ROFL Meg, do you have any idea how many women miss a pill some days and then take two the next day? They are not guaranteed to fail at all as you claim. I merely quoted what WHO had written about your
method, which is one of their 14. My comment on choice was purely in response to your statement that it was my choice of method. Nope its womens choice. More objective NGOs, free from religious dogmas, will show you what works in the third world. Real choice is any of 14 methods, not acceptance of one method.

85k abortions is the figure quoted by more objective sources in the industry then the pro life movement. People like Trish Gillard etc.
To me, any abortion in the first tremester is acceptable Meg.

"But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the
spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose
of sex, which is procreation. God's gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure
and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural
end-procreation"

Above is copied and pasted straight from your Catholic website. I rest my case lol.

Regards suffering Meg, again read what your church teaches. They thinks its ok to suffer, thats why they rob peoples dignity and force them to suffer, by not accepting euthanasia. Australians have to fly to Switzerland to be able to die with dignity. Once again
Catholic intrusion in our lives. Then you wonder why I am against the Catholic Church. I'd have thought it was bleeding obvious by now.

Human organisms without a human brain do not suffer Meg. At 12 weeks organisms don't have a human brain. Its concious people, in pain,
who would like to die with dignity, who feel pain. Yet your church thinks thats fine.

My posts might seem erratic to you, as I make various points on various issues, within the 350 words. Try to keep up intellectually Meg :)

A woman should have access to health care, and pregnancy is no exception, it is our duty to give people the information required to make an infirmed decision as to the direction they will take, and this does not exclude pregnancy, those people who sit in judgment of women who have abortions, remember they will not be by your side if they railroad you into deciding to go further with the pregnancy, they are idealistic, and believe that all children should be raised in loving homes. The anti's won't be there to put the bread and butter on the table. My wife and I have never been in a situation where she had to make a choice for pro or against, but I believe that the soul lives on, let God be the judge.

Heaven and hell will never have any agreement for no one in hell can go to Heaven nor the other way around !

The Lord Jesus Christ is A Holy and Loving God so does His children;

on the other side

the devil is the lover of sin and always sinning, rebellious against God and got his strength from the suffering of human being, he likes to tell lies, deceitful reasoning just to hurt God's heart. The devil doesn't like people to know that The Lord Jesus Christ has died for them and has resurrected for our salvation (Roman 10:10); the devil is the murderer so does his children for YOU CAN RECOQNIZE A TREE FROM IT'S FRUITS !

So choose today : The Lord Jesus Christ (means to obey all His commandments) or you will choose the devil (means you will go with the the devil till eternity in the devil's house).

See you

Yabby, many women who miss pills become pregnant – artificial methods of contraception WILL fail if used incorrectly.

Common illnesses can also cause the pill to fail, i.e., gastroenteritis.

‘85k abortions is the figure quoted by more objective sources in the industry then the pro life movement. People like Trish Gillard etc.’

Calling Trish Gillard ‘objective’ on abortion is akin to calling your post’s compassionate – ‘industry’ accurate word to discuss abortion though.

So Ms Gillard has counted the killings herself? Why am I expected to accept her fabrications?…add the victims of over-the-counter morning-after pills and her figures would far exceed 100000. Do you think 85k looks more acceptable than 85000, Yabby…?

‘To me, any abortion in the first tremester is acceptable Meg.’

If it’s your view that those who aren’t the mother should butt out, then why should it matter when you consider it acceptable?

"But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God's gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end-procreation"

Yabby, you're obtuse and repetitive - 'try keeping up'.

The quote doesn't tell Catholics they cannot have sex on infertile days…just that they shouldn’t PREVENT (i.e., contraception) conception on fertile days.

‘They thinks its ok to suffer, thats why they rob peoples dignity and force them to suffer, by not accepting euthanasia.’

Another tangent?

Noone is immune from suffering Yabby, but what is ‘bleeding obvious by now’ are your irrational accusations. Dying with dignity has nothing to do with the availability of euthanasia. Effective palliative care means suffering is minimised or removed altogether.

Are you ‘keeping up’?

The Catholic Church has provided some of the best palliative and hospital care available, for centuries…they don’t cause suffering, they help alleviate it.

‘At 12 weeks organisms don't have a human brain’.

What do they have Yabby? A chimps brain and swap at 12 weeks? Now you’re really stretching the bounds of rational debate…

Yabby - if you would look up a few recent embryology books you would see that electrical activity in the brain of a foetus (latin for 'little one, not a derogatory term like pro-aborts try and make it) can be picked up at 5 weeks, the heart beats at 18 days, fingerprints are there at 7 weeks, pain receptors are operating at 9 weeks. Yes, the tiny unborn baby feels pain, in fact in many places now (the UK for one) they have passed a law recently making it mandatory to give anaesthetic to the unborn baby prior to aborting it. Convoluted thinking or what?? Let this 'little one' not have pain while we kill it. Suppose one should be grateful for small mercies!

I wonder if you had a dog, would you say it has a number of organisms within it? and I'll bet whales and baby harp seals are high on your 'protected' list.

Re your 'missed pill, take 2' - the logic? It takes 3 days for the hormone level to rise again to a 'protective' level if a birth control pill is missed - so they are deluding themselves. Even the most basic instruction from a doctor if you miss ANY medication is NOT to take a double dose next time round.

Re your cliched catchcry 'die with dignity' - dignity is something that comes from within, it is not something that can be bestowed, it is the way you live your life and LIVE your death.

PS You do a lot of 'ROFL' and 'LOL' but I feel you are not a happy person on the inside... why the angst? Is there something too that you are not divulging?

"Pro-choice"="Pro-killing of human foetuses when a pregnant woman makes that choice".
"Pro-life"="Pro-making pregnant women carry the life of their foetuses to term".

The mostly unstated assumption of "pro-choice" is that foetuses are not persons and the choice of a woman to not undergo an unwanted process (pregnancy), or to not want responsibility for raising a child is more important than the life of the non-person. This does raise issues for pro-choicers who ignore the personhood of non-homo sapiens if they eat them on a daily basis.

Alternatively, this position can be based on an assumption that an individual's choice of how to use her body as she wishes is more important than the life of a non-independent being, regardless of that being's personhood.

The mostly stated assumption of "pro-life"ers is that a human foetus (and zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo) has a right to life. The mostly unstated assumptions are on why this right exists.

To say it is "human life" or "human" is unsatisfactory. What makes it human? What does human status confer? Possible answers are-
1) It is genetically human. But so are many of the live cells I shed every day, as are my attached parts, but they have no special moral status. Plus the arguments about point 3 apply here.
2) It has a soul. This is not empirically verifiable, so may theoretically be true, but is not open to scientific debate. I feel this position is probably the main reason "pro-life" and "pro-choice" can not fundamentally agree.
3) It has human parents. Why then is conception the particular point of importance? Sperm and eggs have human parents too. (And that 2 parents are needed seems an arbitrary number, as it is theoretically possible for life forms with anatomies close enough to other humans to seem they have similar feelings to develop from 1 or 3 parents).
Maybe at conception a "separate" genetic being is formed (at least one, as twins can form after this). This position, for consistency, must try to defend the life of hydatidiform moles and anacephalic babies or invoke some other position as well.