The Pill Kills Rational Reactions
by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
June 21, 2009 - 10:47pm (Print)
Subscribe to RealityCast:
RealityCast iTunes subscription
RealityCast RSS feed
Links in this episode:
On this episode of Reality Cast, I'll be interviewing Joy Baynes about the increased availability of Plan B, and why it's not enough. Also, anti-choicers protest to ban the pill, but they've changed their excuse a little bit. And the Independent Women's Forum shows how the complaints about Sonia Sotomayor are incoherent.
Thanks to blogger Hugo Zoom for posting the documentary "When Abortion Was Illegal". I haven't seen this before, but it's quite powerful.
- illegal abortion *
What's particularly distressing is when they read the death confessions they extracted from women dying from botched illegal abortions. It was a common practice. Sexual women weren't allowed to die in peace with clear consciences, but were exploited by withholding care until they gave up the man who got them pregnant and the abortion provider.
*********
The American Life League, in an effort to show how crazy the anti-choice movement really, really is, went ahead with another protest not of Roe v. Wade, but their ultimate aim, which is for an overturn of Griswold v. Connecticut. They call it the Pill Kills protest, and they have it every year around the anniversary of the 1965 case that legalized contraception across the country. What's interesting about this is the Pill Kills group, which is an offshoot of the American Life League, has been trying to refine their message, making it increasingly disingenuous. Obviously, the reason they don't like the pill is because they object to its efficacy. Since it works so well, fewer women are punished with unintended pregnancy for the crime of having sex.
But since sex is so universally popular, they can't just say what they think about the pill, of course. Since anti-choicers have exactly zero objections to lying about anything to further their aims, the American Life League has been trying out a few different lies about the pill in order to scare people away from it. Last year, the big lie was that the pill kills zygotes.
* pill kills 1 *
I guess the combination of the overwhelming evidence against this claim plus the fact that they really can't convince people that zygotes are the same as 5-year-olds has caused them to rethink that lie. Now they're lying and claiming that the pill should be banned because it kills women. I combed the entire Pill Kills website, and all the claims that were in print there were that the pill will pretty much certainly kill you with a stroke, but if you're one of the few lucky ones to survive that, then some mysterious pill-related death will get you. God will have you pay for sex with pregnancy or death, ladies, your choice.
Of course, the sliver of truth here is that the pill isn't safe for women who are stroke risks, especially smokers and especially overweight smokers. This is true, but relative to most prescription medicine, the pill is actually pretty safe, much safer than most drugs, which is why a one-time dose was approved for over the counter sales in the form of emergency contraception. But reading this site, you'd think that no other drug in the history of the world had side effects.
But they're not too interested in facts, as this lecture from anti-choice nut Dr. Lynn Kerr demonstrates.
- pill kills 2 *
Blah blah blah, the pill "breaks" you because it alters your body chemistry. By this logic, cholesterol controlling medication and insulin for Type I diabetes are also bad drugs because they counter your body's "natural" inclinations. But what I really like is that anti-choicers are so obsessed with punishing women for sex that they are willing to object to the entire concept of preventive medicine. Doctors are only to look for disease once it's too late and fix it. Unless of course, it's pregnancy-related disease, in which case anti-choicers would welcome you to die, because therapeutic abortions are out of the question, too.
But I want to see anti-choicers really live up to this mantra. No more regular check-ups. No more cancer screenings, nutrition advice, and even exercise should be frowned upon. Prevention is immoral and unnatural and a sign that doctors are out to get you, right? Then act like it.
Of course, it's not an anti-choicer gathering unless they're squawking about natural family planning, the favorite form of making it nearly impossible to avoid pregnancy, especially if your partner is being especially whiny and entitled. I've heard it touted as a cure for all sorts of things, but leave it to anti-choice nuts to claim it solves menstrual problems that the pill is so good at fixing.
- pill kills 3 *
Anything, anything, anything but putting a 15-year-old on a pill that might mean that she doesn't have a baby as a side effect. Well, of course, anti-choicers aren't thinking that far ahead. They hear the words teenager and pill next to each other, and no matter what the context, they think, "Young women are having sex and getting away with it! Stop the madness!" And that's the end of their thinking. But really, I love how he thinks girls and their mothers have to go through months of hell and quackery treatments to address symptoms that could safely be addressed with the pill. Because the alternative is she might have sex without getting pregnant, and if you don't want a pregnant teenage girl, than I just don't know what's wrong with you.
*********
- insert interview *
*********
To no one's great surprise, the Independent Women's Forum, who claims to be so very pro-woman, isn't very pro-Sonia Sotomayor. So much so that they're not aware of what kind of contradictions that you get into when you try to claim that while you're very sure that it's entirely possible for there to be a qualified woman, but you know damn well that you will claim that any woman picked will have just been selected because she's a woman. So, here's Allison Kasic spouting a subtle but interesting self-contradiction.
- sotomayor 1 *
Okay, so essentially she's saying this isn't a surprise, because Sotomayor has been the favorite for this seat for practically forever. And she's right, actually! I know, it's rare, but in this small case she's right. Sotomayor has more federal bench experience than any of the other justices on the Supreme Court had before they were appointed, and she's known as a stickler for precedent and generally pretty moderate, so a safe pick. Most qualified, supposedly least controversial, a perfect pick, right? So why then does Kasic follow it up with this?
- sotomayor 2 *
I love it. It's like she's saying, "As a woman, I'd theoretically like to see women get these jobs, but in practice I'm always going to imply strongly that your womanhood means that you aren't qualified." Which of course, is the position IWF has to take to keep the funding coming. The contradiction here is that before she set up the women-can't-really-be-qualified gambit, she confessed that Sotomayor was the favorite because if anyone can claim to be the most qualified, it's Sotomayor. So, which is it?
Kasic then makes a rousing call for getting away from identity politics and talking about merit.
- sotomayor 3 *
Call me a cynic, but I had to stop here and laugh and laugh. The people making an issue out of identity politics are conservatives, not Sotomayor's defenders. Conservatives are race-baiting and using anti-choice code phrases like "judicial activism", which are supposed to arouse their anti-feminist base. Doesn't get more identity politics than that. And the reason they're doing it is because he merits and temperament are pretty much above reproach and they know it.
As if to prove how full of it Kasic is, the interviewer immediately asks a question designed to appeal to the most brutish of white guy identity politics.
- sotomayor 4 *
Did Kasic mention that Sotomayor is Latina? Did you get that? Did you realize that means she's not a white man? Do you realize that this means that a man who is white will NOT be getting the seat? Are you angry yet?
That's how conservatives avoid playing cheap identity politics. After they do a little of that, they avoid getting hit by cars by running around on the freeway during traffic.
**********
And now for the Wisdom of Wingnuts, the Fred Phelps edition. I usually try to avoid Phelps, since he's a marginalized wacko, and not mainstreamed at all like the people who excused Dr. George Tiller's murder. But since his church bothered to write a song, I thought I'd share it.
- god hates the world *
Okay, I wouldn't say they "wrote" it, because it's an obvious plagiarism of "We Are The World". But considering how hateful they are, that seems like a minor issue.
Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter, @amandamarcotte
I got an "error opening file" a few minutes into the podcast. Is something broken?
there were some short interruptions with the service that hosts our podcast. It should be working normally now. If you experience any further problems please notify me at brady (AT) rhrealitycheck.org.
Thanks, Brady
Obviously, the reason they don't like the pill is because they object to its efficacy.
Wow. You speak of wanting dialog and yet you can't seem to imagine a pro-lifer that doesn't despise women, despise sex, want babies to result from every act of sex. Dear Lord, you'll never get anywhere attempting to dialog from that position. You have to actually open your minds and imagine that people might actually believe what they say when they speak out against the negative effects of the pill and the positive effects of periodic abstinence.
Since anti-choicers have exactly zero objections to lying about anything to further their aims
Boy, there's nothing quite like a baseless personal attack to back up your argument ... errr ... "dialog".
You have it seems stated your own solution here.
If you do not approve of or like contraceptive pills, and/or want to engage in periodic abstinence, that is a good choice.......for you and any consenting partner you have.
Others may make other choices, no?
Dialog with a campaign that starts with "The Pill Kills?" No thank you. That's like dialog with someone who says "the Jews control everything." It's not a starting point for any sort of conversation; it's a straight-up admission that they've completely flown off the handle.
Believe me, no one here wants a dialog with the TPK campaign or any group connected with it. Our response is simply to keep on telling the facts, and let people decide for themselves, as always.
I guess the combination of the overwhelming evidence against this claim plus the fact that they really can't convince people that zygotes are the same as 5-year-olds has caused them to rethink that lie.
Except that there is evidence of post fertilization interference. Also, this article in the Archives of Family Medicine supported by the American Medical Association, talks about why it's so hard to get evidence of post-fertilization interference and explains the evidence that we do have.
which is why a one-time dose was approved for over the counter sales in the form of emergency contraception.
Right, and it was never approved for constant use. Yet who's to stop people from doing so?
Except that there is evidence of post fertilization interference. Also, this article in the Archives of Family Medicine supported by the American Medical Association, talks about why it's so hard to get evidence of post-fertilization interference and explains the evidence that we do have.
And who gives a s***? Anyone who has a problem with hurting the poor, poor little zygote can just use a barrier method instead, or abstain. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!
Right, and it was never approved for constant use. Yet who's to stop people from doing so?
You want someone to stop all legal off-label use of medication? Better start with all the elderly folks taking aspirin to help keep their hearts healthy.
Yeah I guess you're right. Who gives a s*** about women killing themselves taking too many "emergency contraceptive" pills that they were given at the University Health Center without any doctor's oversight?
Cite? I think women wanting to kill themselves could find something more effective and WAY cheaper - like asprin! I can't find any cases of women dying form EC overdose...
In fact, I doubt it's really possible unless you have some conflicting medical condition. That's one of the reasons it was allowed to be OTC - because there is no risk of addiction or overdose.
A tiny percentage of pill takers occasionally lose a zygote, they lose exponentially fewer than women who don't take the pill lose. If you think zygotes are the same thing as 5-year-old, you should want every woman in the country to be on the pill. Why? Because they don't ovulate. Which means they can't fertilize eggs (most of the time).
Women who do expose eggs to fertilization kill exponentially more zygotes. Estimates suggest that 50-80% of fertilized eggs die on their own. And that's before the miscarriage rate, which is about 20%.
Which means women who don't use contraception, as you desire, kill at least one "baby" and probably more for every live baby they have. That's an outrageous murder rate, and you should be appalled by all these women who don't use the pill and their careless regard for human life.
If not, I suspect your "concern" for zygote life is a cover story for your hostility towards sexually active women.
Well now we're getting somewhere. At least you admit that the pill can cause a human being in the zygote stage of development to die. And that is exactly my point. Someone not on the pill may lose the life of a human being very early on in development and they will most likely never know that they existed, yet at least they didn't cause the loss of that life.
It's the difference between killing and allowing someone to die when there's nothing else that you can do. It's a world of difference.
Once again you assume that I am a liar and have other motives. You do not take me for my word. Why should I discuss anything with you if I am assumed to be evil to the core? Your zealotry against me begins without knowing anything about me.
And that is exactly my point. Someone not on the pill may lose the life of a human being very early on in development and they will most likely never know that they existed, yet at least they didn't cause the loss of that life.
Shock! Horror! Oh my God, stop the presses! Tiny, tiny human beings are DYING and the perpetrators don't even know they are MURDERERS!
Once again you assume that I am a liar and have other motives. You do not take me for my word. Why should I discuss anything with you if I am assumed to be evil to the core? Your zealotry against me begins without knowing anything about me.
Yes, BrianH, you are a liar, have other motives, and we don't take you for your word. You are evil to the core. So you really shouldn't discuss anything with us. And no, we don't want to know anything more about you. We've already seen enough.
In other words, go away. You're wasting everyone's time here.
Someone not on the pill may lose the life of a human being very early on in development and they will most likely never know that they existed, yet at least they didn't cause the loss of that life.
It's the difference between killing and allowing someone to die when there's nothing else that you can do.
But there IS something you can do - take the pill. Then it is very very unlikely any "life" will be lost. Not taking the pill causes the death of fertilized eggs just as much as taking it causes it, and also causes it to happen much more often! If fertilized eggs are going to die anyway, shouldn't you do all you can to REDUCE the deaths?
There's no scientific proof of the assertion that the pill "kills" anything.
The pill works by preventing ovulation. Some have speculated that it might make it slightly less likely for a fertilized egg to implant, but there is no proof of this.
But we have 110% certainty that women who use nothing will kill more zygotes. Period. So if you care about zygote life, you should want all women on the pill.
How do you feel about condoms?
So Brian, I am guessing you would also object to breastfeeding, as there is ample evidence the practice also interferes with "implantation? Yes? No? Maybe?
On the contrary, I view breastfeeding as an excellent way of delaying the return of a woman's period. During the return of the period there is a short period where, yes, ovulation will return and the lining of the womb will not be prepared. You can of course abstain during ovulation during this period of time. It's not that difficult.
You can of course abstain during ovulation during this period of time.
Snerk...
So tell us, Brian...do you think breastfeeding women have a moral obligation to "abstain" during the "ovulation" period?
(You might want to think carefully here. Just a friendly heads up.)
Blah blah blah, the pill "breaks" you because it alters your body chemistry. By this logic, cholesterol controlling medication and insulin for Type I diabetes are also bad drugs because they counter your body's "natural" inclinations.
Wow, stopping the ordinary function of a woman's body (the most amazing and wonderful function of a woman's body no less), is compared to correcting a bodies inability to produce insulin or control it's cholesterol levels? Is this for real?
Unless of course, it's pregnancy-related disease,
Ah ha! Now I see the problem. You believe pregnancy is a disease. Now that explains a lot. So a little bit of education of what pregnancy is should help a great deal in this dialog.
(the most amazing and wonderful function of a woman's body no less)
Jealous that you can't get pregnant? This is totally just your opinion. In MY opinion getting pregnant when i don't want to sounds like a HORRIBLE function, and this is why women have been controlling their birthrate as long as we've existed. That is what our brains are for!
Also, if you really suspect the best function of a woman's body is getting pregnant, I suggest you learn more about multiple orgasms. Or the wonderful ability of the mind without which we would have no control our destiny.
if you really suspect the best function of a woman's body is getting pregnant, I suggest you learn more about multiple orgasms.
Hallelujah for multiple orgasms!
Wow, stopping the ordinary function of a woman's body (the most amazing and wonderful function of a woman's body no less)
Breeding is the only amazing thing we can do.
Brains, apparently, count for nothing.
Now, now Princess
I'm sure that Brian (occasionally) appreciates his wife's abilities as a superior masturbation device and even more as a (daily)source of cheap or free labor.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
Please tell me why so many women would take hormones every day of the year when they are only able to conceive within a few days span each month? More to the point, they're taking a medication, which does harm to their bodies, for 30 days when they are only fertile for 2-3 days, how does that make sense?
Do most women even know this? If not, why?
And, yes, there are easy, easy ways to learn how to tell almost perfectly which 3 days a woman is fertile for. One method is the sympto-thermal method, even women who are uneducated and illiterate can use it, so why are intelligent women kept in the dark? That seems anti-woman to me...it seems the intention could be to keep women ignorant and not teach them even basic biology about their own bodies.
Please tell me why so many women would take hormones every day of the year when they are only able to conceive within a few days span each month?
it seems the intention could be to keep women ignorant and not teach them even basic biology about their own bodies.
And clearly someone has done this with you. Please go to a library, open up a medical text on the female reproductive system, and escape your ignorance.
A cop-out answer, for sure. Please enlighten me with your medical knowledge! FYI, I am an RN, and have been for 20 years, I know a woman's anatomy and physiology like the back of my hand. So, go for it, why don't you? Explain why healthy women need to take hormones every day when they are fertile only 2-3 days per month. Why not teach women how to tell when they are fertile, rather than pumping them up with drugs that harm their health?
I don't take BC everyday, only once every three months, but I'll answer your question anyway... The reason is: because I don't want to get pregnant, AND I want to be able to have sex whenever I want. And I REALLY don't want to be pregnant. My method has a failure rate of .1 to .3% and yours has a failure rate of 13 to 20%!! Wow, and you still have to ask WHY??
If it's true you are an RN, then whatever state your licensed in seriously needs to raise it's standards.
You didn't mention at all that sperm can live 5 days, so basically you'd have to go for a week without sex if you wanted to use your method. And if you are not very accurate with your calculating, or if you're like me and have a very long cycle, you might want to play it safe and go even longer. Do I really want to limit my sex life to half the time I have now?
Why do you even have a problem if other people want to take BC? No one is forcing YOU to do it.
http://www.storknet.com/cubbies/preconception/exbp26.htm
Wrong, wrong. 13-20%, my dear is wrong, look somewhere other than pro-abortion sites that want to degrade women learning their biology, please. I've used it for 20 years and it's been 100%!
Drop the ad hominem attacks, it makes your arguments look weak and worse it's childish. An interesting fact, I know more women who have been on the pill that get pregnant unintentionally than others who actually know when they're fertile.
Some more facts, women are only fertile approximately 3 days in 30 days, some women only 2 days, so the live of the sperm doesn't matter if the environment in the vagina is not conducive to fertilization. It's quite a stretch and deceptive to suggest that you wouldn't be able to have sex for half of the month, give me a break. Whether women want to increase their risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke, etc, is their business, of course. However, what should be concerning to all women is what seems to be the intentional act keeping women ignorant about their options and how their body's work. If a woman wants to take unhealthy drugs fine, but don't keep women ignorant since there are many women who want to be healthy and know their bodies.
Some more facts, women are only fertile approximately 3 days in 30 days, some women only 2 days, so the live of the sperm doesn't matter if the environment in the vagina is not conducive to fertilization.
Are you dense? Let's imagine this scenario, and assume a man and woman have sex 5 days before the woman is "conducive to fertilization". The sperm stays in her for 5 days, and then fertilizes the released egg. The woman remains abstinent afterward for 3 days. But still gets pregnant, due to the sperm already being there. So, for this to work, she'd have to remain abstinent not just the 3 days she is fertile, but for 5 days previous also! Do you get it now?
Just because it has been 100% effective for YOU says nothing about failure rates. Depo has been 100% effective for me, and the pill has been 100% effective for my mother, yet neither of these says anything about the actual failure rate among all women.
Also, if I were jsut to use myself as an example, I would do horribly with your method. Especially if I was with someone who didn't want to have sex while I was on my period! (I'm not, but there are guys who are like this.) I have a 30-36 (yes it varies imagine that, women aren't machines) day cycle, and bleed for 5-7 days. Surely I'm fertile more than 3 days if 3 days is based on a 28 day cycle... So let's see, 3 days of no sex when fertile, 5 days of no sex previous to being fertile, and 7 days of no sex because of massive bleeding. Uck!
If a woman wants to take unhealthy drugs fine, but don't keep women ignorant since there are many women who want to be healthy and know their bodies.
Unhealthy? Cite? I am not ignorant, I am healthy, and I know my body. My doctor is not ignorant and has explained to me how Depo has been around over 30 years and has been evaluated to be very safe.
I have no problem with with anyone who chooses to use your method of birth control. Why do you have a problem with my birth control choice?
Where's YOUR cite for how effective it is?
Here's a CHRISTIAN source for you:
http://www.christiancontraception.com/calendar.php
http://www.christiancontraception.com/ovulation.php
Cancer? Which ones?
I loved my time on the pill. I loved the tremendous physical freedom that came with knowing to the day when the flow would arrive. I loved the lack of cramps, and the light flow lasting maybe three days. And given my ridiculous fertility, I loved the security that enabled me to relax, and get into the hot monkey love without the pleasure sucking fear of pregnancy.
Please trust women to evaluate what is important to us, and make the birth control decisions that enhance the lives we have chosen for ourselves.
.. then surely you know that it is not feasible to know for certain exactly when those 2-3 days are even with the most conscientious application of temperature charting and observation. And that many women do not have perfect cycles. Also that it stretches to beyond 2-3 days if one considers the time sperm may remain viable on either side of that window of the woman's fertility. There's also a risk that a woman might even ovulate during her menses, when temperature charting and the like is useless. Some women have very good luck with charting when it is used well, but in general it is better for timing ovulation for someone who is attempting conceive than it is for preventing pregnancy.
So why should women NOT take control of their fertility through the use of hormonal medication that in most cases has a safe track record over the course of decades, particularly with the lower-dose hormones available? PREVENTING ovulation entirely is a much surer method of preventing an unwanted pregnancy than trying to determine if and when an ovulation has occurred.
Unless, of course, there is another motivation like tying down women to their menstrual cycles or a mistaken belief that a zygote= baby on the tiny chance of an implantation not occurring as a result of the use of hormonal birth control... a MUCH smaller chance of occurring than for a woman who ovulates.
My wife, for example, has extremely difficult to chart cycles (anywhere from long to very long cycles), yet we are even able to know precisely when she ovulates. It can be done and we have immense freedom now without any hormones/barriers/outside interference. She is even able to detect problems with her body long before she would if she was on the pill. Just recently she determined something was wrong with her body a few months before her OB/GYN finally determined that she had a 5cm cyst.
The doctor kept insisting that she just go on the pill and her cycles would straighten up, but we refused and kept persisting that we find out what the real problem was. Sure enough we found the cyst and even then Doctors just said going on the pill would make the cyst go away. Until finally after 2 more ultra sounds they admitted that this was a persistent cyst that needed to be removed. They failed to help her because all they know is to stop a woman's body from working. NFP is what helped her to break through the barrier of ignorance in the OB/GYN profession and get a true answer to her problem. Even now we still don't have much work in that field of medicine in preventing the cause of cysts. This is because of how easy it is just "go on the pill" and the symptoms magically go away.
Well Gosh, Brian...my cysts did in fact disappear on their own, and I was not obliged to endure surgery.
See! Women are different from one another, and again I implore you to trust us with their own bodies. Hey, I am delighted NFP worked so well for you and your wife. Let those of us who lead entirely different lives from you and your wife determine the BC method that is best for us.
about shoving a thermometer in our vagina or rectum every morning before we can even get up to urinate, charting the temperature on a spreadsheet, detailing the consistency of our cervical mucus, then having to abstain from the normal act of intimacy with our partner during a period of time which may or may not actually be our fertile days.
NFP may work well for some people as you have shown, but it is not for everyone. It is rather akin to saying, "Well my diabetes can be controlled by diet; why do you risk yourself using those terrible medications?"
You know, RM...I have never considered the gritty realities of NFP...the constraints, and frankly, the humiliating procedures. I simply led too active a life to even consider delving much past the initial "I think not."
So Brian...feel free to walk us through the dedicated practice of NFP as YOU experience it...being the guy an' all.
So you're saying that it's not natural to pay attention to the signs your body gives to you about what's going on? What are you doing with your thermometers by the way?! I think I have figured out why you don't like NFP. LOL. Do NOT place that there!
And seriously, you don't think that abstaining is natural and ok? So you don't tell men to back the heck off when you're having your period? You know that they are not entitled to have access to you at all times right?
Come on. Who here has ever enjoyed uniting again after a period of abstinence? Who here has ever enjoyed a reunion after a business trip or other temporary separation? Don't you think that having that twice every 30 days would be pretty interesting? We're talking about abstaining for 4 days out of every month. That's too much?! Self control used to be a respected virtue. Now we are no better than the dog that humps the leg of everyone that comes through the door. "I have to do it...I'm an animal!"
Again, diabetes is unique in that it is something that happens to a person when their body fails to produce insulin. Those persons ought to take medicine to provide the insulin that their bodies are failing to produce. That is the opposite of contraceptives which have as their goal the breaking of a perfectly functional body.
you don't think that abstaining is natural and ok
No, I don't. For me personally, I think it is natural to have sex when my desire for it is highest and I get the most enjoyment from it.
And seriously, you don't think that abstaining is natural and ok?
Women are often horniest when they are ovulating, the exact time you want us to abstain! So no, I don't think that's natural. Most animals ONLY have sex when they are fertile, not the other way around! I'd say NFP is just as "unnatural" (ie, only humans practice family planning of any kind) as any form of birth control, but way less effective and way less convenient than the pill or Depo.
So you don't tell men to back the heck off when you're having your period?
No, I tell him to put down a towel!
You know that they are not entitled to have access to you at all times right?
You do know women actually LIKE sex right? sure sounds like you think we only do it because men want it!!
We're talking about abstaining for 4 days out of every month.
Do you know how to read??? Read my above posts, which explains that you'd have to abstain for at LEAST a week, and 2 weeks if you don't like sex during you're period!!
That's too much?!
Yes. I am very much in love and see no reason to restrain my affection. I'm especially not going to do it because some idiot online thinks I should, or some other idiot online claims to be an RN and then lies about things that are so easy to fact check it's laughable. My doctor has given me the real risks of Depo, and I find them acceptable. Frankly, I suffer more side effects from Advil.
Self control used to be a respected virtue. Now we are no better than the dog that humps the leg of everyone that comes through the door.
So... you think ppl who use contraceptives don't ever practice monogamy or have any standards? We all just fuck whoever is nearby??? You DO realize 98% of American women have used contraception, right? With an opinion like that of women, good luck getting a date!
"I have to do it...I'm an animal!"
Actually, ABSTAINING is an animal thing. All other mammals only have sex when they are in heat, and DON'T have sex the rest of the time! Having sex for pleasure is a HUMAN thing.
So you don't tell men to back the heck off when you're having your period?
Clearly Brian is unaware of the cramp-reducing effects of a good orgasm.
That is the opposite of contraceptives which have as their goal the breaking of a perfectly functional body.
It appears you are very ignorant of how birth control works. It does not break anything. It simply stops a woman from ovulating. This is something a woman's body does naturally often, like when we're pregnant or breast feeding, or if we are not getting enough nutrients, or if we are young and haven't gone through puberty. When you stop taking the BC, an egg is released again. Keeping an egg from coming out is not "breaking a perfectly functioning body". It's more like using antiperspirant or something - is stopping your sweat from coming out breaking you?? Of course not. And once you stop wearing it, you sweat again!! It's just giving us control of our bodies, that's all. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to take it!!
Uh Brian...you are avoiding valid questions. Do you believe that breastfeeding women have a moral obligation to avoid intercourse during the ovulation period?
Here's your problem, Brian. If the theory of breastfeeding as natural BC is credible, and evolved as a self defense mechanism to essentially space pregnancies, how is utilizing this natural response "unnatural."
Yeah, contraception is really more "natural" than condoms. How do you feel about condoms, Brian? Or tube tying? Vasectomies? All pretty unnatural.
I think it's unnatural for humans to travel faster than 5mph. I'm totally against anything that breaks your natural ability to only go slow, and especially anything that allows you to FLY! What are we, animals?? I say we ban cars, trains, planes, and bikes. You with me Brian?
Please explain how you feel about condoms, diaphragms, or sterilization, all forms that even you can't pretend "kill" anything but sperm.
This will be interesting if you get a response, Amanda. Brian has admitted elsewhere that breastfeeding women should abstain during the ovulation period, because of the "natural" likelihood of flushing a fertilized egg. If he is accepting of other "unnatural" methods of BC, then the "beauty" of abstinence is so much hooey.
We're instructed to lie and conceal our true knowledge/beliefs? LOL. Perhaps I missed that anti-choicers unite to oppose women and destroy sexual enjoyment seminar invite. Do you listen to the stuff you say? You're cracking me up!
Well if you believe the crap you spew you're just stupid. But Amanda has linked to documents from pro-life organizations that DO instruct their followers to lie and make shit up, and many of the pro-life leaders DO no how contraception works but lie about it anyway. Not everyone is as stupid as you, even pro-lifers.
Most people can't really enjoy sex if they have to risk a pregnancy every time they do it, not really. They might some, but not as much as they would. Your requirement that pregnancy be a risk factor to undermine sexual pleasure is a direct assault on it. It's pretty obvious, seriously. It's like telling people they have to stand on their heads to watch TV, and then facetiously claiming that you're not trying to deprive them of the pleasure of TV.
I am very very very against pregnancy pills. There are so many ways today to prevent pregnancy. Why use pills and put your own health under danger? Our organisms are different and consequently side effect will vary. As for me, I do not advise anyone to use pregnancy pills.
