Contra-Contraception
There was
a really interesting article in the NYT Magazine yesterday. It's an overview of the dogmatic philosophy of a growing number of "Contra-Contraceptionists." Their main target is the abortion pill, but actually it's ANY contraception that worries them.
Their main concern is about what they see as the immorality of interrupting the natural cycle of life that begins after fertilization and implantation of the female egg. From a strictly physiological perspective, this would seemingly allow for both cunnilingus and fellatio, and even anal intercourse, especially since these anticontraceptionists have not gone as far as invoking
Life of Brian's "Every Sperm is Sacred" argument; though I would not be surprised if they do believe this. If they did go forward with that idea, the phenomenon of the nocturnal emission would then have to be addressed. Can it be immoral to simply dream of having sex? "Only if you actually ejaculate" I can hear them say. It's a slippery (and sticky) slope indeed.
What they really believe, but rarely come out and say, is that sexual pleasure (especially orgasm), in and of itself, is wrong if it does not occur between a married Christian man and Christian woman in a simultaneous prayer-like homage to the potential life that "might" occur as a result of their missionary coitus. Sexual pleasure, as opposed to, say, getting a back rub, or relaxing in a bath tub, is to be avoided entirely. And even the pleasure that occurs between the couple as described above must be subservient to the Christian miracle of life (even if fertilization and implantation do not occur).
Does anyone agree with this?
No.
But let's not be calling the abortion pill contraception. It doesn't prevent conception.
The below is from the article:
The issue is partly — but only partly — one of definition. According to the makers of the emergency contraception pill, it has three possible means of functioning. Most commonly, it stops ovulation — the release of an egg —or prevents sperm from fertilizing an egg. In some cases, however, depending on where a woman is in her cycle, it may stop an already fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. In such a situation, for those who believe that life — and thus also pregnancy — begins at the moment of fertilization, it would indeed function as an abortifacient. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, pregnancy begins not at fertilization but at implantation. The medical thinking behind this definition has to do with the fact that implantation is the moment when a woman's body begins to nurture the fertilized egg. The roughly one-half of all fertilized eggs that never attach to a uterine wall are thus not generally considered to be tiny humans — ensouled beings — that died but rather fertilized eggs that did not turn into pregnancies. Federal regulations enacted during the Bush administration agree with this, stating, "Pregnancy encompasses the period of time from implantation until delivery."
I agree with SM...especially regarding the morning after pill. Who on earth makes this stuff available to the public. Is it by doctor's prescription or what? I only agree with abortion if you have been raped, and maybe one or two other slight grey area's, but definitely not just so that you can enjoy sex as recreation.
If a baby isn't a baby at the point of conception then it wouldn't be called pregnancy and abortion would have a whole new definition.
It's not a pregnancy until implantation. A miscarriage is when an implanted egg loses hold, not when it never catches on in the first place, as happens frequently. If the egg doesn't catch hold, there is no more pregnancy than if you swallowed a fertilized egg.
Then why even have the word miscarriage? The actual definiton of miscarriage implies that you lose "something". You can't lose "something" if you never had it in the first place.
It also says this: Main Entry: mis·car·riage
Pronunciation: mis-'kar-ij
spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation
We can argue about the point at which a baby is a baby all day long. All of us will probably have our own definitions. Which, if I'm not wrong is one of the main debates about abortion in the first place. All I'm saying is if you're not already protected or not willing to deal with the consequences of possibly becoming pregnant because of your actions, you shouldn't be doing those actions in the first place. If that were the case, we probably wouldn't all be having to deal with the ramifications of all of these laws and definitions anyway.
Blah blah..
Women will ALWAYS get abortions. The question is why wouldnt you want to reduce the number of them? I thought that was the point.
Sure Warch...that could very well be the point. Which would be why they start talking about sex-ed in 5th grade (maybe earlier around different parts of the world). Apparently everything that our school systems, parents, teachers, etc are doing isn't working...obviously talking about it and the warnings that are given over and over (about pregnancy, and STD's) are only working on a very limited scale, if you look at statistics (otherwise this whole debate would be unheard of).
What are other preventative things we as a collective society that cares about this debate be doing then?
Then why even have the word miscarriage? The actual definiton of miscarriage implies that you lose "something". You can't lose "something" if you never had it in the first place.
Exactly. And you don't have something unless the egg successfully implants and begins to develop. The morning after pill stops that from happening, so it isn't even an abortion pill.
It also says this: Main Entry: mis·car·riage
Pronunciation: mis-'kar-ij
spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation
You do realize that 12 weeks is almost the second trimester, right? Where did that definition come from?
I did realize that. That was my whole point...
dictionary.com
...
Their main concern is about what they see as the immorality of interrupting the natural cycle of life
...
Does anyone agree with this?
I think they should take it a step further. The natural cycle of life should include modern medicine - you think it's wrong to mess with the body's reproductive process? Then don't mess with its illness-fighting process, either. Let nature take its course.
Forget about the abortion debate, you guys should be talking about having sex for "recreational" purposes. I think it's wrong to have sex just for pleasure, and I don't. Of course, I don't have a girlfriend right now, and if I did, I would probably change my mind. But for now, sex for pleasure is ethically and morally wrong! It turns us into objectifiers and whores.
God I'm horny, I think I'll become and Onanist.
This is also why the same "christians" object to homosexuality -- no direct route to procreation. I guess someday they'll advocate artificial insemination by the minister on the altar. Old people shouldn't marry, either. No sex after menopause. Or chemotherapy. Or while lactating. :right:
This is also why the same "christians" object to homosexuality -- no direct route to procreation.
Are you sure it's not because, oh you know..., it's morally wrong and a sin to practice homosexuality? I'm sure any concerns about procreation are just secondary. But thats just my opinion. :unsure:
Are you sure it's not because, oh you know..., it's morally wrong and a sin to practice homosexuality?
Okay, lack of procreation is
a reason they object.
And no, I don't know. Homosexuality is neither wrong nor a sin in my book. :p
Are you sure it's not because, oh you know..., it's morally wrong and a sin to practice homosexuality?
Yes. Everything banned in the Bible (sins, abominations, etc.) has a reason behind the ban. Some of those reasons are no longer relevant, but there was always one at the time.
Are you sure it's not because, oh you know..., it's morally wrong and a sin to practice homosexuality? I'm sure any concerns about procreation are just secondary. But thats just my opinion. :unsure:
How did they determine it was a sin? Wasn't it because it has "no direct route to procreation"? :confused:
Very interesting article (and links) regarding homosexuality and the Fundamentalist Christian movement. Abortion is also mentioned in one of the links.
http://elroy.net/ehr/gay.htmlHe is confused on one point though, sodomy is not a sin (nor the same thing in the Bible as homosexuality, it is usually referred to as sex for the purpose of idolatry).
It is an abomination, along the lines of wearing a cotton/poly blend shirt and eating shrimp, not sin.
Fundies are so stupid.
Yes. Everything banned in the Bible (sins, abominations, etc.) has a reason behind the ban. Some of those reasons are no longer relevant, but there was always one at the time.
It is an abomination, along the lines of wearing a cotton/poly blend shirt and eating shrimp, not sin.
Shellfish and pork I understand, they are dangerous when prepared wrong. But does anyone understand the historical reason for banning blended fabrics?
Shellfish and pork I understand, they are dangerous when prepared wrong. But does anyone understand the historical reason for banning blended fabrics?
It didn't conform to Moses' sense of style?
What about not trimming the hair on the sides of your head?
Shellfish and pork I understand, they are dangerous when prepared wrong. But does anyone understand the historical reason for banning blended fabrics?
I never could figure that one out either, unless it had to do with economics... keeping merchants honest somehow. How about not eating bats, but locusts are ok?
Some abominations are very silly, like not planting different crops in the same field and leaving a
specific corner of your field unharvested.
How about not being able to approach the alter if you have less than perfect vision, what the hell is that about?
I just like that football and my gardening gloves are an abomination too.
My thinkin' is that they spent too much time in tha' desert and the sun cooked all tha' Lords good advice a bit.
Okay, lack of procreation is a reason they object.
And no, I don't know. Homosexuality is neither wrong nor a sin in my book. :p
I've heard a lot of people who
aren't professed christians claim that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't procreate. Because, it seems, sex is all about producing more children.
You're all sinners, anyway.I've heard a lot of people who aren't professed christians claim that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't procreate. Because, it seems, sex is all about producing more children.
You're all sinners, anyway.
How does one not just bust a gut when you hear something like that said with a straight face?:headshake
How does one not just bust a gut when you hear something like that said with a straight face?:headshake
Who said I managed to? ;)
The logic I've heard is this: Contraceptives and homosex (I love using this term) are counter productive to society and detrimental to the economy because they produce nothing. Without babies, families don't grow. If families don't grow, homes aren't purchased, minivans/SUVs don't sell, diaper production drops, and no fresh children go off to college to become educated and help the country. Or, something like that. The argument was backed with the mention that people that don't have children "are greedy and live their life only for pleasure" when it is obvious that people need to produce for the good of mankind, the future of the economy, and the good of the country. This father of two underlined that it is important for everyone to "give back" to the world by having children and not live with just one's own interests in mind.
None of his argument had any mention of religion, nor is he a religious person. It hurt my head.
Yes, I'm glad my parents "had" me, but I think there are many, many people who have children only to satisfy themselves, to make themselves feel wanted, needed, and loved. It's selfish, by any measure. Problem is, as the world's population increases every second, it's only in "Western" countries that practice contraception and abortion that have a very low birth rate (America, for example). That's why we need people from other countries to do the shit work for us. Ozzie & Harriet and Ward & June are alive and well, but they are now a much smaller cohort in the population.
But here's my main point: There is no benefit to this world from adding yet another consumer. It's what you "do" with your life that counts. If all you leave behind is a trail or receipts for all the shit you purchased, hooray for you, but you've not really contributed to making the world a better or more informed or interesting place. The nuclear families, especially the ones I see around where I live, don't contribute shit to our world.
Who said I managed to? ;)
The logic I've heard is this: Contraceptives and homosex (I love using this term) are counter productive to society and detrimental to the economy because they produce nothing. Without babies, families don't grow. If families don't grow, homes aren't purchased, minivans/SUVs don't sell, diaper production drops, and no fresh children go off to college to become educated and help the country. Or, something like that. The argument was backed with the mention that people that don't have children "are greedy and live their life only for pleasure" when it is obvious that people need to produce for the good of mankind, the future of the economy, and the good of the country. This father of two underlined that it is important for everyone to "give back" to the world by having children and not live with just one's own interests in mind.
None of his argument had any mention of religion, nor is he a religious person. It hurt my head.
It is sure as hell hurting mine as well... at least religion is a good excuse for being stupid or crazy, but "honey, we gotta' get knocked-up for the good of economy!"
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
I've heard a lot of people who aren't professed christians claim that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't procreate. Because, it seems, sex is all about producing more children.
You're all sinners, anyway.
Your close. Sex is a sin because it's fun and everything fun is a sin. The catch is, sex is the method of procreation so they have to allow it.
The best they can do is specify that it's only ok if not for fun, which would include homo sex and hetro sex using birth control. :rolleyes:
Blogger in rural Ohio finds it impossible to get emergency contraception pill
Nobody in the county hospital would prescribe it unless she said she was raped.
Her civil rights are being raped. Isn't that good enough?
Sounds like pretty brainless girl to me, she's such a dimwit that she needs EMERGENCY contraception from planned sex? I say she gets the pill because god help us if she procreates, in fact the best solution would probably be to make absolutely SURE she gets emergency contraception every time she has sex.:rolleyes:
Sounds like pretty brainless girl to me, she's such a dimwit that she needs EMERGENCY contraception from planned sex? I say she gets the pill because god help us if she procreates, in fact the best solution would probably be to make absolutely SURE she gets emergency contraception every time she has sex.:rolleyes:
Um...if that's her choice, she can pay for it, and it exists...what's the problem?
Um...if that's her choice, she can pay for it, and it exists...what's the problem?
Friends as doctors and nurses in a Catholic hospital could neither tell teenagers about how or why sex causes pregnancies nor how to prevent such pregnancies. They could not even tell a teenager about condoms. Church and hospital officials insisted they were being most moral.
Unless a law has been passed, I still believe hospital personal are not allowed to tell any patient about anything that might impede a pregnancy. Such actions would obstruct god's will. (If so, then god is not so almighty, or the church promotes a weak and pagan god.)
She could always
add a donate button to her blog.
(Fair warning before you click. I think that whether it is satire or serious, the page I linked to is possibly the most offensive thing I've ever seen on the internet, and yes, I've seen both goatse and tubgirl.)
Oh MAN, why did you have to mention tubgirl!?
Sounds like pretty brainless girl to me, she's such a dimwit that she needs EMERGENCY contraception from planned sex?
You may want to check paragraphs two and three, and the first sentence of paragraph four for your answer.
Of the article? Nothing relevent in those sections to what I said.:confused:
You need emergency contraception if the normal contraception fails. And it did. See the first sentence of paragraph four:
Friday night the condom broke.
That's why a non-dimwit non-brainless person may need emergency contraception from planned sex.
Condom only? Why isn't she on the pill as well? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this chick getting her hormones bumped but someone should take her aside and tell her how it's done. All this whining about sex losing its meaning when done recreationally is crap, it never had any to begin with. A lot of fuss over nothing more than two people in rutting season
Condom only? Why isn't she on the pill as well?
That's why I mentioned paragraphs two and three as well as the first sentence of paragraph four.
"My body finally decided it was fed up" ?? Yay, I just love how that clears everything up. For the medical record I'm curious to know if it stomped out the door or just scheduled some counselling.
I guess I'm slightly more sympathetic, but the rest of the blog had me laughing so hard I thought I'd fall out of my chair. :lol2:
Yes sir, you'll make a wonderful doctor.
And once again you confuse the heck out of me by that statement...
One thing to say: Just because some people decide to have sex in ways that don't lead to children (old people, gay people, sex w/ birth control and contraceptives), doesn't mean that there aren't going to be people out there trying to procreate. Sex for pleasure alone is not going to stop the circle of life.
"My body finally decided it was fed up" ?? Yay, I just love how that clears everything up.
Of course it does. Birth control pills can have negative side effects in some users. Apparently she was one.
The pills almost killed my wife.
No, that's your assumption of what she meant. Plus, the side effects involved are so varied that the assumption gives us no good information anyway. The girl has the communication skills of a adolescent.
EDIT: Aimed in responce to post #47
No, that's your assumption of what she meant.
No, it's what she said. Here's the part you quoted:
My body finally decided that it was fed up...
And here's the rest of the sentence:
...and the cycle of side-effects began again as they have every time I've taken hormonal contraception since I was a teenager. The Depo shot culminated in a trip to the ER due to heavy bleeding and fainting.
Apparently it was serious enough for the doctor to alter the prescription:
So my doctor switched me to the yet another low-dose birth control pill
But that wasn't enough:
which began fucking me up several months ago.
The girl has the communication skills of a adolescent.
Perhaps, but you may want to bone up on your reading skills before impugning her writing.
Why so mean spirited about this 9th?
Well, she put me off fairly early on with phrases like the one I quoted. While it may not seem like that big off a deal it hinged on a gut reaction I picked up from my parents. Both my parents work(ed) in emergency medicine, so they had to learn to 'read through' patients to get as much information as they could. The ER does bad things to people, the doctors see people at their worst when they are under huge stresses, and as a result patients tend to lie, tell half-truths, and be extremely vauge. I've grown up hearing all the stories of this and now when I hear one I'm very skeptical of everything else you say. "My body decided it was fed up", is one of these, it gives no infomation but the patient will of course expect the doctor to know what in hell they're talking about. I'm not a doctor (I pray I'll never have to do clinical practice) so I'm not claiming this based on first person experience, but I grew up around it. I did say I have sympathy for the woman after re-reading it once or twice, but I stand by my statement that she forces the reader to fill in a lot of gaps. Depo (short for Depo-Provera, manufactured by Pfizer), for example, is certainly NOT something I would expect someone with a history of problems stemming from hormonal birthcontrol to switch to. Her acute attack makes sense because Depo is a higher hormonal 'hit', only with progesterone instead of estrogen.
Plus there are serious problems with it, I'm copying this list off Wikipedia for convenience:
severe headaches, constant bleeding (metrorrhagia), weight gain, panic attacks, muscle pain, heart palpitations, pain during sex, acne, irregular menstrual bleeding, abdominal cramps, dizziness, weakness or fatigue, leg cramps, nausea, vaginal discharge or irritation, breast swelling and tenderness, bloating, swelling of the hands or feet, backache, depression,insomnia, pelvic pain, no hair growth or excessive hair loss, rash, hot flashes,joint pain, convulsions, jaundice, urinary tract infections, allergic reactions, fainting, paralysis, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolus
So basically it was the combination of a long-time trigger and the presence of serious holes in her logic and story. Plus, look at the title of her blog "Den of the Biting Beaver : Gnawing away at sexism and misogyny, one patriarchal asshole at a time!", not great for the credibility.
EDIT: spacing
Ya, definately over-read this issue
And once again you confuse the heck out of me by that statement...
He's awed by your expression of compassion.
"My body decided it was fed up", is one of these, it gives no infomation but the patient will of course expect the doctor to know what in hell they're talking about.
That's why it was only the first half of the sentence. The second half and the following sentence gave you the more explicit description of the problem.
Plus there are serious problems with it, I'm copying this list off Wikipedia for convenience:
severe headaches, constant bleeding (metrorrhagia), weight gain, panic attacks, muscle pain, heart palpitations, pain during sex, acne, irregular menstrual bleeding, abdominal cramps, dizziness, weakness or fatigue, leg cramps, nausea, vaginal discharge or irritation, breast swelling and tenderness, bloating, swelling of the hands or feet, backache, depression,insomnia, pelvic pain, no hair growth or excessive hair loss, rash, hot flashes,joint pain, convulsions, jaundice, urinary tract infections, allergic reactions, fainting, paralysis, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolus
Bleeding and fainting. As she said.
So her story holds up. She can't use the pill, so she relied on condoms. Condoms are well over 90% effective, but she got burned, so she needed emergency contraception.
I'd still like to know why it would be any of anyone else's business why this woman wanted or needed emergency contraception. Even if she'd chosen to have unprotected sex and conceived, it is *still legal* in this country for her to unpregnify herself...for a little while longer, anyway. Therefore, it is within her rights to utilize any legally available method to end her condition.
I think we'd all be better off if we worried as much about the erosion of our civil rights as we do about zygotes. A woman owns her body last time I checked.
And, before anyone asks, I would not personally be party to an abortion if I had a say in the matter. I am against it for me (not that I'm likely to have any further need for this position in my lifetime), but I am vehemently for women to continue to be allowed to make their own choices in the matter of reproduction. If God (tm) doesn't like it, I'm pretty sure he'll let the unfortunate ex-mother know, right? Isn't that how it works?
Condom only? Why isn't she on the pill as well? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this chick getting her hormones bumped but someone should take her aside and tell her how it's done. All this whining about sex losing its meaning when done recreationally is crap, it never had any to begin with. A lot of fuss over nothing more than two people in rutting season
I think I've quite possibly found someone more cynical and jaded than me.
Sir, I bow.
dood, you're too young to be that. Wish younger ppl would stop feeling like they gotta do something just to show their independence. You got independence. Your parents want you to go out and have a good time and not make horrible mistakes that will paint unerasable roadways into your future.
K kidding. You're right, imo.
C'mon, noodle. She had already put her body (with doctors help) through several types of toxic hell, trying to prevent this situation from happening in the first place.
But when indeed it did happen, they look down their noses and tsk, tsk, you silly girl, pay the piper for your rutting.
Be practical then....if this woman is so stupid, do you really want her procreating? :eyebrow:
Any medication can fuck up your body in unpredictable ways...thats why they have so many disclaimers. Although the benefits of many medications are undeniable, including contraception in my opinion. It isn't just good for the "young, wild and horny" its also good for people like my cousin who just had her second child and who's life will be in serious jepordy if she has another. Its also good for the couple who simply can't afford another child. I gave a stray cat I had kept for only 2 weeks to the SPCA, I was a wreck for weeks and almost a year later I still worry about little Robby. Think about how much harder it would be to give away a part of you.
I believe in adoption, before abortion, but I also believe in choice.
In the end I do end up comming down on her side in all this, I just let that get lost behind my beefs with other stuff about her. At the core, I hate the idea of abortion and contraception used so that people can light up their pleasure centers with reckless abandon, but I honestly hate to see it denied to those who use it properly just as much. My trouble is, the university crowd falls squarly within catagory #1 and that's where I live, so my bias gets pretty big. My cynicism comes from watching what looks like everyone around me act like complete idiots and then hearing them complaining about how life is so hard on them. Being a bioengineer tends not to help things, you tend to analyse things from the standpoint you know best, and to me sex is a VERY long list of chemical equations, equilibrium constants, and biochemical cycles. Whatev, it does help to clear the fog on alot of stuff, science is a hell of a lot more honest than people are about this stuff.
Quote:
Next I tried Planned Parenthood. None of them were open. Not one. Every Planned Parenthood in Ohio was either closed on Saturday or would be closed before I could drive the 100 miles to them.
Quote:
EC, also known as emergency birth control, has been available for more than 30 years. It contains hormones found in birth control pills and must be started within 120 hours after unprotected intercourse.
From the Planned Parenthood website.
Quote:
Folks, the condom broke Friday night and I searched all weekend for someone who could prescribe me EC. It is now Monday and I have to report that I have been unable to find anyone who will write me a fucking prescription for EC.
If she had sex around 8PM Friday and didn't go to planned parenthood until 6PM on Mon...thats only 70hrs...well within the 120hr limit.
BTW how do you do the quote thing...I couldn't figure it out...maybe because I've been up for a really really long time...?
If she had sex around 8PM Friday and didn't go to planned parenthood until 6PM on Mon...thats only 70hrs...well within the 120hr limit.
The longer you leave it the less effective it is. It's not 100% failsafe, which is why you are asked to make a note of the date you take it and return in two weeks if you have not had a bleed.
At the core, I hate the idea of abortion and contraception used so that people can light up their pleasure centers with reckless abandon, but I honestly hate to see it denied to those who use it properly just as much. My trouble is, the university crowd falls squarly within catagory #1 and that's where I live, so my bias gets pretty big.
Just checking that I have this right before I respond to it, you hate the idea that contraception allows people to have sex for pleasure?
Yup... that's what anals for you nut!
Just checking that I have this right before I respond to it, you hate the idea that contraception allows people to have sex for pleasure?
I kinda picked up on that one too. He did qualify it by saying "with reckless abandon," so I think it's promiscuity (however you define that) that he's against. It's true that the more partners you have, the more likely it is that you will be spreading some STDs, so he does have a point.
I'd be interested to hear what he has to say. I'm personally very fond of contraception.
I'm pretty fond of it myself - contraception that is.
I also don't have a problem with promiscuity, although it's not my personal lifestyle choice.
I say if people want to sleep around, let them. Making sure they're not breeding at the same time? Great idea. But then I'd be for putting a 3 year contraceptive implant in all 15 year old girls, so I appreciate I'm the opposite end of the scale.
yeah, saying I'm against sex for pleasure is oversimplification to the point of killing the message. I don't have time for a full clarification now but I'll see if I can explain in a little while. In the mean time I'll say again that I used the term pleasure center to try to express what I mean. Think of the mice that will starve themselves so that they can keep pressing the button. I wouldn't equate it exactly with self destructive behavior in pursuit of pleasure, but since the safe guard isn't always there, danger can come from getting so used to not having to use common sense that you get burned eventually. Dang, that's not as good as I hoped but it'll have to do for now...
Uh huh, so you're not getting any, right?
Channeling that energy into success? :neutral:
The longer you leave it the less effective it is. It's not 100% failsafe, which is why you are asked to make a note of the date you take it and return in two weeks if you have not had a bleed.
Yes, but my point is that she went in on mon. the pill would still have a chance to be effective. I don't believe anything is 100% failsafe, even if the condom hadn't broke, she still had a chance of getting pregnant. Condoms aren't 100% effective against diseases either. There are pores in every substance, and the HIV virus is actually smaller than the pores in a latex condom.
Yes, but my point is that she went in on mon. the pill would still have a chance to be effective. I don't believe anything is 100% failsafe... snip
I do get your point, I was just pointing out that being unable to obtain EHC would have greatly increased the risk of the pill being ineffective. Like using an out of date condom, say. In this country the pills are classified as effective up to 72 hours, but it is recognised that the first 24 hours is the most critical (another reason the drug is not considered an abortificant).
While it may not seem like that big off a deal it hinged on a gut reaction I picked up from my parents. Both my parents work(ed) in emergency medicine, so they had to learn to 'read through' patients to get as much information as they could. The ER does bad things to people, the doctors see people at their worst when they are under huge stresses, and as a result patients tend to lie, tell half-truths, and be extremely vauge. I've grown up hearing all the stories of this and now when I hear one I'm very skeptical of everything else you say. "My body decided it was fed up", is one of these, it gives no infomation but the patient will of course expect the doctor to know what in hell they're talking about. I'm not a doctor (I pray I'll never have to do clinical practice) so I'm not claiming this based on first person experience, but I grew up around it.
I'm still trying to figure out why having PARENTS working in emergency medicine (Doctors? Nurses? Janitors? Insurance Agents? Attorneys? What?) makes you qualified to have any reaction, let alone a judgmental one. Your expertise in the area sounds purely anectodotal. My father drove heavy construction equipment, but I'm not jumping on a giant steam shovel anytime soon.
Oh, and dismissing a woman's assertations of negative effects of hormonal based medication, something you know nothing about and never will, sounds to me like part of the intricate roots from where misogyny continues to grow.
Typical hysterical female reaction... Get them shoes off and those legs open, woman! :rolleyes:
... Get them shoes off and those legs open, woman! :rolleyes:
Well...okay. but it better be worth it.
It's obvious that the whole thing smacks of gender discrimination. If men got preggers you can bet your sweet syrupy pancakes that on-demand birth control would be OTC and de-rigeur. So would immediate epidurals and heroin for menstrual cramps.
I've noticed many male docs who poo-poo'ed a woman's pain in labor but fell all over themselves to Rx the IV morphine for epididymitis.
yeah, saying I'm against sex for pleasure is oversimplification to the point of killing the message. I don't have time for a full clarification now but I'll see if I can explain in a little while. In the mean time I'll say again that I used the term pleasure center to try to express what I mean. Think of the mice that will starve themselves so that they can keep pressing the button. I wouldn't equate it exactly with self destructive behavior in pursuit of pleasure, but since the safe guard isn't always there, danger can come from getting so used to not having to use common sense that you get burned eventually. Dang, that's not as good as I hoped but it'll have to do for now...
That completely avoided the question.
Are you against sex for pleasure? What is the issue,
specifically, with contraception?
It ain't hard.
So, you like the Pope, want all the poor Irish to keep having babies that they can't feed? Is that it? Or do you really think they are going to stop having sex... just like all the teens of the world... "it really does not feel that good, honey. It's all hype, honesty. Mom and I did it because we had to." Sure. Tell me another one.
Or are you going to tell us that it is "different" for married couples?
BTW, there seems to be some confusion. Not all pills are "abortion" pills.
Day after pills keep pregnancy from happening within 72-120 hours of intercourse... there is no abortion/miscarriage. Just no pregnancy at all. ENTIRELY different from RU-486 and others of that nature.
It is still a direct violation of the Will of God (tm), and therefore an abomination. (Just doing my part to fan the flames of irrationality, here)
Abomination is not sin.
If you are not going to run around freaking out every time you see a cotton/poly blend shirt, a garden with carrots and peas planted or someone eating shrimp... then just get over the whole abomination thing.
Hell, people don't care about sin... washing your car on Saturday is a [COLOR="Red"]mortal [/COLOR]sin... no one gives a shit. Let it go.
My issue is actually not specifically contraception at all, it's certain attitudes that I don't care for. Sex is risky, bottom line, how you go about it is what determines your chances of problems. What erks me is people who assume that using a condom or being on the pill eliminates that risk and then if something goes wrong whine -> "but this wasn't supposed to happen". My response, "You may have reduced your risk to 1% or lower but you drew the short straw there bud". I see sex outside of marriage as having a higher risk potential, that's all, and the more risk someone takes for pleasure the less sympathy I have for them if they get burned. **btw, None of this is related to the womans blog anymore**
Do I think that teens are going to stop having sex, no, but it's still voluntarily accepted risk. So to make it clear, I don't care at all about contraception at all one way or the other. You want to be a sex maniac? Go ahead, but I don't give a damn if you get burned. You want to have 11 kids and way overextend your budget because you think rubbers are evil? Go ahead, but don't come to me for a handout.
EDIT: in response to #76
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on whether or not that last explanation was aimed at me.
So, it "bothers you" that they are not assuming the percentage of risk that comes with whatever form of contraception they are using, basically?
My issue is actually not specifically contraception at all, it's certain attitudes that I don't care for. Sex is risky, bottom line, how you go about it is what determines your chances of problems. What erks me is people who assume that using a condom or being on the pill eliminates that risk and then if something goes wrong whine -> "but this wasn't supposed to happen". My response, "You may have reduced your risk to 1% or lower but you drew the short straw there bud". I see sex outside of marriage as having a higher risk potential, that's all, and the more risk someone takes for pleasure the less sympathy I have for them if they get burned. **btw, None of this is related to the womans blog anymore**
Exactly. None of that was ever related to the blog, but in the beginning you were acting as if it were.
Sex is risky, life is risky....
Sheesh.
Abomination is not sin.
Obviously, I should have placed the "sarcasm" tags in my statement...
So, it "bothers you" that they are not assuming the percentage of risk that comes with whatever form of contraception they are using, basically?
It pisses me off, yeah. Much the same way that you react if a coworker was bitching about how badly off they are now after totaling their car, and then included that they were on the phone and applying makeup when it happened. The extra risks they took change the way you interpret the outcome.
Ok. Got it. I'm pretty dense sometimes.
I don't worry about other's shit. Just added stress I don't need.
Obviously, I should have placed the "sarcasm" tags in my statement...
Yeah, I totally did not get that.
It pisses me off, yeah. Much the same way that you react if a coworker was bitching about how badly off they are now after totaling their car, and then included that they were on the phone and applying makeup when it happened. The extra risks they took change the way you interpret the outcome.
Note that the coworker was "bitchy" and was "applying makeup." Unless his coworker is Richard Simmons he is again singling out a woman. Though he was doing it by way of pretending to further justify his reaction, the underlying idea comes across way too clearly.
Methinks you doth misogynize too much.
Please tell me you just forgot the sarcasm tag. I just picked two distracting activites
**'bitching' is not gender specific and you know it
why is no one talking about epididymitis?
I had valid points!
(i did!*)
*having to do with the general wussiness of men in the face of real pain. birth=pain. ergo--men would AVOID birth. why no hate over this?
Please tell me you just forgot the sarcasm tag. I just picked two distracting activites
**'bitching' is not gender specific and you know it
I don't know whether to say BAAAAAALONEY, or BULLLLLLLSHIT!
why is no one talking about epididymitis?
I had valid points!
(i did!*)
*having to do with the general wussiness of men in the face of real pain. birth=pain. ergo--men would AVOID birth. why no hate over this?
Because Bri, I am constantly on my soapbox about that very thing. Like, you don't see them testing for testicular cancer by squishing dude's balls in a vice then taking a picture (and that ultrasounds are way more effective in detecting early breast cancer, but because of the cost insurance companies don't cover it as a first stop.) Or about Viagra being covered but not birth control. Or a multitude of other like issues.
Do you think tampons would be 6-7 bucks a box if men needed them? Do you think pantyhose would cost a fortune and last two minutes if men needed them?
I LOVE me some men, don't get me wrong. But we know there are inequities.
So, I'm with ya, sister! :)
I don't know whether to say BAAAAAALONEY, or BULLLLLLLSHIT!
1: I tell my boyfriend, "Stop
bitching or I'm gonna hang up."
2: I tell my male co-workers "Stop your whiney ass
bitching Zach, I'm doing a good job so you can go shove it in your ear."
3: I tell my dog Bitsy "If you weren't the neighboorhood bitch you wouldn't have so many puppies."
epididymitis: the inflamation of ???
Shawnee, 9th ISN'T being misogynistic. I'm all for gender equality (and, personally, think of little distinction between the two, cept for equipment), but bitching ISN'T gender-specific, and I believe that he DID just pick two tasks at random. Logically, the non-person in the example is EITHER male or female, so why is it WRONG to say its female but NOT wrong to say its male?
Though he could have been totally un-gender-specific... but meh.
ugh, it's like a flashback to highschool. (you didn't go to McDowell High did you Shawnee?)
Of course it is, your attitude hasn't changed why should the responses?
Guess what the future holds?:D
ugh, it's like a flashback to highschool. (you didn't go to McDowell High did you Shawnee?)
You must be talking about yourself from what I've read.
Yes, the future, I can see his now.
And just how have I proven myself worthy of being attacked? My god, I see it now, I was ambiguous about gender in my negative statement which meant that I was insinuating that women do these things as much as men! *Gasp* I repent for my crimes!
And just how have I proven myself worthy of being attacked? My god, I see it now, I was ambiguous about gender in my negative statement which meant that I was insinuating that women do these things as much as men! *Gasp* I repent for my crimes!
Finally, he gets it! (Now, can you just let it go?)
:p
You are unreal, you know that? When did feminists let logic get left in the dirt?
Nah, I'm pretty real.
Why do misogynists always lean on the term feminist?
If you're going to say I hate women in general (that's what the term means) then you'd better back it up. What I say I apply to both genders, so because I hold men and women to the same set of standards I hate women?? Equality goes both ways.
Misogyny has nothing to do with what I'm saying, I've made that abundantly clear.
Thanks for explaining to me what the term means. I had forgotten the old episodes of Wordsmith, and how to decipher a word by its latin roots...
Perhaps it's that I just don't like you. You've made nothing abundantly clear; you think that you have, but you have an underlying tone that just can't be ignored.
Maybe you just need to get laid. :worm:
Ah yes, that must be the problem. It's like a Christian telling you that the only reason you disagree with him is that you've never let Jesus into your heart. I don't care one way or the other if you like me or not, but if you disagree with what I say then address it instead of making it personal.
I repeated the definition because it boggles my mind that you could infer that I actually hate women from what I've said. You'd be better off saying I hate both men AND women, you'd still be wrong, but it's a hell of a lot closer than saying I just hate women.
It's like a Christian telling you that the only reason you disagree with him is that you've never let Jesus into your heart.
Dude, is it "PC" to say that? Oh wait, you said
Christians, not Muslims :stickpoke
"My body finally decided it was fed up" ?? Yay, I just love how that clears everything up. For the medical record I'm curious to know if it stomped out the door or just scheduled some counselling.
Sounds like pretty brainless girl to me, she's such a dimwit that she needs EMERGENCY contraception from planned sex? I say she gets the pill because god help us if she procreates, in fact the best solution would probably be to make absolutely SURE she gets emergency contraception every time she has sex.
I stand by my assumption of the implications of your tone.
if you disagree with what I say then address it instead of making it personal.
Why, when you never answer anything clearly unless it supports what you said? If you find an error in your judgment you let that point fall by the wayside. Here's where you and I started:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9th Engineer
While it may not seem like that big off a deal it hinged on a gut reaction I picked up from my parents. Both my parents work(ed) in emergency medicine, so they had to learn to 'read through' patients to get as much information as they could. The ER does bad things to people, the doctors see people at their worst when they are under huge stresses, and as a result patients tend to lie, tell half-truths, and be extremely vauge. I've grown up hearing all the stories of this and now when I hear one I'm very skeptical of everything else you say. "My body decided it was fed up", is one of these, it gives no infomation but the patient will of course expect the doctor to know what in hell they're talking about. I'm not a doctor (I pray I'll never have to do clinical practice) so I'm not claiming this based on first person experience, but I grew up around it.
I'm still trying to figure out why having PARENTS working in emergency medicine (Doctors? Nurses? Janitors? Insurance Agents? Attorneys? What?) makes you qualified to have any reaction, let alone a judgmental one. Your expertise in the area sounds purely anectodotal. My father drove heavy construction equipment, but I'm not jumping on a giant steam shovel anytime soon.
Oh, and dismissing a woman's assertations of negative effects of hormonal based medication, something you know nothing about and never will, sounds to me like part of the intricate roots from where misogyny continues to grow.
I'll stick to my guns on the first quote but I'll concede that the second was the result of too quick a post after first impressions. Again, I think I vaguely mentioned the militancy of the feminist teachers at my highschool and the top of the blog brought back the memories (these were people even shawnee probably wouldn't call feminists, they were really that over the top psychotic and militant). I saw red and ranted so I'll take back those remarks.
I see no reason why my opinions are anecdotal, if your closest friend had a terrible experience with an abusive boss would you consider the warnings you learned from it anecdotal enough to dismiss? It's not all first person experiences, but the staff at our hospital was always close so I heard the same types of stories over and over again from all sorts of different people, I have no reason to disbelieve all of them. As for judgemental, I size people up and look at who they are as I listen to what they say, you can't separate what is said from who says it. I can't get alot of information about the speaker over the net so I tend to be extremely skeptical of anything connected with obvious strong bias, and you can't get more biased then a blog like that one.
How can you stick to your guns on the first quote when the explanation for what she meant was immediately following the bit you quoted? I could just as easily do this:
I'll stick to my guns on the first quote
How about the second quote?
Because it's still a ridiculous statement that still makes me laugh when I read it no matter whether or not she explains it. It's like if you asked someone you don't know how long they've had a cough and them telling you "since the party at Bob's place" (of course there's no way you know 'Bob'). Even if they then tell you the party was a week ago it's still ridiculous (promps a sort of :confused::whofart: response).
First, her post was not in response to a question, so your analogy doesn't apply. It is more akin to starting a story with "Well, it finally happened." If you stop there, of course you don't know what happened or why the word "finally" was used.
Second:
"How long have you had that cough?"
"Since the party at Bob's place about a week ago. He's a friend of mine with an outdoor pool, and it was a bit chilly."
I see nothing ridiculous there.
except you don't get that second part or the time relevence, this I HAVE seen in person. They just stand there
except you don't get that second part or the time relevence,
Yes you do. As I showed in
post 50. Whoever "they" are that you've "seen in person" aren't relevant.
Every second you aren't having sex you are killing a potential child.
I sympathize with her frustration, although I still hope she finds some way to avoid an abortion. It's interesting that she says her husband has dissapeared from the blame game, she's right in that he shares the responsibility of what happened and probably should have realized that pressuring someone for sex who shouldn't get pregnant and can't take contraception isn't a great way to show love.
Or I can hope that she terminates the thing and ships it to a lab here at in Pittsburgh so we have the materials to keep our promise of becoming the largest biotech center in the North-East. Personal life vs professional life is getting complicated here...:thepain:
Ah yes, maturation is confusing and painful. ;)