An ecological blind spot

Jester Minute

Contraceptives are polluting women's bodies and the environment, but who cares?

There is a huge effort today to protect the physical environment from the unintended effects of human activity. We have international agreements and national policies to reduce global warming by curbing excess carbon, produced as human beings pursue their material wellbeing.

[...]

But in spite of all our efforts, there are tell-tale signs that a particular type of pollutant, the endocrine disruptor, is wreaking havoc on our ecosystems. And as the world’s rivers are in a crisis of ominous proportions, we are witnessing the alarming effects wrought by estrogenic substances on aquatic life. Feminized male fish that lay eggs and/or have lost their reproductive abilities have been found near waste water effluent areas.

Link to article

Fanny Cradock

Short leash on this one.

Jester Minute

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Short leash on this one.

Whaddya mean by that? I only posted this for interest's sake. I think it is good that we keep informed on the latest enviro-moral issues.

Soul Winner

Jester Minute wrote: »

Whaddya mean by that? I only posted this for interest's sake. I think it is good that we keep informed on the latest enviro-moral issues.

'Enviro-moral issues'? Hhhhhmmm???. Which aspect of the contraception debate attracts your attention more, the enviro or the moral issues? Best to stick with either or as overlapping debates in the same thread tend to get very convoluted.

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

Contraceptives are polluting women's bodies and the environment, but who cares?

The 'pollution of womens bodies' angle can be dismissed by the women themselves. What they put into their bodies is their choice be it saturated fat, aspirin, anti-coagulants or the contraceptive pill.

The 'pollution of the environment' angle can be offset by the infinite number of ways in which human activity impacts the environment. Why concentrate on this particular one?

To be honest, I'm far more disturbed by the "bottom trawl' label on a packet of shrimp than I would be by a few mutated fish living around a waste water outlet.

Zombrex

Jester Minute wrote: »

Contraceptives are polluting women's bodies and the environment, but who cares?



Link to article

Isn't this an environmental issue? Not really seeing the connection with Christianity?

More here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen

Jester Minute

Soul Winner wrote: »

'Enviro-moral issues'? Hhhhhmmm???. Which aspect of the contraception debate attracts your attention more, the enviro or the moral issues? Best to stick with either or as overlapping debates in the same thread tend to get very convoluted.

I don't see the issue here with sticking to one or t'other. The problem is, there are lots of angles to this. Not only is the contraceptive pill immoral (universally held by all Christians until 1930, now only the Catholic Church stands true) on an individual level (contraceptive and abortifacient (not many people know that...)) but also at a society and ecological level.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The 'pollution of womens bodies' angle can be dismissed by the women themselves. What they put into their bodies is their choice be it saturated fat, aspirin, anti-coagulants or the contraceptive pill.

The 'pollution of the environment' angle can be offset by the infinite number of ways in which human activity impacts the environment. Why concentrate on this particular one?

To be honest, I'm far more disturbed by the "bottom trawl' label on a packet of shrimp than I would be by a few mutated fish living around a waste water outlet.

It's not just a woman's issue. This issue affects us all, from the fish in the stream to the sperm in my testicles. This is not a private issue for a 'woman's choice'. How come the green-lobby aren't touching this issue?

If I choose to drink arsenic lemonade and pee it into the public sewer and people die as a result, I'm answerable for that. Same with the pill.

Radical individualism is a big problem in society today. Call it radical selfishness if you prefer. That means to hell with other people.

Zombrex

Jester Minute wrote: »

I don't see the issue here with sticking to one or t'other. The problem is, there are lots of angles to this. Not only is the contraceptive pill immoral (universally held by all Christians until 1930, now only the Catholic Church stands true) on an individual level (contraceptive and abortifacient (not many people know that...)) but also at a society and ecological level.

Yeah but it wasn't held by Christians as immoral because it destroyed the environment, and if they invent a pill that doesn't destroy the environment Catholics will still consider it immoral for the original reasons.

So I agree with Soul Winner here, two different issues.

Jester Minute wrote: »

It's not just a woman's issue. This issue affects us all, from the fish in the stream to the sperm in my testicles. This is not a private issue for a 'woman's choice'. How come the green-lobby aren't touching this issue?

How do you know they aren't? Seems to be a lot about it on the Interweb.

Besides, do you really want the green lobby on your side :pac:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/greenpeace-anti-radiation-pill-backfires.php

Jester Minute

Wicknight wrote: »

Besides, do you really want the green lobby on your side :pac:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/greenpeace-anti-radiation-pill-backfires.php

Not really...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFUDEmMjC-c

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

It's not just a woman's issue.

I didn't say it was. I was responding to that portion of your position which focused on a womens issue - namely, their being "polluted" with chemicals.

My response is that they are entitled to do that.

This issue affects us all, from the fish in the stream to the sperm in my testicles. This is not a private issue for a 'woman's choice'. How come the green-lobby aren't touching this issue?

If I choose to drink arsenic lemonade and pee it into the public sewer and people die as a result, I'm answerable for that. Same with the pill.

Radical individualism is a big problem in society today. Call it radical selfishness if you prefer. That means to hell with other people.

I'm not denying the impact on the environment - including people in it. But since the impact of individuals behaviour on others ranges from minimal to extreme, I see a need to focus energy into areas that best demand it.

A cause can be made out of anything if looking only at the principle. The question is whether any particular cause is a storm in a teacup or not.

Morbert

Jester Minute wrote: »

I don't see the issue here with sticking to one or t'other. The problem is, there are lots of angles to this. Not only is the contraceptive pill immoral (universally held by all Christians until 1930, now only the Catholic Church stands true) on an individual level (contraceptive and abortifacient (not many people know that...)) but also at a society and ecological level.

It's not just a woman's issue. This issue affects us all, from the fish in the stream to the sperm in my testicles. This is not a private issue for a 'woman's choice'. How come the green-lobby aren't touching this issue?

If I choose to drink arsenic lemonade and pee it into the public sewer and people die as a result, I'm answerable for that. Same with the pill.

Radical individualism is a big problem in society today. Call it radical selfishness if you prefer. That means to hell with other people.

Blah blah same ineffective nonsense.

What seems to be happening is the anti-pill movement are realising that nobody really cares about the sperm in their testicles, so they're adopting a new "it hurts the environment" strategy.

Fanny Cradock

One could argue that contraception is exactly what the environment needs. The population of the world is forecast to hit close to 10 billion by 2050. That's a lot of people using a lot of resources and creating an awful mess in the process.

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One could argue that contraception is exactly what the environment needs. The population of the world is forecast to hit close to 10 billion by 2050. That's a lot of people using a lot of resources and creating an awful mess in the process.

Game over...

Jester Minute

Morbert wrote: »

Blah blah same ineffective nonsense.

What seems to be happening is the anti-pill movement are realising that nobody really cares about the sperm in their testicles, so they're adopting a new "it hurts the environment" strategy.

I care! I'm sure people might have something to say if I was to dump a lot of anabolic steroids in the water supply. I'm sure people would have a lot to say about that. Then you find that women are infertile and have big muscles.

(I realise I'm wasting my efforts trying to convince Protestants of the immorality of contraception so I won't even bother with that one.)

Fanny Cradock

Discourse would go that bit smoother if you could manage to avoid silly generalisations based on simplistic denominational divides.

Jester Minute

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Discourse would go that bit smoother if you could manage to avoid silly generalisations based on simplistic denominational divides.

That's true. In fairness, some evangelicals are coming round to the Catholic position on this issue, for e.g. Quiverfull Evangelical Movement.

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

I realise I'm wasting my efforts trying to convince Protestants of the immorality of contraception so I won't even bother with that one.)

It's a waste of effort because Protestants protested. By definition, the means whereby Rome arrives at many of it's views about things is considered void by Protestantism.

There is paltry biblical evidence to be found to support Romes position on contraception - which means you'd have to convince Protestants that Rome is the One True Church - something which tends to be asserted only, but never argued.

And so, not so much a waste of effort as effort never expended.

Jester Minute

Janet Smith explains why the Catholic Church keeps insisting, in the face of the opposite position held by most of the rest of the modern world, that contraception is one of the worst inventions of our time.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Once you read that anti-skeptic, then we can talk about protest.

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a waste of effort because Protestants protested. By definition, the means whereby Rome arrives at many of it's views about things is considered void by Protestantism.

Maybe I'm being pedantic - but I should point out that the protesting inherent in the word 'Protestant' was not actually directed against Rome but rather against Charles V after the Diet of Speyer in 1529.

The Diet of Speyer denied that princes had the right to choose the religion which would then be imposed on their subjects. Some Lutheran princes saw this as an infringement of their rights and so protested against the decision - thus earning for themselves the title of 'Protestants'. The principle they were fighting for was that the princes, rather than the Emperor, should dictate the beliefs of their subjects - there was still no hint of people being allowed to make choices for themselves.

So, for much of Europe, the immediate effect of the Reformation was to ensure that instead of having Roman Catholicism rammed down their throats they now had Lutheranism rammed down their throats.

This is one reasopn why an increasing number of Bible-believing Christians today reject the label 'Protestant'. In fact, most modern non-Catholics today are closer in beliefs and practices to the anabaptists of Luther's day. Luther hated the anabaptists and, in mockery of their belief in baptism by immersion, advocated that they should be publicly drowned.

One important element of anabaptist belief was that religion should be a matter of choice, not government coercion or discrimination. In this they were the first true secularists who advocated a separation between church and state.

I hope this little historical interlude isn't too off-topic, but I thought it important to clarify what 'Protestants' were originally protesting about.

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

Luther hated the anabaptists and, in mockery of their belief in baptism by immersion, advocated that they should be publicly drowned.

If they are drowned using the right formula, would it be valid?

PDN wrote: »

One important element of anabaptist belief was that religion should be a matter of choice, not government coercion or discrimination. In this they were the first true secularists who advocated a separation between church and state.

Interesting article here on that issue: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29437

PDN wrote: »

I hope this little historical interlude isn't too off-topic, but I thought it important to clarify what 'Protestants' were originally protesting about.

Whilst that may be true, it is also true that the 'reformers' were protesting against Rome, and even today, we have Christians who protest against the teachings of the Church on certain teachings, including sexual morality.

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

Janet Smith explains why the Catholic Church keeps insisting, in the face of the opposite position held by most of the rest of the modern world, that contraception is one of the worst inventions of our time.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Once you read that anti-skeptic, then we can talk about protest.

Perhaps you could distill this rather long article down and extract what you see as the best arguments? Scanning the the first 1/4 or so seems to reveal a few structural problems in approach.

She simplistically dismisses, for instance, the problem of overpopulation and states:


"...the US could quite easily feed the globe. It's not a problem".


What she doesn't tell us is how you can "easily" solve the problem of human greed - the apparently insurmountable problem which ensures the U.S. will never feed the globe. Nor does she tell us why, just because you might theoretically feed the globe now, you shouldn't consider stretching out finite resources until such time as technology figures out even better ways to utilise those resources to the benefit of the very most.

She also appears to conflate correlation with cause. She points to the pill as the root of the sexual revolution in the 60's when there were many, many other contributors. And long before the pill there was the condom - about which:

Wikipedia wrote:

"Beginning in the second half of the 19th century, American rates of sexually transmitted diseases skyrocketed. Causes cited by historians include effects of the American Civil War, and the ignorance of prevention methods promoted by the Comstock Laws.To fight the growing epidemic, sex education classes were introduced to public schools for the first time, teaching about venereal diseases and how they were transmitted.

People have been engaging in immoral behaviour since time immemorial. In the 60's assisted by the pill, in the 19th century unassisted by freely available condoms. Incidently, Anthony Comstock is described as:

"a former United States postal inspector and politician dedicated to ideas of Victorian morality."

Victorian morality is the misplaced notion that you can bring about improvement in morality via imposition of rules and restraint. You can't: people are sinners. Immorality is the business of sin.

Your link wrote:

So we have this great polarization: a world that thinks contraception is one of the greatest inventions of our time and the Catholic Church that says it's one of the worst. I am going to try to help people see tonight why the Church's teaching certainly deserves serious consideration.

The most serious flaw in her approach however, is miixing up an invention with the use to which an invention is put. Contraceptives are no more evil than explosives, the internet, guns or morphine. Used wisely, contraception allows for the type of family planning which enables the health, well-being and development of all the family. It's the kind of thing that allows working class parents to send the one or two children they have to university. It's the kind of thing that allows a couple to establish the very career that will support a family.

That it's also the kind of thing that assists people in their immorality isn't a cause to decry the invention of the contraceptive itself. It's not the contraceptive fault.



ps: Your aim appears to be focused on the contraceptive pill. What is your position on condoms?

aceygray

While estrogen pollution is a legitimate concern, contraceptive pills are not the main, or even a major cause of it. A recent review from UC San Francisco, showed that the pill only contributed a small amount of total estrogen pollution. The main offender is the farming industry.

More info here: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/10/does-birth-control-pollute-waterways

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i44/8844news4.html

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es1014482 (may need to register to see full text).

So if this is something you're really concerned with, maybe you should post in the farming forum?

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

ps: Your aim appears to be focused on the contraceptive pill. What is your position on condoms?

Biodegradable condoms are OK?

Being green myself I settled for the very environmentally friendly option of having a vasectomy.

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

Biodegradable condoms are OK?

Being green myself I settled for the very environmentally friendly option of having a vasectomy.

The Church teaches that it's a sin to use these artificial contraceptive/abortifacients. If anybody doesn't accept that, and insists on condoning sin (which then cannot be forgiven because it is not repented from), then all that is left for me to do is to pray.

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

I don't see the issue here with sticking to one or t'other. The problem is, there are lots of angles to this. Not only is the contraceptive pill immoral (universally held by all Christians until 1930, now only the Catholic Church stands true) on an individual level (contraceptive and abortifacient (not many people know that...))

Abortifacient? Who told you that one?

The Church teaches that it's a sin to use these artificial contraceptive/abortifacients.

Because some guy didn't continue his brother's line??

Dades

Jester Minute wrote: »

The Church teaches that it's a sin to use these artificial contraceptive/abortifacients. If anybody doesn't accept that, and insists on condoning sin (which then cannot be forgiven because it is not repented from), then all that is left for me to do is to pray.

I can't believe you blindsided everyone with that environmental cloak-and-dagger stuff, only to leap out from the shadows wielding your rosary beads! :pac:

prinz

Tbh personally I'd see the Pill as a fairly big issue and one that is all to ofter swept under the carpet or written off as 'progress'. First I've heard about the supposed environmental impacts though.

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

The Church teaches that it's a sin to use these artificial contraceptive/abortifacients. If anybody doesn't accept that, and insists on condoning sin (which then cannot be forgiven because it is not repented from), then all that is left for me to do is to pray.

I appreciate the sentiment even though disbelieving that the use of contraception is a sin. That a heart might be mistaken, doesn't mean it isn't in the right place.

Jester Minute

bluewolf wrote: »

Abortifacient? Who told you that one?

www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/contraceptive-abortifacient.pdf

Many people do not realise this.

I remember talking to a teenage girl whilst doing pro-life work, and she wasn't really aware of how exactly the morning after pill works. She was just pleased that she had used it. I told her how it works and how it can cause an early chemical abortion. She didn't know that. Many people do not realise that the pill is also able to function as an abortifacient.

lmaopml

Have to say I would go along with Soulwinner's first post on this as most insightful. I think it's best to stick to either 'environmental' or 'moral' and speak about your beliefs either way within the Christian spectrum. It's not exactly got the 'shock' factor that perhaps you envisioned Jester, especially when we're dealing with huge problems at the moment, what with the IMF and following the Hokey Cokey in the Dail

With respect, it doesn't really have 'impact' or justify or do justification to either cause. Sorry.

Splendour

Jester Minute wrote: »

Contraceptives are polluting women's bodies and the environment, but who cares?



Link to article

The contraceptive pill plays havoc with women's bodies and thus should absolutely be avoided at all costs. With regards to the environment I think we should be more concerned with the amount of hormones pumped into the cows that we derive out dairy/beef products from.

Jester Minute

lmaopml wrote: »

Have to say I would go along with Soulwinner's first post on this as most insightful. I think it's best to stick to either 'environmental' or 'moral' and speak about your beliefs either way within the Christian spectrum. It's not exactly got the 'shock' factor that perhaps you envisioned Jester, especially when we're dealing with huge problems at the moment, what with the IMF and following the Hokey Cokey in the Dail

With respect, it doesn't really have 'impact' or justify or do justification to either cause. Sorry.

I disagree. :pac:

As regards cows, I agree. Organic cows for the win. :P

aceygray

Splendour wrote: »

The contraceptive pill plays havoc with women's bodies and thus should absolutely be avoided at all costs.

Gee, you know what else plays havoc with women's bodies? Unwanted pregnancies!

Also, I'd like to know what you mean by "plays havoc with". Because I, and most women I know, are fine on the pill.

georgieporgy

methinks the culture of death isn't dead yet

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

She was just pleased that she had used it. I told her how it works and how it can cause an early chemical abortion. She didn't know that. Many people do not realise that the pill is also able to function as an abortifacient.

You do realise the pill and morning after pill are different, yes?

Some of the MAP types can cause what's called that yes but others don't. Pretty sure the "don't" ones are used here.
edit: that is to say, some halt the fertilised egg attaching, which is what prolifers call the abortifacient, yes.

The contraceptive pill plays havoc with women's bodies and thus should absolutely be avoided at all costs.

:rolleyes:
Luckily women can choose for themselves what to put in their own bodies, imagine that. Not to mention a large amount of us are just fine.

Jester Minute

aceygray wrote: »

Gee, you know what else plays havoc with women's bodies? Unwanted pregnancies!

Also, I'd like to know what you mean by "plays havoc with". Because I, and most women I know, are fine on the pill.

That's the saddest thing I've read today. Christians don't kill their children, born or unborn. The refusal to kill their own children marked the early Christians out from the pagan culture around them.

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

The Didache

(1st Century AD)

1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.

2 Now, this is the way of life:…

The second commandment of the Teaching: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery"; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; "do not steal"; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant. "Do not covet your neighbor's property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness"; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is "a deadly snare." Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor. Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.

bluewolf wrote: »

You do realise the pill and morning after pill are different, yes?

Some of the MAP types can cause what's called that yes but others don't. Pretty sure the "don't" ones are used here.
edit: that is to say, some halt the fertilised egg attaching, which is what prolifers call the abortifacient, yes.

:rolleyes:
Luckily women can choose for themselves what to put in their own bodies, imagine that. Not to mention a large amount of us are just fine.

Once conception has occurred, the new human life is created. It doesn't matter that it hasn't yet implanted. That's just word play of the drugs industry to confuse people. They moved the goal posts so it's 'not' an abortifacient because the already fertilised egg is not implanted... It is an abortion, but they hope people will be confused enough not to notice.

There is more than one type of MAP, but they all work in one of two ways:

They solve the 'problem' by:

- preventing your ovaries from releasing an egg
- altering the lining of the womb, so a fertilised egg can't embed itself there.

If they don't work in the first way, the MAP will work in the second.

The fertilised egg is already a new, unique human being. Therefore, the destruction of this life is an early chemical abortion, and therefore a very grave sin.

http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/morning-after-pill
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/morningafterpill.htm

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

Once conception has occurred, the new human life is created. It doesn't matter that it hasn't yet implanted. That's just word play of the drugs industry to confuse people. They moved the goal posts so it's 'not' an abortifacient because the already fertilised egg is not implanted... It is an abortion, but they hope people will be confused enough not to notice.

There is more than one type of MAP, but they all work in one of two ways:

They solve the 'problem' by:

- preventing your ovaries from releasing an egg
- altering the lining of the womb, so a fertilised egg can't embed itself there.

If they don't work in the first way, the MAP will work in the second.

The fertilised egg is already a new, unique human being. Therefore, the destruction of this life is an early chemical abortion, and therefore a very grave sin.

http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/morning-after-pill
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/morningafterpill.htm

That still has nothing to do with the contraceptive pill.
You seem to be anti pill in general but all your comments have been about the MAP despite saying "the pill". I'm not even going to get into the MAP issue either

housetypeb

If christian men are so worried about the pill and its effect on womens body maybe they should consider having an vasectomy.
Or is that also against gods law?

Fanny Cradock

housetypeb wrote: »

If christian men are so worried about the pill and its effect on womens body maybe they should consider having an vasectomy.
Or is that also against gods law?

Did you red the thread? Or is it that you are just happy to generalise?

Morbert

I need to read usernames more often. For a second I thought fanny was having an argument with himself.

Jester Minute

bluewolf wrote: »

That still has nothing to do with the contraceptive pill.
You seem to be anti pill in general but all your comments have been about the MAP despite saying "the pill". I'm not even going to get into the MAP issue either

This thread is about the pill.

It wasn't me who brought the MAP into the discussion.

As it happens, the pill can function as an abortifacient. This is not widely known.

Edit: Vasectomy is not permitted. As an aside, beyond the moral issues, I struggle to understand how any man could let anyone near his testicles with scissors, for any reason other than strict medical necessity! The surgery can go wrong with nasty and permanent side-effects!!!

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

This thread is about the pill.

It wasn't me who brought the MAP into the discussion.

As it happens, the pill can function as an abortifacient. This is not widely known.

So why did you keep saying the pill is wrong because - and then link to MAP issues?
I'm sure it can if you take extreme doses which it wasn't intended for, much like alcohol can :rolleyes: Stop muddying it by pretending it's something it isn't.
The pill is not the MAP and only the MAP could ever possibly be regarded as an abortifacient under certain limited conditions by people with certain opinions on the issue.

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

This thread is about the pill.

It wasn't me who brought the MAP into the discussion.

As it happens, the pill can function as an abortifacient. This is not widely known.

Edit: Vasectomy is not permitted. As an aside, beyond the moral issues, I struggle to understand how any man could let anyone near his testicles with scissors, for any reason other than strict medical necessity! The surgery can go wrong with nasty and permanent side-effects!!!

Jester:

It appears that no one but Catholics see contraception (the pill, Vasectomy, condom, etc) as wrong: not unbelievers, not non-Catholic believers.

The MAP isn't a contraceptive if it operates as an abortifacient so there is no need to refer to it.

The pill isn't an abortifacient.

Your enviromental objection is a red herring.

Your "women being damaged by the Pill" is a non-starter since all medication is poisonous to some degree.

Your "men being damaged by vasectomy" is a non-starter since all elective surgery runs a risk of going wrong.



Is there anything to say which isn't based only on a Catholic objection to contraception? Because that basis is considered irrelevant by everyone else here.

Jester Minute

bluewolf wrote: »

So why did you keep saying the pill is wrong because - and then link to MAP issues?
I'm sure it can if you take extreme doses which it wasn't intended for, much like alcohol can :rolleyes: Stop muddying it by pretending it's something it isn't.
The pill is not the MAP and only the MAP could ever possibly be regarded as an abortifacient under certain limited conditions by people with certain opinions on the issue.

Let's look at some facts:

1. The pill can function as an abortifacient. By abortifacient I mean something that causes the death of an already fertilised egg, which is a new, unique human being. You can argue that it isn't a human being. Science tells us it is a new, unique human being, and I am happy with that and not prepared to debate what is already established.

2. The MAP also functions as an abortifacient, as described above.

These are not opinions. These are facts.

PDN

So what happened to all the worry about the environment?

There are already threads where Catholics have stated their dogma concerning contraception.

If no-one wants to discuss this 'ecological blind spot' then we might as well lock the thread rather than it just being used as a front for yet another statement of dogma.

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

Let's look at some facts:

1. The pill can function as an abortifacient. By abortifacient I mean something that causes the death of an already fertilised egg, which is a new, unique human being. You can argue that it isn't a human being. Science tells us it is a new, unique human being, and I am happy with that and not prepared to debate what is already established.

2. The MAP also functions as an abortifacient, as described above.

These are not opinions. These are facts.

:rolleyes:
Why don't you take your scaremongering misinformation elsewhere.
As PDN says, what happened to environmental concern?!

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

So what happened to all the worry about the environment?

There are already threads where Catholics have stated their dogma concerning contraception.

If no-one wants to discuss this 'ecological blind spot' then we might as well lock the thread rather than it just being used as a front for yet another statement of dogma.

The thread was only supposed to be about highlighting yet another, new (at least to me) aspect/consequence of the culture of death: that these pills are harming the aquatic environment and probably people too. If the pill makes fish effeminate , what might they be doing to people?

I don't know why people are so touchy about it!!

Jester Minute

bluewolf wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Why don't you take your scaremongering misinformation elsewhere.
As PDN says, what happened to environmental concern?!

It's not misinformation if its true! I gave info on MAP. You can look for yourself on the web about how the pill is also abortifacient. I have not the time to research and post a link about it.

I am concerned about the environment too - and I care about people. I don't want to be going all limp-wristed because of what women are putting in the system!

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

The thread was only supposed to be about highlighting yet another, new (at least to me) aspect/consequence of the culture of death: that these pills are harming the aquatic environment and probably people too. If the pill makes fish effeminate , what might they be doing to people?

I don't know why people are so touchy about it!!

Yeah, no idea :rolleyes:

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

The thread was only supposed to be about highlighting yet another, new (at least to me) aspect/consequence of the culture of death: that these pills are harming the aquatic environment and probably people too. If the pill makes fish effeminate , what might they be doing to people?

I don't know why people are so touchy about it!!

They're probably touchy because this thread has all the hallmarks of a dishonest Trojan horse - pretending to be about ecology when its nothing of the sort. And, if it isn't about ecology, then I'll lock it.

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

They're probably touchy because this thread has all the hallmarks of a dishonest Trojan horse - pretending to be about ecology when its nothing of the sort. And, if it isn't about ecology, then I'll lock it.

It is about ecology. Read my post just above.

But I'm not sure, in all honesty, PDN, that the hostility towards this thread has anything to do with horses. I think it's more about touched nerves and consciences. Hence all the angst.

And all because of a few camp trout!