I hope you did not think I implied it was.

 

No, didn't mean it that way

 

I was just putting my 2 cents in.

 

The reason I know is my Better Half (really) did not have her period for a year and they used birth control to regulate her.

Has conception occurred? Medically, I don't know enough about what you are saying.

 

Yes.

 

Some birth control pills prevent conception.

 

But some do nothing to prevent the egg from being fertilized, it just prevents the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine walls and then it will pass. Conception has occured, but it isn't allowed to attach and grow inside the womb.

Yes.

 

Some birth control pills prevent conception.

 

But some do nothing to prevent the egg from being fertilized, it just prevents the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine walls and then it will pass. Conception has occured, but it isn't allowed to attach and grow inside the womb.

 

I can't honestly say I know my position on the last. Will have to study and pray about it.

Are they a controlled substance?

Yes, they are both Schedule III controlled substances requiring a prescription.

I can't honestly say I know my position on the last. Will have to study and pray about it.

 

The critical thing is that it happens post conception. That is a fundamental point of contention against abortion or the morning after pill.

 

It would be hard to be against abortion on the condition that it is killing an unborn fetus and then not be against this type of birth control pill.

The critical thing is that it happens post conception. That is a fundamental point of contention against abortion or the morning after pill.

 

It would be hard to be against abortion on the condition that it is killing an unborn fetus and then not be against this type of birth control pill.

 

It all really depends on when you believe life begins . . . and there is not definitive science on that .

Science and medicine have no part to play in the decision that this country should make.

 

Did we need scientific and medical proof to know that blacks were humans like us and deserved fully human rights like us?

 

No, than God, this country came to it's senses and realized we were wrong with that position in this country. I hope I am still alive when this country comes to it's senses on this issue, too.

 

By belief, if you mean faith, I can argue this position without ever bringing faith into the argument. And honestly most times I do. It is wrong whether I am a Christian, a Hindu, an Islamic, or an atheist.

 

BTW, I am not sure whether to be offended by perjoratively or not. I don't know what it means.

 

Know we didn't need scientific proof the prove that people from Africa were humans, we knew they were, we just had to convince the southern baptists that scripture did not really support their belief that some people were meant to be slaves:flame:

It all really depends on when you believe life begins . . . and there is not definitive science on that .

 

Right. When I said it would be hard to be against abortion "based on the belief that it is killing an unborn fetus", and then not be against this, that is what I meant. If you believe life begins at conception, and that is why you object to abortion, then how could you not object to a pill that does what this type of birth control pill does.

Yes, they are both Schedule III controlled substances requiring a prescription.

 

Therefore, if you do not have a prescription, it is illegal to take them.

Yes.

 

Some birth control pills prevent conception.

 

But some do nothing to prevent the egg from being fertilized, it just prevents the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine walls and then it will pass. Conception has occured, but it isn't allowed to attach and grow inside the womb.

 

A pregnancy doesn't occur until implantation. MANY fertilized eggs are passed through a woman's system naturally b/c they fail to implant or have been fertilized after the woman's body is receptive to implantation. So I guess women are guilty of murder if their body passes a fertilized egg.

 

And then there's eptopic (sp?) pregnancy. Is a woman who gets an fertilized egg stuck in her tubes a murderer b/c it needs to be removed? Is the doctor who performs the life saving procedure guilty of murder?

Know we didn't need scientific proof the prove that people from Africa were humans, we knew they were, we just had to convince the southern baptists that scripture did not really support their belief that some people were meant to be slaves:flame:

 

So slavery is the southern baptists fault?

 

The founding fathers owned slaves. So, using your logic, they must have been southern baptists. But according to thread after thread after thread on here, the Founding Fathers were not religious.

 

Someone's view doesn't make sense.

A pregnancy doesn't occur until implantation. MANY fertilized eggs are passed through a woman's system naturally b/c they fail to implant or have been fertilized after the woman's body is receptive to implantation. So I guess women are guilty of murder if their body passes a fertilized egg.

 

 

If this is accurate, it seems like human life would not begin till the implanting of the fertilized egg.

So slavery is the southern baptists fault?

 

The founding fathers owned slaves. So, using your logic, they must have been southern baptists. But according to thread after thread after thread on here, the Founding Fathers were not religious.

 

Someone's view doesn't make sense.

During the nineteenth century one of the principal loci of opposition to abolitionism was the southern religious establishment.

 

By the 1830s tension had began to mount between Northern and Southern Baptists churches. The support of Baptists in the South for slavery can be ascribed to economic and social reasons. However, Baptists in the North claimed that God would not "condone treating one race as superior to another". Southerners, on the other hand, held that God intended the races to be separate. Finally, around 1835, Southern states began complaining that they were being slighted in the allocation of funds for missionary work.

 

The break was triggered in 1844, when the Home Mission Society announced that a person could not be a missionary and still keep his slaves as property. Faced with this challenge, the Baptists in the south assembled in May of 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, and organized the Southern Baptist Convention.

If this is accurate, it seems like human life would not begin till the implanting of the fertilized egg.

 

I hope you can see the slippery slope here. Tagging a fertilized egg as a human is one step before tagging the egg or sperm itself as human. You'd have to ban periods and self-love. :lol: It might sound funny but an overturing of Roe v Wade could start a chain reaction that makes birth control illegal. And at that point my wife and I would be criminals.

During the nineteenth century one of the principal loci of opposition to abolitionism was the southern religious establishment.

 

By the 1830s tension had began to mount between Northern and Southern Baptists churches. The support of Baptists in the South for slavery can be ascribed to economic and social reasons. However, Baptists in the North claimed that God would not "condone treating one race as superior to another". Southerners, on the other hand, held that God intended the races to be separate. Finally, around 1835, Southern states began complaining that they were being slighted in the allocation of funds for missionary work.

 

The break was triggered in 1844, when the Home Mission Society announced that a person could not be a missionary and still keep his slaves as property. Faced with this challenge, the Baptists in the south assembled in May of 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, and organized the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

Interesting. It seems Baptists were both the helping the cause of abolishing slavery and supporting slavery.