Pro-forced pregnancy people are organizing a protest planned for June 7, the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut. What are they protesting? If you thought 'abortion', you'd be wrong! They're protesting birth control pills, claiming that "The Pill Kills Babies."
How this could happen when the pill prevents ovulation, and hence fertilization, is anyone's guess. But it hardly matters, since they're only concerned with controlling the sexual activity of women.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am not sure this belief is inaccurate. I'll have to do more research and check his sources, but if you accept the anti-abortion position, he seems to make a good argument for rejecting birth control pills.
I am not sure this belief is inaccurate.
Which belief? That birth control is a form of abortion? It's completely inaccurate. Abortions are procedures that terminate pregnancies, and pregnancy is defined as starting at implantation.
Further, while some pills may do that, most work by preventing ovulation, which means that there's nothing to fertilize anyways. It's all a load of bunk.
I'd suggest following the link in my post and reading the comments.
I'll have to do more research and check his sources, but if you accept the anti-abortion position, he seems to make a good argument for rejecting birth control pills.
The operative phrase here being "if you accept the anti-abortion position", which requires rewriting reality.
The operative phrase here being "if you accept the anti-abortion position", which requires rewriting reality.
Yes, and I do not support the anti-abortion position. I just thought the anti-pill position is a reasonable conclusion given their erroneous assumptions.
I just thought the anti-pill position is a reasonable conclusion given their erroneous assumptions.
Well, yes. It's well-known that one can logically support any conclusion when starting with false assumptions.
Post a Comment