pajarito

Give me some time to look it up.

I didn't get to respond to your addition. I personally don't have a problem with the kind of birth control that doesn't impede implantation and further development. I understand that there is a risk, however small, of preventing implantation but that's not the primary goal. Many disagree with me on those grounds as well as some on spiritual grounds (i.e. Practicing Catholics). In my mind, it is an acceptable risk. I weigh the pro's and con's and find it acceptable. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. There are side effects to many medications. Some vaccinations given to toddlers are questionable in that they really don't know the long term effects yet. I found those risks acceptable also, however, and my kids got them. It's a judgement call. I have the best interest of the children (or potential children) in mind, though. That's just me.

Is your last sentense defining what the formation of a "human construct" means to you? Does that mean that you would not believe in abortion after implantation? Do you not consider when human DNA is initially formed? Do you then believe that we, by allowing legal abortions, are unjustly killing humans (speaking of implanted embryos and forward through the developmental cycle according to your example) by performing abortions. If so, do you not think it should be legislated by not allowing it except under extreme circumstances?

There is no human construct yet with a separate egg and a sperm. There is after they join and eventually form into an embyo. If you consider that human, as I do, you are destroying them by discarding them. Call it what you wish. Gotta go again....I'll be back to respond in a while.

Yes...but the cases are rare. You're comment stating that "many" are aborted unknowingly leads me to think that there is a significant amount. It's not intended, however, it does happen. IUD (copper): Intended to produce white blood cells and elliminate the sperm. OC: Intended to inhibit ovulation.

I'm using Novak's Gynecology 12th Edition and Comprehensive Gynecology. Now, are you telling me that, in the case of either OC's or IUD's, their modes of operation are also to prevent implantation?

A doctor would have to make the call as to whether it would be too risky. My wife has had to make those decision. It still bothers her a lot, though. Like I said, I'd save the mother first. In my mind, I wouldn't blame her in that instance.

QuoteYes it IS a targeted mode of action. And a lot of pregnancies abort without anyone knowing it because of this mode of action. My wife, with 4 years Med School, 4 years OB/GYN Residency training, and 1 year Private Practice disagrees with you.

I can tell you that I would have the deepest emotions imaginable (mostly rage and the desire to kill the person that did it). It hasn't happened to me, thank God, so I would hope I would respond (concerning her) the way I'm stating to you. I could not kill another innocent to alleviate the problem. I'm only for abortion as a means to save the mother's life when she's at HIGH risk.

It's a potential side effect. Not what they're aiming for in pregnancy prevention. It is not a targeted mode of action. Did you read my stuff from Novak's and Comprehensive Gynecology?

I forgot to mention that my wife deals with pregnant teens of that age more than you might think. They have their babies and, I guess, deal with the situation. You're absolutely correct in that your step-cousin is also completely innocent of this. IMO, that still doesn't make it right to kill the other who is as well. Again, IMHO. I can't imagine that situation and she has my deepest sympathies.

What happened to your step-cousin is absolutely horrible in my opinion and I wouldn't begin to say I could understand in the slightest what she had to go through in making that decision. Without trying to take away from that AT ALL, I can't help but think that the aborted baby didn't ask for or deserve that situation. The baby is completely innocent and deserves a chance to live. If you consider it human, I would think you'd have to be against taking its life. Again, that's a very tough one and my wife disagrees with me somewhat on that circumstance. She says that she wouldn't herself but would not condemn or judge anyone else for making the decision to abort in that circumstance.

I didn't say it didn't happen. I said this: However, as with IUD’s, prevention of implantation is very rare and is not the main mode of action of the contraceptive.

The items you listed were biological. So you're at least in favor of banning abortion after the point of viability? What is it...20 weeks nowadays when they can sometimes live apart from the mother and "breath this atmosphere?"

I'm pro-life (surprise...surprise) and I chose #1. I happen to believe that, in the absense of anyone knowing any better, we can't assume that human life begins at any stage of development. Therefore, I use conception as my starting point. The joining of DNA strands into a human component. I accept some forms of birth control such as the ones that do not as a primary means inhibit the development of a zygote once it has been formed. There are rare instances of this happening as a side-effect of some birth control but that is not what it is designed to do (speaking of OC/IUD, etc. I personally am willing to take that small risk.

Short answer is that it is not a primary function of IUD or OC and is not a method of action that they are looking for. It is, in fact (referring to prevention of implantation), something that they try and avoid.

Here's the conversation and my responses to the questions posed concerning IUD's as well as OC's. It might clear up some things: ******************************************************************** Not always, no. Sometimes women devolop conditions during pregnancy. I just asked if this happened to your wife what would you want her to do if she is faced with dying and leaving behind children. Most of the time, if you develop pregnancy induced hypertension or pre-eclampsia, it usually happens after viability. These people often get induced or sectioned early with every attempt made to preserve the life of both mother and baby. If the choice is between mother and baby, it has to be for the mother. Part of this reason is due to the fact that if the mother dies, the baby dies also. ********************************************************************* The purpose is not really to prevent implantation but to supress ovulation. Rarely, the result is preventing implantation. Not sure if you are talking about a Mirena IUD or a copper IUD. The main mechanism of action in a copper IUD is as a spermicide. It causes phagocytosis of sperm. It also impedes sperm trasport and viability in the cervical mucus. Because of this, very few sperm ever even reach the fallopian tubes. Mirena IUD's also acts as a spermicide. Either way, the lining of the uterus is changed but this is NOT the main mechanism of action. However, on occasion, it might prevent implantation and do what you say. There are cases of implantation of an embryo with an IUD in place. Copper IUD's release copper ions which cause a local reaction which causes a release of leukocytes (white blood cells). These are the cells which cause phagocytosis. Therefore, according to 2 OB/GYN books present to my right, this is the main mechanism of action. Not sure what the "block & tackle" description is supposed to mean. That is because you have a foreign body present inside the uterine cavity which is the source of the increased contractions. You will note that, with a Mirena IUD, periods actually become lighter secondary to the progestrone secretion. The last part about clinical studies with copper IUD’s is exactly what I was describing. You are correct in that they aren’t 100% sure of the mechanism of action, however, the studies that have been done indicate that the main mechanism of action is as I described above. Again, I concede that there are cases where the blocking of implantation takes place but that is NOT the main mechanism of action. Reference: Fertility & Sterility, 1989; 49: 768-773 Eggs flushed from the tubes at tubal sterilization showed no evidence of fertilization in women wearing copper IUD’s. Your reference material is quite outdated, alot has changed in the last 14 years. Let us also not neglect the fact that an IUD is one of the LEAST used forms of birth control therefore making it not a research priority. And I'm not sure about the "eggs flushed part" since they don't due sterilization procedures on pregnant women, why would you expect to find a fertilized egg in a sterilization procedure? I think we got sidetracked.. again how does this bear on what would happen if abortion was illegal? The studies that were done on IUD’s are older because they were used more frequently in this country in the past. IUD’s aren’t very common at all in this country; however, they are much more common in other countries. These studies are still being quoted in the latest OB/GYN textbooks and Novak’s Gynecology and Comprehensive Gynecology are very reputable sources. Everything I stated is supported in both. This is the gist of the study that I mentioned: They looked at women wearing IUD’s and women who were using no form of birth control. These women then underwent tubal sterilization soon after ovulation. These women had unprotected sex before ovulation. Normal fertilized ova were found in about half the patients who used no form of birth control, however, there were no eggs found in the women wearing the IUD’s. None of the women in the study above would have had positive pregnancy tests because it was too early. There are other studies. This was just one example. As far as getting sidetracked, you were the one that brought it up in reference to abortion. Getting late here in Georgia. Gotta go to bed. Hasta manana. ***

Yes...but as to the ones mentioned above....their primary function is not abortive.

This topic has already been and is being discussed in quite some detail in the thread, "Suppose abortions become illegal...What then?" Why the new one?

Wrong... There are other developmental stages. - Zygote - Embryo - Morula - Blastocyst - Fetus None of the names given during the stages of development takes away from the fact that it is, in FACT, still human.

Gotta go. Be back in about an hour. Later...

It's not just "her body." Review the pictures from post #5. until the fetus can support its own life functions it is absolutely 'her body'. That's your definition. You're a logical person Zennister and I think you're pretty intelligent. I fail to see how you can logically take your stance, however. Can you admit that you don't really know when the human life begins? Can you admit that nobody knows? I know what you think but you can't prove that it doesn't become a life worth saving or human enough to let live only when it becomes able to survive without the mother. My point is that, in the absence of knowing for sure, you might be killing a great number of human beings with the same potential in life as you or I.

It's not just "her body." Review the pictures from post #5.

That 98-99% effectiveness of the pill can be mostly attributed to user error, not taking it when you’re supposed to. I wouldn’t consider that a great frequency of ineffectiveness. The main mode of action for OC’s is to prevent ovulation. Two other scenarios could possibly occur. OC’s can thicken the cervical mucus which can obstruct or reduce sperm mobility. Also, in rare instances, the endometrial lining of the uterus can also thicken and this might prevent an implantation. However, as with IUD’s, prevention of implantation is very rare and is not the main mode of action of the contraceptive.

I'm out after this. If I were you, seriously though, I'd learn exactly how the IUD works if I was using it as birth control. I'm not. I'm just a man remember.