Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Mike in CT
Oakdale, CT
Recent Activity
-
Mike signed the petition | -
Mike commented on the article |Natural Family Planning is not the calendar method. I'm not sure where you heard that, but NFP is based on a woman's cycles, not the date on the calendar. It is totally responsive to irregular cycles if practiced correctly.
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/women/contraceptive/126.html
-
Mike signed the petition | -
Mike commented on the article |It's not often that I am in agreement with the petition actions at Change.org, but this is one petition I will sign.
-
Mike commented on the article |
"A facet that makes the obstetrician's burden unique in the whole field of medicine is his double obligation; he simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and the infant...The essential step in the initiation of life is by fertilization, the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the fusion of the two cells into a single cell."
Dr. Alan Guttmacher, ardent proponent of abortion, in his book Pregnancy and Birth: A Book for Expectant Parents New American Library; Revised Ed edition (January 1, 1962)
-
Mike commented on the article |
Move on, people. Nothing to see here.
-
Mike commented on the article |
@ Amie:
you said, "As well, abstinence itself actually does not always work. In fact, some young people think that abstinence means refraining from penile/vaginal sex and not anal or oral sex and finding themselves with an STI."
You can't refute what I said by citing the ignorance of others.
-
Mike commented on the article |
Amie:
I'll admit my response was a bit unclear. You are correct that EC acts primarily to prevent ovulation, but studies have not ruled out the possibility that it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.
Such a risk in light of the principle that taking an innocent human life, however young, is not morally tenable, makes the use of EC untenable in certain circumstances, though the moral principle certainly keeps open its use in the case of rape victims when ovulation has not occured.
See this document also from the Princeton website. I'll cite James Trussell, PhD, Director, Office of Population Research, Princeton University:
"To make an informed choice, women must know that ECPs-like all regular hormonal contraceptives such as the birth control pill, the implant Implanon, the vaginal ring NuvaRing, the Evra patch, and the injectable Depo-Provera,41 and even breastfeeding42,43,44,45- prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium. At the same time, however, all women should be informed that the best available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that levonorgestrel and ulipristal acetate ECPs' ability to prevent pregnancy can be fully accounted for by mechanisms that do not involve interference with post-fertilization events.
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/MOA.pdf
-
Mike commented on the article |
While abstinence-only education may not always work, especially when it has little to no cultural or familial support, abstinence itself always works.
Everyone I know, including myself, who was abstinent before marriage, has never had to terminate a baby, has never had to worry about STDs, will not have his wages garnished to support children in numerous families. This is not to brag, it's just to say, "Wake up!" This culture is on a fast track to disaster, and the only substantive reason that anyone can give to rebut the idea of chastity is, "It's hard! We don't want to. We want to have sex."
Of course we do, sex is good! But like anything good, it has a proper context for the good of all.
Peace.
-
Mike commented on the article |
@Erin:
You've brought up short courtships twice. I know several couples, happily married for decades, who had short courtships. My question to you is, the cultural trend toward delayed marriage and cohabitation before marriage has lowered the divorce rate, how, exactly?
And genitalia size? Is that really your argument?
For avoiding pregnancy for married couples, Natural Family Planning is extremely effective (moreso than the pill, condoms, etc.), is completely reversible at any time, is very low in cost (just the cost of a thermometer, a pen and paper), and is completely safe.
To that point, and this is to the larger Change.org community at large: I find it disastrously ironic that this website is full of petitions and actions to remove chemicals from food, from water, from packaging, from toys, etc. Yet aggressively, you seek to not only widen access, but make it subsidized by the taxpayer, for women to pump their bodies full of noxious chemicals whose sole purpose is to thwart a healthy, functioning system of their bodies! Does this really make sense?
Impact
2 Actions
0 Recruits
Top Causes
|
1 Action
|