Better idea (my opinion ): let them vote with their wallets. If people didn't want these products, they would no longer be offered by the pharma firms.

FC, even if your so-called "truth" comes out (and most people are already better informed anyway), they will still want birth control... in ANY form that prevents pregnancy (as in "the fetus implants and begins growing for several days inside the uterus", not as in "temporary implantation" or "fertilization", so don't both trying to change the definition of "pregnancy", because I already have my own opinion on what that means).

A baby can hatch from the shell of his or her egg and most people do not know that the chemicals in the birth control and morning-after pill, which are the same chemicals in different doses, can kill those babies. A lot of babies die naturally in third world countries; a lot of babies die naturally prior to implantation. Before the advent of pediatrics in our country, a lot of babies died naturally during the first few years after birth.

quarkhead,

Like so many doctors in this country, they are recipients of the conspiracy who learn what they are told, and then pretend they are something more than memorizers. They probably do not even know babies have to hatch and that a "fertilized egg" cannot implant.

Otherwise, they would have said, "freechildren is correct, and the FDA is publishing misinformation, for it is known that a fertilized egg cannot implant. We used to think that, but now we know it is wrong. Instead, the baby must breach the shell of the egg at hatching time. Then the baby leaves the empty shell behind as he or she seeks out the lining of the maternal uterus and burrows in so as to implant."

You go quote them that sentence and see their reaction.

You can also ask them if they realize the morning-after pill is less effective than the withdrawal or rhythm methods. Even the people on the FDA panel probably did not know.

The conspiracy those doctors are apart of is the conspiracy of ignorance. You do not realize what a joke American medicine really is, and why the punch line is not funny.

freedchildren, you keep repeating the same things over and over. But you are yet to answer any of my questions that I've been posing repeatedly yesterday. Why is that? Could it be that....there is really no fact that your point rest on?

For someone who is so concerned with the meanings of words and their supposed misrepresentation I find this surprising. Someone who has pioneered Micro-ICU should know enough about prenatal-development to understand that an embyro does NOT have a gender this early in it's development.

Freechildren, I notice you continue to ignore almost all of the comments and arguments made against you as you cannot cope with them, and selectively pick and choose things to argue. I also notice that you continue to misuse the english language by calling a just implanted egg a baby. Please buy a dictionary, any one, and read it. It is an egg, and at BEST it is a fetus. It is NOT, despite your attempts to redefine for your own propagandistic purposes, a baby.



I'm sorry, and your point is? I stated clearly and simply that the morning after pill does not cause an abortion, it causes menstruation. Were you to take the morning after pill when you were not pregnant, it causes menstruation. If you take it when you do have an emplanted egg, it causes menstruation. Beginning to see a pattern? Your counter point is "lots of fetuses fail to come to term in lots of different ways". Well good for you. Was there a point there?

The Morning after pill simply alters the schedule of the natural cycle of a woman's body, nothing else. Had the menstruation occurred naturally (on cycle) a day or so after egg implantation, then the egg would have been lost in exactly the same way. Thus, all the morning after pill does is alter a woman's monthly cycle. There is no abortion.

There is also no conspiracy, this is the weakest of your list of weak points, please do NOT mention this foolish conspiracy point again unless you can produce at least a shred of evidence to back it up.

So let me get this straight... most doctors are co-conspirators in deceiving women, yet they are simultaneously ignorant of your alleged facts regarding fertilized eggs and implanation. Then, in spite of combined conspiracies and medical ignorance, they are going to have the wisdom to agree with your alleged facts about a baby actively breaching an egg (presumably in their embryonic "space suit") to consciously seek out a point of implantation in the uterus?

Forgive me if I must resort to medical sources who are conspiring against you and the good women of this country, but from everything I have been able to find there is no baby present at the time the zona pellucida dissolves allowing the fertilized egg to implant.


As there appear to be no babies present, there are no babies to be killed. Conspiracy fears aside, this seems to be the consensus of the medical community at large. To say otherwise without medical support appears to be in itself a misinformation tactic.


Besides a small cluster of cells not being equivalent to a baby, there also appears to not be any abortion taking place seeing as how there is no interruption in the gestation of an implanted embryo or fetus. You add to your long list of unsubstantiated claims now that the morning-after pill is less effective than the rhythm or withdrawal methods. Forgive me again for having to turn to those in the medical community conspiring against you and the good women of this country, but I have found a site disputing your claim. Where there appears to be a 0.3% chance of getting pregnant with proper use of the morning after pill, there is a 25% chance of getting pregnant with the rhythm method. Withdrawal is not considered contraceptive.

I would use credible medical sources outside of this vast conspiracy, presumably with information matching what you have alleged here, but you have refused requests to support your claims. Without access to the same integrity driven sites as yourself I seem to have no real way of verifying you claims. All the medical sites I've personally perused have blatantly contradicted your unsubstantiated claims.

Freechildren, how many men outside the medical field can accurately describe exactly how their sperm is produced? I doubt many people realize exactly how aspirin works, either. Or blood pressure medicine. Or cholesterol-lowering medicine. Not knowing technical details does not mean a conspiracy was in place to keep the details from public knowledge.



Some people might think that taking six ibuprofen pills would be more effective to relieve their wicked headache than taking one. Some people think it's OK to take somebody else's antibiotics for a cold. Self-medication is a big problem in medicine; it is certainly not restricted to contraceptives. Practically all over-the-counter medication has risks if taken in excess--should they all be pulled from the shelves?



Mega doses of what? The oral contraceptives they don't have? If they had the pill, chances are good they'd have been taking them, and they wouldn't need an emergency contraceptive. You think women will take handfuls of emergency contraceptives if they're over-the-counter? You think they'd pay 2, 3, 4 times to get the mega dosage you're talking about? I don't understand your line of reasoning with this at all. Which pills will they be taking mega doses of?




I don't think any confusion is involved. If the definition was changed, it was changed to avoid confusion. Medicine needs to be as exact as possible. Doctors and researchers cannot accurately determine time of fertilization; they can determine time of implantation accurately.



I wasn't going to reply to this paragraph at all. I find it rather insulting that you think you could possibly know the motives, intent, reasoning, and thought processes of all doctors and all women. To imply that you do is unreasonable and extremely arrogant. I'm somewhat miffed that you think you know how I (and other women) would (or should) react to this "news." And that you think my gynecologist is misleading me (the man's an incredible doctor; I'd trust him with my life). One more thing about this quote: "Ladies doctors" aren't "selected" at all. Doctors choose which fields they will practice; nobody "selects" them.

The whole "hatching" vs. "egg implantation" debate is rather silly, in my opinion. Who besides you cares whether it's the egg or not at implantation? I don't. At all. It's irrelevant.

And comparing efficacy rates between emergency contraceptives and the rhythm or withdrawal methods is ludicrous; the rhythm and withdrawal methods would have a 0% efficacy rate after a rape or an unplanned sexual encounter.



This is at least the third time you've insulted American medicine. Why is American medicine different from medicine in any other country? Emergency contraceptions is available elsewhere; are there conspiracies in those countries, too?

Like Mrs. Pigpen before you, this statement shows how badly misinformed the public is about the morning-after pill. The consequence is that people will start relying on the morning-after pill without knowing how ineffective it really is. Then, once people realize the pills are ineffective but have an antinidatory effect by producing abortions between fertilization and implantation, women will start taking more than the recommended dosage. Remember, the morning-after pill is nothing other than a mega-dose of the chemicals in the birth control pill, and birth control pills have been known to harm women. But even at the recommended dosage, the morning-after pill can make women profusely sick. Thus, in addition to causing abortions between fertilization and implantation, women will be harmed when they take more than the recommended dosage to compensate for the relative ineffectiveness of the pills.

The reason why the public often gets confused about the effectiveness of the morning-after pill is that some authorities tell them that the pills reduce the chance of getting pregnant after an act of unprotected sex by such and such an amount. But what many of the authorities do not tell women, Princeton University is an exception, is that taking the pills after unprotected sex is less likely to prevent pregnancy than going by something as crude as even the withdrawal method. This is because if the morning-after pill is relied upon, the annual effectiveness at preventing pregnancy is only 62% with the morning-after pill called Preven, and only 81% with the morning-after pill called Plan B, in contrast to 82% for the withdrawal method (see SexInfo.com) (higher for perfect use) and 87% for the rhythm method in typical use (or 95% for the version known as the Standard Days Method).

So do not get confused. Here is what Princeton University says:



Thus, society would be much better off selling the colored bead necklaces used in the Standard Days Method at local drug stores, than selling the morning-after pill. Plus, unlike the Standard Days Method, which prevents pregnancy altogether, including fertilization, the morning-after pill does not really prevent pregnancy altogether, because it has an antinidatory effect which can kill babies between fertilization and implantation. Also, women will be likely to take extra doses of the morning-after pill if they are allowed to use the pills without a prescription, because they will want to compensate for the ineffectiveness of a normal dosage by increasing the chemical's antinidatory effect with a stronger dosage. But even in the weaker form of the birth control pill, those chemicals have been known to harm women. And in the recommended dosage the morning-after pill can make women very sick. So, there are going to be a lot of unwanted pregnancies (because a public misinformed about the morning-after pill wil rely on the pills despite their relative ineffectiveness compared to other methods), a lot of RU-468 abortions and clinic abortions from all the unwanted pregnancies, a lot of children being aborted between fertilization and implantation, and a lot of women getting sick and injured if the morning-after pill, which has been the object of a massive misinformation campaign, is allowed to hit the over-the-counter market.

Your source from Sexinfo.com also recognizes withdrawal to be the least effective means of birth control. It also listed the rhythm method as being below 87% with a conclusive number seemingly elusive due to the lack of any consistency by those employing it and by the numbers of women who don't experience a regular (predictable) menstrual cycle.

That site offers the lowest success rate of the morning-after pill I have seen, and that's 75% in the face of clinical trials. Neither the rhythm method or withdrawal can be as carefully scrutinized as the morning-after pill, which I might also point out is intended as an emergency contraceptive rather than a regular contraceptive. To say at it's worst it is 75% effective for those women in search for an emergency barrier to pregnancy is hardly "ineffective."


It has side effects, not an uncommon occurrence for any form of medication. This information is readily accessible for women is not being hidden on behalf of any conspiracy.


The quote you supply presupposes that emergency contraception is the only contraception used by sexually active women for the duration of an entire year. As most research into popular usage of birth control methods would likely show, this is not a true reflection of emergency contraception's role in society.


Nobody in the medical community, to my knowledge, is encouraging anybody to utilize emergency contraception in place of any of the more effective methods (the pill and condoms especially). The continued use of the most effective forms of birth control, coupled with the effective use of the morning-after pill at times when other methods have failed will almost undoubtedly lead to a reduction in unintended pregnancies.

For those women in the under 5% of ineffective birth control pill statistics who have made a mistake in their use of the pill in proximity to an unprotected sexual encounter, use of the morning after pill stands to reduce the number of overall women who experience unintended pregnancies as a result. For those couples for whom the condom breaks during sexual intercourse, use of the morning-after pill will reduce the number of women who experience unintended pregnancies. Taken as it is meant to be taken, as an emergency contraception, the morning-after pill stands to serve as an added barrier for those in the minority of faults in highly effective birth control.

Sure, of methods in common use. But Princeton University, which advocates the morning-after pill at its website, admits that "ECPs [which stands for emergency contraceptive pills, also known as the morning-after pill] when used perfectly are not as effective as other methods of ongoing contraception when used perfectly."

Thus, the morning-after pill is the least effective method overall, when compared to methods in common use, even compared to the WITHDRAWAL method. Expectations to the contrary show how clearly misinformed the public is about morning-after pills.

Thus, I think you should withdraw your support for the morning-after pill.

looms,

You want me to answer why some words need to change but others do not. For example, why is it right to change the meaning of the word ovum so that it does not apply throughout pregnancy, why is it wrong to speak of cord strangulation when the truth is the baby's spacesuit is getting unplugged prematurely, why is it wrong to call the baby an embryo past hatching, etc., yet in contrast it is wrong to redefine pregnancy so that conception takes place at implantation.

The answer is that you have to know what you are talking about. If you call the baby an ovum throughout pregnancy, think the baby is strangling on the umbilical cord in the birth canal, or call the baby an embryo after hatching, then you are not too keen on things. Similarly, if you say pregnancy does not begin until implantation, then how, may I ask, do you explain how a woman gets pregnant?

"This is how a woman gets pregnant: First the stork makes a little peck in the uterine lining. Then the baby brought by the stork is carefully implanted. At this point, pregnancy begins."--ACOG

Your argument here is completely illogical. The princeton site you are pointing to does not specifically list the "methods of ongoing contraception"

You are using this site to back up your argument here when it makes a vague inference to "ongoing contraception." You cannot prove that this statement is meant to include Withdrawl because it is a poorly written and unclear generalization which I can almost guarantee did not intend to include withdrawl. However, neither of us can prove what the statement means which certainly exlcudes it from being able to support any kind of arguments.

Furthermore, there is a statement elsewhere on the site which pretty much disproves the entirity of what you've been debating since you joined AD:

"No, use of emergency contraception does not cause an abortion. In fact, emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion. Medical authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists define the beginning of pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman's uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after fertilization (and is completed several days later). Emergency contraceptives work before implantation and not after a woman is already pregnant. Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are taken, ECPs may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the lining of the uterus), thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. The copper in copper-T IUDs can prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg and can also alter the endometrium, thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. When a woman is already pregnant, emergency contraception does not work. Emergency contraception is also harmless to the fetus and the mother. "

You cannot take one part of a source and use it to make your argument more reliable while ignoring the other 95% of the site's statements which go completely to the contrary of your argument.

And to try to ground you in a bit of sanity... THIS is a picture of a newly fertalized egg.

Zygoye Freechildren's "Baby"

This is what you are calling a baby. Calling this barely multi-celled glob of goop a baby is an insult to babies around the world.

smorpheus,

Like Mrs. Pigpen and Abs before you, I am afraid your denial of the ineffectiveness of the morning-after pill compared to other methods shows how pervasively misinformation has affected people. So it looks like our poll must be more than just a little inaccurate.

If you go back and read the Princeton University website, you will see that they say "her annual risk of pregnancy would be about 38% with Preven and 19% with Plan B" if she used the morning-after pill on an ongoing basis, as opposed to other ongoing methods. An annual chance of 38% means only a 62% chance of NOT getting pregnant. An annual chance of 19% means a 81% change of NOT getting pregnant. To find this you subtract the value from 100%. Because other methods (e.g. condom, rhythm, withdrawal, etc.) have better ongoing rates, Princeton says "ECPs when used perfectly are not as effective as other methods of ongoing contraception when used perfectly." By ECPs, which stands for emergency contraceptive pills, they mean the morning-after pill.

Believe it or not, the Princeton University website is an advocate of the morning-after pill. For this reason, they are spreading the myth that the pills do not cause early abortions. Instead, they redefine the word pregnancy to begin at implantation so that they can say "no abortion" occurred since the pills presumably only kill children between fertilization and implantation, which is before "pregnancy" begins according to their contrived definition. Theirs is a common ploy in this country.

There's no ploy, just fact. Would you consider a petri dish pregnant? And your definition of "embryo" being "fertilized egg", how would you define zygote? And why is it ok to kill the sperm and the egg 1 second before fertilization, but not 1 second after?

No, I would not. But you should understand that the term "prenidial incubation" is used for caring for babies outside the mother's body before implantation whereas "prenidial gestation" is used regarding the babies inside the mother's body. However, the word gestation is still applied in the sense of the gestational period of development, because in the ordinary setting that period of life is marked by gestation. Thus, normally speaking, the mother is pregnant during the full course of gestation. It is only due to innovative technologies, namely, prenidial incubation and neonatal incubation technologies, that babies are able to complete portions of the gestational period outside the maternal body.

A baby is an embryo from conception to hatching. Terms (subterms) like zygote are secondary terms and are not primarily necessary. Therefore, their definitions are subject to specialized needs of communication. I have not found any need for the term zygote in my work. It is actually an abstract term.

I think gametes should be treated with care, precisely because a human being is, to borrow a patent terminology, reduced to practice at conception. The unfertilized egg represents a likeness of the human being in crystalized form. Similarly, the sperm is an agent of the creative process. However, once a human being is reduced to practice, we must enumerate and honor the life of the person.

People who disregard the damage certain pills can do to the baby between fertilization and any time after are not showing respect in this fashion. It is also tragic to find so many people being misinformed about these sorts of chemicals, particularly in the form of the morning-after pill.

Although some have tried to redefine implantation as the onset of pregnancy, besides misleading people and leading to the harm of children, there is a serious intellectual problem involved. For example, if a doctor tells a woman that pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants, the woman may ask, "But when does the fertilized egg become something other than an egg?" You see, doctors who claim fertilized eggs implant are like the ones 50 years ago who thought the baby was an ovum throughout pregnancy. Since in truth a fertilized egg does not implant, and the baby has to hatch first before implanting and leaves the shell of the egg behind, to call the baby a fertilized egg at implantation is to call the baby an egg when the baby is not even in an egg. So once you start calling the baby an egg when the baby is not even in an egg, there is no real place to draw the line as to when to stop calling the baby an egg. In effect, this means doctors today who accept "implantation of a fertilized egg" as the definition of "pregnancy" are on par intellectually with doctors over 50 years ago who thought the baby was an "ovum" throughout pregnancy (from fertilization to birth). Since the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was founded in 1951, and since 14 years later they proposed their odd definition of pregnancy, we may assume that quite of few of their members were not among the first to grasp that the baby is not properly called an "ovum" throughout pregnancy, even though the new awareness was being circulated at the time. To this day, the ACOG maintains quite a number of odd definitions, along with its disturbing tendency to advocate unintelligent acts along with a grand campaign of misinformation to support them.

So a woman kills a person every month? Does a man kill tens of millions of people every time he ejaculates? Even if fertilization does occur, that's still only one sperm! What about all those other millions of "people"? This is the most preposterous thing I have heard in my life.

But the main point here is the first two words. They are

"I think"

this is a phrase denoting opinion. Yours. Your opinion. Just like every other post you've put here on this thread. And you're entitled to your opinion.

You think its tragic to find so many people being misinformed...well then why are you misinforming people? If you are so dedicated to the education of the people, why don't you use your obviously abundant time to formulate a post with solid logic, refuted statistics, and objective terminology?

It's amazing you haven't struck out yet for repeat posts.

It is important to distinguish between the term "medical abortion" and "freechildren abortion".

"medical conception" vs "freechildren conception"

And since you want to talk about "reduced to practice" let's take a look at it's meaning:
An invention is actually reduced to practice when a working prototype of either the object or method has been developed and has been sufficiently tested to demonstrate that it will work for its intended purpose. An invented material is actually reduced to practice when the composition has been produced. An invented process is actually reduced when the steps of the process have been successfully performed.

The number of steps in the process of going from two gametes to a viable child are numerous. There are far more steps than just conception. There is implantation, there is gestation, there is growth, and on and on. There is no reduction to practice in just the gametes being present.


But I suppose the definition of "patent reduction to practice" and "freechildren reduction to practice" is not the same. I suppose you'll just make up terminology to fit your purposes. Maybe I'll start redefining some of my words and claim that the global definition of them is just a farce.




Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. -BOHR, NEILS HENRIK DAVID

freechildren: I know you ignore any post you do not like, in particular ones that make points you are completely unble to deal with. Instead you repeat the same desperate fallacies backed by nothing but your own personal opinion. None the less, I shall try once more.

1) The morning after pill, and a double dosing of the birth control pill do not cause an abortion, they cause an alteration in the timing of a woman's monthly menstrual cycle. That is all. When manstruation occurs it is not at all uncommon for potentially fertilised eggs to be discarded. This is why some couples do not bother with birth control in the days leading up to menstruation, because there is no danger of preganancy. By your 'logic' these people are also having abortions, in that they are using a woman's monthly cycle to prevent abortions. The morning after pill alters the timing, nothing more.

2) Please obtain a dictionary and look up the terms 'baby' and 'infant'. Then please stop completely misusing them. A fertilsed egg is just that, an egg. Eventually it will develop into a fetus, and once delivered it becomes a baby. Your deliberate misuse of english does nothing to strengthen your case.

3) I see you have largely abandoned your absurd "grand conspiracy" point, thank you. With not a single attempt or shred of evidence this was the silliest of your many silly assertions.

4) I note you have chosen to draw your own line in the sand, that an egg is not human, while a fertilised egg is human, despite having not one of the charictaristics which might be associated with humanity. Thats fine, that is your opinion. Please note that it is ONLY your opinion, and not a fact or a truth, it is what you happen to believe, nothing more. I find it disturbing that you perceive (or have created?) a grand world conspiracy to delude people about the supposed 'truth' of your opinion. In reality, the vast majority of people seem to disagree with you. Have you not even seen the results of your own poll? Apparently even if people knew this so-called truth, they would not change their minds.

5) You are far more of a force for misinformation than any of the legitimate sources you decry. I see shades of the paranoid in your argumentation. You have twisted and misrepresented one source so that it seems to support you, while every other source in the world that opposes you is apparently "subject to this grand conspiracy of misinformation." Apparently the fact that your personal opinion might NOT be the gospel truth has never occurred to you.

6) lastly, and more importantly, you keep referring us to this Princeton webpage as your only source. OK then, lets take a close look at this Princeton webpage.
ALL are the following are direct cut-and-paste from the source YOU directed us to.

"-Does Use of Emergency Contraception Cause an Abortion?
No, use of emergency contraception does not cause an abortion. In fact, emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion."

-"Making emergency contraceptives available is the single most important step we can take to reduce unintended pregnancy and the need for induced abortion."

"-Will Women Stop Using Other Forms of Contraception if Emergency Contraception Becomes Too Easily Available?
Emergency contraception is not a logical choice for ongoing protection: Any method of ongoing contraception is more effective than emergency contraceptive pills. Emergency contraception is more expensive than most other forms of contraception.The nausea and vomiting associated with the use of combined emergency contraceptive pills would deter their routine use. Other side effects associated with emergency contraceptive pills, such as fatigue, headache, and irregular bleeding would also discourage routine use Emergency contraceptive pills contain a higher dose of hormones than ongoing hormonal contraceptives. Studies have shown that women provided with ECPs in advance of need do not abandon other more reliable ongoing methods of contraception."

Finally, the misrepresented quote you keep throwing at us:


Yes, the webside clearly states that using ONLY emergency protection after every act of unprotected sex, over the course of the year a woman has a much larger risk of preganancy than if she used ANY form of protection, be that Birth Control, condoms, even rhythm. Nobody is disputing this, the morning after pill was not and has never been designed or advertised as a sustainable form of birth control. It is meant to assist in cases when the standard birth control fails, is misused or forgotten.

However, among sustainable forms of birth control, rhythym and withdrawl are by FAR the least effective, the two most effective being careful use of birth control and condoms.


So, given this, what exactly is your point freechildren?

As I already addressed (along with Vermillion and others), the Princeton quote you cited was based on the morning-after pill being the only form of contraception used by sexually active women over the course of an entire year. This is not how the morning-after pill is intended to be taken nor is it an accurate reflection of its current usage in society. Prior to that, Princeton had this to say on the effectiveness:
Taken as intended, as an emergency contraceptive, the morning-after pill is effective. Furthermore, as you continue to claim that ACOG changed the definition of pregnancy for the sole purpose of this conspiracy you've exposed, WHERE IS THE SUPPORT? If there was an actual effort to redefine pregnancy solely to promote birth control pills and the morning-after pill you should have something other than your say-so to support it. You have been asked now for over a week to support that claim. If there were any credibility to it I would think you would have found some by now.

The ACOG was founded in 1951. These are women's health care professionals (a.k.a. ladies doctors) who study reproduction everyday. The pill was introduced in 1960 and it was not until 1965, on the heals of the pill, that the ACOG moved to redefine pregnancy and conception, a move which to this day has not swayed Dorland's Medical Dictionary.

So why did it take the ACOG 14 years to redefine pregnancy? Why didn't the ACOG redefine pregnancy, say, in 1952, or 1958? The answer is simple, there was no motive to come to the absurd conclusion that pregnancy begins at implantation, and that a woman "gets pregnant" at implantation. However, on the heals of the pill there was a motive, namely, to hide the antinidatory effect the pill, particularly from a public that insisted on naive conclusions about the pill.

If the 'revised' definition of pregnancy is in order why did it take the ACOG so long to come up with it? If the 'revised' definition is so noteworthy, why has Dorland's Medical Dictionary refused to come to terms with it?

vermillion,

The chemicals in the morning-after pill, which are the same found in the birth control pill, can have an antinidatory effect. This means they can abort a baby between fertilization, when the baby is conceived, and implantation, when the baby becomes attached to the mother's body.

perspective,

Old patent law waited until the stork had delivered the invention into the hands of the patent examiner for patent rights to begin. Modern patent law recognizes the onset of rights at conception, because we realize that the invention exists before the stork makes the delivery.

Unfortunately, American law is stuck in the idea that personal rights do not begin until the stork delivers the baby into the hands of the doctor. In other words, by failing to recognize rights at conception, American law pretends that the baby does not exist before the stork makes the delivery.

I guess all I can tell you at this point
is that you are in the minority.
You are stuck in the idea that personal rights begin at conception. A majority of the world disagrees with you. You live in America, where the majority usually rules. I'm sorry that you are bitter at your lot in life. I know how you feel, for I belong a minority in the religious arena. Being a part of the minority usually sucks. But we can get through this together. Take heart that you do live in America, where even the minority has the right to say and believe what they wish. They just don't have the right to enforce their minority beliefs on others.


Proof that you're in the minority:

Physicians generally agree that:
- Pregnancy does not begin when an ovum is fertilized; i.e. at conception.
- Pregnancy typically begins about 12 days after conception, after the blastocyst has fully implanted itself in the lining of the womb.
- Abortions are defined as medical interventions after pregnancy begins.
- Since the emergency contraception pills are taken within 3 days of intercourse or an IUD is inserted within 5 days, no pregnancy has had a chance to start. Thus, emergency contraception is not a form of abortion.

Religious conservatives and pro-life supporters, alone, classify EC as abortifacient medication. This is consistent with their unique definition that pregnancy begins at conception. Physicians, religious liberals and pro-choice supporters classify EC as a contraceptive, because it prevents pregnancy. This is consistent with the generally accepted definition of when pregnancy begins. Sources. (Specific words: Medical science considers that pregnancy has begun when the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman's uterus is complete. The process of implantation starts about five days after fertilization and is completed about one week later, just prior to the time of the expected menses. Emergency contraceptive pills are ineffective after implantation; they cannot cause an abortion if the woman is already pregnant.)


Just wanted to make sure you can understand that you're in the minority. You have to get past denial - that's half the battle. (I've been through this before, I can help you...)

More correlation that you are in the minority:
This article brings to light what abortion advocates have long known: that if you oppose abortion on the grounds that life begins at conception, you must oppose also the Pill, which can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

In the US 80% of all women born since 1945 have used the pill. Source here.

I can tell you without finding citation that there are more than 20% of all women born since 1945 that are christian. It's general knowledge. You concede?

So you see, even your majority - the christian majority - uses the pill. If they use the pill, they either are pro-choice, (meaning abortion tolerant) or they don't agree with you that life begins at conception. So either way, you're in the minority.

Rejoice in the tolerance of your fellow Americans! We disagree yet we can be friends. We can live in peace and harmony despite our disagreements. What a wonderful country.

Thank you for repeating exactly the samr thing yet again without bothering to address any of the criticisms or commenta made against your lunatic-fringe theory.

You seem to have found a couple scientific sounding words you rather like (antinidatory, for example) and can do nothing except repeat them in every post. Repetition is not argumentation, and that still does not make your personal opinion any more factual.

The fact that the morning after pill alters the schedule of a womans menstrual cycle (a fact you have been unable to dispute) does mean it causes an abortion (an assertion you continue to repeat without foundation).

And the very poll in this thread seems to demonstrate clearly that nobody seems to care even if this were the case. Your near-insane "Grand conspiracy of the entire medical community" smacks of paranoia, and you have still not been able to produce a single shred of evidence to support it.

Finally, the only bit of evidence you ever WERE able to produce, misrepresenting a Princeton webpage, has clearly been shown NOT to support your argument.

So freechildren, do you have anything constructive to say, or are you just going to ignore this post, and post another short passage showing off your love of the word antinidiatory?

Again, freechildren, if there was an actual effort to redefine pregnancy solely to promote birth control pills and the morning-after pill you should have something other than your say-so to support it. Repeating yourself as your only source to support yourself is not adding any credibility to your argument. Your belief that the ACOG redefined pregnancy as a conspiracy appears only to stem for your own beliefs, in spite of the fact that you have agreed fertilized eggs in petri dishes or test tubes do not inherently make the dishes or tubes pregnant. It seems more likely that pregnancy was redefined in the face of advancing technologies and information regarding the process of reproduction.

So with choices between advances in medical knowledge and technology, supported by what we know now with in vitro fertilization and cloning, and an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, it seems reasonable to accept the prior and reject the latter. If you can't provide any support for your position there is no reason for myself or any of our other participants to accept it.

That is quite a rationalization loop the nation is accomodating.

But just so you are clear on terms, even Dorland's Medical Dictionary, which was easily persuaded by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine to introduce the nonsensical term "preembryo", has not changed the definition of pregnancy. That is because the contrived definition is even more nonsensical than a term like preembryo.

Here is what Dorland's has to say:



Funny how rationalization doesn't solve all the world's problems.



Sure...maybe you can help Dorland's too.



Of course. Here is an example where you quote the logic but do not understand it, for this is precisely the reason why the ACOG tried to cover up the fact that the chemicals in the pill, which are the exact same chemicals in the morning-after pill, are not purely contraceptive because they have an antinidatory effect. So in 1965 the ACOG redefined conception as implantation, so that they, along with the FDA and AMA, could tell women that the pills were purely 'contraceptive'. This way those three organizations would not have to face trouble by informing an angry public that they had been deceived and that something they had set their hearts on now needed to be taken away in the name of preventing abortions.

Remember, abortions were generally illegal back then in the United States. So letting the public know that the Pill caused abortions was something they wanted to avoid having to face. For this reason, they attempted to create new definitions of conception, pregnancy, and abortion.

Please site some sources to back this up.

Dorlands is not the world's medical dictionary. ALL the other dictionaries define these terms differently. That would put Dorlands in the minority too.

It's hard for the bottom feeders like us, but as long as we believe deep down that what we've reasoned in our heads is the real deal, we don't need the rest of the world to believe us. That's the next step for you - getting to the point where you don't care if the rest of the world believes you (because you can't prove it, but you just believe....)

Let us then, be believers
and not desperate coercers.

Well, certainly one source is today's Dorland's Medical Dictionary. But another source is that Dorland's had the same definition decades before any of the dictionaries you cite changed the definition to suit contrived fantasies about birth control. That is to say, by consulting previous editions, one obtains both a current reference as well as a historical source.

Even if we were to neglect precedence (e.g. perhaps Dorland's has been dumb all along), we would have a hard time avoiding ridicule with the new definition in place. Because if pregnancy begins at implantation, then how do you explain how a woman gets pregnant?

"Well, you see the stork arives with a fertilized egg. The fertilized egg comes from the cabbage patch. Then, while the woman is asleep with her husband, the stork makes a little peck with its beak in the lining of the womb. The stork carefully folds the lining of the womb over the fertilized egg to keep it warm. At this point, pregnancy begins."--ACOG

Another embarrassing problem with this definition is presented by the fact that fertilized eggs do not implant. Instead, the baby must hatch out of the shell of the egg by breaching through a hole dissolved in the shell, and the empty shell of the egg is left behind. You see, when you start the 'fertilized egg' story, what will you say when someone asks, "When does the fertilized egg turn into a baby? When does it stop being an egg and turn into something else?"

So, you see, since you are already calling the baby an 'egg' when the baby is not an egg, where will you draw the line as to when this non-egg finally becomes something other than an egg? It will put you back in the ranks of ladies doctors over 50 years ago, who were mistakenly calling the baby an "ovum" (meaning egg) throughout pregnancy, from fertilization to birth! This is precisely the kind of nonsense the ACOG has been unable to get away from. To expect society to go along with this nonsense because they are "experts" is ridiculous. They need to apologize, stop killing babies, and get on with the show.

Do you have a link to support that purported statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, freechildren? I would hate to think that in addition to your refusal to support your arguments you have now turned to completely misrepresenting certain organizations or individuals.

Oh, and in addition to revolutionary technologies revealing that fertilization does not make accompanying vessels pregnant, I've found sources detailing the role of menstruation is recognizing pregnancy as beginning with implantation rather than conception. Whether a woman uses a morning-after pill or the rhythm method, fertilization does not equate with pregnancy if the woman's body is in anyway inhospitable to implanation. Whether provoked by medication or simply following along the natural pattern of her menstrual cycle, pregnancy is determined by the cessation of the menstrual cycle to accomodate pregnancy.


Those using the proper medical terms realize that there are various stages including the following:

• zygote
  
• blastocyst
  
• embryo
  
• fetus
  
• baby/infant/neonate
  

I would assume you're comfortable working with this source, though I might additionally point out that as they define pregnancy as "the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body" and an embryo (being prior to a fetus) as "the developing organism from the fourth day after fertilization..." it would seem not even Dorland's definitively recognizes conception as the onset of pregnancy.


Amazing how the advance of medical technology and information can correctly lead the medical community to recognize a need to change definitions, isn't it? This seems to be the case also with pregnancy. You have yet to provide any support for your assertions that the ACOG or any other medical organization incorrectly changed the definition to suit some global conspiracy to promote the morning-after pill.

Medical organizations all across the world recognize pregnancy as being marked by implantation for reasons associated with biology and advancements in medical technology and information. You have yet to provide a single source to support your claims of a conspiracy, thus you have afforded yourself zero credibility thus far in your conspiracy claims.

Your entire premise for this debate revolves around your conspiracy theory of pregnancy being recognized as beginning with implantation. That was on December 21st, three weeks ago. In that time you have provided not a single source to support this claim, thus you have provided no support for your particular claims of misinformation about the morning-after pills. Throughout this particular debate and a similar debate elsewhere on the site you have proven that you yourself are operating with a gross misunderstanding of emergency contraceptives.

So, while you have no support for your conspiracy claims of misinformation, it would seem that certain individuals such as yourself are still victims of misinformation, though not on behalf of any actions by the medical industry or Catholic church (as you originally alleged).

If that were true, how would you explain menopause? Is the menstrual cycle ceasing to accommodate pregnancy? No, of course not. Instead, menstruation occurs when ovulation does not lead to offspring and successful implantation of the offspring. Menopause occurs when ovulation ceases.



Hmmm is right. Dorland's got into some trouble a few years back. In 1994, Dorland's accommodated a nonsensical term: preembryo. Then in the 2000 edition (a new edition every six years), they wanted out of the deal. They wanted out of the embarrassing position of calling the baby an embryo not until a week after hatching and calling the baby a preembryo both before and hatching. The correct definition is that a baby is an embryo only from conception to hatching, and the term preembryo has no biological meaning. Instead, Dorland's was persuaded to keep the term preembryo, but redefined it so that at least it would not apply after hatching. Originally, in 1994, Dorland's introduced the term to mean life during the first two weeks. But in 2000 it was redefined to mean life during the first three days. Accordingly, the term embryo was adapted to mean life from the fourth day to the eighth week. In other words, Dorland's is still using an nonsensical vocabulary. Additionally, Dorland's still does not mention hatching or the baby's spacesuit.

Lack of understanding of the baby's spacesuit has set medicine back tremendously. Ignorance of the baby's spacesuit is where we get interpretations like "cord strangulation" from; it is also why doctors were so surprised at underwater birth technique. Of course, this is not a conspiracy, it is just ignorance.

Developmental biologists are not the keenest it would seem. For example, they spent many years detailing early development, and doling out names like morula and blastocyst, without realizing the baby has to hatch first! Unfortunately, students at this level tend to rely on memorization. For this reason, nobody really knew things accurately, because investigations were poor, along with analyses. They just memorize what the person before them told them but did not understand, as if it was already understood and did not need to be examined.

As far as analysis goes, even Farmer John knows not to use the term embryo after hatching. But biologists sometimes get a little confused. Along with doctors, up until about a little more than 50 years ago, biologists thought the baby was an "egg" (ovum) throughout the full course of gestation (the whole nine months of pregnancy).

It is very unfair to parents and their children to tell women that they are not having abortions when they take some pills that cause the baby to die somewhere between fertilization and implantation. Though people who spread these lies may call themselves "authorities" they are really playing a game of indirection by pretending that they are not "misinforming" anyone since they are the "experts" in charge of the definitions of terms and are using the terms accordingly.

A lot of women will be shocked to learn that not only do their babies hatch out of eggs wearing spacesuits a few days after conception, but that the pills they have taken can actually kill one of these beautiful babies, even though they were specifically told the pills would not harm a pregnancy or cause an abortion at all. The truth, of course, is that under the broadest definition of pregnancy, the pills can in fact terminate pregnancy and cause an abortion. In other words, by taking the pills you are risking the possibility of killing a baby between fertilization and implantation, a timeframe that includes the hatching event.

They will only be shocked by this if they happen to read this forum and happen to fall for your misinformation and misuse of the english language.

Several days after conception (which is too late for the morning after pill anyways) there are no babies. None to be found, at all. Look up baby in the dictionary, please. Your consistent error in regards to this and several other terms does you no good at all.

Oh, and by the way? You cannot kill what is not alive.

Freechildren, your last post now seems to revolve around a medical reality all of your own. Menstruation and the advances in fertility technology have led to a medical understanding of pregnancy marked by implantation rather than conception. A woman with a fertilized egg without the ability to harbor or nurish it (due to menstrual circumstances) is no more pregnant than a petri dish or test tube also containing a fertilized egg. Unsubstantiated claims of a baby "spacesuit" do nothing to support your position, and quite frankly I fail to see what a seemingly non-existant "spacesuit" has to do with the morning-after pills.


Under the "broadest" of personal definitions we could say that menstruation or male ejaculation were somehow forms of abortion. Luckily we have medical experts to consult rather than operating with broad, abstract definitions. Medically speaking, there is no termination of a pregnancy or an abortion.

vermillion,

The following quote from Roe v. Wade shows that the U.S. Supreme Court viewed conception to be synonymous with fertilization, rather than with implantation.



The court also refers to Dorland's Medical Dictionary as its source of medical definitions in this case. Dorland's defines conception as "the onset of pregnancy, marked by fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm or spermatozoon; formation of a visible zygote." Notably, the Supreme Court retains this definition even in view of the "morning-after" pill.

As a side note:

Notably, as I have pointed out before, the use of a mega-dose of the chemicals found in ordinary birth control pills as a "morning-after" pill was known in the 1960s when the birth control pill was introduced. However, it was also known that the pills were ineffective compared to other methods, and that inevitable reliance on the pills would lead statistically to more unwanted pregnancies. For this reason, and to conceal the fact that the chemicals in the ordinary birth control pill had an antinidatory effect (an abortive effect of terminating pregnancy between fertilization and implantation), knowledge of the morning-after pill was suppressed by the medical establishment, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the Food and Drug Administration. In fact, these three authorities deny to this day that the chemicals in ordinary birth control pills have an antinidatory effect, even though, by contradiction, they admit the chemicals have such an effect when called a "morning-after" pill instead.

Overun by abortion groups, the reason why the ACOG, AMA, and FDA have decided to advocate the morning-after pill is because an impending ban on partial-birth abortion threatens to make abortion murder at the latest stage of pregnancy. But, since there is no where to draw the line, this will lead to a ban going all the way back to fertilization. So to counter this domino effect, abortion advocates have tried to sell the public on the idea that life is meaningless before implantation and that neither conception nor pregnancy has even occurred. This way, they believe the public will find it hard to draw the line going in the other direction. Another impetus for the morning-after pill movement has been the fact that the abortion clinic industry has been facing a loss in abortion sales due to RU-486 (Mifeprex) abortions and changing trends. Since it is easy to confuse people about the effectiveness of the morning-after pill, which per 100 woman-years of exclusive use is less effective than even the dismal withdrawal method, popular reliance on the pill will mean a surprisingly greater number of unwanted pregnancies.

Led by Planned Parenthood, the abortion clinic industry drools over the thought of these pregnancies happening as a source of increased sales. As a case in point, neither the ACOG, AMA, FDA, nor Planned Parenthood has as yet disavowed the morning-after pill known by the brand name Preven, even though Preven is twice as ineffective as the brand known as Plan B in eliminating pregnancy that would otherwise last past implantation. Given reliance on the morning-after pill, that means twice the number of unexpected pregnancies lasting past implantation using Preven than with Plan B. The abortion industry has been drooling over the thought of these pregnancies too much to let the public know the truth. In fact, they even let rape victims use Preven unsuspectingly, because they do not want the general public to make informed choices that could reduce sales for the abortion clinic industry. How's that for keeping "Choice" alive? In other words, advocacy of the morning-after pill has made the true colors of the abortion industry show.

Remember, the abortion clinic industry feels very threatened by chemical abortion methods, so they would not be advocating the morning-after pill if it was an effective chemical abortion method prior to implantation. They might give you a song and dance about new definitions of pregnancy and conception, but they know the facts of life are that when sperm meets egg it means you are pregnant, and that if the pregnancy is unwanted, you may turn to an abortion clinic and increase their sales. For this reason, the abortion clinic industry, led by Planned Parenthood, which runs the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics, has not disavowed Preven over Plan B, even though it is known in medical circles that Preven is half as likely to eliminate the possibility of having a pregnancy that lasts past implantation as compared to Plan B.

Another point is that Preven makes women especially sick, and so, given that 1-out-of-4 women who would have gotten pregnant will stay pregnant past implantation despite using Preven, these women may choose not to have an RU-486 (Mifeprex) abortion once they find out they remained pregnant, because they will want to avoid feeling sick again from taking more chemicals. If they choose an abortion clinic instead keeping the baby, this again will increase sales for the abortion clinic industry.

Answer me this: Since the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade recognized that conception, meaning fertilization, is strongly held by many to signify the existence of life, then why would it be fair to the public to tell people the morning-after pill does not cause abortions based on an antinidatory effect? Clearly, the ACOG, AMA, and FDA must be held accountable for scheming to defraud the public of an ethically competent awareness. This is a misinformation campaign.

Freechildren, would you care to try supporting any of these wild conspiracies you insist on raving about? In over a month now you have yet to provide anything supporting your claim that the ACOG or any other organization recognized pregnancy as being marked by implantation for the purpose of some misinformation campaign to trick women. You say that the FDA and other organizations deny that birth control pills contain chemicals that may have an antinidatory effect, yet recognize that the morning-after pill does. Do you have any support that they deny the presence of the chemicals as opposed to a misinterpretation on your part in terms of dosage?

Unless you can support any of this, you have no argument for saying any of the organizations you've criticized is any part of some misinformation campaign. Your habitual repeating of yourself doesn't make it true. A fabrication told 100 times remains a fabrication. If there is truth to your claims, provide some proof.

As to Preven and Plan B, there is no reason to disavow Preven. While not as effective as its competitor, it is still an effective means of reducing unintended pregnancies. One product being better than the next does not mean the latter is useless. And as far as both are concerned, studies have already shown that they are an effective means of reducing unintended pregnancies. This projected REDUCTION in unintended pregnancies completely discredits your conspiracy theory of a profit hungry industrial abortion complex seeking to mislead women into more and more pregnancies and abortions. They have aptly demonstrated their goal of reducing the numbers by advocating the most effective of the two for over the counter availability. Surely organizations seeking to promote the most ineffective (as you claim) would have... oh, I don't know... promoted the most ineffective of the two.


No more so than a petri dish or a test tube are pregnant. And relating more specifically to the female body, a woman with a fertilized egg who is already menstruating is also not pregnant. A fertilized egg without the ability to implant along the uterine wall is no more a pregnancy than a similar egg unable to implant along the glass of a dish or tube.


You argued at the start of your last post that the "Supreme Court viewed conception to be synonymous with fertilization, rather than with implantation." Where has this been disputed? Conception is synonymous with fertilization, but that does not make them synonymous with pregnancy. So long as pregnancy is accepted as the implantation in the uterine wall, the morning after pill is not an abortifacient.

It would seem you're still looking for something to substantiate your claims of a misinformation campaign, freechildren. I would suggest again that you actually find some support for your conspiracy theories for future presentations.

abs,

Here is what the ACOG has to say:


The ACOG makes no mention of an antinidatory effect. The ACOG also does not make it clear that these "combination pills" taken in a double dose after sex are what are being sold as a "morning-after" pill under the brand name Preven.

Here is what the FDA has to say:



Again, there is no mention of an antinidatory effect; there is also no mention of the fact that these pills contain the same hormones used in the morning-after pill. Preven is an added dose of the combined pill and Plan B is an added dose of the progestin-only minipill.

If there is no conspiracy, then why the misinformation?



I have already explained to you that a fertilized egg cannot implant under any circumstances. This is absurd! Instead, the baby must hatch out of the egg before implantation is possible.

I think the problem you are having understanding the notion of pregnancy is that you realize there is a big difference at implantation time: The baby attaches to the mother. Before implantation, the baby floats freely.

If you define pregnancy as implantation, it is because you want to emphasize the independent status of the baby prior to implantation. However, although the baby is not attached to the mother up to implantation, the baby still depends on the mother for prenidial gestation. Prenidial ("pre-NID-e-al") means prior to implantation. Similarly, outside the mother's body, the baby depends on prenidial incubation as a substitute for maternal fulfillment of natural gestational needs.

I hope this clears up your question about whether a prenidial incubator is pregnant. The answer is "no, not any more than a neonatal incubator is pregnant." Instead, we refer to the mother as being pregnant because she is fulfilling her baby's gestational needs. This explains why the most useful definition defines pregnancy as beginning at fertilization, when the baby is fertilized inside the mother's body. When a baby is fertilized outside the mother's body, the mother's pregnancy begins as soon as the baby is transferred into the mother's body and the mother begins fulfilling the baby's gestational needs. However, we may speak of her as having an impending pregnancy even before transfer.

In case you forgot your own claim, freechildren:
They don't appear to deny anything in the quotes you provide from their respective sites. And while there are the same or similar chemicals in morning-after pills, you continue to ignore the fact that they come with increased doses of the chemicals. There is no conspiracy or misinformation. People can clearly make a comparison between the chemicals in birth control pills and the chemicals in morning-after pills. And with the apparent exception of you, other people can note that morning-after pills come with an increased dose to perform a slightly different function.


Again, there is no baby. Repetition does not make fabrications fact. And while you may choose to view a free floating fertilized egg as pregnancy fulfilling gestational needs, the medical community does not seem to share your enthusiasm. Their reasoning also appears sound in light of advanced fertilization technology and understanding of the reproductive process.

You have provided no support for any alleged conspiracy. The conspiracy you have rattled on about doesn't make any sense either. Your claim has been that the "abortion industry" is seeking to mislead women for increased profit when access to morning-after pills will lead to a decline in abortions sought per year in the United States. There is no sense to an organization seeking to increase business by decreasing business.

Perhaps you have some other motive behind your alleged conspiracy theories regarding the morning-after pills?

abs,

Again, to repeat myself, Dorland's Medical Dictionary and the U.S. Supreme Court both recognize fertilization as the onset of pregnancy. Also, you have to admit the ACOG, AMA, and FDA are not straightforward with the public about the fact that the chemicals in the birth control pill, which are the same found in the morning-after pill, have an antinidatory effect. That is to say, the pills in either form kill babies between fertilization and implantation. Now let's turn our attention to statistics. Here is the problem you are having:

You: Preven reduces your chance of having a pregnancy that lasts past implantation by 75%.
Me: That means per time. Annually, Preven reduces your chances by 55%, which is far worse than other methods. For example, even the dismal withdrawal method will reduce your annual chances of pregnancy by 79%. The Standard Days Method will reduce your chances by 94%.
You: But that means annually, meaning if someone relies on Preven all year as their only method. Preven is not meant to be used like that, and so the 75% statistic applies.

Statiticians for the abortion clinic industry know better. What you are not understanding is this: Even if women only use Preven no more than once, the 55% statistic would still apply per 100 woman-years of use. The rate per time tells you the rate per time. But the annual rate tells you what to expect from the rate per time on an annual basis of women in general experiencing this rate per time throughout the year, even if the average woman only does so once herself.

Let's look at it like this. A number of authorities say that if 100 women have sex on a white bead day (fertile time), 8 will get pregnant using no method. They also say that using Preven, 2 of these 8 women will stay pregnant past implantation. Note that 2/8 is 1-in-4. So, among those 8 women, there is a 1-in-4 chance they will stay pregnant past implantation using Preven. Let's say you have 2 coins. The chances of having both coins land "tails" in one throw is 1-in-4. But let's look at what the chance is per two throws:

hh-hh
hh-ht
hh-th
hh-tt*

ht-hh
ht-ht
ht-th
ht-tt*

th-hh
th-ht
th-th
th-tt*

tt-hh*
tt-ht*
tt-th*
tt-tt*

The answer is 7-in-16. You just went from 1/4=4/16 to 7/16: a 3/16ths increase in risk, which is almost double the risk of having two tails show up in a single throw. The important thing to understand is that this 7/16th chance, not the 1/4 chance, applies per two throws whether one person throws the coins twice, or two different people each throw the coins once. In other words, per 100 woman-years worth of throws, 38 pregnancies will last past implantation using Preven. It makes no difference if each of the women involved took one throw each, or if 100 women kept throwing the coins throughout the year.

In other words, the point you need to understand is that a 75% reduction PER THROW in the likelihood of having a pregnancy that lasts past implantation does not lead to the outcome you expect. You expect a national reduction in unwanted pregnancy. But this outcome is contradicted by the fact that the reduction PER THROW being offered by any conventional method is BETTER than with Preven. How much better? Even with something as simple as the rhythm method, your chance of pregnancy is reduced by 94% annually relying on the Standard Days Method, in contrast, your chance of pregnancy is reduced by only 55% annually relying on Preven. Statiticians for the abortion clinic industry know this.

EACH TIME a woman relies on Preven, this statistic applies. Even if a woman only relies on Preven once a year, when 100 woman-years worth of other women do the same thing their overall group chance (e.g. national chance) of not getting pregnant and staying pregnant past implantation in the year is only reduced by 55%. In contrast, if they all had used the withdrawal method just that one time instead (and what could be lamer than that, besides Preven or Plan B ), the group chance of not getting pregnant in the year would be reduced by 79%. So if a 100 woman-years worth of women each have sex just one time a year on a Saturday night, and they all use Preven, they will reduce their annual chance of ongoing pregnancy as a group by 55%. But if they all use withdrawal instead they will reduce their annual chance of pregnancy as a group by 79%. Get it? And if they all stay home from the local bar on white bead days (rhythm method fertility days), then practicing the Standard Days Method they will reduce their annual chance of pregnancy as a group by 94%. Now do you get it? To clarify, for 100 woman-years of this activity, you will get the following statistical results among women in the group responsible for this activity:

Preven: 38 pregnancies past implantation (more past fertilization)
Withdrawal: 18 pregnancies
Standard Days: 5 pregnancies

Where do you think the extra 20-33 extra ongoing pregnancies per 100 woman-years of using Preven are going to go? Guess what? Planned Parenthood knows the answer. They are going to increase sales for the abortion industry! So, if you do the math, you realize that it is smarter to teach women to stay home from the bar on white bead days, rather than using Preven afterward. How much smarter, per 100 woman-years of this activity, you will end up with 33 more pregnancies that last beyond implantation using Preven than if women had just stayed home on white bead days.

But since American women are embarrassed about everyone learning about their cycles for purposes of having sex, the Standard Days Method, which teaches women to keep track of white bead days (when fertility is likely) is a taboo subject. Look at the facts: The Standard Days Method is only being taught for poor women in other countries. If it was being taught in this country, you would not have a bunch of silly beads to keep track of. Instead, you would have a digital watch, and the woman would simply have to push a button on the day her period starts. The watch would keep track of her days and let her know if her periods are regular enough for the method to be right for her.

What is more embarrassing--to wear a digital watch that keeps track of the Standard Days Method, or to end up with 33 extra ongoing pregnancies per 100 woman-years of use using Preven? And, remember, using Preven entails killing some children between fertilization and implantation, which in turn entails carrying on a huge rationalization campaign to say that it still does not mean it is an abortion, plus it also entails getting sick and spending money. Why would American women rather clamour in favor something like that, when a simple watch would put them all in a lot better circumstances? It would mean no killing of children between fertilization and implantation, it would mean not having to rationalize that pregnancy means something different than pregnancy, it would mean not having to vomit and spend more money on Preven than on the booze from the night before, and it would mean not showing up at the abortion clinic.

The morning-after pill is a bad thing...except for a profit-hungry abortion industry that manipulates women with illusions. That is why there is so much misinformation about the pills. That is why even educated Americans do not know. That is also why Planned Parenthood has not disavowed support for Preven, even though Preven will leave twice as many women pregnant per time past implantation than Plan B. But even Plan B is also less effective than conventional methods, even withdrawal, and Plan B also kills children between fertilization and implantation. Thus, like the abortion industry itself, the morning-after pill is a bad thing.

The Supreme Court quote you provided said nothing about when the Supreme Court viewed a woman to be pregnant. It spoke of the Catholic church's view of conception being the onset of life or "ensoulment." The view of the Catholic church is not tantamount to the view of the Supreme Court.


You are only illustrating yet again that you aren't grasping the role the morning-after pill plays in society. The 20-33 out of 100 estimated pregnancies from Preven are a reduction from an original figure of 85 out of 100 who use no birth control. As it is not 100% effective there will be women who still become pregnant despite the use of emergency contraceptives. That is true for any active method of birth control. Those pregnancies, however, are not extra pregnancies.

Instead of 85 out of 100 women possibly seeking abortion, only 20-33 might remain. That's less business and less business means less money.

The morning-after pill will lead to a REDUCTION in the number of unintended pregnancies, freechildren. Were any profit hungry abortion industry seeking to make a profit they would not advocate the use of emergency contraception, much less seek to make the most effective formula more easily accessible.

To try and claim that Planned Parenthood, ACOG, the FDA or any other organization is seeking to profit from abortions by reducing the number of pregnancies and abortions is counterproductive. As such, you are still left without a motive for your still unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Then there is the fact that for freechildren's psudo-maths to work, a woman has to use the morning after pill, regularly after sex, as her only method of contraception. No woman would do that, given the fact that it alters the cycle of your menstruation, and has some unpleasant side effects. The morning after pill is not, and was never designed to be a regular method of birth control, it is used as a supplement or a failsafe, that is all.

When taken, it alters the timing of a woman's cycle, inducing menstruation. That is all it does, it does that no matter if there is a fertilized egg or not, it simply induces menstruation. Thus this is no more of an abortion than when a woman has her regular menstruation and expels an egg, a very common occurence by the way.

This has been told to you several times, but you just ignore it, posting your own personal opinions as if they were fact, and making sure to include the word antinidiatory in every single post you make, as though this scientific sounding word gave your opinion any more weight.

You also terribly and repeatedly misuse the english language, redefining words to suit your personal opinion, but we are used to that.

I notice you are not using the Princeton webpage to support your arguments anymore, could it be because several people here used that very same webpage to completely defraud your 'opinion'?

There is only one source of misinformation here, and it just loves the word 'antinidiatory'.

Let us look at what Princeton University has to say:



The abortion clinic industry knows that women using Preven or Plan B will be using a less effective method on a statistical basis, and this will mean more unwanted pregnancies than if the nation had focused on more effective methods. This is why the abortion clinic industry is pushing the morning-after pill. This is also why the abortion clinic industry has not disavowed Preven in view of Plan B, even though Plan B eliminates twice as many pregnancies that would otherwise last past implantation.

Why was the morning-after pill not pushed onto the public before? Answer: The medical community knew the pills were less effective and more hazardous than other methods.

So why is the morning-after pill being pushed onto the public now amid a massive misinformation campaign? Answer: Due to the advent of RU-486 (Mifeprex) abortions and changing trends in the demand for clinic abortions, the abortion clinic industry has fallen into a rut and seeks to increase profits. Planned Parenthood knows that the morning-after pill will increase the number of unwanted pregnancies statistically, because as Princeton University points out the pills are less effective than other methods.

vermillion,

I already just explained it. The group or national statistic applies whether one woman throws the coins twelve times a year, or twelve women throw the coins once a year each. The group or national statistic tells you how likely is it for the women to throw "tails-tails" in the whole group. As a group, per 100 woman-years of coin-tossing activity, there will be 38 pregnancies per year that last past implantation using Preven. In contrast, using the withdrawal method those times instead, there will be 18 pregnancies. Using the Standard Days Method there will be 5. Also, unlike the other two methods, Preven kills babies between fertilization and implantation.

So, let us look at the annual statistical result. Given 85 pregnancies per 100 woman-years of no method (this does not mean 100 women have sex the whole year, it may mean 1200 women have sex for one month each), with Preven we have a 100%(85-38)/85=55% reduction in pregnancy that lasts past implantation. With withdrawal we have a 100%(85-18)/85=79% reduction in pregnancy. With Standard Days we have a 100%(85-5)/85=94% reduction in pregnancy. With Plan B the group will have 19 pregnancies per 100 woman-years of Plan B use activity, which means a 100%(85-19)=78% reduction in pregnancy that lasts past implantation, which is worse than even the dismal withdrawal method!

Is that what you want for your country? Someth