pajarito

Your reference material is quite outdated, alot has changed in the last 14 years.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.

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.

I think that would make a cool movie, though.

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.

Didn't pay attention to the last part. Sorry. My wife uses the Ortho Evra patch.

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.

Un momento, por favor...looking something up in order to be perfectly accurate in what I say.

Your wrong on this point, depending on which method of birth control you use. I know that MY method of birth control prevents implantation, of what you might consider a life. Theoretically, that means I have had countless self-occurring abortions in the last several years. What birth control do you use?

Why don't we keep this on a mature, reasonable, and intelligent level.

The purpose is not really to prevent implantation but to supress ovulation. Rarely, the result is preventing implantation.

No thanks! I thank God every day that I was born male.

Agreed......those same guys would most probably leave the mother high and dry with all expenses and responsibilities. Lots of other issues with that. Another worm can....

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.

My wife is a practicing OB/GYN Physician who performs D & C's on a regular basis (not for abortions mind you), and has had three children herself. She has to "fix" on a regular basis what "Planned Parenthood" clinics screw up. I'm not the expert on what's involved but, from what I've been told and shown by her, I have basis for my opinions.

You're right....I'm male. I do have three children of my own, however, and I can't imagine having aborted any one of them out of convenience or because I didn't want my wife to accept any risk. I have been in severe circumstances, though. My youngest almost died due to heart complications early on. Not an issue with abortion but I just didn't want you to think that I couldn't or haven't related to life and death issues with an baby of mine. I'm also very involved with my kids.

That's amazing... I truly can't see how anyone, who sees what's involved in one of those, could go through with that. Many of those babies were viable and could have lived outside the mother. Not that that's an acceptable criteria for me. I agree that there are times when a doctor might have to make a decision to save the mother or save the child. I would only be open to it when the life of the mother is in extreme question. I wouldn't agree if the risk weren't very high. What a shame.

Scary viewpoint. I'm glad I made it through your standard of whether I'd be allowed to be born or not.

Is it ethical to murder? That's legislated.

Exactly....so in the absence of knowledge about when "the tadpole becomes a frog", how can one ethically determine that it is ok to terminate (in reference to human beings, of course).

Like I said, Bitch slapped, turned around, bent over, and made to squeal like a pig.

How about a 1,000,000 cell organism? Where do you draw the line? How about as soon as it grows fingers?

Spain is Al-Qaida's big o'le "BIOTCH."

That's why we declared, fought for, and gained our independence from England.......Bong!.......

Perception is important. You've got to pose a unified front against terrorism. Why do you think the terrorists responded by taking hostages of different nationalities in Iraq? Test the waters maybe to see if they could make it work on another country possibly as weak as Spain?