Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion

If you need more than this, I suggest you do the search. How does an IUD prevent pregnancy?Both types of IUDs work primarily by preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg. The copper IUD releases copper into the uterus, which works as a spermicide. The others release a form of the hormone progestin into the uterus. The progestin thickens the cervical mucus so that sperm can't reach the egg. In some women, progestin may also prevent ovulation.In the unlikely event that an egg does get fertilized and survives, both types of IUD cause inflammation in the uterus that makes it harder for the egg to implant there. Hormonal IUDs also cause thinning of the uterine lining, making implantation more difficult.IUDs and birth control: What they are and how they work | BabyCenter

Thanks so much for the link, but I did ask for medical literature, not a for-profit website. In any case, it really proves more my point: an IUD isn't an abortifacient since later in the page it is explained that an IUD can be successfully removed if the patient becomes pregnant while using an IUD.Next, I'll just put this out there: To understand why scientists believe that the IUD, Plan B and Ella are not abortifacients, it is important first to understand the biology of conception. In order for a woman to become pregnant after sexual intercourse, her ovaries must release an egg (ovulation). Sperm can remain viable inside her reproductive tract for five days. Therefore, if intercourse takes place up to five days before ovulation or within two days after, both sperm and egg are viable and the egg cell can be fertilized.

​

Now, just because an egg is fertilized doesn't necessarily mean that it will develop into an embryo. For that to happen, the fertilized egg must be implanted into the endometrium that lines the uterus. Implantation happens seven days after fertilization, if it happens at all. Scientists estimate that, at a minimum, two-thirds of fertilized eggs fail to implant.

​

Now, back to contraception. When church officials argue that the IUD could be an abortifacient, they are relying on research from the 1970s that indicated that the IUD could affect an embryo's ability to implant. Decades of research since has demonstrated that the IUD actually works much earlier in the reproductive process than once thought. It does not destroy an implanted embryo. Approximately one in 100 women using the IUD get pregnant.
What an abortifacient is -- and what it isn't | National Catholic ReporterEdited by ooh-child, : Cut off last paragraph

Sometimes. Sometimes not.There is nothing absolute about any of those.

That's really tough on you, so sorry. But I'm betting you can use google too. ffs. So what? The IUD prevents both fertilisation and implantation. But if it fails it can be removed. It's not a material part of the argument what an IUD does or does not do. If a modern, perfect IUD now only prevents conception, great, that's one less harm in the world. Hey, you can use google!

I would say that conception is a well defined point on the way to a new human being. The rest of what you say is just something you believe. Ah, that you believe this makes this discussion make more sense. You know it's wrong but justify it? I think you may be conflicted. Yes, I understand you feel this way. If this is what you believe then that's fine, but you should speak for yourself instead of saying "we." A better question is why you're asking why I can't explain it just before quoting the sentence where I explained it. And how did you manage to misstate what I think a mere quarter inch from where you quoted me saying what I think? When does life begin? I think you're confusing two different senses of the word alive. The fetus is not dead before birth. The question is whether it's a living human being before birth, and if so, when did it become a living human being? No no, I was referring to your claim that the "collective, majority opinion" makes something okay. It doesn't make it okay. Yes, it's what we've got, and it means our laws don't consistently represent the "collective, majority opinion," which means it doesn't make something okay. Tell me about it. I was explaining why, contrary to your claim, our laws do not necessarily represent the "collective, majority opinion," and so the fact that a law has been enacted doesn't make something okay. It might represent the best we can do, but that doesn't make it okay. You think abortion is not okay, and if you're right then laws enacted by our government do not make it okay.AbE: I alluded to this in an earlier message, but it bears repeating. Even if our government did successfully represent the "collective, majority opinion," that doesn't make okay anything it makes legal. Governments don't have that kind of power.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

How do you explain this from your Message 217: --Percy

When I saw your discussion with Tangle about IUDs I went to Wikipedia and read up. I couldn't believe it was saying that both types of IUD prevent fertilization, because I was taught they prevented implantation back in my 1969 sex ed class. This explains it: This excerpt refers to research from the 1970s, so the timeframe doesn't line up exactly, but I still think that explains it. Thanks for posting that.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix gender reference.

You're welcome, it's why I thought that passage (from a religiously oriented site) would be helpful.Oh, and I'm female.

But as usual we have the problem of whether abortion is ending a human life or not. Are you saying that even if it IS ending a human life it is fine to abort it for the reasons you give, more time for husband, friends, social life, hobbies and so on? Or does your valuing those things over having children depend on being convinced that abortion is NOT ending a human life?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What we are saying is that it is irrelevant whether or not we think having an abortion is justified for the reasons given; what is relevant is whether the mother, possibly the father, and the medical staff that are dealing with that particular instance think it is justified.

Oh right, what can I be thinking? Murder has always been an elective procedure in civilized nations.(This is based on "medical staff" not really being medically motivated but more like pro abortion activists.)But that's YOUR opinion, I haven't heard Stile say anything that ridiculous yet.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I thought you agreed to stop calling it murder.

Sometimes it is murder and needs to be called murder to wake some people up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So "sometimes" you're in favour of executing or imprisoning the woman.

Not interested in the semantics of the issue.