Sex may soon no longer be necessary. But will the babies have souls? And speaking of babies, we’re suddenly having a lot of them, and having fewer abortions. For more discussion on the cloning debate - see our forums.
Religion
On Sunday January 27, Christopher Hitchens and Jay Richards will debate Atheism vs. Theism & the Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design, at Stanford University.
What it’s like to NOT understand God’s Word
Politics
“Jane Roe” Endorses Ron Paul
Huck’s staff to work for no or little pay.
More Links
Italian couple not allowed to name their child Friday.
The Album is Dead: billionaire Mark Cuban says digital singles are the future. To capitalize on this, artists should forget about albums and “create a ’season’ of release of [single] songs, much like the fall TV season.” By the way, the Smashing Pumpkins have decided to pursue this format releasing a digital collection of four songs called American Gothic.
I found the report about the lowering abortion rate interesting. However, as far as I can tell, the influence of the Plan B morning-after pill is not reflected in these new statistics. Therefore, it would be hard to know if fewer women were ending their pregnancies in general, or just via the surgical abortion method that they keep records about.
When discussing this report with my daughter, we noted that the year she was born was the year abortions were at their highest. Her reaction was interesting, her view being less analytical and more personal than mine: “Some of those peeps would have been my friends.”
Not sure how the morning after pill (Plan B) fits into this. It’s not an abortion pill…are you confusing it with RU-487? Plan B is nothing more than high-dose oral BC that prevents ovulation. Well, I guess in a sense that would indeed help lower surgical abortions, since the women just wouldn’t get pregnant in the first place. I guess in order to be accurate we’d have to see if the usage of BC (all methods) has increased, therefore lowering abortion rates.
Yes, indeed, I do believe I was mixing the two things up, or rather, lumping them together. After researching a bit more, I found the actual report and to this shorter summary of it on the Guttmacher Institute website.
And after reading parts of the .pdf report, it is clear that medically induced abortions (using RU-487) are included in the numbers. Which is good news, as it indicates that the number of abortions is indeed falling.
As for Plan B, I found information about the progestin-only pill for emergency contraception here, but there is some controversy with it because, according to this website (which isn’t a right wing Christian site or anything), it can also allow an egg to become fertilized and then interfere with implantation.
…it can also allow an egg to become fertilized and then interfere with implantation.
This is indeed true, it can do that. The regular hormone birth control has can do that too. This is when it comes down to a finer line that hasn’t been agreed upon on any side: when does life begin? There are some groups that claim life does not begin till the child takes their first breath, to others that hold on that every sperm is sacred, so any “spillage of seed” outside of a vaginal canal not intended for procreation (or without possibility of procreation) is a sin and murder (hence the anti-condom thing). This is a very thin line for me, and I’m not sure where I stand. The human body naturally does the same thing that BC does, including the thickening of the uteran mucosa, etc etc. In fact, more than 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion within the first 4 weeks of conception, usually without knowledge of the woman (they are three or four days late, then suddenly have an extra heavy menstruation). Considering the primary goal of BC pills is to prevent ovulation, even if one WERE to sneak out and become fertilized, using BC actually decreases the rate of spontaneous abortion due to prevention of ovulation alone. Plan B came under attack and was often touted as an “abortifacant” (a made up propaganda word), when it is nothing more than a 3-day dose of progestin to prevent a woman from ovulating, and more often than preventing implantation, it creates a thicker mucosa preventing sperm from making it past the cervical opening. Almost a “natural plug” as it were.
But you are right, abortion numbers ARE indeed going down, including the use of the anti-progesterone pill (RU-487). I think it was more popular in Europe, anyways. To be honest, in the medical field, medical abortions are typically frowned upon as it usually means death upon the career of an OB/GYN, unless they do them as a specialty. That, and the social implications due to the fact that it is more common amongst those of lower socio-economic classes, so it’s seen as a “poor person thing”. I think generally, most women have the children. This is a good sign! Babies are wonderful.
“This is indeed true, it can do that. The regular hormone birth control has can do that too.”
If this is true, then I guess it is also true that a person who believes life begins at conception could not use this type of birth control with a clear conscience–though I wonder how often that little fact is mentioned when people are researching birth control methods.
What birth control method is there that truly prevents conception? (And no, I’m not talking about abstinence.)
If this is true, then I guess it is also true that a person who believes life begins at conception could not use this type of birth control with a clear conscience
It is quite often mentioned, which is why many religious organizations do not approve of hormonal birth control, due to the chance that that my occur. Though, to be honest, if used properly “the pill” does a majority of the work by preventing ovulation completely. The other things it does is thicken the uterine mucosa to prevent passage of sperm through the cervical os so that sperm doesn’t even get in. The fact that it creates a less favorable environment for implantation is mostly moot considering combination pills (estrogen/progesterone) prevent ovulation to begin with (if used properly). As I said, there IS the chance that sperm will fertilize ovum and not implant, but that chance occurs in a healthy, non-BC taking woman to begin with. But you are indeed correct, if people have ANY problem with this, it is something they should be aware of. Like I said though, it’s not so much the function of the pill to create a hostile environment, (you basically take natural hormones to suppress the ovulation cycle, pretty much tricking your body into thinking it’s pregnant)…that’s more of a job of an IUD. Though, the new IUD’s secrete hormones so it acts as implanted birth control.
To answer your question though, to truly prevent conception, one has to block the sperm from reaching the egg. Like I said, oral BC works this way by suppressing ovulation and preventing sperm from entering the uterus via thickened mucosa. But truly, condoms (male and female) and other barriers (diaphrams, cervical caps, etc) completely prevent sperm from entering the uterus.
{since I can’t seem to post in the forums because of this stupid Googlebot cookie or whatever it is, I’ll respond to Ornot here}
Funny, the “gosh you just don’t care about PEOPLE” argument, to use the Darius train of thought, is typically a LEFT-WING LIBERAL argument. You know, the whole “You let poor kids DIE WITHOUT HEALTH CARE AND SCHOOLS while you republicans pour money to buy experimental tanks and fight WARS over OIL! OMG!!”
All you have to do is take that lovely sugary-coated straw man pile of rubbish, change a few words…and VOILA!! You have the new Darius argument. Proof, ladies and gentleman, that the Republican AND Democratic parties INDEED are one and of the same mold. Just change the words.
First, it was hyperbole. Just trying to stir Colin into the discussion. However, that you can’t see the difference is not surprising, I suppose. My argument is one of proportion, while the stupid liberal “health care” argument is a false dichotomy (an either/or argument where one doesn’t exist). I don’t mind you fighting inflation and your own economic interests here at home, but spend some time also on the BIGGER issue of terrorism. Colin’s answer is “we can’t do anything, so why try?”. Cchrisr’s answer is “what Islamic terrorism?” Ornot, Jew, and Ardith’s answer is “terrorism is insignificant.” So, Ornot, all the plots that have been stopped have not been doing any good? I’ll be sure to tell all the people who didn’t DIE because of the efforts of the government that their lives are worthless. Also, let’s stop to think about this for a second. If we had done (in response to 9/11) what we did pre-9/11 and just arrested the still-living perpetrators, dropped a few bombs, and moved on, that we would have NOT been attacked on our soil since? If you say yes, then you’re not being intellectually honest. It is so obvious that our efforts here and abroad in fighting terrorism has made us safer (not safe) that one’s ideology (in this case, libertarianism) has to blind him to it to say otherwise.
Here’s an apropos Mark Steyn column from today regarding the other front in the war on terror: creeping sharia. The absurdity is quite laughable. http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/islamic-anti-pigs-1967025-activity-islam
I can’t see the difference in you because you don’t make those distinctions. You have these extreme moments of clarity where you bring logical discussion to the forums, then you at revert back into this ridiculous “well, my anecdotal evidence is good enough for me!” arguments. Three or four times Chris has asked you to post some evidence of YOUR numbers, and you conveniently ignore save a mention of “it HAS to be larger…it just HAS to be bigger!” We ask that you prove, you just ignore. Therefore, I respond to your hyperbole as such because I actually expect such ridiculousness from you.
Also, let’s stop to think about this for a second. If we had done (in response to 9/11) what we did pre-9/11 and just arrested the still-living perpetrators, dropped a few bombs, and moved on, that we would have NOT been attacked on our soil since? If you say yes, then you’re not being intellectually honest. It is so obvious that our efforts here and abroad in fighting terrorism has made us safer (not safe) that one’s ideology (in this case, libertarianism) has to blind him to it to say otherwise.
Please tell me you are joking, hyperbole, SOMETHING. You aren’t seriously using the “We haven’t been attacked since” argument, are you? If you are going to seriously try and throw a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument at me, this discussion is over. I refuse to debate such tenets with someone that ignores the very basics of logic and reason. I won’t argue with an unreasonable person.
Has this thread been hijacked?
“It is quite often mentioned, which is why many religious organizations do not approve of hormonal birth control, due to the chance that that my occur.”
Has this information been widely known for many years? I ask, because I’m an old woman, and I think I learned this only in recent years. I took birth control pills for the first two years after I got married way back in 1976-77 and I don’t recall hearing anything about them except that they prevented ovulation.
Has this information been widely known for many years? I ask, because I’m an old woman, and I think I learned this only in recent years. I took birth control pills for the first two years after I got married way back in 1976-77 and I don’t recall hearing anything about them except that they prevented ovulation.
To be honest Auntie, I’m not really sure. Like I said, it’s not really the purpose of the pill (as opposed to older IUD’s, in which prevention of implantation IS the purpose) so it might not be mentioned or billed as such, or they might not have known. Like I said, it’s not a common occurrence, nor the purpose. Like I said, it CAN cause that, but we don’t know if it is any greater of a rate than the natural occurrence. Does that make sense?
Three or four times Chris has asked you to post some evidence of YOUR numbers.
He doesn’t count Hezbollah. Please, that’s laughable. Why come up with evidence when he just will ignore half of it? Besides, finding evidence to disprove a number that is so low as to be hilarious is like having to find evidence that 2 2=4. 60,000??? Seriously?? Ha! That’s a joke. As I said before, I’m counting all Islamic terrorists WORLDWIDE. They ALL have religion as their primary reason for what they do. Don’t tell me that Hezbollah’s ingrained hatred of all things non-Muslim/Western has nothing to do with their religious ideology.
Now, perhaps we are defining “terrorists” differently. I define them as anyone who is supporting terrorism, either by money, propaganda, recruiting, teaching, or actually doing it. Thus, 60,000 is probably enough to cover just Palestine and Syria.
Now, perhaps we are defining “terrorists” differently. I define them as anyone who is supporting terrorism, either by money, propaganda, recruiting, teaching, or actually doing it. Thus, 60,000 is probably enough to cover just Palestine and Syria.
This may be part of it. To be honest, I’m not sure what the definition of terrorism is that were used in those numbers, but thanks for defining yours. Though, it does beg the question, that if according to you ALL terrorists have religion as a primary reason, then how is it that you are using the definition of “terrorist” to define insurgent uprisings in parts of Iraq? Many of those are socio-political and not religious reasons for their actions.
Though, I have to say, if Chris is narrowing the definition of terrorism too much, you are expanding to include a much greater population. After all, what is your idea of “supporting” terrorism? Physical support, or voiced support in their actions?
Here’s the State Department list (PDF):
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/45323.pdf
Let me be clear(er)… all ISLAMIC terrorists have religion as a primary (or major) reason for their terrorism. The insurgent uprising in Iraq are significantly fueled by Al Qaeda, which obviously has religious roots along with their political ones. Plus, the insurgents themselves have their Sunni-Shia enmity as a main cause, which is religious. It may not be Islam vs. non-Islam, but intra-Islamic hatred. Either way, it’s still religious.
Supporting terrorism is voicing support (in mosques, at rallies, etc.), sending money to terrorists to help them (Saddam did this with the Palestinians), training, etc. Another group I wouldn’t call terrorists necessarily but are close are those who give terrorists safe harbor (most Palestinians are guilty of this). Israel isn’t fighting just a thousand Hamas soldiers, but half the flippin’ country. When they got attacked two years ago, Hamas melted back into the residential neighborhoods. I saw many pictures taken showing Hamas members firing from behind a group of kids or civilians. If you want to narrow Islamic terrorism down to the actual people who perpetrate it or are training others to do so, I could understand a number like 150,000 worldwide. Anything less is ludicrous. But if you add in all the networks of support for that terrorism, and it grows to millions.
I just think you have to consider the base from which a group of terrorists can borrow. Take Hamas or Hezbollah for example. They may only have a couple thousand “official” members, but they recruit suicide bombers all the time from the general population. While I don’t think the entire population is willing to sacrifice themselves in that way, a large number are willing and help support those that do.
Thainamu, the Pill has changed through the years. Current versions work differently than the older ones. Birth control pills back in the 1970s probably worked just as you were told; they prevented conception and didn’t have the backup method of preventing implantation.
Using modern birth control pills is probably a gray area. You have to look at it the way Ornot pointed out: without using birth control pills at all, there’s a pretty significant chance of a spontaneous miscarriage. Ornot said it’s over 50%, I’ve heard numbers between 30% and 50%. So you may actually end up losing fewer fertilized eggs if you take birth control pills. It’s not a black-and-white decision even if you wholeheartedly believe life begins at conception.
Thainamu, the Pill has changed through the years. Current versions work differently than the older ones. Birth control pills back in the 1970s probably worked just as you were told; they prevented conception and didn’t have the backup method of preventing implantation.
This might be true, though the action of hormones don’t really change. The newer pills are definitely better balanced and more refined, definitely. In fact, I’m more likely to say that they don’t necessarily prevent implantation any more (or less), but they prevent ovulation to a much greater degree with a MUCH less risk of side-effects.
Using modern birth control pills is probably a gray area. You have to look at it the way Ornot pointed out: without using birth control pills at all, there’s a pretty significant chance of a spontaneous miscarriage. Ornot said it’s over 50%, I’ve heard numbers between 30% and 50%. So you may actually end up losing fewer fertilized eggs if you take birth control pills. It’s not a black-and-white decision even if you wholeheartedly believe life begins at conception.
Excellently said, Jew. Most research says nearly 50% of pregnancies end with spontaneous abortion, but those numbers aren’t 100% conclusive due to lack of the ability to entirely and accurately test each and every “heavy period”. Conclusive is nearer to 30%, with educational estimates of 50% or more. What most women don’t understand is that when they take the pill, then do the placebo and have a “period”, that isn’t a true period. They never ovulated, so the bleeding on the “pill” is nothing more than progesterone withdrawl bleeding due to shedding of the uterine lining w/out an un-fertilized egg. It’s there to make women feel “normal” and have their “time of the month”. Though, more recent pills give a period only every 90 days, for convenience and as a selling point. And no, it’s not dangerous.
In fact, women were built to have fewer periods than they do in the modern era, as women tended to get pregnant earlier and more often than the modern era.
Sorry, medical rambling!
I would assume that any medication that is in such wide spread use would continue to be studied and modified over the years. That would only make sense. My question, which may not have an answer, is whether the non-implantation method of how the pill works was known at that time and not mentioned, or whether it was not known yet. Or maybe it was known and mentioned, and I just wasn’t listening.
I would assume that any medication that is in such wide spread use would continue to be studied and modified over the years. That would only make sense. My question, which may not have an answer, is whether the non-implantation method of how the pill works was known at that time and not mentioned, or whether it was not known yet. Or maybe it was known and mentioned, and I just wasn’t listening.
I’ll be honest, I really don’t know. It might have been known, just considered inconsequential for the reasons stated by Jew and myself above. I bet a quick google search would reveal some of that information…just be careful, it’s a hot topic for some so there tends to be conflation and exaggeration.