Colorado Christian- morning after pill

The "morning after pill" does not terminate an existing pregnancy. Why is this a problem? Though it does put the female body through a difficult hormonal blast, it's a form of birth control.

 

The morning after pill will keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I would call that terminating a pregnancy. As a Christian I would hope you wouldn't disagree with that. As a member of this BB, you aren't allowed to make as statement that would be contrary to life beginning at fertilization.

 

Who died and made you police?

A pregnancy begins when the egg implants, does it not?

 

I not the police. I'm simply letting you know what the policy of this board is. Simple as that.

Life begins at conception. That's my take on it, God's take on it, and the policy of this board.

 

Wonder why they don't call it conception control if it really prevents conception instead of birth.

 

I assume you mean "abortifacient"? In any case, what would you call a pill that kills a baby?

 

For the record, I am 100% pro life, but from what I've read, pregnancy does not begin until the fertilized egg implants, which many do not, anyway.

I'm just wondering if this is one of those things Christians like to get riled up about without actually having the conversation.

 

Jaigner and Scarlett,
God designed man and the gave woman to the man that the two of them might reproduce. This, of course, is recorded for our edification in the first three chapters of the Bible. God did not say to go forth and remain unproductive, no, we are commanded by our owner/Father in Heaven to reproduce.

So it is that any form of Birth Control is sin. It is really quite simple, when it is all boiled down to the basics there is only one real sin. That sin is being disobedient to our Father! In it´s simplest form it boils down to just one question that must be answered, ¨Will you obey God?¨

 

And neither position has any bearing on the topic of the OP. Which is:

Does a person have the right to not fill a prescription that he or she considers morally reprehensible?

That is the question, whether it be the morning after pill or some other drug. (after all some might consider antidepressants to immoral based on the idea that mental problems are spiritual in nature rather than physical)

Personally, I have no problem allowing pharmacists their beliefs. Why? Because there is another one about 50 ft down the street that won't care what I am doing. This is America. If we believe in freedom, then we believe in the inconvenience of having to walk down the street to an agreeable pharmacist.

 

Let me answer this one for you Jaigner.

Blood and breath, Ann. Before implantation the fertilized egg has neither.

It also can't "eat", it can't respond to its environment (meaning that if the environment doesn't respond to it, the fertilized egg will not continue to develop), it can't reproduce itself (one fertilized egg doesn't create another), and it can't adapt to its enviroment.

There are 5 charateristics of living biological organisms. The fertilized egg only meets one of them: it can be considered "highly organized".

But the first two, blood and breath, those are scriptural criteria for life and we've had this discussion before...

 

The lack of intelligent conversation in this matter does not come from the followers of God. You should notice that I did not say Christians. According to survey by the Barna Group better than 97 and maybe 98% of the professing members of any given church or group of churches are not saved any way. They have, simply, gone through the motions and nothing more.

But for intelligent conversation to take place on this subject one must have, already, studied the scriptures, from beginning to end, and, on top of that, must have studied the normal result of the coupling of any two persons (one male, one female) and accept that according to Father God´s plan that coupling, at His timing, will produce a small Human Being.

If we, God´s Creation/Children, choose to abort, prevent or any other name one gives the act, then we have made ourselves more important to us than our Father. That, my friend, is disobedience and disobedience to or of the Father is ¨sin.¨

 

If you believe that life begins doesn't begin at conception, then, yes, I suppose I would.

 

There are many and varied ways to justify disobedience and redefining life is a silly and unsupportable one. Science has, for decades, tried o reproduce life, in any form from the core elements and the net result, of course, is the same as placing all the components of a 427 Chevy Engine (loved that with a blower, when younger) into a box, shaking it about for unlimited and various amounts of time and expecting a fully and perfectly assembled product to emerge.

There is no life without God and right down to the single cell critters that we cannot see without specialized tools but, now this is the crux of the issue, that almost, infinity small, invisible to the eye, is alive! To, intentionally, kill that egg or that sperm, joined or separately is not only murder, it is also intentional disobedience to Father God, His Son and the Holy Spirit. And for a Christian to hand that pill to any one is to violate the will of God, they sinned!