The problem with "hormonal mixes" is the ruddy side effects. This is one of the reasons why the "mini pill", one of the BC methods which are likely to be dubbed "abortion pills" under this legislation, is so popular - fewer side effects
YES!! And it is about time you got rid of those disgusting "abstinence only" programs that are contributing to this figure OR better yet - lobby for an effective MALE contraceptive since women seem unable to care for this themselves hmmmmmmmm? But legislation will do little or nothing to alter that statistic - and how do I know this? Because abortion is illegal here in Queensland and our rate of abortion is not far off of that in the USA
I think you are missing the point - changing the uterine lining prevents implantation and can be considered a form of abortion
I think I am the only one making it. If a woman's body is not in a stage of fertility she will not become pregnant, it is that way 3 weeks out of the month and I see no reason she doesn't have the right to keep it that way the fourth if she so chooses. Do you disagree or something?
The point you are missing here is that this particular legislation may actually prevent the forms of contraception that does this. If you consider a fertilised egg as being a "baby" then preventing implantation is, in some eyes, the same as abortion
Actually, the Australian abortion rate is somewhat higher than in the US. The latest year I found data on both abortions and live births is 2003. The numbers are: 84,218 abortions and 251,200 births in Australia. Is abstinence only being promoted in Australia? If not, what do you attribute this rate to? I really don't know the specifics of birth control effectiveness, but the pill was very effective when my wife was using it back in the 70's and early 80's. My own personal opinion is that abortion is being used as a birth control method. The data shows that it's women ages 20-24 that are responsible for the most abortions though teens have them at a higher rate. It's obvious from the numbers that abortion these days is often seen as just another birth control method. In most cases, it's far too easy to not get pregnant to justify more than one in four pregnancies resulting in abortion. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about this proposed amendment, though I do view abortion as not a 'choice', but the death of a child. This amendment would end abortions in the state, but women would just go over the state line to have it done, so I really don't think it would change the figures much.
From the moment of fertilization, meaning that the pill methods of birth control the prevent an egg from being implanted in the uterine lining. Meaning, that this legislation would ban those types of contraceptives. I really don't get the right. Abhor abortion, ban contraceptives. Makes sense in bazaaro world.
If you do not know - why not find out? http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html And there are a LOT of things that interfere with the effectiveness of contraceptives. And again you have decided, on no basis other than raw statistics, that contraception is being used as birth control - where is your PROOF? And please ask yourself this question - why would someone go to the dentist every second month rather than brush their teeth? Because therein lies your answer - It is FAR more inconvenient to go to the dentist, so why would people do it? Well, you know there is one easy way for us to reduce the abortion rate - get an effective MALE contraceptive and make men equal in the responsibility to prevent pregnancy in the first place Oh! And about the Australian abortion rate - we count that by the number of D&C/D&Es performed and since those particular surgical interventions are also used for partial miscarriage some of that data ends up mixed into the abortion numbers Still makes you think though when most of the states have laws supposedly preventing abortion
From what I've read, it would only ban the 'morning after' pill, not hormonal contraceptives. Yeah, what you describe would be bizarre, if it were true. Here's a link on the amendment from a group that's promoting passage of it. http://www.yeson26.net/frequently-asked-questions.aspx
If the morning after pill was banned, rape victims would have to wait to see if they have gotten pregnant.
Well, yeah, but if she was on a contraceptive, it really wouldn't be an issue now, would it? I don't really care to 'debate' the issue. I would like to see 0 abortions, as I see them as killing a child. That's not realistic, I know, but something is wrong with a society where 1 in 5 pregnancies end up being aborted (as in the US), or 1 in 4 (as in Australia). Call it what you want, but that's a lot of dead babies. Should anyone be surprised that there's a backlash to this?
As usual, this is just some leftards spewing nonsense about something that they don't understand. ...it isn't. However, if someone proposed something like this at the federal level, and it got shot down on a Constitutional basis, then that would be a major victory for states' rights. Yes on the former, no on the latter. This would have no effect whatsoever on the legality of condoms, diaphragms, vasectomies/tubectomies, or the various type of hormonal birth-control (they work solely by preventing ovulation; claims that they work by interfering with embryo-implantation are false). IUDs are pretty much the only things that could be affected.
Correction: the mechanism of action of hormonal contraception depends on the formulation used. Treatments that use both estrogen and progesterone (or analogues thereof) work by preventing ovulation entirely; those that rely entirely on progesterone reduce ovulation but mostly work by thickening the cervical mucus, thereby preventing the sperm from reaching the egg. Neither one works by preventing embryo-implantation; their ability to do so is pure speculation. This only applies if you consider the killing of a human fetus by its mother to be a "right". This may be hard for you to wrap your tiny leftard brain around, but some people regard murder as anything but frivolous, and laws against it as a legitimate purpose of government. Liberty ain't anarchy, bro. Try saying that on the AVEN forums and see how long it takes you to get banned. Except guns. The Second Amendment kind of stops that. Otherwise, you're correct. This is really an argument against judicial activism, rather than an example of someone forcing you into a gay marriage. Nope, sorry. Infanticide is the killing of an infant, and no definition of infancy specifies that it begins at birth. Laws are passed by the legislature, not the judiciary. The opinions of the Supreme Court should never be mistaken for law. Who was the last President that did? Calvin Coolidge? Grover Cleveland? Absolutely. I also support free mansions, complete with toilets made of solid gold, for each of Earth's 7 billion human inhabitants. And I support having a ten-to-one ratio of women to men, and a revival of Zoroastrianism, and the keeping of dinosaurs as pets. So if you figure out how to accomplish any of these without exterminating 90% of the men on the planet, then go ahead. Until then, SOMEBODY will have to pay for pre-natal and post-natal medical care. Those are the same thing; the only differences are dose and efficacy. It would ban the abortion pill, but that's NOT the same as the morning-after pill.
Do you not read my posts? Did you not see that we do not differentiate between surgical intervention for miscarriage and menorrhagia and abortion But taking those out of the equation our rate is much like yours DESPITE anti-abortion legislation
Or, it is something they legislated, like this ignorant legislation they are trying to make into law.
I'm not familiar with the Mississippi flag, but the "rebel" flag within it should have been a tip-off. I suspected that the people in Mississippi wouldn't be able to figure out the full meaning of this legislation, and I was right.
So, you are suggesting that "all" women need to be on contraceptives just in case they get raped? Teenagers? That's even more bizarre. But, this country is not all about you. That is why Mississippi is trying to force the issue in making a zygote, embryo and fetus into a person, because right now, the law says only "birthed" people are persons. This inane legislation is going to create problems in other areas, only Mississippians haven't thought that far ahead. And, abortion must still be available for women whose lives are at risk, or do you prefer to save a zygote over a grown woman who is definitely a "person"? That's why we need to educate people. But, conservatives have done away with that, too, by trying to abolish Planned Parenthood. They also didn't like the idea of providing condoms to teenagers. It seems to me conservatives want people to be forced into morality (sex only after marriage) on people that may not agree with those beliefs. Gosh, even Sarah Palin's daughter proved that abstinence (what Palin pushes) is not a plausible solution. No, but isn't that up to the people that are getting the abortions to deal with?
