no its not abortion..just 4 safety
Most contraceptives do not ONLY prevent the union of sperm and egg, or prevent ovulation. They also have another way of operation. You may want to think of it as a "backup" or "second line" method just in case they are unable to prevent ovulation or fertilization.
Most hormonal contraceptives, such as those that use progestin, have this backup method. These contraceptives also change the lining of the uterine wall or endometrium. They make it unreceptive to implantation of the fertilized egg. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as a "hostile endometrium". When this occurs, the fertilized egg has nowhere to implant and will eventually be flushed out and destroyed. This is an early chemical abortion.
Contraceptives that work in this way are called abortifacients.
Abortifacient contraceptives include the pill (progestin combined with other drugs), the mini-pill (progestin-only), Depo-Provera (which is another progestin-only injectable), and Norplant (a contraceptive patch which also uses progestin).
The IUD is also abortifacient because although it works by acting to stimulate chemical secretions, it can also create a hostile endometrium. In fact, it is used as an emergency contraceptive and in somes tudies has been shown to be more deadly to the fertilized egg than the morning-after abortion pill.
These five abortifacient contraceptive methods are some of the most widely-used methods in the world.
The Philippine Constitution protects the unborn from the moment of conception. These abortifacients can murder the newly-conceived child using the methods described above.
A condom that does not have any additional abortifacient chemicals is NOT an abortifacient.
It is possible, however, for condom manufacturers to coat condoms with other chemicals. If these chemicals are abortifacient and can actually gain access and take effect, then the package is abortifacient.
Last edited by mannyamador; 08-11-2008 at 08:13 PM.
Really? Show me where the error is or your evidence. Just claiming so does not make for a rational argument.
The scientific evidence is clear. Contraceptives do NOT always prevent conception. When they fail to do so, some contraceptives also act to keep the fertilized egg from implanting. They are abortifacients.
Some have disputed this, but their arguments are not very inconclusive.
But let us assume that, judging fromt he evidence, you are not sure whether a contraceptive is an abortifacient. You still have a dilemma.
When in doubt, it is reckless to assume that there is no life present. That is like blowing up a building without making sure no one is inside. You cannot take a life-threatening measure unless you are sure no one will be hurt. Since we assume that you do not know if a contraceptive is an abortifacient, you must first make sure that an abortion cannot occur. But there is no way to do so. So it is reckless and irresponsible to use a contraceptive that may be an abortifacient.
The above assumes that we cannot be sure that contraceptives are abortifacients. But the medical evidence already shows that some of them are.
Perhaps you use such contraceptives. That would explain why you so easily dismiss the evidence. But trying to assuage your guilt does not make for a rational argument and it does not prove your point. I would suggest that you examine your motives before being so irresponsible as to dismiss the facts.
if one will really use condom, the problem now is to identify condoms that are not abortifacients...
maybe to make sure, just use ice candy plastics, sure jud na nga wala abortifacients.. he he..
saba lang cguro na gamiton sa? he he...
so ur saying bro dat some contraceptives if used is considered ABORTION![]()
so we can say that the church is correct about their stand about using contraceptives will be considered as abortion..
Similar Threads |
|