Home - List All Discussions

To clear up a little ignorance

The MAP

by: BossMomma

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp

Emergency contraception is made of one of the hormones found in birth control pills - progestin. Hormones are chemicals made in our bodies. They control how different parts of the body work.
The hormone in the morning-after pill works by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs - ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormone in the morning-after pill also prevents pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.
The hormone also thins the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.
You might have also heard that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning-after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.

reply from: CP

Hold on....The normal hormonal BC pill works by preventing ovulation. No egg, no conception, no pregnancy. The MAP is a larger dose, and it works by preventing implantation after conception has already occurred.
When does life begin? At conception, or at implantation? At conception, a human being has begun it's existence. The MAP essentially forces it out of your body by preventing it from implanting in your uterus.
Yes, this prevents "pregnancy," because pregnancy technically doesn't begin until implantation. Life exists before implantation or pregnancy, however, from conception. Technically, using the MAP doesn't cause an abortion, because abortion involves a termination of pregnancy. The MAP still causes the death of any child that may have been conceived. It just isn't technically an "abortion, but neither is running over a 3 year old with you car, is it?
I oppose the killing of innocent human beings regardless of whether it is an "abortion" or not. I oppose abortion, but I also oppose killing a child after the pregnancy, when it no longer constitutes an abortion. I oppose killing of innocent human beings even before pregnancy, at any point after conception. Even if it is done before pregnancy has technically begun by implantation, it is still killing your offspring..
You see, it is the killing itself that I oppose. It doesn't matter to me at what point it is done...I certainly do not oppose killing of innocent children only when it is done after implantation. The principle is the same at any point after conception.
Do you see how PP is misleading? I expose dishonesty where I find it, and despite the feelings of some of my fellow prolifers, I do not "side" with PP. I side only with truth. When unfair or misleading propaganda is used to attack PP, I expose it for what it is. In this case, it is PP who is being deceptive by cleverly manipulating the facts! That is not right no matter which side does it!

reply from: BossMomma

So how does conception occur if sperm and egg can't meet? What killing is taking place? I think you are confusing the MAP with RU486.

reply from: CP

Sperm and egg already had that opportunity when the unprotected sex occurred. It's too late to prevent ovulation at that point. It will still prevent further ovulation at some point, but obviously that would not effect any fertilization that has already taken place. I'm not "confusing" anything here, BM. I'm giving you the straight scoop.
PP says it prevents pregnancy, and is not "abortifacient," which is true, technically. What they neglect to mention is that it still kills any unborn human being that has been conceived by preventing implantation. That is why their "info" is misleading. Most women will probably interpret it as meaning they are not actually killing a human being by using the MAP, when they really are....

reply from: CP

Does anyone think that the fact that I defend PP against unfair attacks and dishonest propaganda makes my post here more credible than if I was one of the supporters of unreasonable conjecture? That's the whole idea. How could anyone trust me if I stooped to the level of those who seem willing to "fight fire with fire," and answer dishonest propaganda with more of the same? All sincere prolifers should consider what I'm saying here...

reply from: CP

Does everyone get this? Killing an unborn human being before implantation is not technically an "abortion, since pregnancy begins at implantation! It still kills the human being that has been conceived, however, and this is the fact PP seems to be ignoring, perhaps intentionally misleading readers, but certainly failing to give a complete explanation. At the least, this is irresponsible, at worst, downright dishonest!

reply from: BossMomma

Sperm and egg already had that opportunity when the unprotected sex occurred. It's too late to prevent ovulation at that point. It will still prevent further ovulation at some point, but obviously that would not effect any fertilization that has already taken place. I'm not "confusing" anything here, BM. I'm giving you the straight scoop.
PP says it prevents pregnancy, and is not "abortifacient," which is true, technically. What they neglect to mention is that it still kills any unborn human being that has been conceived by preventing implantation. That is why their "info" is misleading. Most women will probably interpret it as meaning they are not actually killing a human being by using the MAP, when they really are....
So should all sexually active women mourn their periods as the potential loss of a child?

reply from: CP

Whether they do or not, every period probably involves the natural death of her offspring, assuming they are sexually active and ovulating. I do not necessarily believe there is any point in "mourning" deaths that we have no real control over, and did not intentionally cause. She would have no way of being certain when and if any offspring conceived have perished due to failure to implant, and that may be for the best.
Of course, she would also never be sure whether any of her offspring were killed due to use of the MAP, either, but she should certainly be aware that, if they were, she would have intentionally caused it.

reply from: Shenanigans

I think a lot of confusion is caused by the word "abortion". You can only abort a pregnancy, and pregnancy starts at implanation, not at conception. So it is true that MAP doesn't cause abortion, but there is a possibility of of preventing implanation, and an egg doesn't implant, its a zygote that does. A new human being.
The other thing is RU-486 can be used up to 60 days approximate, so a lot of peopel get confused with RU-486 being an ECP, but RU-486 won't stop implantation, it works by starving the implanted zygote by interferring with hormones and the likes.
But yeah, the MAP/ECP may not cause abortions, but if they have any chance of preventing a newly concieved human being implanting, they are a tool for killing.
Either life begins at conception, or it doesn't. If it begins at conception and ECP works to stop that life implanting, then its murder, plain and simple, and as immoral as an 8 week abortion or holding a pillow over a newborn's face.
And conception can take place within that 72 hour time frame that the ECP is recommended for - in fact, I heard recently that it can be taken up to 6 days, which would make sense for the prevention of implanation as it usually takes a week for the zygote to travel down the tube to the uterus.

reply from: Shenanigans

A lot of people say the same abut the IUD, that its not killing anyone because its not "aborting a pregnancy" but its preventing the zygote from implanting, which is killing someone.
For the most part pro-abortion people are either ignorant or out and out lying, but for so many pro-lifers to think that the MAP is harmless, non-fatal contraception, its concerning.
Yeah, the primary purpose of the MAP is to prevent conception, but it has a back up, and that's stopping that fiesty little zygote implanting successfully.

reply from: CP

http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html

reply from: yosephdaviyd

Well, when the goal is to make as much money as you can by any means necessary, whether you are selling cigarettes, services, or baby slaughter - you are likely to mislead people about your product. That's just the ugly side of capitalism. I appreciate your honest though.

reply from: CP

Unfortunately, I am convinced that there are people on both sides of the issue who are in it largely for personal gain. Politicians, especially, are suspect in my view, and I think there are many who use the abortion issue as a means to advance their political careers. There are others, however, that may or may not be as sincere in their opposition as they would like us to believe, and even if they are sincere opponents of legal abortion, their involvement in the issue is at least partially for personal gain.
At worst, there may be people who are only on our side because they are paid to be. At best, professional activists who make good livings off the issue stand to suffer personal loss of livelihood if the issue is ever resolved to our satisfaction....and this clearly could represent a conflict of interests.
Prolifers generally appreciate my honesty when I expose dishonest/misleading information or propaganda from the prochoice camp, but are generally noticeably less appreciative when I expose similar dishonesty or skewed statements resulting from bias when it comes from a prolife source.
Sadly, both sides utilize questionable means in the constant propaganda war that has resulted from differing views on the abortion issue. Since I am convinced that this "war" can only be won by convincing others to accept our views, I believe maintaining credibility is imperative. That is why I make a conscious effort to maintain my objectivity and approach the issue in an evenhanded manner, rejecting the notion that the end justifies the means, and that it is fair to "fight fire with fire." I believe honesty is the best policy, and I think it hurts our cause when we make unreasonable claims or attempt to manipulate the facts in our favor.
This is why I so strongly oppose some of the arguments I hear from fellow prolifers. I think the accusations regarding elaborate conspiracy theories to "target" blacks, and spreading misinformation about BC, for example, damage our credibility and convince others that we can not be trusted. I can't stop people from doing these things, but I can clearly show that not all prolifers are willing to distort the facts, and that some of us are reasonable by arguing against them. I understand they are probably done with the best of intentions, but that doesn't effect my position.

reply from: CP

I would also point out that the situation is probably similar for the prochoice side. While I'm certain that some are motivated by personal gain, I believe many of them are sincere, and do what they do because they truly believe in the righteousness of their cause.

reply from: lukesmom

Actually CP and Boss, you are both right. Sperm can live up to 5 days once inside the fallopian tube(s). On the other hand, the egg only lives for 24 hours. Without MAP the egg could become fertilized anytime during the 5 days. So if a woman has ovulated within the 24 hours of the sperm entering the fallopian tubes and before the woman has taken MAP she is killing a already formed life. If she hasn't ovulated, MAP prevents ovulation. No way to know for sure if fertilization took place or not.

reply from: BossMomma

Thank you. I'm not trying to sound all pro-choice or anything but women have to be allowed something, unless the pro-life objective is for women to be ruled by their reproductive organs. If that's the objective, I will not call myself pro-life.

reply from: lukesmom

Thank you. I'm not trying to sound all pro-choice or anything but women have to be allowed something, unless the pro-life objective is for women to be ruled by their reproductive organs. If that's the objective, I will not call myself pro-life.
I want to see women be strong enough to rule their reproductive organs before a life is created rather than having their reproductive organs rule them with irresponsible sexual activities. Humans can and do have control over their bodies and impulses if they so chose.

reply from: CP

How about regular BC, where the primary function and intent are clearly to prevent fertilization (as opposed to "preventing pregnancy," even by killing a human being)? I don't oppose that. Isn't that "something?" If you've made up your mind that you will refuse to oppose the MAP, even though that would clearly contradict moral principles you espouse, there's nothing I can do about that. All I can do is try to keep people from deluding themselves that it is not "wrong."

reply from: BossMomma

Thank you. I'm not trying to sound all pro-choice or anything but women have to be allowed something, unless the pro-life objective is for women to be ruled by their reproductive organs. If that's the objective, I will not call myself pro-life.
I want to see women be strong enough to rule their reproductive organs before a life is created rather than having their reproductive organs rule them with irresponsible sexual activities. Humans can and do have control over their bodies and impulses if they so chose.
I support the MAP for rape victims, a circumstance in which control is taken away from the woman and she faces forced impregnation.

reply from: Shenanigans

I'll have to go dig it up, but i saw a stat. once that said less than 1% of rapes end in pregnancy. I'd say it's probably a tad higher as not all rapes are reported. But when we consider some studies (victims vs. victors) say that the slight majority of pregnant from rape women are not aborting, and the availability of the MAP, are women who are raped getting the MAP? And if they are, is it a moot point because of the rareity of falling pregnant from rape - or is that stat of less than one percent or whatever so small because women are getting the MAP post rape?
I mean, in NZL it is standard practice to offer the rape victim MAP, we dont' have Catholic hospitals running A&Es in NZL so we don't get the problem America has with the mess around Catholci hospitals refusing the MAP to victims, and in NZL abortion stats don't include abortion for rape, so we can't really know unless there's a self-reporting sort of thing.
Basically, do the stats, that we have, is the whole MAP for rape even worth a mention in the grand scheme of things?
I mean, if the goal of MAP is prevention of pregnancy for rape victims, well, what about all the other women out there getting up to naked rude things on their saturday nights, should the MAP be openly supported as some kind of golden calf that prevents pregnancies while killing up to 71% of humans concieved in those situations?

reply from: B0zo

If you support it for rape victims, you should support it for anyone.
I oppose it for rape victims for the same reason I oppose it for anyone else--becaue it could unjustly kill a human being.

reply from: AshMarie88

Thank you. I'm not trying to sound all pro-choice or anything but women have to be allowed something, unless the pro-life objective is for women to be ruled by their reproductive organs. If that's the objective, I will not call myself pro-life.
I will have to agree with you. I am not even making a pro-choice statement, but honestly, a lot of fertilized eggs, or new human life, won't even make it to the uterus, or if they do, they will not be there long because they miscarry so early the woman doesn't even know it. If people are so worried about an egg being fertilized or not implanting AFTER a woman taking the MAP, maybe they should tell women to take it DIRECTLY after "oopsy" sex, or God forbid rape.
I'd rather a woman who's been raped or had "oopsy" sex to take the MAP extremely early (whether or not the egg has already been fertilized) than to wait until a baby already has a heartbeat, toes, fingers, and whatnot. Honest.

reply from: AshMarie88

If you support it for rape victims, you should support it for anyone.
I oppose it for rape victims for the same reason I oppose it for anyone else--becaue it could unjustly kill a human being.
I am pro-life and I definitely would NOT abort if I was ever raped. I would probably however get the MAP, I wouldn't want to be put into a situation where I am not ready or be forced to change my whole life if I can prevent that from happening.

reply from: lukesmom

If you support it for rape victims, you should support it for anyone.
I oppose it for rape victims for the same reason I oppose it for anyone else--becaue it could unjustly kill a human being.
I am pro-life and I definitely would NOT abort if I was ever raped. I would probably however get the MAP, I wouldn't want to be put into a situation where I am not ready or be forced to change my whole life if I can prevent that from happening.
Even if that change could be the best thing in life waiting for you? Kinda like "the road not taken"? Not just talking about the possiblity of having a child but just in general...

reply from: AshMarie88

If you support it for rape victims, you should support it for anyone.
I oppose it for rape victims for the same reason I oppose it for anyone else--becaue it could unjustly kill a human being.
I am pro-life and I definitely would NOT abort if I was ever raped. I would probably however get the MAP, I wouldn't want to be put into a situation where I am not ready or be forced to change my whole life if I can prevent that from happening.
Even if that change could be the best thing in life waiting for you? Kinda like "the road not taken"? Not just talking about the possiblity of having a child but just in general...
I don't wanna be forced to have someone else's baby. If I could prevent that before conception or whatever, I would. My fiance' and I would be lucky to someday soon conceive our own child, and I would be DEVASTATED if I was raped and found out I was pregnant. I would not abort like I have said thousands of times before, but if i could prevent pregnancy I certainly would!

reply from: BossMomma

If you support it for rape victims, you should support it for anyone.
I oppose it for rape victims for the same reason I oppose it for anyone else--becaue it could unjustly kill a human being.
Prove that, you prove to me that every woman who takes ECPs is snuffing out a zygote.

reply from: BossMomma

If you support it for rape victims, you should support it for anyone.
I oppose it for rape victims for the same reason I oppose it for anyone else--becaue it could unjustly kill a human being.
I am pro-life and I definitely would NOT abort if I was ever raped. I would probably however get the MAP, I wouldn't want to be put into a situation where I am not ready or be forced to change my whole life if I can prevent that from happening.
Even if that change could be the best thing in life waiting for you? Kinda like "the road not taken"? Not just talking about the possiblity of having a child but just in general...
I don't wanna be forced to have someone else's baby. If I could prevent that before conception or whatever, I would. My fiance' and I would be lucky to someday soon conceive our own child, and I would be DEVASTATED if I was raped and found out I was pregnant. I would not abort like I have said thousands of times before, but if i could prevent pregnancy I certainly would!
Thank you! Glad I'm not alone.

reply from: B0zo

If you support it for rape victims, you should support it for anyone.
I oppose it for rape victims for the same reason I oppose it for anyone else--becaue it could unjustly kill a human being.
Prove that, you prove to me that every woman who takes ECPs is snuffing out a zygote.
I didn't say every women.
Apparently it can prevent a zygote from implanting, and when that happens, a baby is being killed unjustly, and it's no different than an abortion.

reply from: BossMomma

If you support it for rape victims, you should support it for anyone.
I oppose it for rape victims for the same reason I oppose it for anyone else--becaue it could unjustly kill a human being.
Prove that, you prove to me that every woman who takes ECPs is snuffing out a zygote.
I didn't say every women.
Apparently it can prevent a zygote from implanting, and when that happens, a baby is being killed unjustly, and it's no different than an abortion.
like I said, prove it. You have no way of telling whether it has caused a failure to implant or not.

reply from: B0zo

I'm still not following you.
Is it right or wrong to intentionally kill a zygote?
Are you ok with contraception that would prevent a zygote from implanting?
Are you saying that MAP never kills a zygote?

reply from: B0zo

78% of the time MAP is unneccsary. The above figures pertain to the times when it works.
When it does work, apparently half the time it works as contraception, but the other half of the time, it destryos a zygote, which is the same as an abortion.
Supporting MAP is no different than approving of abortion in the case of rape.

reply from: AshMarie88

Are you against exercise or alcohol after a woman's had unprotected sex? If a woman's body is delicate and can't easily even keep pregnancy, something as little as exercise can cause a fertilized egg to implant, or even early miscarry itself if she is already pregnant and doesn't know it.

reply from: B0zo

Are you against exercise or alcohol after a woman's had unprotected sex? If a woman's body is delicate and can't easily even keep pregnancy, something as little as exercise can cause a fertilized egg to implant, or even early miscarry itself if she is already pregnant and doesn't know it.
I'm against intentionally destroying a zygote.
Do you think it's ok to intentionally destroy a zygote with a chemical?
MAP is designed to do that if it fails to prevent conception.

reply from: B0zo

BossMomma is not "right." She is only "half" right, and the half that is wrong is the part that is scary...coming from a pro-lifer, because it allows for the destruction of a conceived human being, as if it is ok in the case of rape.

reply from: B0zo

And note that Planned Parenthood did not even mention that the MAP could prevent implantation.
That was very sneaky and deceptive.
They are playing a trick with semantics to say it is not an "abortion pill" when then know it can cause implantation failure, which prolifers would see as ethically the same as an abortion.

reply from: Shenanigans

Well, I like my Catholic doctrine, but I do not like my faith being imposed on others, in much the same way I dont' like other doctrines being forced on me.
With that said, I think there are two points here of note: 1. All Catholic hospitals should make it clear that they do not provide the MAP. 2. If a woman is raped, she should know, or her ambulance driver/whoever should know that Catholc hospitals do not provide MAP, so don't take her to one.
I mean, you guys must have more then just Catholics providing hosptials, right? Surely a rape victim can get to a hospital/chemist where she can get teh MAP without stepping on anyone's toes.

reply from: Shenanigans

So would you support RU-486 up until the 18th day, since the heart doesn't start beating until then?
Its only going to end up with you in a big hole if you start selecting abitary dates or stages of development to decide to protect the human life.
Human life begins at conception.
If human life is worthy of protection then that protection must begin when teh human life begins, at conception, and not when its got a face or can wear a pair of Levis.

reply from: Shenanigans

But its YOUR baby too, doesn't that matter?

reply from: BossMomma

But its YOUR baby too, doesn't that matter?
like I said earlier, you prove to me that every MAP prevents a zygote from implanting and you might change someone's mind. If it's three days before a woman ovulates and she takes the MAP, she is protected from fertilization. You focus only on that one possibility.

reply from: Shenanigans

If someone told me I had a 21% chance of winning millions in the lottery do you think I'd be sitting on my arse at home typing on the computer?
The science is pretty sound on these equations.
You are free to denouce them or ignore them, but you are basically putting a huge gapping hole in yoru pro-life logic, and are allowing yoruself a backdoor to open to let in a few other pro-abortion possibilities.
To put it another way, say you like fire and explosions, and you think the local kindergarden is the kind of wooden structure that'd burn great, but you have a 21% chance of killing a toddler if you turf a molotov through the window.
That's a 79% chance that you won't kill a kid. Are those really acceptable number when we're discussing a human life?

reply from: AshMarie88

Are you against exercise or alcohol after a woman's had unprotected sex? If a woman's body is delicate and can't easily even keep pregnancy, something as little as exercise can cause a fertilized egg to implant, or even early miscarry itself if she is already pregnant and doesn't know it.
I'm against intentionally destroying a zygote.
Do you think it's ok to intentionally destroy a zygote with a chemical?
MAP is designed to do that if it fails to prevent conception.
TECHNICALLY speaking, if the MAP prevents implantaion (not even the majority of the time), you're not chemically killing anything, it's just harming the lining of the uterus so the egg can't implant.
Just saying.

reply from: B0zo

But its YOUR baby too, doesn't that matter?
like I said earlier, you prove to me that every MAP prevents a zygote from implanting and you might change someone's mind. If it's three days before a woman ovulates and she takes the MAP, she is protected from fertilization. You focus only on that one possibility.
Why does it have to be "every" time.
If SOMETIMES zygotes are killed, is that ok?

reply from: Shenanigans

And why are you doing somethign to harm the lining of the uterus?
To prevent the implantation of a human being.

reply from: AshMarie88

BossMomma is not "right." She is only "half" right, and the half that is wrong is the part that is scary...coming from a pro-lifer, because it allows for the destruction of a conceived human being, as if it is ok in the case of rape.
Which would you rather have happen:
A. A woman who's been raped or had random sex and MIGHT POSSIBLY (not known) have already conceived but not gotten pregnant (implanted) yet, take a MAP.
or
B. A woman who's been raped or had random sex and got to 6, 7, 8, 9+ weeks pregnant and aborts the child that has a heartbeat, limbs, can feel pain, etc.

reply from: AshMarie88

So would you support RU-486 up until the 18th day, since the heart doesn't start beating until then?
Its only going to end up with you in a big hole if you start selecting abitary dates or stages of development to decide to protect the human life.
Human life begins at conception.
If human life is worthy of protection then that protection must begin when teh human life begins, at conception, and not when its got a face or can wear a pair of Levis.
That's AFTER pregnancy, not before.

reply from: AshMarie88

But its YOUR baby too, doesn't that matter?
It would be MY baby, yes, but if I could take a pill to prevent conception or pregnancy, I would do that.

reply from: AshMarie88

And why are you doing somethign to harm the lining of the uterus?
To prevent the implantation of a human being.
That's NOT why women take the pill, at least not the majority. Women take the pill to prevent the sperm from meeting with the egg.

reply from: Shenanigans

Are we really going to have the "what do you perfer?" conversation?
Yeah, the woman may not have concieved, so taking MAP is moot, but who's to say she wont' miscarry from all the stress of finding out she's carrying her rapist's baby? Or maybe she'll get hit by a bus and ooze the foetus out all over the road?
43 - 71% are helleva high odds to be taking with a child's life.
And the fact an embryo/foetus has limbs and a beating heart and can possibily feel pain are not reasons that make ending that child's life any more repugnant then ending it by preventing implantation.

reply from: AshMarie88

Here is what one of my 1000000% PRO-LIFE friends commented on my facebook post: Im Pro-MAP for rape if the woman knows she would abort if gotten pregnant... or *****, any woman who knows she would abort if gotten pregnant because isnt it better to creative thicken cervix mucus sperm cant swim in, or prevent ovulation etc... then have her go get her formed heart beating baby chopped up a few months from then??? With easy access to MAP there is NO reason for legalized abortion! (and they strongly claim it doesnt abort if already pregnant) They had 3 days to prevent their "mistake" afterwards and if they were too lazy to do it, too bad! They had their chance at a choice...i think if Pro-Lifers made that realistic compromise we would have waaaaaay more power in making our stance and changing the laws.

reply from: AshMarie88

That is why the pill is taken, to cover the other percentage that isn't covered.

reply from: Shenanigans

So would you support RU-486 up until the 18th day, since the heart doesn't start beating until then?
Its only going to end up with you in a big hole if you start selecting abitary dates or stages of development to decide to protect the human life.
Human life begins at conception.
If human life is worthy of protection then that protection must begin when teh human life begins, at conception, and not when its got a face or can wear a pair of Levis.
That's AFTER pregnancy, not before.
Now you're splitting hairs, you implied that it was better to [possibly] end the child's life before it has a heart beat et al, these thigns take place at 18 days, after pregnancy has started.
If you're going to say its okay to [possibly] prevent implantation, thus killing a human being, why should it matter when you choose to [possibly] end that child's life? I mean, jump in front of a bus for kicks at 10 weeks, and the child could possibly die, but its okay right, because its only a possibility and your intention wasn't to kill the child?
Its a seriously flawed thought process, this is the crap we expect from the pro-aborts.

reply from: Shenanigans

I dont' care if someone tries to prevent conception.
Its preventing pregnancy when conception has already happened that's the problem.
There's a human life there.
I mean, the pro-aborts must think we're all a bunch of red neck morons for thinking an 8 week old foetus is a person, let alone a human life, but we do, and that little person starts their life at conception, not at pregnancy.
When you pop those little pills that make up the MAP you're taking a 40 - 71% risk of killling that human being.
If we can get all iffy over a non-sentient fish looking thing getting killed at 2 weeks by RU-486, why aren't the rest of you getting iffy over the non-sentient blob looking thing getting killed at 2 days?
They're both human beings. They're both alive.

reply from: Shenanigans

The daily pill is not the same as the MAP.
While the daily pill can cause some intereferance with implantation, that is a lot lower on the stats then what the MAP does.
I don't care about preventing egg meeting sperm. I care about zygote being intentionally flushed out of the woman because she purposefully took something.

reply from: Shenanigans

If those people want to call themselves pro-life, have at it.
But human life begins at conception, and the MAP is killing 40 - 71% of those human beings.
If those "pro-lifers" can live with that, well, enjoy that warm fuzzy ignorance.

reply from: B0zo

Either zygotes are expendable, or there seems to be a lot of willfull ignorance in this thread.

reply from: Shenanigans

I guess even in the pro-life movement people can put a value on life.
I mean, we have pro-aborts say "oh, I beleive in aboriton, but I think at 25/n weeks that abortion should only be for x, y, z reason because its a baby then, I think".
Here we have pro-lifers saying "Oh, I dont' beleive in abortion, but I think before implantion its okay, because it doesn't have legs or a heart beat"
This is human life you guys are being blase with, and the attempts to comfort yoruself with the stats that conception hasn't take place yet is boardering on a dangerous hypocrisy.

reply from: AshMarie88

I guess even in the pro-life movement people can put a value on life.
I mean, we have pro-aborts say "oh, I beleive in aboriton, but I think at 25/n weeks that abortion should only be for x, y, z reason because its a baby then, I think".
Here we have pro-lifers saying "Oh, I dont' beleive in abortion, but I think before implantion its okay, because it doesn't have legs or a heart beat"
This is human life you guys are being blase with, and the attempts to comfort yoruself with the stats that conception hasn't take place yet is boardering on a dangerous hypocrisy.
a·bor·tion? ?
[uh-bawr-shuhn] Show IPA
- noun
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months.

reply from: CP

Dead is dead. Are you really arguing that it is better to kill it sooner than later? I'm arguing that it's wrong to kill it. PERIOD.
How about:
C. Just don't kill it at all.
A and B are both killing the child. They are both wrong! What if I had a newborn baby, and I told you I was going to kill it when it turns 3 y/o. You tell me that would be wrong, and try to talk me out of it, so as a sort of compromise, I offer to just kill it now...I could say, "wouldn't that better than waiting until it gained more awareness?" Wouldn't you rather I just kill it now, while it still has no idea what's going on?
How would that be a legitimate argument against your contention that it is wrong to kill it? If both A and B are wrong, neither is "more wrong..."
I understand that people are going to abort, use the MAP, rob banks, run red lights, and commit rape. All these things are "wrong" in my view, and one is not any more or less wrong than the other. Given a choice, where one must occur, and is not preventable, I would, of course, choose the "lesser" evil. In my view, running a red light would be the lesser evil because it doesn't necessarily harm anyone.
Given a choice between one person being hurt, and another being killed, I would say being hurt is the lesser evil. In the case of your A and B choices, the child dies either way. It is no more or less wrong in my view to kill it today than tomorrow. The thing is, however, those are not the only options! Obviously, you could simply not kill the child at all!
Like I said, I understand that people are going to do these things. I have no control over that. I can do everything in my power to convince them that it's wrong, and to make sure they understand the full implications of what they are doing, however.
PP seems to have attempted to use semantics to conceal those implications, and I could not find a single site (other than prolife sites) that actually told the whole truth about what the MAP really does. I can't make anyone accept it, but you can't say I didn't try to make sure you knew the truth.

reply from: CP

The MAP is taken to prevent pregnancy, even if it has to kill your child to do so. That's the truth of the matter....

reply from: CP

I guess even in the pro-life movement people can put a value on life.
I mean, we have pro-aborts say "oh, I beleive in aboriton, but I think at 25/n weeks that abortion should only be for x, y, z reason because its a baby then, I think".
Here we have pro-lifers saying "Oh, I dont' beleive in abortion, but I think before implantion its okay, because it doesn't have legs or a heart beat"
This is human life you guys are being blase with, and the attempts to comfort yoruself with the stats that conception hasn't take place yet is boardering on a dangerous hypocrisy.
a·bor·tion? ?
[uh-bawr-shuhn] Show IPA
- noun
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months.
But is it wrong to kill a human being only by abortion? I'm sure you would agree that it is wrong to kill your child after the pregnancy as well, even though that is not an "abortion" either, right? But, for some reason, it's OK to kill your child before you are technically pregnant, just because that is not an "abortion?"
So, it is actually the latching on to the uterine wall that gives human life value, I guess. A human zygote is insignificant before it grabs onto that uterine wall, but minutes later, it's wrong to kill it, even though it is the same exact human being, and no more developed than it was before...The only difference is that it has now implanted in the uterine wall.

reply from: AshMarie88

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception

reply from: AshMarie88

Once again, just about anything can interfere with possible implantation if a woman has already had sex and conception happens. It's just not PREGNANCY until implantation. After that, of course it's an abortion, and I'm against that!

reply from: CP

Yes, just as accidental and natural deaths occur every day for born persons....but that doesn't make murder justifiable, does it?
It's not "PREGNANCY" after the child exits the womb either, so is it OK to kill it then? Are you only against "ABORTION," or are you opposed to killing human beings in general?
Why would you consider it wrong to kill a human just because it latched on to your uterine wall if it was OK to kill it ten minutes before that?

reply from: CP

Ash, is it only OK to use the MAP if you have been raped, or is it OK to use it in any instance?

reply from: AshMarie88

Both.
Is it not true that a woman, who will abort in the future, would indeed have an abortion at 10 weeks? You have to have some middle ground, you can't deny a woman a last possible solution to abortion prevention.
If you deny MAP, you will be denying abortion prevention, therefore actually CAUSING abortions of babies who should not be aborted.

reply from: CP

Both.
Is it not true that a woman, who will abort in the future, would indeed have an abortion at 10 weeks? You have to have some middle ground, you can't deny a woman a last possible solution to abortion prevention.
If you deny MAP, you will be denying abortion prevention, therefore actually CAUSING abortions of babies who should not be aborted.
So, preventing women from killing their offspring by allowing them to kill their offspring, then?
Do you understand that this is just a semantic argument? If it takes 5-7 days for a newly conceived human blastocyst to implant, how is it any consolation to know that it was killed on day 4 (before implantation, when the mother was not yet technically "pregnant"), rather than on day 7, after implantation?
Killing it during the first 4-5 days of life to avoid killing it later? The fact that we use a special word to describe the later killing ("abortion") doesn't change anything. The unborn human being is still just as dead, it just died a little sooner is all. In principle, it's no different from abortion...

reply from: joueravecfous

Since such a remarkably large percentage fail to implant anyway, there's really no way to know if the MAP is responsible or if it would have happened naturally. The only way to possibly even hazard a tiny guess would be for a woman who tracked her very regular cycle and knew she had already ovulated and had sex within that fertile window. Denying women access to the MAP for its various uses because it may perform a function that has such a high probability of occurring anyway is punitive and reeks of the notion that women should always be regarded as being 'prepregnant'.
It's going to be hard to convince everyone of the value of a zygote when most of them are flushed away in menstrual lining.

reply from: lukesmom

But its YOUR baby too, doesn't that matter?
It would be MY baby, yes, but if I could take a pill to prevent conception or pregnancy, I would do that.
Then you could be potentially killing your developing child. I, myself, would rather err on the side of caution.
To me, it sounds like you are agreeable to abortifacts up to the time if implantation. Of course no one really knows for sure when the exact time of implantation for each individual zygote so some would be expendendable with your system. Like Shan said, you are opening the door...

reply from: lukesmom

So the arguement is: it is better to abort at the earliest stage possible? I hear that from choicers all the time. Is it less an abortion at 9 wks vs 12, 16, 22 weeks? No, actually the intent is the same, to end another human life because of the mother's WANTS.

reply from: CP

Then why take the MAP at all, if it's probably going to die anyway? The idea is that, just in case it doesn't, the pill makes sure.... If I drop a bomb on a house that's supposed to be empty, then I'll never know for sure, but there's a chance there was somebody in there. Is it OK if there was, just because I didn't know for sure?

reply from: lycan

In this article compare the effectiveness of MAP with the IUD as emergency contraception, or whatever you want to call it. The IUD is much more effective, which suggests the IUD may do something MAP doesn't.
http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/ people might find interesting. At the side of the page are some links to other articles that might be relevent to this discussion.
They've recently approved a morning-after version of RU-486 called Ella, but the dose used is much less than that used to abort a known pregnancy.

reply from: CP

Not necessarily. My understanding was that they do the exact same things. Apparently, the IUD just does them better.
I guess you understand that the article at this link is discussing normal doses of hormonal contraception, not the significantly increased doses that constitute the MAP or "emergency contraception."

(from the article at Lycan's link)
This has long been my understanding of "regular" hormonal contraception, and is the basis of my refusal to condemn it as "abortifacient" or concede that failure to condemn it contradicts the basis for my prolife position. It could possibly hinder implantation, but the primary function and intention is contraceptive.
So why is "EC" or the "MAP" any different? Well, why would a significantly increased dosage be effective, when the normal dosage is not, if it has the exact same effects? Obviously, the effects must be different in higher doses, or they would not be more effective at "preventing pregnancy" in cases where regular contraception failed or was not being used? Why would it "prevent pregnancy" more reliably in these cases?
First of all, the normal daily doses used for contraception prevent ovulation. That is the purpose and function. The MAP does the same thing, but in the cases in question, ovulation could have occurred prior to taking the EC. That is the main difference. It's too late to prevent ovulation after it has already occurred.
So why is EC effective in these cases, when normal doses are not? It seems obvious that the larger doses are much more effective at altering the uterine lining, and therefore much more effective at preventing implantation once fertilization has occurred. Otherwise, why would it be any more effective at "preventing pregnancy" than a normal dose, which also prevents ovulation?
This is why, even though I do not oppose the use of hormonal contraceptives for regular use in the normal doses, and do not believe it is reasonable to argue that constitutes "abortifacient action," I DO oppose the use of significantly larger doses as "emergency contraception" when fertilization may already have occurred!
I believe the use of significantly larger doses when fertilization may already have occurred DOES constitute a potentially "abortifacient" action. (I say "abortifacient" because, in principle, killing a human being before implantation is the same as an abortion, even though it may not technically be accurate to refer to it as an abortion. My point should be clear despite the semantics.)

reply from: CP

If anyone has a truly compelling rebuttal to my arguments, or knows of one they can link me to, I would sincerely be interested in examining it. I CAN be wrong, and I realize that, so I am always open to logical rebuttals or arguments against my conclusions. If I'm wrong, I can accept that, and I really want to know it if I am so I can be right from here on in. I will gladly reverse my position if anyone can prove to my satisfaction that I'm wrong about this.

reply from: CP

From this source:
Note that they do not say that it doesn't kill a human being, only that it is not "abortifacient" because it works prior to implantation...This is the deceptive semantics I find objectionable. Nearly every source I've examined concedes that the MAP prevents implantation, but doesn't mention the fact that this constitutes the killing of a human being, stating only that it is not "abortifacient," which is a semantic technicality. They, perhaps intentionally, downplay or ignore the full implications...
I think we should ask ourselves WHY this is...

reply from: lycan

Not necessarily. My understanding was that they do the exact same things. Apparently, the IUD just does them better.
I guess you understand that the article at this link is discussing normal doses of hormonal contraception, not the significantly increased doses that constitute the MAP or "emergency contraception."
That article also has links to articles on MAPs that question their effectiveness.

reply from: CP

Both.
Is it not true that a woman, who will abort in the future, would indeed have an abortion at 10 weeks? You have to have some middle ground, you can't deny a woman a last possible solution to abortion prevention.
If you deny MAP, you will be denying abortion prevention, therefore actually CAUSING abortions of babies who should not be aborted.
(from your Wikipedia source)

reply from: CP

Not about the effectiveness of the MAP itself, but about whether it being available "over the counter" has a significant effect on pregnancy rates...
I read a few of the articles linked to the one on the page you referred us to, and that was what they were about. If you think I missed something, please give the specific link you would like me to check out.

reply from: BossMomma

Honestly do you think your approval means that much? No one is truly concerned over your position. If you choose to disaprove of a drug that may or may not thwart the implantation of a zygote, that is entirely your opinion and you're welcome to it. However as no one can say whether the drug causes a "human child" to die in every case, I don't see why a woman should be ruled by the possibility of a fertilized egg.

reply from: Shenanigans

You're missing the point.
Why bother being against abortion because it kills a human being, if you can happily support the preventing of implantation of a zygote which is killing a human being.

reply from: Shenanigans

Not to be a bastard at all, but not abortion causes a "human child" to die in every case.
As an asside, the fact there doesn't seem to be a word for the pre-implantation killing of a human being is a little odd. As a species we're usually pretty good at coming up with terms, rather meaningless or otherwise.
But 40 - 71% is a hell of a possibility, Boss, you really want to take that risk? With a human being?
Why bother being pro-life at all if you can find back doors to support killing?

reply from: AshMarie88

So the arguement is: it is better to abort at the earliest stage possible? I hear that from choicers all the time. Is it less an abortion at 9 wks vs 12, 16, 22 weeks? No, actually the intent is the same, to end another human life because of the mother's WANTS.
Stopping conception is not abortion. Once again, why don't you tell women not to exercise, smoke, drink, etc. after having sex? That way, it ensures the fertilized egg implants into the uterus (even though other causes could prevent that as well!)
I don't know why you would not be willing to compromise this topic. If we could stop abortions from happening by letting more women take the MAP, why would you NOT be ok with that? Whether or not the pill "causes" "abortions", nothing can stop women from killing their 4, 5, 6, 7+ week old babies if they want to or not. Abortion is legal. If you can't make it illegal, you can at least stop MOST of them from happening. It only makes sense!

reply from: AshMarie88

Then why take the MAP at all, if it's probably going to die anyway? The idea is that, just in case it doesn't, the pill makes sure.... If I drop a bomb on a house that's supposed to be empty, then I'll never know for sure, but there's a chance there was somebody in there. Is it OK if there was, just because I didn't know for sure?
That is NOT the same thing.

reply from: Shenanigans

MAP 40 - 71% of the times isn't contraception. Its murder. That's why a lot of us anti-MAPers are not compromising.
We're talking about human life, you're talking about pregnancy, human life can and does exist outside of pregnancy.
The pro-aborts use the "isn't it better to kill/possibly kill a human being now [at 8 weeks gestation] as opposed to that baby being born into an abusive home where it dies at the hands of its crack addicted mother at 8 months"? You say its not abortion, semantically its not, but it is killing. Abortion is killing. The MAP kills 40 - 71% of the time. Putting a brick through a two year old's skull is killing. Driving a petrol laden tanker through a rest home's picnic is killing.
The point is its killing.
MAP isn't going to stop women having abortions, just like condoms, IUDs, implants and other pills haven't stopped women having abortions.
All MAP does is lull people into a false sense of security that they're not killing someone, when 40 - 71% of the time they are. You are well within your rights to ignore that fact.

reply from: CP

Because we don't approve of killing your offspring under circumstances that do not technically constitute "abortion" any more than we do under circumstances that do....
Can you show that use of the MAP decreases the rate of abortion anyway? The evidence doesn't seem to support that assumption, not that it really matters in my view anyway, since it would be doing so by killing them before they are old enough to "abort."

reply from: Shenanigans

Then why take the MAP at all, if it's probably going to die anyway? The idea is that, just in case it doesn't, the pill makes sure.... If I drop a bomb on a house that's supposed to be empty, then I'll never know for sure, but there's a chance there was somebody in there. Is it OK if there was, just because I didn't know for sure?
That is NOT the same thing.
It is EXACTLY the same thing. You just don't want to acknowledge it, because acknowledging you support somethign that 40 - 71% of the time KILLS a human being is a heavy burden to bare.

reply from: B0zo

So the arguement is: it is better to abort at the earliest stage possible? I hear that from choicers all the time. Is it less an abortion at 9 wks vs 12, 16, 22 weeks? No, actually the intent is the same, to end another human life because of the mother's WANTS.
Stopping conception is not abortion. Once again, why don't you tell women not to exercise, smoke, drink, etc. after having sex? That way, it ensures the fertilized egg implants into the uterus (even though other causes could prevent that as well!)
I don't know why you would not be willing to compromise this topic. If we could stop abortions from happening by letting more women take the MAP, why would you NOT be ok with that? Whether or not the pill "causes" "abortions", nothing can stop women from killing their 4, 5, 6, 7+ week old babies if they want to or not. Abortion is legal. If you can't make it illegal, you can at least stop MOST of them from happening. It only makes sense!
IT ALSO CAN PREVENT IMPLANTATION IF THE CONCEPTION IS NOT PREVENTED.
You have missed this point a few times.
This is why there is opposition to it.
It kills zygotes.

reply from: CP

I never said I was or was not willing to compromise on any point, but I'm not going to pretend that something is not morally wrong when I believe it is. If availability and use of the MAP could be shown to be a "lesser of two evils" situation, I would not necessarily oppose it, but I have yet to be convinced that is the case.
In any event, the only way I will ever concede that it is not morally "wrong" is if I'm convinced it doesn't involve intentionally killing human beings. I've certainly not been convinced of THAT, and arguing that killing a human being prior to implantation is not technically an "abortion" is never going to do it...

reply from: BossMomma

So the arguement is: it is better to abort at the earliest stage possible? I hear that from choicers all the time. Is it less an abortion at 9 wks vs 12, 16, 22 weeks? No, actually the intent is the same, to end another human life because of the mother's WANTS.
Stopping conception is not abortion. Once again, why don't you tell women not to exercise, smoke, drink, etc. after having sex? That way, it ensures the fertilized egg implants into the uterus (even though other causes could prevent that as well!)
I don't know why you would not be willing to compromise this topic. If we could stop abortions from happening by letting more women take the MAP, why would you NOT be ok with that? Whether or not the pill "causes" "abortions", nothing can stop women from killing their 4, 5, 6, 7+ week old babies if they want to or not. Abortion is legal. If you can't make it illegal, you can at least stop MOST of them from happening. It only makes sense!
IT ALSO CAN PREVENT IMPLANTATION IF THE CONCEPTION IS NOT PREVENTED.
You have missed this point a few times.
This is why there is opposition to it.
It kills zygotes.
Obesity kills millions of zygotes, should we start condemning fat women on the odd chance that they are over eating to prevent pregnancy?

reply from: CP

If anyone intentionally gains weight for the purpose of "preventing pregnancy," including by killing any child that may have been conceived, whether it is killed before or after implantation, then I hereby formally "condemn" that as well.

reply from: B0zo

What about the procedure used at Catholic hospitals?
The semen is flushed out of the woman and she is given a test for ovulation, and if it has not occurred within a certain time, she is then given a birth control pill.

reply from: B0zo

If true, this then justifies killing one on purpose?
Does obesity also cause miscarriages?
If so, does it justify abortion?
Correct me if I am wrong, but since you won't answer directly, I have to read between the lines, and have come to the conclusion that you say it is morally acceptable to intentionally kill zygotes at any time for any reason.

reply from: Shenanigans

If true, this then justifies killing one on purpose?
Does obesity also cause miscarriages?
If so, does it justify abortion?
Correct me if I am wrong, but since you won't answer directly, I have to read between the lines, and have come to the conclusion that you say it is morally acceptable to intentionally kill zygotes at any time for any reason.
I think if a woman is overeating on purpose to cause a miscarriage, she must be a bit on the slow side, because there are quicker, healthier, easier ways to snuff foetal junior then spending your days at Burger King.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes, very true. So does drinking alcohol! But let's still let women do those things. LOL. I guess I'm not considered pro-life because I support a woman's right NOT to abort by preventing pregnancy and/or one or two day conception. Yes it's life at conception and I wish EVERYONE would support that life no matter what, but it's not even possible.
I will not change my position. Call me pro-baby-killing or whatever but I am being realistic.

reply from: AshMarie88

If anyone intentionally gains weight for the purpose of "preventing pregnancy," including by killing any child that may have been conceived, whether it is killed before or after implantation, then I hereby formally "condemn" that as well.
But if it happens ACCIDENTALLY and unknowingly, then it's justified, correct?
In the same, a woman who takes the morning after pill isn't taking it to kill the life, since it's not what it was created to do, and if she is unaware conception took place already and is accidental, it is justified.
Women don't take the pill to cause abortion. It's not the abortion pill, for the last time.

reply from: CP

No, it was created to prevent pregnancy, including by killing your offspring before it can implant. That is no "accident." I also do not believe it is an accident that so many sources mention preventing pregnancy by causing failure to implant, but fail to mention that failure to implant means the death of a human being, or that they misleadingly emphasize the fact that this doesn't constitute an "abortion."
Of course women don't take it to cause an abortion. I think we all understand that killing your offspring prior to implantation is not technically an abortion by now...

reply from: B0zo

If anyone intentionally gains weight for the purpose of "preventing pregnancy," including by killing any child that may have been conceived, whether it is killed before or after implantation, then I hereby formally "condemn" that as well.
But if it happens ACCIDENTALLY and unknowingly, then it's justified, correct?
In the same, a woman who takes the morning after pill isn't taking it to kill the life, since it's not what it was created to do, and if she is unaware conception took place already and is accidental, it is justified.
Women don't take the pill to cause abortion. It's not the abortion pill, for the last time.
Wrong.
It is created to act as contraception OR to prevent a zygote from implanting.
It is created to kill if does not succeed in prevention.

reply from: lycan

Not about the effectiveness of the MAP itself, but about whether it being available "over the counter" has a significant effect on pregnancy rates...
I read a few of the articles linked to the one on the page you referred us to, and that was what they were about. If you think I missed something, please give the specific link you would like me to check out.
http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/emergency-contraception/the-latest-word-on-emergency-contraception-how-effective-is-it/
"Objective: We systematically reviewed data on effects of increased access to EC pills on pregnancy rates and use of the pills.
Tabulation, integration, and results: The authors selected for review 23 of 717 articles that met their criteria. In all but one study, increased access to EC pills was associated with greater use. However, no study found an effect on pregnancy or abortion rates. (Most of us thought that is the reason this medicine is being pushed so hard-to prevent 89% of expected pregnancies.)
Conclusion: Increased access to emergency contraceptive pills enhances use buthas not been shown to reduce unintended pregnancy rates. (AAPLOG's question: What possible good comes from "greater use" associated with no decrease in pregnancy rates?) The article concludes with: "Further research is needed to explain this finding and to define the best ways to use EC to produce public health benefit." (AAPLOG note: what can be "better" than FREE unlimited advance access and personalized counseling?)"
The article says not only that availability does not reduce pregnancy or abortion rates, but also that it fails to do so despite increased use of the product. Increased use of the product does not reduce pregnancy or abortion rates.

reply from: Shenanigans

No its not justified, but the woman is not culpable, there's a difference.
If she takes the MAP, knowing that she has a 40 - 71% chance of actually killing a human being, then she is culpable of murder should it do so. Her ignorance of whether she has concieved or not is moot.
I mean, how many times have we heard a woman say "Oh, I didn't know the foetus had all those things when I had the abortion".
Yeah, yeah, we know MAP is not an abortion, but it is killing in that 40 - 71%.
MAP supporters can't just brush the hair out of their faces and say "Oh, well, tutaekuri happens, better to stop pregnany even if it means killing the zygote as opposed to aborting a pregnancy".
I mean, how many sob stories do we hear about abortion being warrented? This is the same construction, using the heart breaking debacle that is rape to justify a woman taking something that 40 - 71% of the time will K I L L another human being.
That cannot be justified.
MAP [40 - 71% of the time], abortion, same damn result. A dead human being. If people start determining when its justified to kill a human being, welcome to teh pro-abortion mentality of ignorance and superority.

reply from: joueravecfous

Are you claiming that the MAP prevents implantation 40-71% of the time that it's used? What is your source? Since the pill has multiple functions, please show us the occurrence rate of each that led to your claim.

reply from: Shenanigans

Didn't read the thread, huh?

reply from: joueravecfous

I meant an actual study or real research as opposed to unsubstantianted claims on a prolife site. Where is the proof of the claim from the website? I thought you were interested in actual scientific facts.

reply from: CP

To clarify the point, those estimates {40-71 percent) were never originally given as overall, but out of 22% of the time ovulation would actually occur within the time frame of the sexual act through the time when the pill would no longer have an effect. In other words, no, the MAP could not possibly have the stated effects 40-71% of the time it is used. Some people may have misinterpreted the info. It said the MAP would only have any effect at all 22% of the time (I believe it was), and the other percentages given were estimates of the effects only out of that 22%. The math appears to be sound, but correct me if I'm wrong.

reply from: CP

This would actually mean that failure to implant would be caused by the MAP at most, somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the time it is used.? I'm just doing it in my head here, and not even trying to be precise, just roughly estimating, so correct me 8if I'm wrong...
And that is the maximum possible percentage. The original estimates assumed every ovulation was fertilized, and every fertilization failed to implant, if I understood correctly, so yes, there may have been some misleading statements on the prolife sites as well. The fact is that we have no way of knowing for sure what the numbers actually are, but how important are they?
No one is claiming ZERO deaths by failure to implant. Are they? The numbers are not what prompt my position here.
Once more, I do not oppose regular hormonal BC because the intent and primary function are undoubtedly to prevent conception. The MAP, on the other hand, is taken after ovulation has had a chance to occur unimpeded. It is taken with full knowledge that a child may already have been conceived, and that taking the pill can kill it. This is the difference in my view, the difference that prompts me to oppose the MAP, even though I do not oppose ordinary hormonal BC. The number of human beings killed is actually irrelevant in my view. One intentional killing is just as wrong as 10,000.

reply from: BossMomma

Not everyone has a catholic hospital in their neighborhood. The nearest hospital with any religious background to me is San Jacinto Methodist. I don't think it's fair to expect a rape victim to hunt around for a Catholic hospital when she can get treated at any ER.

reply from: BossMomma

Yes, very true. So does drinking alcohol! But let's still let women do those things. LOL. I guess I'm not considered pro-life because I support a woman's right NOT to abort by preventing pregnancy and/or one or two day conception. Yes it's life at conception and I wish EVERYONE would support that life no matter what, but it's not even possible.
I will not change my position. Call me pro-baby-killing or whatever but I am being realistic.
Don't worry about what people call you, you know who you are and what you believe and no spitefully given lable on an internet forum is going to change that. They wanna call us pro-abortion? Let 'em, who cares?

reply from: BossMomma

They aren't interested in facts, they are interested in any site set up to tout opinion as fact and to use those opinions to guilt women. They want their cake and eat it too, no abortion, no contraceptive, catholic hospitals only and, if you don't have one you're S.O.L. No concern or care for women at all, it's all about the potential for pregnancy, to the pro-fetal-lifers here a woman should live in a perpetual state of pre-pregnancy and think nothing of her own health, life or, future. It's all about the uterus and the potential contents therein.

reply from: joueravecfous

Now you're getting it!

reply from: BossMomma

I "got it" a long time ago, I oppose aborting a pregnancy but have nothing against preventing pregnancy all together. The MAP is the only thing I support.

reply from: CP

Yeah! If we really cared about women, we'd let them do whatever they want! If I really loved my daughters, I'd let them do whatever they want, and never object! Since I don't do this, I obviously don't care about them at all!

reply from: CP

I "got it" a long time ago, I oppose aborting a pregnancy but have nothing against preventing pregnancy all together. The MAP is the only thing I support.
Because the pregnancy is what is really important, not the human being, right BM?

reply from: joueravecfous

According to http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ec-review.pdf, there is no consensus on whether, how or with what frequency any interference with implantation ever occurs. There is not enough money, methods or desire to study the zygotes to see what actually happens. The speculation on what MAY happen is exactly that and there's currently no way to prove it either way.
Additionally, it reminds us that breastfeeding can also prevent implantation, so the desire to prevent women from using this pill would seem to have to carry over. Should breastfeeding women refuse to have sex? This seems to go back to the idea that women should always act "prepregnant." (I know, I know, it's the intent that gets you so upset, but there's no proof that a woman intends anything other than to prevent conception since there is no clear evidence to support the failure to implant.)
"Several clinical studies have shown that combined ECPs containing the estrogen ethinyl estradiol and the progestin levonorgestrel can inhibit or delay ovulation.48,49,50,51 This mechanism of action may explain ECP effectiveness when used during the first half of the menstrual cycle, before ovulation has occurred. Some studies have shown histologic or biochemical alterations in the endometrium after treatment with the regimen, leading to the conclusion that combined ECPs may act by impairing endometrial receptivity to subsequent implantation of a fertilized egg.49,52,53,54 However, other more recent studies have found no such effects on the endometrium.48,55,56
The reduced efficacy with a delay in treatment, even when use is adjusted for cycle day of unprotected intercourse,37 suggests that interference with implantation is likely not an inevitable effect of ECPs. If ECPs did prevent all implantations, then delays in use should not reduce their efficacy as long as they are used before implantation.73 Studies in the rat and the Cebus monkey demonstrate that levonorgestrel administered in doses that inhibit ovulation has no postfertilization effect that impairs fertility.59,74,75 Whether these results can be extrapolated to women is unknown.
While some find the existing human and animal studies adequate to conclude that levonorgestrel?only ECPs have no post?fertilization effect,78,79 others may always feel that this question has not been unequivocally answered.
To make an informed choice, women must know that ECPs - like all regular hormonal contraceptives such as the birth control pill, the implant Implanon, the vaginal ring NuvaRing, the Evra patch, and the injectable Depo?Provera,83 and even breastfeeding84,85,86,87 - prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium.. At the same time, however, all women should be informed that the best available evidence is that the ability of levonorgestrel and ulipristal acetate ECPs to prevent pregnancy can be fully accounted for by mechanisms that do not involve interference with post?fertilization events."

reply from: BossMomma

Breast feeding was actually my method of birth control after I had my son, it causes uterine contractions that prevent implantation. So who knows how many fertilized ovum failed to implant while I fed my son up to 8 times a day for his first year. Maybe me and other breastfeeding women should be condemned for all the zygote deaths our nursing may have caused.

reply from: B0zo

So is it ok to intentionally kill any zygote at any time for any reason?
Or only those conceived by rape?
How can it be morally eithical to intentionally kill a zygote, but not to intentionally kill an embryo?

reply from: CP

So, it would be wrong to claim it doesn't kill a human being then?

reply from: B0zo

Not everyone has a catholic hospital in their neighborhood. The nearest hospital with any religious background to me is San Jacinto Methodist. I don't think it's fair to expect a rape victim to hunt around for a Catholic hospital when she can get treated at any ER.
That wasn't the question.
The question was whether this method is a better way to go, especially from a pro-life perspective.

reply from: B0zo

And here from my silly "guy perspective," I thought breast feeding was for feeding babies.

reply from: BossMomma

Not everyone has a catholic hospital in their neighborhood. The nearest hospital with any religious background to me is San Jacinto Methodist. I don't think it's fair to expect a rape victim to hunt around for a Catholic hospital when she can get treated at any ER.
That wasn't the question.
The question was whether this method is a better way to go, especially from a pro-life perspective.
I'd say one method's as good as the other, if you can't use one, use the other.

reply from: CP

And here from my silly "guy perspective," I thought breast feeding was for feeding babies.
Breastfeeding naturally effects a woman's fertility.
http://www.kellymom.com/bf/normal/fertility.html
">http://www.kellymom.com/bf/normal/fertility.html
Apparently, it doesn't "prevent implantation" as BM claimed, but prevents ovulation, rendering the mother infertile. Women do not ovulate during pregnancy, and breastfeeding just lengthens the period of infertility.
Another article:
http://www.storknet.com/cubbies/breast/exsh6.htm

reply from: BossMomma

And here from my silly "guy perspective," I thought breast feeding was for feeding babies.
It is, but like the MAP it serves an extra beneficial double purpose.

reply from: CP

And here from my silly "guy perspective," I thought breast feeding was for feeding babies.
It is, but like the MAP it serves an extra beneficial double purpose.
Unlike the MAP, it apparently doesn't involve potentially killing your offspring, if my understanding is correct...

reply from: joueravecfous

It usually suppresses ovulation but is also known to cause luteal phase defect which is believed to interfere with the implantation of embryos. What do you know? Sounds just like the MAP....

reply from: joueravecfous

So, it would be wrong to claim it doesn't kill a human being then?
I wrote that there was no conclusive evidence either way, didn't I?
I don't believe a blastocyst is a human being, but for those who do, there is still insufficient evidence to claim anything IS killed.

reply from: lycan

With hormonal ECPs the evidence may be less than convincing that they prevent implantation, but the same cannot be said for IUDs. From the article joueravecfous linked to:
"Its very high effectiveness implies that emergency insertion of a copper IUD must be able to prevent pregnancy after fertilization."

reply from: AshMarie88

Do you have proof that 40-71 percent of the time the MAP prevents implantation? And I don't mean a pro-life site either. I want unbiased.

reply from: AshMarie88

First off, congrats and thanks for deciding to have breastfed your son! I am so pro-breastfeeding and encourage it strongly.
Second, I plan to breastfeed however many kids I have, but if it somehow prevents pregnancy/implantation whatever, I guess I'll be a murderer...

reply from: B0zo

This snide remark was unnecessary, and you're just knocking down a strawman.
The objection was to INTENTIONAL killing of zygotes.
Besides, I don't believe it's been proven that breastfeeding causes implantation failure.

reply from: joueravecfous

Yes, it has. Luteal phase defect (LPD) is the uterine lining not being properly prepared for implantation and breastfeeding causes it. Use the google to educate. Start with lactational amenorrhea.

reply from: CP

It is my understanding that breastfeeding, like the MAP, can effect the uterine lining 9in a way that would impede implantation of a fertilized egg, but since it also prevents ovulation, there would be no egg to fertilize, and therefore no failure to implant.
This is how the normal hormonal BC pill works as well. The difference with the MAP is that it is taken specifically in cases where ovulation, and therefore fertilization, have already had a chance to occur, unimpeded!

reply from: CP

I don't think the condition of the uterine lining is an issue when there is no egg to fertilize, and therefore no potential failure to implant, do you?
I would have no problem with breastfeeding for the same reasons I have no problem with normal BC. I have a problem with the MAP because I understand that it is used exclusively in cases where ovulation, and therefore fertilization, has already had a chance to occur naturally! If there is something I'm failing to see here, I wish someone would point it out to me!

reply from: joueravecfous

That's the whole point - there is a fertilized egg. One of the ways breastfeeding works is by suppressing ovulation, but another is by LPD. Sound familiar? There are multiple functions and unless one knows the exact moment of ovulation, there is no evidence to show which does what and when.
Do you have any idea how many women get pregnant while breastfeeding? (Ever hear of Irish twins?) It's A LOT and the reason it happens is because the woman ovulates before she gets her first postpartum period, but doesn't know it (because she hasn't had the period yet). Breastfeeding is not a reliable method of contraception unless it's in the first few months postpartum and the woman is exclusively nursing on demand. As soon as demand shifts or lessens, then the hormonal changes occur and she can ovulate. If she is still nursing, then LPD can present and cause failure to implant.
It seems obvious that there is no intent to "kill" the zygote unless
1. She knows without a doubt exactly when she ovulated. (The only women who know this are women who are actually TRYING to conceive.)
2. There is some evidence that the MAP was responsible for the failure to implant.

reply from: BossMomma

First off, congrats and thanks for deciding to have breastfed your son! I am so pro-breastfeeding and encourage it strongly.
Second, I plan to breastfeed however many kids I have, but if it somehow prevents pregnancy/implantation whatever, I guess I'll be a murderer...
Eh, don't sweat it. I'm sure de Lawd will forgive ya.

reply from: CP

Explain that, then....
Are you arguing that the MAP is taken only to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization? That there is no intent to utilize the third function of preventing implantation? Then why is the MAP used specifically in cases where ovulation and/or fertilization might already have occurred? Why don't women take normal contraceptives after rape, if they are only trying to prevent conception?
And why are larger doses prescribed in these situations? Why are they any more effective than a normal dose of hormonal contraceptives? Think about that for a minute....

reply from: CP

Why would the MAP be effective at preventing pregnancy, even when the woman is on the pill, but just missed one? What happens when she misses one? Ovulation might occur? But then resuming her schedule is not enough, and she must take a significantly larger dose to prevent pregnancy? Why? Common reason tells me that it must take this higher dose to "prevent pregnancy" after conception, or the MAP would be no more effective than just taking a normal dose....In other words, the point in taking the increased dose must logically be to ensure that pregnancy is prevented even if conception has already occurred.
How would this not be "intentional," unless it was done in ignorance? Should women remain ignorant (or even be deliberately deceived) just so they can deny culpability?

reply from: lukesmom

This snide remark was unnecessary, and you're just knocking down a strawman.
The objection was to INTENTIONAL killing of zygotes.
Besides, I don't believe it's been proven that breastfeeding causes implantation failure.
Breast feeding as birthcontrol is responsible for my brother being born 10 months after I as born! We are the samed age for 2 months each year. He used to hold that over my head when we were kids.

reply from: CP

The articles I linked to explain how breastfeeding must be carried out to be effective, and if done right, it says the woman will remain infertile, which obviously means no ovulation, therefore no possibility of fertilization. I'm pretty sure it even said she can still get her period, even though she doesn't ovulate...Just because she sheds the uterine lining doesn't mean she released an egg.
It said that when the baby starts sleeping through the night, and therefore is no longer feeding as regularly, it will not prevent ovulation. At that point, I assume the reduction in hormones that allowed ovulation would also no longer adversely affect the uterine wall....

reply from: CP

For that matter, if I didn't know that shooting you in the head would kill you, and did so, could I then argue that it was not intentional? Maybe I didn't mean to kill you, but the action that caused your death was still intentional, wasn't it?

reply from: CP

For that matter, if I didn't know that shooting you in the head would kill you, and did so, could I then argue that it was not intentional? Maybe I didn't mean to kill you, but the action that caused your death was still intentional, wasn't it?
I'm off the hook in this case, certainly, since people sometimes live after being shot in the head. I could argue that there was no way to be absolutely sure it would kill you.
Even if I knew it was potentially fatal, there was a chance I might have missed, also, therefore I can not be held accountable, right?
And what if I actually was not trying to kill you at all, but just to scare you? Surely I could argue that was unintentional, right?

reply from: joueravecfous

Your articles are wrong then. While I am a proponent of and advocate for breastfeeding, a 'lactivist' is bound to be a bit biased and is not medically trained. Go ask a gynecologist what s/he thinks of recommending breastfeeding as birth control and watch them laugh. It's common knowledge among doctors and women that ovulation occurs and while it may be unlikely (for some) to conceive, it's far from guaranteed.
Some women beging ovulating right after birth, some sporadically and some not for a very long time. The hormonal variance is so large that it is impossible to guarantee infertility. As I said, it's not hard at all to find women that conceived while nursing.
There is ALWAYS the possibility of fertilization simply because so many women DO ovulate before their first period. It's simple reproductive biology and every good doctor warns women about this during their first visit after delivery.
A Georgetown University study from 1991 found that 67% of the women ovulated before their period. Perhaps you can pass that on to Kelly.
(Of those 67%, only 49% of those cycles could have sustained a pregnancy based on the ovulation date and luteal phase which must be murder, right?)

reply from: CP

Women don't ovulate during pregnancy because of natural hormone levels, right? The articles I've read said that breastfeeding causes the same kind of hormonal balances, and therefore extends this natural period of infertility. Of course, all the conditions have to be right, and as you pointed out, breastfeeding is probably not going to a reliable means of preventing pregnancy for most women.
It is my understanding that the same hormonal balances that prevent ovulation also effect the uterine wall in a way that could hinder implantation, but if the balance is not right for preventing ovulation, allowing conception to occur, then it's probably not going to prevent implantation either.
This is part of the reasoning that prompts me to reject arguments that regular hormonal BC is "abortifacient." While it may be true that the uterine lining is effected by the hormones, I find that to be a non-issue in light of the fact that it is simultaneously preventing implantation.
I see no reason why the same logic should not apply in the case of breastfeeding, so I see no reason to be overly concerned about any effects it might have on the uterine lining. I also see no real relevance to the use of the MAP, since, as I have pointed out, breastfeeding would compare to use of the regular BC pill, while the MAP is in a different category altogether based on the intent behind its use as well as the effects. I have yet to hear a valid argument against my logic in that regard.

reply from: BossMomma

Yes I'm okay with contraception that prevents implantation, no I'm not saying the MAP never prevents implantation, it is neither right or wrong to prevent a zygote from implanting. Do you follow me now bozo? Do I need to make that clearer for you? You can't control women that way, you can't tell them no abortion, no contraception and if you're raped tough.
The MAP prevents pregnancy, it's contraception. A zygote is two human cells with the potential for development if it implants. I refuse to state that this potential for development should trump a woman's rights. Your opinion means less than nothing to me, if you call me pro-choice for my views it ain't gunna cause me to lose sleep.

reply from: BossMomma

78% of the time MAP is unneccsary. The above figures pertain to the times when it works.
When it does work, apparently half the time it works as contraception, but the other half of the time, it destryos a zygote, which is the same as an abortion.
Supporting MAP is no different than approving of abortion in the case of rape.
In your religiously biased opinion of course.

reply from: B0zo

78% of the time MAP is unneccsary. The above figures pertain to the times when it works.
When it does work, apparently half the time it works as contraception, but the other half of the time, it destryos a zygote, which is the same as an abortion.
Supporting MAP is no different than approving of abortion in the case of rape.
In your religiously biased opinion of course.
There are others here of differing religious beliefs who say it is immoral and against pro-life principles to intentionally kill a zygote.
It's not about religion, but common sense that a human begins at some point, and that the beginning is at conception. A new life begins at conception.
Why would a pro-lifer want to kill it at that point?

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion cannot be stopped without compromise.
Think about it. Abortion is legal. If you take away a woman's right to take the MAP, she will go right straight toward abortion 8 weeks later, whether or not it's legal.
You cannot stop a woman 8 weeks later from having an abortion, you simply cannot, there is no way. What you can do is provide her the MAP before that even happens.

reply from: B0zo

Once again you make an unfair accusation and insult, instead of an actual point.
I don't want to "control women."
I'm pro-life and don't want to kill humans, even if they were conceived by rape. It's unjust and immoral.
I'm in favor of doing whatever can be possibly done to keep the rapist's sperm from meeting the egg of his victim, but once that happens a new life has begun, and the sin and crime of the father does not justify killing the child.
There are ethical ways to deal with this situation that does not endanger a zygote, and I'm in favor of those means.
BTW, the "control women" strawman is the one the pro-choicers use regarding abortion. Interesting that you use that one too, instead of looking at the intent.

reply from: AshMarie88

Ok, let's just say we ban the MAP and ban any woman from taking it. What do you assume is going to happen weeks later? Of course this woman is going to have her mind set on abortion. What will you do then? Oh, you can't do anything then, because ABORTION IS LEGAL! A WOMAN WILL GET ONE ANYWAY! Even though she could've prevented pregnant weeks before it, oh, that is illegal because it "kills babies", so let's let her NOW kill her baby weeks after.
Wow, smart people!

reply from: CP

Agreed
In your signature, it says "Givin you the truth cuz the truth hurts y'know" "Abortion is murder. There's nothing you can say or do to justify the fact that there's a living breathing baby inside of you" - P.O.D. "Abortion is murder"
Do you believe abortion is murder? Because killing a human being is murder, even if that human being is inside you? Is it not murder if that human being has not yet implanted in your uterine wall, in your view, or is it your position that murder is OK then?
We have argued with people who draw the line at birth, and we sometimes ask them what, exactly, changes about a human being simply by virtue of exiting the womb, right? Why is it OK to kill your offspring one minute prior to birth, but not one minute after? When people say they oppose third trimester abortions, we ask them why it is OK to kill it at 5 months and 29 days, but not OK to kill it two days later....
So, I want to ask you why it is OK to kill it one minute before implantation, but not one minute after? You have said you feel it is good to prevent abortions, and that it is therefore better to use the MAP and kill it before it implants than to wait until after it implants to kill it, when it would technically be an "abortion" because pregnancy doesn't technically begin until implantation. I really don't get that. That is killing a human being sooner in order to avoid killing it later. It makes no sense to me.
Is abortion "murder" or not? If it is, it's it's because you're killing a human being, not because of when you're killing it, right? Killing it after it's born is still murder, but it's not an abortion. Killing it before implantation is not abortion either, but is it "murder?" If not, then why not? If so, then how is it any more justifiable than murdering it any other time?
Seriously, I don't get it. BM seems to believe it's OK to kill it then based on level of development, and I thought we didn't buy into the contention that level of development is how the value of human life should be determined. She says it's not a "child" then, but only a "potential child." She uses the same rationalizations to rationalize her support of the MAP that many prochoicers use to attempt to justify abortion. Do you agree with her arguments? It might die anyway, and it's only a few cells at that point, so it's OK to kill it? Is that it?
Is it not "murder" to kill a human being at some predetermined level of development such as before birth, before the second or third trimester, before it is "sentient," or before implantation? Or is it just that murder is justifiable based on these considerations?
I would sincerely like to understand your position on this, so please respond...

reply from: CP

There are others here of differing religious beliefs who say it is immoral and against pro-life principles to intentionally kill a zygote.
It's not about religion, but common sense that a human begins at some point, and that the beginning is at conception. A new life begins at conception.
I don't think anyone can accuse me of religious bias. And it is not "opinion," but fact, that the life of every human being starts at conception, not implantation. Whether or not it is wrong to kill human beings is, of course, subjective, and is a matter of opinion, but if we accept the opinion that it is wrong to kill human beings as a legitimate premise, then the conclusion that killing a human being prior to implantation is wrong would be logically sound.
It is not logically consistent to assert that it is wrong or immoral to kill innocent human beings, yet also insist that it is not wrong/immoral to kill an innocent human being prior to implantation. The fact that this would not technically constitute an "abortion" doesn't change that.

reply from: CP

Abortion cannot be stopped without compromise.
Think about it. Abortion is legal. If you take away a woman's right to take the MAP, she will go right straight toward abortion 8 weeks later, whether or not it's legal.
You cannot stop a woman 8 weeks later from having an abortion, you simply cannot, there is no way. What you can do is provide her the MAP before that even happens.
Allowing women to kill their offspring sooner in order to prevent them from killing them later would be a pointless "compromise" in my view. I oppose abortion because it kills innocent human beings, so killing them in a different way, a way other than abortion, would accomplish absolutely nothing meaningful. Sure, it would reduce the rate of abortion, but not the rate of death. It would be like shooting people before they can starve to death as a solution for world hunger. Sure, less people would starve that way, but they would still be dead, so what would it really accomplish?

reply from: CP

Yeah, those "babies" would already be dead if we kill them before implantation, so no one would be able to kill them later by aborting! That's absolutely brilliant!

reply from: CP

Look, the MAP is probably never going to be banned, since it's basically just an overdose of hormonal BC pills. Women can just take 4-5 regular BC pills, and it's the same thing as taking the MAP. I don't advocate banning of contraceptives, in fact, I oppose anyone who does! I just think women deserve to understand the full implications of using the MAP, and the people who are making and dispensing them are not giving women the whole story. They may actually be attempting to deliberately mislead women! I don't think that's right.
I also believe it's morally "wrong" to use the MAP to start with, and I don't think women should use it. I'm not actually doing anything to try to prevent them from doing so, however, except attempting to reason with them. If you understand the full implications of using it, then you can at least make an informed decision. If you understand it's wrong, or understand that it kills innocent human beings, but are OK with that, there's nothing I can do about that. If you support the use of the MAP because you've been deceived or mislead, that is inexcusable in my view. You deserve to understand the truth.
I don't know what to say or do about women who seem to be intent on living in denial, however. What can you do when people simply refuse to accept the truth?

reply from: CP

"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool. "
~Jane Wagner~
In this case, it simply is not a matter of your survival, but the survival of your offspring may be at stake. I wonder what Jane would have to say about women convincing themselves that killing your offspring one minute before implantation is ethically different from killing them one minute after implantation. This is assuming there are women who have actually convinced themselves that this is so, of course. I have also considered the legitimate possibility that statements leading me to suspect that self delusion is involved may just be the result of advocacy, a sort of propaganda...

reply from: CP

Ash, is there a reason why you posted on the other thread to support someone who is attempting to challenge my arguments, but neglected to respond on this thread?

reply from: Mambo26

CP,
How many fertilized eggs were "killed" when you were with your alcoholic chain smoking wife? I find it a bit odd that you have these views but yet without a doubt continued to have intercourse with a woman who would cause this even without intention. A fertilized egg often doesnt connect to the uterine lining even if you are trying to get pregnant. It's an extremist perspective and in some cases there is a fertilized egg but its never going to develop into anything other than placenta.

reply from: B0zo

Then like Boss Momma, you have no problem with intetionally killing any zygote for any reason. Is this correct?
And this changes the instant it implants?

reply from: CP

In what way is my opposition to the MAP (as well as all other intentional killing of innocent human beings) related to having sexual relations with someone who smokes and drinks? Are you implying that this represents an inconsistency? If so, please elaborate. I have taken great pains to explain my position here, so I fail to see what it is that you don't get at this point, assuming you have been reading my posts.
Do you mean to imply that smoking and drinking constitutes an attempt to end human life? Clearly, I do not agree. I have already explained why not, numerous times, and in great detail.
Of course, if that is your argument (it certainly is not mine), then can I assume you are conceding that using the MAP constitutes an intent to take the life of an innocent human being? This is certainly implied by your attempt to compare the two, is it not?

reply from: Mambo26

B0zo,
No, I'm just pointing out the huge hypocrisy inherent in CP's argument.
(two with one stone post)
and yes CP it is inconsistent as you are opposed to plan B because you think it sheds the uterine lining and makes an inhospitable environment for a fertilized egg. This is what smoking and drinking does as well. So you may have had a zygote that never implanted because of the constant smoking and drinking. In other words smoking and drinking act like plan B. Also it is incredibly draconian you would have kids with someone who smoked and drank during pregnancy and had an addiction like that-not just once but 5 times! Even those who live under rocks know the health costs of doing something like that if you are going to have kids.
B0zo, BossMomma, shenanigans do you think its healthy to smoke during pregnancy? How many know of the rates of miscarriage if you do? How many know of the physical problems from doing so? Do you think its conscietious to have kids with someone that treats their body like that?
You dont get to make up science just to conveniently pander to your denial CP.

reply from: CP

Once more: "Do you mean to imply that smoking and drinking constitutes an attempt to end human life?"
Are you afraid to answer the questions?

reply from: CP

Funny, I don't see any dead birds around here....

reply from: CP

Who said I smoked and drank?. I asked you, "Do you mean to imply that smoking and drinking constitutes an attempt to end human life?"
You assume too much. What makes you think I fathered all 5 of her children?
At any rate, I have certainly never done anything that put unborn human life at risk. How does the fact that I had sex with a woman who smoked and drank equate to doing so, and doesn't your accusation imply a concession that the MAP does?

reply from: CP

I'll tell you what. For the sake of argument, let's assume I'm a bad, bad man, and a hypocritical prolifer... How is this relevant to the question of whether it is "wrong" to kill innocent human beings?

reply from: Mambo26

CP,
You said the mother of your five kids smoke and drank throughout her pregnancy. You didnt say you. You had intercourse with a woman that was creating an environment equal to plan B. It's blatantly hypocritical. I like how youre a cherry picker.
"How does the fact that I had sex with a woman who smoked and drank equate to doing so"
I have answered this. Smoking = bad uterine lining = bad for zygote implantation. Everyone knows smoking and drinking is bad if you want to conceive nonetheless if youre actually pregnant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6122442.stm
(about how smoking blocks embryos from uterine lining)

reply from: Mambo26

" How is this relevant to the question of whether it is "wrong" to kill innocent human beings?"
Because you didnt even seem to realize how unhealthy it is to have kids with a woman who smoke and drank alcohol throughout her pregnancy. You seemed like you would be fine doing it all over the exact same way. No apology for it. You wave your fetus posters and talk about how you dont want women to take plan B because you accuse it of creating an unhospitable environment for a zygote to implant all the while ignoring that unlike plan B there is actual science regarding uninhabitable environement for embryos and its connection to smoking/drinking. Smoking/drinking also ups the chance if miscarriage. You also seem doggedly ignorant regarding plan B. It prevents sperm and egg from meeting it isnt an abortificient (but I know enough not to argue with a zealot regarding this).

reply from: BossMomma

Then like Boss Momma, you have no problem with intetionally killing any zygote for any reason. Is this correct?
And this changes the instant it implants?
Women who use the MAP aren't intentionally killing anything, they are trying to prevent pregnancy so you can take your accusation and stuff it back where it belongs.

reply from: BossMomma

Why in the hell are you throwing me into your little shpeal? I support the MAP and, I never smoked or drank in any of my pregnancies. What is your damage?

reply from: B0zo

If they are in the dark that it can prevent a zygote from implanting, then it is not intentional.
If they are aware that one of the purposes is to kill the zygote, then they are acting with an intent to kill it, if it exists.
And you are still playing word games, since killing a zygote is to prevent a pregnancy.
You are ok with preventing a pregnancy by contraception, AND by killing the zygote.

reply from: BossMomma

If they are in the dark that it can prevent a zygote from implanting, then it is not intentional.
If they are aware that one of the purposes is to kill the zygote, then they are acting with an intent to kill it, if it exists.
They are acting with the intent to prevent pregnancy and despite what you believe, the potential presence of a fertilized egg in the fallopian tube does not trump a woman's right to protect herself.

reply from: B0zo

Why can't she protect herself from an embryo, then?
How is a zygote going to hurt her more than an embryo?
I still don't get why you value an embryo conceived by rape, but a zygote you would happily flush down the toilet.

reply from: joueravecfous

There's nothing to be in the dark about as there is no evidence of that.
Killing a zygote is NOT one of its purposes. Taking the pill for its proven purposes does not prove intent to kill.

reply from: CP

No. I said "my wife" had 5 kids. all of whom appear to be normal and healthy despite the fact that she smoked and drank, including during her pregnancies.
I never said I fathered 5 children (I did not), and I never said I approved of her choices. I also didn't say I was with her when she had them or that I knew what was going on at the time, and it would be naive to assume I had any control over her smoking and drinking to start with.
Clearly, women do not smoke and drink in order to prevent pregnancy anyway, but they do take contraceptives (including the MAP) for that purpose, so it should be obvious that intent is a significant factor that clearly distinguishes these issues.
I asked "How does the fact that I had sex with a woman who smoked and drank equate to doing so" (killing an unborn human being). You respond that smoking and drinking can harm the fetus, but I was not the one who was smoking and drinking, and I had no control over her choice to do so, did I? So how does the fact that my wife may have endangered human life make ME a hypocrite for opposing the killing of innocent human beings?
Again, " How is this relevant to the question of whether it is 'wrong' to kill innocent human beings?" Your response to this question was:
None of that really answers the question. Nothing I have done {or you assume I've done) has any bearing on the issue of whether it is morally justifiable to kill innocent human beings! You seem to be denying that the MAP even does this, yet you compare it to smoking and drinking because they can potentially have similar effects, which seems absurd. Your arguments imply a concession that the MAP kills innocent human beings, yet you insist this can not be proven?
Why does nearly every website mention the effects of the MAP on the uterine lining? Why do they say it can prevent implantation, and that this is one of its functions? Your argument is that we can't actually prove that any specific use resulted in failure of a fertilized egg (which constitutes a human being) to implant? And yet, the same is true of smoking, drinking, etc, is it not? And you clearly have no problem accepting the logical reality in those cases, right?
I find it ironic that you dare accuse me of hypocrisy!

reply from: CP

There's nothing to be in the dark about as there is no evidence of that.
Killing a zygote is NOT one of its purposes. Taking the pill for its proven purposes does not prove intent to kill.
We know it is taken specifically in cases when fertilization may already have occurred, and that it can prevent implantation if fertilization has already occurred. We also know that failure to implant inevitably results in the death of a human being.
To say that her intent was not to kill, but simply to "prevent pregnancy," is a semantic cop out. In cases where conception has already occurred, it "prevents pregnancy" by killing a human being before it can implant in the uterus. The intent is to prevent pregnancy, even if it must kill an existing human being to do so, therefore any such death would certainly have been intentional, even though the woman would not necessarily know it had caused a death because she wouldn't know if she had already conceived.
She knows she might have, and that if she has, the pill will kill it. Of course, some women might not understand this, so you might excuse them based on ignorance. Maybe that is why the issue is so often misrepresented? Do you think ignorance should be encouraged? Do you think women should be misled or deluded so they will not kno0w they may be killing a human being?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics