place and hold firmly in place between knees.
Posted on 12/06/2002 12:52:52 PM PST by toenail
Long ago, population controllers worked out a way to deflect criticism of abortifacient drugs and devices. At a 1959 conference, one expert suggested "a prudent habit of speech," hinting that it would be wise to consider implantation-rather than fertilization-the beginning of pregnancy. In 1962, in its "model penal code" project, the American Law Institute recommended legalizing the use of "drugs or other substances for avoiding pregnancy, whether by preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum or by any other method that operates before, at or immediately after fertilization."
In a 1964 Population Council conference, eugenicist Dr. Christopher Tietze pointedly reminded his colleagues that theologians and jurists do listen to doctors and biologists. "If a medical consensus develops and is maintained that pregnancy, and therefore life, begins at implantation, eventually our brethren from the other faculties will listen," he said. A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists soon obliged Tietze by defining conception as "the implantation of a fertilized ovum." With that kind of support, the population controllers were off to the races, developing more and more abortifacients, which they usually referred to as "contraceptives" or simply "birth control."
Mary Meehan, The Road to Abortion [Part 1 of 2], The Human Life Review, Fall 1998
I'm speechless. I don't know where to start on this idiot.
When contraceptive pills were introduced, they were sold as 'birth control' pills, and IUD's were sold as birth control/contraceptive devices ... and they (the pills) did have some preventative effect, holding off ovulation (staving off the release of an egg, to prevent fertilization). But the secondary effect (not to be confused with a lesser number of prevented pregnancies then miscarriages/abortions) was to create a uterine lining inadequacy via hormonal intervention, which usually resulted in termination of any implantation by preventing the uterine circulatory buildup that follows implantation.
In short, contraceptive pills have always been an early form of abortifacient method since the greater percentage of effect is to starve the conceptus of life support from the woman's body. The IUD's worked to create an irritation of the lining, so that an implanted new individual human life would not be able to generate sufficiet nourishment from an iritated lining. These new chemical introductions are primarily effective doing the same thing, and it's instructive to see that they are still being pushed as 'contraception' when they are actually abortifacients.
sufficiet nourishment from an iritated = sufficient nourishment from an irritated
place and hold firmly in place between knees.
He says this study bears good news, because the more options a woman has, the better. Some women won't mind if their period is late and others will be very upset, just as some women will be more disturbed by unanticipated bleeding. "That's why there have to be these choices," he says. "It's really what the woman is most comfortable with."
Yikes.
Hand in hand with that thought, accepting the fact that pregnancy can and does occur if sex happens, and if one does get pregnant, having the baby.
I said ... "for your headache dear"
She said ... "I don't have a headache"
I said .... "AAh HAAAA"
I don't know, I think it has something to do with the infamous male oppression stuff they're always hollering about. Pregnancy makes women subservient and all that rot.
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.