SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (853541)5/1/2015 12:36:31 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) of 1576882
 
>> IUDs prevent the sperm from getting to the egg. How does that invoke religious beliefs?

There seems to be a great deal of confusion over this point. The claim is made that IUDs prevent fertilization and would thus not be considered an abortifacient. Yet. at the same time, the claim is made that they can be used up to five days after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. Also, the fact that they're placed in the uterus to prevent implantation in the event fertilization DOES occur.

You should keep in mind that lawmakers will base these decisions on what their beliefs are and it is possible they will differ with the facts (just as the president and many lawmakers today have based their decisions on mistaken understandings about climate change).

There has been a very serious effort to claim that IUDs are NOT abortifacients. These arguments come in two forms --

1) Many physicians argue that there can be no abortion prior to implantation and the IUD prevents implantation, therefore it is a non issue.

2) A more spurious claim is that modern IUDs prevent fertilization. This isn't clearly the case, and even if it IS the case "most of the time", that does not satisfy the requirement of those who oppose abortion on the grounds that it is "baby killing".

The solution to the problem is to NEVER require taxpayers to pay for anything that might be considered an abortion by the taxpayer involved. That is reasonable.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News