Voted something between a and c, that isn't b. Really, voted "you should write more in general 'cause you have interesting things to say".
And yes, in terms of any choice you should be able to investigate all of the options ahead of you, unless the choice is highly time-sensitive. And something tells me that "deciding whether or not to take the pill" isn't a highly time-sensitive choice.
i speak for dan and mysleflalaithpigeonMarch 16 2007, 19:39:06 UTC
A defiantely a. not just because our ideas/ideals are similar, but also because i consider you a friend and i like to know what is happening in your life, and that you are well. lj is not just a place to rant about rnadom things, but a place to let those who care about you know that you are ok. or, if you arent ok, it gives us a palce to talk to you. ( granted the phone works just as good but we dont happen to have your number).
Re: i speak for dan and myslefjjlcMarch 16 2007, 20:17:23 UTC
((hug)) Sorry I haven't seen you in so long... and somehow I think I left a poster at your place last time I saw you? You can email me jessi at mylastnamejr.name (replace mylastname with my real last name) and I will give you my phone number, or you can give me yours.
Moral issues aside, if Jessi was concerned about the morality of birth control that acted post-fertilization, it was Jessi's responsibility to insist on knowing what the exact contraceptive mechanism is.
A paradigm that requires a doctor to inform the patient of every possible factor that has a non-zero chance of influencing a patient's decision would lead to information overload. There are just too many things that a person might want to know if the person feels any given way about any given issue, and throwing all those facts at a patient, especially a weak-willed and vulnerable patient, is counterproductive.
This is where it really does become an issue that the AMA changed the definition of contraception to call the pill a contraceptive. This is not a peripheral concern, but a major belief held by a large amount of people. Also, you do not address the issue that the doctor refused my request for information on alternatives. Why weren't all my options for birth control discussed
( ... )
Well said...I'm happy to have provided you with a little inspiration. It makes it all worth it! Speak the truth, girl...it is hard to receive the negative comments, but keep your eye on planting the seed. Keep humble, prayerful and persistent!
I personally think that abortion is an issue that reasonable people can disagree on, so I'd vote c.
On the one hand, I agree that the doctor should probably have deduced from your question about natural options that you were more likely to be interested in the moral issues. On the other hand, why didn't you ask how it worked? Surely it's not surprising that something that prevents pregnancy might do so by killing.
I think calling that change of definition from conception to implantation is not a conspiracy. I think the majority of people (70% maybe?) do not consider killing a week-old blastocyst to be worse than using a spermicide. I think there are a lot of Christians (e.g. Episcopalians) who do not have a problem with early-term abortions.
BTW, I think most people who support late-term abortions do find them morally distasteful. It's just that limiting people's freedoms is also morally distasteful, so you have to balance different moral distastes, and people disagree on where to draw the line.
I hope you will forgive me for foregoing discussion of more the substantive elements of your comment and of the entire conversation. I realize the importance of this subject to you and am sensitive to your sensitivity.
Anyone Christian believes it is okay to kill a child at any stage of existance is either not really a Christian, not properly informed about human biology, or not properly informed about scripture. I'm afraid I could not let this pass. There are good-hearted people in the Christian community, trying with earnestness to perceive and follow God's will as well as the dictates of their conscience and of the Holy Spirit, who disagree with you. While there is certainly some basis in scripture for suggesting the existence of the soul in the fetus, you cannot reasonably suggest that a soul at the blastocyst level is the only rational interpretation of scripture. To demean the interpretation of well-meaning Christians to the extent of calling them not properly Christian is utterly divisive. Perhaps they fail to hear the
( ... )
Comments 52
And yes, in terms of any choice you should be able to investigate all of the options ahead of you, unless the choice is highly time-sensitive. And something tells me that "deciding whether or not to take the pill" isn't a highly time-sensitive choice.
Reply
I will add your preferred option to the list. I can also give you the link to my blog if you want it--my email is below.
Reply
Reply
Reply
i stick my tongue out at you
then i hug you.
Reply
Sorry I haven't seen you in so long... and somehow I think I left a poster at your place last time I saw you? You can email me jessi at mylastnamejr.name
(replace mylastname with my real last name)
and I will give you my phone number, or you can give me yours.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Moral issues aside, if Jessi was concerned about the morality of birth control that acted post-fertilization, it was Jessi's responsibility to insist on knowing what the exact contraceptive mechanism is.
A paradigm that requires a doctor to inform the patient of every possible factor that has a non-zero chance of influencing a patient's decision would lead to information overload. There are just too many things that a person might want to know if the person feels any given way about any given issue, and throwing all those facts at a patient, especially a weak-willed and vulnerable patient, is counterproductive.
Reply
Reply
Word Warrior
Reply
I personally think that abortion is an issue that reasonable people can disagree on, so I'd vote c.
On the one hand, I agree that the doctor should probably have deduced from your question about natural options that you were more likely to be interested in the moral issues. On the other hand, why didn't you ask how it worked? Surely it's not surprising that something that prevents pregnancy might do so by killing.
I think calling that change of definition from conception to implantation is not a conspiracy. I think the majority of people (70% maybe?) do not consider killing a week-old blastocyst to be worse than using a spermicide. I think there are a lot of Christians (e.g. Episcopalians) who do not have a problem with early-term abortions.
BTW, I think most people who support late-term abortions do find them morally distasteful. It's just that limiting people's freedoms is also morally distasteful, so you have to balance different moral distastes, and people disagree on where to draw the line.
Reply
Reply
Anyone Christian believes it is okay to kill a child at any stage of existance is either not really a Christian, not properly informed about human biology, or not properly informed about scripture.
I'm afraid I could not let this pass. There are good-hearted people in the Christian community, trying with earnestness to perceive and follow God's will as well as the dictates of their conscience and of the Holy Spirit, who disagree with you. While there is certainly some basis in scripture for suggesting the existence of the soul in the fetus, you cannot reasonably suggest that a soul at the blastocyst level is the only rational interpretation of scripture. To demean the interpretation of well-meaning Christians to the extent of calling them not properly Christian is utterly divisive. Perhaps they fail to hear the ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment