js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/19/85)
I caught 20/20 recently, and saw that someone is currently testing a
new form of birth control. It consists of an implant which time-releases
a chemical which either prevents the attachment of the fertilized egg to
the uterine wall or causes it to fall off soon after attachment, it was
unclear which.
One big advantage this method has over other birth-control methods is
that one implant lasts a *long* time (at least a few years), so pregnancies
caused by people forgetting to take their pill or whatever should be
completely eliminated among implant users. The implants can be put in or
taken out (should someone *want* to become pregnant) with a mild out-patient
type of surgical procedure.
Pro-lifers were interviewed showing concern that this of birth control
(which is, technically, an abortifact) would be 'too easy' for people to
use.
So what about you pro-lifers on the net? How many of you are concerned
over the lives of fertilized eggs?
--
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
"Just them up like regular chicken cuts, do I?" - Yodabird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) (08/30/85)
In article <1090@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: > > I caught 20/20 recently, and saw that someone is currently testing a >new form of birth control. It consists of an implant which time-releases >a chemical which either prevents the attachment of the fertilized egg to >the uterine wall or causes it to fall off soon after attachment, it was >unclear which. > One big advantage this method has over other birth-control methods is >that one implant lasts a *long* time (at least a few years), so pregnancies >caused by people forgetting to take their pill or whatever should be >completely eliminated among implant users. The implants can be put in or >taken out (should someone *want* to become pregnant) with a mild out-patient >type of surgical procedure. > Pro-lifers were interviewed showing concern that this of birth control >(which is, technically, an abortifact) would be 'too easy' for people to >use. > So what about you pro-lifers on the net? How many of you are concerned >over the lives of fertilized eggs? >-- >Jeff Sonntag >ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "Just them up like regular chicken cuts, do I?" - Yoda Before I actually answer I would like to introduce myself. My name is Brian Wells, my friends call me Bird. (No reference to Larry Bird, actually I like the 76ers.) I have been reading this news group for many months and this is the first time I decided to jump into conversation. I do concern myself with the lives of fertilized eggs. I feel that there is a very concrete line that can be drawn at conception which in my mind qualifies as the demarcation point of life. We can clearly see that birth is a line that can be swayed because premature babies can and often do survive. Technology may or may not move us to a point where we can take babies from the womb in the first or second trimesters with reasonable chance of survival. We already can incubate babies that are not quite fully developed. But conception has a solid argument to stand on. Before conception neither the egg or the sperm will ever develop into a human being. After conception, the fertilized egg will follow natures course and give someone a baby (barring, of course, complications in the pregnancy that sometimes occur, i.e. miscarriage). All I am trying to say is that conception seems to me to be the best place to draw the line. Brian Wells ____________________________________________________________________________ If anyone of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to every one without reserve and without reproach, and it will be granted him. -James 1:5