Is this the internet equivalent of sticking your head in the sand? If you dont aknowledge our destroying your posts, it never happened?


BTW, this last post was even weaker than your previous post.



We have done nothing of the kind. I posted numerous times that all the Morning after pill does is alter the timing of a woman's menstrual cycle. She has her regular menstruation the next day, her cycle is now based on that day as the start of the 28 days. That is what happens. I posted that, and you ignored it and pretended it never happened, a tactic you seem to be gtting very, very good at.



Again, we have concluded nothing of the kind. There has been no misinformation, people know very well that the pill will change their menstrual cycle. They also know clearly that, like when they have their menstrual cycle normally, any implanted egg will be discarded along with the menstrual lining. Obviously people know that, and knew it from day 1, it is hard to conceal thefact that a woman menstruates after taking the pill.



Now you are just being obtuse. How on earth has there been misinformation on this fact, and even if there was your own poll has shown that the vast majority of women do not care. People know the morning after pill prevents them from getting pregnant. It does this by making them menstruate. That is an unconcealeable fact, clearly there has been no misinformation.



Your facts are mistaken. Both medicine and the law clearly states that there are no children at this point. Please check your facts, and possibly a dictionary.

Curious. Why don't abortion clinics call the procedure 'menstral extraction' (or some euphemistic equivalent) instead of abortion, for the same reason?

Freechildren, you are arbitrarily choosing your own "facts", while ignoring other facts, specifically those of THE ENTIRE MEDICAL COMMUNITY.



No, as you yourself said 50 or 60 times, under "the broadest and most traditional definition of pregnancy", it's an ovum from conception to birth. You cherry pick through facts and decide which "traditional" definition is true with no reasoning behind it whatsoever.

You also refuse to tell me why it's ok to kill the sperm and the egg half a second before they join, but not half a second after. The potential for life exists in both, you cannot argue that it doesn't.

Prenidial ("pre-NID-e-al") means before implantation. I just put this definition there to make life easier for you, since your next post will inevitably contain it yet again.

As Vermillion pointed out in his last posting, neither we or the medical community has "confirmed that morning-after pills cause prenidial abortions." To assert this as fact is misleading on your behalf. If you feel I am incorrect in this assessment, by all means provide some support for making this claim.

And should you actually choose to possibly support one of your as yet unsubstantiated claims, perhaps you might try supporting your latest conspiracy theory targeting the American Psychiatric Association. You claim the APA is involved with an as yet unsubstantiated misinformation campaign to offer women a "psychological remedy." Precisely what role has the APA played to date in the emergence and promotion of emergency contraception, freechildren? And I would request that you provide links to credible sources rather than an imaginative history with little or no factual basis.

There has been no conclusion that morning-after pills perform any abortifacient functions. As such, neither the American Psychiatric Association or any other organization can be reasonably accused of any misinformation campaign to hide some evil abortion conspiracy. Furthermore, you have provided no support to show that the APA has had any role in the issue of emergency contraceptives, much less one of deceiving women about the physiological effects of such pills.

All you have done is abandon one extensively flawed and failed conspiracy theory to pick up another one. If this new conspiracy of yours is not without the same gross flaws of your last ones, perhaps you will be able to dig up some factual support for your claims this time around. Merely stating opinions and fabrications as facts will not make them so.

I have to move along past sub-topics that I have discussed repeatedly. It is not that I am unwilling to address concerns. It is simply that I feel the need to establish greater breadth first. Then we can look at what needs to be considered in greater depth. Please bear with me on this.

Mrs. Pigpen,

In the early 1900s, doctors spoke of the woman (not the baby) as being aborted. "A woman who was aborted in the 8th week..." Gradually this changed to the idea of an abortion being performed upon her. Today we speak of the baby as the one who is aborted. But as to your question about the effectiveness of various rationalization strategies, why do you think people focus on the abstract concept of "Choice" instead of on the baby's life who is aborted?

The American Psychiatric Association is certainly not going to tell women, "Medically speaking, an abortion at any time from fertilization onward means the baby dies; this is true regardless of whether the abortion was due to natural or accidental causes or homicidal in nature." Instead, they let women rationalize.

I think if you look upon the woman as a nut and the product of intercourse as a rusty bolt you can address this issue. The nut does not wish to have the rusty bolt. It may have used previous techniques, such as oiling the bolts, that failed. This other last chance method has a good success rate of removing the rusty bolt. However, if you are a pipefitter and must deal with couplings, adapters, branch tees, etc the analogy gets a bit complicated.

Freechildren, you haven't provided anything to show any involvement of the American Psychiatric Association in the issue of emergency contraceptives to begin formulating non-existant scenarios about what they may or may not say to women regarding the pills. I'm not actually sure how you perceive an organization geared for psychiatric treatment to be in anyway involved with an issue of physiology. If you're going to insist on their involvement in some unproven conspiracy theory, I would advise you to provide some support for the claim that they have any role at all. I would also encourage you to try supporting the conspiracy theory as a whole if you expect to be taken seriously in this debate.

Well, that would actually be inaccurate, because a fertilized egg is not a baby. Therefore, claiming that "medically speaking" the 'baby dies' prior to implantation would be false. Telling the woman that the fertilized egg is prevented from implanting itself is true.

Only one percent of women have ever used emergency contraception (as of August 2000). However, each year, over two percent of women have abortions. Your conspiracy theory that the APA (along with the entire medical community) is lying to women to prevent the "deep grief " and providing a "psychological escape route" fails the reasonability test. I would expect much more liberal use of the ECP from an entire medical community conspiring to promote this agenda.

Or at least, ones where your psudo-logic and inventions have been so soundly deconstructed it would be embarassing to aknowledge them.



You are correct, the AMA would not tell a woman that, because it would be completely wrong. No baby dies in your example, none at all. This is not in dispute, by the way, if you are confused, please consult a dictionary.

So having been soundly beaten about the head and shoulders on your every argument, what is the point behind this desperate new diversion?

At present, one-third of those polled at this forum are not convinced that the public has been duly informed about the morning-after pill. Moreover, a number of those present have demonstrated that they appear to have been greatly misled by the morning-after campaign, even though they thought the public was not misinformed. (Some take the poll before they have a chance to find out from this debate how little they really knew.)

Reflecting on my last two posts, the sub-topic I am driving at is this: To what extent is our "culture of rationalization" responsible for widely tolerated misinformation about the morning-after pill? This question is particularly important for those who already admit that the public is being misinformed about the morning-after pill.

Again, I would like to draw a parallel between today's intellectual community and the Catholic church of old. Although the pope today has attempted to gain favor with scientists by saying "evolution is more than a hypothesis", the church has traditionally taught the creationist story of human origins. However, biologists have argued that although this story may have served society well in the past to some extent, it nevertheless remains a fact that the creationist story is merely a "socially acquired" interpretation of the origins of humanity. In contrast, biologists and other member of the intellectual community teach us that, according to evolutionary theory, they are providing us with a description of the "scientific origins" of humanity.

But let us see what happens in our "culture of rationalization" when the shoe is on the other foot. If you ask the biologist "how old are you?" he or she will tell you his or her age from birth. But age from birth is merely a "socially acquired" interpretation of the beginning of life. Notably, some Jews believe there is a religious basis for accepting the first breath as the starting point from which human age is to be measured. But the biologist, of all people, should of course know that his or her "scientific age" begins at conception (e.g. fertilization).

Instead, in this culture of rationalization, the biologist may become hotly mad at the suggestion that science would dictate respect for anything but a socially acquired notion of the onset of a person's age, namely birth. For, many in the intellectual community feel that a socially acquired view that birth marks the beginning of a person's age will serve society better than any purely scientific view on the scientific start of a person's age at conception.

Ironically, though these same biologists and other members of the intellectual community profess to tell us about events taking place an amazing number of years ago, they are unable to recount for us the scientific orgin of their own age beginning at the event long known as conception. Few are even able to describe early events of human life such as hatching. Yet they do not hesitate to talk openly about their profound knowledge of details of "evolution" taking place thousands if not millions of years ago. Some have even tried to evade the issue by redefining conception as implantation!

Thus, it is truly a wakeup call for our culture of rationalization to ask an evolutionary theorist how old he or she is, only to have him or her give a measure of age since birth--a socially acquired version of the story--rather than an accurate scientific measure based on the scientific origin of life at conception. Moreover, with the mentality of a staunch creationist, these same evolutionary theorists will say things like, "That is a bunch of nonsense. Measuring age from birth is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of the facts. There is no need to change this interpretation which serves society well."

So, to use the above example, in a culture of rationalization where even biologists and other members of the intellectual community get into the act, is it easy to see how the public can end up being grossly misinformed about something as hazardous to prenidial gestation as the morning-after pill? (Prenidial gestation is the period of pregnancy from fertilization to implantation.) Indeed, it seems even biologists, who ordinarily call themselves scientists, are more absorbed with "socially acquired" views of things, including the morning-after pill, than they are with truly scientific views.