[Flipside]

Because the rhythm method relies on any fertilised egg being ejected during menstruation, that's the purpose of the Rhythm method, a woman is fertile as long as the egg is in the womb, it works by reducing the chance of the egg attaching to the wall of the womb and thus growing into a foetus, but the egg is very often fertilised when it is ejected, it does this by saying 'have sex when the egg is in the menstrual canal', hence the 'Rhythm' part of the method.

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355

Edit: Whilst there is a lot of contention in the matter, and, personally, I'd be happy seeing some kind of contraception, even one with a 1 in 5 failure rate, being used than none, I hope I am waking you up to the idea that people are tapdancing in a minefield when it comes to contraception/abortion and religion.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Then surely the solution is to give teenagers an education that leads to less mistakes? And Abstinence-only is not that education.

The thing is that teenagers like to go against the flow. You can put all the disadvantages of pre-marital sex in their face, and they'll still "get it on". I went out the other day, and I saw at least five teen couples. This, considering that I only went out for, what, two hours?

It's also why some idiots die because they think they can drive a car without a licence because they've played computer games and think they know it all.

[General Battuta]

Wait, what? How do you know those couples weren't completely abstinent, Androgeos?

If you start arguing against teen dating, you're getting a bit silly.

[BengalTiger]

And a beer for the General.

Also, we already know everyones views on abortion, and some people's views on teen couples. Why not move on to ... gun control, nuclear energy or whatever else that the parties disagree on and hasn't been discussed yet?

And my 2 cents:
[2 cents]
In Poland abortion is legal when:
1. the mother's life is in danger due to pregnancy
2. the child will have major defects upon birth (ie be a living example of suffering)
3. the pregnancy is a result of rape

And I seem to agree with that.
[/2 cents]

[Hellstryker]

We've been over gun control, which ended in flaming, massive stupidity, and me getting monkeyed  , so let's move on to massive nuclear flame war energy

[Ghostavo]

Someone (preferably from the "pro-life" side) care to explain to me why fertilized eggs that are a result of rape "aren't life" while those that aren't a result of rape "are"?

[Hellstryker]

[sarcasm]Because their father is evil and deserves to burn with his unborn kid in eternal hellfire, duh[/sarcasm]

[Bob-san]

Because the rhythm method relies on any fertilised egg being ejected during menstruation, that's the purpose of the Rhythm method, a woman is fertile as long as the egg is in the womb, it works by reducing the chance of the egg attaching to the wall of the womb and thus growing into a foetus, but the egg is very often fertilised when it is ejected, it does this by saying 'have sex when the egg is in the menstrual canal', hence the 'Rhythm' part of the method.

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355

Edit: Whilst there is a lot of contention in the matter, and, personally, I'd be happy seeing some kind of contraception, even one with a 1 in 5 failure rate, being used than none, I hope I am waking you up to the idea that people are tapdancing in a minefield when it comes to contraception/abortion and religion.

Not always is that correct. Anyways--there's plenty of time that there is no egg in the womb. Also, as has been said, there are more miscarriages than we think. I don't think that number is 98% (I personally don't define pregnancy until the zygote attaches to the wall. But anyways--the Rhythm Method is natural family planning: basically to ensure families can live without serious financial burden without abortion. Some couples use it, some don't. Anyways-it's really not tap-dancing in a minefield if you keep track of when things happen. Most information on natural family planning relies on constant awareness of the woman's typical cycles... not "fourteen days and pray".

[Flipside]

Because the rhythm method relies on any fertilised egg being ejected during menstruation, that's the purpose of the Rhythm method, a woman is fertile as long as the egg is in the womb, it works by reducing the chance of the egg attaching to the wall of the womb and thus growing into a foetus, but the egg is very often fertilised when it is ejected, it does this by saying 'have sex when the egg is in the menstrual canal', hence the 'Rhythm' part of the method.

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355

Edit: Whilst there is a lot of contention in the matter, and, personally, I'd be happy seeing some kind of contraception, even one with a 1 in 5 failure rate, being used than none, I hope I am waking you up to the idea that people are tapdancing in a minefield when it comes to contraception/abortion and religion.

Not always is that correct. Anyways--there's plenty of time that there is no egg in the womb. Also, as has been said, there are more miscarriages than we think. I don't think that number is 98% (I personally don't define pregnancy until the zygote attaches to the wall. But anyways--the Rhythm Method is natural family planning: basically to ensure families can live without serious financial burden without abortion. Some couples use it, some don't. Anyways-it's really not tap-dancing in a minefield if you keep track of when things happen. Most information on natural family planning relies on constant awareness of the woman's typical cycles... not "fourteen days and pray".

Even if it's not always correct, you are still talking about 1 in 5 attempts at it resulting in pregnancy.

http://www.womens-health.co.uk/rhythm.html

It also, as the article points out, provides zero protection against STD's etc. So this 'natural family planning' is actually a game of Russian Roulette both with your health and with your family planning.

Besides, as I said in the original post about the Rhythm method, 'If you believe that life begins with fertilisation.'

Oh, and by the way, part of the way that Contraceptive and 'morning after' pills both work is by preventing the Egg from attaching to the walls of the Womb by thinning the lining, so therefore they are fine?

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/contraceptivepills.htm

[karajorma]

I personally don't define pregnancy until the zygote attaches to the wall.

So just to file away stuff for future discussions, you have no objections to the current research on foetal stem cells then?

[Bob-san]

I personally don't define pregnancy until the zygote attaches to the wall.

So just to file away stuff for future discussions, you have no objections to the current research on foetal stem cells then?

I have absolutely no objection to retrieving stem cells from medical "waste" and from adults. Harvesting from adults is, in my opinion, a top source as it's viable and based off the informed decision of the donor him/herself. Amniotic stem cells are also possible, though will effectively need closer supervision so that the fluid containing the stem cells is not contaminated. During a c-section this is also possible in some cases, though my opinion is that if it will interfere with the surgery or is not consented to by the mother, that it should not occur. In addition, cord blood contains hematopoietic stem cells, which I see as another source for treating human disease and is immensely helpful, and therefore should be banked publicly. In extension, I do not look too favorably on private banking, since donating cord blood should be used to save lives. In my opinion, it is invasive and ethically wrong to harvest embryonic stem cells. My basic definition of when life begins is based upon the fact that, in current practice, a zygote that does not attach to the wall of the woman's uterus will be ejected by menstruation.

[General Battuta]

So you are okay with Plan B and similar morning-after pills? They just prevent that attachment from occuring.

Also, are ectopic pregnancies not real people since they don't attach to the uterine wall?

Something like half of zygotes that do attach to the wall spontaneously abort anyway.

By the way, if there was a male contraceptive, would you take it? What about if you had to choose between a vasectomy for yourself or a tubal ligation for your partner -- which one would you prefer?

The whole stem cell issue looks ready to die, anyway, since it looks like scientists are learning how to convert ordinary cells into stem cells.

[Bob-san]

So you are okay with Plan B and similar morning-after pills? They just prevent that attachment from occuring.

Also, are ectopic pregnancies not real people since they don't attach to the uterine wall?

Something like half of zygotes that do attach to the wall spontaneously abort anyway.

By the way, if there was a male contraceptive, would you take it? What about if you had to choose between a vasectomy for yourself or a tubal ligation for your partner -- which one would you prefer?

The whole stem cell issue looks ready to die, anyway, since it looks like scientists are learning how to convert ordinary cells into stem cells.

Plan B and morning-after pills are not something I support. I guess you can say naturally or biologically, I'm alright with natural processes aborting a zygote prior to attachment. When you start going and chemically inhibit the development of the fetus' placenta, I have a problem with it. The only time I see Plan B and morning-after pills alright is in the wake of criminal sexual activity. As I said before: I don't think they should be easily obtainable and support Christian pharmacies that refuse to stock them. If you want that type of pill, go to the police department, file a report, and then opt to take a Plan B or morning-after pill. As I said before: if she wants that route, file a police report. If it was rape they need to do the vaginal swab and have it sent to a lab, basically as protecting for rape victims and as a way to prosecute rapists.

And yes I realize the high percentage of zygotes  that never attach or attach and then are ejected during menstruation. I think biologically that's fine: but I don't like targeted forcing of miscarriage or other forms of abortion. And yes: there will be a good amount of "typical" miscarriages, and that not every abortion is adding, in my opinion, a death to the count. Many of those (at least a decent percent: maybe not even 20%) would have ended in a normal miscarriage.

Anyways--on the topic of male contraceptives in the form of vasectomy or tubal ligation ("tubes tied"), I would prefer neither route. If necessary, I would converse with whomever my opposite would be and have their take at it. I personally find a vasectomy a scary thought, much as I'd expect a woman to find tubal ligation a scary thought. Really--I have never been on that topic before, so I don't have a particular take. And in the future, when rearing one or more children becomes a financial burden, there may be other options. So, until I am faced with the actual situation I will find it difficult to take a stance for myself or for my partner.

Anyways--I've already been faced with many of the other topics discussed, so I have an opinion on those. Perhaps that opinion will change in the future. And anyways--I do hope the stem cell issue is resolved. Science is moving forward on that issue: there are new and less questionable methods of obtaining stem cells. In research, embryonic stem cells is just one source and is the most contested, as many scientists in the field had come to the conclusion that it's a single source and that there are other sources. Adult stem cells is a better process, as is cord blood and even the attempt through amniotic fluid. There are 3 more sources of similar material, so I think it better that we harvest stem cells from waste or through adult donation.

[Ghostavo]

Someone (preferably from the "pro-life" side) care to explain to me why fertilized eggs that are a result of rape "aren't life" while those that aren't a result of rape "are"?

Or are you one of those types that disagree with anything that's unnatural?

[General Battuta]

If you were raped, Bob-san, how easy do you think it would be to calmly report it and make an appointment for an anal swab? Not as easy as you're probably imagining right now.

The shame of rape is an acknowledged and monumental problem to the prosecution of rapists. So many people (men and women alike, but mostly women) just don't come forward unless coaxed. People still blame themselves for being raped, tragic as it is.

[Bob-san]

If you were raped, Bob-san, how easy do you think it would be to calmly report it and make an appointment for an anal swab? Not as easy as you're probably imagining right now.

The shame of rape is an acknowledged and monumental problem to the prosecution of rapists. So many people (men and women alike, but mostly women) just don't come forward unless coaxed. People still blame themselves for being raped, tragic as it is.

Well that's up to the "system" to figure out how to "coax" these people to the open. I don't have answers for every crisis: but I do have views on some.

[General Battuta]

It's also up to us. Most rape is social rape -- date rapes and rapes by family members.

If we say things like 'it's her fault. She got what she deserved for sleeping around,' whether with regard to pregnancy or rape (both situations that people need to come forward about), then we're going to scare off the people who need our help.

We need to make sure women, in particular, aren't ashamed to talk about the situations they were in.

I have had close friends told that they are 'dressed to be raped' or that they act in a way that makes them deserve rape. These kind of signals prevent rape victims from coming forward.

[NGTM-1R]

Of course, if you want to be truly cold-bloodedly logical about it, you would argue that abortion should be banned because we're in a state of negative population growth...

[Flipside]

And if you wanted to be truly religious about it, you could say that every child that is aborted is promised a place in heaven, and therefore we are doing them a favour

[Turambar]

And if you wanted to be truly religious about it, you could say that every child that is aborted is promised a place in heaven, and therefore we are doing them a favour

unless you believe in original sin.

I, however, don't think anything has a soul, and I'm perfectly fine with abortion and sex without consequences and all that.  I pretty much don't care about a fetus/baby until it starts thinking for itself.  If it's killed before it's self-aware, then nothing is harmed.

that said, I wrap it up when needed, and I take precautions so such FALCON PUNCHING doesnt need to be done. 

So, couple nights ago my religious ex (who is engaged to my buddy) was messing with my drunk friend, putting ripped up pieces of paper and peanut M&Ms in his drink, asking him why he doesn't believe in god, and telling him that I'm evil and that I don't have a soul, shortly after i tell her to stop messing with him and putting stuff in his drink.  I just thought that this was important to add that religion and morals don't go together.