Posted on 11/22/2001 10:59:38 PM PST by toenail
FDA unleashes new threat to human babies
"In the midst of a terror campaign and a frightening battle against anthrax, the FDA has somehow been able to find the time to sanction yet another form of baby killing," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "The newly-approved birth control patch uses the same abortion-causing chemicals used in many other so-called contraceptives."
With its approval of the birth control patch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has now approved its fourth new "contraceptive" option in the last year. The skin patch has been added to a collection that already includes a monthly injection, a hormone-emitting IUD, and a hormone-emitting contraceptive ring.
"All these devices deliver the same hormones to the woman's body and all work in the same manner," said Mrs. Brown. "They all affect the uterine lining and prevent implantation of a newly-conceived human being, thus causing the end of that human being's life."
"The FDA should be ashamed of itself," said Mrs. Brown. "All Americans should reject this new form of baby killing and seek to protect all innocent human life, from fertilization to natural death."
Release issued: 21 Nov 01
©2001 American Life League, Inc.
Thanks for your thoughtful and polite response.
1)– the life has no potential to develop unless it is implanted into a uterus.
2)- Given that there are medical conditions, which prevent any fertilised egg from implanting, if a woman who suffers from such ever has sex, does she risk consigning a potential human to death? How does this fit into the abortion issue?
3)- When ought newly conceived life be afforded protection from exploitation and death?
pcl, I've totally enjoyed the feedback back & forth with each other. At no time was I trying to be argumentative. I absolutely appreciate your honesty regarding your daughter. You see, you're not the only one in that situation......so I CAN understand.
I look at my children, I look at the grandchild, and at no time in their gestation did I think of them as fetuses. When I found out I was pregnant, I was PREGNANT! I wasn't going to wait for some pull-out-of-the-hat-date to declare that I was carrying a child. It was a CHILD from day one. Same thing w/the grandchild. When it was announced to us, it was a BABY that was going to be born.
There's so many home-pregnancy tests out now that can give you a really early reading. You're finding out if you're going to have A BABY, not a fetus.
I don't know, but to me it's so clear, it's like the nose on my face.
And, I know it's not proper protacol (sp) to jump from one thread to another, but I want to bring something up that I read last night regarding some dufus who had put out a death-threat against abortionists. He should be caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I wager that all pro-lifers on this forum agree with me. What's he's trying to do IS WRONG!!!!!!! He would be committing murder right along with the abortionists who are committing murder on the babies.
This is an argument where we're never going to reach a middle ground on, is it? pcl, I'm a Christian. I read my Bible not for "information" or "feedback" or "entertainment"....I read it because God commands me to. I read it to find out how to live my life. I BELIEVE the words in the book. Yeah, a person can go kinda goofy and use the Thou Shalt Not Kill argument regarding wars that we're in. I don't remember if you did, someone did within the last couple days. That's taking scripture and twisting it. And I think, deep down, that person (whoever it was) knows exactly the game they're trying to play.
You and I discussed the handing out of literature to the girls going into the clinics. While I appreciate what you said, you know that that won't happen. We're all portrayed as kooks. (thanks a bunch to the above mentioned dufus!) If Planned Parenthood really WAS what they say, they themselves would offer the girls the same thing. Please don't come back & say they do, cuz they don't. Also, why haven't the stats come out re: the breast cancer and the infertility from having had abortions? (YOU can't answer it, it's just food for thought)
I can't be on here much longer tonight. I have to pack up the hubby for a trip...but I can be on for a bit. Thanks for reading my VOLUME!!!! :-)
Except, LOL you believe the girl?
Yea and also she was chaste when she got pregnant...
I am sure even though you don't even see your own false reality, it is clear to others.
Your condecending attitude and you inability to see your own hyprocricy is sad.
LOL.
Thanks for pointing it out again to him/her.
Uh huh. If both of these statements were true she wouldn't have killed her baby.
Cheers.
TO New Zealander:
1)– the life has no potential to develop unless it is implanted into a uterus. Actually, it is the zygote that goes in search of life support; the chemical or barrier methods of contraception are designed to thwart the efforts of the zygote to get life support. You've correctly stated the problem of life support for every stage of human existence, not just the zygotic stage in an infdividual lifetime.
2)- Given that there are medical conditions, which prevent any fertilised egg from implanting, if a woman who suffers from such ever has sex, does she risk consigning a potential human to death? How does this fit into the abortion issue? Fair question. It relates closely to the problem of differentiating between accidental manslaughter and intentional manslaughter. I'll leave the law experts who cruise through occasionally to elucidate that one.
3)- When ought newly conceived life be afforded protection from exploitation and death? I posed this one, as a summary of the issues you raised, though you didn't pose this particlar enigma. I cannot answer but for my own heart in this one: I do believe we the people of the most blessed nation in the history of humankind ought be about affirming life newly conceived rather than seeking excuses to reject it. I personally believe the individual human lifetime begins at conception, thus every effort dealing with contrception, pregnancy, etc. ought take into consideration the advent of new life, such that as soon as new individual life may be detected, it is protected and nourished, by the woman and man and the society at large. And that 'at large' is vital if we are to finally turn away from using serial killing to deal with personal and societal problems.
>1)– the life has no potential to develop unless it is implanted into a uterus.
This is technically incorrect. The second the sperm penetrates the egg, the process of development starts. The egg begins internal processes which will begin to split it very shortly after conception. The egg, rich in oxygen and nutrients, is enough to sustain the newly developed, and developing, embryo long enough for it to reach the womb and get external sources of oxygen and nutrients (from the mom). The potential disappears the second the egg is fertilized, and becomes active development: capability.
I'm afraid you miss the point - you have to go back to my original post 239 to get the idea. You see, I think what you say here is valid. It's just that I see that implantation is a factor I don't hear discussed much - and I want to take this opportunity to get a better idea of the issues that surround this narrow part of the abortion issue. I don't want you to get the idea I don't appreciate your response. I have a feeling that you could see implantation statistically, or in terms of there not being any possibility of life in such a womb – which is a type of indirect, prior action that may be permissible, or you could see it as being a case of ‘failing to provide the necessities of life’. I’m surrounded here at my desk by about six different books on abortion – tying to get my head around the issues.
>2)- Given that there are medical conditions, which prevent any fertilised egg from implanting, if a woman who suffers from such ever has sex, does she risk consigning a potential human to death? How does this fit into the abortion issue?
If the woman knew, for all certainty, that any embryo that would be made would die, I would say she shouldn't be taking the risk, or find someway to not take the risk (if she can't get pregnant, she should have her ovaries removed. She certainly can't use them. Unless a cure was found for her disease).
Yeah - I'd been thinking similar things. I guess the problem here is that I've heard that something like half of all US abortions come after birth control failed in some way, so we are getting into the usual territory of limiting choice - but by asking a woman to loose her ovaries (if a cure does not exist), then we are really going to the very limit of restricting choice - getting into something that may actually deserve to be called a 'pro-choice' issue. We would be taking away her potential to create life, and also to be a woman. Maybe there is some better procedure to curtail conception in her body, while allowing eggs to be removed for invitro fertilization - tube tie? I think a real problem here is that we are also dealing with such a strange issue here that things start to feel counter intuitive - e.g. do you charge the doctor who fails to correctly carry out her birth limiting procedure with negligence causing death?
>3)- When ought newly conceived life be afforded protection from exploitation and death?
From the start.
I agree - it's just that there are still going to be certain (and uncertain) exceptions, just as there are exceptions in cases of protection from murder or manslaughter among adults, as an example.
I don't know, but to me it's so clear, it's like the nose on my face.
I can really understand how and why you believe that a fully valid human is created at the moment of conception. It is really quite simple. That is what you believe. You believe it first and foremost. You will use scriptures, science, logic or what ever else is available to back up your belief but those things are just back up. They do not create your beliefs, they just support it. No scriptures, science or logic that points towards your belief being untrue is going to make the slightest difference to you. Your belief is before and beyond all those things. Your belief just IS! Period. End of story!
There are situations that result from our beliefs that are negotiable. For example, Pro-Lifers handing out literature to women entering into abort clinics. We can negotiate this. We can find a compromise that sort of works for both of us. There are many similar things we can negotiate. But, the bottom line is that no matter what we give up in negotiations of these sorts of things, we will never, NEVER give up our core belief.
Imagine this situation. There is a pregnant woman and an abotion doctor getting ready to do his deed. I am standing there guarding them with a pistol at my side. Now, you walk in. You have a gun at your side. You say you will kill me and the doctor to keep the abortion from happening. You know I am armed and that I am there to defend the abortion. At that moment we each have to decide if we are willing to die for our belief. All BS about scripture, science and law put aside, are we each willing to die for our belief.
My answer is yes. I believe your would be yes also.
Fortunetly, we live in a civilized world. The above situation is not likely to occur in our life time.
The only outdated morality is yours. I believe the "if-it-feels-good-do-it-I-am-the-law-no-one-dare-call-me-wrong-if-I-feel-it" morality began to go out of date with the first AIDS casualty. And as far as forcing opinions on people, the only ones who do that are the Pro-Death (aka pro abortion) folk who insist that we support and pay for (through taxes, insurance premiums, donations to UNICEF, etc.) something we consider murder.
I never SAID you didn't feel sympathy for her...(at least that's not what I was trying to imply)...my problem with that statement was...you said you felt bad that she had lost her BABIES, yet, in another post, 7 weeks was not a baby. THAT'S what I've been trying to say. In essence, I'm trying to get YOU to tell me, in your opinion, or better yet, scientifically!!! WHEN the fetus/blob becomes A BABY!
Yeah, I DO take it on faith. All that I believe is on faith. Just like the fact that I sit in this chair, without thinking, on FAITH, the dumb thing's gonna hold up under me. YOU base your beliefs on faith. YET, my faith isn't as good as your faith. Again, let's remove you & I and put Ralph & whatever you want to call me (Lucy?) into this. Ralph believes one thing on faith, Lucy another, but gosh darn it, Lucy BETTER go along with Ralph or she's really labled a nutcake.
Your belief is before and beyond all those things. Your belief just IS! Period. End of story!
And, again without being argumentative.....so WHAT? Your belief is the same! And can YOU show ME scientifically PROVEN (not theory) when the fetus/blob BECOMES A BABY??????? (sorry for the caps, I'm not screaming, it's easier than putting everything in bold).
Pooh, now I've got to go back & see if I've missed anything.....be right back...
Two great references:
When Do Human Beings Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts, by Dianne N. Irving, available at the Libertarians for Life website.
Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? I recommend the full Adobe Acrobat (PDF) copy.
What if a woman were to give birth to a baby, and when the baby is ready to nurse, the woman places a plastic shield over her nipples so that the baby receives no nourishment and starves to death? It's fundamentally the same as when a woman [knowingly] takes a pill that will shrivel up the endometrial lining, so that a smaller baby will get no nourishment and starve to death. There is a difference, but only in degree -- not in kind.
"Human rights" only make sense if they apply to all humans, regardless of size, age, color, or sex. If we can decide that "human rights" don't apply to a certain class of humans, they are no longer "human rights" but "certain-classes-of-human rights."
My wife is diabetic and has proliferative diabetic retinopathy (eye blood vessels leak). Until she has finished the eye-surgery regimen in a couple of months, it would be very bad for her eyesight for her to get pregnant. For some unknown, odd reason, the first couple of months are hardest on the eyes. And about eleven months from now, when kid number two is born, (s)he will have to be delivered C-section [pushing out a baby is very hard on the eyes, also]. So, we won't conceive another child for a couple of months.
We used to use the pill, until I actually found out about the sometimes abortifacient nature of it. And it infuriates the hell out of me that pharmaceutical companies are so unscrupulous that they don't print that on the package inserts, but expect you to run to the PDR to look it up. Don't you think that's the sort of thing they ought to make rather prominent on the package insert? "NOTICE: While this product works as a contraceptive, breakthrough ovulation occurs periodically, and then this product may cause a chemical abortion." A class action lawsuit is long overdue.
In any case, contraception (no egg/sperm meeting) is not that difficult. If a man and woman can't figure out a way to share orgasms without conceiving a child, they're either not planning well enough, or they lack imagination. (I'd say more about the imagination part, but it would have to be off-forum.)
And I ought to just mention this in every post, given the heavy Christian leaning on FR, but I'm an atheist. I don't care much for theological and philosophical musings, whether they're from pcl or the Pope. Human rights are only worth having or protecting if they apply to all humans, no matter their physical characteristics.
Fine. Why drag the baby into it, then? Why do you want babies to die for your beliefs? Why do you want to impose your immorality on them? Why don't abortionists just pick on someone their own size?
Babies are not dieing. Prehuman fetuses are.
This is my belief. Why? Because it is. Period. End of story.
Where are you going to get the victims for the class action lawsuit? Prolifers already know this stuff. Their morality will not let themselves become a victim of the technology. Do you plan to convert Free Choicers? Do you plan to have Prolifers lie about know they were doing self abortions?
Wait. I know. You are going to sue on behalf of the Free Choicers who used the drug. Just like you would like to over turn ROE vs Wade on their behalf.
When abortionists rip up "prehuman" fetuses, how can they turn around and sell their body parts to universities and research labs as human fetuses? Does the act of dying make those babies human?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.