Pill access could usher a new era of choices, moral rifts

[Tony]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3319606

To many women, the morning-after pill is an almost-ideal solution to the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy after unprotected sex — safe, affordable treatment that can be taken at home.

Except for one thing: It's not that easy to get it the morning after.

The Food and Drug Administration is about to decide whether to make the morning-after pill available over the counter, a decision that could usher in a new era in the culture wars, revolutionizing the debate about abortion and impacting intimate decisions.




The morning-after pill works like this: Taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it occasionally interferes with conception, but most often prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, the point at which most doctors say pregnancy starts. (Most abortion foes argue that it starts at conception.)

Contraceptive advocates and doctors' groups say easier access to it could prevent as many as 1.7 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions each year in the United States.

Though there are side effects such as nausea, most doctors say it is safe.

The pill, which has no effect if a woman is already pregnant, cuts the chance of pregnancy up to 89 percent of the time. But because it's more effective the earlier it's taken and doctors are so unavailable on weekends and holidays, contraceptive leaders saw the need to make it available over the counter, as it is in Canada and Britain.

To abortion foes, however, it's all part of a strategy to make abortion more acceptable by making it more commonplace. They also cite the FDA approval five years ago of RU-486, the "month-after" abortifacient with which the morning-after pill is sometimes confused.

"These nonsurgical abortions numb the effect," said Stacey Emick, legislative director for Texas Right to Life. "Instead of the horrific images of a baby being dismembered, you get pregnancy as disease and pills to cure it."

Since this pill has the potential to reduce the number of abortions with-out taking the life of an unborn baby, shouldn't the "pro-life" crowd support this?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
Since this pill has the potential to reduce the number of abortions with-out taking the life of an unborn baby, shouldn't the "pro-life" crowd support this?

From your article, "Most abortion foes argue that [pregnancy] starts at conception" - there's your answer.

I'm worried a widely-available morning-after pill will lead to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions, by causing people to become careless with their pre-coital contraception. :(

ETA: Welcome back, too.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
From your article, "Most abortion foes argue that [pregnancy] starts at conception" - there's your answer.


I noticed that, but I thought it was moot in light of the fact that the morning after pill effectively prevents conception (fertilization of the egg).

ETA: Welcome back, too.


Thanks. :)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tony
I noticed that, but I thought it was moot in light of the fact that the morning after pill effectively prevents conception (fertilization of the egg).

As the article says, it occasionally interferes with conception. Most of the time, it works by stopping an already-fertilized egg from implanting successfully.

If you believe that "life begins at conception," the morning after pill is no different from an abortion. It's a silly position, but at least they're being consistent.

Jeremy

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by toddjh
As the article says, it occasionally interferes with conception. Most of the time, it works by stopping an already-fertilized egg from implanting successfully.

If you believe that "life begins at conception," the morning after pill is no different from an abortion. It's a silly position, but at least they're being consistent.



Of course, if that is the case, then God is the most prolific abortionist in the universe, because many fertilized eggs fail to implant successfully without any artificial preventatives. It's God's fault.

[jay gw]

Mexico already dispenses the morning after pill at government run clinics free of charge. The US has had trouble getting it unbanned because the crackpot Christian fundamentalists have blocked it.

Being burdened with backwords religious types translates into getting any progressive idea impossible to put into policy.

Some of the Christian fundamentalists are ok people, many aren't as they hate everything, they all agree that all progress is bad.

[LostAngeles]

That's what I've always wondered about the pro-life crowd. If contraception is only second to abstinence in preventing unwanted pregnancies and thusly abortions, why don't they get behind it? Condoms don't prevent an egg from implanting. The prevent the egg from ever being fertilized, therefore, no life, right?

[Hutch]

Originally posted by jay gw
The US has had trouble getting it unbanned because the crackpot Christian fundamentalists have blocked it.

Being burdened with backwords religious types translates into getting any progressive idea impossible to put into policy.

Some of the Christian fundamentalists are ok people, many aren't as they hate everything, they all agree that all progress is bad.

Well, just for argument's sake, I would think the Catholic Church would be on the anti-pill side quite stongly, and I think they would object strongly to some of your characterizations above, jay.

Of course, I could give you some new characterizations of my own devising, being a ex-RC and all, but I'll refrain as one of my posts today may already have me in a bit of trouble......:hit:

[gethane]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
That's what I've always wondered about the pro-life crowd. If contraception is only second to abstinence in preventing unwanted pregnancies and thusly abortions, why don't they get behind it? Condoms don't prevent an egg from implanting. The prevent the egg from ever being fertilized, therefore, no life, right?

Sadly, many of the anti-choice crowd have an ulterior motive -- preventing sex, period, outside of those times where conception is desirable. For some, it isn't about the blastocyst at all, its about controlling people's sexuality.

I'm far from pro-abortion, being pregnant with my 5th child, however, I honestly don't understand how the same people that don't trust the government with their tax dollars, or the schools with their children, or their children to vaccination, trust the government to make reproductive choices for everyone.

[Tony]

Originally posted by toddjh
As the article says, it occasionally interferes with conception. Most of the time, it works by stopping an already-fertilized egg from implanting successfully.

How is conception defined in the medical industry? Now that I think it about it, it wouldn't even seem conception is successful until the fertilized egg is securely implanted.

If you believe that "life begins at conception," the morning after pill is no different from an abortion. It's a silly position, but at least they're being consistent.

Very silly.

[Tony]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Of course, if that is the case, then God is the most prolific abortionist in the universe, because many fertilized eggs fail to implant successfully without any artificial preventatives. It's God's fault.

How often does that happen?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony
How often does that happen?

Once a month or so. :D

[gethane]

25-33% of fertilized eggs do not end in a live birth

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/embryos.htm

Though I've heard as high as 50% in other places (that I can't seem to locate now)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by gethane
25-33% of fertilized eggs do not end in a live birth

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/embryos.htm

Though I've heard as high as 50% in other places (that I can't seem to locate now)

Here's some information, although not specific

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb122204.shtml

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Tony
"These nonsurgical abortions numb the effect," said Stacey Emick, legislative director for Texas Right to Life. "Instead of the horrific images of a baby being dismembered, you get pregnancy as disease and pills to cure it."




Well, given the horrific, life-altering scene of 5 year olds accidentally seeing ripped up baby pictures held up by kind, loving Christians, may they actually rot in HELLFIRE , I see this as a good thing.

Don't you, Ms. Right To Life of Texas?