In Which I Attempt To Be At Least Slightly Politically Neutral And Most Probably Fail Completely :(

[ruby_c_took]

Science. It's fun. It's complicated. It's precise. It's also often invoked in rhetoric to make things 'true', whether there is actual science going on or not. I take exception at this -- especially that the most abused facet of scientific research is most scientists' devotion to accuracy

Comments

[lilybelladonna]

I have heard that since one of the effects of birth control pills is to thin the lining of the uterus (or maybe just prevent some of the build-up), it could be harder for a fertilized egg to latch on. So I suppose that could be the "irritation" they're talking about, although really, a lack of build up isn't irritation, so . . . yeah.

I agree that pro-life groups shouldn't be attacking birth control. I think that their reasoning probably stems from a knee-jerk reaction: if we say birth control is okay, then people will think it's okay to have sex before marriage because there are no potential repurcussions (in the form of a baby, anyway.) It is, however, bad reasoning. It does not take into account (as you pointed out), people who are married but not prepared to start a family, and people who take birth control for other reasons. It also does not take into account that some people will have sex before marriage, and if they do not take birth control they may get pregnant and may abort the child, which, as you mentioned, is what they should really be trying to prevent.

I do think that anyone who has sex should be prepared to accept the fact that pregnancy may result and, should pregnancy occur, be prepared to either raise the child or give it up for adoption, *but* I see nothing wrong -- and many things right -- with reducing that chance of pregnancy. Using scare tactics to prevent people from using birth control is irresponsible and harmful.

As a side note, I'll admit that I'm disappointed but not surprised that pro-life groups use money to support causes other than opposing abortion. I mean, look at the Union. Look at the PTA. Look at the AARP. You think you're supporting one thing, and then you find out that they've been using your money and your name to support tons of other tangentially-related political causes in which you may or may not believe. It's sick.

I'll stop this comment before it grows longer than your post.

[ruby_c_took]

lol, your comment was short! well, sort of.

Unfortunately, I think for some of the more religious (well, Catholic) based groups, the reason is that they see birth control as abortion. I think they really do -- one quote about not using condoms mentioned how birth control is going directly against God's will and therefore is wrong.

The largest group of women who currently get abortions are women who already have children, which I think is a positive sign when it comes to abortion encouraging sex before marriage. I'm not sure how they count pregnancies terminated because of a problem with the fetal development, though, which would be interesting to know. I think there's also a fairly decent amount of women who do end up having a child/another child some time after an abortion.

I know that the AARP is fairly ridiculous, but I'm almost afraid to ask about the PTA. That's the Parent Teacher's Association, right? We didn't have a chapter here, lol, and I didn't realize they were also a political force. But that's the reason I don't like giving money to the Democratic Party itself, because there are too many different issues, some of which I don't agree with. Also, they're pretty disappointing.