What don't you understand about the fact that childfree women cannot get sterilized or that it is very difficult to find a doctor willing to do it?
Yep! Boys and Girls we are back to a level of ignorance equal to "bandaids over the belly button stops pregnancy" :Roll:
Well, everything when it is being applied by someone with such abysmal ignorance of the subject that they themselves do not know what options are available
What are you talking about? One of those pills won't abort a newly forming child after so many days or hours. The other will. I think the problem is, you don't consider the fertilized egg a newly formed life of a child, even thought that is what it ends up being, if not aborted. It would seem then, that the only way is prevention of the egg being fertilized. What would be the options to prevent fertilization of an egg?
Why don't you list them in a post so we all know, rather than playing word games which call me stupid, uninformed or whatever? I'm getting tired of you calling me names, even when you couch them in ways you think won't get you warned or banned.
I'll go back and look. I think I should have placed quotes around the first part and didn't that was from @Bowerbird's post and I only commented on the link she posted in quotes. The software doesn't seem to allow me to quote something that is posted from a link or in quotes, maybe. I'm not sure what's going on there.
What are YOU talking about? Clearly you have no clue as to the physiology of reproduction or contraception
That's not true and you know it. Please stop posting things like this. I may not know exactly how they work, but when they prevent a fertilized egg from attaching in the uterus, and I think you posted that, or cause it to be rejected by the body after being implanted, which is the other way you posted they work, then I am not mistaken. It doesn't mean I have to be a cellular biologist to understand the basics. I've told you before, once the egg is fertilized, it is the beginnings of human life. I think even biologists would agree.
I know enough. I don't need to know all the scientific terms to know that an unfertilized egg will never become anything, but refuse in a solution of bloody discharge.
If you can tell me why a post of mine to another member is so important to you, I'll translate. Do you speak the Queens' English or American English?
Actually the knowledge level evident from your posts lies somewhere between abysmal and appalling. This is a serious subject with physiological, biological, sociological and economic factors impacting on how it is governed If you wish to be taken seriously then it is wise to learn the basics and that includes terms such as "Blastocyst" so that you do not embarrass yourself trying to tell us that the placenta looks to grab onto the womb
Blastocyst is not a basic term. Oh, where is the placenta attached? What is it formed out of, the blastocyst? Is all of that part of the new life that grows into a child? If so, I'm okay. It seems so simple for me. I understand it in unscientific terms which do little to change the basic facts. A fertilized human egg is the beginning of human life. Since this thread is talking about ending that, and it is legal to do, why do you worry? I've stated the truth. whether it is a blastocyst or an ovarian cyst, doesn't change the fact that it(fertilized egg) is the beginnings of human life. Preventing that life from starting is as much abortion as is going in there with tools and ripping it apart. How does it matter whether the blastocyst turns into a placenta while the child is fed from an umbilical cord between the baby and the placenta? I don't know exactly how the baby gets nutrition or expels waste through that cord, either, but it has nothing to do with my points. You are wasting your time trying to find a way to find terminology that will suit. It's smoke and mirrors. Keep pants on and stay away from ejaculate and it's likely you won't get pregnant. Of course, be careful where you sit when you have no pants on, too. I don't see what any of that has to do with what you wanting to make me a biologist. You even posted material from a mid level university course and you wanted me to explain it to you. I don't need to know the enzymes involved at the cellular level. No average man or woman does to prevent pregnancy. While I appreciate you enthusiasm for biology and my education, it's extremely unnecessary and will only confuse and bore those who don't need to conduct biological or chemical experiments on the unborn at a microscopic level.
Maybe I did, but I surely don't remember. I don't remember what page that was on or what your comment was. I'm sure you can understand why that might happen.
What's hilarious is your incomprehension, and your belief that a 98% condom success rate somehow creates a "need" for the other 2% to be aborted. You can hide under your "pro-choice" mantle all you want, but you can't be "pro-choice" without also being "kill-at-will"; the two terms are synonymous with each other.
