Skip to comments.
Taking the Pill cuts the risk of cancer
The Times (UK) ^
| September 12, 2007
| Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor
Posted on 09/12/2007 6:38:01 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
To: All
Pray for and end to
contraception and aobtion
and the conversion of America to life!
21
posted on
09/12/2007 8:33:37 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: A.A. Cunningham; cripplecreek
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(click on the book for the link.)
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
|
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
- Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
|
22
posted on
09/12/2007 8:34:32 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: counterpunch
I’m for rampant procreation myself.
23
posted on
09/12/2007 8:53:54 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(Long Island Half Marathon finisher!)
To: grjr21
Because the results of this study run counter to most of the other which say the opposite.
24
posted on
09/12/2007 8:58:55 PM PDT
by
Pyro7480
("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
To: cyborg
If it’s rampant procreation of conservative patriots, I’m all for it.
;-)
25
posted on
09/12/2007 9:01:28 PM PDT
by
RockinRight
(Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. -Thomas Paine)
To: RockinRight
26
posted on
09/12/2007 9:02:13 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(Long Island Half Marathon finisher!)
To: VanShuyten
That isn't how the pill works. The pill forces menstruation even if there is a fertilized egg implanted in the uterine wall.You are confusing the "day after pill" with the standard oral contraceptive "pill". There is no fetus with standard oral contraceptives because no egg pops out to be fertilized.
The ignorance demonstrated on this thread is astounding. I thought most pro-life folks (myself included), exception to Catholics of course, were comfortable with contraception that prevents conception (i.e. a zygote).
Why are people ragging on the pill? Is this the Freerepublic or the flatearth society?
27
posted on
09/13/2007 12:05:27 AM PDT
by
Maynerd
(Bush is trying to sell a "War on Terror" against a "Religion of Peace." Confusing isn't it?)
To: Maynerd
The ignorance demonstrated on this thread is astounding.There is no fetus with standard oral contraceptives because no egg pops out to be fertilized.
I was going to give you a pass until you got rude.
The Pill works in a couple of ways. One way is to prevent ovulation. The second way is to change the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg cannot implant, IN CASE the Pill did NOT prevent ovulation.
28
posted on
09/13/2007 5:14:50 AM PDT
by
Dianna
To: Dianna
Once again you are confusing the day after pill with standard oral contraceptives. Ovolation is surpressed ergo no fertilization. Hypothetically, if ovulation was not surpressed your aborticant scenario may be true. But it is rare and little more than a weak rationalization against OC.
As this thread demonstrates there is no shortage of exaggeration and misinformation regarding the pill.
29
posted on
09/13/2007 7:40:39 AM PDT
by
Maynerd
(Bush is trying to sell a "War on Terror" against a "Religion of Peace." Confusing isn't it?)
To: Maynerd
Once again you are confusing the day after pill with standard oral contraceptives. Ovolation is surpressed ergo no fertilization. Hypothetically, if ovulation was not surpressed your aborticant scenario may be true. But it is rare and little more than a weak rationalization against OC. I've confused exactly nothing. Ovulation is NOT ALWAYS surpressed, although, I agree it is a main goal.
How common this failure is, I have no idea. I did, however, experience it personally, for about 6 months on one particular pill.
I suspect it is more common than you wish to believe.
30
posted on
09/13/2007 2:46:26 PM PDT
by
Dianna
To: perfect stranger
To: Maynerd
Pregnancy is possible even with the pill. It’s in the warning that comes with the package.
32
posted on
09/13/2007 8:33:44 PM PDT
by
Jaded
("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
To: neverdem
I wonder what child-bearing does to the risk of cancer later in life?
33
posted on
09/14/2007 7:44:58 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Profile updated Wednesday, September 12, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson