Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NYC!
    Posts
    1,244
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    The real reason religious whackjobs dont approve of the morning after pill.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060508/...ZoBHNlYwM3NTE-

    Link about what the "good guys" are doing in response to the pro-life idiocy.

    It is actually quite intricate and well thought out.

    See I have figured out thier plan.

    With unplanned pregnancy on the rise among the poor. Pro lifers want to create more poor, this way when there are so many of them, thier ultimate goal is to repeal the slavery prohibitions by having these increased poor people sell themselves into slavery! They will have the exception of if someone "chooses slavery".

    Need further proof?

    Just look at the racial demographic where large numbers of unplanned pregnancies occur.

    We should call pro-lifers by thier true name now: Anti-abolitionists. or Pro-Slavery.


    If you think that is a "straw-man" it is no more made of straw than the argument used to prohibit the FDA from making the morning after pill a non-scrib drug.

  2. #2
    Mostly, I just sit here. Mostly. hall of famestaff
    Stick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Washington DC. USA
    Posts
    7,949
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Now that's logic hard at work right there.

    Consider my mind blown, and my cerebral semen is all over this thread.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southampton UK
    Posts
    34
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    As good a theory as this is, and it is very interesting, I think the main reason is that they hold the mistaken belief that the pill will abort the fertilised egg, thus pro-lifers think they have an argument.

    It just blocks ovulation if pregnancy hasn't already occured.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    622
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'm guessing these people don't clip (?) their toenails ? If they feel so strongly about disposing of some cells.

  5. #5
    King Sleepless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cuba
    Posts
    10,058
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    How the hell do they get their neurons to fire nonsequencially like that?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southampton UK
    Posts
    34
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You know the kid who played with balls of mercury in his hand in science class?

    Yeah

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lisbon-Portugal
    Posts
    856
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I don't know if your theory is right but iin my country they are trying pull of the market the morning after pill.
    Something about being dangerous to your health and not carrying enough info.

    :love3:

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    971
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    What's the odds that their Baptist University-dwelling brats use the MAP when they get some dolt pregnant or are that pregnant dolt?

    Condoms split, women get raped and sometimes the pill fails. Quite why the 'Pros' care more for a clump of foetal cells over the lives of young, often vulnerable women is proof, of course, of their cynicism and misanthropy. Their outlook is anything but pro-life.

  9. #9
    Acupuncturist / Anesthesia Student

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kansas City - the mecca of civilization
    Posts
    1,622
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by gramlock
    As good a theory as this is, and it is very interesting, I think the main reason is that they hold the mistaken belief that the pill will abort the fertilised egg, thus pro-lifers think they have an argument.

    It just blocks ovulation if pregnancy hasn't already occured.



    Wait, is that true? I thought it released a large amount of estrogen and/or progesterone to signal...wait a second. If the decrease in estrogen and progesterone is what signals the uterus to menstruate, but an intact corpeus luteum will secrete estrogen and progesterone, which keeps the levels up so that uterus does not shed its lining, then how does taking a large amount of exogenous estrogen and/or progesterone stimulate the wall of the uterus to be shed?




    Bueller?







    Edit: you are indeed correct. Hmmm...so how does this violate the prolife movement if the egg isn't fertilized. Oh wait, it prevents ovulation which may lead to a fertilized egg.


    Honestly, I don't understand why women are allowed to wear clothes since it slows down the protocol of getting them knocked up.
    Last edited by Quikfeet509; 5/10/2006 2:21pm at .

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southampton UK
    Posts
    34
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The drug has no effect if a woman is already pregnant. It works by blocking ovulation or fertilization
    From the link.

    Maybe it's wrong but its always been what I thought it did.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO