[QUOTE=etsryan;962141]I and others have a problem with oral contraceptive actually being abortions themselves,  Newer technology may allow better research into how many implantation interferences are happening when using oc.  By claiming religious folks with bias cannot know scientific facts/truths, I feel you and others are discriminating/entertaining prejudice.

No i am simply saying that ANY group who has an especial prejudice in a particular issue can NOT be taken as an endorsment without taking into account their biases ... imho if scientists who had no particular investment in the issue of abortion, birth control and so on where to explore, review and comment on this research it woudl have more ACADEMIC validity.

how many more times do i have say i am looking at this from an ACADEMIC pov NOT a prejudicial or discriminatory pov; and academically speaking ignoring heavily biased sources and/or endorsments is viewed as lazy research.

[QUOTE]I would think you and others would like to know the truth about bc/oc and the abortifacient qualities and frequencies so even if you continue to use these products, it will be with accurate information rather than guesswork.[/QUOTE] 

i do want accurate information HENCE a wish for sources and endorsments for sources that are NOT heavily biased in the abortions and BC issue.

[QUOTE]Also, if bc/oc is abortifacient and is proven to be, you and others can make up your mind/s if you wish to continue using bc/oc and have full info to go on...unless you/others prefer to stay/be ignorant? [/QUOTE]

It is precicly BECAUSE i do not wish to be ignorant tha ti apply RIGOROUS criticla analysis to sources and heavily biased sources are NOT reliable by any stretch of the imagination.

[QUOTE]I suppose smokers don't really like hearing about lung damage from tobacco and other smoked substances, but i believe they have a right to know since the info is pertinent to them/their health. [/QUOTE]

and source form ardent anti smoking orgs is heavily biased, sources from more neutral folks are more liekly ot be balanced and accurate.

[QUOTE]Whether or not they/you listen to what I and others are saying, trying to give evidence of/prove is another matter.  Are you listening?  Are you willing to listen/hear?  Can I tell you the whole story?  Do you think you can handle it/the Truth?  (I am asking myself this as well.)  Do you think some of it might break your heart/be upsetting?  Do I?  I think it might.  I am bracing myself as I get up the courage to face more of the facts that may be hidden - some intentionally...[/QUOTE]

heavily biased source are NOT the place to look if one GENUINLY seeks the 'truth' behind these complex social issues a) PEER REVIEWED journals are a good start, many are now published online, some even available for free via google scholar searches b) yes i'm listening, to both you and ot my experience all be it limited in comparison to someone like paula that tells me heavily biased sources are deeply unreliable and aught not be relied upon if one seeks 'truth' whatever 'truth' may be.

by the way, the term xtians is somewhat offensive and possibly bigoted/against ROC?...to me.[/QUOTE]

tell my priest/vicar friends that they use it themselves and in parish newsletters all of the time, indeed it was from them and other christian friends that i picked up the term in general usage. *shrug*

bx

The Pill is one of the easiest, cheapest and effective forms of birth control available, while also providing those of us with menstrual disorders great relief. I think you're really splitting hards, ets, worrying about the tiny chance that the Pill may abort a fetus.  A bad fall could abort the fetus too- should we ban pregnant women from walking around?

[QUOTE=christiangal;962932]I can't fathom anyone that wants to see the number of abortions decline advocating against birth control.  You leave the woman with no other options at that point.  Women should have low-cost access to birth control if they want it.[/QUOTE]It is the pro-life movement's opposition to the BC pill that really convinces me that the movement' isn't about the preservation of life, but conservative Christian sexual morality.  Most of the other stunts by the pro-life movement makes me suspicious as it is, but that is the smoking gun.

Given the high rate of failure to implant in nature, and the fact that the BC pill isn't 100% effective even when used correctly, the pro-life movement's claim that the BC is an abortificant is absurd.

Yes, I am aware that there are people who are pro-life and are moderates.  There are people who are pro-choice and are moderates as well.

But everything I've read from both movements indicates that it isn't the moderates that are leading both groups.  It's the extremists.  It may have been the Catholic Church that first decided to attack the birth control pill by calling it an abortifacient, but Evangelical leaders, and other leading conservative Protestants, were very quick to express their outrage over this form of "stealth abortion," and join the call to make it illegal.

ltm315 wrote:

There are 'absolute' truths in the Catholic church.

"There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths." - Friedrich Nietzsche

:cool: