Rape/emergency contraception

[fix]

Do you have conclusive evidence that asprin and caffeine do not interfere with implantation? Such evidence is very difficult to produce. Logically speaking, you cannot prove a negative. However, in the case of emergency contraception, the second post in this thread does have links to two papers that suggest there is no post-fertilization effect.

There have been numerous threads on this topic, and so far, nobody has posted a scientific, peer-reviewed article showing that either the morning-after pill or the more traditional oral contraceptives prevents implantation.

The studies needed to show such conclusive proof cannot be done at this time. Indeed, it has been shown there is a strong likelyhood they are abortificient. Even the manufactures claim this. What I find disingenuous is when dealing with such a profound life issue like this we are so quick to claim we know with strong certainty the medication does not induce abortion when we know no such thing.

As for caffeine and ASA when have they been used in the same way these drugs are intended to be used?

 

[Benedictus]

The studies needed to show such conclusive proof cannot be done at this time. Indeed, it has been shown there is a strong likelyhood they are abortificient.

Can I see some evidence?

Even the manufactures claim this.

See the second post in this thread. I’m aware of the prescribing information. I have yet to see someone post scientific evidence in the form of a peer-reviewed study.

 

[fix]

Can I see some evidence?

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence.

Here is some help:

"There is overwhelming evidence that oral contraceptives can have post fertilization effects. The evidence is indirect based on the thinning of the endometrium, depletion of integrins, and increased ectopic pregnancies that have been shown to be important in the success or failure of in-vitro fertilizations…

physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1195/26/

And this:

Birth Control Pills: Contraceptive or Abortifacient

“Most (virtually all) literature dealing with hormonal contraception ascribes a three-fold action to these agents. 1. inhibition of ovulation, 2. inhibition of sperm transport, and 3. production of a “hostile endometrium”, which presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby if the first two mechanisms fail. The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third proposed mechanism, IF it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient.”…

The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not. Attempting to prove that any mechanism causes the death of an innocent human individual is an assault on the fifth commandment.

See the second post in this thread. I’m aware of the prescribing information. I have yet to see someone post scientific evidence in the form of a peer-reviewed study.

Your links offer animal studies and a human study with a sample size of 58.

 

[astegallrnc]

This article is not conclusive but worth reading for those interested.

James Trussel discusses the evidence and provides references. It makes researching easier. When I have more time, I’ll look up his references.

 

[fix]

This article is not conclusive but worth reading for those interested.

James Trussel discusses the evidence and provides references. It makes researching easier. When I have more time, I’ll look up his references.

Thanks. From the second link I think this displays much:

ECPs do not interrupt an established pregnancy, defined by medical authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health26 and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists27 as* beginning with implantation*. Therefore, ECPs are not abortifacient.

This is what happens when we redefine reality.

 

[mikew262]

This is what happens when we redefine reality.

Or maybe failing to accept what truly is reality, such as pregnancy actually beginning upon implantation.

 

[fix]

Or maybe failing to accept what truly is reality, such as pregnancy actually beginning upon implantation.

So before implantation what exactly is that fertilized egg? A nonlife?

 

[Jennifer_J]

When we start arbitrarily determining when life begins then you get people postulating that life begins at birth, or even a month or 2 after birth, thus allowing very late abortions and infanticide. Once fertilization/conception has occured a new human exists.

Jennifer

 

[gam197]

As previously stated… part of article from Dr. John Wilks

Obstetric-Gynecologic Terminology, published by the
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG)
in 1972.

In this text, conception was specified to be “the
implantation of the blastocyst…

Having re-defined conception, which began the process
of dismantling the continuum of fertilization,
conception and pregnancy, a further reworking of
pregnancy was initiated and approved at a meeting of
the International Federation of Gynecology and
Obstetrics (FIGO), in 1985. The Committee on Medical
Aspects of Human Reproduction was asked by FIGO to
“develop an accurate definition of pregnancy.”

The following citation is instructive.
“The Committee agreed on the following: ‘Pregnancy is
only established with the implantation of the
fertilized ovum.’ Based upon the above definitions of
‘conception’ and ‘pregnancy’, an abortifacient acts to
interrupt a pregnancy only following implantation.”

…Perhaps some insight into the apparent need to change
community thinking in relation to when a pregnancy
begins can be gained by reference to the Latin root of
pregnancy. Mosby’s Medical Dictionary (5th ed) says:
“Pregnant – L – praegnans (gravid –with child)”. And
the Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary defines similarly:
“praegnas – with child, pregnant.” By removing the
reference to a human embryo from the new ACOG
redefinition of pregnancy, no humanity is consequently
deemed to exist until implantation, since no pregnancy
(apparently) exists until that time. If no human
embryo exists, then inferentially, no
chemically-induced abortion occurs.

As a result of this ideologically redefining of
contraception, conception and pregnancy,
remedial action is required to re-anchor these
reproductive terms within an authentic scientific
framework. Please note that the following definitions
cannot be classified as personal matters of opinion,
belief or morality. They are impartial, objective
facts, founded in human cell biology and human cell
anatomy. They are the bedrock of embryology

 

[gam197]

3.ORTHODOX DEFINITIONS OF KEY EMBRYOLOGY TERMS.

Contraception (L, contra, against; concipere, to take
in) is a process, device or intervention whose action
is solely to prevent the unification of sperm and the
secondary oocyte, commonly referred to as an ovum.
Condoms, spermicides, cervical diaphragms and male or
female sterilization are contraceptive practices
because their only action is to impede the sperm and
the secondary oocyte from unifying. Note, the term
ovum is a colloquial expression that has no true
relationship with any stage of female sex cell
generation, development or involvement in human
embryonic conception. Key embryologists recommend
against its use.

Zygote a single cell formed by the fusion of the male
and female genetic material. The full human
chromosomal number of 46 is restored and as a
consequence, a new human life has began. “A
zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an
embryo).” The zygote is formed within the Fallopian
tube.

Conception is the beginning of a pregnancy, taken to
be the precise moment that a spermatozoon enters the
female secondary oocyte, resulting in the formation of
a viable human zygote. Reputable educationalists
concur on this critical point.

•Moore and Persaud state that: “Human development
begins at fertilization, the process during which a
male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or
oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This
highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the
beginning if each of us as a unique individual.”.

•Prof. R. Rahwan, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology
and Toxicology, Ohio State University concurs with
this definition: “… fertilization marks the point of
conception in that a new diploid (full chromosomal
number) organism (the zygote) is formed which will
develop, mature, and undergo senescence at a
predictable rate.” (clarifications added)

•O’Rahilly and Muller, authors of Human Embryology and
Teratology reflect the same thinking: “Fertilization
is an important landmark because, under ordinary
circumstances, a new genetically distinct human
organism is thereby formed.”.

• William J. Larsen, author of Essentials of Human
Embryology concur: “The gestation period of humans
from fertilization to birth is usually 266 days (38
weeks).”

•Bruce M. Carlson, author of Human Embryology and
Developmental Biology, like all previous authors,
rejects the ‘pregnancy begins at implantation’ myth:
“Two different systems for dating pregnancies have
evolved. One, used by embryologists, dates pregnancy
from the time of fertilization (fertilization age), so
that a 6-week-old embryo is 6 weeks (42 days) from the
day of fertilization. The other system, used by
obstetricians and many clinicians, dates pregnancy
from the woman’s last menstrual period (menstrual age)
because this is a convenient reference point from the
standpoint of a history taken from a patient. The
menstrual age of a human embryo is 2 weeks greater
than the fertilization age because usually 2 weeks
elapse between the start of the last menstrual period
and fertilization.”

 

[jack_hawkins]

These are typical examples of the weak arguments of the “pro-life” movement.

Do you have conclusive evidence that such drugs do not interfer with a fertilized egg implanting?

So yoyu assume what you want to assume in the lack of evidence to the contrary?
Non-scientists often insist on “conclusive” proof.

Indeed, it has been shown there is a strong likelyhood they are abortificient. Even the manufactures claim this

Well I disagree with that assertion - please present “conclusive evidence”? It is also a fallacious argument to say because the manufacturers claim this, it must be true.

 

[jack_hawkins]

When we start arbitrarily determining when life begins then you get people postulating that life begins at birth, or even a month or 2 after birth, thus allowing very late abortions and infanticide. Once fertilization/conception has occured a new human exists.

Jennifer

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

 

[fix]

These are typical examples of the weak arguments of the “pro-life” movement.
So yoyu assume what you want to assume in the lack of evidence to the contrary?
Non-scientists often insist on “conclusive” proof.

There is evidence they are abortifacient. To claim they are not should have some basis in reality and some way to contradict the evidence that they are abortifacient.

Well I disagree with that assertion - please present “conclusive evidence”? It is also a fallacious argument to say because the manufacturers claim this, it must be true.

The manufactures use studies, that are accepted by the FDA, so we ought to discount that evidence?

 

[fix]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

What proof do you have life starts at implantation?

 

[gam197]

Go to the site previously posted

physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1195/26/

Info From Dr. Wilks…

They are discussing three mechanisms for birth control pills. There are four possible mechanisms of action for emergency contraception:

• inhibition of ovulation
• effect on tubal transit time of the ovum
• alteration to the normal cycle pattern
• prevention of implantation due to damage to the endometrium

There have been a number of studies - Dr. Nine Van der Vange(34.28) , her studies show that woman have breakthrough ovulation and the Grimes studies (26.7)show the same as high as 34.28 ovulation per 100 women-years, how is it that the ovulations rates result in a low confirmed pregnancy rate of 0.5 per 100 women-years for birth control pills.

In these studies the girls took the pill consistently. It did not take into consideration other factors which affect the pill and ovulation:

forgetting to take a tablet
illness, such as vomiting, leading to a reduction of absortion of a daily dose
antibiotics
large doses of Vitamen C
anti-epileptic medication, barbituates or rifampcin(used for TB)
anti-fungal drugs

A quick read and good book is “Physicians Healed” sold by One More Soul. "Contraception, Why Not " is also sold at One More Soul.

 

[jburgherr]

Ok…this really hits at home. And the insult is more than I can bear so here we go…

My mother, the victim of a rape by man of another race, kept her baby. This baby is my older brother. My mother (God rest her soul) loves her son. This product of rape is my older brother. I love my big brother!

My wife is also the victim of a rape by a man of another race. The product of this rape is my youngest son. I love my son!

My Mother and my wife never considered their child to be an ugly reminder of the brutal rape that they endured. They always considered their child, their baby, to be a blessing from God! And that is indeed what they are!

For those of you who have a knee jerk reaction to abortion and contraception in the case of rape… the whole concept is a straw man. Don’t be fooled by the folks who want to use rape as an excuse for contraception and/or abortion.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

Thanks for your pronouncment.

It’s not a slippery slope. There are already people out there arguing for such things (Peter Singer) and I doubt they are lone wolves in the darkness.

Life begins at conception…

Jennifer

 

[jack_hawkins]

Thanks for your pronouncment.

It’s not a slippery slope. There are already people out there arguing for such things (Peter Singer) and I doubt they are lone wolves in the darkness.

Life begins at conception…

Jennifer

It’s not a pronoucement as such, it is simply a statement of the rules of logical argument. What you stated was the “slippery slope” argument.
I do not deny people say these things, but that does not change the fact that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Don’t be fooled by the folks who want to use rape as an excuse for contraception and/or abortion

I think it is you making the straw man argument. I haven’t seen anyone use rape as an “excuse”

 

[fix]

Jack,

I have yet to see you post evidence to support your claims. What do you have to show us?