Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Peer Review [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)28. I know what he means, as well. Unfortunately for both of you- he's wrong. See post #27
You two sound like a pair of fetus fetishists complaining about contraception. Same mindset, different bugbear:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014136657
Newer Findings Dispute View of Morning-After Pill as Abortion
Source: NY Times
Labels inside every box of morning-after pills, drugs widely used to prevent pregnancy after sex, say they may work by blocking fertilized eggs from implanting in a womans uterus. Respected medical authorities, including the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic, have said the same thing on their Web sites.
Such descriptions have become kindling in the fiery debate over abortion and contraception. Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized eggs ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, the moral equivalent of homicide, as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it. Mitt Romney recently called emergency contraceptives abortive pills. And two former Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have made similar statements....
...It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents definition of abortion-inducing drugs.
Source: NY Times
Labels inside every box of morning-after pills, drugs widely used to prevent pregnancy after sex, say they may work by blocking fertilized eggs from implanting in a womans uterus. Respected medical authorities, including the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic, have said the same thing on their Web sites.
Such descriptions have become kindling in the fiery debate over abortion and contraception. Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized eggs ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, the moral equivalent of homicide, as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it. Mitt Romney recently called emergency contraceptives abortive pills. And two former Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have made similar statements....
...It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents definition of abortion-inducing drugs.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
See post 4 and attempt to reply with substance, assuming that's not too much trouble. n/t
TPaine7
Jun 2012
#9
I know what he means, as well. Unfortunately for both of you- he's wrong. See post #27
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#28
The genetic fallacy again, eh? It doesn't matter where it was posted, he's still wrong.
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#36
Of course it matters where information comes from. Guncite is a propaganda site.
DanTex
Jun 2012
#37
And you've yet to prove me wrong. I admit Kopsch's testimony is hearsay...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#38
There still are plenty of bullets available that will penetrate body armor- rifle bullets.
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#40
Unfortunately for you, that source directly contradicts your claims.
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2012
#27
Yes! Do you think that valid points will stop being made because you express displeasure?
TPaine7
Jun 2012
#18
I wish he would ignore this whole group. He has already done me the favor of ignoring me and life
Tuesday Afternoon
Jun 2012
#45