who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

It has happened before, just like when a man gets his tubes tied, things happen and a pregnancy can still occur...

I don't think the question was whether a pregnancy can occur; of course it can -- we all know someone or have heard stories of failed birth control methods, even sterilization. The question was whether tubal ligation was an abortifacient by preventing implantation. And I haven't seen any evidence that it is.

[Carrie_C 9]

Tubal ligation causes scare tissue which would make it very hard for a fertilized egg to reach the uterus. If the tubes are burned (which is most commonly done), it is still possible for fertilization to occur and the embryo would have no way of reaching the uterus to implant because the tubes are gone.

[rodriguezequal 3]

I don't think the question was whether a pregnancy can occur; of course it can -- we all know someone or have heard stories of failed birth control methods, even sterilization. The question was whether tubal ligation was an abortifacient by preventing implantation. And I haven't seen any evidence that it is.

I didn't say that it didn't implant. I was replying to what PG said when she said that it cannot be fertilized... That's all...

[gadgetlady 4]

the embryo would have no way of reaching the uterus to implant because the tubes are gone.

Yet there are cases of tubal ligation patients becoming pregnant.

[Carrie_C 9]

Yet there are cases of tubal ligation patients becoming pregnant.

That's my point exactly. Why are you against hormonal birth control but not tubal ligation?

[pattygreen 5]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Edited February 24, 2009 by pattygreen

[pattygreen 5]

Yet there are cases of tubal ligation patients becoming pregnant.

Really? How? If the sperm can't get to the egg, then how will one ever get fertilized?

[rodriguezequal 3]

Go look at this link....things happen...nothing is 100% pregnancy after tubal ligation - pregnancy-info.net

[rodriguezequal 3]

This is another good article: Pregnancy after Tubal Ligation - Pregnancy Articles

[gadgetlady 4]

That's my point exactly. Why are you against hormonal birth control but not tubal ligation?

Because I am not opposed to any barrier forms of birth control that simply block a new life from being conceived. What I am against is forms that interfere with that new life's development once conception has occurred. Tubal ligation's goal is not hormonal in that it doesn't have any effect on the lining of the uterus and therefore doesn't have the secondary effect of causing a "mini-abortion".

Anyway, I'm done discussing birth control. I am not opposed to it (I use it myself) and believe very strongly in anything that prevents abortion, which is the destruction of a life already conceived. The whole portrayal of pro-lifers as against wasting any unjoined sperm and egg or believing that sex is only for reproduction is ridiculous.

[Carrie_C 9]

I agree. There are a lot of people who want to make birth control illegal.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

This is true what you say. It was my responsibility to know what I was getting. This happened 17 years ago when it was just coming out, and the nurse came into my room with the shot and she told me a little about it. She assumed that after my having 5 kids already, that I would want this for at least the first 3 months after delivery. So without thinking it thru, I took it. I regret that. My husband was upset with me for not consulting him first, and I explained that it all happened so fast, and then when the dr. came in, we discussed it with him in full and he told us about it. I have learned from that and would not let something like that happen again.

Maybe it's somewhere else on this forum, but I am not going to wade through 187 pages of posts - but you said that 17 years ago you had 5 children. If you don't mind, would you tell us how many children you have and how and when the 3 hard to adopt children came into your life - and what made them hard to adopt?

[pattygreen 5]

Maybe it's somewhere else on this forum, but I am not going to wade through 187 pages of posts - but you said that 17 years ago you had 5 children. If you don't mind, would you tell us how many children you have and how and when the 3 hard to adopt children came into your life - and what made them hard to adopt?

My husband and I had 7 children together. 3 Boys and then a girl and then 3 more boys. After our 2nd son, we took in 2 sisters who were born to an alcoholic and drug addicted mother, They were 2 and 8 months at the time and they were neglected and had some physical problems. Nothing that was too severe. One girl has scoliosis, and asthma and is often sick. She came to us malnurished, and with scabies. The other sister was born deaf in one ear and had speech impairments. She also had growth problems throughout her life. She took shots for growth, and at 22, now is 4' 10", so she did well for we took care of it early enough. When she was 16, we discovered that she was born without ovaries, so she can't have children. This is a big disapointment to her now, for she loves kids. She is a slightly slow mentally and needs some help with controlling finances for she can't count money. She came to us malnurished also. Then, after I had my 5th child, we took in a 12 year old who is slightly schitzophrenic and socially inept. He is 24 now and doing well. He graduated 4years of college and is a supervisor at UPS. He is looking for work in his field of business and computers. It just goes to show you, that even children with problems can grow up to be successful. right?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org

What if one day you woke up to a news story like this?

Feb 24: Tony Perkins, President of the formerly anti-abortion Family Research Council, admitted to the Associated Press that the organization's previously stated mission of saving the "unborn" had been ceded to other priorities. Perkins, who opposes preventing abortion through contraception, says, "The issue is whether taxpayers should fund, and thereby encourage, behavior that's risky and morally questionable," by which Perkins means having sex. The acknowledgment that his moral agenda trumps his professed desire to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, comes on the heels of a

new report released today

by the Guttmacher Institute, a non-partisan policy institute frequently cited by both sides of the abortion debate. The report found that increasing access to contraception is the most effective approach to reducing unwanted pregnancy rates and the need for abortion. That report specifically concluded that making contraception available to low income women reduces the number of abortions by nearly 40%. When birth control isn't available unintended pregnancy increases by 2 million and the number of abortions spikes by more than 800,000 each year. Researchers noted that providing contraception saves taxpayers 4 times as much as not providing it.

Some 91% of Americans favor contraception and so were startled to discover that groups which claim to be against abortion oppose the very strategy that results in significant declines in abortion. Instead, in a further shock, they support policies that researchers show lead to sharp increases in unintended pregnancy and abortion rate. Many ordinary self-described "pro-life" Americans were confused by news of the seemingly incomprehensible, yet universally-held, position of groups that have, for decades, promoted themselves as opponents of abortion.

In light of the new information, other groups formerly considered anti-abortion indicated that deep and long-held political grudges played a primary role in their unwillingness to support policies that reduce abortion. Troy Newman of Operation Rescue told the AP, "It's another Planned Parenthood bailout," referring to largest provider of prevention services in the US, "It covers their overhead."

Sometimes referred to as "The Pro-life Paradox," researchers and women's health advocates in recent years have drawn attention to the disparities between the mission statements of so-called "anti-abortion" groups and the effects of their policies. For example, the countries considered the most "pro-choice," where contraception is widely available and abortion is legal, and often free of charge, are those that also have the lowest abortion rates in the world. The countries with the highest rates of abortion are those that have adopted the policies of the so-called "anti-abortion" movement and have banned abortion and opposed efforts to make contraception more widely available.

Now, of course, comes that part in the movie where you realize the main character has been dreaming. Screechy music... Of course, the report is true, as are the quotes in this story, but the so-called anti-abortion movement refuses to admit that its long held political and fundraising habits have worked too well to now be abandoned, and so continues to resist common cause (and common sense). And the equally habit worn media continues to cover this story as if there are really two equally sincere but unfortunately opposed voices. Americans want this common sense approach. The fringe doesn't. In fact, 80 percent of voters believe that women won't achieve full equality without access to family planning and 72 percent want federal funding to help pay for birth control for low-income women. Now that the enabler in chief is out of office, hopefully the marginal will be marginalized, and along with them their media enablers.

This is what I have been saying but said much better here. The fringe will never prevail. Mainstream America rejects their extreme positions.

[Carrie_C 9]

Thanks Cleo, that is what I have been trying to say as well. There are a lot of prolifers who want to make contraception illegal as well as abortion.