|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 11, 2010 17:40:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 11, 2010 17:48:53 GMT -5
The Vision Forum Ministries president explains that “our daughters are going to be asked by their physicians whether they want to carry their child or put them in external wombs, which have been created by the scientific community so that women no longer have to carry babies.”
That's supposed to be a bad thing? ;D Bring it on!
|
|
|
Post by liltwinstar on Aug 11, 2010 17:56:57 GMT -5
For the love of pete - no!!!
I remember hearing the garbage about "external wombs" back in the late 80s and early 90s when my parents were dragging me to Operation Rescue events. Somehow it was part of the "homosexual agenda" to eliminate women or something - I could never follow the logic on that. It sounded absurd to me as a child, and it's absurd now. Sadly, people believe it.
Also, I love my birth control pills - in addition to keeping me not pregnant (my chosen state at the moment), they have changed my life becuase I no longer have horrible cramps, moodiness, etc. But I guess I'm just supposed to "endure" all that monthly fun becuase it's part of god's "sanctification" or whatever. No thanks!! My pills will have to be pried my cold, dead hands.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Aug 11, 2010 18:13:13 GMT -5
I don't agree with this bit at all. The Bible is open to massive amounts of interpretation, to a ridiculous degree. Back when I was a pro-choice Christian, I even found a Biblical basis for being pro-choice. If someone raised 20 people in complete solitude from birth, with no exposure to the outside world, then gave them the Bible to read, they’d come up with 20 different ways a “truly Godly” family would behave.
|
|
|
Post by sanveann on Aug 11, 2010 18:15:39 GMT -5
I'm primarily a lurker, and I hate to "come out of the closet," so to speak, on this issue, which is so controversial ... but I did want to verify that the pill -can- be considered abortifacient, if you consider life to begin at conception. A lot of women don't know that, and I think that's very unfortunate. *Full disclosure: I'm an NFP-using Catholic. Never have been, or will be, associated with QF or VF, apart from reading this forum!*
The primary mechanism of the pill is to prevent ovulation, but its secondary mechanisms are to thicken cervical mucus (preventing sperm from reaching the egg) and to thin the endometrial lining (preventing a fertilized egg from implanting). Apparently, this "breakthrough ovulation" occurs more frequently with the newer low-dose pills than with the older, higher-dose ones.
I had heard for many years that the BCP prevented implantation but never believed it until the day I looked at the insert for my own pills (Ortho Tricyclen) and saw it right there in black and white. I was terribly upset at the idea that I could have been conceiving on a regular basis. What was even more shocking was that none of my girlfriends or female family members knew that the pill didn't work solely by preventing ovulation.
At any rate, while I found the article pretty nutty, I just wanted the posters here to be aware that there was a grain of truth in the info about the pill.
(Btw, would a mechanical uterus be such a bad idea? Wouldn't it be a tremendous boon to women who would otherwise abort, or who were unable to carry to term due to health issues? Heck, THINK how many kids the Duggars could have, lol!)
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 11, 2010 18:21:00 GMT -5
I don't agree with this bit at all. The Bible is open to massive amounts of interpretation, to a ridiculous degree. Back when I was a pro-choice Christian, I even found a Biblical basis for being pro-choice. If someone raised 20 people in complete solitude from birth, with no exposure to the outside world, then gave them the Bible to read, they’d come up with 20 different ways a “truly Godly” family would behave. Valsa ~ maybe I did not state it clearly enough in my commentary ~ but it is true the "biblical family" is today being defined largely by these "pro-family" organizations which are leaning more and more toward Quiverfull/Patriarchal ideals such as Vision Forum espouses. My point was to say that among Evangelical Christians ~ Quiverfull values are spreading rapidly ~ they may not all be practicing the Quiverfull lifestyle, but a growing number of Christians (esp. fundamentalists) believe QF/P's basic tenets ARE biblical.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Aug 11, 2010 18:27:57 GMT -5
Okay, that makes a little more sense. The way I read it was that you were saying QF's version of a "biblical family" is Biblically correct and most Christians know it, but just ignore that for their own purposes. I thought it was a bit weird that you'd be writing something like that.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Aug 11, 2010 18:37:19 GMT -5
The Vision Forum Ministries president explains that “our daughters are going to be asked by their physicians whether they want to carry their child or put them in external wombs, which have been created by the scientific community so that women no longer have to carry babies.”That's supposed to be a bad thing? ;D Bring it on! It's hilarious because we are SO FAR from "external wombs". We don't have external wombs at all! What a boon they would be to very prem babies if they existed. The more conservative the evangelicals the more scared of science they are.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Aug 11, 2010 18:40:58 GMT -5
I'm primarily a lurker, and I hate to "come out of the closet," so to speak, on this issue, which is so controversial ... but I did want to verify that the pill -can- be considered abortifacient, if you consider life to begin at conception. A lot of women don't know that, and I think that's very unfortunate. *Full disclosure: I'm an NFP-using Catholic. Never have been, or will be, associated with QF or VF, apart from reading this forum!* The primary mechanism of the pill is to prevent ovulation, but its secondary mechanisms are to thicken cervical mucus (preventing sperm from reaching the egg) and to thin the endometrial lining (preventing a fertilized egg from implanting). Apparently, this "breakthrough ovulation" occurs more frequently with the newer low-dose pills than with the older, higher-dose ones. I had heard for many years that the BCP prevented implantation but never believed it until the day I looked at the insert for my own pills (Ortho Tricyclen) and saw it right there in black and white. I was terribly upset at the idea that I could have been conceiving on a regular basis. What was even more shocking was that none of my girlfriends or female family members knew that the pill didn't work solely by preventing ovulation. At any rate, while I found the article pretty nutty, I just wanted the posters here to be aware that there was a grain of truth in the info about the pill. (Btw, would a mechanical uterus be such a bad idea? Wouldn't it be a tremendous boon to women who would otherwise abort, or who were unable to carry to term due to health issues? Heck, THINK how many kids the Duggars could have, lol!) Just as I think conservative evangelicals are scared of science I think some that stand against them are scared of this kind of factlet. I mean if it's in the information given in the pill packet why the foment to refute and rebut it that happens every time this comes up? Really, let the science facts stand and let people make their own choices. It's not like only hormonal birth control exists. Many christians know this possibility (prevention of implantation) but it is so early they don't really care, and the percentage of times this might occur is so slim they don't worry about it. But if it bothers a person they can choose otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by charlotteb on Aug 11, 2010 18:41:56 GMT -5
Long time lurker, first time poster--hi all!
Ok, so the idea that a fertilized egg *could* be discarded doesn't seem to me to on the same level as abortion, however, I can see where that would bother people who do believe in life at conception.
But, don't eggs get discarded anyway, prior to implantation in women who are not on the pill and/or who are trying to become pregnant? So, on occasion, God/The Universe/Science/fate/biology decides that a particular zygote (is that the right term?) doesn't "deserve" to be born?
On the upside, maybe people will stop listening to this crap as it gets more and more extreme.
The fact that Doug Philips spends so much time thinking about this bothers me a lot. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by liltwinstar on Aug 11, 2010 18:44:10 GMT -5
Ugh - just had to post again. I understand that the pill can sometimes keep a fertilized egg from implanting. However, that can happen without BC pills for a lot of reasons, too, so I'm personally not bothered by that. For me, the thought of an un-implanted fertilized egg is not the same thing as choosing to end an established pregnancy, but I'm also pro-choice, so there's that. On Kate Harding's blog there was a post about "pretend babies" and "pretend mothers" -ie, the babies that will grow up to cure cancer/be president/change the world if we will just stop taking the pill long enough to give birth to them: kateharding.net/2009/11/23/3974/#comments I really think these guys (Phillips, Botkin, etc) are in love with the "pretend babies" and "pretend mothers" of their imaginations, more than they care about actual, flesh and blood women and children.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Aug 11, 2010 18:47:20 GMT -5
Long time lurker, first time poster--hi all! Ok, so the idea that a fertilized egg *could* be discarded doesn't seem to me to on the same level as abortion, however, I can see where that would bother people who do believe in life at conception. But, don't eggs get discarded anyway, prior to implantation in women who are not on the pill and/or who are trying to become pregnant? So, on occasion, God/The Universe/Science/fate/biology decides that a particular zygote (is that the right term?) doesn't "deserve" to be born? On the upside, maybe people will stop listening to this crap as it gets more and more extreme. The fact that Doug Philips spends so much time thinking about this bothers me a lot. Ugh. Yes not every fertilized egg implants. It's very early stages and plenty can go amiss.. or not really amiss as it's designed to not work out if there is something wrong. It just seems simple to me. Lay out the science facts and let people make their own choices. Don't get upset if someone makes a choice different than yours. Don't browbeat christians into making the choice you make. Everything doesn't have to be a campaign to change other people's choices.
|
|
haley
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by haley on Aug 11, 2010 19:14:47 GMT -5
Long time reader first time poster etc etc...
First of all, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a pro-choice atheist who has never been religious or quiverfull.
The idea that hormonal birth control is abortion is absurd. Let's say that a egg is produced despite the bc, and is fertilized but cannot implant. If you think that counts as abortion and is paramount to destroying a soul, then what a terrible god you believe in. He makes 100 souls, and then destroys about 33 of them within their first hours as a single cell.
If there is a soul in the fertilized egg from the moment of conception, what about identical twins? Does a soul split in half? Is a second soul created at the moment of separation? What if one twin is reabsorbed by the other twin- does that embryo have two souls?
The medical definition of pregnancy doesn't even begin until implantation.
All of that said, the pill is not necessarily a great thing. I can't use it at all; it makes me psychotically depressed. If it works for you, great, and if you want nothing to do with it, fine. But it doesn't kill babies.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Aug 11, 2010 19:19:49 GMT -5
I like how the truly Godly family would trust the Lord with these things, and then clearly the obvious answer would be a uniform "zillion babies, definitely homeschool, don't forget the character training and PhD in homemaking." We trusted the Lord with our family planning; that is to say we had kids when we felt it was right and we stopped when we felt that God had answered our prayers with a "you're done." We have two kids, and we started trying for the first one after 4 years of marriage. My personal preference would have been for more kids actually, but circumstances combined for it to go another way. I do homeschool, because I feel that's the right choice for our family right now. That might change. I have many good friends who have prayerfully chosen public school as the right choice for their family. None of us is wrong; we just have different personal circumstances. (Also, I teach the science of evolution. And my daughters take kung-fu and learn to solder and want to be archaeologists--or possibly a combination vet and kung-fu master--when they grow up. And the vast majority of our curriculum is secular. And I'm a terrible housekeeper and I'm going to hire help when I start my new part-time job.) But none of that would fit into their little box that they have stuffed God into.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 11, 2010 19:26:02 GMT -5
Long time lurker, first time poster--hi all! Ok, so the idea that a fertilized egg *could* be discarded doesn't seem to me to on the same level as abortion, however, I can see where that would bother people who do believe in life at conception. But, don't eggs get discarded anyway, prior to implantation in women who are not on the pill and/or who are trying to become pregnant? So, on occasion, God/The Universe/Science/fate/biology decides that a particular zygote (is that the right term?) doesn't "deserve" to be born? On the upside, maybe people will stop listening to this crap as it gets more and more extreme. The fact that Doug Philips spends so much time thinking about this bothers me a lot. Ugh. Yes not every fertilized egg implants. It's very early stages and plenty can go amiss.. or not really amiss as it's designed to not work out if there is something wrong. It just seems simple to me. Lay out the science facts and let people make their own choices. Don't get upset if someone makes a choice different than yours. Don't browbeat christians into making the choice you make. Everything doesn't have to be a campaign to change other people's choices. I completely agree Arietty. As long as we are made aware of the facts then folks can make their own choices about it. I don't know why this is so threatening to some people but it is. (And I don't mean anyone who posted here about this just things I hear 'out there') I used the pill for a few years before I was married (horrible flu-like cramps in the days before doctors knew about and were willing to prescribe Motrin for it) and for almost a year after I was married. I had absolutely no idea that it might prevent implantation at the time although the doses were higher then so perhaps that wasn't that much of an issue back then. I only stopped using it as BC because of concern over long term effects that might not be known. But if I had been told about the implantation thing that would have made me stop it sooner. I don't feel it's so common an occurrence that I would have a problem with anyone else using it but personally I couldn't do it again. I guess you could say I'm 'lukewarm' on the BC issue.
|
|
Tor
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by Tor on Aug 11, 2010 19:29:18 GMT -5
I actually can see this. I live in city prodimently filled with Evangelical Christians, and the more fundamental and legalistic extremes are seen as the "more Biblical." That's why despite the fact that there isn't really If you can homeschool, you rack up major points in how holy you are considered to be. The strength of a Christian is determined by all these "traditional family values" and though you are allowed to have valid reasons for not doing these things (my sister-in-law is on birth control for the sake of regulating her period, people are allowed not to homeschool because of financial or time issues) you are definitely seen as less Biblical, less righteous than someone who is able to follow these "values" entirely. That's why, despite the fact that this city isn't really home to much QF thinking exactly, there is so much on this site that I've read that is similar to where I live. Evangelical culture may not mirror it, but it certainly prizes it as the ultimate destination of godliness.
|
|
|
Post by sanveann on Aug 11, 2010 19:57:06 GMT -5
Ugh - just had to post again. I understand that the pill can sometimes keep a fertilized egg from implanting. However, that can happen without BC pills for a lot of reasons, too, so I'm personally not bothered by that. Personally, I do feel there's a difference between something that would have occurred naturally and something that occurred specifically because of a medication you are taking. To extend the example a couple of months into the future, taking RU486 isn't the same as miscarrying naturally. Of course, at that point there's generally less debate about what does or doesn't constitute a life, so it's not quite the same, but it's the best example I could come up with on short notice But of course birth control is a personal choice for everyone. I just want all women to be informed so that they can be 100 percent comfortable with their choice and don't look back, like I did, with regret. For some people, that's a -life- (which may or may not have a soul at that point -- of course no one really knows when ensoulment occurs). And the info IS on the insert, but honestly, most people don't sit down and read that much 4-point type unless they have a compelling reason, and it's pretty darn jargony. I think that was probably the first time I'd -ever- read through the entire insert for any medication! And I know several women who'd asked their doctors if the pill prevented implantation, and were told flat-out that it did NOT.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Aug 11, 2010 20:34:16 GMT -5
Ugh - just had to post again. I understand that the pill can sometimes keep a fertilized egg from implanting. However, that can happen without BC pills for a lot of reasons, too, so I'm personally not bothered by that. Personally, I do feel there's a difference between something that would have occurred naturally and something that occurred specifically because of a medication you are taking. To extend the example a couple of months into the future, taking RU486 isn't the same as miscarrying naturally. Of course, at that point there's generally less debate about what does or doesn't constitute a life, so it's not quite the same, but it's the best example I could come up with on short notice But of course birth control is a personal choice for everyone. I just want all women to be informed so that they can be 100 percent comfortable with their choice and don't look back, like I did, with regret. For some people, that's a -life- (which may or may not have a soul at that point -- of course no one really knows when ensoulment occurs). And the info IS on the insert, but honestly, most people don't sit down and read that much 4-point type unless they have a compelling reason, and it's pretty darn jargony. I think that was probably the first time I'd -ever- read through the entire insert for any medication! And I know several women who'd asked their doctors if the pill prevented implantation, and were told flat-out that it did NOT. The latest I heard was that it has never been proven the pill has ever prevented implantation, but that also, it has never been proven that it never EVER can either. So the insert information is their to protect against lawsuits in an area of little definitive information, and the doctors are saying what there actually has been evidence of-- that it's never actually happened because of the pill. But still, nobody *really* knows for certain. Nobody really knows why all those early conceptus's spontaneously flush themselves out of the system, any given one could be from just some random activity, getting bumped, having coffee late in the day, standing on your head, taking your birth control pill, WHO KNOWS?! It doesn't seem to be the kind of thing anyone should really worry about, but if they aren't comfortable with it, fine. I just dislike it if anyone decides that someone *else* should worry about it lol. NOBODY KNOWS!
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Aug 11, 2010 20:41:32 GMT -5
You ever wonder why these people spend so much time thinking about sex and all it's ramifications???
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Aug 11, 2010 21:45:35 GMT -5
What Jemand said - there's a possibility hormonal birth control *could* prevent implantation, and how would you test for that? So it's on the insert, and it always has been.
Of course, it doesn't *always* or you'd never see someone on the pill have a baby. Nobody knows if it does at all.
And the main reason to refute the "fact" that hormonal birth control is "the same as" abortion is that the analogy to abortion - which many doctors don't perform for their own religious reasons - has led to pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills, which limits some women's access to reliable birth control.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 11, 2010 22:10:12 GMT -5
How people feel and believe about the risk of interfering with the implantation due to BC pills is going to diverge depending on one's religious beliefs, which should be respected here regardless of one's own particular feelings on the subject. Whether they do in fact interfere is a matter of biology which is of course fair ground for discussion. Let's be careful how we discuss this type of subject that we do not get caught up in abortion politics and disagreements. That way lies badness and we are not going there. I realize that sometimes it's like walking a tightrope when we discuss Vision Forum's extreme views on the subject but we do appreciate the effort you make in this regard. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Aug 11, 2010 23:02:28 GMT -5
snip... The primary mechanism of the pill is to prevent ovulation, but its secondary mechanisms are to thicken cervical mucus (preventing sperm from reaching the egg) and to thin the endometrial lining (preventing a fertilized egg from implanting). Apparently, this "breakthrough ovulation" occurs more frequently with the newer low-dose pills than with the older, higher-dose ones. I had heard for many years that the BCP prevented implantation but never believed it until the day I looked at the insert for my own pills (Ortho Tricyclen) and saw it right there in black and white. I was terribly upset at the idea that I could have been conceiving on a regular basis. What was even more shocking was that none of my girlfriends or female family members knew that the pill didn't work solely by preventing ovulation. At any rate, while I found the article pretty nutty, I just wanted the posters here to be aware that there was a grain of truth in the info about the pill. ...snip OK. And how about the estimated 20-50% of fertilized eggs that NATURALLY fail to implant? are those "conceptions" somehow more morally correct than if they are prevented by pills?? Really??
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 11, 2010 23:11:24 GMT -5
Just a further comment on the laughable 'artificial wombs' schtick: Did anyone else get the sense that Philips was seriously scratching his head over the point of women's existence without childbearing? Or perhaps detect a whiff of fear at the thought of women whose time and energy was not sunk entirely into the process of reproduction?
Like Rosa said, the insistence of anti-abortion advocates on emphasizing the potential inhibition of implantation (which is both imperfect and unproven) disturbs me because it is being used on the ground, in real life, to deny women the right to fill their birth control prescriptions. Birth control has saved me from debilitating pain, extreme mood swings and humiliating acne, as well as helping me avoid the need ever to get an abortion. Seeing it equated with abortion leaves me wanting to rip out my own uterus with my bare hands, because the forces against abortion seem absolutely determined not to let me get through life without getting pregnant and staying that way.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Aug 11, 2010 23:24:53 GMT -5
I actually can see this. I live in city prodimently filled with Evangelical Christians, and the more fundamental and legalistic extremes are seen as the "more Biblical." That's why despite the fact that there isn't really If you can homeschool, you rack up major points in how holy you are considered to be. The strength of a Christian is determined by all these "traditional family values" and though you are allowed to have valid reasons for not doing these things (my sister-in-law is on birth control for the sake of regulating her period, people are allowed not to homeschool because of financial or time issues) you are definitely seen as less Biblical, less righteous than someone who is able to follow these "values" entirely. That's why, despite the fact that this city isn't really home to much QF thinking exactly, there is so much on this site that I've read that is similar to where I live. Evangelical culture may not mirror it, but it certainly prizes it as the ultimate destination of godliness. Why is any of this the business of the "Christian" community in general? I have been lead to understand (though I do not believe) that Christianity is somehow a personal relationship with Jesus. How does that entail having the entire group oversee one's intimate decisions?
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 11, 2010 23:26:01 GMT -5
snip... The primary mechanism of the pill is to prevent ovulation, but its secondary mechanisms are to thicken cervical mucus (preventing sperm from reaching the egg) and to thin the endometrial lining (preventing a fertilized egg from implanting). Apparently, this "breakthrough ovulation" occurs more frequently with the newer low-dose pills than with the older, higher-dose ones. I had heard for many years that the BCP prevented implantation but never believed it until the day I looked at the insert for my own pills (Ortho Tricyclen) and saw it right there in black and white. I was terribly upset at the idea that I could have been conceiving on a regular basis. What was even more shocking was that none of my girlfriends or female family members knew that the pill didn't work solely by preventing ovulation. At any rate, while I found the article pretty nutty, I just wanted the posters here to be aware that there was a grain of truth in the info about the pill. ...snip OK. And how about the estimated 20-50% of fertilized eggs that NATURALLY fail to implant? are those "conceptions" somehow more morally correct than if they are prevented by pills?? Really?? The issue isn't the fact that it occurs, it is the cause of the occurrence, the action of the doer, that presents the problem for those who believe it would be wrong to interfere in that way. It's like the maxim, 'first do no harm' -- harm may occur, often does occur, in life and in medicine, but one is actively attempting to avoid doing harm by intention or purposeful inattention. This is not a problem if you do not believe life begins at conception. If you do, well then it bears thinking about. Those two sides are not going to be in agreement on it because the basic underlying belief system is too different. But at least providing the medical information upon which to make informed choices about how you decide to act can be something upon which we can find common ground. And if, as Jemand has said, it is true that we simply have no way to know if it's factually true or not then those who wish to err on the side of caution may do so and those whose beliefs make it unnecessary to think about it at all can continue not to worry about it. I am much more concerned by the language and alarmist statements that VF couches these discussions in. They do not simply provide medical information to people but they raise the alarm about the very destruction of human kind if people do not follow them fully down the garden path with them there... For a group that claims a pro-life and pro-family stance they come off as very antagonistic to life itself, to family itself. It's one of their most glaring contradictions. Like someone who claims to love a particular species of almost extinct animal and so to preserve it chooses to kill and stuff the last mating pair so they can look at and appreciate them forever. You know what I mean? It's like they are so determined to preserve their worldview that they are destroying the very thing they seek to promote, by their extreme and aggressive actions and attitudes. Those are some angry hateful men they've got there at VF.
|
|