posted
Suneun, what "people will use it to try to abort and inadvertantly hurt their fetus" arguement? Isn't the point of aborting to hurt your fetus until the fetus dies?
Really, the greatest danger "back-alley" abortions presented to women's physical health was the chance of infection, and that problem was pretty much fixed with the advent of antibiotics.
With pills like these, the argument that abortion is physically safer than pregnancy, and therefore better for a woman's health, is nullified. MAPS sound like a chemical coat hanger.
I agree with PSI Transport-- MAPs would be responsibility avoidance for the stupid and careless.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is another thing that worries me. It's easy to say that there is no danger to an implanted fetus, when they are telling you to take the pills within five days after intercourse. (At that point there should BE no implanted fetus.) It's possible that when taken as the site tells you to, there will be less danger to everyone concerned.
But making it OTC is begging for some dumb girl to take three or four later in her pregnancy in an attempt to abort the fetus.
Keeping it prescription only would pretty much eliminate that worry.
Why in the world would they legalize the MAP which is essentially the same as another medicine that must be prescribed (BC) but several times stronger? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, none of the links you've provided show that any real harm can occur. You have to provide more proof than 'bleeding', I think. There is a small percentage of people who have extremely adverse reactions to any drug that are not statistically significant. You haven't even shown that these people exist.
As far as PSI's question about howt he pill can do what it does without impacting the fetus, I don't know. I think it's a reasonable question. You would think that if there were significant risks, the approval by the FDA board in the article wouldn't have been so high--27 to 3 is a pretty hefty reccomendation.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sachiko: There was an argument that the pill would be used during the pregnancy, between a few weeks and 9 months. The suggestion was that the pill would hurt the fetus. This is not true.
As far as I know, the Morning After Pill prevents implantation. As Olivet mentioned, many fertilized eggs are naturally refused implantation.
In the FDA report they list 0 deaths due to the morning after pill, Plan B.
Also, "The inclusion of pregnancy as a contraindication in the Plan B label is related not to safety, but to inform the consumer that the product will not interrupt an established pregnancy."
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: As far as I know, the Morning After Pill prevents implantation. As Olivet mentioned, many fertilized eggs are naturally refused implantation
Please, please!!!! Do you know how implantation is prevented? By thinning the lining of the uterus, which would effectively loosen and remove any "products of conception".
I don't care what site says it's safe. You can't thin out the lining of the uterus without ejecting what is already there!
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ayelar: No, no one can _force_ you to go, if you really don't want to. In fact, there are also ways to get around the whole "no birth control without an exam" thing, for those of us who want to take it and still don't plan on becoming sexually active. But it's still something that you generally _should_ do, like going to get a checkup every year or something.
Not that I'm one to talk. I refuse to go. Under any circumstances. Metal tongs just need to stay away from my body in general.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, am I the only one in favor of letting stupid people do stupid things to get themselves killed and/or possibly sterilized?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need to make a quick point here that is somewhat unrelated.
I make a lot of comments about not trusting one faction or the other because of political agenda. Although it seems to only come up in left-wing bashing, I need to point out that I have every reason to believe that left- and right- wingers do it equally. I trust almost nothing that has any political raison d'etre.
I will almost never agree with something if you say "well, this government group or that one" says it's okay because all of them have a reason to tell us exactly what they want us to know. I'm not worried about conspiracy as much as them just working for their own well-being.
/rant
quote: glad to see you're simply disagreeing with all the information I've come across.
Hmmm. Welcome to the art of discussion. Should I let you make all your points and pretend I agree? I guess that would make you feel better, but...
I just wanted to make sure that you knew what all those phrases you were using actually meant.
"preventing implantation"...you used that one. Did you know that it meant removing the lining of the uterus so that nothing could implant, and in effect removing anything that was already there? I've said this several times mainly because you seem more interested in quoting links that you agree with without actually considering what is really meant by each statement.
posted
>> The onus is to prove it's safe, not "a risk I'd be willing to take." << (kat)
Do you drive? Fly? Walk anywhere, ever?
Everything is a "risk you're willing to take."
Edit: I realize this post can be read snarkily. Please believe I don't mean it like that, it's just that the "every new drug must be absolutely safe" argument really doesn't wash with me. Absolute safety doesn't exist.
posted
Twinky, these are publicly-approved drugs. I'm serious about the Phen-Fen. If something is approved for political or economic reasons, then our government has failed.
I said that as far as I know, it's a question of preventing implantation. However, the studies aren't exactly sure about the mechanism for all preventions by using Plan B.
Lets take this:
quote:The approved ECPs have been shown to inhibit ovulation depending on when in the menstrual cycle they are taken. It is believed that they may also interfere with the actual process of fertilization by interfering with transport of the egg or sperm or with the necessary changes that the sperm must undergo to be able to fertilize an egg. Levonorgestrel, depending on dose and the time it is administered in the menstrual cycle, does alter the endometrium, but there is little direct evidence that interference with implantation is the principal mechanism of action
-Inhibit Ovulation : Check. Not a problem when ovulation in pregnancy has already happened. -Interfere with Transport of Sperm/Egg: Check. Not a problem when the sperm and egg have already done their thing. -Alter Endometrium: Questionable evidence that this is how "preventing implantation" occurs. In fact, no evidence that this affects the fetus. All studies I have come across agree that the fetus is unaffected by a dose of Plan B.
Overdose? I've looked. They don't know, because there haven't really been cases of overdose. The FDA Report believes that overdoses won't happen due to expense and the fact that the pills are packaged in 1-use amounts.
----
Sachiko, I welcome discussion. But I can hardly take it as a serious concern that you Really Believe something bad will happen, when I have found nothing to justify that belief.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet some people are willing to take more risk than others, but for the FDA to say "Hey this is perfectly safe!" would not be fairly informing people who may NOT be willing to take that risk.
Example:
I don't fly at all. I won't take that risk.
I drive, but I will only let one other person drive ME. I'm not willing to let most people risk my life.
I walk, because the percentage of people who got severly hurt solely by walking last year is almost negligably small.
So I choose to be rather "safe". I might not like it if I suddenly found out that I was bleeding to death by use of an FDA approved drug.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are the standards for approving a drug? This is so certainly an argument that has been hashed out before. I don't think we have enough information.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Couple of quick notes on some semantic errors here that are Driving Me Nuts, because I'm a Stickler for Accuracy.
A fertilized Egg is generally NOT called a fetus. It is called a Zygote. I'm fairly certain it isn't called a fetus until it actually resembles a human being. The Zygote is unicellular. I believe the technical term for it between those stages is embryo (anything from two cells to the time it is obviously human in form.
Dictionary .com says:
quote:fe·tus 1.The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2.In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo
{deleted incorrect info, per rivka. *waves* }
Number two: I had to have an exam and pap smear and all sorts of blood tests and stuff LONG before I ever became sexually active. I had maybe one after that, as a part of my college entrance physical, but then none until just before I got married.
It's not a bad idea to do it, but I don't see why it would need to be yearly under the circumstances described here.
posted
>> Yet some people are willing to take more risk than others, but for the FDA to say "Hey this is perfectly safe!" would not be fairly informing people who may NOT be willing to take that risk. <<
Where has this been said? As far as I can tell, the possible side effects are documented. I'd say it's reasonable to assume that the packaging will be labelled with the possible side effects.
>> So I choose to be rather "safe". I might not like it if I suddenly found out that I was bleeding to death by use of an FDA approved drug. <<
If I was a woman and I knew that "death by bleeding" was a possible side effect of the drug, then I definitely wouldn't take it.
There have been myriad accusations in this thread about the approval of drugs for political reasons and/or without proper testing, but I have a question. Are there any cirucmstances under which you opponents of this switch to over-the-counter would change your stance? Say, for instance, that Plan B underwent extensive clinical trials and it was shown conclusively that in 99.9999999% of all cases there are no side effects, and in 0.00000001% of cases the patient had a mild headache for a short period of time. Would it then be okay? Or no? If not, why?
Edit: Psssst, Olivia, I don't think "semantical" is a word...
posted
I think the distinction between an implanted embryo and an unimplanted one is immaterial to me because I find both human entities equally worthy of life. I believe life begins at conception; I'm not sure about it, but I'd rather err on the side of life. That's why I'm ethically opposed to using an IUD as a form of birth control. MAPs deny life to a child.
Of course, that line of reasoning would be considered an imposition of personal morality on others, so I'm sticking with the argument that MAPs are way too dangerous to use, especially because the people using them weren't able to follow instructions sufficient to use condoms or birth control pills.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So the morning after pill prevents implantation? It doesn't abort a fetus that has already implanted?
Also, I've heard that taking this pill is similar to taking a large dose of birth control pills. Is that true?
Correct; and not similar to but the same as.
quote: But the birth control pill is NOT over the counter, even though it is generally much less risky.
Perhaps it SHOULD be!
quote: After all, the ease with which a woman can get a first-trimester abortion hasn't nullified the apparent need for and right to late-term abortions and partial-birth abortions.
To be fair, many (most?) late-term abortions ('partial-birth' or otherwise) are because of medical issues that only arise late in the pregnancy.
PSI, you are wrong about two medical points. One, there IS a big difference between a fertilized egg and an implanted fetus (at least in a medical/biological sense). A fertilized egg rapidly becomes a clump of undifferentiated cells -- any one of which could theoretically became a fetus (hence identical twinning). At about the time implantation occurs, differentiation into the three cells layers occurs, which begins to make each cell specialized and part of a larger whole.
Not coincidentally, further differentiation parallels the degree of implantation. It takes 40 days past fertilization for the placenta to be fully established. As the degree of implantation increases, the risks to the fetus -- from MAP pills, any medical conditions of the mother that tend to cause early miscarriages (miscarriages later in the first trimester are more commonly linked to genetic abnormalities in the fetus or a flawed placenta), physical trauma to the mother (severe falls, etc.) -- decrease quickly.
The MAP does not pose a risk to an established pregnancy because a (healthy) placenta is pretty difficult to dislodge. I personally know several women who had SEVERE bleeding during the late first/ early second trimester and had healthy children.
And I thought my kids got stubborn AFTER they were born.
And flying is SAFER than driving.
Olivet, a zygote (one cell) DOES begin to divide before implantation -- in fact, within a few hours of fertilization. Differentiation (separating into different layers) which turns the zygote into a blastocyst, occurs at about day 5. Implantation generally occurs somewhere between day 4 and day 6. Once implantation occurs, it is called an embryo. At the end of the first trimester -- when head, torso, and limbs are distinguishable -- it is called a fetus.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twink: If it was completely safe? Yes, I think so. It would bug the crap out of me because it would be taken as a political victory and all the back-patting would annoy me, and considering the FDA's record with drugs such as Phen-Fen, it's still taking your life in hands because you're stupid, but yes. If it was as safe as Tylenol and would not affect negatively either an implanted fetus nor the woman taking it, I'd agree.
posted
They really don't KNOW how it affects the endometrium? That's kind of scary in itself.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I just think it's obvious that they say what we want to hear, and leave out or claim not to know how something works if we don't want to hear it.
For example, where on your list of possible side effects is death? And yet that is a possiblity for users of the pill, which MAP is, in a stronger dose. It's even listed on the drug info you get with the pill.
And when I ask, how does it affect the endometrium without affecting the fetus, they say, "Umm, we don't actually know, but rest assured it's very safe."
And you can't really use the "one-dose package" as proof they won't OD...making it OTC would allow them to buy as many as they wanted. . . . I give up on this stupid.....grrr I can't link anything and nothing is working when I try to post. Out of sheer consternation at my computer I'm going to give it up.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI: I find arguing "death" as a side effect very misleading, since no person who has used Plan B has died from it.
Aside: This has no bearing on the current argument, but medicine and pharmacology is chock full of "we don't know."
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun: but at least the pill mentions it as a possiblity.
quote: At about the time implantation occurs, differentiation into the three cells layers occurs, which begins to make each cell specialized and part of a larger whole.
To use your method of argument: At about the same time does not mean the same thing as "because".
quote: It takes 40 days past fertilization for the placenta to be fully established
and yet...
quote: The MAP does not pose a risk to an established pregnancy because a (healthy) placenta is pretty difficult to dislodge.
What happens to the fetus directly after implantation? If the placenta takes that long to be fully astablished, it wouldn't seem like a very good "lifejacket" for the fetus before then.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I suppose my point, which I think is still valid, is that many embryos don't become pregnancies, all on their own. THAT is a big reason I don't think it has a 'soul' if there is such a thing. I just don't want to accept that God would send out a soul just to shrivel and go swirling. But if you want to believe that, no skin off my nose.
PSI... you really, really never fly? Or let anybody except that one, special person drive you? Do you step on cracks? Besides, I don't see how personal risk assessment applies here, anyway. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't want flying to be illegal, just because you wouldn't do it yourself?
I'm uneasy about this being over-the-counter, but if it is proven reasonably safe, I suppose I would not oppose it. People kill themselves and irrevocably damage their livers on Tylenol, after all. People are stupid that way.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good Lord, Kat. Would it take more than a moment to actually figure out how to spell my handle correctly and do it?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The letter, authored by Rep. David Joseph Weldon (R-Fla.), urged the president to keep the morning-after pill's by-prescription-only status because wider use could result in more sexual promiscuity and venereal disease. Advocates of the switch say the science shows nothing of the kind and have said that a vote against the pill would constitute a major FDA capitulation to political pressure.
Dave Weldon is the biggest horses ass that Florida has sent to Congress in a long time. I can't stand the guy. He's an MD, but seems to know absolutely NO science. He sponsored the bill to ban ALL cloning research without any look at what it would affect and whether there were alternatives. He's a big proponent of the anti-flag-burning thing. He's just a GOP tool on most votes.
Can't stand him.
As for the morning after pill regimen, if the normal processes of the FDA would result in it being available over the counter, then anything that interferes with that is just politics. Let's not be fooled here people...the GOP is pandering to a particular group, trying to paint itself as the protectors of sexual morality in America. It's an easy target because people will take the viewpoint (as many here have done) that says "well, people's rights aren't at stake, you can still get the medication..."
But what you are failing to notice, and this is the BIG take home lesson, is that the "get government out of your lives" party is once again meddling where government normally does not. And why would they do that? Because they have a moral or ethical stance on the issue? I think not.
It's because this issue can be painted to look like the kind of thing that conservative voters would latch onto and say "good job!"
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it disheartening that you seem continually misspell my handle for no good reason at all. And I figure, instead of leaving it be, I might as well remind you that you misspelled it.
It would be a gesture of good will for you to edit the spelling to reflect the actual spelling of my handle.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want you to say how smart and lovely I am first.
--
*laugh* It isn't on purpose. Truth is, I'm a little lazy when I type quickly. And here I thought I was being so cool in remembering there was an N at the end.
But I'd still welcome the smart and lovely comment. *hopeful*
posted
Are you deliberately trying to be.... witchy, kat? There's no reason to be so snarky here.
And, while you're at it, I'd like to remind you that I don't particularly like having my handle spelled ALR. I find it jarring, and I've mentioned before that I don't appreciate it.
posted
While I agree that this whole handle thing is kinda silly, I'm not sure we should assume it's malicious or spiteful. She just might have been trying to be playful, and lighten the mood.
Maybe not the place for it, but is it really that IMPORTANT?
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:At about the time implantation occurs, differentiation into the three cells layers occurs, which begins to make each cell specialized and part of a larger whole.
To use your method of argument: At about the same time does not mean the same thing as "because".
Well, there is some evidence that implantation triggers blastocyst formation, but you're right, it is not a proven cause. So? My point was that the two are distinctly different, not what causes the difference.
The term "established pregnancy" does NOT mean directly after implantation. It is not a specific medical term, but it seems to mostly be used to refer to a pregnancy that has made it past the point at which menstruation was expected (so about 10-16 days post fertilization).
quote: If the placenta takes that long to be fully established, it wouldn't seem like a very good "lifejacket" for the fetus before then.
It's not. That's why most of the really worrisome exposure to carcinogens/tetratogens occurs before a woman actually knows she is pregnant -- and why a woman of childbearing years (who could conceivably become pregnant) should be careful about getting enough folate and limit exposure to potential dangers.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Jeez, I really DID think I was being cool for remembering to put the N at the end. In fact, it was probably the result of stressing over the ending letter that screwed up the middle.
Suneun and Ayelar, I'm not that subtle. If I was trying to insult you, I'd be much more direct.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
To be fair, many (most?) late-term abortions ('partial-birth' or otherwise) are because of medical issues that only arise late in the pregnancy.
quote:
Well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I disagree witht hat; if a mother can make it to birth with a pregnancy, a partial-birth abortion only increases risks to her health. And the only instance I can think of where "health risks" warrant the abortion of a late-term fetus (especially one past viability enough to survive in intensive care) is where the baby has possible physical or chromosomal abnormalities that the mother doesn't want to have to deal with.
But back to the original topic: I don't think it would matter to those who support the MAP (and also the RU-486, not to mention abortion on demand) how safe it is for women.
Abortion still isn't a very healthy thing to do to one's body, and women still suffer complications and die for abortion (from internal trauma, I understand, not from post-operative infection, though that's still a concern with women who aren't under adequate medical supervision), but there are many people who consider abortion a right.
More clearly, I think that, to the people who want make these and other drugs legal and easy to get, health risks are beside the point. I think is is about political victory.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I think you're really lovely and purty and I would love to get greasy with you, you big ol' love sponge!
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a Hatrack trip to Vegas! *shoots guns in air* Load up the dogs and set out the cat, mama, I'm a gettin' hitched!
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
} ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Besides, I don't see how personal risk assessment applies here, anyway. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't want flying to be illegal, just because you wouldn't do it yourself? ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
