Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

Some forms of artificial contraception ARE forms of abortion as well.

Any contraceptive that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, or otherwise causing it to be eventually destroyed, is an abortifacient contraceptive. These includes pills, IUDs, injectables, and implantables.

• “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,”
  (Arch Fam Med -- Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent, February 2000, Larimore and Stanford 9 (2): 126):
  
  
  “It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”
• The Physician's Prescribing Information for Yaz and Yasmin (two combined oral contraceptive pills (COC) manufactured by Bayer) and Nuvaring, admits this abortifacient mechanism in the following documents:
  
  
  • http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/ht.../Yasmin_PI.pdf
  • http://www.berlex.com/html/products/pi/fhc/YAZ_PI.pdf)
  • http://www.nuvaring.com/Authfiles/Images/309_76063.pdf
  
  
  These documents contain a statement such as:
  
  
  "Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increases the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation)"
• CVS/Pharmacy (www.cvs.com), described the functions of IUDs in this manner:
  
  
  “IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb ‘unfriendly’ to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing an egg. An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.”
• Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects, Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
  
  
  “There are many potential mechanisms of action for the intrauterine device (IUD), which vary by type of IUD (inert, copper, or hormonal). This paper reviews the evidence for each potential mechanism of action. On the basis of available data for fertilization rates and clinical pregnancy rates, the relative contribution of mechanisms acting before or after fertilization were quantitatively estimated. These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.”

Of course, not all contraceptives are abortifacient. If there is no fertilized egg to destroy, then you do not have an abortion. If a contraceptive prevents fertilization only -- and does NOT prevent implantation or otherwise destroy a newly-conceived person -- then it is not abortifacient. Plain condoms, for example, are obviously NOT abortifacient. Their use, however, encourages promiscuity and this in itself is a grave cause of concern. But that is another topic.

God bless!

[hunt99]

mas maayo pang mag contraceptives pero para nako ha mas nindot na onya na mag *** na minyo na gyud og na-a gyuy ika buhi sa pamilya ang NO TO ABORTION GYUD

[johndo3]

i say no to abortion.but in case to case basis,for me, if its medically harmful for the mother to bear the child or if medically examined nga the child will not live long enough to see his/her mothers' eyes,sad to say,you have to do it.

[giddyboy]

A NOTE TO ALL: Please don't be (pls excuse the term) "misled" by some quarters here trying to (pls excuse again the term) "demonify" the Reproductive Health Bill being passed in Congress by trying to imply that the bill is as sort of legalizing abortion.

The RH Bill explicitly and clearly defines abortion as a crime and supports our Anti-Abortion Laws...

the only way these anti-RH Bill crusaders can say why the RH Bill legalizes abortion is because they have a different concept of when the moment of conception takes place. and they believe that is during fertilization, not during implantation. they believe that by using pills or IUD, one already is committing abortion due to their stance on the mechanism of action of these contraceptives.

one expert argument disproving this is that a fertilized egg does not always automatically implant on the uterus by natural means but dies. there is a probable (not even 50%) chance that the egg implants. with unprotected ***, daghan man ang mamatay nga fertilized egg, in thousands, before one finally implants to the uterus. so if one would say life begins at fertilization, then unintentionally, thousands (if not millions or billions) of lives have been lost already diay due to this natural phenomenon...if we follow that logic, even using unprotected *** diay means we are already committing mass genocide unintentionally...

then there is this argument about in-vitro fertilization aka test tube babies...but then, that is another story.

Please don't be confused between our Anti-Abortion Law and the proposed Reproductive Health Bill. they are different laws that just try to complement each other.

[hunt99]

RHB is not a law legalizing abortion its a different law but abortion law is also different so NO TO ABORTION

[mannyamador]

The RH Bill actually legalizes CHEMICAL ABORTION by funding abortifacient contraceptives.

The Philipine Constitution protects the unborn form the moment of conception. The Church also believes that human life begins at conception (fertilization), not at implantation. Science has also shown that all 46 chromosomes are present at fertilization, thus making each fertilized egg a unique human person.


Abortifacient contraceptives allow the destruction of unborn children by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg, But this occurs AFTER fertilization, so it is still an abortion.

Those who try to justify their support of the RH Bill are trying to pretend that human life starts at implantation r even after that. This position is neither supported by science or logic. It is a deceptive ideological position used fro propaganda purposes.

The RH Bill is only a first step in the eventual dismantling of our anti-abortion laws. It's perpetrators will first try to redefine where human life begins to justify abortifacients contraceptives (just as someone did above). Then they will try to legalize explicit abortifacients such as RU-486 ("medicated abortion", which destroys the fertilized egg even afgter implantation). Once people are made to doubt that human life begins at fertilization, they will call for early-term abortions (destroying the fetus in the first few weeks, then even later).

This has all happened before.

Don't let the RH Bill fool you. It legalizes chemical abortion and will help in the eventual adoption of other forms of abortion as well. But abortion -- in any form -- is still murder.

Petition Against HB 5043 (RH Bill)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[hunt99]

The RH Bill actually legalizes CHEMICAL ABORTION by funding abortifacient contraceptives.

The Philipine Constitution protects the unborn form the moment of conception. The Church also believes that human life begins at conception (fertilization), not at implantation. Science has also shown that all 46 chromosomes are present at fertilization, thus making each fertilized egg a unique human person.


Abortifacient contraceptives allow the destruction of unborn children by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg, But this occurs AFTER fertilization, so it is still an abortion.

This who try to justify their support of the RH Bill are trying to pretend that human life starts at implantation r even after that. This position is neither supported by science or logic. It is a deceptive ideological position used fro propaganda purposes.

The RH Bill is only a first step in the eventual dismantling of our anti-abortion laws. It's perpetrators will first try to redefine where human life begins to justify abortifacients contraceptives (just as someone did above). Then they will try to legalize explicit abortifacients such as RU-486 ("medicated abortion", which destroys the fertilized egg even afgter implantation). Once people are made to doubt that human life begins at fertilization, they will call for early-term abortions (destroying the fetus in the first few weeks, then even later).

This has all happened before.

Don't let the RH Bill fool you. It legalizes chemical abortion and will help in the eventual adoption of other forms of abortion as well. But abortion -- in any form -- is still murder.

Petition Against HB 5043 (RH Bill)
No to Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043) Petition

angn aka bati man gud para sa contraceptives ni siya gi ing-ani goro ky para sa mga minyo na pero mao sad gyud pero mas maayo ra gyud ng *** buhaton kung minyo na gyud

[giddyboy]

The Philipine Constitution protects the unborn form the moment of conception. The Church also believes that human life begins at conception (fertilization), not at implantation. Science has also shown that all 46 chromosomes are present at fertilization, thus making each fertilized egg a unique human person.

here we go again. The Constitution did not categorically say the moment of conception is at fertilization. but u wittingly, by sleigh of hand, u make us believe that what the Roman Catholic Church believes is what the Constitution also believes.

Science has also shown that Development begins while the fertilized egg is still within the fallopian tube. Repeated mitotic divisions produces a solid ball of cells called a morula. Further mitosis and some migration of cells converts this into a hollow ball of cells called the blastocyst. Approximately one week after fertilization, the blastocyst embeds itself in the thickened wall of the uterus, a process called implantation, and pregnancy is established.

let's compare by visual presentation:


a morula (begin of fertilized egg dev't)


a blastocyst (after further mitosis of morula)

is there really life already in those? those in the fallopian tubes?

well how about this?


sperm

sa akong tanaw, mas naa pay purohan dat life begins at ejaculation...

---000---

on giving fertilized eggs human status

from MSUKate, 2/19/09 Digg forums:

Okay. A fertilized egg is NOT A PERSON. 1.- a fertilized egg can be Frozen, then thawed and then implanted and then develop normally. Tell me when you can do this with an adult, or even a full-term baby? 2. Most fertilized eggs never reach the uterine wall, and thus are expelled naturally. So when that happens is a person coming out of her? No. Its a clump of CELLS To all those Anti-Choice Zealots out there. No woman ever WANTS an abortion, its a sad, unfortunate result of bad timing, bad luck, bad planning.....etc

from kschramm, 2/19/09 Digg forums:

Great! Now we can arrest all menstruating women as murderers. :/

---000---

No to abortion. Yes to Reproductive Health Bill.

[agressive_not]

no to abortion....

[mannyamador]

here we go again. The Constitution did not categorically say the moment of conception is at fertilization. but u wittingly, by sleigh of hand, u make us believe that what the Roman Catholic Church believes is what the Constitution also believes.

There YOU go again. This has been settled, as shown by Commissioner Bernas who wrote:

The unborn's entitlement to protection begins "from conception," that is, from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when human life precisely begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.

Like I asked before: What part of "conception takes place at fertilization" or "necessary to take the safer approach" can't you understand?

Approximately one week after fertilization, the blastocyst embeds itself in the thickened wall of the uterus, a process called implantation, and pregnancy is established.

You conveniently forgot to mention that this definition of pregnancy is the REDEFINED one based on ideological grounds. Prior to that the US medical community defined it as beginning at fertilization.

sa akong tanaw, mas naa pay purohan ang life begins at ejaculation.

Such strawman arguments are useless. Neither the egg nor the sperm has 46 chromosomes. It is only when they are united that the 46 chromosomes needed to define a person's traits are present. Implantation is only a change in location, but the process of unique human development began at fertilization.

The so-called RH bill directly promotes abortion through abortifacient contraceptives, and indirectly through redefinitions like yours.

on giving fertilized eggs human status

Some really poor logic here.

Just because you can't do certain things to an adult yet doesn't mean that only those things you can dio are proper to human persons. We couldn't clone them a few decades ago either. And menstruation is a natural part of the process, which requires NO human intervention. Abortion through abortifacients DOES require intervention. One is a natural occurrence, the other is a deliberate inhuman act.




KEEP THE PEOPLE FREE! NO TO THE COERCIVE PROVISIONS OF HB5043!
--
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/