You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Be honest American Catholics
- Thread starter trendlover
- Start date
Quote from jem:
completely wrong...
I am saying the govt should should not be forcing religious groups or anyone else to provide birth control which can causes homicides of human beings.
Government are not forcing religious groups. Everyone but you it seems knows as much.
So what's your red-herring really about?
Just so you can make cheap shot irrational and emotive religiously driven comments like "birth control which can causes homicides of human beings." ?
Quote from Free Thinker:
50% of fertilized eggs die naturally. that system was set up by your "creator". it seems obvious that he wasnt too concerned about eggs.
it boils down to this. you have every right to refuse to use contraception. you dont have any right to block other people from using it especially so since you objection is based on nothing more than your irrational fear that some invisible guy in the sky wouldnt approve.
I really wish people would understand that it's ok to NOT use contraception, but to please not get the religious concepts involved.
more troll b.s. from you. You know completely well the administration delayed the the start date for the the law until Jan 2013 to squeak by the election.
Nevertheless many institutions have filed suit.
So far the suits have been dismissed because the law has not gone into effect yet.
But, it does mandate the delivery of abortificients by religious groups.
something which should be abhorent to anyone who respects the constitution.
Nevertheless many institutions have filed suit.
So far the suits have been dismissed because the law has not gone into effect yet.
But, it does mandate the delivery of abortificients by religious groups.
something which should be abhorent to anyone who respects the constitution.
Quote from stu:
Government are not forcing religious groups. Everyone but you it seems knows as much.
So what's your red-herring really about?
Just so you can make cheap shot irrational and emotive religiously driven comments like "birth control which can causes homicides of human beings." ?
Quote from jem:
more troll b.s. from you. You know completely well the administration delayed the the start date for the the law until Jan 2013 to squeak by the election.
Nevertheless many institutions have filed suit.
So far the suits have been dismissed because the law has not gone into effect yet.
But, it does mandate the delivery of abortificients by religious groups.
something which should be abhorent to anyone who respects the constitution.
yeah yeah... everything you don't like is unconstitutional. Whatever.
Should the process have gone through before the election you'd say it was hurried , but because it'll be after, it's been intended to squeak by. pffft.
Religious institutions will file suit at the drop of a miter if they think they can get some political mileage out of it. So what's new.
Dismissal of suits says more about their legal approach being as deficient as their political religious dogma is on the subject. In any event, the Supreme Court has already upheld the individual mandate.
The intention of the Act is to provide affordable health care. To reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
There may be many things wrong with it, probably are. Provision of contraceptives isn't one of them.
Whatever the health care reform act mandates, there is no infringement of anyone's personal freedom. Anyone is free not to use contraceptives and any employer such as a church or religious group are free to discourage their employees from using them if they want. There is no burden or restriction against practicing any religious principle, as dimwitted as they are, because of indirect costs of a health plan.
All the bullshit religious rhetoric and oppressive edicts are still going to be as useless as the regressive and superstitious extreme right wing ideology is when nearly all sexually active women already use contraceptives, and a similar amount of those who say they are catholic do too.
Oh and it's abortifacient, not abortificient. You're constantly misspelling your new word.
Alcohol is not an abortifacient nor is its consumption intended to be, although it could and sometimes is cause or a contributory factor of an abortion, as many things are.
Likewise contraceptives are not an abortifacient, nor is the consumption of them intended to be. They are if anything, to avoid abortion.
So you are wrong again and you change the subject. Govt is forcing religious groups to provide abortifacients.
Obamacare is being prepared to be reviewed by the Sup Ct again. You will learn that it is unconstitutional in many ways... if Romney does not eliminate it first.
Obamacare is being prepared to be reviewed by the Sup Ct again. You will learn that it is unconstitutional in many ways... if Romney does not eliminate it first.
Quote from stu:
yeah yeah... everything you don't like is unconstitutional. Whatever.
Should the process have gone through before the election you'd say it was hurried , but because it'll be after, it's been intended to squeak by. pffft.
Religious institutions will file suit at the drop of a miter if they think they can get some political mileage out of it. So what's new.
Dismissal of suits says more about their legal approach being as deficient as their political religious dogma is on the subject. In any event, the Supreme Court has already upheld the individual mandate.
The intention of the Act is to provide affordable health care. To reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
There may be many things wrong with it, probably are. Provision of contraceptives isn't one of them.
Whatever the health care reform act mandates, there is no infringement of anyone's personal freedom. Anyone is free not to use contraceptives and any employer such as a church or religious group are free to discourage their employees from using them if they want. There is no burden or restriction against practicing any religious principle, as dimwitted as they are, because of indirect costs of a health plan.
All the bullshit religious rhetoric and oppressive edicts are still going to be as useless as the regressive and superstitious extreme right wing ideology is when nearly all sexually active women already use contraceptives, and a similar amount of those who say they are catholic do too.
Oh and it's abortifacient, not abortificient. You're constantly misspelling your new word.
Alcohol is not an abortifacient nor is its consumption intended to be, although it could and sometimes is cause or a contributory factor of an abortion, as many things are.
Likewise contraceptives are not an abortifacient, nor is the consumption of them intended to be. They are if anything, to avoid abortion.
Yes you are wrong and insisting on being wrong repeatedly doesn't make you right. Contraceptives still aren't abortifacients and they're not going to be. But at least you've learned to spell the word correctly for once.
There will always be some wingnuts somewhere saying they will have Obamacare or some other hobby horse they're currently galloping away on, "prepared to be reviewed" by the Supreme Court. Like there were birthers always having their unfounded claims "prepared to be reviewed". As a birther, something you would no doubt get all excited about.
Romney's state healthcare plan has the individual mandate. So presumably you would consider that unconstitutional too. Wrong again.
There will always be some wingnuts somewhere saying they will have Obamacare or some other hobby horse they're currently galloping away on, "prepared to be reviewed" by the Supreme Court. Like there were birthers always having their unfounded claims "prepared to be reviewed". As a birther, something you would no doubt get all excited about.
Romney's state healthcare plan has the individual mandate. So presumably you would consider that unconstitutional too. Wrong again.
Quote from jem:
So you are wrong again and you change the subject. Govt is forcing religious groups to provide abortifacients.
Obamacare is being prepared to be reviewed by the Sup Ct again. You will learn that it is unconstitutional in many ways... if Romney does not eliminate it first.
2. Since you have no background to judge the constitutionality of a law, we will leave it up to the Supreme Ct.
1. regarding abortifacient... you are full of shit.
IUDs and the pill may cause the death of fertilized eggs.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/which_birth_control_methods_cause_abortion/
In 1965, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a bulletin to redefine the term "conception." That bulletin stated that conception should be understood to mean "the implantation of a fertilized ovum."1 Why this change? The timing of their decision makes it almost certain that it was politically rather than scientifically motivated. The FDA had recently approved the sale of hormonal birth control pills, but "the pill" didn't fit the traditional definition of "contraceptive." Why? Because it doesn't just prevent conception; it also inhibits implantationâor at least purports to. If breakthrough ovulation and fertilization occurs (which is the biological beginning of individual, human life), the embryo may find it difficult to implant because of changes the pill makes to the endometrium. This created an ethical problem for doctors who wanted to assure their patients that the pill is a contraceptive and not an abortifacient. How did they deal with the dilemma? They changed the definition of "conception." By saying "conception," but meaning "implantation," it became possible to market hormonal birth control pills as contraceptives â as something that prevents "conception."
If you look through the ACOG website today, you won't find a glossary of terms, but you will find numerous references to their altered definition of pregnancy and conception. In a pregnancy FAQ , they state that "fertilization, the union of an egg and a sperm, is the first step in a complex series of events that leads to pregnancy" (emphasis added).2 On a page titled, "Contraception ," they state that the IUD "can stop pregnancy" by "thin[ning] the lining of the uterus making it harder for a fertilized egg to attach."3 On their Birth Control Pills FAQ , they state that one way the pill can "prevent pregnancy" is by making the uterus lining thin, "making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it."4 By redefining the recognized beginning of pregnancy, birth control methods that would have otherwise been said to end pregnancy, can now be said to prevent pregnancy. These semantic changes do nothing to alter the biology of prenatal development, but they do plenty to confuse the ethical implications. In a 2005 Guttmacher Report on Public Policy , Rachel Benson Gold argued that "according to both the scientific community and long-standing federal policy, a woman is considered pregnant only when a fertilized egg has implanted in the wall of her uterus."5 She goes on to say that though conception is "often used synonymously with fertilization⦠medically, (it) is equated with implantation." This is clearly an overstatement.
1. regarding abortifacient... you are full of shit.
IUDs and the pill may cause the death of fertilized eggs.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/which_birth_control_methods_cause_abortion/
In 1965, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a bulletin to redefine the term "conception." That bulletin stated that conception should be understood to mean "the implantation of a fertilized ovum."1 Why this change? The timing of their decision makes it almost certain that it was politically rather than scientifically motivated. The FDA had recently approved the sale of hormonal birth control pills, but "the pill" didn't fit the traditional definition of "contraceptive." Why? Because it doesn't just prevent conception; it also inhibits implantationâor at least purports to. If breakthrough ovulation and fertilization occurs (which is the biological beginning of individual, human life), the embryo may find it difficult to implant because of changes the pill makes to the endometrium. This created an ethical problem for doctors who wanted to assure their patients that the pill is a contraceptive and not an abortifacient. How did they deal with the dilemma? They changed the definition of "conception." By saying "conception," but meaning "implantation," it became possible to market hormonal birth control pills as contraceptives â as something that prevents "conception."
If you look through the ACOG website today, you won't find a glossary of terms, but you will find numerous references to their altered definition of pregnancy and conception. In a pregnancy FAQ , they state that "fertilization, the union of an egg and a sperm, is the first step in a complex series of events that leads to pregnancy" (emphasis added).2 On a page titled, "Contraception ," they state that the IUD "can stop pregnancy" by "thin[ning] the lining of the uterus making it harder for a fertilized egg to attach."3 On their Birth Control Pills FAQ , they state that one way the pill can "prevent pregnancy" is by making the uterus lining thin, "making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it."4 By redefining the recognized beginning of pregnancy, birth control methods that would have otherwise been said to end pregnancy, can now be said to prevent pregnancy. These semantic changes do nothing to alter the biology of prenatal development, but they do plenty to confuse the ethical implications. In a 2005 Guttmacher Report on Public Policy , Rachel Benson Gold argued that "according to both the scientific community and long-standing federal policy, a woman is considered pregnant only when a fertilized egg has implanted in the wall of her uterus."5 She goes on to say that though conception is "often used synonymously with fertilization⦠medically, (it) is equated with implantation." This is clearly an overstatement.
Quote from stu:
Yes you are wrong and insisting on being wrong repeatedly doesn't make you right. Contraceptives still aren't abortifacients and they're not going to be.
For as long as you continue to misinform yourself by reading and accepting everything said in open anti-abortion heavily biased subjective non independent propaganda websites, you'll remain as ignorant and wrong as you are now.
The contraceptive pill stops ovulation, so there isn't any sensible argument that even puts it in the same category as abortion.
The implantation of a fertilized ovum on the uterine wall starts a pregnancy. Many fertilized ovums don't implant , or can do so in other areas that are dangerous. Neither are considered as pregnancy as neither are going to work.
Of course changing words and meanings is something you've always been happy to do whenever it might confuse you into believing things that aren't true.
The contraceptive pill stops ovulation, so there isn't any sensible argument that even puts it in the same category as abortion.
The implantation of a fertilized ovum on the uterine wall starts a pregnancy. Many fertilized ovums don't implant , or can do so in other areas that are dangerous. Neither are considered as pregnancy as neither are going to work.
Of course changing words and meanings is something you've always been happy to do whenever it might confuse you into believing things that aren't true.
Quote from stu:
For as long as you continue to misinform yourself by reading and accepting everything said in open anti-abortion heavily biased subjective non independent propaganda websites, you'll remain as ignorant and wrong as you are now.
The contraceptive pill stops ovulation, so there isn't any sensible argument that even puts it in the same category as abortion.
The implantation of a fertilized ovum on the uterine wall starts a pregnancy. Many fertilized ovums don't implant , or can do so in other areas that are dangerous. Neither are considered as pregnancy as neither are going to work.
Of course changing words and meanings is something you've always been happy to do whenever it might confuse you into believing things that aren't true.
do you have kids? did your wife tell how many of her friends got pregnant even though the women were on the pill or the men had vasectomies. BC does not always work as planned.
The typical pill does not stop all fertilizations and the progeterone only pill definitely aborts fertilized eggs. IUDS also caused fertilized eggs to abort.
You are now the deceitful troll who is trying to change the definition of moment of conception from fertilzation to successful implantation...
After my article explained it to you.
Your troll cycle on this issue is now complete.
Don't you get tired of losing every issue you debate with me?