contreception

[Rence]

So can knowing you’ve murdered an innocent person. I still do not grant that “emergency contraception” is a necessity. I don’t think it’s necessary for the woman who hasn’t ovulated to be given the contraception either. I didn’t say that. I said it’s morally acceptable (again, per CAL and their awesome speakers, as I am NOT a moral theologian). I’m not sure what having the rape investigated has to do with abortion, or “emergency contraception”.

This isn’t something that has to be administered in the ER, so actually she could see a doctor that would potentially prescribe it. She still has options. There are probably other hospitals in driving distance that are not Catholic, or otherwise against contraception.

The thing is, the sooner plan b is administered, the more likely conception is being prevented. By sending her elsewhere (which is an option of course), the chances of preventing a pregnancy go down and the chances of preventing implantation goes up. Therefore, I would go so far as to say, if a woman is forced to seek out plan b after a rape, rather than receiving it in the ER, she is being forced to probably prevent implantation, rather than being helped to prevent a forced preganancy.

Also, many catholic hospitals are refusing to educate women about plan B, which takes away their ability to make a conscience choice. And if the woman asks for plan B, some catholic hospitals are not only refusing it, but not giving the rape victim information on where they can get it. Not all of them to be sure, some Catholic hospitals do administer plan b, or if they don’t have it, will still educate a woman about that option (along with all other options) and will still refer rape victims to expedient sources. That’s why the bill is so important.

Thankfully, I live in an area with NO catholic hospitals, and all offer plan B. So I’m quite lucky if I ever am God-forbid in the situation where I need it. I’d march right over to the ER and get plan B along with any other treatement I may need. And thankfully downtown only has one catholic hospital and is surrounded by many non-catholic hospitals that are stronger rape victim advocates.

 

[Jermosh]

“suppressing ovulation” and “incapacitating sperm” is not the same thing as aborting a newly conceived child. I’m certain that is why there is the part about what happens when ovulation has already occurred. The USCCB has said it is moral to delay ovulation to protect the woman, they have not said that it is moral to abort a conceived child. The only action that the morning after pill can take once ovulation has already occurred in that cycle is to dispel (aka KILL) any child that would be conceived by the rape. It is the same reason that birth control pills are abortifaciants (sp?). I’m not sure why YOU think that it IS moral.

I never said it was ok to abort the child directly, or take the MAP after ovulation, although I believe there are other ways to incapacitate sperm if ovulation has occured. Keep in mind that conception can take up to 4 days after the event.

That said, abortifaciants are not prohibited if for non-contraceptive uses within a marriage.

 

[Jea9]

Well, to be fair, the government isn’t trying to mandate that hospitals must admisinter plan B to all rape victims. They are trying to mandate that hospitals inform rape victims of all of their care options, including the availability of plan b, and to offer it to them. I know what you mean about being uncomfortable with the government making decisions for us, and I agree, but in this case, they want to make sure women have all the information they need (without bias) in order to make the right choice for themselves.

Mandating that a hospital offer the contraception, is just as bad. And, I’m sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe that ANY woman in the US doesn’t know that there is emergency contraception available. Some other country, fine, yes maybe they don’t know…but here, it’s ridiculous to think that they don’t.

I agree, it most definitely is medical care that she needs. The needs of a patient varies from patient to patient and takes into account the whole patient, not parts of the patient. Therefore, medical care that is needed is based on the emotional, spiritual, psychological and physical needs of each individual patient.

I believe this is a very important bill and I’ve been sending letters to my representatives to help get it passed. Rape victims need stronge advocates, and I am one of them.

Notice, this bill doesn’t force compliance. Hospitals have a choice too.

Did you just call a potentially conceived baby a “part of the patient”?! Seriously? I am not against advocating for rape victims, I’m against the use of “emergency contraception” when ovulation has already occurred in that woman’s cycle. Actually, truth be told, I’m PERSONALLY against the use at all, but I’m going based off of the moral acceptance that I’ve heard spoken on Catholic Answers Live’s various pro-life discussions.

I beg to differ on the ‘forcing compliance’ but don’t think that’s important on this thread.

The thing is, the sooner plan b is administered, the more likely conception is being prevented. By sending her elsewhere (which is an option of course), the chances of preventing a pregnancy go down and the chances of preventing implantation goes up. Therefore, I would go so far as to say, if a woman is forced to seek out plan b after a rape, rather than receiving it in the ER, she is being forced to probably prevent implantation, rather than being helped to prevent a forced preganancy.

Also, many catholic hospitals are refusing to educate women about plan B, which takes away their ability to make a conscience choice. And if the woman asks for plan B, some catholic hospitals are not only refusing it, but not giving the rape victim information on where they can get it. Not all of them to be sure, some Catholic hospitals do administer plan b, or if they don’t have it, will still educate a woman about that option (along with all other options) and will still refer rape victims to expedient sources. That’s why the bill is so important.

Thankfully, I live in an area with NO catholic hospitals, and all offer plan B. So I’m quite lucky if I ever am God-forbid in the situation where I need it. I’d march right over to the ER and get plan B along with any other treatement I may need. And thankfully downtown only has one catholic hospital and is surrounded by many non-catholic hospitals that are stronger rape victim advocates.

The pill works by first preventing ovulation. The second way that it works is to prevent implantation. That means that the woman has already ovulated and that conception has occurred. That means that there is an innocent child at stake. Note, that I did say that this is a morally acceptable medication when it is certain that ovulation has not taken place. If they test the woman and find that no ovulation has occurred, then they can morally administer the contraception to prevent ovulation from occurring.

I’m sad that you think that offering medication without taking into account all implications makes a “stronger rape victim advocate”. If you would take this medication without knowing if you’ve ovulated, and there is conception, that is abortion. AKA murder.

I never said it was ok to abort the child directly, or take the MAP after ovulation, although I believe there are other ways to incapacitate sperm if ovulation has occured. Keep in mind that conception can take up to 4 days after the event.

That said, abortifaciants are not prohibited if for non-contraceptive uses within a marriage.

I was merely pointing out that your generalized statement was dangerous because you didn’t clarify that this medication is ONLY morally acceptable after finding out whether the woman has ovulated in that cycle.

And, I wasn’t commenting on abortifaciants used to treat medical conditions at all.

 

[Jea9]

I mean ‘necessary’ not ‘medically necessary.’

I was just asking the question about those medication because I’m curious what you think. I see a parallel but I was not trying to trap you.

I would, however, disagree with the argument that a fetus–especially mere hours after conception–is a person in the moral sense.

When talking about health care you can’t separate “necessary” from medically necessary". That is the only necessity that counts when discussing what is available at an ER, or hospital in general.

I see what parallel you see, but I do not agree that it is there. I think that it would be much more damaging for a woman to find out she murdered a child that was innocent, than to carry the rapists child to term. That being said, yes, I do know women who have done this and are raising those children. I’ve never had the guts to say “don’t you wish you’d had an abortion instead of having to spend your whole life with a reminder of what happened to you?”. For some reason, I don’t think it’s appropriate. (sorry for the sarcasm here, but I thought it appropriate to get my point across, please don’t take offense)

The argument that life does not begin at conception is a totally different matter. You can’t have a discussion on whether abortion (or medications that could potentially cause an abortion) are moral if you can’t agree when life begins. That is the crux of the matter.

 

[ThomasToo]

When talking about health care you can’t separate “necessary” from medically necessary". That is the only necessity that counts when discussing what is available at an ER, or hospital in general.

I see what parallel you see, but I do not agree that it is there. I think that it would be much more damaging for a woman to find out she murdered a child that was innocent, than to carry the rapists child to term. That being said, yes, I do know women who have done this and are raising those children. I’ve never had the guts to say “don’t you wish you’d had an abortion instead of having to spend your whole life with a reminder of what happened to you?”. For some reason, I don’t think it’s appropriate. (sorry for the sarcasm here, but I thought it appropriate to get my point across, please don’t take offense)

The argument that life does not begin at conception is a totally different matter. You can’t have a discussion on whether abortion (or medications that could potentially cause an abortion) are moral if you can’t agree when life begins. That is the crux of the matter.

I understand that, but I was making the more general point that we do not only live for the barest necessities–medical or otherwise.

No offense taken and if you hadn’t inserted the caveat I would have taken everything you’d said seriously; it was hardly sarcastic at my reading. I also think that plenty of women don’t see it as murdering anything and I’m inclined to agree with them. I know that I lack the moral fortitude to make a decision like that for someone else.

Granted. But framing the question as life and not moral personhood aims, if I may be so bold, to end the conversation before it begins.

 

[Jea9]

I understand that, but I was making the more general point that we do not only live for the barest necessities–medical or otherwise.

No offense taken and if you hadn’t inserted the caveat I would have taken everything you’d said seriously; it was hardly sarcastic at my reading. I also think that plenty of women don’t see it as murdering anything and I’m inclined to agree with them. I know that I lack the moral fortitude to make a decision like that for someone else.

Granted. But framing the question as life and not moral personhood aims, if I may be so bold, to end the conversation before it begins.

Yes, we live for not only the barest necessities, but it’s not…well necessary. Do you need to eat? Yes. Do you have to eat a filet mignon with lobster? No, of course not. Do you need to have a shelter? Yes. Do you need 10,000 sq feet to put you, your wife, and your 1 kid in? No, of course not. Do you see the difference I’m trying to make here? Yes, it is necessary that a woman who is raped gets the care that she NEEDS. I do not, however, think that contraception is a necessity. Before contraception, and abortion, women were raped. It’s a horrible fact, and incredibly sad. I’d like to see statistics on how women handled it back before all of this medical ‘help’.

Again, if the woman doesn’t think it’s murder, then the discussion is moot. But, if you asked the women that I’ve known who are raising their rapists children if they could go back and abort the child or take medication that would have prevented implantation, I’m sure they would see it as their child and WOULD see it as murder.

 

[ThomasToo]

Yes, we live for not only the barest necessities, but it’s not…well necessary. Do you need to eat? Yes. Do you have to eat a filet mignon with lobster? No, of course not. Do you need to have a shelter? Yes. Do you need 10,000 sq feet to put you, your wife, and your 1 kid in? No, of course not. Do you see the difference I’m trying to make here? Yes, it is necessary that a woman who is raped gets the care that she NEEDS. I do not, however, think that contraception is a necessity. Before contraception, and abortion, women were raped. It’s a horrible fact, and incredibly sad. I’d like to see statistics on how women handled it back before all of this medical ‘help’.

Again, if the woman doesn’t think it’s murder, then the discussion is moot. But, if you asked the women that I’ve known who are raising their rapists children if they could go back and abort the child or take medication that would have prevented implantation, I’m sure they would see it as their child and WOULD see it as murder.

Would they prefer to go back and not be raped?

 

[ThomasToo]

Yes, we live for not only the barest necessities, but it’s not…well necessary. Do you need to eat? Yes. Do you have to eat a filet mignon with lobster? No, of course not. Do you need to have a shelter? Yes. Do you need 10,000 sq feet to put you, your wife, and your 1 kid in? No, of course not. Do you see the difference I’m trying to make here? Yes, it is necessary that a woman who is raped gets the care that she NEEDS. I do not, however, think that contraception is a necessity. Before contraception, and abortion, women were raped. It’s a horrible fact, and incredibly sad. I’d like to see statistics on how women handled it back before all of this medical ‘help’.

Again, if the woman doesn’t think it’s murder, then the discussion is moot. But, if you asked the women that I’ve known who are raising their rapists children if they could go back and abort the child or take medication that would have prevented implantation, I’m sure they would see it as their child and WOULD see it as murder.

Sorry, I forgot to say this above and my 20 minutes ran out as I was framing it.

I think, however, we need more than what could be termed the barest necessities of life–as ironic as it sounds. We can’t flourish in a cardboard hut eating 1200 calories (or whatever we can say is the absolute minimum to keep a person on this side of life) a day.

 

[Jea9]

Would they prefer to go back and not be raped?

I think that they would probably tell you that while the circumstances were not what they would have preferred to bring a child into this world, that they wouldn’t change the child that they have. Meaning that this unique person was created by the combination of theirs and the rapists DNA. How can you ask a mother if she would ‘undo’ a child?!

Sorry, I forgot to say this above and my 20 minutes ran out as I was framing it.

I think, however, we need more than what could be termed the barest necessities of life–as ironic as it sounds. We can’t flourish in a cardboard hut eating 1200 calories (or whatever we can say is the absolute minimum to keep a person on this side of life) a day.

I think you think that we could not because people DO not. It’s hard to visualize something when you’ve never seen it. But I think this is extremely off the original topic.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Yes.

**All **forms of contraception and sterilization are immoral-- every single type that has ever been thought up or ever will be thought up.

Contraception is any action taken by the couple before, during, or after intercourse that attempt to make that act of intercourse sterile.

Taking pills or hormonal injections to sterilize yourself temporarily (that’s what suppressing ovluation is) is contraception, and is immoral.

Elequent, succinct. Perfect.

Ditto.

Peace,

Steven

 

[ThomasToo]

I think that they would probably tell you that while the circumstances were not what they would have preferred to bring a child into this world, that they wouldn’t change the child that they have. Meaning that this unique person was created by the combination of theirs and the rapists DNA. How can you ask a mother if she would ‘undo’ a child?!

Because she was raped… I’m not trying to be a heartless S.O.B. but I’m able to talk about almost anything with a fairly level head so the question is not out of line in my mind. I am hard pressed to believe that a woman would say that given the option she would prefer to have not been raped even with the goods that may have followed. Even, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide may be happy with the life he or she had after but would certainly be unwilling to say he or she would prefer it to have happened.

I think you think that we could not because people DO not. It’s hard to visualize something when you’ve never seen it. But I think this is extremely off the original topic.

Fair enough.

 

[Jea9]

Because she was raped… I’m not trying to be a heartless S.O.B. but I’m able to talk about almost anything with a fairly level head so the question is not out of line in my mind. I am hard pressed to believe that a woman would say that given the option she would prefer to have not been raped even with the goods that may have followed. Even, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide may be happy with the life he or she had after but would certainly be unwilling to say he or she would prefer it to have happened.

Fair enough.

Maybe there are women who would say they would have that experience taken away, but I think most mothers would say it just as I put it earlier. It’s not the same as being a survivor of the Rwandan genocide being happy with their life now. Because if you’re talking to a rape victim who is a mother to her rapist’s child, your talking about someone who is a DIRECT result of the horrible event. It’s not, “yes I was forced to run from the government because they’d already beaten me and made me watch them murder my family, but it turned out OK because in running I met a great guy/girl and they took me away from this and now things are good for me.” This is a living, breathing, direct result of the rapist’s action, a piece of HIM as well as of the victim. If the victim is raising the child, then she already (hopefully) made the choice to love the child regardless of the way that the child was brought into the world. He/she is NOT the rapist, they are a separate person.

 

[budgie2]

Contraception that suppresses ovulation is serious venial sin and better than abortifacient birth control ie. IUDs, morning after pill which destroy a fertilised egg. However, a pill that stops ovulation is worse than barrier methods which respect the natural fertility cycle and allow a woman to ovulate. Some pills can cause permanent infertility and peri-menopause aswell as damage to eggs and not all women ovulate normally after the pill.

 

[ThomasToo]

Maybe there are women who would say they would have that experience taken away, but I think most mothers would say it just as I put it earlier. It’s not the same as being a survivor of the Rwandan genocide being happy with their life now. Because if you’re talking to a rape victim who is a mother to her rapist’s child, your talking about someone who is a DIRECT result of the horrible event. It’s not, “yes I was forced to run from the government because they’d already beaten me and made me watch them murder my family, but it turned out OK because in running I met a great guy/girl and they took me away from this and now things are good for me.” This is a living, breathing, direct result of the rapist’s action, a piece of HIM as well as of the victim. If the victim is raising the child, then she already (hopefully) made the choice to love the child regardless of the way that the child was brought into the world. He/she is NOT the rapist, they are a separate person.

But I don’t think that gets over the fact that she was raped and whatever good may follow from that (however directly) is a consequence of that fact.

 

[Rence]

Mandating that a hospital offer the contraception, is just as bad. And, I’m sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe that ANY woman in the US doesn’t know that there is emergency contraception available. Some other country, fine, yes maybe they don’t know…but here, it’s ridiculous to think that they don’t.

That depends on the age and education level of the patient.

Did you just call a potentially conceived baby a “part of the patient”?! Seriously?

Uhm, Nooooo, that’s not what I said. I am referring to the notion that treating a patient with only her body as a consideration (i.e. emergency contraception isn’t a medical NEED") is not sufficient and that a patient needs to be treated as A WHOLE, taking into account her SPIRTUAL, EMOTIONAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL needs - which are all parts of her. If you only treat her physical “needs” and discount her spitual or emotional needs, you are not treating the whole patient. I hope that clears things up.

I am not against advocating for rape victims, I’m against the use of “emergency contraception” when ovulation has already occurred in that woman’s cycle. Actually, truth be told, I’m PERSONALLY against the use at all, but I’m going based off of the moral acceptance that I’ve heard spoken on Catholic Answers Live’s various pro-life discussions.

The whole point is about choice. Since you are against it, you shouldn’t take it. Being against it would be harmful to you. But other women would not want to be forced pregnant and would take it in a heartbeat. I certainly would, with or without an ovulation test, because it takes time to conceive and to me, it would be worth the gamble to enable me to protect myself.

The pill works by first preventing ovulation. The second way that it works is to prevent implantation. That means that the woman has already ovulated and that conception has occurred. That means that there is an innocent child at stake. Note, that I did say that this is a morally acceptable medication when it is certain that ovulation has not taken place. If they test the woman and find that no ovulation has occurred, then they can morally administer the contraception to prevent ovulation from occurring.

The pills primary action is to prevent conception. Because it is a hormone, there is a chance it many change the lining of the uterus such that it will prevent implantation. But I wouldn’t say that it’s a primary action of the drug. That’s not what it’s designed to do, that’s why you’re supposed to take it within 72 hours after unprotected sex. The longer you wait, the less the chances of it preventing a pregnancy.

I’m sad that you think that offering medication without taking into account all implications makes a “stronger rape victim advocate”. If you would take this medication without knowing if you’ve ovulated, and there is conception, that is abortion. AKA murder.

You’re entitled to your opinion, as it doesn’t affect other women. I on the other hand, don’t agree with you, and like your opinion, doesn’t affect other women as well. Women should be able to prevent a pregnancy resulting from being held down physically and forced upon. To reduce her to a living incubator with no rights to control the results of that forced entry is unacceptable. It’s highly unlikely a rape victim will ever not be able to access Plan B if she needs it. And if it’s ever a threat that it may be made illegal, I’ll be sure to buy a box or two for my medicine cabinet before that happens. I won’t allow that type of slavery to be forced upon me by anyone.

I was merely pointing out that your generalized statement was dangerous because you didn’t clarify that this medication is ONLY morally acceptable after finding out whether the woman has ovulated in that cycle.

I’m sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with you again on this one. It is only morally acceptable after finding out whether the woman has ovulated yet in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Not everyone finds it morally unacceptable. In fact, I find it morally unacceptable to force a rape victim to be pregnant against her will. Notice that even in areas where abortion is indeed illegal, there is an exception for rape victims. There is a valid reason for that.

 

[ThomasToo]

The whole point is about choice. Since you are against it, you shouldn’t take it. Being against it would be harmful to you. But other women would not want to be forced pregnant and would take it in a heartbeat. I certainly would, with or without an ovulation test, because it takes time to conceive and to me, it would be worth the gamble to enable me to protect myself.

As you may have seen I’m firmly in agreement with you but I don’t think you’re granting Jea9 the full weight of his or her position. I’m firmly against, for example, theft not only for myself but I also think theft ought to be illegal. Frankly I don’t think this pill, or abortion in many cases, is an act on the level of theft and doesn’t warrant being illegal (or unavailable in any way) but I can see how Jea9 and those who agree with him or her get there.

 

[Rence]

I think that it would be much more damaging for a woman to find out she murdered a child that was innocent, than to carry the rapists child to term. That being said, yes, I do know women who have done this and are raising those children. I’ve never had the guts to say “don’t you wish you’d had an abortion instead of having to spend your whole life with a reminder of what happened to you?”. For some reason, I don’t think it’s appropriate. (sorry for the sarcasm here, but I thought it appropriate to get my point across, please don’t take offense)

I emphatically agree that there are women out there who completely and totally accept a pregnancy as a good thing that resulted from something terrible that happened to them. I completely understand that a woman capable of looking at the situation from this angle is perfectly capable of providing a loving home to a baby that resulted from such a horrible thing. And I think it would hurt such a person to try and eliminate a pregnancy if this is how she is wired. I’ve seen people do this.

However, I also think there are rape victims out there that are not able to look at the situation the same way, and being forced to be pregnant after a rape has caused irreparable damage. Not everyone is the same.

Women should be able to make that choice for themselves.

The argument that life does not begin at conception is a totally different matter. You can’t have a discussion on whether abortion (or medications that could potentially cause an abortion) are moral if you can’t agree when life begins. That is the crux of the matter.

The crux of the matter goes beyond that. I don’t think anyone can argue that “life” begins at conception. However, considering over half of conceptions result in spontaneous abortions before implantion leads me to think that ensoulment doesn’t take place until after implantation. And the concept is ensoulment is purely a religious teaching, specificaly a Catholic teaching. Notice that “preganacy” doesn’t occur until after implantation. hCG levels don’t start to show pregnancy until after implantation. The Church itself doesn’t even know when ensoulment begins. Over the course of Church history, Church leaders have disagreed over when ensoulment took place, and finally decided to mandate that action should err on the side of caution by not interferring once ovulation has started because it conception may have taken place. Considering they’re not even sure themselves, that’s a pretty big imposition to make on a rape victim to say “I don’t know if there’s a soul in there, but just in case, you have to just accept a pregnancy and just allow it to happen to you.” I can’t even fathom someone saying that to a rape victim, especially when that rape victim isn’t even Catholic.

I can totally understand one’s perspective saying, “you play, you pay”. However, a rape victim didn’t play. So even if you think that premarital or extramarital sex is amoral, and that women should “choose” to not engage in such actions and should therefore accept responsibility for those actions by being allowed the choice to have an abortion, I completely disagree that a rape victim be further victimized by choice taken away from her to protect herself from further violation.

 

[Podo2005]

That depends on the age and education level of the patient.

Uhm, Nooooo, that’s not what I said. I am referring to the notion that treating a patient with only her body as a consideration (i.e. emergency contraception isn’t a medical NEED") is not sufficient and that a patient needs to be treated as A WHOLE, taking into account her SPIRTUAL, EMOTIONAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL needs - which are all parts of her. If you only treat her physical “needs” and discount her spitual or emotional needs, you are not treating the whole patient. I hope that clears things up.

The whole point is about choice. Since you are against it, you shouldn’t take it. Being against it would be harmful to you. But other women would not want to be forced pregnant and would take it in a heartbeat. I certainly would, with or without an ovulation test, because it takes time to conceive and to me, it would be worth the gamble to enable me to protect myself.

The pills primary action is to prevent conception. Because it is a hormone, there is a chance it many change the lining of the uterus such that it will prevent implantation. But I wouldn’t say that it’s a primary action of the drug. That’s not what it’s designed to do, that’s why you’re supposed to take it within 72 hours after unprotected sex. The longer you wait, the less the chances of it preventing a pregnancy.

You’re entitled to your opinion, as it doesn’t affect other women. I on the other hand, don’t agree with you, and like your opinion, doesn’t affect other women as well. Women should be able to prevent a pregnancy resulting from being held down physically and forced upon. To reduce her to a living incubator with no rights to control the results of that forced entry is unacceptable. It’s highly unlikely a rape victim will ever not be able to access Plan B if she needs it. And if it’s ever a threat that it may be made illegal, I’ll be sure to buy a box or two for my medicine cabinet before that happens. I won’t allow that type of slavery to be forced upon me by anyone.

I’m sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with you again on this one. It is only morally acceptable after finding out whether the woman has ovulated yet in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Not everyone finds it morally unacceptable. In fact, I find it morally unacceptable to force a rape victim to be pregnant against her will. Notice that even in areas where abortion is indeed illegal, there is an exception for rape victims. There is a valid reason for that.

So it follows that you find it morally acceptable to murder a human being ( which is what the innocent unborn baby is)?

 

[Rence]

So it follows that you find it morally acceptable to murder a human being ( which is what the innocent unborn baby is)?

It follows that I find it more than morally acceptable for a woman to take plan B in the ER after a rape.

 

[Rence]

As you may have seen I’m firmly in agreement with you but I don’t think you’re granting Jea9 the full weight of his or her position. I’m firmly against, for example, theft not only for myself but I also think theft ought to be illegal. Frankly I don’t think this pill, or abortion in many cases, is an act on the level of theft and doesn’t warrant being illegal (or unavailable in any way) but I can see how Jea9 and those who agree with him or her get there.

Oh sure, I can understand how they believe what they do about abortion, and I appreciate their position. I just don’t believe that one should have the power to make decisions regarding another person’s reproductive choices. And once you try to control others, they just pull themselves in the opposite direction anyway. Abortion isn’t right for me, but I want the autonomy to decide that for myself. I don’t want another person or persons to make that choice for me. No one should have that kind of power over another. We are not slaves or objects owned by someone else.