Options
Why are we putting age limits on the Morning After Pill?
Pacomc79
Posts: 9,404
This is not an Abortion, and therefore not even in the midst of that debate.
Why do we need to check an ID for emergency contraception?
Why isn't this thing available for just that Emergency Contraception in pharmacies all accross the US?
All of the debate against it is moral BS about how people "could" potentially use it.
Like most topics, I don't see ruining potentially good technology for everyone simply because there are a few people who can't control themselves.
Why do we need to check an ID for emergency contraception?
Why isn't this thing available for just that Emergency Contraception in pharmacies all accross the US?
All of the debate against it is moral BS about how people "could" potentially use it.
Like most topics, I don't see ruining potentially good technology for everyone simply because there are a few people who can't control themselves.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Don't kid yourself. If freaking stem cells are a de facto abortion issue, then EC will definitely be thrown into the abortion debate, no matter how illogical it seems.
While we're on the topic, it does seem strange to put an age limit on emergency contraception, especially when you consider the fact that the age limit will probably lead to more teenagers having abortions, which the anti-EC people are ostensibly against, and more teenage mothers drawing on govt. social services, which lots of pro-lifers probably see "their hard earned money going to subsidize welfare handouts to teenage sluts".
Nonsensical.
Is this for real? Cause this is a stupid thing to do. In Israel one type of that pill called Postinor 2 (Levonorgestrel 0.75mg) is available in most of our pharmacies. This pill contains a low dose of synthetic Progesterone, hence preventing pregnancy BEFORE its created (you should take it till 72 hours from your last un-protected sex). The pill has a 85% effectiveness, and is marketed specially for emergency cases like rape or a ripped condom.
What is the exact pill you are talking about?
An another example of how politics are more important to the government than our citizens... This announcement comes out 1 day before von Eschenbach's confirmation hearing.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
According to dictionary.com, the following are definitions of abortion:
--Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
-- An aborted organism.
Based on these terms, one can certainly consider the premature cessation of a growing unborn entity "abortion" and not be considered illogical.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Some people see the fertilised egg as being the beginnings of the life of the individual, and therefore see the deliberate cessation of this life as being abortion. In such a view, the term "pregnancy", referring to implantation in the uterus, is irrelevent since the new "life" (in such a view) is a new life even before it implants in the uterus.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yeah but that rationale is opposed to condoms, diaphrams, birth control pills and seemingly the female "period" as well.
Emergency contraception seeks to keep said organism from growing. That's the whole idea. Emergency contraception. Uh oh. accident, lets make sure this dosen't become conception... after which it could be considered an abortion.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
no I see your point. I'm just saying, this is designed to stop potential conception. It's pre abortion. No different than say taking 2 birth control pills at the same time.
It's definately subjective. I just don't understand, if you aren't against contraception in the first place how you could be against emergency contraception. Contraception comes before an abortion.
In terms of this pill, it specifically seeks to end the progression of a fertilised egg, a new entity with it's own DNA an therefore identity. This is abortion by some standards.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Levonorgestrel pill prevents ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary), disrupts fertilization (joining of the egg and sperm), and inhibits implantation (attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus), not preventing it.
good info, so yeah, it's exactly like it seems, an argument over subjective semantics.
We're back to the "when does life begin argument".
These kind of pills have 2 doses only, so I doubt there will be some serious hormone problems as a result of using these pills, only side effects (of course, there is still a small chance the pill will cause serious side effects. In this case, the woman should not take the second dose and must see a doctor). Also, these are not made for daily-use, just for emergency cases.
It's wrong, Levonorgestrel pill only inhibits a potential implantation, not preveting it.
Lets follow these rational train tracks down the line:
If a woman misses a day and has sex, she may have a fertilized egg. If she doubles the next morning to catch up, she may cause the egg not to attach. Should we define life as fertilization, she is guilty of some crime; perhaps reckless endangerment. The equivalent to leaving a child in a vehicle with the windows rolled up perhaps.
Cervical growths may impair bringing a "baby" to term. We often compell parents not just to refrain from an act but also require they must perform certain acts to preserve a child's health and welfare. Accordingly, we might require a woman to undergo surgery to allow a baby to come to term.
Sometimes a woman who isn't taking the pill has a hormonal imbalance. A lack of progesterone will keep a fertilized egg from attaching. We might require a sex license like a drivers license and require a hormonal check and correction to avoid an accident of life from becoming a miscarriage of justice.
In older women smoking can cause a deteriation in the egg...
You are sitting in an invitro-fertilization bank. You notice a mother who earlier passed out was removed by ambulance left her baby. It is now in your care. A fire alarm goes off. You have a chance to save 100 fertilized eggs awaiting implant into a uterus or you can save the baby. You can't do both.
It is sometimes good to take an example to extremes to see what we believe. In this case, the extreme was to test how far would we go in protecting a life. Compare the obvious answers with questions where we would move heaven and earth to save a child in peril.
We don't consider the fertilized egg as an equivalent of a born child.
--to prevent: the meaning is quite obvious in regards to preventing a fertilised egg from implanting, as I mentioned to before.
--limit, or block the action or function: thereby preventing a fertilised egg from continuing it's process as an individual entity with it's own potential remains abortion to some.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
In each situation, the individual is responsible for their each choice, whether they are aware of all the variables. Therefore, it's very important that each person be as aware of as many variables as possible, as per their own personal inner code of ethics.
You can speak for yourself, or a prevalent idea. You cannot speak for everyone.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
In med / biology world, inhibit =/= prevent. Inhibit = delay the process, prevent= full block of a process. There's a big difference between these 2, and either way, I just can't believe the US is restricting that pill cause of semantics. Not only this is hypocritical, but also dangerous
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So you have to understand this case should be discussed (in the US, personaly I'm shocked someone need to have a disscussion about what she is "allowed" to do with her own body) in med-deffinitions, not dictionary-deffinitions.
The point is the medical profession does not make the moral distinctions for the individual. They attempt to put forth information neutrally. By doing so they are not suggesting that individuals do not bring their personal ethics to the table--they are rather suggesting that individuals DO bring their personal ethics to the table and add that to the mix.
Is this not the heart of "choice"?
Medical or otherwise, preventing the individual unborn entity to unfold is preventing it to unfold. We can use the word "inhibit", and still it is prevented from implanting in the uterus. We cannot deny that the very purpose of this pill is to prevent such implantation.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Age limits means a 16 years old girl can't have that pill, but a 18 or 21 years old woman can? If that's correct, then the whole 'semantics' argument is irrelevant for that spesific case (which makes it even more strange & stupid).
Not moral distinctions, but simply distinctions who one should consider. I meant what I said before, physically there is a big difference between an "inhibition-drug" than a "preventing drug".
And no, the main activity of Levonorgestrel pill is preventing ovulation & disrupting fertilization, that's why it has only 85% effectiveness.
btw, I didn't understand the part of "Is this not the heart of choice?".
Earlier you said: "Inhibit = delay the process". Are you suggesting that people are not preventing pregnancy but merely delaying it? When this pill forces the unborn entity, complete with it's individual DNA, to be aborted, that's not delaying a (edit: this specific) pregnancy.
Having one's full choice is about taking the scientific or medical facts and processing that individually through one's own personal beliefs. The heart of choice is where each individual chooses for themselves, based on their beliefs and how they uniquely interpret the facts. Science and the medical profession cannot interpret our values judgements for us. Nor do they attempt to take away our personal choice--rather the neutrality of science encourages our personal interpretation of the facts.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There's not much to consider. The answers are obvious to most. But I'm speaking in terms of the public arena. Personal inner codes have no place in legislation of the general populace.
1. delaying the process of implantation = might prevent pregnancy. Eetrogen derived pills are preventing implantation. I thought the ethical problem starts only AFTER fertilization, not before (hence, there's still no new individual DNA).
2. Science medical profession = another source of info who can help us decide what is good for us and what's not. That's why understanding med-deffinitions is important.
2. So the choice should be mine & mine only, I don't need someone else to decide for me what age should I use it etc', the only thing I might need is an un-biased recommendations & info, not rules.
4. What about that age thing I've asked about?