Bush plan defines pill, IUD as abortion

Personally I find the 'Christianization' of our government to be among the most frightening legacy of the Bush admin. I just picked up Doubt is Their Product by David Michaels. Fantastic read for those of you interested in just how deep the corporatization of our government ran with Bush 2. In it he gives several examples of Bush 2's rabid Abstinence campaign. quote "Early in the Bush admin., the CDC pulled a fact sheet on proper condom use from it's website. It replaced....with one that stressed condom failure rates and promoted abstinence" "In 2005 the federal govt. spent $170 million on abstinence programs, more than double what was spent in 2001(although $100 million less than the pres. had requested.)" Perhaps the most frightening example was the outright lies of the National Cancer Institute. "In 2002 the NCI posted information on it's website that promoted the totally unsupported theory that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer." They were forced to remove it, but come on people!! There is a reason for church and state separation. We have all of these fantastic personal freedoms; to be for and against many issues, to speak our opinion of, etc. If we stomp on our constitution anymore, it will be as futile as your screams from inside those camps.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ObamasLoveChild] I truly did not mean for this to read like an ad for a book- I apologize. I did mean what I wrote however.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ObamasLoveChild]

reply to post by sylph hugger

Also, if the plan is to depopulate the world, why prevent birth control?

If you were in control of the wealth and power of the world-- who would you want to get rid of, and who would you want more of? My answer: you'd get rid of citizens dissatisfied with the status quo, and you'd probably want to keep the easily-duped breeders of cheap labor.

Incredible! Thanks, burdman, for this news!
Well, this equating contraceptives with abortion has been a religious one, so much so, that Ireland's ban on such was overturned as late as 1973, so I am dumbfounded about this latest proposal. Would a vasectomy next be on the list?

Would doctors, nurses, social workers, etc. have to tell clients what a priest told my sister and her husband years ago...sleep in separate beds?

I'm afraid this rule puts government on a slippery slope up a woman's vagina.

reply to post by deltaboy


What in the world??? You think you people shouldn't have the right to decide they don't want a kid? Honestly the world would be a better place if my mom DID abort me. But I was no 'accident', and honestly, this doesn't affect me either, since I got fixxed shortly having my first and only child.

And I don't see how a couple acknowledging that they don't want kids, impedes on ANYONE'S rights. Not the unborn, and not the idiots that voted for bush.

I hope that birth control really never is abolished. People should not be forced to breed.

But he's sort of right. He's defining it is anything that results in the death of a zygote, whether it's implanted or not. And abortion is killing a developing baby, yes? And this development begins when an egg is fertilized by a sperm to create a zygote, which becomes an embryo, yes?

I don't get the problem here. That's abortion. Whether you should be allowed to do it is another story.

Then abortion is ALSO when a man 'gets off', into a towel, or when a woman ovulates, and the potential human passes, unfertilized and unused.

Women are just as guilty for menstruating, as men are, when they kill off millions of potential humans a day.

reply to post by LostNemesis


Actually, there is a difference. The bill at least isn't defining physical barriers to fertilization as being abortificants. Only chemical or hormonal substances that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Originally posted by LostNemesis
Then abortion is ALSO when a man 'gets off', into a towel, or when a woman ovulates, and the potential human passes, unfertilized and unused.

Women are just as guilty for menstruating, as men are, when they kill off millions of potential humans a day.

...No, because the egg wasn't fertilized and therefore did not become a zygote, a developing baby. This bill, as is stated by a post above me, is only defining things that kill a developing baby as abortion. And it is, by definition, correct.

I don't care if you think abortion should be legal, or if it's right. But whining about this is ridiculous.

"But whining about this is ridiculous. "
----------------------------------------

yes, the whining will start when the women, unable to prevent pregnancy but saying no way to motherhood, take the only option they have....celibacy...
then, McCain will be in office to rewrite the laws giving males their "God-Given" right of lordship over their wives back to them.

but, ya, any type of birth control that is designed to make the uterus and unhabitable place for the fertilized egg is pretty much abortion.
watch they'll slip this thru some law, without 99% percent of the congress knowing about it and it will just slide right through. what the heck none of them actually read all those pages in the bills anyways.

If Barack Obama is elected, the extremist definition of abortion probably would be overturned.

There is "hope".....

Really though....makes me want to flog the dolphin just to spite them.

reply to post by dawnstar


This has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of pretty much all birth control. All this is talking about is hormonal contraceptives that abort a developing zygote. Pills which prevent a zygote from implanting, therefore chemically aborting the developing baby.

This has absolutely nothing to do with any forms abortion that prevent fertilization. At all.

All this is doing is defining chemical abortion as what it scientifically is. And again, complaining about this is nonsense.


And calling this "extremist" is absolutely political slander. Bull#.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Johnmike]

First off...I doubt it, a lame duck president rarely puts forth a serious bill. And on a humorous side, would this consider all forms of safe sex abortion, even masturbation? Laughable, which is why I say "I doubt it"

Originally posted by yellowcard
First off...I doubt it, a lame duck president rarely puts forth a serious bill. And on a humorous side, would this consider all forms of safe sex abortion, even masturbation?

Laughable, which is why I say "I doubt it"

No. Only things which kill a developing baby. In this case, it's including things that prevents a zygote from implanting, therefore being aborted and flushed out of the woman.

We all know that the government has an agenda to control the population in any way possible. This is just a mis-direction to keep us from knowing what's really going on.

I wonder how many of the shots and therapies given to children these days will make them grow up infertile.

Heard of the HPV vaccination? It was pushed onto young girls not too long ago, even FORCED in some states, and there was some controversy about it not even being effective, or leading to potential sterylization.

Ok, just my opinion. There population is already way above what those really in power want.

As you can see I have nothing in my left hand !!!!!!.... As I stab you with my right. Mis-direction.