Why are we putting age limits on the Morning After Pill?

Pacomc79

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.

Milhouse VanHouten

Pacomc79 wrote:

This is not an Abortion, and therefore not even in the midst of that debate.

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.

shiraz

Pacomc79 wrote:

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.

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?

MrBrian

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060731/ap_on_go_ot/morning_after_pill

blackredyellow

Makes no sense to me either... people under 18 can buy condoms, and everything else, why not this?

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.

angelica

The abortion/not-abortion views of the EC pill seem based upon how one looks upon or interprets the facts, thereby being subjective rather than objective. In other words, it appears as a matter of opinion whether taking the pill is considered an act of abortion.

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.

know1

Because so many parents do such a piss poor job of it that the government has to step in.

angelica

shiraz wrote:

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?

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.

Pacomc79

angelica wrote:

The abortion/not-abortion views of the EC pill seem based upon how one looks upon or interprets the facts, thereby being subjective rather than objective. In other words, it appears as a matter of opinion whether taking the pill is considered an act of abortion.

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.

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.

angelica

Pacomc79 wrote:

Yeah but that rationale is opposed to condoms, diaphrams, birth control pills and seemingly the female "period" as well.

That aside, the specific argument I refer to regarding this pill stands on it's own in a rational train of thought.

Pacomc79

angelica wrote:

That aside, the specific argument I refer to regarding this pill stands on it's own in a rational train of thought.

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.

angelica

Pacomc79 wrote:

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.

For the record, female periods, and birth control methods that prevent conception are distinctly not about ceasing a NEW, individual life that exists. A new life is different, complete with unique DNA of it's own. An unfertilised egg is quite a separate issue.

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.

angelica

Pacomc79 wrote:

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.

According to Wikipedia, the pill works by preventing ovulation, conception, AND also the implantation of the fertilised egg when it is in fact fertilised.

tybird

Did anyone ever think that it might cause hormone problems for a female under a certain age???

shiraz

angelica wrote:

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.

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.

Pacomc79

angelica wrote:

According to Wikipedia, the pill works by preventing ovulation, conception, AND also the implantation of the fertilised egg when it is in fact fertilised.

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".

shiraz

tybird wrote:

Did anyone ever think that it might cause hormone problems for a female under a certain age???

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.

shiraz

angelica wrote:

According to Wikipedia, the pill works by preventing ovulation, conception, AND also the implantation of the fertilised egg when it is in fact fertilised.

It's wrong, Levonorgestrel pill only inhibits a potential implantation, not preveting it.

SundaySilence

angelica wrote:

That aside, the specific argument I refer to regarding this pill stands on it's own in a rational train of thought.

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.

angelica

shiraz wrote:

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.

"inhibit" according to dictionary.com: --to hold back" In terms of "holding back" a fertilised egg from it's purpose, to some this is clearly an abortion.

--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.

angelica

SundaySilence wrote:

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.

You've obviously considered these issues. I encourage each person to consider their own personal ethics/morals code for themselves. For some people, the EC pill can equal abortion.

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.

We don't consider the fertilized egg as an equivalent of a born child.

You can speak for yourself, or a prevalent idea. You cannot speak for everyone.