Contraception is abortion says Bush administration

Actually, what birth control does is make a fertilized egg (conception) unable to attach itself to the wall to then grow by thickening the walls of the female uterus. (Any doctor, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) So yes, the pill is included in this statement.

What I find interesting is that condoms would still be fine as it acts as a barrier preventing conception. So let me get this straight....they want every married couple to go back to using condoms and not the pill?

So the woman doesn't have to worry about taking a hormone (that sometimes causes her to have headaches and all kinds of other nuisances) and the guy has to wrap up so he feels less of the sexual encounter?

Less pleasure for men...possibly more for women...

I don't think these guys have thought this through, ey ladies?

In response to Mirih's comment that the proposed definition of abortion doesn't include birth control pills- you are incorrect. The birth control pill affects all aspects of a woman's reproductive system. If a woman happens to ovulate, despite being on the pill, and that egg is fertilized, the pill can prevent implantation of that fertilized egg by altering the uterine lining. This is why I don't get why some people are so upset by the day after pill -more or less it's just a stronger dose of a regular birth control pilll. both prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Furthermore, the IUD prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. So, the author of the blog is correct - some birth control methods do indeed fall under this proposed definition of birth control.

Whether you agree or not with women having the choice to have an abortion, I would hope that all people agree that woman should have access to birth control. Even Catholics who claim they are anti-birth control will practice Natural Family Planning (no, not the rhythm method), which in my mind is just another form of birth control. All women should have access to whatever form of birth control suits them best.

well...consider me schooled on birth control.

and for the record, i am for full access to birth control.

my main concern was the skew of the article. the white house proposal was meant to protect doctors, nurses etc from discrimination if they had an objection to birth control. how it suddenly got slanted into redefining abortion is beyond me.

KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF OF MY BODY.

By the way, a few years ago Congress passed a law REQUIRING insurance companies to cover Viagra, Cialis, et al, but not birth control. I find that just sickening,

soon will be sex forbitten by low remember " Fortress 2 " movie!!

And by the way Roger, you can't lump all forms of birth control together. You can be in favor of some forms of birth control and not be in favor of other forms. All women should be able to practice whatever form of birth control they wish UNLESS that infringes on the life of another.

I now favor birth control that prevents fertilization, but not forms of bc that cause a fertilized egg (LIFE) to be terminated.

Karen - I find it hard to believe any reasonable person doesn't acknowledge the difference between taking a BC pill to inhibit implantation of a POSSIBLY viable fertilized egg, vs.abortion of fetus. I hardly think people are altering their view of BC just to make it more "palatable". There is, quite simply, a HUGE difference between the two, at least from a logical, scientific/medical standpoint, and from an ethical standpoint as well.

I don't see the HUGE difference. I am not opposed to birth control and used the pill for many years myself. But once I realized that it could prevent a fertilized eggs from implanting, I had to stop using that particular method. I moved on to something else. No big deal...just consistent with my beliefs.

And yes, if people refuse to acknowledge that it is the same, they ARE altering their pov to fit their own conscience. What I really think is that most people haven't sat down and thought about it at all.

You cannot claim LIFE AT CONCEPTION and then draw a line anywhere other than at conception. People can draw whatever lines they want, but if they say they believe that life begins at conception, but then say that they are ok if the pill prevents an FERTILIZED egg from implanting and therefore terminates the pregnancy at 2 days old...then they are inconsistent.

If you don't believe life begins at conception, then there would be no reason to oppose this form of birth control.

So if "anything that TERMINATES a life AFTER CONCEPTION is is indeed abortion", then a miscarriage (also termed spontaneous abortion) is an abortion - should there be government-enacted-and-enforced laws around those, too?

I didn't say the government should do or not do anything.

Yes, spontaneous abortion - is an abortion. It ABORTS the fetus at whatever stage.

I just said call it what it is and ask that people are consistent. I've expressed my opinion on birth control, but haven't said what anyone should believe, just if they believe life begins at conception, that any act to prevent life AFTER conception is also an abortion.

And even though I personally believe life begins at conception, I don't think the federal government should be involved in any way.

Can't you be equally concerned about the fate of the mother and the child (fetus)?

I personally don't feel that way, no.