By a 24-7 vote, an advisory panel recently told the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that so called "emergency contraception" -- also known as the "morning-after pill" -- should be available without a prescription. At present, many women and physicians do not even know about what some are calling emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) or simply the morning-after pill. A question looming in the air is: Are people being misinformed?

I believe the evidence indicates the answer is overwhelmingly "yes", we are being misinformed. So that members will have solid grounds from which to base their debates, I would like to add who it is that I perceive is doing the misinforming. I think there are two sides doing the misinforming. One side is the Catholic church and its pro-life contemporaries, the other side comes from the pro-choice camp.

Misinformation from the Catholic Church:

A little known fact is that the Catholic church and a number of its pro-life contemporaries take strong objection to the idea that society would make an express affirmation of person status before birth. Instead, the church disclaims an express affirmation of person status before birth, yet nevertheless maintains a moral condemnation of any abortion it considers procured as opposed to indirect.

The problem the church has with express affirmation goes back 1600 years to the time of St. Augustine. Back then, because the church baptizes miscarriages as premature births, the church was asked a surprising question: Should a woman's blood be baptized in case a miscarried child is present rather than ordinary menstruation? To steer clear of the menstrual baptism controversy, Augustine drew upon Aristotle's teaching that the capacity for movement in the limbs was necessary for the soul to exist. This gave the priest a convenient diagnostic test: if the woman said she felt the baby move, then it the church could tell its critics that the baptism was in accord with Aristotle's teaching; but if the woman said no, then the priest could explain to her that there was probably no prudent need to baptize. Since this "test" ruled out the earliest miscarriages, the menstrual baptism controversy was conveniently avoided in a way that brought esteem even from critics of the church, who followed Aristotle closely.

Then, in 1978, the church had a conniption fit. The reason was that in vitro fertilization, a procedure where sperm and egg are united outside the maternal body, brought with it the alarming prospect that faithful Catholics would ask for their children to be baptized during the first week of life. Why was this alarming? The problem for the church was that children during the first week of life, if miscarried, would be hard to distinguish from ordinary menstruation. So, if the church started baptizing children that early in the context of in vitro fertilization programs, the menstrual baptism controversy would eventually come back to life as soon as people started questioning the need to baptize miscarried children of similar gestational age (meaning during earliest life when the miscarriages would be hard to distinguish from ordinary menstruation).

So, to avert resurrection of the menstrual baptism controversy, the church started throwing fire and brimstone at in vitro fertilization. It was not until 1994, when a Jesuit priest got together with an ethics committee for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, that the church calmed its protest down. The reason was that the ethics committee had contrived a teaching that children during the first two weeks of life were not individuals, and so there was no need to consider their person status. This made the church feel secure that critics would never end up questioning (or mocking) the church about the menstrual baptism controversy, whether in view of in vitro fertilization or otherwise.

For this reason, the church does not baptize children in petri dishes in the context of in vitro fertilization programs. Instead, the church even goes so far as to disclaim the individuality of children during the first two weeks of life. For proof, I wrote a letter to Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles asking if he would baptize children in petri dishes in the context of in vitro fertilization programs. On his behalf, this is the answer I received:



So, the point of this is that the people who you assume are "pro-life" are not necessarily willing to present all the facts to you. For this reason, people may think they are hearing "both sides" of "the debate" when the truth is that both sides are misinforming them based on various special interests. For example, those who are in the same pro-life camp as the Catholic church are not going to teach you things like the fact that babies hatch. Instead, they will talk about "the fertilized egg" implanting in the womb.

But the truth is that eggs cannot implant. First the baby must breach the shell of the egg. Then, leaving the empty shell behind, the baby seeks out the lining of the maternal uterus and burrows in so as to implant. The Catholic church does not want you to have that picture because the idea of an animated baby moving about that early in life contradicts the position Augustine took in saying there was no movement that early in life, and, hence, no need to baptize in view of Aristotle's teaching.

Like the Catholic church, we should also remember that other members of the so called pro-life camp do not want you to know all the facts either. For example, conservatives Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, and Sandra Day O'Connor all support Roe v. Wade even though they are against abortion. Similarly, chief justice Rehnquist, justice Scalia, and justice Thomas only oppose Roe v. Wade because they, like the National Right to Life Committee, support a reversal so that states can decide individually; they believe a state may permit abortion but resent the idea that the federal government would dictate that a state must permit abortion. Thus, none of these members of the so called pro-life camp are interested at all in teaching you about the individual details of a baby's life at earliest life. It is a picture you have never been given, because they do not want you to expressly affirm the person status of children before birth. They simply want you to accept their limited sentiments against abortion.

Misinformation from the Pro-Choice Camp:

Misinformation from the pro-choice camp is a lot more straightforward than misinformation from the Catholic church. The pro-choice camp tells women that emergency contraceptive pills "will not harm a pregnancy if already started". In doing this, they are trying to make the pills sound appealing to women with a pro-life ethic. But what they are not telling the women is that they have redefined the term pregnancy, so that pregnancy does not begin until after the baby has been fertilized, hatched, and implanted. They even redefine the term "conception" so that it means "implantation", that way they can call anything that kills the baby before implantation a 'contraceptive'. In view of these contrived definitions, they tell women that the pills will not cause an abortion and instead only work to prevent pregnancy.

Princeton University explains the emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) like this:



Note that they speak of "implantation of a fertilized egg" when it is well known among experts that fertilized eggs cannot implant; only a baby after hatching who leaves the shell of the egg behind can implant. However, they do compare the action of ECPs to the intrauterine device (IUD) in some respects.

What are emergency contraceptive pills? ECPs are essentially mega-doses of the hormones contained in birth control pills, either estrogen plus progestin or progestin alone. So, if ECPs are just mega-doses of birth control pills, and both sides admit that ECPs can destroy life before implantation, then why did doctors at the American Medical Association (AMA) vote not to tell women that birth control pills can do the exact same thing? Here is an article describing the AMA vote not to tell women that birth control pills can kill a baby before implantation.

MY POSITION:

Although there are more examples of misinformation, I think this goes far enough to show why I hold the position that the public is being misinformed about the morning-after pill. Since both sides are doing the misinforming, a clear and accurate view of the morning-after pill has yet to emerge in the public.

QUESTION TO DEBATE:

This is the question to debate: Is the public misinformed about the morning-after pill?

Hmm im kind of confused about your poll, so i voted "not sure"... what do you mean misinformation??

But I think the public thinks the MAP is a type of abortion, and the pro-life instinct is to oppose it, but the truth is its not a type of abortion. I believe doctors are having a tough time getting the truth out in the open about this, in part because people automatically assume that anything taken after intercourse to PREVENT pregnancy is an abortion.. can't blame them because it sounds like it, but its not.

But heres the facts:

1.) the Morning after pill, or at least the version i know of, is not an abortion.
2.) The sperm sits in the fellopian tubes for 3 days, and it will never get to the egg because the pill prevents the egg from getting there.

And if the morning after pill is going to be outlawed... then about a dozen other drugs have to go as well because they essentially do the same thing, but are subscribed for other problems.

Here is a chance for the pro-life crew to actually jump behind something that will PREVENT abortions.. and it seems they would rather fight it... i just don't get it. If you listen to the nationally syndicated radio show Loveline with Adam Carolla and Dr. Drew Pinsky, you'd know what i mean.

Dr Drew's opinion

I voted no. But I don't go to the Pro Life or Pro Choice camps for my information. When I was wondering about it a few years ago, I asked my doctor what it was and how it worked. He told me exactly what you stated. He also said that taking the pill in high concentration would produce the same effect. I do find it interesting that the AMA voted that way since my doctor was forth coming with information. But I suppose it is up to me to decide wether it is an abortion or not.

I vote not-sure. I can see the potential for abuse (meaning a health-risk to women), should the morning-after pill become available without a prescription. Women might be inclined to use the hormones too frequently. It certainly isn't candy or aspirin.

I am also not sure, but being that I have taken it (once in college after a lovely condom-breaking experience) and had it fairly thoroughly explained beforehand (since I'm not one who just ingests something without knowing everything possible about it), I'm pretty sure that likening it to abortion as many of the pro-lifers have done, is misinformation. I haven't heard much about it now that it's in the mainstream (I took it in '97 I believe) as far as specifics.

But I did want to address Mrs. P's mention of people possibly abusing it. While that's possible (like with any OTC medicine), given the side-effects, I'd like to think most people would have to be pretty stupid to ever WANT to take it again. It makes you puke your brains out (sorry, but that's pretty much what it was like), and makes your stomach ache for about 2-3 days. I've also heard that some people have had menstruation-like bleeding for a week or so, but I didn't have that side-effect. Anyone who would use the Morning after pill as a contraceptive device probably needs a little head-examination because it's NOT at all a pleasant experience and just about any method of BC would beat the morning after pill (plus most are more effective, too, if memory serves correct).

And I totally agree with Zac Morris that this is probably going to PREVENT a lot of abortions because I'm sure there are girls/women out there who have had sex and had "accidents" (breaking condoms, etc.) and thought that there was nothing they could do short of an abortion (in terms of not giving birth to a baby, that is). People like me, who are always VERY careful and use BC responsibly and only use the morning after pill as an emergency, as it is intended, probably far outweigh those who would abuse it...

Unless the pill is found to be harmful and should not be taken without an Rx, then I don't see any reason to disallow it from being an OTC medicine. It's probably going to be more effective OTC because not everyone can get to a doctor in 72 hours (the window of opportunity for the MAP) to get an RX made out and then filled.

Who specifically has redefined the term conception to infer implantation, freechildren? While you have singled out the Catholic church on one end of your argument, the only "pro-choice camp" you have pointed a finger at is Princeton University. Checking in with what I imagine you might classify as a "pro-choice camp," I found the following position from religioustolerance.org:
"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.

...The historical record shows that there has been a consensus among physicians for many decades that pregnancy begins at implantation. It is only religious conservatives, and then only recently, who have redefined it as occurring at conception."

From what I read at this site, and from what I have learned in the past, conception is still identified as the union of a sperm and an egg while implantation is the the implantation of a fertilized egg along the uterine wall. No organization has changed the definition of conception but rather recognized that implantation, not conception, defines the beginning of pregnancy.

The American Medical Women's Association had this to say about emergency contracpetives:Emphasis Added

So long as medical professionals continue to make the distinction between conception and implantation, with pregnancy defined only upon the latter, I don't see any misinformation on behalf of any "pro-choice camps" who identify the morning after pill as an emergency contraceptive rather than an abortifacient.

Regarding "implantation of a fertilized egg," medical experts and babies hatching, dissolution of the zona pellucida does not equate with a baby hatching. As far as the medical experts and the study of embryology seem to be concerned, it is a fertilized egg which attempts to implant along the uterine wall, not a "hatched" baby.

certainly, the public is misinformed about the Morning After Pills, for the reasons laid out (most recently) by Abs. Last week, i found myself at the American Life League reading up on the Morning After Pill. As expected, this is an organization with an agenda (and with whom i align myself), and they offered these observations:now, where i believe there needs to be consensus is "what is pregnancy?" I have done more than skimming, but less than scouring, the Personhood thread from back in October (it took bloody ages), and am still undecided on the definition of pregnancy. Yes, i also checked the offered links in this thread. Regardless, my conviction is to let all that may become, be.

That being said, i'll speculate that if the "public" tuned in to AD for just a few rounds, they would be less misinformed about much .

Well, I disagree with you on the rest of your post, but amen to that.

From the posts I have been reading, there seems to be a growing consensus among members that questions about the definition of pregnancy and related terms form the basis for a campaign of misinformation about the morning-after pill, although there is obvious disagreement about which side is doing the misinforming.

Let's take a look at what Dorland's Medical Dictionary has to say about pregnancy:



Here is the definition for impregnation:



This teaches us that pregnancy begins at fertilization, which is the time of impregnation. Now let's look at the definitions of conception and contraception:



This teaches us that anything that harms a baby at any time during pregnancy, beginning with fertilization, is not strictly a contraceptive. This means that birth control pills, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) are not strictly contraceptives because they can kill a baby at anytime between fertilization and implantation.

But despite the traditionally accepted definitions found in Dorland's Medical Dictionary, in 1965 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists introduced new definitions, such that the applicability of the terms "pregnancy" and "conception" were to have their onset in manner synonymous with implantation.

The reason for this contrivance had to do with the birth control pill. The birth control pill was introduced in 1960 and women thought it kept the stork away. A bipolar debate formed in their minds between those who thought it was wrong to keep the stork away using a pill and those who thought women had the right to control their fertility. Ladies doctors soon realized that "the pill" did not fit into this magic scenario. Instead, the pill contained chemicals that had a variety of effects. One of those effects was to prevent a newly conceived baby from surviving to the point of implantation. However, doctors knew women in the 60s would be extremely upset if they were told the pill did not work in the ideal way they thought it did. So, in 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists decided that rather than telling women the pills were not strictly contraceptives, they would simply redefine the terms pregnancy and conception in a new way. Since they knew birth control pills could kill babies up until implantation, they redefined pregnancy and conception to begin once implantation had taken place.

Back then, doctors already knew that high doses of birth control pills would virtually guarantee that a baby would be killed before implantation. But they did not popularize recognition for this knowledge, because they felt obliged by women to maintain the "contraceptive" mystique of birth control pills. Thus, it is only in recent times that knowledge about the morning-after pill, which is simply a mega-dose of ordinary birth control pills, is being circulated. Yet even today, rather than telling women that these pills will cause the abortion of any baby before implantation who happens to have been conceived, they are still using fabricated definitions of pregnancy and conception to tell women that these pills are emergency "contraceptive" pills, that they will not cause an abortion, and that they will not harm a "pregnancy" if already started.

Well, freechildren, Dorlands also defines "baby" thus:

and "infant" thus:

For completeness, "neonate" is defined thus:


So your assertion that "babies" implant into the womb lining and that "babies" are killed by the morning after pill seem, well, a little loose, terminologically at least. If I didn't know better I'd say you were trying to manipulate emotions (ours? yours? who knows?) into agreeing with your position rather than using plain facts.

Julian,

When confusion about terms abounds, a good catch-all term is appropriate, such as in this case the term baby. Then, from the standpoint of the catch-all term, more specific terms can be delineated.

Notably, the term infant can be applied to a child of any gestational age, e.g. premature infant, although it is generally used in medicine only after birth, e.g. premature birth. Infant means "not speaking" in Latin, and was applied legally to anyone not able to speak, not just babies. There is nothing medically incorrect about speaking of an unborn child or baby. For example, the doctor will speak to the mother about feeling the baby kick. Baby is a commonly accepted term to refer to any young child. However, the term infant is especially designated by doctors to mean a baby in the first year after birth.

Surely the public is misinformed about the morning after pill.

The public will continue to be misinformed about scientific procedures, medicines, and theories if they look towards their clergy or their politicians to explain scientific topics that have any sort of "moral" baggage tied to them.

Who should we look to to explain scientific topics to us? The problem I find is that we have two sides with compromised positions when it comes to the morning-after pill. Recalling that the morning-after pill is really a mega-dose of the birth control pill, perhaps a little historical reflection will help to enlighten us about just how far out of wack people can go following two opposing sets of leaders, both with compromised positions. In this case, the opposing leaders are the Catholic church and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). But first a little parallel is in order.

Sarah Weddington, the attorney who fought for Roe v. Wade, did not realize in advance that the State of Texas was planning to throw the case. So she thought she had to make up a story that the woman called Jane Roe had been raped. But Harry Blackmun, the conservative judge who wrote the decision in that case, knew Texas aimed to lose the case and resented the idea that Texas would go home acting righteous about its performance. So, to point the finger in a subtle way at Texas' compromised position, Blackmun writes in footnote 54 that when it comes to standing up for unborn children as persons, Texas "faces a dilemma". Instead of going the full mile for the children, Texas fell mute on topics like due process of law for the children, their miranda right to counsel, habeas corpus, stay of execution, their right to be innocent until proven guilty and all that. Texas wanted to lose. It wanted to lose because it had a burgeoning problem, but could not bear to legalize abortion. Instead, Texas took the opportunity to let the Supreme Court do the dirty work. When Sarah Weddington finally put the pieces of the puzzle together, that is when she came forward and admitted she told the woman called Jane Roe to lie. She knew it would not make a difference anymore.

The story of birth control pills and the morning-after pill is similar. Back in the 1960s, the ACOG did not realize that the Catholic church held a compromised position on the topic of the person status of unborn children. For that reason, the ACOG never grilled the church about its true position. A mock grilling would have gone like this:

ACOG: Why are you opposed to the Pill?
Church: Because it is unnatural and can destroy a fertilized egg.
ACOG: And what is so special about a fertilized egg?
Church: It must be treated as a person.
ACOG: Excuse me, it must be treated as a person?
Church: Yes.
ACOG: But doesn't the church always refer to persons as he, or alternately she?
Church: The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature on the subject of the person status of a fertilized egg. However, the church insists that it be treated as a person.
ACOG: So, when you say a fertilized egg should be treated as a person, does that mean you are willing to baptize a fertilized egg?
Church: No.
ACOG: Why is that?
Church: Because then people might want us to baptize menstruation just in case a fertilized egg might be present.
ACOG: So fertilized eggs cannot be affirmed as persons, because you are afraid of a menstrual baptism controversy?
Church: I'm afraid so. But, despite our weakness of anxiety, we still do not want any harm to come to them.
ACOG: Them? Do you mean "them" persons or "them" things?
Church: We mean they should be treated as persons.
ACOG: But not so far as baptism goes?
Church: Yes, I am afraid that is correct.

So, if the ACOG had understood the church's compromised position, it might not have been so wary about letting everyone know that the Pill can also kill a baby before implantation. If this had been the case, the ACOG would have undoubtedly informed the public well over three decades ago that mega-doses of birth control pills, what we now call the morning-after pill, can help ensure that any baby conceived will be killed before implantation. Instead, the ACOG kept it a secret that the chemicals used in birth control pills could have this effect.

Of course, regardless of the anxieties about menstruation held by the Catholic church, and regardless of the desire of the ACOG not to upset women by debunking the magic pill status of the Pill, the truth is that birth control pills, intrauterine devices, and morning-after pills can easily kill an innocent baby before implantation is secure. Whether the pope, the ACOG, or Texas and the Supreme Court want to affirm the person status of the babies or not is irrelevant. The fact is that abortion means the baby dies and that these pills and devices can cause abortions.

These conjectures and conspiracy theories are entertaining, but perhaps some credible source of information could be provided as to why the American Medical Women's Association, National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recognize pregnancy as beginning with implantation rather than fertilization (conception). The only returns from my internet searches which supported your assertions of a conspiracy to confuse women were from clearly biased [self-proclaimed] pro-life organizations.

With fields of medicine dedicated to in vitro fertilization and stem cell research today, which involve the union of sperm and egg in artificial environments, a definition of pregnancy beginning with implantation seems to stand unless we should consider petri dishes and freezers as pregnant.


This is just a stab in the dark, but perhaps scientists and doctors who are qualified to inform the public about "scientific procedures, medicines, and theories."


Besides the conjecture presented about a "mock grilling," I would point out again that there is no baby to speak of. For someone so seemingly concerned with misinformation and deception by way of semantics, there seems to be a good deal of it sprinkled throughout your own posts. I would think we were trying to stay away from such misleading arguments in this debate...

Uh, scientists?

The reason we need scientists to explain how the MAP works is because they can do it without using twisted words that have debated meaning. A scientist can tell you exactly what the pill does, and then you can apply your own vocabulary to the moral application of it.

If you and your church want to say that conception defines personhood and that any device that rids the body of a egg that has concieved is an abortion, then you can clarify in your own head that what the pill does is abortion in your mind. If people of other faith don't define conception as the start of personhood, they can classify the pill as a contraceptive.

People may be misinformed about the pill but the reason they are misinformed is because biased parties try to label very scientific, very describable happenings with weighted words that have debated meaning among faiths. Religion has no place in science, science has no use of terms of controversial definition. Science can stand on its own account, with or without such terms.

If the public is misinformed, it is because they are listening to churches and politicians instead of reading the scientific description of what happens and applying their own moral reservations after the facts, instead of skipping the facts and just reading the moral reservations of others, who by the way, do not speak for the entire public.

No, I don't think you can get away with this type of thing.

If a source you use (in this case Dorland's medical dictionary) is sound enough to justify one part of your case when interpreted literally, you cannot then say that the same source is open to interpretation when another part of it undermines your case.

Either Dorland's is a reference source (and infallible) or an opinion (and therefore fallible). If their definitions of "baby" and "infant" are questionable, which fits your case, then their definitions of "conception" and "pregnancy" are questionable too, which undermines it.

If your measure of correctness is "common acceptability", then surely you should withdraw your entire argument, since the MAP is commonly acceptable, not to mention legal. As, indeed, is therapeutical abortion, since more people accept it than oppose it.

This goes to the root of your case - you seem to oppose MAP because it is a form of abortion, yet you have not yet established beyond doubt that abortion itself is wrong. And neither has anyone else.

Abs, perspective

A big hole in your arguments is the fact that the ACOG did not tell the public over 35 years ago in 1965 that the chemicals used in birth control pills can kill a baby before implantation. For that reason, the public-at-large did not learn that a mega-dose of birth control pills, now called the morning-after pill, could be used to kill a baby before implantation. Instead, in 1965 the ACOG decided to sidestep the whole issue of the pill's ability to cause that sort of harm, by redefining pregnancy and conception as beginning at implantation. This way, the ACOG figured it could avoid the whole issue surrounding the fact that these chemicals can kill a baby between fertilization and implantation, by instead saying that the Pill only had a "contraceptive" effect under the new definition of pregnancy and conception.

And by the way, despite the ACOG's contrivance, Dorland's Medical Dictionary did not follow suit. You also have to understand that your distinction between religion and science may make science sound glamorous at first, until you realize that science and medicine are sometimes even more shaped by social politics than religion is.

So, if you have so much faith in experts, why did it take several decades for the ACOG to tell the public about the morning-after pill effect of taking high doses of the chemicals found in the Pill?

I couldnt have said it better myself, perspective. But following up, something needs to be clarified, and i think thats simply: Who? It doesnt matter IMO at this point whether the public is mis-informed or not, what we need to do is agree on exactly who is informed? The ACOG? AMA? the FDA? And, who is doing the Mis-informing? The Catholic Church? Politicians? Religious leaders?

To me, that is an exceptionally easy question to answer... Of course the informed ones are the ACOG, the AMA, and other medical associations or scientists etc, who have credible experience/knowledge concerning the MAP. But then again, im sure all family/personal physicians could give you sound medical information concerning the MAP.

Freechildren it seems you have trouble with this, however i admit im slightly lost when searching for your standpoint.



I don't understand how the physicians (the informed) hold a compromised position? To me it seems they arent trying to "push" the MAP, and i don't see them seeking public forums in order to inform the public on their standpoint, they simply give answers when asked.

Once the facts are given, the Churches and Politicians are forced by their followers to give their standpoint. IMO thats where the mis-information comes into play.

Now along those lines it begins to get complicated concerning the past 35-years of different MAP's and the parties who chose to inform prospective patients about them.



Once again, perspective says it best.

---
I also found this interesting:


Found HERE

I don't think an improvement in labeling will help much, because i think it is required by law for the pharmacist to give an official explanation on its use, background, side-effects, etc.. at least in California they have to do that.

---

In conclusion, I can only be grateful that the MAP is readily available. It certainly has saved my butt on two occasions, i just had to scrounge up 35 bucks to pay for it. (actually the first time the girl i hooked up with payed for it herself, all i had to do was provide transportation... hehe, oh ya).



http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/news.asp?Id=8124

This is the question to debate: Is the public misinformed about the morning-after pill?

Since the debate appears to be getting sidetracked, let me clarify a few matters.

Fact: The chemicals used in the morning-after pill are the exact same chemicals used in ordinary birth control pills, but are taken in mega-dose form. These chemicals are estrogen combined with progestin, or progestin alone.

Fact: Like birth control pills themselves, the morning-after pill may prevent successful implantation of a fertilized offspring. In medical terminology, we say these chemicals have an antinidatory effect.

Fact: The American Medical Association (AMA) VOTED, I repeat, VOTED, as recently as 2001 not to tell women that the chemicals used in birth control pills have an antinidatory effect, which are the same chemicals used in the morning-after pill.

Fact: The American College for Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) did not tell women in the 1960s that the chemicals contained in birth control pills have an antinidatory effect, nor did the ACOG tell women that taking a mega-dose of these chemicals after sex could virtually guarantee an antinidatory effect in the form of what is now known as the morning-after pill. Instead, in 1965 the ACOG chose to redefine the terms pregnancy and conception to coincide with implantation, so that the Pill could be 'strictly' called a "contraceptive" without revealing its antinidatory effect to the public.

So once again I ask the question: Is the public misinformed about the morning-after pill?

Note: Nidation, which means "nesting" in Latin, is another medical term for implantation. Antinidatory (anti-nidatory) means acting so as to prevent or inhibit implantation of an offspring.

No matter what the AMA votes, that does not mean that the information about the Morning After pills isn't out there and available to anyone interested. I know that the morning after pill prevents implantation. To me, that's the exact same thing birth-control does. It's pretty obvious that, since the chemicals in the MA Pill are nothing but a larger dose of birth control pills, that it would have the same effects as birth control pills. I don't need an AMA vote to tell me that.

I don't believe the public is misinformed, I believe that depending on whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you will select certain facts and ignore others to suit your views. But it's next to impossible to be "misinformed" about anything in the age of the internet. You can really only be "misinformed" if you choose to look at certain facts and ignore others, because they're all out there.

Honestly, what need is there for the ACOG to tell women that birth control pills prevent implantation, or prevent birth? Technically, the egg could be fertilized but still be passed because of lack of a good environment, and if someone has a problem with not letting a fertilized egg develop then by all means they don't have to use it. But the thing is, there's really no way to know if the egg was fertilized either way - if it wasn't, it will pass, and if it was, it will pass because of the hostile environment.

But I digress.

I wouldn't credit the majority of the public with even having basic knowledge about birth control pills, much less the morning-after pill. But I don't believe the public is being "misinformed" by anyone but themselves.

The site you linked to details the American Medical Association's rejection of a proposal to "tell women that oral contraceptives could cause an abortion by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb." This does not mean the AMA or any other licensed physicians won't inform women of their contraceptives preventing implantation. What it does mean is that the AMA is abiding by their recognized definition of pregnancy and abortion in relation to a fertilized egg's capacity to implant in the uterus. Without implantation there is neither a pregnancy or abortion for the AMA to speak of.

The American Medical Association voted to avoid misleading the public.

The AMA's definitions of pregnancy and conception, shared by the ACOG and FDA, is based on a misinformation campaign. The campaign originated because certain authorities, namely the ACOG, FDA, and AMA, knew that women in this country would be extremely retaliatory and irate if they were forced to face that fact that medicine after all had not really invented a magic "Pill" that makes the stork stay away from your house. Instead, the chemicals in the birth control pill, which are the same ones found in the morning-after pill, can kill a baby at any time before implantation is secure. For this reason, those three "authorities" conspired to sidestep the issue by redefining pregnancy and conception. In contrast, Dorland's Medical Dictionary, which did not share similar motivations, did not follow suit.

The AMA, ACOG, and FDA know that defining pregnancy and conception around implantation is not what most women understand when they hear the words. When a woman thinks to herself "I really don't want to get pregnant" she is not thinking "I do not mind it if an offspring is fertilized and tries to implant, as long as no implantation occurs." Instead, when she says she does not want to get pregnant, she means she does not want fertilization to occur, which is what she associates with conception and pregnancy. However, it is true that a number of women's groups, and mainstream factions of the press, have wanted to make women understand that they "need" accept the contrived definitions, to help "keep Choice alive". They call this women's lib: We have to put on our intellectual burkas and cover our minds against true understanding.

"We have redefined the words and are using them in a way that most listeners do not anticipate, yet since we are the 'official' source of information on this subject, there is no 'misinformation' involved." This is the tune of a misinformation campaign taking the form of trusted authorities. When it comes to birth control pills and emergency contraception, this is the tune of the FDA, AMA, and ACOG.

This is the tune America is singing to keep Choice alive.

Again, you have shown this to be nothing more than conjecture and conspiracy theories, freechildren. That's all fine and good if you want to say that a number of nationally and internationally respected medical associations set out to deceive women everywhere for this reason or that, but you have provided no more evidence for this assertion than if you had said they recognized pregnancy at implantation as a result of divine intervention.

A separate thread has arisen regarding the birth control pill with preliminary poll results (8-1) contradicting your assertion that women would be "extremely retaliatory and irate" if fully informed about the pill or that women associate only conception to pregnancy rather than implantation. This is of course not an official report as to the feelings of women around the country, but you have as yet provided no support for your claims of how women might respond.

As a pro-lifer, I think the Morning After pill should be available to the public. It should be available especially to women who have been subjected to a forced sexual encounter. It is vastly preferable to an abortion down the line, and it will have significantly less physical and emotional impact on the woman involved.

I guess I agree with the Catholic Church, if what freechildren said is true about the Church's point of view.

If members of the public are that concerned about the ingredients or the specific effects of the Morning After pill, they can contact a physician or a pharmacist.

I could see how a person who is under guardianship may be uninformed or possibly misinformed by the guardian, but a person judged to be of sound mind certainly has the ability to find out.

It might occur to you that most women define "pregnancy", "conception", "alive", "baby", "fetus" in their own way.

I couldn't care less what the dictionary says, what the bible says, or what the law says. In my mind, a child is not living until a late stage of pregnancy when he or she is viable (able to live outside the womb on his/her own). Some women share my definition, some women have their own somewhere in between.

The public can be told X Y or Z by whichever government, political, or legal agencies, in her heart a woman will always have the option of having an abortion - whether legally or illegally, as dictated by her conscious, her financial situation, her god, or whatever else might be important to her. It is too serious a situation to take lightly.

If you want to hear us agree with you that some organization changed the definition of some words, then yes - I will agree that some organizations will always change words to market their products. It happens all the time. But as was stated earlier (Suzy), in this day and age, if the public is misinformed - that is to blame on laziness. There is too much information out there to be misinformed.

I'm still not convinced that the "changing of the definition" had anything to do with marketing. It could just as easily have had to do with the advancement of our knowledge of biology.

I think you are missing a good point.

The morning-after pill contains the exact same chemicals found in the birth control pill. The ACOG, AMA, and FDA knew in the early 1960s that these chemicals can have an antinidatory effect; that is to say, the chemicals can kill a fertilized offspring at any time before implantation is secure. In other words, the ACOG, AMA, and FDA all knew that the chemicals in the birth control pill could be used in the form of what is now called the morning-after pill. But instead of publicizing this information, the ACOG, AMA, and FDA decided to conceal this information; they changed the definition of conception so that their new definition of pregnancy would coincide with implantation; based on this contrivance, they told the public that the chemicals in the birth control pill only had a "contraceptive" effect. Thus, the public did not learn back then that a big dose of the chemicals in the Pill would have the effect of a morning-after pill when taken after sex but before implantation is secure.

So the main evidence of conspiracy in this case is contradiction. Today, the ACOG, AMA, and FDA are telling the public that there is such a thing as the morning-after pill. But this contradicts the fact that for decades the ACOG, AMA, and FDA kept the public from learning that the chemicals in ordinary birth control pills have an antinidatory effect, such that taking them after sex, particularly in high doses, can have the effect of what is now known as the morning-after pill.

Now that we have clear evidence of a contradiction, we may ask, "What caused the ACOG, AMA, and FDA to change their stance on letting women know that the chemicals in the birth control pill can be used in mega-dose form as a morning-after pill?" First of all, we should note that even today these authorities are not exactly being straightforward with women or the public about the connection between the birth control pill and the morning-after pill; they are still pushing their contrived "contraceptive" theme and they are still telling women that these pills will not harm "a pregnancy" if already started; they have not accepted full responsibility for informing women that the chemicals in the morning-after pill, which are the same as those found in the birth control pill, can kill an offspring at least up to the point when implantation is secure.

However, in regard of the changing trends of misinformation (before the ACOG, AMA, and FDA would not let women know that the chemicals in the birth control pill have an antinidatory effect, but now they advocate use of these chemicals to produce such an effect in the form of a morning-after pill), we may ask what caused the trend to change? Well, in 1994 the Catholic church revealed in its "Instruction on Respect for Human Life" that it was intent on disclaiming an express affirmation of the person status of anyone before birth, with emphasis on the fertilized egg and early development. The church's motivation, of course, was to avoid attention for the menstrual baptism controversy, because, in view of Catholic baptismal practices regarding miscarriage, if the church affirms the person status of children in fertilized eggs, people may question whether any blood passed vaginally should be baptized in case an undetected miscarried child is present.

Thus, once it became clear to established medical authorities that the Catholic church would not focus on a child before implantation as a person, the ACOG, AMA, and FDA knew that they would for the most part only face "abstract" opposition from the Catholic church as far as the use of antinidatory regimens such as the morning-after pill were concerned. This gave the ACOG, AMA, and FDA the confidence to slowly begin testing the waters. First prescription use of the morning-after pill slipped its way through; now over-the-counter use is attempting to slip its way through as well. The ACOG, AMA, and FDA know that because the Catholic church is unwilling to draw a vivid picture of the person status of a child before implantation, no one in the public need be the wiser about the antinidatory nature of the morning-after pill or birth control pills for that matter.

For example, both sides, including the FDA, allow each other to continue to say that the morning-after pill may prevent a "fertilized egg" from implanting. But it is well known among leading experts that fertilized eggs cannot implant. But the ACOG, AMA, and FDA now know that the Catholic church will simply go along for the ride and accept this inaccurate description, because the church, ever-fearful of the menstrual baptism controversy, does not want to paint a vivid picture of babies hatching out of their eggs, seeking out the lining of the maternal uterus, and burrowing in so as to implant. So instead of teaching people about the hatching event and the harm being done to the baby, instead so called authorities are allowed to speak abstractly of a "fertilized egg" that implants.

freechildren, that is a basic concept of how a pregnancy continues. Fertilized eggs implant themselves into the lining of the uterus.

No, Suzy, that is not correct. Eggs cannot implant because the shell of the egg prevents attachment. Instead, the baby inside the egg must hatch first. Doctors did not realize this and so they misapplied the term embryo to children after hatching. We now know a baby is an embryo only from conception to hatching.

The human hatching event is one of the earliest observable human behaviors and constitutes a milestone of human development. Hatching occurs when the baby inside the egg breaches the shell of the egg. A human baby hatching is not like a chick hatching in that the chick obliterates the shell of the egg by pecking through it. With humans, the baby breaches through a hole in the shell of the egg with extrusive-type movement. Once the baby has hatched, he or she then seeks out the lining of the uterine wall and burrows in so as to implant. The empty shell of the egg is left behind.

At any rate, fertilized or not, an egg cannot implant. Instead, the baby must hatch by breaching through a hole in the shell in the egg, or the shell must be dissolved or otherwise removed, before the baby can implant.

Because the Catholic church is worried about the menstrual baptism controversy, because women are worried about the abortion controversy, and because doctors are worried about what worries women, you are not publically aware of the fact that human babies hatch. Instead, even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is allowed to get away with telling you that a fertilized "egg" implants.

Instead, such a statement is neither medically nor scientifically correct. This is a profound example of ongoing misinformation.

For example, here is what an FDA website says about the morning-after pill:



Note in particular where the FDA says: "These pills are not effective once the fertilized egg has implanted." There is no excuse for a government regulatory agency to propagate the myth that a fertilized egg implants.

Note also that the FDA, under the heading of "combined oral contraceptives" does not mention that birth control pills have an antinidatory effect (they can kill the baby before implantation is secure) even though birth control pills contain the exact same chemicals as the morning-after pill! This is because the FDA has participated in the cover-up about the Pill since the 1960s, and does not want to be seen as reversing itself now, not even in the face of obvious comparison.

I just did some quick research on hatching and I have a few questions for you.



What is distinctly human about the hatching process? Does this only happen in human embryos? Care to offer any of your sources by the way so we can see for ourselves? Here's a site that I found on the subject of assisted hatching. It has this to say which is interesting:



Maybe you consider a microscopic six to eight cell organism a human, but it is extremely dishonest to represent it as a developed "baby."



Most people aren't aware that Iridium is the most dense of the naturally occuring elements, or that Terri Garr got her break on an episode of Star Trek that was intended to be a pilot for another show... this does not demonstrate a conspiracy. You are selecting extremely specific and detailed medical information; not generally accepted medical knowledge like humans breath air or the fact that Drano makes a poor laxative.

Can you offer even a shred of evidence that there is a deliberate campaign of misinformation? I have a perfectly viable theory to account for the supposed inconsistency which does not require a leap of faith or radical thinking.

The FDA uses the term "fertilized egg" because the concept of an egg becoming fertilized is one that is understood by women. Since there is no material difference between a 'hatched' embryo and an egg outside one or two cell divisions and the dissolution of a protein cover there is no reason to provide information that is unclear or confusing. The purpose of that site is to help inform people about the choices that birth-control represents; not provide an education in biological reproduction.

Now, is there anything out there to refute this theory? Aside from your speculation...



This is the passage you are referring to. Look at the above theory. Most women do not know what an "anti-dinatory" effect is... What they describe is what the pill is intended to do, and what it primarily does. It is a pretty big stretch to suggest that there is a deliberate misinformation campaign based purely on a short blurb, phrased in lay terms, that describes the primary effect of a drug.

Let us take a look at a quote from the website you linked to:



It would be better to say that <<an embryo must "hatch" out of his or her surrounding shell>> for the reason that there is no inner shell to contrast with outer. Similarly, it would be better to say <<With assisted embryo hatching a small opening is created in the shell surrounding the embryo just prior to embryo transfer>>. Noted is that an embryo is not replaced or returned, since the baby, if fertilized outside the maternal body, has never been inside the mother to begin with.



A baby starts as one cell. The next few cells are devoted to a thermodynamic base. Then the baby begins building a spacesuit. The chief components of the spacesuit are the umbilical cord, the spacesuit covering, and the plug adapter. The umbilical cord goes from the astronaut's belly button to the inside lining of the spacesuit. On the outside of the spacesuit, opposite the umbilical cord, is the plug adapter. The plug adapter plugs into the maternal body so that the astronaut can get oxygen, nourishment, and expel wastes.

At hatching time, the baby has already built a spacesuit. However, at this point there is no umbilical cord. Instead, the baby is snuggled up against the inner wall of the spacesuit. Once the baby begins to form his or her spacesuit, the baby's body may be categorically divided into the formal body, which is the little astronaut inside the spacesuit, and the peripheral body, which is the spacesuit. At birth, the spacesuit is discarded and the astronaut goes home from the hospital in a car seat with the parents.

At hatching time, some biologists call the baby's formal body the "inner cell mass". As a historical note, doctors did not grasp an understanding of the baby's spacesuit because they thought the tissues they called the "placenta" were maternal in origin. Of course, we now know that is not true.

At hatching time, the baby is inside his or her spacesuit and breaches the shell of the egg through a small hole. The baby will then seek out the lining of the maternal uterus and burrows in so as to implant. The side of the baby's overall body where the baby's formal body is snuggled up against the peripheral body is faced against the mother's body at implantation. Eventually, the baby will grow an umbilical cord between the baby's formal body and the spacesuit covering. In this way, the astronaut will float inside the spacesuit until ready for birth.

As a historical note, doctors did not realize certain things, so that up until about 50 years ago, they mistakeningly called the baby an "ovum" throughout pregnancy. But we now know this is wrong. Similarly, we now know it is wrong to call the baby an "embryo" after hatching. Some people might think it is okay to still go by incorrect definitions, but that would be as wrong as still calling the baby an ovum throughout gestation. Correctly speaking, a baby is an embryo only from conception to hatching. Terms such as "preembryo" have no biological meaning.

You should be confidently aware of the fact that human babies are highly developed at hatching time and that they are capable of complex behaviors such as hatching. You should also be aware that various substances, such as the chemicals found in the birth control pill, which are the same chemicals found in the morning-after pill, can kill a baby prior to implantation.



To say that a fertilized egg attaches or implants is as incorrect and mythical as saying that the stork brings the baby. The FDA is required to present accurate information and to teach the public accordingly. Even if doctors tell women about the stork, the FDA does not have a license to do so similarly. For this reason, the FDA must be criticized for telling the public that a fertilized egg implants. Instead, the baby, known correctly at this point of the journey as a hatchling and no longer as an embryo, implants. The empty shell of the egg is left behind. Otherwise, the baby cannot implant.

Incidentally, babies prior to implantation are called prenids. The word is formed by shortening of prenidation, which means preimplantation. The adjectival form is prenidial ("pre-nid-e-al"). Doses of certain chemicals, such as those found in the birth control pill and morning-after pill, can greatly increase the likelihood of prenidial mortality. This is a fact of which parents and the public should be conscientiously made aware.

Hi, all. This is my first post. I've been lurking for a while on these boards, and this topic in particular has caught my attention. So I decided to investigate a bit. I found the following abstracts on PUBMED (a database of medical journals).

This article deals with contraceptives versus abortifacients from the medical standpoint. It states in the abstract:



Another work published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology has this to say:



I obviously haven't looked at every abstract available on PUBMED; however, I have come across none that provide any evidence that oral contraceptives do act as abortifacients. Freechildren, how would you respond to these published medical quotes?

That is a good question. How would I respond?

FACT 1: In 1965, after realizing that the chemicals in the birth control pill can cause an abortion before implantation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or ACOG REDEFINED pregnancy to begin at implantation. This way they could say that the Pill did not terminate "pregnancy" and was therefore not to be considered an "abortifacient" (abortion-causing substance or device). In other words, by redefining pregnancy they in effect REDEFINED abortion so that it does not apply to a loss life during the period of gestation before implantation has occurred. Similarly, they REDEFINED conception so that conception=implantation. This way they could say that the Pill was strictly a "contraceptive". To this day, women continue to be misled by these contrived definitions, and women with a pro-life ethic are especially being taken advantage of.

FACT 2: The morning-after pill contains the EXACT SAME chemicals as the birth control pill. While the FDA or Food and Drug Administration admits that these chemicals can prevent implantation in the form of the morning-after pill, the FDA continues to deny that these VERY SAME chemicals can prevent implantation in the form of the birth control pill.

FACT 3: If the ACOG, AMA or American Medical Association, and FDA had been honest about the role of these chemicals in preventing implantation, women would have learned back in the 60s that these chemicals could be used after sex in the form of the morning-after pill, even if fertilization had already occurred. So today if the ACOG, AMA, and FDA really think the morning-after pill is so important to women, then why did they hide this information for so long?

The answer is simple: They wanted to hide the fact that the chemicals contained in the Pill can have this effect. Instead, they wanted to keep the public believing what the public wanted to believe: that the Pill was a magic Pill, one that magically keeps the stork away. Thus, they shuffled terms and carried on a misinformation campaign. And they started suggesting that anyone who did not want to accept their misinformation must be a fanatic who wants to disagree with "the experts" for ulterior reasons. Instead, their attitude was "let's all just be happy with the Pill."

So go look it up for yourself. Birth control pills contain estrogen plus progestin or progestin only. Morning-after pills contain estrogen plus progestin or progestin only: the very same chemical compositions found in the traditional birth control pill. Therefore, in view of the fact that the FDA admits that morning-after pills can prevent implantation if fertilization occurs, how can we be expected to believe that the EXACT SAME chemicals will have totally different effects when used under different names (the Pill versus the morning-after pill)?

I know Americans are naive.

Fact 1: In the 15th century, the shape of the earth was redefined from "flat" to "round".

Fact 2: Copernicus redefined the model of the universe from geocentric to heliocentric.

Fact 3: Anytime something is redefined in science doesn't necessarily mean the new definition is wrong. Nor is it evidence of a conspiracy.

You continue to make unsupported claims, freechildren. In a thread deailng with misinformation, your argument and you personally would seemingly benefit greatly providing some support for your claims. As it stands you have been refuted with outside sources only to continue lobbying your case on the basis of your say so.

Quite simply, your opinions are not fact. Saying that something is a fact and true in the face of evidence to the contrary is not going to make it so.

You might start with your claims that certain nationally respected health organizations redefined pregnancy for the purpose of conspiring against women in a misinformatino campaign to promote the use of oral contraceptives. Where is your support for this supposed fact?

Do you have any links or other credible sources of information proving your claim that the FDA denies the birth control pills can or do prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg?

I would ask you also to support your claims of embryonic "space suits" and the ability of a small cluster of cells to act consciously, but those issues are irrelevant to the topic at hand. So, with those claims listed above in mind, perhaps you'd care to take some time and actually provide some support for them. Otherwise I see no reason for myself or anyone else participating to take anything you are claiming in this topic (and others) seriously.

Freechildren, there is no need to repeat yourself. I read your statements in previous posts. The point of the PUBMED quotes I provided is this: as far as I can tell, it is not an established fact that oral contraceptives act as abortifacients. Until you provide evidence that they do indeed act as such, your point is moot.

I haven't read all the PUBMED abstracts. I'm not a subscriber to the appropriate journals. There may well be evidence that these contraceptive devices act as abortifacients. You haven't provided any links; I haven't found any. But it seems rather useless to accuse the FDA, AMA, etc. as conspirators when you haven't established that the contraceptives do in fact prevent implantation after fertilization has taken place.

I am repeating myself because you are not listening. The birth control pill and the morning-after pill contain the same chemicals. It is unreasonable to believe that when these chemicals are labeled "morning-after pill" they can cause a baby to die before implantation, but not when the same chemicals are labeled "birth control pill". And if you want proof of a conspiracy, you have a bigger one on your hands than a conspiracy to redefine terms. Instead, you have the fact that women were not told long ago that these chemicals could be used as a morning-after pill, precisely because they were not supposed to find out that these chemicals, which are the same used in the birth control pill, could have the effect of killing a baby before implantation. Because of that conspiracy, women were not told that there could be such a thing as a morning-after pill, by using the chemicals found in the birth control pill after having sex.

abs,

I am afraid the burden of facts points to you at this point. For, since the morning-after pill contains the exact same chemicals as the birth control pill, why were women not informed back in the 1960s that the chemicals in the birth control pill could be used as a morning-after pill? If there was no cover up about the Pill, then why were women kept in the dark about using the same chemicals in the form of a morning-after pill? So, really the ball is in your court.

You should also note that these are not the only conspiracies surrounding the Pill. Women were used as guinea pigs to test the Pill in ways that are considered ethically unacceptable.

As you are the one continuing to make unsubstantiated claims, freechildren, the burden lies with you to prove them. Possessing the same chemicals in different amounts leads to different results. You have yet to show that there was any campaign taken by the FDA or any of the previously mentioned medical organizations to mislead women in a move to promote the birth control pill or morning after pills.

And you have again made a claim without any support at all. Do you have any evidence that there were any conspiratory actions taken by the FDA, AMWA, ACOG or any other nationally respected organization to promote the morning after pill by way of deceit? If you don't I continue to see no reason to take any of the claims or conspiracies you've introduced seriously.

Certain types of birth control pills can be used, in the proper dosage, with the same effects as the morning after pill. Information here.

Neither the contraceptive pill, nor the ECP (emergency contraceptive pill) is an abortificant. Abortion requires a pregnancy, which requires implantation. An example of an abortificant would be the RU 486.

abs,

It sounds like Mrs. Pigpen has now realized that the morning-after pill is the same as the birth control pill, but it has a new name, a new dosage, and is taken after sex. But now that she realizes this, she wants to redefine pregnancy to start at implantation, and she wants to redefine conception as implantation, because otherwise she will have to admit that the chemicals in either pill can kill a baby between fertilization and implantation. Since that admission puts a block in many people's political strategies, the ACOG, AMA, and FDA have catered to the idea that the whole world should accept these contrived definitions. Thus, it is as if the time from fertilization to implantation is supposed to be a non-existent time, in which the storkish mechanisms of reproduction have yet to materialize.

It is nothing short of a conspiracy for authorities like the FDA, ACOG, and AMA to allow women to accomodate patterns of rationalization like this. Instead, these authorities are obligated to provide a sobering view of the medical facts.

I also note that you have not addressed a basic question I put to you. If there was no conspiracy to cover up the antinidatory effect of the chemicals used in the Pill, then why did the ACOG, AMA, and FDA wait decades before telling women that the chemicals in the Pill could be used as a morning-after pill?

The answer is simple: Women thought the Pill only prevented pregnancy, meaning fertilization. But if they thought about using the Pill after sex, it would lead them to ask the question, "What if fertilization has already occurred?" Then the ACOG, AMA, and FDA would have had to admit that the chemicals in the Pill can kill a baby before implantation once fertilization has occurred. Thus, they chose, along with their regimen of contrived definitions, to hide the fact that the Pill has an antinidatory effect. Antinidatory means the chemicals used in these pills prevent implantation. Consequently, they could not tell women that the chemicals found in the birth control pill could be used after sex as a "morning-after" pill.

The antinidatory effect of the chemicals is very powerful. With regard to the use of these chemicals under the name of the morning-after pill, many authorities dispute whether a follow-up dosage is even necessary.

Here is what Princeton University has to say on the matter:



As Mrs. Pigpen points out, the so called morning-after pill simply means taking as few as two birth control pills at once after sex, depending on what type of birth control pills they are. Moreover, whether a follow-up dose is required at all is in dispute, because the antinidatory effect of the chemicals is extremely powerful.

So, in view of the facts, your argument about dosages would appear very unreasonable. For it is not reasonable to believe that the exact same chemicals do nothing to prevent implantation when labelled the "birth control" pill, given the fact that the chemicals admittedly have this effect when labelled the "morning-after" pill and are clearly being used with this effect in mind.

I think it would be more disciplined of you to concede at this point.

1) Did you know that soda water can be used as an effective detergent cleaner for some stains? Why was this not advertised publicly to everyone in the world with the invention of soda water? Conspiracy I say!

2) The Morning after pill and BCP do NOT contain exactly the same chemicals, however they do contain some similar and some the same. A pair of double doses of the birth control pill, taken a day apart, can act as a very effective morning after pill. This has a very different effect from the BCP in that it essentially induces menstruation, which the BCP does not. How do I know this? Because most of my female friends and X girlfriends all seem to know this. Seems to be fairly common knowledge in facts. So much for the conspiracy.

3) (and most importantly) so what? You seem to presume that is women knew the 'truth' they would all have flocked away from the birth control pill as though it were a carrier of the plague. But that is assuming (and a huge assumption it is) that people share your teribly biased views about the subject. people seem to know the 'truth' now, and yet consumption of the BCP goes up every single year in North America. Perhaps to women it is a practical matter of not wanting to get pregant rather than some divine moral debate about the first few minutes of an egg after implantation (Oh, and stop calling it a baby it is an egg, and at BEST it is a fetus. calling it a baby is not only a misuse of a clearly defined term, but an obvious ploy to invoke sympathy for your personal crusade)

There's actually no "realization". I've known for years that the birth control pill could be taken in a megadosage and act as a "morning after" pill.

I don't believe I've "redefined" pregnancy, because I would never call a petri dish, test tube, or one of those "micro incubation units" that you design pregnant.... Nor would the medical community, as far as I'm aware.

Freechildren, I have one question for you. Why is it that when "ovum" was redefined it's ok, but when "pregnancy" is redefined it's a conspiracy? Why don't you look at some of the other "conspiracies". Copernicus "conspired" to redefine the model of the universe. Through the centuries "all men" (as in "all men are created equal") was redefined from "white, land owning males" to "all people". CONSPIRACY!!! I understand though, it's a conspiracy if you disagree with it. How dare the rest of the world conspire to disagree with you.

Here is what Princeton Unversity has to say:


Thus, the morning-after pill and the traditional birth control pill do contain exactly the same chemicals. They contain either ethinyl estradiol (estrogen) combined with levonorgestrel (progestin) or levonorgestrel (progestin) alone.


To say that having an abortion 'essentially induces menstruation' would sound rather odd and deceptive.


How about if you focus on the word gestation. Do you agree that gestation begins at the time of fertilization in the mother's body? The medical community would be putting itself in an extremely akward position if it insisted that the gestational period begins before pregnancy occurs! It would be like saying that the stork does not deposit the baby in the mother's body until implantation time.

"The gestational period begins at fertilization, when the baby is being carried in a diaper in the stork's beak. But pregnancy does not begin until the stork sets the baby down at implantation time. At implantation, first the stork makes a little peck in the lining of the mother's uterus. Then the stork puts the baby in and this is how a woman becomes pregnant."--ACOG.

That sounds like something doctors would come up with for women. Then, closing the fairy tale book, they add, "And this explains why a woman has to right to choose [whether to be logical or not]."

And then the women run around saying, "But my doctor said [the fairy tale was true]. And you want me to be able to trust my doctor, don't you? And what about a woman's right to choose?"

So for this reason, women did not learn from their doctors about using the chemicals in the birth control pill as a morning-after pill, because telling them that the chemicals in the Pill can have an effect after fertilization would have meant ending the fairy tale they had already started. Even today, doctors are hesitant to make a clear connection in women's minds between the chemicals in the morning-after pill and what the morning-after pill does, in comparision to the chemicals in the birth control pill and what the birth control pill does. For this reason, the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration still refuse to label birth control pills as causing early abortions by killing babies between fertilization and implantation.

Only because it does not conform to your exceptionally limited world view. It is in fact not at all uncommon for emplanted eggs to be discarded during mentruation, it is the fate of any implantation that occurs right before the menstrual cycle. So in fact, having a drug induced menstruation is exactly that happens.


Now in your opinion (because thats all it is) this the same as using birth control, is having an abortion. That is your opinion, please try and remember that your personal unfounded opinion has no more validity than anyone else's opinion. The fact that you seem to regard your opinion as some unalterable mantle of truth does not alter the fact that it is still just your opinion.

Gee, I don't know....If I were to go to a fertility clinic to become pregnant, that experience would happen upon implantation. It's pretty much an irrelevant question until that time (IMO).

If you don't think dosage matters, freechildren, I'd suggest a little experiment. For the next 30 days take 1 shot of whiskey a day. On the 31st day, take 30 consecutive shots of whiskey. There would be a noticeable difference in how the alcohol affected you. But in addition to the difference in dosage strength between oral contraceptives and emergency contraceptives, there's also the difference in dosing schedule. Taking 1 pill every day for 21 days immediately after menstruation works primarily by preventing ovulation. Obviously if the emergency contraception is taken after ovulation, it can't turn back the clock to prevent it. It cannot be stated that just because they contain the same ingredient, they have the same mode of action.

Also, the dosages of hormones in the first-generation oral contraceptives were something like seven to eight times stronger than the current ones. It's only been in more recent years that dosages were lowered, bringing about even the possibility of ovulation. At those early, stronger doses, ovulation was consistently prevented (even if a woman missed a pill or two). No ovulation means no chance of fertilization. The early pills could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be labeled as abortifacients. So how can the "conspiracy" date back to then?

And if the definition of pregnancy was changed (I'm not convinced it was), it might have had something to do with the development of accurate, early pregnancy tests that measure human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in a woman's urine. hCG is first expressed in urine around the time of implantation. It makes sense to call the detection of the first measurable marker the "beginning," especially considering that something like 20 to 25% of all fertilized eggs are lost in the menstrual flow before women even know they're pregnant. Obstetricians use the terms "para" (number of children delivered) and "gravida" (number of pregnancies) to describe a woman's obstetric history. A woman labeled "para 1, gravida 1" has had one pregnancy that led to birth. A "para 1, gravida 3" has had three pregnancies that led to only one birth. If lost fertilizations had to be counted as pregnancies, how on earth could doctors consistently measure how many a woman had? It makes so much more sense, medically, biologically, to define pregnancy as beginning with implantation rather than with the immeasurable fertilization. No conspiracy necessary.

Two things many women do not realize about the morning-after pill are 1) that the pills have an antinidatory effect, which means they kill the baby between fertilization and implantation, thereby causing an early abortion, and 2) that the pills are less effective than even the rhythm o