Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 19, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 575

Isn't it Dishonest to Call the Morning After Pill a Contraceptive?

:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
In this forum whenever we discuss (hurl insults at each other in the name of good lulz) the coverage of contraceptives, the only real argument ever presented is that employers should be forced to cover birth control pills because they are used as medical treatments for controlling monthly cycles....blah...blah...blah...

[link]

But in this article, I was expecting to see the same argument about a private business with a Christian ownership group not wanting to cover contraceptives. Instead, I read that the sticking issues are that they do not want to cover abortion pills in their insurance.

Now these drugs are for the expressed purpose of killing a child(fetus, blob of cells, parasite, or any other wonderful names liberals have for this life) AFTER conception.

The medical definition of a contraception is a medical treatment that prevents conception. Prevents conception. We are talking about drugs that are taken AFTER conception. That is their purpose. So the first point, is can a government mandate on pre-conception treatments really mandate post-conception attempts to abort the resulting child?


The second issue, is that it seems as an owner of a business, you lose all rights to the free exercise of your religious convictions:

"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," the ruling said.

Those that celebrate the destruction of religious liberties will no doubt cheer this slap in the face of the Constitution. But those that actually care about the personal liberties we all enjoy and should expect, do you care about the dishonest measures being taken to classify something as pre-conception treatment when it clearly is not? Just to get it covered and forced on people, churches, and conscientious business owners that find forcing others to pay for your abortion as deplorable.

Those that really are pro-abortion have no excuses. You can't hide behind wanting this for some monthly period adjustment. There is only one purpose for these, and if you support this, you reveal yourself to be truly pro-abortion, and wanting others to pay for that.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconcenaris:
Cenaris Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Why? It's a process of prevent pregnancy when used.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012
Or terminating one.

But if prevention is the goal, why didn't they choose to use the variety of very available and affordable methods and substances prior to having sex?
Reply
:iconcenaris:
Cenaris Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
It can be used before or after regardless of its strength.Maybe some women want to take creampies (for a lack of less vulgar word)? Maybe they like that feel without being made pregnant? Science argues women who do take creampies (there's that word again) can be healthier and happier as a result.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012
lol.
Reply
:iconlilium-cruentus:
Lilium-Cruentus Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It's not an abortion pill. It prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg and makes in harder for the sperm to get to one. It's preventative and only works if you're NOT already pregnant, hence having to use it so soon after sex.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012
Plan B and especially ella also can work after an egg used been released and fertilized. They are not preventative. They are reactive after sex. And employers should not be forced to pay for these.
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012
If it was 100% conclusively proven that Plan B only worked by preventing ovulation and had no effect on fertilized or implanted eggs, then would you have a problem with it?
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012
I would have a problem with forcing employers to pay for it.
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012
Why? It's not abortion anymore, is it? I think that even you would agree that lone eggs or sperm aren't people. You can't use the "muh feelings" card anymore.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012
Because it serves no vital health issue that's not easily prevented.
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012
It's a social and societal issue.

There are more unintended pregnancies amongst teenagers, often in poorer areas. If there are a lot of poor teenagers who are having kids that they can't afford, then they'll become greater burdens upon the welfare system. You are opposed to this, yes?

And this isn't even going into the various health risks of teenagers or even preteens having children. There are greater risks of complication, and of the baby being unhealthy upon birth. So in some ways, it is a health issue.

This can be alleviated through ditching abstinence-based sex education (which studies show actually increases teen pregnancy) and instead teaching teenagers to have safe sex. However, people who are opposed to abortion also tend to be opposed to contraception-based sex education as well as supporting the unwanted children that invariably result.

So, I think that you're wrong here.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012
Thanks for your unrelated opinion.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconagburanar:
Agburanar Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
Fun fact: Hormonal birth control causes abortions, too! Such methods of birth control occasionally permit fertilization, but prevent the zygote from properly implanting.

Welp. We'd better just allow everyone to run roughshod over individual rights because fundamentalists are upset about another issue that doesn't concern them.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
I agree with your first sentence.

An employer not providing your abortion is not running roughshod over your ability to choose one.

This is why we are creating this destructive entitlement environment. Where liberals think everything they want is a right and if it isn't handed to them it is running roughshod over individual rights.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
The bigger question, IMO, is "is it just to allow an employer to force his or her religion upon employees".
My answer: No. It is not just for anyone to force their religion on people, especially if those people are dependent (and outside the family unit). An employer should not have the power to dictate the activities of his or her employees outside of the work, unless that activity directly affects the person's ability to do their job (eg no hard illegal drugs or coming to work drunk, etc).

The employer has to make a small sacrifice (paying for insurance), that then allows for employees to make their own decisions. Nobody is forcing the employer to advocate birth control or take it themselves, merely to allow comprehensive preventative health coverage to employees. Ultimately this can be beneficial to an employer, especially since a pregnant woman would have to have paid leave anyways.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
Not offering a non-essential option is not forcing anything on anyone.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
It is an essential.
1) Pregnancy can be dangerous and fatal.
2) Birth control is prescribed for more than just preventing pregnancy.
3) It's considerably cheaper for the employer.
4) Without insurance coverage it's something pretty much restricted to the wealthy and people who are able to get coverage via other government plans or Planned Parenthood (it's like $80+/month without insurance if you don't qualify for a government plan or Planned Parenthood assistance).
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
HAHA...

this is why we have the entitlement culture that we have.

Everything is a right and is vital so other people must pay for it.

1. Many forms of true contraception that prevent the need for these two specific abortifacients.

1b. Other people should not have to pay for your sexual choices, nor is this vital.

2. We are not talking about birth control that is used for other treatments. These particular ones have no other treatment use.

3. Not really, but irrelevant if employers don't want to provide this drug of choice.

4. We aren't talking about the pill. And it is not something you take monthly.

I know you want to get these talking points in, but try to keep up with the actual discussion. This is not talking about birth control in various forms referred to as "the pill".
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
All birth control is used to treat and prevent health conditions, which includes pregnancy, this is the case with Plan B. This is EMERGENCY medicine as well for rape victims.
It is cheaper for the employer. Which is cheaper, paying a few dollars more, or paying a woman for not working for 3 months, training a temp replacement and paying them? Then having to pay for the employer portion of insurance covering the pregnancy and birth, then the added dependent on the employees plan? That is not an irrelevant cost.

The cost factor still stands. Plan B with insurance is a couple dollars, potentially free at Planned Parenthood if the person qualifies, but it can be prohibitably expensive if someone falls out of that group ($48 at Drugstore.com, but can be up to $70).

Generally people don't talk about employers covering Plan B because there are many alternatives to it (eg pretty easy to get at Planned Parenthood) which often render a discussion moot.

But if it's medicine or doctor related, particularly in emergency situations, it should be covered. End of story. Religious beliefs of the employer cannot enter into this because they are not qualified to make medical decisions for their employees.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
This is not a vital part of a health regiment. And no doctor would use it as such.

And no employer should be forced to pay for it or offer it.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
It is vital and pregnancy can be life threatening.

You have not supported the statement.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
It is not vital as sex is not vital.

This is a choice and a needless product easily rectified by many many cheap and available methods.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
I'll just leave this little linky here: [link]

For those who don't like clicking links, it's a NY Times article saying that the claims that the morning-after pill works by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus (which would be tantamount to abortion if you believe that fertilized eggs are people, as maddmatt does) may be based on faulty and outdated science. Instead, it's probable that pills like Plan B work by delaying ovulation (which means no egg), and/or thickening the cervical mucus, preventing the sperm from reaching the egg (which means no sperm).

If this is true, then there is no fertilized egg that results, which means that there actually is no argument here. This is in contrast to something like mifepristone/RU-486, which is a pill designed to destroy implanted embryos and is, in fact, an "abortion pill." Besides, it can take up to three days for a sperm to reach an egg after sex, and three days is the maximum effective time of pills like Plan B.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
Imagine the NYT having a liberal opinion minimizing the morning after pill and those like ella.
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
Because science has a liberal bias, amirite?

If we discount all sources based on any bias at all, then why should anyone accept facts from you since you have a clear conservative bias? Or from me since I have a clear liberal bias? Or from anyone?
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
People have a bias, yes. And people who have a vested interested in the propagation of certain drugs and methods have biases. And the NYT certainly has a bias to try to portray liberal causes in the best light.

However the article does not list facts, figures, or even studies. It makes sweeping claims without fact trying to argue a case through persuasion.

"Science" has made no determination as suggested in the article as evidences by the still warnings posted by health organizations on risks to implantation. You can't claim one doctor at the Mayo Clinic overrides the consensus of the Mayo Clinic which lists the implantation risk in Plan B and Ella. Yet this article attempts to do that. A clear bias.
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
Well then, have the NIH [link]

Or the FDA [link]

According to the Mayo Clinic's online site, "Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted. Depending on where you are in your menstrual cycle, morning-after pills may act by one or more of the following actions: delaying or preventing ovulation, blocking fertilization, or keeping a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. However, recent evidence strongly suggests that Plan B One-Step and Next Choice do not inhibit implantation. " I'd say that that counts as a consensus.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
or keeping a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

FDA : " Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)."


And this does not cover Ella which has been proved in animals to kill embryos.

Of course you would say that this wavering is consensus. However other studies not promoted by the NYT show otherwise:

[link]
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
"...However, recent evidence strongly suggests that Plan B One-Step and Next Choice do not inhibit implantation."

That's some mighty fine selective reading there. Also, note the word "may" in your sentence, which implies that this is not exactly meant to be the primary method that Plan B works.

I'll admit that Ella may cause the embryo to not be implanted, but that's beside the point.

Also, its incredible how you scold me for using an article from the NY Times, which you claim has a liberal bias, and then turn around and give me an article from the National Review, which definitely has a conservative bias. I'm not discounting the credibility of the article, but it seems awfully hypocritical of you.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
***
That's some mighty fine selective reading there.
***
Yes. Some study somewhere "strongly suggests." Not "conclusively proves" or "overwhelmingly these 12 studies provide a 0% failure rate for women or chimps who took large doses of progesterone while pregnant."

***
I'll admit that Ella may cause the embryo to not be implanted, but that's beside the point.
***
That is the point. As well as it is an embryocide even for implanted embryos. And this is one of the "contraceptives" in question in this particular case.

***
and then turn around and give me an article from the National Review
***
I didn't. I gave you the medical paper directly. I did not give you the opinion of the National Review. Consequently, this is from one of the doctors the NYT article referenced.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Personally, I prefer condoms. :/ birth control pills do come with some side affects, like blood clots that can cause strokes. Of course, the chances of having one are one in a million and only if you take a bunch of them, but still. It's kinda scary.
Reply
:iconthelittleone:
thelittleone Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
I'm not going to get into this to deep, but I just have to say the Morning After Pill should be covered. Yes, it technically isn't a contraceptive , but other contraceptives do fail. I have only taken the pill once (and it was ridiculously expensive) and only because the condom my boyfriend used broke. I have no idea if I was actually impregnated or not, but I didn't wait for it grow and be confirmed by a doctor. The way I see it, just because you plant a seed in the ground, does not make it a tree. It needs the time to sprout and grow and I see nothing wrong in removing the seed from the soil before it has anytime to take hold. The world is overpopulated as it is, if I'm not ready for a child and am smart enough to take care of it before it becomes anything more than egg and sperm, then I am doing myself and the world a service by not dragging my feet and waiting for the real abortion procedure (which I don't really approve of - had I failed to take the pill and found out I was pregnant I'd have kept it).

Anyway, just my two cents. :twocents:
Reply
:iconvictorywept:
VictoryWept Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Student Digital Artist
The same thing happened to me, more or less. It was simply that we wanted to be fluid-bonded, and then took Plan B to make sure that nothing happened.
Reply
:iconcouchycreature:
CouchyCreature Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
fluid-bonded?? ...I have never heard that expression before but wouldn't an exchange of saliva qualify and be less risky?
Reply
:iconvictorywept:
VictoryWept Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Student Digital Artist
It refers to partners in a polyamorous relationship. There are those you are "fluid bonded" with, (those you feel comfortable sharing bodily fluids with/wouldn't mind getting pregnant by) and those who have other partners, that you want to avoid unprotected contact with.
Reply
:iconcouchycreature:
CouchyCreature Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
thanks.
Reply
:iconvictorywept:
VictoryWept Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Student Digital Artist
^.^ Sure thing.
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I think abortion is pretty cool. I abort babbies for fun and sport.
Reply
:iconavskyggene:
AvSkyggene Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
If anything the world needs more of them. It would help prevent retarded threads like this one even!
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist
lolwut?
Reply
:icontrorbes:
Trorbes Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012
We all know this isn't about "religious liberties," it's about your religion and how the US doesn't impose your religion's values upon its citizens. I mean, do you care if Jehovah's Witnesses have to provide blood transfusions to their employees, or new-age spiritualists have to provide insurance covering real medicine instead of homeopathy? I'm going to take a guess and say you don't.

Business owners have to play by the rules of the land, no matter their religion. You are not allowed to impose your beliefs against another's legal rights.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
Wow....the third time someone has brought up JW's.

And the answer is no. I don't think JW's should have to provide coverage for blood transfusions to their workers.

No one has a legal right to have someone else pay for their abortion. That is idiotic.
Reply
:iconmachine-intellectual:
Machine-Intellectual Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
1st rule of the News: Fox news is not news.
2nd rule of the News: Fox news is NOT news.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012
And yet the facts reported are accurate.
Reply
:iconmachine-intellectual:
Machine-Intellectual Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
No, the coverage there is pretty biased.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
Which facts are wrong?
Reply
:iconmachine-intellectual:
Machine-Intellectual Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Are you asking in the article or in Fox News in general?
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
The article.
Reply
:iconmachine-intellectual:
Machine-Intellectual Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I'm not saying this particular article is untrue, I'm saying Fox News has been known to be very biased towards conservatives. I don't know about you but I would like my news to be written without a biased.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
If you can find an error, you are free to note it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: