Every time I read that the some woman should have "kept her legs closed" or "respected herself" and she wouldn't be pregnant I, literally, see red. When I ask what about married women or ones in a committed relationship, shouldn't they be allowed to have sex without the risk of getting pregnant? I either don't get an answer or I the answer is that if they are married they should be having children so the bc issue is not an issue at all.

The repubs will go with whatever their constituents want.

Any woman who prohibits their bodies from having a child will be punished.

Or so it seems from these jerks.

prolifers believe life begins at conception. Birth control does not stop conception but stops implantation of a fertilized egg. So it is in effect the same as abortion in their eyes.

That and the fact that some religions believe that the purpose of sex it to procreate. And that preventing 'God's gift' is a sin.

I've heard that story before, that BC prevents implantation, but only from RW nutjobs.

BC does prevent ovulation, so why do you say that it "does not stop conception"? If there's no ovulation, there can be no conception.

Feel free to look it up. However, I will concede that my answer was incomplete. Certain types of BC prevent implantation, others as you say prevent ovulation. Still others prevent conception by keeping egg and sperm separate. All of them would still fall under the umbrella of the 'denying God's gift' argument you'll hear from the anti-choice side.

BTW, I'm pro choice. I support a woman's right to choose an abortion for any reason up until a certain point. I think the decision should be made and procedure performed prior to the time a fetus becomes viable. IOW, I don't support partial birth abortions for any reason other than the health of the mother, rape, or incest. Prior to viability I support choice for any reason. How my views mesh with law I don't really know. I do know that when I was single and pregnant I was encouraged to consider abortion and chose not to. It was the right decision for me.

if BC stops the egg from implanting?

At the earliest, life would start at implantation. That doesn't seem too crazy to me even though I think it begins at the "quickening" even though I support abortion at any time for any reason.

"abortion" to mean, I guess, whatever the hell they want it to mean. Much the same way they're trying to redefine the word "person" to include fertilized eggs floating around in Fallopian tubes.

Abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, ends pregnancy, which as you said, does not begin until implantation. When anti-choicers claim that preventing implantation causes an abortion, they're simply lying.

But again the view of prolifers is that life begins at conception so anything you do to prevent that fertilized egg from implanting is in effect ending life. I don't know if they bother themselves with the details like that. I'm catholic (non-practicing), I've heard all the arguments. I still support choice for many reasons, most of which have nothing to do with when life actually does or doesn't begin.

Asking "why" does not go well around those parts.

if you are a heterosexual married couple. It's that plain and simple. It's that black and white. No one else is allowed to have sex. If you disobey God and have sex then there must be consequences like STIs and pregnancy and you must be made to go through your punishment so you will learn your lesson and never have sex again until you are married. And if the Catholic church had its way not even married couples would be allowed to use birth control. If you are orthodox Catholic and I do still know some that practice this, then every time you have sex you must be open to the fact that God may give you the gift of a child.