PDA

View Full Version : FDA Panel Unanimously Backs New Morning After Pill




Matt Collins
06-18-2010, 10:59 AM
FDA Panel Unanimously Backs New Morning After Pill

http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Birth-Control-Pill/2010/06/17/id/362314 (http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Birth-Control-Pill/2010/06/17/id/362314)

ChaosControl
06-18-2010, 11:15 AM
Yay more ways to murder our children!

TC95
06-18-2010, 11:18 AM
Yay! Less people to pollute our glorious Earth!

angelatc
06-18-2010, 11:24 AM
This is where I get off the pro-life wagon, I suppose. I really don't have a problem with changing the environment of the uterus to keep the egg from attaching, which (as I understand it) is essentially what the morning-after pills do.

ChaosControl
06-18-2010, 11:26 AM
So you believe life/personhood begins at implantation rather than conception?

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 11:38 AM
Federal health experts say a new type of morning-after pill that works longer than existing products is safe and effective.

I assume they're not referring to child when the vouch for the pill's safety.

malkusm
06-18-2010, 11:44 AM
This is where I get off the pro-life wagon, I suppose. I really don't have a problem with changing the environment of the uterus to keep the egg from attaching, which (as I understand it) is essentially what the morning-after pills do.

I'm on board with angela here - the concept of rights and personhood are so vague in these areas that there's no way I can fault an individual for taking a "morning-after pill." With the slim probabilities of pregnancy involved, there's no way for a woman to know if the pill is averting a pregnancy or not; it's simply a precaution. In some cases, it's a precaution taken after the "protection" during sex was already taken (in other words, the possible pregnancy was a mistake to begin with).

But, to further the point of the ambiguity of rights and personhood:

-A domesticated animal is clearly an individually-acting being, who has no rights and may be owned as property.

-A conceived human life does not have developed organs to sustain life until around 3 months at the earliest, yet has rights.

-A fully grown, adult human being with rational capacity has no right to decide that he wants to end his/her own life.

*Note: I do not mean to attach any positive/negative, right/wrong stigmas towards any of the above statements....just pointing out that the definition of "individual rights" is largely ambiguous.

Reason
06-18-2010, 11:49 AM
Yay more ways to murder our children!

You're clearly uninformed as to how the morning after pill works.

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 11:51 AM
But, to further the point of the ambiguity of rights and personhood:

-A domesticated animal is clearly an individually-acting being, who has no rights and may be owned as property

Why do some people have no trouble saying it's a unique individual chicken in an egg before it hatches but struggle to admit it's a unique individual human before it's born?

malkusm
06-18-2010, 11:56 AM
Why do some people have no trouble saying it's a unique individual chicken in an egg before it hatches but struggle to admit it's a unique individual human before it's born?

I don't think I ever said that....I was referring in the "statement" to full adult animals, and I also added the note that said I didn't endorse any of the statements that I listed. It was just an exercise to point out that there are many definitions of "individual" when concerned with what has a "right" and what does not.

I agree that, if someone believes taking chicken eggs before they hatch is immoral and is taking life, then that person should easily believe that a human being is a life at conception. (Doesn't exactly work vice-versa though, because there are arguments that, since animals don't exhibit rational decision-making, they are not worthy of rights.)

0zzy
06-18-2010, 12:04 PM
This is where I get off the pro-life wagon, I suppose. I really don't have a problem with changing the environment of the uterus to keep the egg from attaching, which (as I understand it) is essentially what the morning-after pills do.

I'm with you on this too.

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 12:12 PM
I don't think I ever said that....I was referring in the "statement" to full adult animals, and I also added the note that said I didn't endorse any of the statements that I listed. It was just an exercise to point out that there are many definitions of "individual" when concerned with what has a "right" and what does not.

I agree that, if someone believes taking eggs before they hatch is immoral and is taking life, then that person should easily believe that a human being is a life at conception. (Doesn't exactly work vice-versa though, because there are arguments that, since animals don't exhibit rational decision-making, they are not worthy of rights.)

I apologize if I implied that you did.

Also, I wasn't saying anything about taking the egg. I'm just saying that the most fundamental laws of biology tell us that like produces like. Chickens produce chickens. Humans produce humans. A new chicken starts with a fertilized egg. A new human starts with a fertilized egg.

Most exercises I see to point out that there are many definitions of "individual" are typically motivated to try and confuse what is most elementary biology.

fisharmor
06-18-2010, 12:13 PM
So you believe life/personhood begins at implantation rather than conception?

I want to see how the defenders answer this question.


Let's look at this from a different angle:
how about the dude on Stossel's show about health care who CURED MOTHERFUCKING BLINDNESS yet can't perform his procedure in the US because the FDA requires too much money in testing before it'll approve it?

Makes perfect sense, since what we really need is yet another way for the irresponsible to have their booty calls sans any responsibility.

specsaregood
06-18-2010, 12:14 PM
This is where I get off the pro-life wagon, I suppose. I really don't have a problem with changing the environment of the uterus to keep the egg from attaching, which (as I understand it) is essentially what the morning-after pills do.

I'm right there with you and IIRC Dr. Paul as well from the legal standpoint that it would be legally impossible to prove that a life possibly existed at that point. I much prefer this than actual abortions.

ChaosControl
06-18-2010, 12:24 PM
You're clearly uninformed as to how the morning after pill works.

No, I just believe life/personhood begins at conception, not implantation.
Creating a hostile environment to prevent implantation still destroys that life.

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 12:25 PM
Question as this relates to the FDA. Why must some medicines place warnings on their medicine that they should not be taken (or in some cases even handled :eek:) by women who are pregnant or could become pregant? Obviously it's not for the health of the mother.

If these medicines must post warnings that they should not be taken by women who could become pregnant because of the risks to the unborn child ... why does this medicine not have to post a warning for it not to be taken by women who could become pregnant?

After all, when I buy a jar of peanuts, the label warns that it contains peanuts.

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 12:28 PM
No, I just recognize life/personhood begins at conception, not implantation.
Creating a hostile environment to prevent implantation still destroys that life.

I hope you don't mind if I make a correction for you. A new human life beings at conception whether people "believe" it or not. I can believe I'm a horse. It doesn't make it so.

ninepointfive
06-18-2010, 12:30 PM
This is where I get off the pro-life wagon, I suppose. I really don't have a problem with changing the environment of the uterus to keep the egg from attaching, which (as I understand it) is essentially what the morning-after pills do.

+1

TheTyke
06-18-2010, 12:35 PM
This is where I get off the pro-life wagon, I suppose. I really don't have a problem with changing the environment of the uterus to keep the egg from attaching, which (as I understand it) is essentially what the morning-after pills do.

It's basically starving the zygote (no longer an egg at this point.) Scientifically, human life has begun, and those pills are designed to destroy it.

A lot of inaccurate language is used in this topic, some of it to favor certain positions. To walk through the science of conception, I highly recommend this page: http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 12:36 PM
This is where I get off the pro-life wagon, I suppose. I really don't have a problem with changing the environment of the uterus to keep the egg from attaching, which (as I understand it) is essentially what the morning-after pills do.

I with you 100%. Do anything you want to keep the EGG from attaching.

Take steps to keep the human embryo from attaching and you are writing the death sentence for that human embryo.

specsaregood
06-18-2010, 12:38 PM
No, I just believe life/personhood begins at conception, not implantation.
Creating a hostile environment to prevent implantation still destroys that life.

Just wondering, are you also against birth control pills?

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 12:40 PM
It's basically starving the zygote (no longer an egg at this point.) Scientifically, human life has begun, and those pills are designed to destroy it.

A lot of inaccurate language is used in this topic, some of it to favor certain positions. To walk through the science of conception, I highly recommend this page: http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

You beat me to it. Thanks for the link.

Here's another good one for those who see this as a religious issue:
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

TC95
06-18-2010, 12:42 PM
Question as this relates to the FDA. Why must some medicines place warnings on their medicine that they should not be taken (or in some cases even handled :eek:) by women who are pregnant or could become pregant? Obviously it's not for the health of the mother.

If these medicines must post warnings that they should not be taken by women who could become pregnant because of the risks to the unborn child ... why does this medicine not have to post a warning for it not to be taken by women who could become pregnant?

After all, when I buy a jar of peanuts, the label warns that it contains peanuts.

Because if you ingested or handled a pill that you didn't know could cause you to miscarry, and you miscarried your wanted child then you might sue them for not warning you and they can't have that.

If you purposely took a pill that you knew killed babies, then you can't sue them for it. They don't care what you take as long as you don't sue them for it. The goal is to make as much money as possible.

Brian4Liberty
06-18-2010, 12:44 PM
YouTube - Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python's Meaning of Life} (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8)

dannno
06-18-2010, 12:44 PM
So you believe life/personhood begins at implantation rather than conception?

Deuteronomy 12:23 "the blood is the life"

Blood in the fetus occurs at 1 month. I don't think there is any murder involved before 1 month. Consciousness probably occurs even later than that.

I don't consider "potential" for life = "life" because I think there is just as much potential for life between two fertile people who happen to be using a condom as there is with a fertilized egg.. both methods of birth control stop life from occurring.. the question is when does actual life occur, not the potential..

TheTyke
06-18-2010, 12:44 PM
Once we realize that it is scientifically the implantation of a human being being prevented, we should defend its life. The unborn are completely defenseless and entirely dependent on their mother for survival.

Those who rightly oppose senseless wars should understand that this is even worse... a grown human can at least run, hide, or try to escape... an unborn child can do none of these things, and it is even more tragic to be killed by the very individual who is your only hope of survival.

That's why I feel so strongly about this issue. I'm pro-life all the way - no wars except in self-defense, no killing of the unborn.

jkr
06-18-2010, 12:45 PM
got milk?

TheTyke
06-18-2010, 12:48 PM
Danno, it's scientifically a human life from conception. The term "fertilized egg" is inaccurate... check out the link I posted a bit back.

ChaosControl
06-18-2010, 12:50 PM
Just wondering, are you also against birth control pills?

Yes, does the same thing.

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 12:50 PM
Just wondering, are you also against birth control pills?

If I may offer my opinion though not directly asked.

From a legal standpoint, if it does not block implementation, no I am not.

From a practical standpoint ... I think birth control pills are terrible.

I think the concept is degrading to women. There is a lot of social pressure on them to take powerful and potentially damaging pills so that their bodies do not work the way they should by nature.

I think this has also led to a social pressure that women should wait to have children - in many cases until their body can no longer have kinds. Of course, for a lot of cash, the medical industrial complex will offer to fix that for you.

It's becoming more and more apparent that fertility drugs are harmfully impacting our waterways - but it's considered taboo to suggest such a thing.

They give people a false sense of their actions do not have the possible consequence of pregnancy.

I laugh at the people who won't eat chicken or beef that was fed hormones yet pound hormones every day in their BC pills.

angelatc
06-18-2010, 12:51 PM
So you believe life/personhood begins at implantation rather than conception?

Yes, I think so. I wouldn't refuse to vote for a candidate who wanted to ban those pills, but accepting the morning-after option as a compromise in banning abortion is an acceptable compromise to me.

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 12:53 PM
Because if you ingested or handled a pill that you didn't know could cause you to miscarry, and you miscarried your wanted child then you might sue them for not warning you and they can't have that.

If you purposely took a pill that you knew killed babies, then you can't sue them for it. They don't care what you take as long as you don't sue them for it. The goal is to make as much money as possible.

But then why does the FDA require that the can of peanuts warn that it contains peanuts?

I'm not talking about fear of lawsuit. I'm talking about FDA requiring warning about consequences. The consequences are the same, so the warning should be the same.

Dreamofunity
06-18-2010, 12:54 PM
I love BC, just saying.

ChaosControl
06-18-2010, 12:54 PM
Deuteronomy 12:23 "the blood is the life"

Blood in the fetus occurs at 1 month. I don't think there is any murder involved before 1 month. Consciousness probably occurs even later than that.

I don't consider "potential" for life = "life" because I think there is just as much potential for life between two fertile people who happen to be using a condom as there is with a fertilized egg.. both methods of birth control stop life from occurring.. the question is when does actual life occur, not the potential..

It isn't potential life, it is life. The origin point being conception. Prior to conception, no unique identity is yet created and thus no human life is created.

Conception just happens to be human life at the very earliest form. You could say that the sperm and the unfertilized egg are "potential life" as they may or may not result in a human life beginning. Conception though has already created the life, it does exist and just has to grow and develop.

I'm not religious, so that quote doesn't really mean much to me.

sevin
06-18-2010, 12:56 PM
No, I just believe life/personhood begins at conception, not implantation.
Creating a hostile environment to prevent implantation still destroys that life.

So do you think condoms are bad because they prevent implantation?


Deuteronomy 12:23 "the blood is the life"

Blood in the fetus occurs at 1 month. I don't think there is any murder involved before 1 month. Consciousness probably occurs even later than that.

I don't consider "potential" for life = "life" because I think there is just as much potential for life between two fertile people who happen to be using a condom as there is with a fertilized egg.. both methods of birth control stop life from occurring.. the question is when does actual life occur, not the potential..

Interesting perspective.

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 12:57 PM
Deuteronomy 12:23 "the blood is the life"

Blood in the fetus occurs at 1 month. I don't think there is any murder involved before 1 month. Consciousness probably occurs even later than that.

I don't consider "potential" for life = "life" because I think there is just as much potential for life between two fertile people who happen to be using a condom as there is with a fertilized egg.. both methods of birth control stop life from occurring.. the question is when does actual life occur, not the potential..

I'll repost my link since this can be addressed outside of religious texts:

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

specsaregood
06-18-2010, 12:58 PM
If I may offer my opinion though not directly asked.
From a legal standpoint, if it does not block implementation, no I am not.


As CC pointed out, they do the same thing. In fact, one can use regular birth control pills (taking large dose of them) to get the exact same effect as the "morning after pill". Because they are essentially the same thing.

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 12:59 PM
So do you think condoms are bad because they prevent implantation?

Interesting perspective.

They (in most but not all cases) prevent formation of a new human embryo. There is nothing then to implant.

dannno
06-18-2010, 01:01 PM
Danno, it's scientifically a human life from conception. The term "fertilized egg" is inaccurate... check out the link I posted a bit back.

I don't consider that human life if it doesn't have human blood. I mean, they even call it a zygote and not a human. It has the potential for human life, I don't know when human life begins, but I don't believe it is at that stage. Science is still written in english so trying to make definitions of words and then basing it on potential and all this other stuff doesn't actually make it science, it turns into an exercise of linguistics.

Either way, I still wouldn't vote for police to go around jailing women or doctors for performing abortions. I don't like medical abortions, I think they are violent and unnecessary, but I don't think it is my business. I actually prefer that people begin using natural abortive remedies which cause miscarriage over violent abortions.

I'll defend a baby from predators, not from it's own mother when it is still inside her. I believe that is her business, period. If God considers it murder, then great, but I don't think we as a society need to take on that responsibility. Nowhere in the bible does it mandate that people setup government and enforce laws. It says we are supposed to be good examples for others of how to live our lives. The whole idea that we as a society are responsible for the actions of others based on Christian principles is ludicrous. God is supposed to judge everyone, and we have the right to protect ourselves. Trying to setup a system that protects a fetus I believe would lead to an invasion of privacy for all mothers.

Edit: I just made a new thread on the topic in bold to be debated if anybody is interested, it is in the Religious forum.

JeNNiF00F00
06-18-2010, 01:02 PM
This is where I get off the pro-life wagon, I suppose. I really don't have a problem with changing the environment of the uterus to keep the egg from attaching, which (as I understand it) is essentially what the morning-after pills do.

I have used this after an "accident" with another form of birth control. It is not an abortion. Basically it switches your hormones so you get your period right away. Like a big birth control pill. I would probably not take it again, because of the hormonal swing it put my body through, but it is in no way an "abortion". Especially when it can take days for the sperm to reach the egg. You do this like within 24 hours.

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 01:03 PM
As CC pointed out, they do the same thing. In fact, one can use regular birth control pills (taking large dose of them) to get the exact same effect as the "morning after pill". Because they are essentially the same thing.

My understanding is that most prevent egg release. If taking large quantities of them prevents implantation, there is not much that can be done for that. There are many harmless substances that when taken in large quantities will kill an unborn child.

I'm not in favor of having any federal agency regulating drugs.

ChaosControl
06-18-2010, 01:05 PM
So do you think condoms are bad because they prevent implantation?



Interesting perspective.

Condoms don't prevent implantation, they prevent the sperm from reaching the egg to begin with which prevents conception.

JeNNiF00F00
06-18-2010, 01:06 PM
It isn't potential life, it is life. The origin point being conception. Prior to conception, no unique identity is yet created and thus no human life is created.

Conception just happens to be human life at the very earliest form. You could say that the sperm and the unfertilized egg are "potential life" as they may or may not result in a human life beginning. Conception though has already created the life, it does exist and just has to grow and develop.

I'm not religious, so that quote doesn't really mean much to me.

Yeah but it takes up to 7 days for the sperm to reach the egg. You take the morning after pill within hours of having sex. If implantation has occurred it doesn't destroy the pregnancy. Its not much different than taking birth control pills, other than its much stronger.

Krugerrand
06-18-2010, 01:09 PM
I don't consider that human life if it doesn't have human blood. I mean, they even call it a zygote and not a human. It has the potential for human life, I don't know when human life begins, but I don't believe it is at that stage. Science is still written in english so trying to make definitions of words and then basing it on potential and all this other stuff doesn't actually make it science, it turns into an exercise of linguistics.

Either way, I still wouldn't vote for police to go around jailing women or doctors for performing abortions. I don't like medical abortions, I think they are violent and unnecessary, but I don't think it is my business. I actually prefer that people begin using natural abortive remedies which cause miscarriage over violent abortions.

I'll defend a baby from predators, not from it's own mother when it is still inside her. I believe that is her business, period. If God considers it murder, then great, but I don't think we as a society need to take on that responsibility. Nowhere in the bible does it mandate that people setup government and enforce laws. It says we are supposed to be good examples for others of how to live our lives. The whole idea that we as a society are responsible for the actions of others based on Christian principles is ludicrous. God is supposed to judge everyone, and we have the right to protect ourselves. Trying to setup a system that protects a fetus I believe would lead to an invasion of privacy for all mothers.

Danno, I don't know why you keep making it a religious thing.

I'll agree that you will run into practical issues from stopping self-controlled abortions. But those issues need not stop shutting down the big money abortion industry.

TheTyke
06-18-2010, 01:10 PM
From my understanding, different pills work different ways. Although I'm morally opposed to all contraception, ones that actually prevent implantation or kill a child are more serious and probably should be factored into the laws to defend life.

I saw Ron's comments on this, and I agree that enforcement would prove difficult to handle... nonetheless, it's important to realize the principles and call a spade a spade.

Kylie
06-18-2010, 01:18 PM
I want to see how the defenders answer this question.


Let's look at this from a different angle:
how about the dude on Stossel's show about health care who CURED MOTHERFUCKING BLINDNESS yet can't perform his procedure in the US because the FDA requires too much money in testing before it'll approve it?

Makes perfect sense, since what we really need is yet another way for the irresponsible to have their booty calls sans any responsibility.

Say what?


My grandpa needs his eyesight back badly, where is this guy at?

dannno
06-18-2010, 01:25 PM
Say what?


My grandpa needs his eyesight back badly, where is this guy at?

I think it was this show:

http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi4195353625/


If not, it is still worth watching.. There was another show about regulations with flower arranging and stuff, I can't find it at the moment.. if that video above isn't it, and you can't find the one on regulations shoot me a PM.

Ninja Homer
06-18-2010, 01:32 PM
"Conception" is a relative term, and really shouldn't be used as an argument for this discussion unless you define your interpretation of "conception."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation#Humans
"The term conception commonly refers to fertilisation, the successful fusion of gametes to form a new organism. 'Conception' is used by some to refer to implantation and is thus a subject of semantic arguments about the beginning of pregnancy, within the abortion debate. Gastrulation, which occurs around 16 days after fertilisation, is the point in development when the implanted blastocyst develops three germ layers, the endoderm, the ectoderm and the mesoderm. It is at this point that the genetic code of the father becomes fully involved in the development of the embryo. Until this point in development, twinning is possible. Additionally, interspecies hybrids survive only until gastrulation, and have no chance of development afterward. However this stance is not entirely accepted as some human developmental biology literature refers to the "conceptus" and such medical literature refers to the "products of conception" as the post-implantation embryo and its surrounding membranes.[7] The term "conception" is not usually used in scientific literature because of its variable definition and connotation."

My own take on it is that you really haven't created a new human life until the point that the mother and father's genetic code have been integrated. Until the point of gastrulation, a human still has not been defined... it could still result in twins or more. I have absolutely no problem with a morning after pill.

Stary Hickory
06-18-2010, 01:35 PM
I would rather people take the morning after pill then kill a fetus in the 2nd or 3rd trimester. I mean this is better because it means there will be less fetus kill in the 1st trimester.

MelissaWV
06-18-2010, 01:41 PM
I have used this after an "accident" with another form of birth control. It is not an abortion. Basically it switches your hormones so you get your period right away. Like a big birth control pill. I would probably not take it again, because of the hormonal swing it put my body through, but it is in no way an "abortion". Especially when it can take days for the sperm to reach the egg. You do this like within 24 hours.

I'd hate to speak for CC, but I do know that after several discussions with some people on the board, they're opposed to birth control pills or any deliberate change in hormonal environment of the womb. Of course, most of those same people would not legislate that fact; they just don't use those items in their personal lives. It *can* take days for sperm to reach the egg. In the meantime, the environment has turned hostile for implantation (but not fertilization), so the zygote is flushed out with this enduced period. It's a finite distinction.

* * *

I think it's a slippery slope we're headed down, but I don't care what people ingest, honestly. I care what *I* ingest ;)

ChaosControl
06-18-2010, 01:41 PM
Yeah but it takes up to 7 days for the sperm to reach the egg. You take the morning after pill within hours of having sex. If implantation has occurred it doesn't destroy the pregnancy. Its not much different than taking birth control pills, other than its much stronger.

Its sort of a gamble then, ultimately. I don't know, not really into taking bets when life is involved.

CAKochenash
06-18-2010, 02:01 PM
Its sort of a gamble then, ultimately. I don't know, not really into taking bets when life is involved.

Word.

.Tom
06-18-2010, 02:32 PM
Anyone can put any pill they want into their own body.

/thread

RM918
06-18-2010, 02:35 PM
There's no real certainty in that period, if the pregnancy can't be confirmed then it's fine to me.

Xenophage
06-18-2010, 02:39 PM
The idea that a collection of pre-conscious cellular tissue has human rights simply demonstrates the utter irrationality of 'natural rights' philosophy (e.g., all humans get their rights from Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Incredible Levitating Mr. Jesus), and weakens the argument for liberty. You'll never win your battles until you start dealing with reality.

I've even heard the argument that because something "might become" a human, it has human rights (ignoring that when something "might become" something else, it implies that it is NOT that thing).

Killing an embryo is morally equivalent to cutting your hair. I'm for HUMAN rights, not the rights of HUMAN DNA.

If you think fetuses have rights you're simply subjugating the ACTUAL RIGHTS of a live human woman to the imaginary rights of a person that simply does NOT exist. The issue isn't when LIFE begins, the issue is when consciousness begins - and we can argue about that one all day - but the simple fact is that the morning after pill poses no threat to anyone!

fisharmor
06-18-2010, 02:41 PM
I have used this after an "accident" with another form of birth control. It is not an abortion. Basically it switches your hormones so you get your period right away. Like a big birth control pill. I would probably not take it again, because of the hormonal swing it put my body through, but it is in no way an "abortion". Especially when it can take days for the sperm to reach the egg. You do this like within 24 hours.


Yeah but it takes up to 7 days for the sperm to reach the egg. You take the morning after pill within hours of having sex. If implantation has occurred it doesn't destroy the pregnancy. Its not much different than taking birth control pills, other than its much stronger.

Ok, so you've stated that:
a) it forces an immediate period
b) if implantation has occurred it doesn't destroy the pregnancy.

How do you reconcile these two statements?


I think it was this show:

http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi4195353625/


If not, it is still worth watching.. There was another show about regulations with flower arranging and stuff, I can't find it at the moment.. if that video above isn't it, and you can't find the one on regulations shoot me a PM.

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure it was the regulations show I'm thinking of, thanks.


It *can* take days for sperm to reach the egg.

And sometimes that scene from "There's Something About Mary" doesn't seem far fetched.
You can't rely on any lapse of time to be there if your goal is to prevent conception.

dean.engelhardt
06-18-2010, 02:45 PM
YouTube - Theology of Monty Python - Every Sperm is Sacred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A)

tangent4ronpaul
06-18-2010, 03:23 PM
YouTube - Theology of Monty Python - Every Sperm is Sacred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A)

T-Shirt Hell used to sell a T that said: " THOUSANDS of my potential offspring DIED on your daughters face last night" in "glazed face" font. Unfortunately, it is not currently available, but that shirt does get some looks... Sometimes very negative, sometimes very positive. :D

It should be available again - keep checking the site. They rotate shirts.

-t

devil21
06-18-2010, 04:38 PM
The "Morning After Pill" is completely different than the "Abortion Pill RU-486". It's about the same as most other forms of contraception in that it makes fertilization very difficult. It does not kill a fertilized fetus. I have no problem with it personally.

silentshout
06-18-2010, 04:52 PM
Good. If someone wants to take a morning after pill to prevent a pregnancy, they should be able to.

MelissaWV
06-18-2010, 05:02 PM
Good. If someone wants to take a morning after pill to prevent a pregnancy, they should be able to.

Shit, with a look at this thread, the question might well be "if someone DOESN'T want to take a morning after pill because they find it to be in a gray area they're not comfortable with, can they still count on RPFs support?"

toodles
06-18-2010, 06:29 PM
No, I just believe life/personhood begins at conception, not implantation.
Creating a hostile environment to prevent implantation still destroys that life.

Do you also have issues with an IUD that creates a hostile environment?

angelatc
06-18-2010, 06:38 PM
My understanding is that most prevent egg release. If taking large quantities of them prevents implantation, there is not much that can be done for that. There are many harmless substances that when taken in large quantities will kill an unborn child.

I'm not in favor of having any federal agency regulating drugs.

I think - and this is going back a ways - that some pills do both. It depends on which hormones are in them. But the new stuff they have out, that allows women to entirely skip periods for months on end? I have no real idea how those work, but I suspect by preventing the egg release.

angelatc
06-18-2010, 06:43 PM
Shit, with a look at this thread, the question might well be "if someone DOESN'T want to take a morning after pill because they find it to be in a gray area they're not comfortable with, can they still count on RPFs support?"

When I need support, RPFs isn't the place to go for just about any topic. :)

I'd definitely support somebody who doesn't want to take the morning after pill.

angelatc
06-18-2010, 06:48 PM
Yeah but it takes up to 7 days for the sperm to reach the egg. You take the morning after pill within hours of having sex. If implantation has occurred it doesn't destroy the pregnancy. Its not much different than taking birth control pills, other than its much stronger.

According to the Mayo Clinic:


Depending on where you are in your menstrual cycle, the morning-after pill can prevent ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. If you're already pregnant when you take the morning-after pill, the treatment will be ineffective and won't harm the developing baby.

JeNNiF00F00
06-18-2010, 11:29 PM
Ok, so you've stated that:
a) it forces an immediate period
b) if implantation has occurred it doesn't destroy the pregnancy.

How do you reconcile these two statements?


http://health.howstuffworks.com/morning-after1.htm

For me I think I started my period within a few days of taking it, however others have a period within a week or two of taking it. If you ARE pregnant you wouldn't get the period.

It delays the release of the egg. I dont think they give you the morning after pill if its been more than 72 hours because it would never work if you were preggers. The longer you wait the less effective.

JeNNiF00F00
06-18-2010, 11:41 PM
I'd hate to speak for CC, but I do know that after several discussions with some people on the board, they're opposed to birth control pills or any deliberate change in hormonal environment of the womb. Of course, most of those same people would not legislate that fact; they just don't use those items in their personal lives. It *can* take days for sperm to reach the egg. In the meantime, the environment has turned hostile for implantation (but not fertilization), so the zygote is flushed out with this enduced period. It's a finite distinction.

* * *

I think it's a slippery slope we're headed down, but I don't care what people ingest, honestly. I care what *I* ingest ;)

Well after taking it, I would NOT do it again because it got my hormones out of whack for awhile afterwards. But, at the time there was NO way I was mature or responsible enough to even go through pregnancy. I was partying pretty hard, had little income, and had no intentions of changing my life at the time. I was pretty selfish. I don't support abortion, however I don't consider the morning after pill as such.

ChaosControl
06-19-2010, 12:01 AM
Do you also have issues with an IUD that creates a hostile environment?

Yes

Vessol
06-19-2010, 12:09 AM
Let's ban condoms as well! Baby murdering devices!