Quote# 44167

Did you know the birth control pill can cause chemical abortions?

No, probably not, unless you're a radical pro-lifer like me, or a radical pro-abort. We all know.

But radical pro-aborts don't want you to know. And they call us the Neanderthals.

If women knew, some would feel morally obligated to refuse that contraceptive option. And that would mess up lucrative birth control pill sales, which nets pro-aborts hundreds of millions of dollars a year, as well as abortion sales from failed birth control pills.

Jill Stanek, World Net Daily 16 Comments [8/4/2008 1:46:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Sayna

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


Did you know that there are natural abortions that happen to women constantly, most of the time without them even knowing it?

No, probably not, unless you're a non-fundie and actually educated in the least bit.

Radical dumbfucks don't want you to know, because they don't want their pathetic God platformed ruined by the realization that God himself made human beings who constantly "kill babies"

If women knew, some would feel morally obligated to refuse to ever have sex or attempt to have a kid and that would mess up lucrative home schooled fundie overpopulation which nets republications hundreds of millions of votes every four years, as well as being able to discriminate against non-fundies.

8/4/2008 2:57:59 AM


I wonder the lack of condoms.

8/4/2008 3:01:18 AM


Extreme pro-lifers say that life begins at fertilization.
There is no evidence the pill can prevent implantation should break-through ovulation occur.

American Medical Association defines life at implantation.
Even if the pill did prevent implantation, it would not be an abortion.

8/4/2008 4:20:29 AM


Pro-lifer? Pro-aborts? Abortion sales?

You mean pro-life, pro-choice and the abortion sales is new to me.


8/4/2008 4:40:59 AM

Chemical abortions?, a bunch of hormones?, does this lady have a DICTIONARY?. The pill prevents OVULATION and, therefore, the union of an egg and a spermatozoid. Only that SOME pills contain hormones which may cause, as secondary effect, the implantation of a feconded egg(that is, if the egg is released at all)in the womb but, again, that is a side effect and it's not abortion because, you know, it happens with lots of medicines and in nature. And by the way, IT'S NOT CHEMICAL.

8/4/2008 8:13:16 AM


Myheadhurts has it mostly right. Implantation of a fertilized egg is the medical definition of the beginning of a pregnancy because that's what starts to change the female's body. And unlike fertilization, it can be detected. However, they can't define it as the beginning of life. The fertilizaed egg is technically alive, and so were the sperm and egg that formed them.

#648576: I think it is chemical, actually. It is a pill after all. And abortions do actually happen in nature. A miscarriage is also called a "spontaneous abortion".

8/4/2008 5:16:56 PM

Old Viking

The logic ... it's ... it's all mushed up and crooked.

8/7/2008 12:48:38 AM


@sayna The debate about sperm, eggs, and life has not been resolved. A virus appears to have more characteristics of life than haploid cells -viruses reproduce. Sperm are not usually classified as alive despite having motility because they are incapable of reproduction, one of the criteria. Not only do eggs lack motility, they also are incapable of reproducing. The confusion comes in with vocabulary. The development of the sperm is called a "life-cycle" and one can read that the sperm "dies" after three days. This vocabulary is not necessarily accurate, merely a way of describing a process.

However, one could make the argument that sperm are alive as highly specialized, free-roaming organs of the male's body.

Personally, I think of sperm as missiles with a limited amount of fuel, ATP, and a lot of packed instructions, DNA. Since the sperm cannot reproduce, I just don't see it as life.

8/7/2008 7:45:21 AM


As a quick note: Fertilization, a zygote, has more characteristics of life because of cell division, and many do see it as such. However, I tend to disagree based on the absolute need of the uterus lining, or approximate environment, for the cell divisions to continue and start the process of creating a fetus. This debate has also not been resolved.

8/7/2008 7:51:01 AM


Makes sense.

But I think whether or not it's "life" is irrelevant. We end lives all the time. The real question is "when, if ever, is it appropriate to sacrifice the rights and body of a person to a potential person"?

8/9/2008 8:02:57 PM


Guys, a chemical pregnancy is one that miscarries before the baby's heartbeat can be detected in an ultrasound (http://www.babyhopes.com/articles/chemical-pregnancy.html) In other words any abortion that happens between the beginning of pregnancy and the ability to see a heartbeat in an ultrasound is a chemical one. If you consider a pregnancy to beging at fertilization then progestin-only pills (minipills) can technically be considered abortive since they prevent implantation however if you only consider a pregnancy to begin at implantation then they are not abortive. If you want to avoid that dilemma in the first place go for combination pills that prevent ovulation.

I'm not defending Jill Stanek because I doubt she's using the concept of chemical abortion as meaning a chemical pregnancy in the regular sense but I felt it would be important to know this anyway.

8/10/2008 4:09:13 PM


Somebody needs a biology lesson. Oh, I forgot! They don't teach that subject in homeschooling or BJU anymore as it's a bit too anti-God, you know?

8/13/2008 4:48:04 AM

The pill is developed as a mean to prevent ovulation, so that the egg and the sperm never meet. They do it through the use of hormones, which are not "chemicals", they're produced in our body, BTW. Now, that SOME pills may have the secondary effect of irritating the womb but, I insist, that is not the usual effect and not searched by the pill(that's why Catholic married women who take it for reasons different to contraconception do it with the blessing of the Vatican). That is a well-known fact, by pro-life and pro-abortion guys and indifferent worldwide, only that many of them don't consider failing to implant an abortion and, of course, even those who do don't consider the pill an abortifacient. Whatever you consider an abortion, preventing ovulation with the tiny possibility of preventing implantation too is NOT abortion. Or what's next?, menstruation is murder?

8/24/2008 3:50:38 PM

Mortos der Soulstealer

Radical pro-aborts? Do they assault you and shove pills down your throat?

1/1/2009 1:31:04 PM


Last I checked birth control is kinda supposed to stop a baby from forming or "abort" if you wanna call it that or else I or any other female would be on it.

I don't know this statement just baffles me....

1/11/2009 12:40:31 AM


Did you know that the "pro-life" agenda is completely contradictory in its methods and goals? It wants to eradicate contraception, the use of which would reduce the number of abortions, and abortions.

You can't have it both ways, you brain dead fucks.

3/9/2013 8:25:16 PM

1 | top: comments page