This is a poll for women only.

This question is an offshoot from the Health and Medicine, Misinformed about Morning-After Pills?, What should the public know? thread.

Would you stop taking the birth control pill if you knew the pill didn’t actually stop fertilization but instead aborted the fetus prior to implantation?

I answered a resounding "No." If in fact, the birth control pill aborts the fetus by not allowing it to implant, I would still take the pill.

Count me as a resounding no as well. In fact, the non-able-to implant egg is just that...a fertilized EGG. Not a fetus, or even an embryo....so slight correction there, Bela.

Very good point Mrs. P. Thanks for bringing that to my/our attention.

Let me clarify the question.

Would you stop taking the birth control pill if you knew the pill didn’t actually stop fertilization but instead aborted the fertilized egg prior to implantation?

I'm very confused. According to my understanding of the pill, it already doesn't prevent fertilization. It makes the uterus a very hostile environment for the egg, or embyro, so it doesn't implant and grow.
::does a little research::
According to Planned Parenthood, there are two kinds of birth control pills; combination (estrogen and progestin) and progestin-only. The site states "Combination pills usually work by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). Progestin-only pills also can prevent ovulation. But they usually work by thickening the cervical mucus. This keeps sperm from joining with an egg. Combination pills also thicken cervical mucus.Both types of pill can also prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus."
So it already can "abort" the egg prior to implantation...

Allow me to point out (as I suspect you know, and was probably intentional) to "abort" the fertilised egg is a needlessly political term, implying a situation which is not taking place. This is not an "abortion", perhaps a less politically charged term could be used to obtain a more accurate poll result...

Vermillion,

I believe most of the women participating in this poll are intelligent enough to understand the term abort does not automatically equate to abortion.

This seems like an easy choice to me. I'd say that a pill that caused an abortion during the very early stages of pregnancy (before development of the nervous system has reached a point where there is the ability to experience suffering; don't ask me to tell you exactly where that point may be, but it is surely not during the first several days of pregnancy) would be morally acceptable. The process of implantation seems morally irrelevant to me.

Any woman who is interested in being a responsible family woman would use this safe and effective method (the pill) for family planning.

An interesting factoid I just read, which shows how truly ###### up an unbalanced things are in our society.

Federally managed health plans in America cover prescriptions for Viagra, but not for birth control!

Is that sick or what?!

EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER

>>Would you stop taking the birth control pill if you knew the pill didn’t actually stop fertilization but instead aborted the fetus prior to implantation?<<

No. . Certainly a joined egg and sperm is *potentially* a human being -- but huge numbers of zygotes like that get killed off naturally anyways. Eating or drinking the wrong foods can do it, catching a bad cold can sometimes do it, physical activity can sometimes do it. So then is it immoral to continue living an active life after having intercourse? Should all sexually active women be morally required to stay in a climate controlled bubble, in bed, on a medically approved diet . . . just in case they stop some cells from dividing properly and developing into a human being?

Heck - cloning is evidence that all the cells in your are potentially complete individuals.

Besides, the last thing this planet needs is more unwanted children. We need our children to be born into loving households!

Most of the posts I have seen here so far seem to be saying, "It would make me indignant to say I would find something wrong with learning that birth control pills can kill a baby before implantation, because that would be an argument against keeping 'Choice' alive."

So, to avoid this obvious problem of Choice-centrism, how about if we look at the question in a parallel way:

If you were living upstream and found out that chemicals you were putting in the river were killing a primitive group of people downstream, would you stop?

Or would you refuse to stop even if you knew those people were really your own children?

Or, to avoid facing the question, would you want the EPA to make up stories about how there really is no evidence that the chemicals can have that effect?

I disagree with your analysis of our answers, freechildren, and in my opinion your example is a very bad analogy.

The question is simple - do I as a woman understand that the birth control pill may be aborting a living fetus within the first few hours/days of becoming fertilized instead of actually preventing pregnancy in the first place and MY answer is YES. I understand that AND I, as a woman who refuses to be celibate and doesn't want children, am willing to take a medication that will terminate said pregnancy.

It doesn't bother me one iota that it's not preventing pregnancy but instead is terminating a pregnancy and this is coming from a woman who has some issues with abortion.

Your post seems to imply the women on this thread don't understand this simple concept, however, the question in this poll is very clear. I believe the other women who have voted on this thread understand the question completely.

Edited to add: I wrote this earlier this morning and want to clarify. I used birth control pills at a time in my life when I didn't want children - you know too young - wasn't ready for children. In 1993, something occured in my life and now I can't have children so I no longer take the pill. I just didn't want this post to be interpreted that I never wanted children.

Nice Beladonna -- I'm with you 100%.

I also found that analogy insulting and irrational, trying to tiptoe around the actual question/debate through sidetracking through a logic maze.

The core issue here - do we agree with the usage of birth control pills, regardless of what debate their may be about their specific mechanism of action? Yes.

beladona,

I do not want to hurt your feelings, because I know how traumatic this subject can be. But if you truly understood how the Pill works, you would realize that you may have already had a normal number of children, it is just that they would not have lived very long due to the antinidatory effect of the Pill you were taking. So those brief moments or days when the babies were alive would have been your motherhood. That is when you had their lives in your body as their mother. And, of course, somebody was their father too. In contrast, if the Pill worked the magical way that the ACOG, AMA, and FDA had suggested to women, then that scenario would have never been the case, not even as a possibility of what may have been. Instead, you have to live with it for the rest of your life.

Your position on women's rights is betrayed by this comment. The only "normal" number of children for a woman to have is the number she feels is appropriate. The very word NORMAL implies a social norm (and by proxy a role for women), which is the antithesis of the Women's Rights movement.

Now, you have explained how the pill works in your own terms which you believe to be truthful and STILL the women in this discussion are ok with that. Are you suggesting that you know what they feel better than they do?

I've read several of your posts, Freechildren, and I put no credence
in any of what you've said (short of your views on cigarette smoking).
This poll is for women only, but you seem to have disregarded that,
or perhaps you are actually a woman??

To answer the question:

Would you stop taking the birth control pill if you knew the pill didn’t
actually stop fertilization but instead aborted the fetus prior to implantation?

I would not stop taking the pill, regardless. It is a very personal
decision obviously, that one would make, based on her beliefs
about when the life of a child actually begins. Based on my personal
beliefs I would continue taking the pill.

Some women who support abortion rights will be too afraid to admit their true feelings about being betrayed by the Pill, because if they admit they are upset about not having known from the start that the Pill can cause early abortions, then some may interpret it as an admission that they know abortion is wrong. So instead they pretend like it would not make a difference.



I did not vote in the poll. It was not my understanding that I could not participate in the debate.



Would it be a personal decision if chemicals you were sending downstream could possibly kill a primitive group of people living downstream? Or would you want your government and scientific authorities to play games with definitions so you could feel in your own mind that you were doing nothing wrong?

Babies do not begin or end life based on your personal beliefs. But they may begin or end life in relation to your actions.

That is something very mature to think about, and something I am certain the ACOG, AMA, and FDA will not dare to make you face.

Nor do they do so based on *your* personal beliefs either. You are clearly basing your arguments here on a personal belief based morality, I suspect a religiously based one - though such a discussion falls outside the bounds of this forum.

Its interesting that the most virulently argumentative people regarding this issue I've encountered are nearly always men.

We need to have men be able to get pregnant for awhile, I suspect we'd see some change then!

freechildren,

Although you have provided no data to back up your claim that the BC pill aborts the fertilized egg, which has been asked of you repeatedly, I created a poll based on your opinion (theory) and asked the women of AD if it would have stopped them from taking the pill. Have you looked at the results?

Let me break it down for you:

First, it appears that most women, including myself, would not have stopped taking the pill even if your theory were true.

Second, if your theory is true (and at this point that's all I see it as, a theory as you’ve provided no credible sources to back up your claim) I'm sure I've had MORE than a "normal" number of children aborted by the BC pill. But you see I took the pill to STOP pregnancy in the first place. Whether it prevented fertilization of the egg or implantation of the egg makes no difference to me whatsoever. I didn't want to be a mother and the pill prevented that from happening.

Third, your post directed to me is insulting. You don't want to hurt my feelings? I was a mother? My ex was a father? I have to live with it the rest of my life? This is a blatant attempt to place me on a guilt trip and to debate ME rather than the topic. Your condescending tactic may have moved my position about abortion a little more to the left.

From the Survivial Guide:

Debate the issues not the poster.

The use of unsupported blanket statements does not add credibility to your position.

Cite your sources, and be prepared to back-up your argument. Don't make us ask for your sources after making a bold statement. Providing sources early and often solidifies your argument and solid arguments help establish credibility.



I'd like the women of AD to comment on the above paragraph too.

No. That is a myth. A baby begins gestation in your body at fertilization; that is when you become a mother. Though the Pill reduces the chance that you will continue a pregnancy beyond implantation, you can still become a mother, even though your baby may die before implantion due to the action of the Pill.

The Pill contains the EXACT SAME chemical ingredients found in the morning-after pill. Although use of these chemicals may in some cases prevent fertilization by preventing ovulation or the meeting of sperm and egg, this prevention is not guaranteed, in which case the chemicals may abort a baby between fertilization and implantation with some probability. Although the probabilities are not known, what is know is that the chemicals can in fact cause a very early abortion.

Thus, your belief that the Pill prevented you from becoming a mother is an unfounded, and perhaps unlikely, supposition. You may have been a mother for a short while, in one or more instances, but then the Pill killed the baby who was gestating in your body, and so neither you nor your partner knew about it.

Live with what?

Are you trying to draw some magical line in the sand here? Are you trying to equate birth control pills with an abortion? What exactly is the point of this thread, if I may be so bold?

No. I have absolutely no moral issues with aborting a fertilized egg.



Bela has requested that we respond to this statement. Personally, I do not feel that abortion is wrong before a certain stage of a pregnancy, and I certainly do not feel that birth control is wrong. Again, I have no moral issues with aborting a fertilized egg. I don't feel betrayed by the pill, and as a woman who does not want children but is sexually active, I will continue to use the pill.

My answer to this is definitely "No". I do not want to mother dozens of children or live the rest of my life celibate, so effective birth control that I can control is the best answer for me.

I have yet to see any poster other than freechildren that seems to believe that a fertilized egg is a child. It is my opinion that a fertilized egg is just a collection of cells without a developed nervous system or brain.

Baby's use molecular computing for brain power at conception, which is something we are just beginning to learn about in a new field called nanotechnology. Also, a baby is not just a collection of cells. Read my post on a related forum to learn more. I think you need to acknowledge the beauty and dignity of the children's lives who are being harmed by the chemicals in the Pill at a very amazing stage in the human journey. To watch a baby hatch is truly amazing. Like birth, hatching is a miracle!

Repost since it was ignored:



Nor do they do so based on *your* personal beliefs either. You are clearly basing your arguments here on a personal belief based morality, I suspect a religiously based one - though such a discussion falls outside the bounds of this forum.

Its interesting that the most virulently argumentative people regarding this issue I've encountered are nearly always men.

We need to have men be able to get pregnant for awhile, I suspect we'd see some change then!

NO. That is your BELIEF. A blob of protoplasm can begin gestation at the moment of fertilization, but it does not always do so. And whether it does or not has nothing on God's earth to do with "motherhood". You are perfectly entitled to your BELIEFS, freechildren, as - believe it or not - is everyone else here.

"Mother" is variously defined as follows:

a female parent; especially, one of the human race; a woman who has borne a child - Webster's Dictionary

a woman who has given birth to a child - WordNet

a woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child - American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

You are quite free to invent your own definitions for words - and just as free to BELIEVE those definitions have some relationship to the real world. But to try to foist your BELIEFS on everyone else, especially in an effort to induce guilt, is a disgrace.

Just like you go skiing, babies hatch. They are vital, healthy human beings exhibiting the diverse behaviors of their development. At least we hope they are healthy. Things like birth control pills are harmful pollutants. If someone polluted the snow you were skiing on, you would be mad. Knowledge of how active babies are at hatching time is not a belief, it is an observation. Unfortunately, I think the formation of your conscience may have been wrecked at some point by abortion culture in American society, and so you see these observations as a reproach.

Instead, learning that babies hatch is like learning that babies crawl and walk. When babies start to crawl and walk, parents take extra care to make sure nothing harmful will be in their way. In the same way, educated parents need to know that chemicals like those in the birth control pill, which are the same ones found in the morning-after pill, can kill a baby around hatching time.

For a baby to be killed by chemicals is wrong. And for parents not to know this is happening is even more tragic.

We need more women to stand up for the babies.

"Just like you go skiing, babies hatch"? That has to be the silliest and least workable analogy I've ever heard! Congratulations!

Anyways, somebody IS polluting the snow I ski on, and the water you drink, and the air we all breath. And I suspect you vote for people that continue to encourage that to happen. And such behavior does something even more horrible than kill potential human beings, it kills very much alive human beings.

And my conscience has been "wrecked" because it is different from yours? Incredible arrogance!

Too bad you don't demonstrate half the effort and concern you spend on this issue - worrying about all the children already born, who are being killed by our missiles, killed by our pollution, killed by our greed. But then, I think the formation of your conscience may have been wrecked at some point by things such as Fox TV, greed, books of superstitions, and perhaps a painful childhood - and so you may well see these observations as a reproach.

Abortions have been with us as long as prostitution, and your intentionally inflammatory remarks used to provoke a shock reaction from the members here shows that your view on abortion has been shaped by the church, which aimed at supressing abortions so that knowledge of methods to have an abortion became rudimentary, and many poor women had to rely on homebrewed potions and self-harm.



Learning that babies "hatch" is like learning that a cow can breathe. It's involuntary and expected. Crawling and walking takes conscious effort. To me, there's nothing beautiful in hatching (as you claim there is). It's a bioligical process as repulsive as a baby being born. Gustave Moreau's art is beautiful. People attach their own worth to the birth of a baby.



The baby isn't a baby around "hatching" time.

Gravity,

Think about this. George W. Bush has not supported a lot of legislation that would spare the environment from being polluted. But just think how toxic the chemicals in the birth control pill are to the environment of a baby before implantation. You are supporting the same kind of pollution that you condemn. A baby breaching the shell of his or her egg at hatching time could be killed by these chemicals. These chemicals can wreck the baby's environment. As the baby's mother, you should be very concerned about the baby's environment, even more so than men like George W. Bush.

What is your record on the environment when it comes to babies in the womb? I mean the environment that the mother's body provides for them.

Pleast stop assuming that your personal beliefs are proven fact. Please stop trying to use your own unproven personal beliefs to disprove the personal beliefs of others. Your opinion has no more (or less) validity than the opinion of the next person.

Yes, it is true, the 'hatching' of an egg is astonishing (I do not use the word miracle because of its religious overtones) and wonderous. So is the hatching of a wheat germ seed into a plant. So is the evaporation of water into mist.

So what? None of that has anything to do with your complete redefinition of the term mother, or the definition of the start of a child's life.

My opinion is that life does not begin at conception (edit) but rather at birth. I understand that you disagree, as do many others, and I have no problem with your disagreeing. But it is a matter of opinion, and it is my personal belief that many of the problems in this world stem from people who refuse to understand that their opinion on an issue with no easy answers just might NOT be the fact-proven gospel.

What an absurd argument. Antibiotics cruelly destroy the environment in which bacteria live, is this also pollution of the environment?

Further, what is your opinion on contraceptives (such as gels, creams or condoms anointed with) containing spermacide? Here is a product created to make the 'environment' lethal to sperm. I assume you oppose that just as fanatically?

hmm...why are all these men in here polluting this debate?

I would take either pill if I felt it was the necessary means to properly plan my family.

My body currently releases an egg monthly and I currently by choice and no other means (I do not take any sort of oral BC) choose to not allow that egg to be fertilized in me but rather allow my body to rid itself of it month after month after month. As a women am I obligated to the human species to attempt to give each of my eggs a chance to come to life? If I choose to willingly allow each egg to be wasted, or aborted by my menstrual cycle am I polluting nature's intentions?
Or does only the role that man has in our reproduction (fertilization) decide when life begins and when it should be cherished?

The only thing in regards to reproduction that is of the upmost concern to our society as a pollutant is unwanted children Why is this never a focus on the rights of children? The greatest right a child deserves is love.

It has been my understanding that anyone can participate in this forum; however, I acknowledge that only women have been asked to participate in the poll, so I entered a null vote. If the intention of the forum (as opposed to the poll) had been otherwise, it should have been made clear from the outset.

bucket,

I think your view that unwanted children are pollution is very disparaging of humanity.

vermillion,

When you say you believe life begins at conception, but that I disagree, I assume you are using a non-standard definition of 'conception', such that by your definition conception begins at what most people call implantation. This is the contrivance the ACOG, AMA, and FDA have tried to put over people in order to hide the fact that the Pill is not purely a contraceptive and can cause early abortion by terminating pregnancy before implantation. You will note, however, that both the Supreme Court and Dorland's Medical Dictionary have used the term conception to mean fertilization, not implantation. So you would certainly be confusing them if you said that I did not believe life begins at conception.

No, the answer is much simpler than that, I must apologise for i typed the original post in great haste and made a mistake. I have edited it now, and I apologise for the error.

Sorry freeechildren I thought you would have understood the sarcastic use of the word pollution as I used it quite liberally and just as loosely interpreted as you yourself have.

I find your accusations that women are polluting our "life stream" with such reproductive control as the Pill an attempt to villanize a right..and what I believe to be a human right... that every woman has.
What of societies that deny or restrict a woman's reproductive rights? How are they not being harmed with rampant sexual diseases, starvation, high infant mortality rates and preventable deaths from child birth or complications of it. Is this not harmful to actual living people...who feel the pain of hunger or death from AIDS ...living people who can actually comprehend the end of their lives or the lives of ones they love. How can a microscopic spec, a fracture of what human life achieves have precedence?

They now call it the feminization of poverty. Most of those who are poor and suffering in our world are women and that number greatly increases when children enter the picture. How can you tell any of us that your beliefs supersede this reality? How selfish of you to wish that women had less rights and opportunity to better their lives and the lives of their loved ones because it goes against what you believe.

I can not imagine anything more distressing for a child to be conscious of than rejection from their own mother. In nature this almost always means certain death and even among the most advance species..humans..most children will die within the first year of their lives without their natural birth mother. Why? Because this has to be one of the most intricate and animalistic bonds we have. Every child is born with the need and the ability to seek love, protection and nourishment from their mothers..the fathers are actually irrelevant...and many many know this and take GREAT advantage of it.. in this stage of our life and yet for some reason we have the fathers dictating how when and why all of this reproduction stuff should be played out in our lives. Why are the mothers...the women.... not allowed to let alone discuss this without your intervention.... but act on it without your intervention.

This is sounding to me like freechildren is concerned with "life" only in the womb, but that life does not matter as much after birth.

We should be concerned about the environment that the children we choose to have will be inhabiting. If someone is taking the pill, they are choosing not to have children at that time, so your point on polluting that environment is moot. But for the two children I've had, I do very much care about the world's pollution -- they will have to live with that pollution for (likely) 75 years or more, and it will have an impact on their quality of life. Or maybe that pollution will end their lives prematurely.

Thank God freechildren isn't king of the Universe -- or women would have only two choices: celibacy or continual baby production.

The idea that taking the pill is wrong reminds me of that Monty Python skit in "The Meaning of Life" and that song "Every Sperm is Sacred"

Ignoring the misnomer in the question already addressed, I voted an emphatic no. In fact, from the moment I started taking BCP, I always knew there was a very real possibility that a fertilized egg/many-celled-embryo would not be able to implant and then get removed during the regular cycle. I even remember my doctor explaining this to me - so I'm not really sure where the AMA and other organizations have tried to keep this information from the women.

What is interesting is the way freechildren uses an opinion as some sort of medical fact. The pill can flush an embryo out of the system - an embryo that is the exact same size as the original egg, made up of 30 something cells, about 6 of which could form into a baby if implanted and everything else goes well. Fortunately for me, and other women, the BCP can prevent this collection of cells from invading my body after the pill fails to prevent the initial fertilization.

Some people attach emotional value to these 30-some cells and call it a baby. This is based in emotion and religion and a whole host of things that are not part of scientific fact. All of the science I've seen marched out in favor proves nothing, other than what we've known for years - cells are programmed to do things.



This for example is a classic - the "molecular computing" is indeed (IMO) quite amazing and a very fascinating field of research. It is also, however, all programmed into the egg. The embryo knows which cells are supposed to do what according to the cellular resources available to it - these resources are distributed in a gradient across the egg - so depending on where the newly formed cell is after a cell division, this will decide what that cell will do and ultimately become. This is why cloning is possible - because all the egg needs essentially (obviously this ignores a lot of the complex scientific challenges) is half the chromosomes from another cell - everything else is already in the egg. So following the molecular computing = brain power idea would mean any form of menstrution is mass murder of supposedly "sentient" beings.

Besides, as I have said before, the molecular computing goes on in all cells... its the cellular machinery that allows cells to continue to grow, divide, make energy, etc. Thus, it is required in some form in all living cells - from single cell protists and fungi to hepatocytes (liver cells) of monkeys and humans - so no one can (with success anyway) use this argument for an embryos personhood without extending the personhood designation to all life - including the bacteria I carelessly flush out of my mouth every morning after polluting their environment (and my body) with toothpaste and mouthwash.

I am glad this poll was put up because it helps show that, even if there is a great conspiracy by the "greedy abortion doctors" to keep women in the dark about what the pill "really does" - the women don't care one way or the other.

Yes, and I did. Not an easy decision for me, but because of my personal convictions about when pregnancy occurs, I felt that even the possibility of a fertilized egg being prohibited from implanting (a component of the pill described here) went against my beliefs.

There seems to be people occasionally answering the poll questions (the yes keeps going up, for example) but there are no new responses on this topic. I'd be interested in hearing why these newer voters for yes feel the way they do. Would you folks be willing to post your reasons?

The thread died because the fanatic proponent and falsifier of facts freechildren has gone the way of the Dodo. Without his vitriol, the thread died, as the entire premise of the thread was based on a series of assumptions that it appears only he believed.

The thread should be closed, and long forgotten about.

The discussion has died, but there have been a few votes added since then (at least 2 yeses) which I would like to see the resoning behind. I've seen a lot of reasons behind the nos and just wanted to understand what th eissues were fo rthe yeses (other than freechildren, who in theory shouldn't have voted as a male)

There are only two 'yes' votes total. One was very early on, if I remember correctly...I'm guessing a vocal poster (perhaps male), made that one...there was no explanation. The second one (I assume) was from Rian. She did explain her reasoning

i don't believe in abortion and i'm not going to take something that does that to a human being Phylicia