The Religious Right is attacking birth control pills now.

[Maat]

Yesterday, we had the thread going re the issue of ‘abortion.’ My point was that one had to define, when discussing it, what was meant by abortion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1434510

I said,

“I was trying to point out that some consider birth control, RU-486, and the Morning After Pill to be abortion. So, although many would say that it's abortion we want to make rare, they really mean late-term abortions when they say that, and those are already rare.

The D&C procedure is probably in the middle, and is most commonly performed in the 1st trimester.

The D&X ('partial birth') was banned, but the law is stayed currently.

So, I guess I just want people to make it clear exactly what it is they oppose - when they say 'abortion.'

While, D&X procedures were already rare, and, hopefully, D&C procedures will become more rare, I have no objection to birth control and Morning After pills being used regularly - because an unwanted child creates a much more dangerous situation.”


I have always believed that the first step in the RR’s plan (Religious Right’s) was to 1) attack late-term abortion (such as D&X ), 2) then start attacking procedures that occur primarily in the 1st trimester when the zygote is about ½-inch long, 3) then up the attack on RU-486 (terminating pregnancies within a month after fertilization), and 4) up the attacks on the Morning After Pill and basic birth control. The Religious Right calls any effort short of promoting implantation of the fertilized egg ‘ABORTION.’

Therein lies the danger.

Support for my position, from their own prominent website:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19741

From Baptist News (affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention administrative body): please begin with the sentence, “The birth control pill is an oral contraceptive …”

This is why I am so reluctant to concede any on my pro-choice position. Moreover, almost anyone can live with a measure taken pre-fertilization, or within the first two months after fertilization, and it is far better than a kid being abused, abandoned or neglected (says this retired social worker and adoptive mom). We must be careful not to allow them to define these early procedures as the Devil’s Work – remember they are not around when a social worker is trying to secure a loving environment for a kid.

This is the first time I’ve tried to do something fancy in a post. Let me know if I’ve done anything wrong – but especially if you see my point.

[MaryH]

1. We had two letters to the editor: one was from a nurse who

stated that birth control pills do not kill fertilized eggs - they only make the environment hostile so that the eggs don't get fertilized.

Next day we had a letter from the Right stating that birth control pills kill live, fertilized eggs and that is why they are immoral.

I might not have that right - I really don't know and don't care. Birth control pills are the best thing women have right now.

[peacebird]

2. i have also seen BC pills listed as abortion agents

in other news blurbs, increasingly over the past couple of years.

Google BCP's and God and you find:
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

"Birth Control" Pills and Abortion

"Physicians across America -- and around the world -- are now confirming that the Pill, IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant cause early abortions."


or how about this gem?
"Birth control is evil and a sin. Birth Control is anti-Baby and anti-Child. Isn't that the purpose for birth control
to stop the life of an innocent baby from being born. Why would you stop your own child from being conceived
or born? What kind of human being are you?"
http://www.armyofgod.com/Birthcontrol.html

ah - the compassionate christian

[WildClarySage]

9. What kind of human being am I?

Apparently, they can't trust me to be in charge of my own body- why trust me to be in charge of a child?

[Warpy]

3. Well, they could cause a fertilized ovum to be expelled

and for the "life begins at fertilization" crowd, that is an abortion.

Since it's estimated that only 20%-40% of fertilized eggs ever survive and implant to become pregnancies (and many of them nonviable), that would make their god the biggest abortionist in creation. They just never think of it that way, do they?

Of course, the end of the "fertilization begins fully formed human life" idiocy is that any sexually active woman who has menses is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

These people are wrong, and their wrongness is truly sickening, but the way they want to push their silly opinions on the rest of us in the form of bad and restrictive laws is the worst thing I've ever seen.

[wildeyed]

4. The people who define the pill as abortion

are not likely going to vote democratic. But there are lots of people out there who are uncomfortable with the procedure who would be more attracted to the democratic party if we changed the way we talked about abortion, without actually changing our stance.

Here's what I would say to more moderate abortion foes: Banning abortion doesn't stop it. The country with th fewest abortions is Netherlands, where the procedure is legal. The highest number of abortions, Latin America, where the procedure is banned. So if we really want to decrease abortion, not just punish poor women for having sex, then we should look at the policies in the Netherlands that led to such low use of the procedure.

Let's give women a real choice by giving decent options like childcare and housing to low income women who choose to raise their babies. Let's have pro-life policies, polices that benefit those that are alive, not just the unborn. And by enhancing the lives of the living, we can decrease the abortion rate.

I would include some biblical references, too, but having grown up in a secular household I don't know any.

[SCantiGOP]

5. their reasoning is sound

for them anyway: Sex is bad but necessary to continue the species. Sex for pleasure is wrong, and any sex other than in a marriage for purposes of procreation is a sin. Thus, birth control should be banned. They know not to throw this idea out there until they get abortion criminalized.

[Nikia]

6. Actually those religous families probably kill more fertilized eggs

The pill usually prevents ovulation. It also makes the vaginal environment less hospitaliable for sperm. Occaisionally, but not often there is a fertilizable egg. The pill may cause implantation to be difficult, which is these people's arguement. It does not make implantation impossible because there are sometimes women who become pregnant on the pill.
Fertilized eggs naturually often do not implant. I have seen different figuers on this and it may depend on the woman, but all sources agree that most fertilized eggs do not successfully implant. An egg that has been fertilzed late is less likely to implant.
This fact makes me think that couples who believe that birth control is a sin, especially those using the rhythm method, kill more fertilized eggs than women who use the pill correctly (taking every pill on time).
Wouldn't it be better to abort a fertilized egg though anyway than a five month fetus? Isn't that part of their arguement, that the fetus feels pain?
Are they going to support research on viable male hormonal contraception so that married couples who cannot financially, physically, and/or emotionally support many children can have sexual relations without killing fertilized eggs?

[Maat]

7. I enjoyed the posts.

I think what this is about is control of people.

They even have a new term for what my husband and I engaged in for about 22 years - 'deliberate childlessness.' Society thought it was a great idea then (1977 to 1999). I guess now it is a bad thing.

I think that we are still engaging in it, come to think of it. We were blessed with Beloved Daughter, Her Royal Highness, through adoption.

Uh-oh. Am I going to the bad place? I think that I was already going there ... because I am a 'lib-ur-al.'

And, yes, the statistical points are well-taken. My understanding is that around 50% of the fertilized eggs do not attach - naturally.

Uh-oh. Pretty soon masturbation will banned - engaging in 'deliberate childlessness.'

What about one of their Religious Right brethren or sistren not getting married .. is that 'engaging in deliberate childlessness?'

[bloom]

8. I believe in choice. Period.

I think the ban on The D&X ('partial birth') abortions is the most disturbing - because of the idea that the opponents (like Bush* who made it so clear in the debate) do not care if the woman has to die to save the unborn fetus. So you could have a woman who did not even believe in "choosing" abortion for whom it could become medically necessary if her life were to be saved.

To me the opponents are choosing death for mothers (potentially).

-----

I wasn't really thinking about birth control being banned until this poster (who is now tombstoned) started this thread and I was going to some of the links...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2900586&mesg_id=2900586

A lot of them are definitely anti-birth-control. And people seem to be employing various means of denouncing birth-control - including trying to tie Margaret Sanger (and indeed ALL feminists) to eugenics. (Regardless of any ties Sanger had to eugenicists or their promoters - like Rockefeller - the point seems to be one of discrediting the whole womens' movement, including birth-control and the whole thing).

-----

As far as the issue of "abortifactants" (sp?)... I think it wouldn't hurt to just figure that is part of the choice - regardless if it is true or not. The issue really becomes one of do women have birth-control choice or not. In this day and age of penicillin and working women - I can't imagine going back to pre-birth-control days.

-----

I like the idea of programs that help the living (universal healthcare, reasonable minimum wages, etc.) to reduce the likelihood of people choosing abortions.

[HockeyMom]

10. Griswald vs Ct.

Just a remind that the case, Griswald v Ct., which was the caselaw that was used to decide Roe v Wade, was about BIRTH CONTROL. It was illegal to dispense BIRTH CONTROL to MARRIED couples in Ct.(1968?).

So, watch out. Strike down one (privacy issue), they strike down the other too.

[HockeyMom]

11. Afterthought

which included CONDOMS too.