[exDemMom]

Birth control devalues marriage. Devalued marriage leads inexorably to abortion. Chemical birth control, the pill, sometimes prevents pregnancy by suppressing the cycle. Sometimes it kills the baby. Physical birth control by insertion of devices directly kills babies. Supporting birth control is supporting abortion and other societal murder of inconvenient people. People who say they distinguish are merely saying that their chosen method is superior to others’ methods and most would have no problem with an overt abortion should the chosen other method fail. After all, they tried to do it “right” and it didn’t work. Got to get rid of it somehow.

If implantation does not occur, there is no pregnancy. And there is absolutely no way that you will ever convince me that *preventing* life is equivalent to *taking* life. I am not capable of that kind of mental gymnastics. Furthermore, I think that equating the two is extremely counterproductive--after all, the majority of abortion clients are convinced that there is no difference, and believe that no baby exists until birth.

That's a weird idea, that somehow using birth control devalues marriage. Take a look at any couple married for decades, with two or three children. Do you seriously think that most of those decades were spent in a platonic relationship? Naw--they used contraceptives.

[arthurus]

Chemical abortifacients prevent implantation. Sometimes. Sometimes they render the implanted embryo nonviable. And yes, you have used birth control and therefore it is Good. And my alcoholic nephew says his lifestyle id Good. Everybody does it so I do it so it must be Good. It must be in the Bible, somewhere.

[arthurus]

Definitions of words from Decode pro-abortion talking points with the Choicespeak-to-English Dictionary

http://liveactionnews.org/decode-pro-abortion-talking-points-with-the-choicespeak-to-english-dictionary-part-1/

Pregnancy—In an effort to sow confusion and ambiguity about the abortifacient capacity of certain birth control methods, pro-aborts have taken to arguing that “pregnant” only means carrying an embryo that has successfully implanted in the uterus, and that therefore anything that prevents implantation merely “prevents pregnancy” instead of “causes an abortion.” Leaving aside the fact that this doesn’t change the key issue (whether the embryo dies as a result), they’re short on substance here too.

James Agresti quotes five medical texts declaring that pregnancy begins with fertilization, Merriam-Webster simply defines pregnancy as “the condition of a woman or female animal that is going to have a baby or babies,” and 2011 survey of over a thousand OB/GYNs found 57% agreeing that pregnancy begins at conception, while only 28% said implantation—making their lectures on “medical facts” little more than wishful thinking.