Bush Admin Moves to Label the pill, IUDs, etc as abortion

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-07-31 01:20pm

To be fair, this is actually completely consistent with their standing logic that a clump of cells should be considered a person from the instant of egg fertilization.

I think a lot of people are up in arms about how it is "extremist" or "creeping attack on womens' rights" because they were too stupid to realize that this was always where the "life begins at conception" argument was leading. I've been saying that for years, but I was often accused of exaggeration and strawmandering for it.

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2008-07-31 01:34pm

Broomstick wrote:
Shroom Man 777 wrote:How can IUDs be considered abortions?
IUD's do not prevent fertilization. They prevent implantation. Therefore, under this definition, they are an abortion tool as they kill after conception.

The copper IUD also prevents fertilisation by changing the environment of the uterus (the pH of the mucus, I believe) to hinder sperm mobility and their ability to fertilise. The changes also prevent an egg from implanting if one does manage to be fertilised.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-07-31 01:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:To be fair, this is actually completely consistent with their standing logic that a clump of cells should be considered a person from the instant of egg fertilization.

I think a lot of people are up in arms about how it is "extremist" or "creeping attack on womens' rights" because they were too stupid to realize that this was always where the "life begins at conception" argument was leading. I've been saying that for years, but I was often accused of exaggeration and strawmandering for it.

Exactly. Anyone shocked by this is a fucking idiot or hasn't been paying attention for the past 20 years. It's always been the end goal of these people to end all forms of birth control be it abortion or contraception.

Post by **weemadando** » 2008-08-01 03:51am

This sums up their attitude pretty well.

Protect the unborn/not yet fertilised, but once they're born make sure that they have no healthcare.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2008-08-01 10:53am

weemadando wrote:This sums up their attitude pretty well.

Protect the unborn/not yet fertilised, but once they're born make sure that they have no healthcare.

That's what makes me think his goal is to maximize suffering, but ramp it up slowly enough all the frogs don't jump out till after the water's boiling.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2008-08-02 01:39am

Darth Wong wrote:I think a lot of people are up in arms about how it is "extremist" or "creeping attack on womens' rights" because they were too stupid to realize that this was always where the "life begins at conception" argument was leading. I've been saying that for years, but I was often accused of exaggeration and strawmandering for it.

Are there seriously people who thought "life begins at conception" doesn't logically lead to "any contraception which kills a fertilized egg is abortion"?