|
Post by ambrosia on Aug 11, 2010 23:39:42 GMT -5
...snip 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. Yes, I completely agree. Not being religious in any way, I am also alarmed by the generally increasing prying that some of the extreme believers/controllers seem to advocate. It's not enough to dictate the lives of the co-believers, let's make sure everyone else has to toe the line too.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Aug 12, 2010 9:00:01 GMT -5
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. 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. Well, see.... the fact that so MANY zygotes never implant means that taking action to reduce ovulation would probably be "action of the doer" that would REDUCE the number of flushed zygotes. Conceptus's from a relatively old egg or old sperm is much more likely to be flushed from a woman's system-- couples using natural family planning are much more likely to produce zygotes using old eggs or sperm due to scheduling, and thus create more flushed embryos. Zygotes have trouble in a uterus which has just been used, especially if it's after several kids, so trying for more immediately without using birth control will result in more fertilized zygotes which can't implant, than using birth control which will avoid ovulation itself. The problem with the 'action of the doer' is there is *literally nothing* women can do to ensure that every zygote implants, in fact, seems like certain things are contradictory. Being in good fitness= fewer miscarriages, however, any given episode of vigorous exercise might cause a zygote to fail to implant. And also, we only are barely scratching the surface of this because it is incredibly hard to test for the existence of a fertilized zygote that never implants-- so a lot of our knowledge is through inference and so it can be counterintuitive (i.e., not using birth control could result in far more zygotes being thrown away than using it.) What someone does with that biological information (which is super incomplete) is up to them... but it's not really a case of "choosing not to use birth control is an action that could never result in the 'death' of a zygote, but using birth control could."
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 12, 2010 10:12:35 GMT -5
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. 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. Well, see.... the fact that so MANY zygotes never implant means that taking action to reduce ovulation would probably be "action of the doer" that would REDUCE the number of flushed zygotes. Conceptus's from a relatively old egg or old sperm is much more likely to be flushed from a woman's system-- couples using natural family planning are much more likely to produce zygotes using old eggs or sperm due to scheduling, and thus create more flushed embryos. Zygotes have trouble in a uterus which has just been used, especially if it's after several kids, so trying for more immediately without using birth control will result in more fertilized zygotes which can't implant, than using birth control which will avoid ovulation itself. The problem with the 'action of the doer' is there is *literally nothing* women can do to ensure that every zygote implants, in fact, seems like certain things are contradictory. Being in good fitness= fewer miscarriages, however, any given episode of vigorous exercise might cause a zygote to fail to implant. And also, we only are barely scratching the surface of this because it is incredibly hard to test for the existence of a fertilized zygote that never implants-- so a lot of our knowledge is through inference and so it can be counterintuitive (i.e., not using birth control could result in far more zygotes being thrown away than using it.) What someone does with that biological information (which is super incomplete) is up to them... but it's not really a case of "choosing not to use birth control is an action that could never result in the 'death' of a zygote, but using birth control could." The problem isn't that one must make certain that one's every zygote implants, it's that one doesn't go out of one's way to make sure that a zygote doesn't implant. It's actively preventing an already conceived life from continuing that is the problem. You cannot control the universe and the natural operation of your body, but you can control what you choose to do that alters the regular course of nature. Women miscarry without even knowing they are pregnant. They miscarry regardless of what they do. That's just going to happen, it's life, it is no one's fault. Knowing you are pregnant and forcing a miscarriage or abortion is a completely different moral situation. And that is where using birth control which operates as an abortifacient would be a moral problem for a person for whom that is not a moral option. And it's really not an issue if you don't believe life begins at conception. That is the core belief that makes the problem a problem. If you don't believe that then the rest is pointless anyway. So what to one person is a non-issue in the selection of birth control methods is to another a huge factor in making those choices. Accurate medical information is important if one is to make those kinds of choices. That's all we're saying. The rest of the VF hyper-preoccupation with the sexual lives of women is quite disturbing as CherylAnnHannah pointed out. They do seem to be obsessed with the subject of sex and pregnancy and childbearing in general. It would be laughably ironic if it wasn't so tragically hurtful to so many people.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 12, 2010 10:42:15 GMT -5
And it's really not an issue if you don't believe life begins at conception. That is the core belief that makes the problem a problem. If you don't believe that then the rest is pointless anyway. Tiny quibble about this. I could easily believe life begins at conception, but I don't care. A zygote can be fully alive as far as I'm concerned, but it lacks consciousness, personhood, and the physical apparatus to support both. The only way the "life at conception" argument begins to make sense to me is when ensoulment enters the question, but even then, I'm not sure what the problem is with a soul shortcutting its way to heaven early anyway. I used to envy aborted souls when I was a fundamentalist, reasoning that they were all sent up to heaven without the opportunity to become a wretched sinner like myself. I would be pro-choice now regardless of the personhood of the zygote/embryo/fetus, but that isn't the point of the discussion - so if anyone actually wants to talk about that I invite PMs.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Aug 12, 2010 10:48:11 GMT -5
The problem isn't that one must make certain that one's every zygote implants, it's that one doesn't go out of one's way to make sure that a zygote doesn't implant. It's actively preventing an already conceived life from continuing that is the problem. You cannot control the universe and the natural operation of your body, but you can control what you choose to do that alters the regular course of nature. Women miscarry without even knowing they are pregnant. They miscarry regardless of what they do. That's just going to happen, it's life, it is no one's fault. Knowing you are pregnant and forcing a miscarriage or abortion is a completely different moral situation. And that is where using birth control which operates as an abortifacient would be a moral problem for a person for whom that is not a moral option. And it's really not an issue if you don't believe life begins at conception. That is the core belief that makes the problem a problem. If you don't believe that then the rest is pointless anyway. So what to one person is a non-issue in the selection of birth control methods is to another a huge factor in making those choices. Accurate medical information is important if one is to make those kinds of choices. That's all we're saying. The rest of the VF hyper-preoccupation with the sexual lives of women is quite disturbing as CherylAnnHannah pointed out. They do seem to be obsessed with the subject of sex and pregnancy and childbearing in general. It would be laughably ironic if it wasn't so tragically hurtful to so many people. Oh sure, but if we're going to talk about it, we should talk about the differences between what, if it happens, is a third line of defense and what is going to happen if you don't reduce ovulation-- because to *some* women, with *some* belief structures, THAT difference is going to be important. To you, maybe, it is most important that you don't take any medication that might have a tertiary effect of preventing implantation, but to other women, the most important thing is that they actively do what will cause the least number of non-implanted embryos, and controlling ovulation would be extremely important to them. Many people though, don't think life starts then and so won't worry about it. But even people who do think life starts then, may decide that in fact, under their priority system, using birth control is actually more in line with their morals and idea of the start of life, than not using it. Because the choice not to use birth control, is a choice itself which will actively result in it's own amount of non-implanted embryos, and it's a question of how you prioritize "natural" and how you prioritize tertiary effects of natural family planning verses tertiary effects of hormonal birth control, etc. It just bugs me when people put out information of the possible effects of hormonal birth control but don't ALSO put out information about higher rates of nonviable embryos due to old sperm/eggs while using natural family planning, or the less-hospitable environment of a uterus which has had no time to recover and prepare for the next pregnancy, or the fact that breastfeeding is very good for the survival rates of a just-born child but suppresses implantation. Those are *just as much* 'active choices' as taking a pill. The way any given woman prioritizes how the moral questions fall out there is very personal, and informed by their personal religion-- but we have a cultural blind spot I think where hormonal birth control is under a microscope of consideration, and those other choices are never considered at all in the same exhaustive manner, which I think leads some women to put their lives on hold because they feel they cannot morally control their fertility-- when if they knew the whole story, the might understand and prioritize differently. I'm trying really hard here not to say you're moral judgments are wrong, they are right for you in your personal decisions, but I think that while you clearly state why someone who doesn't share your belief about when life starts would disagree, you don't seem to linguistically allow that someone who DOES share your belief about when life starts STILL could disagree with your moral reasoning? If we're getting too close to uncomfortable abortion debates, I'll back off immediately... but when you respond with "the problem is..." and the recognized exception to this problem is only those who disagree on when life starts? It feels weird to me. But I do think it's a common message in society which may give some women a false dichotomy of a choice: "change your beliefs about life, or do just like this."
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 12, 2010 11:21:59 GMT -5
The context I was placing my argument in was if the pill prevents implantation and not simply prevents ovulation, then that would be a problem for women who believe that life begins at conception and that that life has the status of personhood and a soul. If you don't believe that then that is a different issue for you. If you believe it but don't care then that is a different issue for you. If you wish to take it further somehow then that is a different issue for you. But if you want to know what the medical/biological action of a particular birth control method is so that you can make whatever choice your personal beliefs prompt you to make then that is important information to have. The argument about whose beliefs are correct and what they choose to do with those beliefs was not what I was attempting to address at all. I was not attempting to convert or convince or list all possible interpretations of when life begins or what birth control means to different people. That is an exhausting subject and I haven't slept in 48 hours and am completely unable to have that conversation right now. If ever. I'm sorry.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Aug 12, 2010 11:40:30 GMT -5
I've managed to get through three of the Baby Conference CDs.
I started with the discussion with the aged and now weak-minded Ed Payne who stated that he's now going to agree with Doug.
So far, Dan Becker has made a ton of sense to me, but I have not heard anyone address ectopic pregnancy.
What does ring clear is that Doug Phillips builds EVERYTHING around SENSATIONALISM.
It was actually Dan Becker who brought up reasonable and rational points and was not salacious.
Doug jumps in and exploits what Becker has to say and introduces fear and panic. Old Henry Kissinger once said something to the effect that paranoia does not necessarily mean that people are not out to get you, and I think Becker presented some very reasonable issues that deserve attention along these lines. Doug introduced the wacko element of making mountains out of molehills, suggesting that people should sleep with one eye open at night.
Everything with Doug is all about promoting everything that is not within his own comfort zone as some kind of colossal conspiracy. What I don't know is whether Doug actually believes his own press or whether it is a lever that he uses to exploit others to get them to do what he wants them to do. Everything is reactionary. Even babies and gender.
I keep coming back to what Vyckie described about the lack of balance and QF defining balance as sin. It is frustrating to me because it makes Christians look like a bunch of total wackos.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Aug 16, 2010 13:28:55 GMT -5
I see no problem with preventing a zygote from implanting. Not at all. In fact, this insistence on treating a one-celled organizm on the same level as a being with a functioning nervous/circulatory system is why I have withdrawn my support for pro-life politics. I'm all for keeping sentient beings from the horror of death by dismemberment/poisoning, etc. But I have no problem with birth control or Plan B. Logically sound, Sierra. I am still very religious/spiritual/committed to Christianity and to my way of thinking, pro-life. But that pro-life includes people already breathing and walking around on their own power, so not pro-life AFA style.
|
|