned.

THAT SAID:
I do think that STATES should be able to allow whatever standards they want, and voters support, in their state. IT'S A STATE'S RIGHTS ISSUE. now I also don't fool myself. elections can be manipulated. whether done by "voter" influx or messing with vote tallies... IT DOES HAPPEN. 

but hopefully, those who support abortion, will move to states that lean that way, and vote to support those laws. Likewise, I hope that states who lean against abortion, will drive those who want it, to move to a different state, and will attract those who will vote it away. 

I don't think we should be aborting people 2 days before they are born. but if someone is not equipped to be a parent, and finds out 3 weeks in, maybe that's OK, for them.

I have further thoughts on potential parents who find out that their is a serious health defect with an unborn child. I will not air those thoughts, here, now. perhaps someone else cares to go there, but I will let it lie.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Every man his own doctor: or, The poor planter's physician. Prescribing plain and easy means for persons to cure themselves of all, or most of the distempers, incident to this climate, and with very little charge, the medicines being chiefly of the growth and production of this country. : [Eight lines from Milton]


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

I feel like abortions have been happening for time out of mind. Each society had their herbs or methods of doing so.
Do I like the idea? Not particularly...but far be it from me to stand in the way of someone else doing it. Current culture of inciting violence over their sincerely held beliefs on abortion is counterproductive and will only lead to harm.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

600,000-900,000 babies are killed every year (since at least 2010), and most of those deaths were medically unnecessary and could have been avoided, if only people would learn to be more responsible! When are people going to learn that abortion is not birth control?!?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> When are people going to learn that abortion is not birth control?!?


They're not go to learn that, because abortion IS birth control. It's one of the most effective forms of birth control. I assume you mean abortion shouldn't be used as birth control. That's the debate that will never end.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

First abortion and then other forms of birth control will be taken.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Medically unnecessary abortion is NOT birth control.

Hopefully SCOTUS decides to overturn Roe vs Wade, so that every state can make its own laws regarding abortion. It is very unlikely that all states would make the same laws regarding abortion, so hopefully people who use abortion as birth control will move to the states that make or keep medically unnecessary abortions legal. I also think it would be very unlikely that any state would take away anyone's right to use real birth control (like abstinence, birth control pills or shots, IUDs, condoms, Queen Anne's lace, etc.).

painterswife, you and I have gone rounds on this one, and we both already know where we both stand on this issue ... everyone here already knows.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> First abortion and then other forms of birth control will be taken.


Please tell me where you developed that little tidbit. In my whole life I've never heard one single solitary person indicate that was a goal... not one... ever.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Medically unnecessary abortion is NOT birth control.
> 
> Hopefully SCOTUS decides to overturn Roe vs Wade, so that every state can make its own laws regarding abortion. It is very unlikely that all states would make the same laws regarding abortion, so hopefully people who use abortion as birth control will move to the states that make or keep medically unnecessary abortions legal. I also think it would be very unlikely that any state would take away anyone's right to use real birth control (like abstinence, birth control pills or shots, IUDs, condoms, Queen Anne's lace, etc.).
> 
> painterswife, you and I have gone rounds on this one, and we both already know where we both stand on this issue ... everyone here already knows.


Then ignore me. If you can post what you want them so can I.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Please tell me where you developed that little tidbit. In my whole life I've never heard one single solitary person indicate that was a goal... not one... ever.











With abortion rights in limbo, conservative lawmakers are eyeing restrictions on IUDs and Plan B


These restrictions would almost certainly face legal challenges. But the Supreme Court has laid groundwork for states to restrict access.




19thnews.org





"The talks are still in their early stages. Days after the leak of a draft Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Brent Crane, a senior state lawmaker in Idaho, said publicly he wanted to hold hearings on banning emergency contraception. Earlier this month, Louisiana lawmakers considered a bill that would have classified abortion as homicide — and that could, experts say, have criminalized IUDs and emergency contraception as well. The Louisiana bill ultimately failed. "


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

What we know about Oklahoma's new abortion ban — the strictest in the nation


Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed legislation to implement the nation's strictest anti-abortion ban. Learn more about the law that bans most abortions.



www.oklahoman.com





"The nation’s most restrictive abortion ban is now in effect in Oklahoma. 

Gov. Kevin Stitt on Wednesday signed House Bill 4327 into law, which bans abortions from the point of fertilization with limited exceptions. "


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

In the old days it was legal to gun down someone who insulted you or stole your horse.
Guess we should go back to that?
Dead is dead right?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> emergency contraception...


A.K.A. the morning after pill is an abortifacient... not a contraceptive.



painterswife said:


> considered a bill that would have classified abortion as homicide...


Classifying abortion as homicide has nothing to do with contraception.



painterswife said:


> and that could, experts say, have criminalized IUDs


What "experts" are prognosticating this? pro-abortion experts?? Are they reading tea leaves or are they peering through that third (brown) eye I referred too a little while back?



painterswife said:


> "The nation’s most restrictive abortion ban is now in effect in Oklahoma.
> 
> Gov. Kevin Stitt on Wednesday signed House Bill 4327 into law, which bans abortions from the point of fertilization with limited exceptions. "


Again... this all applies to abortion... not contraception. Just so I'm sure you understand... someone has explained the difference haven't they? Would you like remedial instruction to better understand?

Still waiting for one, single, solitary indication that contraception is under threat... just one!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

My post said other forms of birth control. I provided examples. The pill and iUD,s are birth control.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> My post said other forms of birth control. I provided examples. The pill and iUD,s are birth control.


I went back to your first post in this thread:



painterswife said:


> First abortion and then other forms of birth control will be taken.


You do not mention either the pill nor iUD,s (until post #17 above). You have provided absolutely NO example of birth control (a.k.a. contraception) being threatened... none... nada... zilch.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Other forms of birth control. My words and I provided examples after you questioned me. Not my problem if you don't like the response. It was accurate and on point.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Other forms of birth control. My words and I provided examples after you questioned me. Not my problem if you don't like the response. It was accurate and on point.


I'm sorry but you have given no examples of:



painterswife said:


> Other forms of birth control.


Please give the post number where that is stated. It's not that I do not like your response... it's that I can't figure out what the hell you're referring to.

You have however given examples of further *abortion restrictions* as evidenced in the very links you posted:



painterswife said:


> What we know about Oklahoma's new abortion ban — the strictest in the nation
> 
> 
> Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed legislation to implement the nation's strictest anti-abortion ban. Learn more about the law that bans most abortions.
> ...


The other link you provided:



painterswife said:


> With abortion rights in limbo, conservative lawmakers are eyeing restrictions on IUDs and Plan B
> 
> 
> These restrictions would almost certainly face legal challenges. But the Supreme Court has laid groundwork for states to restrict access.
> ...


does mention restrictions on birth control and iud's but in it's headline but supplies only supposition and conjecture as "evidence". It also mentions emergency contraception but is in fact referring to the morning after pill, which causes an abortion after conception but is not a contraceptive, which prevents any conception.

I'm truly begining to believe you don't know the difference between contraceptive and abortion... if so, you should study a little before you interject so as to be better prepared.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Abortion is birth control. Those other restrictions to birth conn have been discussed as the articles illustrated. Nothing more needs to be provided. My post was accurate and on point.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Abortion is birth control.


👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏

FINALLY, a liberal admits it (where is the fireworks emoji)!!!!!

Liberals truly believe that killing an unborn baby is an acceptable form of birth contol.

Before I get too excited have I missed many other liberals admitting it before?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
> 
> FINALLY, a liberal admits it (where is the fireworks emoji)!!!!!
> 
> ...


Finally admitted? Looks like you did not like that you were wrong about my post. Many here on HT have said abortion is birth control, many times and of both political leanings. It does not change that others want to, and have discussed outlawing all methods of birth control.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> First abortion and then other forms of birth control will be taken.


BS


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Finally admitted? Looks like you did not like that you were wrong about my post. Many here on HT have said abortion is birth control, many times and of both political leanings. It does not change that others want to, and have discussed outlawing all methods of birth control.












be careful... those straws you're clutching at will not support you.

I've used obfuscation as word of the day before... guess I'll have to find a new one.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
> 
> FINALLY, a liberal admits it (where is the fireworks emoji)!!!!!
> 
> ...


Yes, some of them get a little turned around in their terminology, which happens when new pronouns and moralities are being invented so often.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> View attachment 111596
> 
> 
> be careful... those straws you're clutching at will not support you.
> ...


Thursday is petulant.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

homesteadforty said:


> 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
> 
> FINALLY, a liberal admits it (where is the fireworks emoji)!!!!!
> 
> ...


She is only saying that so she can try to give credibility to the idea that the pill and other preventative birth control will be taken away.

The tactic is all over the left's media. They DO have a song book


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> Thursday is petulant.


Oh man... I like that one... and so very, very appropriate 👏


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

HDRider said:


> She is only saying that so she can try to give credibility to the idea that the pill and other preventative birth control will be taken away.
> 
> The tactic is all over the left's media. They DO have a song book


I never truly thought that seemingly average people were that devious... but I am, unfortunately, learning differently.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> I never truly thought that seemingly average people were that devious... but I am, unfortunately, learning differently.


It is an exception rather than the rule when you have to squeeze honest and straightforward answers from someone who carries traditional principles and absolutes as their creed.
There are numerous examples on this board of a select few who waste away twisting and contorting, refusing to answer, claiming to be a victim, falling on semantics and the tried and tired patterns of avoiding the truth because you just can't stand the truth.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Medically unnecessary abortion is NOT birth control.


Yes it is. It stops a birth from happening. That is birth control.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

ryanthomas said:


> Yes it is. It stops a birth from happening. That is birth control.


Technically true. It DOES control birth.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

painterswife said:


> First abortion and then other forms of birth control will be taken.


Other forms can't all be taken away (it's not possible to prevent or take all methods away) but I guess it's possible the other forms could be made illegal if the country goes all extremist about it. But so what? That's not a big deal.

If making them all illegal happens that still isn't going to stop determined women who intend to maintain control over their own bodies and destinies in America from getting medical abortions or inducing miscarriages. It's so much easier now than it was hundreds of years ago for women to learn how to do it properly for themselves.

.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

RJ2019 said:


> Technically true. It DOES control birth.


No technicality needed. It is simply true.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> First abortion and then other forms of birth control will be taken.


Show me a line in the constitution that prevents the states from doing that. Otherwise, I’ll show you a map that includes 49 other states to which one could move themselves.

I don’t support a birth control ban, but I’m also not afraid to move myself and my wallet out of a state which taxes me to fund the murder of babies. If you’re so passionate about keeping infanticide legal here in NC, why don’t you move here and vote on it?


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

a friend of mine said to me one time , you know we have every reason to let them abort all the kids they want.

we fight for their lives so that 

they can cost us more in every way 


that is the faith it doesn't make any sense but we do it any way 

and we do it on the hope that one of those kids saved will come to Christ and be saved and we hope that they will do good things for the world if they are allowed to live.


*I think if you wanted to keep abortion illegal some one would propose a law legislating legalized abortion so long as the mother is a registered Democrat and no other criteria. *


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> …Earlier this month, Louisiana lawmakers considered a bill that would have classified abortion as homicide…


Dang. Here’s me rooting for SC to pass that one. They recently reinstated the firing squad as an option for execution, incidentally after a woke drug company decided to deny them replenishment of lethal injection drugs. 

If SC would pass an “abortion is homicide” bill, and another that drew their shooting squad like a jury, I’d move there just for the previously unconsidered opportunity to mail my tax check inside of a Hallmark _Thank You_ card.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Earlier this month, Louisiana lawmakers considered a bill that would have classified abortion as homicide


Did they also consider any bills classifying water as wet, or, the sky as blue?


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Your mother should be able to kill you anytime she wants.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

painterswife said:


> First abortion and then other forms of birth control will be taken.


Enough with the conspiracy theories.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Adirondackian said:


> Enough with the conspiracy theories.











Contraception 'Should Not Be Legal,' Says Trump-Backed Candidate Eubanks


Jacky Eubanks, a candidate for Michigan's state house, said contraception gives people "the false sense of security that they can have consequence-free sex."




www.newsweek.com





Yeah..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doozie said:


> Contraception 'Should Not Be Legal,' Says Trump-Backed Candidate Eubanks
> 
> 
> Jacky Eubanks, a candidate for Michigan's state house, said contraception gives people "the false sense of security that they can have consequence-free sex."
> ...


One crack pot does not make a movement.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

4 might make a squad.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Know what else was legal in colonial America? Slavery, Genocide, wife beating, taxation w/o representation, state Religion


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

RJ2019 said:


> Technically true. It DOES control birth.


It terminates a pregnancy. Terminates a life.
I don't know why the liberals are getting so twisted up, they can still kill their babies, it's just up to the states now.
It doesn't make abortion illegal, it will not affect birth control, it will not affect any women's health.
All those things are lies told by the left.
This ruling doesn't change anything for those wanting to get an abortion.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Abortion is birth control. Those other restrictions to birth conn have been discussed as the articles illustrated. Nothing more needs to be provided. My post was accurate and on point.


Abortion is NOT birth control, no matter how many times that you and others insist that it is. Abortion is the killing of a fetus or baby. Birth control is a method of preventing pregnancy. There is a BIG difference! Using abortion as birth control does not make abortion and birth control the same thing.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Yes it is. It stops a birth from happening. That is birth control.


Birth control prevents birth before pregnancy begins. Abortion stops birth after pregnancy begins. Again -- they are two different words for two different things. If a woman is not pregnant, abortion is impossible ... until after she becomes pregnant.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Yes it is. It stops a birth from happening. That is birth control.


Birth control prevents birth before pregnancy begins. Abortion stops birth after pregnancy begins. Again -- they are two different words for two different things. If a woman is not pregnant, abortion is impossible ... until after she becomes pregnant.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

RJ2019 said:


> Technically true. It DOES control birth.


Birth control prevents birth before pregnancy begins. Abortion stops birth after pregnancy begins. Again -- they are two different words for two different things. If a woman is not pregnant, abortion is impossible ... until after she becomes pregnant.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> No technicality needed. It is simply true.


Birth control prevents birth before pregnancy begins. Abortion stops birth after pregnancy begins. Again -- they are two different words for two different things. If a woman is not pregnant, abortion is impossible ... until after she becomes pregnant. To say that abortion is birth control is simply not true.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Birth control prevents birth before pregnancy begins. Abortion stops birth after pregnancy begins. Again -- they are two different words for two different things. If a woman is not pregnant, abortion is impossible ... until after she becomes pregnant. To say that abortion is birth control is simply not true.


Wrong. BIRTH control stops BIRTH before BIRTH happens. What you're talking about is pregnancy prevention.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

SCOTUS has rightly overturned Roe vs Wade. It seems that about half of the states in the U.S. will keep abortion completely legal, while the other half will limit abortion (such as only allowing medically necessary abortions). Nothing about this prevents a woman from getting an abortion, nor does it prevent a woman from preventing pregnancy with birth control (such as birth control pills, Queen Anne's lace, IUD, condoms, abstinence, etc.).


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Wrong. BIRTH control stops BIRTH before BIRTH happens. What you're talking about is pregnancy prevention.


Birth control (i.e., contraception) is a method of preventing pregnancy. Abortion is a method of killing a fetus after pregnancy begins.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

The purpose of contraception / birth control, is to prevent pregnancy ... which does not kill anyone. The purpose of abortion is to terminate pregnancy ... which does kill a fetus.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Birth control (i.e., contraception) is a method of preventing pregnancy.


If you define birth control as contraception, that's true. I use the plain meaning of the words with no "i.e." needed.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> The purpose of contraception / birth control, is to prevent pregnancy ... which does not result in the death of anyone. The purpose of abortion is to terminate pregnancy ... which also results in the death of a fetus.


The purpose of abortion is to stop a birth from happening...i.e. birth control.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> First abortion and then other forms of birth control will be taken.


The Supreme Court judges said that this decision has nothing to do with birth control, but I guess you know something they don't know.

States did not get the right to ban birth control based on this decision.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> SCOTUS has rightly overturned Roe vs Wade. It seems that about half of the states in the U.S. will keep abortion completely legal, while the other half will limit abortion (such as only allowing medically necessary abortions). Nothing about this prevents a woman from getting an abortion, nor does it prevent a woman from preventing pregnancy with birth control (such as birth control pills, Queen Anne's lace, IUD, condoms, abstinence, etc.).


I believe some faiths believe that IUD’s are an unacceptable form of birth control and categorize it as a form of abortion.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> If you define birth control as contraception, that's true. I use the plain meaning of the words with no "i.e." needed.


Birth control IS contraception, and contraception IS birth control. Abortion on the other hand, is NOT the same as birth control or contraception.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> I believe some faiths believe that IUD’s are an unacceptable form of birth control and categorize it as a form of abortion.


I tried to search that. I could not find any official position on it from any of the major faith organizations.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> The purpose of abortion is to stop a birth from happening...i.e. birth control.


Birth control is contraception. The purpose of contraception is to prevent conception (hence the term 'contra-ception'), which prevents pregnancy, which does not kill anyone. Abortion on the other hand, is the termination of a pregnancy, which stops birth from happening, which kills a fetus.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Protesters hit streets across the US and outside Clarence Thomas' home


The prospective law changes, released in a concurring opinion Friday's decision by the justice, would see limits put on gay marriage, same-sex activity, and citizens' access to birth control.




www.dailymail.co.uk





"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas revealed he has laws protecting gay marriage and contraception in his sights, after axing Roe v. Wade.

Following Friday's landmark decision, Thomas called on his fellow jurists to overturn previous rulings that followed similar legal precedent. 

The prospective law changes, released in a concurring opinion of the decision penned by Thomas, would see limits put on gay marriage, same-sex sexual activity, and citizens' access to birth control."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Abortion rights advocate Sadie Kuhns holds a sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court after the court announced its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson to overturn Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. | Francis Chung/E&E News/POLITICO
By QUINT FORGEY and JOSH GERSTEIN
06/24/2022 11:24 AM EDT
Updated: 06/24/2022 01:45 PM EDT
Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

The sweeping suggestion from the current court’s longest-serving justice came in the concurring opinion he authored in response to the court’s ruling revoking the constitutional right to abortion, also released on Friday.


In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including _Griswold_, _Lawrence_, and _Obergefell_” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Protesters hit streets across the US and outside Clarence Thomas' home
> 
> 
> The prospective law changes, released in a concurring opinion Friday's decision by the justice, would see limits put on gay marriage, same-sex activity, and citizens' access to birth control.
> ...


It is likely that Thomas sees these items for what they are, not within the purview of the Federal Government.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I tried to search that. I could not find any official position on it from any of the major faith organizations.


They would be a problem for anyone who believes life begins at conception. IUD's stop implantation.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> The sweeping suggestion from the current court’s longest-serving justice came in the concurring opinion he authored in response to the court’s ruling revoking the constitutional right to abortion, also released on Friday.


The constitution does not (and never did) provide any 'right to abortion'. Everything else you added is completely unrelated to this thread.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Everything else you added is completely unrelated to this thread.


 so you say. I don't agree.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Actually, SCOTUS just told you that. But that's fine, you can still not agree.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> so you say. I don't agree.


Where in the U.S. Constitution, is there even any mention of abortion, let alone any constitutional law that provides any 'right to abortion'? No need to agree or not. It is not just my opinion that 'the constitution does not (and never did) provide any 'right to abortion', it is a fact ... unless of course, you can prove otherwise ... good luck with that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> so you say. I don't agree.


You don't have to agree with the truth. Thats your prerogative. You aren't a Constitutional expert either, so your opinions have no basis in reality.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Protesters hit streets across the US and outside Clarence Thomas' home
> 
> 
> The prospective law changes, released in a concurring opinion Friday's decision by the justice, would see limits put on gay marriage, same-sex activity, and citizens' access to birth control.
> ...


abortifacients are a target

I know you can't provide anything written by Thomas. You are just creating controversy where none exist


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The most disturbing thing in @painterswife link

"'The idea [that] we’re letting the states make those decisions, localities make those decisions, would be a fundamental shift in what we’ve done,' the president added."


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> They would be a problem for anyone who believes life begins at conception. IUD's stop implantation.


Can you produce any governance documents on that published by any faith organization? I can't find any


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Can you produce any governance documents on that published by any faith organization? I can't find any


I believe many traditional evangelical churches simply rely on the writings in the Bible.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> I believe many traditional evangelical churches simply rely on the writings in the Bible.


Maybe you can share a verse or two that show it


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Birth control is contraception.


No matter how many times you say it, you're still wrong. The terms are not interchangeable. Contraception is birth control, but not all birth control is contraception.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Maybe you can share a verse or two that show it


The most common one that came to my mind was Jeremiah 1v15. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Maybe you can share a verse or two that show it


I know you are looking for chapter and verse, but consider walking back the life of Christ. Was he God at 12 years old? When He was born? When He lept inside of Mary's womb? Before that?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> I tried to search that. I could not find any official position on it from any of the major faith organizations.


Look to the Catholics.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> Look to the Catholics.


I did. I did not find it

I don't think any religion would be any more or less against an IUD than they might be the pill

*How Does an IUD Work?*
The two different types of IUDs work differently. The one that is covered with copper releases copper ions. These ions prevent the sperm from moving and therefore reaching the egg.

The hormone-releasing IUDs are coated with the hormone levonorgestrel, a type of progestin. This thins your uterine lining while, at the same time, thickening your cervical mucus, making it extremely difficult for sperm to reach your eggs.

None of the IUDs cause abortions.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

The Catholic Church is against the pill too. I don't know where to find their "official" statements, but here's a reference: Birth Control



> In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
> 
> Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> The Catholic Church is against the pill too. I don't know where to find their "official" statements, but here's a reference: Birth Control


I do not believe the SC will consider the Pope's opinion on birth control.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> I do not believe the SC will consider the Pope's opinion on birth control.


I don't either. You were looking for official positions from faith organizations. I provided a reference about one. Didn't have anything to do with the SC.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> I don't either. You were looking for official positions from faith organizations. I provided a reference about one. Didn't have anything to do with the SC.


Thanks for that. I was simply trying to understand how some here contend that the SC would somehow outlaw contraception that was not consider an abortifacient


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Maybe you can share a verse or two that show it


One of the most widely used points is the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing. IUD's prevent the "multiply" part, which is Gods order, therefore it is a sin to use conraception.

I always ask when someone brings it up... then wouldn't that apply to abstinance and monogamy too? Wouldn't that mean wifes (and husbands) must have sex ANY time possible? Shouldn't we be running around doing it like bunnies?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

homesteadforty said:


> One of the most widely used points is the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing. IUD's prevent the "multiply" part, which is Gods order, therefore it is a sin to use conraception.
> 
> I always ask when someone brings it up... then wouldn't that apply to abstinance and monogamy too? Wouldn't that mean wifes (and husbands) must have sex ANY time possible? Shouldn't we be running around doing it like bunnies?


Right, and I don't think any of that might be used as a basis for a SC ruling


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Many Christians do believe IUDs are abortifacient and not simply contraceptive. I don't know if any major faith organization has an official position stating that, though. Evangelicals tend not to subscribe to hierarchical leadership like some of the major denominations, so it's more of an individual opinion that many share.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The majority opinion even says they are not going after the things stated earlier.

Second, it is impossible to defend Roe based on prior precedent because all of the precedents Roe cited, including Griswold and Eisenstadt, were critically different for a reason that we have explained: None of those cases involved the destruction of what Roe called “potential life.”​​The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect.​

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2022/06/19-1392_6j37-2.pdf


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> Many Christians do believe IUDs are abortifacient and not simply contraceptive.


I am a Christian and I do not. I do not think an ill formed opinion held by some undefined individuals will influence a SC ruling either


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> A link to the article would help because it is obviously written to try to show abortion has been accepted in US going back to colonization.
> 
> I am not a zealot one way or the other, but I think conservatives would be smart to make sure there is sufficient money and support for women who forgo an abortion and agree on adoption. If one wants abortions to be rare, which I do, then make sure the environment is available that encourages that to happen.


I find your comment interesting.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is up to taxpayers to fund the probably outcome (pregnancy) of the individual's decision to be sexually active? 

I can agree with you that it is wisest and best to encourage an environment that sees adoption as a good, loving option, and it would certainly be helpful if the costs associated with adoption were not so very onerous.

But funding women who become pregnant and do not want to keep their child? Surely, you must mean with some checks and balances?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Pony said:


> I find your comment interesting.
> 
> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is up to taxpayers to fund the probably outcome (pregnancy) of the individual's decision to be sexually active?
> 
> ...


I didn't say who should pay. My only point was to deny a woman an abortion without offering assistance if needed is a losing proposition. There is Aid to Dependent Children, but that is not the route I think most of us would like a woman to have to take. 

There are already organizations that provide aid to pregnant women with health expenses and childcare or adoption costs. I would leave it to them to do the screening. 

I would much rather these charities receive funding from the people in their area, but I have no control over that. If people don't step up, I wouldn't have a problem with local, state, and the federal government partially funding them as they do now.
If we want these babies to be born, I think we have a moral obligation to make sure they have the basics of food, clothes shelter, and care.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> No matter how many times you say it, you're still wrong. The terms are not interchangeable. Contraception is birth control, but not all birth control is contraception.


No matter how many times you insist otherwise, you are wrong. The terms are interchangeable. I am willing to agree to disagree, but you wishing something is true doesn't make it true, nor will it change my mind. You have however, helped me to understand that you and others actually believe that the term 'birth control' means something other than 'contraception'. I don't believe that, but knowing that others do, may help some people to find some common ground on the subject of abortion.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> I am a Christian and I do not. I do not think an ill formed opinion held by some undefined individuals will influence a SC ruling either


I don't think it will determine a ruling, but may very well influence it. Seven of the justices have Catholic backgrounds. Ignore the Latina liberal, still a lot of conservative Catholic influence. Thomas has given hints in his concurring opinion, although nothing I've seen to suggest he would "ban" contraceptives. The others seem to not be on board with him anyway.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> No matter how many times you insist otherwise, you are wrong. The terms are interchangeable. I am willing to agree to disagree, but you wishing something is true doesn't make it true, nor will it change my mind. You have however, helped me to understand that you and others actually believe that the term 'birth control' means something other than 'contraception'. I don't believe that, but knowing that others do, may help some people to find some common ground on the subject of abortion.


Abortion doesn't control birth? Then what's the problem with it?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Here's the official position of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops relevant to IUDs:


> Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the
> directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole
> immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its
> moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo.







__





Loading…






www.usccb.org





It's not an uncommon belief in the US, and probably not all that uncommon even on SCOTUS. I am not suggesting that it will lead to a specific SCOTUS decision, just giving more background on the issue.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It does not need a scotus decision now. States can decide that anything after fertization is abortion.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It does not need a scouts decision now. States can decide that anthing after fertization is abortion.


That's the way it should have been all along.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> It does not need a scoutus decision now. States can decide that anything after fertization is abortion.


Wanna bet on who tries it first? Sorry, I might have a gambling problem. My bet is Louisiana, but don't think it'll fly there or anywhere. It's not an uncommon belief, but it's far from mainstream even in some of the reddest of red areas.

Growing pains. The most hard core pro-lifers are going to overreach, while those who were insincerely using it as a political wedge are in a tough spot now. Like the dog that finally catches a car, they don't know what to do with it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Why do some here deny they will try when other HT posters have been saying they want it that way since I have been posting here?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Thanks for that. I was simply trying to understand how some here contend that the SC would somehow outlaw contraception that was not consider an abortifacient


It’s like the debate on gun control. There is no agreed position on the end game.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Why do some here deny they will try when other HT posters have been saying they want it that way since I have been posting here?


Many HT posters are well out of the mainstream. What they want and what the wider electorate will tolerate are different things.

I for one don't deny that there will be attempts to take it further than banning abortion. But I think most such attempts will flop. Any that actually become law aren't likely to last because they are not popular.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Why do some here deny they will try when other HT posters have been saying they want it that way since I have been posting here?


You shouldn't allow yourself to become so upset over a current event you cannot control. There may be a more urgent concern over the harm that may come to already born innocents in the coming hours and days.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

Saw this in a news article. You gotta admit it, at least if you are capable of honest debate without letting your feelings rule you ...that she has a point....


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Abortion doesn't control birth? Then what's the problem with it?


Abortion terminates (stops) birth, which results in the death of a living human being. I understand that you and others seem to believe that abortion and birth control are the same thing. I disagree. I believe that birth control is the same as contraception, but neither birth control nor contraception are the same as abortion. We may have to agree to disagree on this one, and that's okay.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Why do some here deny they will try when other HT posters have been saying they want it that way since I have been posting here?


Ummm... it may be unheard of to most liberals, but conservatives tend to think for themselves.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Ummm... it may be unheard of to most liberals, but conservatives tend to think for themselves.


When did thinking for yourself involve denying what other conservatives on this very site have expressed as their own views that are exactly what I stated?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> When did thinking for yourself involve denying what other conservatives on this very site have expressed as their own views that are exactly what I stated?


If that is a serious question there is nothing I can say that will help you.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> When did thinking for yourself involve denying what other conservatives on this very site have expressed as their own views that are exactly what I stated?


My my my, now didn't you do that very thing when you posted a thread about January 6th yet deny and ignore so much violent speech and physical acts from liberals? Well of course you did.
Goodness, some of it is even occurring today.
Speak up dear woman!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Oh looky! January 6th! But it isn't. This was June 24th, last night.
Representatives told to remain in the statehouse as it was close to a hostage situation. Tear gas, damage to federal property by rioters...or are they insurrectionists?
What was it again you said? Oh, it was about denying what other liberals are expressing as their own views? I edited you comment slightly for application.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Abortion terminates (stops) birth, which results in the death of a living human being.


Yes, and terminating a birth is a way of controlling birth. (Not saying it should be, just saying it is.)



CC Pereira said:


> I understand that you and others seem to believe that abortion and birth control are the same thing.


That's incorrect. I don't believe they are the same thing. Birth control includes many other alternatives.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> My my my, now didn't you do that very thing when you posted a thread about January 6th yet deny and ignore so much violent speech and physical acts from liberals? Well of course you did.
> Goodness, some of it is even occurring today.
> Speak up dear woman!


I have never denied that liberals are not responsible for violent speech or act. I am not okay with it no matter how they lean politically.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Cornhusker said:


> In the old days it was legal to gun down someone who insulted you or stole your horse.
> Guess we should go back to that?
> Dead is dead right?


Being held accountable for ones actions is not necessarily a bad thing. Lack of such is a large part of todays problems.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Yes, and terminating a birth is a way of controlling birth. (Not saying it should be, just saying it is.)
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. I don't believe they are the same thing. Birth control includes many other alternatives.


Let me get this straight.

I see it like this: 
Birth control = contraception = prevention of conception = prevention of pregnancy = 0 births + 0 deaths.
Abortion = termination of pregnancy = 0 births + 1 death.

You see it like this:
Birth control = contraception = abortion, pills, shots, IUDs, etc. = 0 births + 0-1 deaths.

???

Sorry, but contraception and abortion are separate subjects, because each has a different result ... contraception results in 0 deaths, whereas abortion results in 1 death.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Contraception and abortion are both birth control. It really is that simple. They both control births.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

homesteadforty said:


> FINALLY, a liberal admits it (where is the fireworks emoji)!!!!!
> 
> Liberals truly believe that killing an unborn baby is an acceptable form of birth contol.
> 
> Before I get too excited have I missed many other liberals admitting it before?


Unborn baby. Constantly amazed at the inaccurate combination of the two words.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> You see it like this:
> Birth control = contraception = abortion, pills, shots, IUDs, etc. = 0 births + 0-1 deaths.


No. Too many = signs there. I already said I don't believe they're the same thing.

Number of deaths is irrelevant to the math. Count the number of births. If there are 0 births where there otherwise was the potential for 1 or more births, then birth has been controlled.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Contraception and abortion are both birth control. It really is that simple. They both control births.


so ... uh ... ok let me try again ...

I see it like this:
Birth control = contraception = prevention of conception = prevention of pregnancy = 0 births + 0 deaths.
Abortion = termination of pregnancy = 0 births + 1 death.

You see it like this:
Birth control = contraception, abortion, pills, shots, IUDs, etc. = 0 births + 0-1 deaths.

Contraception prevents conception, which prevents pregnancy, which prevents birth and death.

Abortion doesn't prevent anything, but it does cause death. [sorry, had to edit this -- abortion does prevent birth ... and cause death]

Birth control or controlling birth is impossible without birth, which is impossible without pregnancy, which is impossible without conception, which is almost impossible with contraception. Pretty simple.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> so ... uh ... ok let me try again ...
> 
> I see it like this:
> Birth control = contraception = prevention of conception = prevention of pregnancy = 0 births + 0 deaths.
> ...


It prevents birth. Really that simple.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Number of deaths is irrelevant to the math.


This is the problem. People who think their own life matters, but the life of someone else inside of them not only doesn't matter, but doesn't count.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> It prevents birth. Really that simple.


sorry, you're correct about that, I mistyped ... abortion does prevent birth, but also causes death.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
> 
> FINALLY, a liberal admits it (where is the fireworks emoji)!!!!!
> 
> ...


Missed this until it was just quoted by someone else. She said abortion is birth control. She didn't say acceptable. I don't know the beliefs of everyone here, so I don't know if your added word is correct about her position, but she didn't say in that post what you claim she "admitted."

To answer your question, plenty of liberals have said for decades that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control. I doubt many would say it's ideal or the best method, but tons of them believe it is acceptable and they have no problem admitting it.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Abortion does not prevent conception, pregnancy, or death.

Contraception does prevent conception, pregnancy, and death.

These are some pretty big differences.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> This is the problem. People who think their own life matters, but the life of someone else inside of them not only doesn't matter, but doesn't count.


Nope, but somehow I knew you would take it that way. I certainly wasn't saying that, only that the number of deaths is irrelevant to your silly math equations that make no sense at all.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Abortion does not prevent conception, pregnancy, or death.
> 
> Contraception does prevent conception, pregnancy, and death.
> 
> These are some pretty big differences.


And nobody has said they're the same. Shall we list other things that are different? There are big differences between trains and spaceships! Fun game!


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Nope, but somehow I knew you would take it that way. I certainly wasn't saying that, only that the number of deaths is irrelevant to your silly math equations that make no sense at all.


How could I not take it that way? How could the number of deaths be irrelevant for any reason? What is so silly about pointing out the elephant in the room, that is so easily ignored by so many? What is it about my simple equations that doesn't make sense to you?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> How could the number of deaths be irrelevant for any reason?


Because number of deaths isn't related to whether abortion controls birth. Hypothetically, IF abortion didn't kill a human, it would STILL control birth.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> And nobody has said they're the same. Shall we list other things that are different? There are big differences between trains and spaceships! Fun game!


You and painterswife say that birth control includes both abortion and contraception, right? But that doesn't make sense to me, because although both abortion and contraception result in 0 births, only abortion results in 1 death ... two separate subjects with two separate results.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> You and painterswife say that birth control includes both abortion and contraception, right? But that doesn't make sense to me, because although both abortion and contraception result in 0 births, only abortion results in 1 death ... two separate subjects with two separate results.


Not our problem if it does not make sense to you. It does control birth. Some control it before fertization some after. Some before pregnancy, some after.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> You and painterswife say that birth control includes both abortion and contraception, right? But that doesn't make sense to me, because although both abortion and contraception result in 0 births, only abortion results in 1 death ... two separate subjects with two separate results.


Both result in no birth. Yes, there are other results that are different for the two alternatives (although some disagree that contraception does not result in death...you might be considered a baby murderer to them).


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Contraception prevents conception, which prevents pregnancy, which prevents birth, so birth control is irrelevant and separate from contraception. If there is no conception, there is no pregnancy, and if there is no pregnancy, there is no baby to be born or killed.

Abortion on the other hand, ends a pregnancy that is already in progress, so birth control is relevant in the case of abortion, because there is a baby to be born.

So abortion may be a form of birth control, but contraception is not.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Abortion prevents birth when contraception fails.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Contraception prevents conception, which prevents pregnancy, which prevents birth, so birth control is irrelevant and separate from contraception. If there is no conception, there is no pregnancy, and if there is no pregnancy, there is no baby to be born or killed.
> 
> Abortion on the other hand, ends a pregnancy that is already in progress, so birth control is relevant in the case of abortion, because there is a baby to be born.
> 
> So abortion may be a form of birth control, but contraception is not.


Did you just do a 180?


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

painterswife said:


> Did you just do a 180?


Looks that way to Mr.
It may not control birth that's a CC approved manner....but technically it DOES control birth.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Contraception and abortion are both birth control. It really is that simple. They both control births.


ONe prevents pregnancy, one terminates a life


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> It prevents birth. Really that simple.


I have a question.
If a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, that's just women's health right?
If a man kills a pregnant woman, he's charged with two counts of murder.
How can that be possible if it's just a lump of cells?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> First abortion and then other forms of birth control will be taken.


Only those that kill an innocent human being. And only in states that opt to make it illegal. Power again to the the states and the people! Tenth amendment and like that.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Even the pro-life side can't agree on which forms of birth control kill an innocent human being.

A few pro-lifers in this thread are fine with certain forms that others consider abortifacients. Pro-lifers have had a common enemy all this time, but now that they got a huge win they'll fragment some as they hash out the details of what they want to ban or not ban.

Seems unlikely any state will ban IUDs or the pill. Morning after pill might be on the chopping block in a few states, but that is probably a political loser even in the most religious states.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Most of the folks protesting this ruling actually think that the decision made abortion illegal. The truth is, in the more blood thirsty states like California, New York, and Illinois, the legal choices of how and when to kill ones unborn baby will expand.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Abortion prevents birth when contraception fails.


Here, let me fix that for ya. Abortion prevents birth, when contraception fails to prevent conception.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Did you just do a 180?


I'm just trying to understand the logic of the belief that birth control includes contraception and abortion, but I had to do a lot of twisting and squirming to make any sense of it ... too many words keep getting redefined to mean something other than what they used to.

The term 'birth control' used to mean the same as contraception. Now the term birth control also supposedly includes abortion.

The term 'racism' used to mean treating people different because of their race, due to the belief that one race is superior to another. Now racism means anything the extremist left say it means, depending on the agenda, who does it, and what day it is.

The term 'violence' used to mean physically violent behavior. Now the term violence may also mean peaceful behavior, silence, disagreement, honesty, integrity, beliefs or opinions that some people don't like or agree with, reality, facts ... guess it depends on who does it, when they do it, and why.

The term 'peaceful protest' also used to mean protesting peacefully. Now the term 'peaceful protest' only applies when the extremist left protests, whether it is peaceful or not.

The term 'woman' used to be pretty easy to define too ... sadly, now the term is so difficult to understand for some people, that it takes a biologist to explain to them that there are two genders, which are both required to reproduce, that men do not menstruate, men do not get pregnant, and men do not breast feed.

If only people could just decide and agree on a language that doesn't change the definitions of words to suit some people, while making it as difficult as possible for other people to engage in a real conversation, about real things, that actually exist. If only the same words had the same definition, no matter who used them, when they used them, or why.

Oh well, it is what it is. There simply is no logic in illogical beliefs.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> It does not need a scotus decision now. States can decide that anything after fertization is abortion.


Exactly. They can also decide to consider it homicide, and, when conducted with foresight and malice toward the baby, even murder.

As it should be.

Meanwhile, in California and New York, it will be legal to murder that baby on its scheduled day of birth. For the first time in 150 years, we’re going to live in a country where it is legal to kill some humans, in certain states, but not legal to kill those same humans in other states.

Funny thing, too, it seems there was one party running things in the states where it was legal to kill those “non-people” humans in both cases; the one your TV assigned to you.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ..... Meanwhile, in California and New York, it will be legal to murder that baby on its scheduled day of birth. .......


 That doesn't make any sense to me and it sounds unimaginably ghoulish. Can you be more explicit? What makes you believe that will be the case? Why would full term fetuses be killed on their due date? What would possibly be the purpose of waiting that long? How will such babies be killed, and will it be immediately before or immediately after their delivery? 

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> That doesn't make any sense to me and it sounds unimaginably ghoulish. Can you be more explicit? What makes you believe that will be the case? Why would full term fetuses be killed on their due date? What would possibly be the purpose of waiting that long? How will such babies be killed, and will it be immediately before or immediately after their delivery?
> 
> .


It makes no sense to me either but that’s how some states do it. It’s called late term abortion and can be done at any time prior to delivery.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Paumon said:


> That doesn't make any sense to me and it sounds unimaginably ghoulish. Can you be more explicit? What makes you believe that will be the case? Why would full term fetuses be killed on their due date? What would possibly be the purpose of waiting that long? How will such babies be killed, and will it be immediately before or immediately after their delivery?
> 
> .


Filling the search bar with the right words on a search engine that allows it will enable you to see what sounds unimaginably ghoulish. That itself sounds odd as in some cases it is easier to see degenerate porn.
25 years ago Democrats claimed that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". 
Now it seems they would like access to be as free and casual as taking a dump.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Funny thing, too, it seems there was one party running things in the states where it was legal to kill those “non-people” humans in both cases; the one your TV assigned to you.


Mostly, but not entirely. The land of Sarah Palin, for example, has fewer abortion restrictions than California. There are few others that are more liberal than CA and NY, and a couple of them are at least occasionally run by Republicans.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> First abortion and then other forms of birth control will be taken.


This is leftist fear mongering with no actual reality to back it up.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> It makes no sense to me either but that’s how some states do it. It’s called late term abortion and can be done at any time prior to delivery.


True, but in the supposedly most ghoulish states of California and New York, it is illegal except in cases where the life or health of the woman is in danger. (There's an easy way around that, call it a mental health crisis, but it isn't common practice for mental health reasons...those patients tend to get abortions much earlier.)

In states like Alaska, New Mexico, and Colorado, there is not even a requirement that it be for the life or health of the woman.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

boatswain2PA said:


> This is leftist fear mongering with no actual reality to back it up.


Yet there is some discussion about IUD's being a gray area for some.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Also the morning after pill.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

wr said:


> Yet there is some discussion about IUD's being a gray area for some.


Discussion amongst whom? Leftists on lamestream media? Same ones who say Repubs want to throw grandma off the cliff?

There is zero real "discussion" amongst Republicans or conservatives about banning contraception. 

None. Nada. Zip.

Now I wouldn't put it past people in power to GET power hungry and start pushing for it, but that is when they will lose the center like the Democrats did when they moved from "safe, rare and legal" to "scream it from the rooftops".


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Also the morning after pill.


You just claimed that not every liberal speaks for you, yet you are reaching for any outlier to make a very weak point.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> You just claimed that not every liberal speaks for you, yet you are reaching for any outlier to make a very weak point.


There are conservatives on this very forum that believe all birth control after fertization should be banned.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> There are conservatives on this very forum that believe all birth control after fertization should be banned.


You are mixing words and you know it 

There is no real discussion in conservative circles in banning contraception.

There is an understandable belief that human life begins at fertilization. We might agree or disagree, but that is a reasonable belief, therefore it is a reasonable belief that abortifacent medications should be banned.

You have introduced a new term...."birth control after fertilization" to muddy the waters, so I just wanted to clear it up.

Despite your fear mongering, there is NO real discussions (other than the very real leftist fearmongering) about banning birth control.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> You are mixing words and you know it
> 
> There is no real discussion in conservative circles in banning contraception.
> 
> ...


I am not. I have been told personally by conservatives by pm and it has also been posted in the forum in threads.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> There are conservatives on this very forum that believe all birth control after fertization should be banned.


Please provide quotes. I don't seem to recall anybody calling for IUD's or the morning after pill (Levonorgestrel) to be banned.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Please provide quotes. I don't seem to recall anybody calling for IUD's or the morning after pill (Levonorgestrel) to be banned.


I can't, most of those threads are in the dark rooms or were deleted. I won't post pms.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Some people discussing things online, or even around the dinner table, does not make the case for the fear mongering you are attempting to spread.

There is NO reasonable discussion in conservative/republican circles regarding banning contraception.

None.

The only people talking about it are leftists who want to scare people.

You should stop doing that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> Some people discussing things online, or even around the dinner table, does not make the case for the fear mongering you are attempting to spread.
> 
> There is NO reasonable discussion in conservative/republican circles regarding banning contraception.
> 
> ...


Not true.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I can't, most of those threads are in the dark rooms or were deleted. I won't post pms.


It's bad form to relate 3rd party's thoughts without being able to back it up.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Also the morning after pill.


That is an aborticide. There might be push back on that


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Not true.


All this yahuh/nuhuh bull 💩 merely sounds childish and does absolutely nothing to support your contentions.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The ruckus on the left is the fear that democracy might come to play. States, and local elections will say yay or nay.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I can't, most of those threads are in the dark rooms or were deleted. I won't post pms.


So your point is that someone somewhere said something but you can't find the quotes, who said them and are unwilling to name anyone that you claim did. Ok then....

BTW, if someone is willing to give you their opinion, why would they fear it being public knowledge?
As a general rule, conservative based povs go on traditional principals and absolutes and don't really care who knows it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Michigan GOP gubernatorial candidate doesn’t know how Plan B works, says he’d ban it


Garrett Soldano, a leading Republican candidate in Michigan’s race for Governor, said he’d be for banning Plan B, despite not knowing how Plan B works.




heartlandsignal.com





NEW: Garrett Soldano, GOP candidate for MI governor, says he wants to ban Plan B, then demonstrates he doesn't understand how the morning-after pill works. “If you can prove conception didn’t happen, you can use it. Fine... But as soon as that joins, it’s over. That’s DNA, man.”


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Not true.


What isn't true?

The fear mongering by leftists (like yourself?)?

We all know that's true, we see it every night on the news.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Michigan GOP gubernatorial candidate doesn’t know how Plan B works, says he’d ban it
> 
> 
> Garrett Soldano, a leading Republican candidate in Michigan’s race for Governor, said he’d be for banning Plan B, despite not knowing how Plan B works.
> ...


You are once again conflating contraception and abortifacent medications.

Whether we agree or disagree, it is a reasonable argument that Plan B is an abortifacent medication and therefore is immoral. 

So, I will return to my statement that the ONLY people who are talking about banning CONTRACEPTION ("contra" meaning contrary to, and "ception" being becoming pregnant) are fear-mongering leftists.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Michigan GOP gubernatorial candidate doesn’t know how Plan B works, says he’d ban it
> 
> 
> Garrett Soldano, a leading Republican candidate in Michigan’s race for Governor, said he’d be for banning Plan B, despite not knowing how Plan B works.
> ...


I read that differently than the the leftist media that wants to push an agenda. He wants to ban it because it sometimes acts by not allowing an embryo to implant. He seems to know that there is no way to prove conception hasn't taken place, hence wanting to ban it rather than restrict it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

See folks, right there. Someone who believes plan b birth control is an abortion and immoral. Right here in this forum.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

And that is what is scaring you?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> NEW: Garrett Soldano, GOP candidate for MI governor, says he wants to ban Plan B


I'll be generous and say o.k. ... you named one *candidate* that wants to ban Plan B pills. I'm sure that there are a few others. Good work though... you managed to get one in roughly 300 million people.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> See folks, right there. Someone who believes plan b birth control is an abortion and immoral. Right here in this forum.


It can be by disallowing implantation of a fertilized embryo.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You might shake endlessly if you owned guns, knowing what we read and hear everyday.
Think of that word "absolute right".
Ouch.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> See folks, right there. Someone who believes plan b birth control is an abortion and immoral. Right here in this forum.


Oh come on... can you really not see how rediculous you sound... I'm starting to get embarrassed _for you_.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> See folks, right there. Someone who believes plan b birth control is an abortion and immoral. Right here in this forum.


No one is surprised


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Oh come on... can you really not see how rediculous you sound... I'm starting to get embarrassed _for you_.


Don't bother. Making fun of me when I am right is the local sport. It makes those making fun of me look foolish again.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> See folks, right there. Someone who believes plan b birth control is an abortion and immoral. Right here in this forum.


Most think abortion is immoral.

If plan B is an abortifacent, which it likely is, then it is reasonable to think it is immoral.

However there is still no discussion in conservative circles about banning contraception. The only people who talk about that are fear-mongering leftists.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Making fun of me when I am right is the local sport. It makes those making fun of me look foolish again.


When have you ever been right... please quote.

O.K. I'll admit... I like to pester you... but you make it so easy!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> Most think abortion is immoral.
> 
> If plan B is an abortifacent, which it likely is, then it is reasonable to think it is immoral.
> 
> However there is still no discussion in conservative circles about banning contraception. The only people who talk about that are fear-mongering leftists.


I said banning birth control. I spoke to that and I was correct. They are, and many conservatives want it. Your buzz words don't change that.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Don't bother. Making fun of me when I am right is the local sport. It makes those making fun of me look foolish again.


Even you know the downward steps of a losing argument is to play victim.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I said banning birth control. I spoke to that and I was correct. They are, and many conservatives want it. Your buzz words don't change that.


But why should that make you this afraid?
Listening to threats of removing a constitutional right by leaders in Washington is a wee bit more powerful than some podunk Homesteading forum slob who shares their opinion.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I said banning birth control. I spoke to that and I was correct. They are, and many conservatives want it. Your buzz words don't change that.


I guess if you consider 1 in 300 million to be "many" I guess you do think you are correct. Bless your little heart


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I would think the people, both private citizens and law enforcement, who are taking the brunt of the pro abortion mobs the last few days would be a reason for legitimate quivering.
Someone online posts their opinion that something should be stopped and she shakes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> But why should that make you this afraid?
> Listening to threats of removing a constitutional right by leaders in Washington is a wee bit more powerful than some podunk Homesteading forum slob who shares their opinion.


Did, I say I was afraid? You are projecting again. You might want to see someone about that.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You are spending a lot of effort picking that needle out of the haystack for someone who isn't.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Is anyone splashing red paint on your doors? Doxxing you and your family? Walking down the interstate threatening you and attempting to damage your vehicle? 
If you were trembling over the idea of that happening to you I might understand.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> You are spending a lot of effort picking that needle out of the haystack for someone who isn't.


I responded to posters who basically called me a liar in the first place. Proving them wrong was all I did.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Can you point to those posts and who were the members?


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> I said banning birth control. I spoke to that and I was correct. They are, and many conservatives want it. Your buzz words don't change that.


They are not buzz words, they are clear definitions without middying them with your hysteria.

Birth control is an overly broad term, and to say anyone wants to ban birth control is either ignorance of language, ignorance of other people's beliefs, or an outright lie.

For example, BIRTH CONTROL also consists of abstinence and natural family planning (NFP). Nobody advocates banning abstinence or NFP.

BIRTH control also consists of hormonal suppression and IUDs that prevent fertilization. While the Catholic Church says this is a sin, there is absolutely no push to ban these.

Plan B is a form of BIRTH CONTROL, but is likely an abortifacent, so many people think it is immoral and should be banned.

Abortion is also BIRTH CONTROL, but kills an unborn child, and therefore many people consider it immoral and want it banned.

You can hide behind your ridiculous "REPUBLICANS WANT TO BAN BIRTH CONTROL!!!!!!" hysteria, but we all know you are just fearmongering.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> They are not buzz words, they are clear definitions without middying them with your hysteria.
> 
> Birth control is an overly broad term, and to say anyone wants to ban birth control is either ignorance of language, ignorance of other people's beliefs, or an outright lie.
> 
> ...


The only hysteria is yours. Are you compensating for being wrong about my posts?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

I'm outta this part of the discussion... it's just getting plain ol' sad.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It is sad. Sad that some can't accept they were wrong about what I posted.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> I'm outta this part of the discussion... it's just getting plain ol' sad.


It is a pattern.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

The mechanism of action of the morning after pill isn't all that important to most people. Only the most religious care if it's abortifacient or not, and there is significant reason to doubt that it is despite the labeling saying it could be. Most people, even a lot of pro-lifers, just figure it's fine because it's so early. Seems reasonable to me even if it does prevent implantation, since tons of fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant without any help from a pill, and not every time someone has sex results in a fertilized egg anyway.

I'm sure several states will talk about banning it and a few will probably do it, but the vast majority of the populace have no problems with Plan B and almost 1/4 of sexually active women in the childbearing years has used it, so that might be a political loser.

The science is actually similar for IUDs, as they can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg sometimes, but they're widely accepted even by most non-Catholic pro-lifers. Probably just because it's something done before having sex so it psychologically feels like you're not hurting a life since the life hasn't been conceived yet...although they can be put in a few days after sex too, and work just like Plan B but more effective. There are fringe and fringe-adjacent politicians who dislike them, but I don't see them getting the support to ban them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> There are conservatives on this very forum that believe all birth control after fertization should be banned.


I would be one of them.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Abortion causes a fetus to be expelled from the womb, via the birth canal. It's the same passage a fully grown and living fetus takes at the completion of gestation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> I would be one of them.


I knew that but thought it best you state it for yourself.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I knew that but thought it best you state it for yourself.


Surely EH doesn't scare you too.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Surely EH doesn't scare you too.


I am not scared. Are you projecting again?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Mods have been gracious about leaving the topic in GC as long as it was civil but the insults have started. The choice is yours, discuss the subject civilly and see discussion continue or continue on the current trajectory and see it locked.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Rape and incest are apparently at an all time high.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

And the world is laughing at the antics of these lunatics.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Solar_Toad said:


> I don't think we should be aborting people 2 days before they are born. but if someone is not equipped to be a parent, and finds out 3 weeks in, maybe that's OK, for them.


Sir, that is a fallacy. Never did anyone claim that they do abortions in the 8th or 9th month or even 2 days prior. It's just something that someone came up to terrify the uninformed masses.


----------



## Solar_Toad (10 mo ago)

TedH71 said:


> Sir, that is a fallacy. Never did anyone claim that they do abortions in the 8th or 9th month or even 2 days prior. It's just something that someone came up to terrify the uninformed masses.


SIR?!

SIR??!!

DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER?

THATS HIGHLY INAPROPRIATE AND OFFENSIVE!

You didn't even bother to ask my pronouns!


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

HDRider said:


> That is an aborticide. There might be push back on that


I could be wrong on this one, which is why this is more of a comment / question for others than a statement, but 1. doesn't it take up to 72 hours after sex for fertilization of an egg to occur, and 2. doesn't the morning after pill / plan B pill only work within that 72 hours, before fertilization occurs? If so, wouldn't that mean that the morning after / plan B pill is a contraceptive?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

CC Pereira said:


> I could be wrong on this one, which is why this is more of a comment / question for others than a statement, but 1. doesn't it take up to 72 hours after sex for fertilization of an egg to occur, and 2. doesn't the morning after pill / plan B pill only work within that 72 hours, before fertilization occurs? If so, wouldn't that mean that the morning after / plan B pill is a contraceptive?


I really do not know

Let me contrast Plan B and Ella. Plan B is basically synthetic progesterone, and is merely a larger dose of a form of oral contraceptive that has been used for years. Ella is a progesterone antagonist, which means that it works by blocking the effect of progesterone. The only other progesterone antagonist on the market at this time is mifepristone, otherwise known as RU-486, the abortion pill....​




Is Plan B an Abortifacient?


Is there any reason to think the contraceptives Hobby Lobby refused to subsidize are actually abortifacients? Dr. Rich Poupard examines this issue.




www.str.org


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Thank you HDRider ... I'll learn more about this one before commenting on it, but also appreciate the input of others on the subject ...


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

TedH71 said:


> Sir, that is a fallacy. Never did anyone claim that they do abortions in the 8th or 9th month or even 2 days prior. It's just something that someone came up to terrify the uninformed masses.


Though rare it seems that it's not



TedH71 said:


> just something that someone came up to terrify the uninformed masses.


Which masses are uninformed???

*"Intact dilation and extraction* (*D&X,* *IDX*, *intact D&E*) is a surgical procedure that removes an intact fetus from the uterus. The procedure is used both after miscarriages and for abortions in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy."

"In 2000, although only 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States were performed using this procedure,[3] it developed into a focal point of the abortion debate."

"...was outlawed in most cases by the 2003 federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act"

See full article here


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

On the one hand, I think it is very sad that so many babies are killed by abortion every year. On the other hand ... the purpose of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, which results in 1 death, which results in a reduction of the pro-abortionist population ... a natural consequence of killing your babies. Meanwhile, the population of pro-lifers increases, because pro-lifers don't kill their babies.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

I think at some point, people will have to determine when life begins and accept it, so that we can determine and accept when human rights begin. 

IMO, life begins at fertilization and conception, so human rights begin at fertilization and conception. If a person is unable to protect their own human rights (due to not being old enough, young enough, strong enough, or psychologically well enough), then I have no problem with others doing it for them. If people are unable or unwilling to protect the human rights of their unborn children, then I have no problem with someone else doing it for them.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> I could be wrong on this one, which is why this is more of a comment / question for others than a statement, but 1. doesn't it take up to 72 hours after sex for fertilization of an egg to occur, and 2. doesn't the morning after pill / plan B pill only work within that 72 hours, before fertilization occurs? If so, wouldn't that mean that the morning after / plan B pill is a contraceptive?


Yes, preventing fertilization is thought to be the main mechanism of action of Plan B, if not the only mechanism. The label says it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, but that was added as a concession to get it approved more easily, not because it's necessarily true. Studies have shown that isn't the way it normally works, but I don't believe it's conclusively proven that it can't happen.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Yes, preventing fertilization is thought to be the main mechanism of action of Plan B, if not the only mechanism. The label says it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, but that was added as a concession to get it approved more easily, not because it's necessarily true. Studies have shown that isn't the way it normally works, but I don't believe it's conclusively proven that it can't happen.


Interesting.

If the plan B pill is simply a synthetic form of progesterone that works the same as contraceptive pills or shots that use synthetic progesterone, estrogen, or both ... then I would think it would just be considered a contraceptive. I don't think it would kill a fetus though, because progesterone levels are much higher when a woman is pregnant anyway ... so I don't think that a wee bit more of the same hormone that is already elevated if pregnant, would cause abortion.

There are other pills that are used for abortion though ... like Ella, and RU-486 ... correct?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

If you consider a zygote to be a fetus before implantation, then Plan B is probably a no go for you. While it is known to prevent fertilization in most cases, it's not 100% known that it can't prevent implantation in the cases where fertilization does happen.

The others are easier cases. Ella is known to be able to prevent implantation of a zygote even though that's not its primary mechanism. RU-486 can detach an already implanted zygote, and significantly beyond zygote stage. They both work by blocking progesterone, kind of like the opposite of Plan B.

This discussion is an academic exercise though. Nobody here is making the decisions about what will be allowed and what won't.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

ryanthomas said:


> Yes, preventing fertilization is thought to be the main mechanism of action of Plan B, if not the only mechanism. The label says it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, but that was added as a concession to get it approved more easily, not because it's necessarily true. Studies have shown that isn't the way it normally works, but I don't believe it's conclusively proven that it can't happen.


And yet my (2010) medical textbooks on my bookshelf say the mechanism is as an abortifacent by blocking implantation.

Wonder what changed....

Oh yeah, "wokeism"....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

boatswain2PA said:


> And yet my (2010) medical textbooks on my bookshelf say the mechanism is as an abortifacent by blocking implantation.
> 
> Wonder what changed....
> 
> Oh yeah, "wokeism"....


Does it give a definition of "woman"?


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

HDRider said:


> Does it give a definition of "woman"?


Nope, it was implied that the reader had common sense.

I do remember my psych textbooks included "gender dysphoria".

And of course learned about the very, very, very rare different types of hermaphrodite presentations.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

boatswain2PA said:


> And yet my (2010) medical textbooks on my bookshelf say the mechanism is as an abortifacent by blocking implantation.
> 
> Wonder what changed....
> 
> Oh yeah, "wokeism"....


I wouldn't say it's wokeism. The woke don't care if it's abortifacient or not. They're using it either way.

I think it got approved without full knowledge of how it works, and we still don't have full knowledge. There are studies that say it prevents ovulation and thus fertilization, but I'm not qualified to determine whether they're valid. Either way, "prevent" doesn't mean 100% elimination of fertilization, so there is definitely a chance that it blocks implantation sometimes. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been proven that it never happens.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

ryanthomas said:


> I wouldn't say it's wokeism. The woke don't care if it's abortifacient or not. They're using it either way.
> 
> I think it got approved without full knowledge of how it works, and we still don't have full knowledge. There are studies that say it prevents ovulation and thus fertilization, but I'm not qualified to determine whether they're valid. Either way, "prevent" doesn't mean 100% elimination of fertilization, so there is definitely a chance that it blocks implantation sometimes. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been proven that it never happens.


The mechanism of action can prevent fertilization, but is well known treatment to prevent implantation. That is why historical texts said it was an abortifacent.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Yeah, I've read the texts...I have an MD, too...but I'm not a practicing physician so I'll take your word for it. Your education is more recent than mine, and I assume you're practicing.

So Plan B is out for those who believe conception is the line. Sorry, CC.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Here's a more recent study that backs up that it is more abortifacient than not: Does levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive have a post-fertilization effect? A review of its mechanism of action



> The drug was originally thought to work by preventing fertilization. Recent research has cast doubt on this. Our review of the research suggests that it could act in a pre-fertilization capacity, and we estimate that it could prevent ovulation in only 15 percent or less of cases. The drug has no ability to alter sperm function and limited ability to suppress ovulation. Further, data suggest that when administered pre-ovulation, it may have a post-fertilization MOA.


That's why I don't claim to know, and I don't think anyone knows 100%. Even the studies that say the opposite don't rule out post-fertilization mechanism. So that makes it easy for those who see conception as the hard line...Plan B is a no go.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Yeah, I've read the texts...I have an MD, too...but I'm not a practicing physician so I'll take your word for it. Your education is more recent than mine, and I assume you're practicing.
> 
> So Plan B is out for those who believe conception is the line. Sorry, CC.


No problem, I appreciate the explanations from you and others, because I'm just not for sure on this one ... and I really wanted to know whether plan B prevents conception or terminates pregnancy, or both.

So here's what I found about this topic elsewhere so far (I'll try to be short and sweet):

According to the FDA, plan B stops the release of an egg from the ovary, prevents the union of sperm and egg, and sometimes prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb. Plan B is available without a prescription, and is designed to be taken up to three days after unprotected sex.

The FDA authorized the use of two drugs (mifepristone and misoprostol), to enduce an abortion of babies through ten weeks of gestation.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Yes, mifepristone (RU-486) does the abortion and I believe the other one induces contractions.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------

