(no subject)

[40cakes]

Motherfuckers.

No, wait. Childfreefuckers.

>^..^

Comments

[ciaoenrico.livejournal.com]

Holy crap! That is creepy as fuck.

You know, for years now I've been saying I'm not "anti-Christian," but give them time and they'll show you how they're "anti-anyone else."

Then again, for years I've even been in favor of ex-utero abortions - ones that happen after the fetus has left the womb. I'm all for them even ones as late as forty or fifty years after birth, if necessary. And with shotguns.

So maybe these people should just watch the fuck out.

[arafel.livejournal.com]

RAGE.

What. The. Fuck.

'Scuse me. You believe, o almighty fundie pharmacist, that life is sacred. I don't. So I'll respect your beliefs and not crack your head open, and you'll give me my pills. It's really very simple.

[robinterrae.livejournal.com]

I love the fact that not everyone is on the pill simply because they don't want to get pregnant. I know that I'm not. Then again, getting pregnant because of sex isn't going to happen for me anyway, so I don't have to worry. ^^

There are medical reasons to be on the pill, however. Personally, I don't think that I could live life not being on it at the moment. It makes things livable.

[chaosblue.livejournal.com]

Oh. My. GOD. It is not a human being any more than the tissues that compose your uterine lining, and you shed THAT (ideally) once a month! At that point, it's cells, albiet replicating ones (which tumors do, and we take THOSE out all the time). There's no heart, no brain, nothing composing human form at all besides DNA.

For the record, I am pro-choice. It's just... there's a certain line between reasonable doubt and sheer lunacy.

[sarcasticval.livejournal.com]

I too am on the pill for medical reasons. I love how all of the doctors in the article don't even consider that option. "OMG we must save teh tiny babies!"

Frightening.

Same answer, different viewpoint

[theatre-pixie.livejournal.com]

Mmmkay, it's people like these that make my belief system sound stupid. I am: 1)a Christian, 2)a pro-lifer, 3)a woman who believes in responsibility.

Okay, not even going to get into the sex-before-marriage argument. Not personally fond of the idea, but that's because I've been there, done that, got the emotional scars to go with it.

The pill--as most EVERYONE seems to like forgetting these days--was created for women who had irregular periods and/or anemia and/or other health problems. Birth control was a side-effect, and a terribly useful one at that. Now, I have girlfriends who are newly married and struggling to finish school, pay off student loans, pay various other bills, and in general "get a bit settled" in their newly-acquired married lives before raising a family. The pill helps them to do this. Because the pill is--next to vasectomies, abstinence, and "tube-tying"--the MOST effective form of birth control (and yes, the numbers get even better when one uses a second form of birth control, such as condoms). A lot of people want to have sex with their partner--who might even be their *gasp* spouse--and not have to worry about becoming pregnant afterward for various personal reasons.

Now, I do believe that life begins at conception. However, excuse me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the pill helped to kill off the little buggers even before they got to the egg. That was just... my assumption. I figured the hormones and stuff inside the pill helped to create more barriers for the sperm as it attempts to fertilize the egg. An egg, all by its lonesome, is not a living thing. It has the potential to become a living thing, but since we're not trying to prevent women from having their monthly cycle, I'm guessing we're pretty okay with the potential thing going down the toilet (Um... if ever some crazy person begins arguing against women having their period because it's killing children, don't tell me. I don't want to know).

I'm all about contraceptives. If you're going to have sex, fine, just do it responsibly. Use condoms and the pill because, if a child is not something you want in your relatively immediate future, you shouldn't have unprotected sex (or shouldn't have sex at all, if you can handle that).

There. I'm done. Wanted to prove that not all pro-lifers and Christians are wackos.

"YARRRR, the seas smell mighty unfriendly ahead, mates!"

[chaosblue.livejournal.com]

If you read carefully, that *is* the medically assumed case (that the wee half-humans to be are excused from reproductive exercises due to hostile enviroment a la horomones). The reason some can still live long enough to knock you up anyway is along the same reasons why pregnancy tests vary on how quickly they detect your wee one - horomone levels vary from person to person. The Pill is meant to simulate pregnancy, which triggers changes in the pH of the vagina as a side effect and consequently is quite hazardous to spermies' health. In some women, those levels just don't go high enough to be terribly effective, but they're still enough to trigger your period when the blanks/non-pill days come around (in a few women, the period doesn't even happen, suggesting further resistance/sensitivity). I wonder if there's ever been a study amongst women who got pregnant on the pill to see if they had "unusual" downtimes in their cycles. Might be illuminating.

I, for one, can't go on the Pill - it makes me TERRIBLY ill. Funny, when I got pregnant for real, it was pretty much the same story! ^_^;;

Re: Same answer, different viewpoint

[theatre-pixie.livejournal.com]

Amending:

Yes, I still think that these people are nuts--even though an author I really enjoy and respect has written arguments against the pill.

So, basically, I'm right. The egg cannot become anything more because it cannot attach to the uterine lining. I'm not sure if that is where conception lies or if it is immediately after fertilization and I don't really care. This is stupid.

In addition, what, exactly, are women who suffer from immobilizing cramps, anemia, irregularities in their menstrual cycles (I know one girl who didn't stop bleeding for over a month!), etc supposed to do? Unless a doctor can provide another option with which to handle these medical problems, then they CANNOT take away the option that does work. And, since the pill was initially created to combat these very issues, no one has the right to deny us the cure or treatment of said medical problems.

And why is it that it's the pharmacists and doctors who get to decide this issue? If a doctor said to a Jehovah's Witness, "You need this blood transfusion." The Jehovah's Witness could turn around and say "No. I won't take it for religious reasons." The same is true of DNA testing. A Jehovah's Witness cannot be made to submit to a DNA test because of their religious beliefs. Now picture an anemic woman saying to a doctor "I need to have my prescription of the pill refilled" and the doctor saying "Well, I don't believe in that, so I won't do it." Does the patient not have the right to say, "Fine. Then point me to someone who will. Because as my doctor, you are refusing me treatment that has been proven to work for my particular ailment. Now I, as the patient, have the right to go elsewhere for treatment." What kind of madness will this cause within both the medical community AND with insurance providers? What if none of the doctors that your insurance approves is willing to give you the pill? Then do you have to give up? Do you have to get different insurance or pay all of your medical bills on your own? *growls* Yep. This one makes me mad.

Re: "YARRRR, the seas smell mighty unfriendly ahead, mates!"

[theatre-pixie.livejournal.com]

*nods* Thank you. Went back, read some more, am STILL pissed--as you'll see below.

Re: Same answer, different viewpoint

[chaosblue.livejournal.com]

... amen and hallelujah. Can't add anything to that! ^_^

Re: Same answer, different viewpoint

[theatre-pixie.livejournal.com]

*nods* Thank you.

Now that I've cooled off some:
The issue may not be as widespread as people fear it is, but *sighs* it's all about rights. A doctor does have the right to refuse a certain treatment, however, when you have this appointment, you still have to pay the doctor who refuses to help you. You should at least get something useful for your money as they're getting money for their time.

I think that the main reason this pisses me off is that it's a hard-core abstinence push--really, it seems like it is. While abstinence is a good thing, I don't feel comfortable forcing the issue on others. Admittedly, that is because I'm not personally a virgin and I am in fact a recovering sex addict (sorry if that's TMI) who has never been married. I don't feel able to say "You must not have sex!" Because I, personally, failed that particular test. When you have sex/lose your virginity/whatever is really your choice (except for cases of child molestation and sexual abuse and incest and rape). I can tell people about my own personal regrets on the matter, if they'd like my input, but it's ultimately an individual decision. I'd much rather have something like the pill out there because it is, I feel, a responsible and relatively safe choice. I don't believe in abortion for any reason, but the pill... the pill is a safety precaution, a sex seatbelt. It is something that exists to protect you. It isn't a 100% fool-proof plan, but it's up there.

As to the doctors and pharmacists who exercise their right to choose whether or not to prescribe and/or fill a prescription for the pill... Well

Re: Same answer, different viewpoint (pt. 2)

[theatre-pixie.livejournal.com]

Well, women, be sure to have a backup doctor and/or pharmacy, I guess. Although I'm pretty sure that pharmacy chains like Walgreens and the pharmacies in stores like Wal-Mart and Target will soon be having their employees sign a contract that says they will fill any prescription that they have a doctor's order for, whether or not they agree with the patient and/or doctor's choice to use it.