Birth Control Is Harmful?

[guido911]

Are you kidding RW? You could not connect the article I posted which involved the murder of an infant by an abortion provider and my point that birth control is harmful?

Again, as for your examples of birth prevention (the pill, condoms, whatever) and whether they are "harmful", I do not believe these will result in the horrific butchering of an infant like an abortion. As for "harmful" in the overall sense, that is very subjective. If you operate under an assumption that being pregnant is "harmful" as opposed to not being pregnant being unharmful, then I guess birth prevention is by default not harmful.

On the other hand, birth control methods such as the pill and especially the rhythm method have a tendancy to spawn (no pun intended) unsafe sexual activity which can result in increased STDs. So in that sense it is harmful. In addition, as for the pill, there are documented cases, albeit statistically rare, of women suffering strokes, blood clots, and heart attacks. There are also examples of condom and pill failure to prevent pregnancy. As for other forms of birth control and whether they are harmful, say if you want to get into IUDs like the Dalkon Shield, then let's go.

[rwarn17588]

You said "in a sense" that birth control is harmful.

So do you want to ban all birth control?

[guido911]

I do not want to get into a debate over banning all birth control, which is well beyond the scope of the point I was making with the article. One point I will make, however, is that I am vehemently opposed to any tax dollars supporting birth control and especially for Planned Parenthood.

[rwarn17588]

"I do not want to get into a debate" translates into dodging the question.

You've been freely debating stuff here and other subjects on this forum all along. Why are you suddenly getting bashful?

Do you want to ban all birth control or not?

[guido911]

It's not being bashful, I am just super busy and my feeling is this could become a "battle royale."

[RecycleMichael]

According to Wikipedia...coitus interruptus is a form of birth control. It has been used for over 2,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus

How is it harmful?

(Do you know what they call people who use this method for birth control?...parents).

[art_cat]

I continue to be amazed by how ininsitive men [in a general view] act towards:
1) women's views,
2) the whole birth "control" issue,  
3) the issue of abortion.

It's baffling how many people are so against abortion and support war efforts. If they think abortion is killing unborn infants, why do they (those who are anti-abortion and pro-war)support the killing of people (including) children associated with war? (A bit off topic, I agree, but it's puzzling) GW Bush is one of these anti-abortion pro-war idiots (in my view, it's idiotic to be against what they consider killing, and then promote killing by war).

As an outsider, meaning I am not a resident of Oklahoma, I am amused by this thread, but the concept that "Birth Control Is Easy" is so simple, yet the very core meaning illudes some people. It's refreshing to see that there is intelligent life in Tulsa, LOL... (my own experiences in the past year visiting there would prove otherwise).

[rwarn17588]

Art_cat, if you deride the intelligence of Tulsans, it'd be a good idea if you got your house in order.

It's spelled "insensitive," not "ininsitive." You also should have used the word "eludes," not "illudes."

I'm not the best speller on the planet, but if you try to tear down other people's intelligence, don't throw stones in glass houses.

Other than that, I agree with you. []

I also noticed that guido has bailed on this conversation, claiming to be too busy, although apparently not too busy to weigh in on other topics.

Guess it got too hot for him here. [}:)]

[guido911]

RW, would you quit being so ininsitive to me. I am busy. Your inability to understand that fact illudes me. []

Don't worry, we will have our set to on the issue.

[guido911]

Oh, and RW, what exactly do you agree with art_cat? That men are insensitive. That being pro-life and supporting the war on terror is contradictory. That men have no business weighing in on the abortion issue.

The issue of birth control, and whether that is harmful in any form, and abortion, and whether that is harmful is obviously complicated. There are moral and spiritual reasons I have that leads me to the position that pregnancy termination methods such as abortion, RU-486, and any other post-conception method of "birth control" is harmful. It diminishes and destroys life.

Whether use of condoms, the pill, rhythm method, or recyclemichael's injection of coitus interruptus, which do not involve the termination of life but the prevention of conception, is harmful is a much different question. Are we talking about birth control in or out of marriage? Are we talking about educating elementary age children about birth control or making making birth control available to older children/teens? Because if it is the latter, then I certainly believe birth control in any form is harmful. I believe such encourages reckless and destructive behavior by children or teens. Anyway, I am not done with this issue yet.

Here's my question to you RW. Do you agree or disagree with my post below regarding life beginning at conception? I would like to hear your opinion (as well as art_cat if she does not mind reducing herself to the level of speaking to a male Tulsan) on that point.

[art_cat]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Art_cat, if you deride the intelligence of Tulsans, it'd be a good idea if you got your house in order.

It's spelled "insensitive," not "ininsitive." You also should have used the word "eludes," not "illudes."

I'm not the best speller on the planet, but if you try to tear down other people's intelligence, don't throw stones in glass houses.

Other than that, I agree with you. []

I also noticed that guido has bailed on this conversation, claiming to be too busy, although apparently not too busy to weigh in on other topics.

Guess it got too hot for him here. [}:)]

mea culpa [ck spelling] i am a good speller, actually, and a poor typist... one excludes the other; the facts remain the same; my typos are not the only ones here, fer sure!

[art_cat]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Oh, and RW, what exactly do you agree with art_cat? That men are insensitive. That being pro-life and supporting the war on terror is contradictory. That men have no business weighing in on the abortion issue.

The issue of birth control, and whether that is harmful in any form, and abortion, and whether that is harmful is obviously complicated. There are moral and spiritual reasons I have that leads me to the position that pregnancy termination methods such as abortion, RU-486, and any other post-conception method of "birth control" is harmful. It diminishes and destroys life.

Whether use of condoms, the pill, rhythm method, or recyclemichael's injection of coitus interruptus, which do not involve the termination of life but the prevention of conception, is harmful is a much different question. Are we talking about birth control in or out of marriage? Are we talking about educating elementary age children about birth control or making making birth control available to older children/teens? Because if it is the latter, then I certainly believe birth control in any form is harmful. I believe such encourages reckless and destructive behavior by children or teens. Anyway, I am not done with this issue yet.

Here's my question to you RW. Do you agree or disagree with my post below regarding life beginning at conception? I would like to hear your opinion (as well as art_cat if she does not mind reducing herself to the level of speaking to a male Tulsan) on that point.

dude, or ma'am, you, like me, have not bothered to take the time to see what gender the other of us is, not that it really matters, but the fact that you presumed that i am a "she" is not good[sexist at least!]. at any rate, birth control is easy and NOT harmful. "control": are you confused about what that term means? do you feel uncomfortable about allowing other people to be in control of their own birth control rights?

Too many religious zealots [is the spelling ok here?] here[the southwest] confuse being "religious" with being "spiritual". Being spiritual only requires "being". Being religious requires following some dogma, right? But to talk about morals is a whole other issue. The topic being: "is birth control harmful?" relies on 4 basic principles:
a) what is meant by "is"
b) what is meant by "birth"
c) what is meant by "control"
d) what is meant by "harmful".

So.... it's really a silly question, as there are so many potential answers to each of these, depending on what your God, god, Goddess, goddess, or whatever dogma, or spiritual base you believe in states what the answers are, yes? yes.

[guido911]

Are you kidding art_cat? Are you accusing me of being sexist? Did you even read your post? Let me help you remember what you wrote: "I continue to be amazed by how ininsitive men [in a general view] act towards: [] women's views"

[Townsend]

Oklahoma May Deny Women Affordable Birth Control Because It 'Poisons Their Bodies'

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22/1627441/oklahoma-birth-control-poison/?mobile=nc

Oklahoma already prevents women from using their insurance plans to help cover abortion services, but Republicans aren't stopping there. One state lawmaker wants to continue stripping insurance coverage for reproductive health services, advancing a measure that would allow employers to refuse to cover birth control for any reason — based solely on the fact that one of his constituents believes it "poisons women's bodies."

Under State Sen. Clark Jolley (R)'s measure, "no employer shall be required to provide or pay for any benefit or service related to abortion or contraception through the provision of health insurance to his or her employees."

According to the Tulsa World, Jolley's inspiration for his bill came from one of his male constituents who is morally opposed to birth control, and wanted to find a small group insurance plan for himself and his family that didn't include coverage for those services:

Jolley said the measure is the result of a request from a constituent, Dr. Dominic Pedulla, an Oklahoma City cardiologist who describes himself as a natural family planning medical consultant and women's health researcher. [...]
Women are worse off with contraception because it suppresses and disables who they are, Pedulla said.

"Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother," Pedulla said. "They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn't bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies."

The bill has already cleared a Senate Health committee and now makes it way to Oklahoma's full Senate. It is unlikely that either Jolley and Pedulla themselves rely on insurance coverage for hormonal contraceptive services — but if the measure becomes law, the two men could limit the health insurance options for the nearly two million women who live in Oklahoma.

Of course, contraception does not actually poison women. The FDA approved the first oral birth control pill in 1960, and that type of contraception is so safe that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends making it available without a prescription, as it is in most other countries around the world. Furthermore, considering that over 99 percent of women of reproductive age have used some form of birth control, the Oklahoma women who rely on insurance coverage for their contraception would likely disagree with Pedulla's assertion that it "suppresses and radically contradicts part of their own identity."

In reality, access to affordable birth control is a critical economic issue for women. When women have control over their reproductive choices, it allows them to achieve economic goals like completing their education, becoming financially independent, or keeping a job. But birth control can carry high out-of-pocket costs, and over half of young women say they haven't used their contraceptive method as directed because of cost prohibitions. Nonetheless, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly pushed measures to allow employers to drop coverage for birth control.

[Conan71]

Think Progress?? Masters of hyperbole, the Fox of the left.  How does Think Progress push obvious op-ed as hard news?

The bill has already cleared a Senate Health committee and now makes it way to Oklahoma's full Senate. It is unlikely that either Jolley and Pedulla themselves rely on insurance coverage for hormonal contraceptive services — but if the measure becomes law, the two men could limit the health insurance options for the nearly two million women who live in Oklahoma.

In reality, access to affordable birth control is a critical economic issue for women. When women have control over their reproductive choices, it allows them to achieve economic goals like completing their education, becoming financially independent, or keeping a job. But birth control can carry high out-of-pocket costs, and over half of young women say they haven't used their contraceptive method as directed because of cost prohibitions. Nonetheless, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly pushed measures to allow employers to drop coverage for birth control.

I'd love to see this study referenced where over half of young women say they don't use contraceptives as directed due to cost.  They can get cheap BC pills through Planned Parenthood.

Even if the bill passes, that does not put insurance benefits for 2 million Oklahoma women in jeopardy.  I suspect the number of employers who would seek out health insurance without BC benefits is very small.