S/O from the abortion thread...morning after pill?

[Pretty in Pink]

Here is a quote taken from the other thread:

 

This is what I find so frustrating about the abortion debate. Why can't both sides continue to argue their points while setting about reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancy before it reaches the point of abortion?

 

You could reduce the rate of abortion overnight by making sure a woman could walk into any pharmacy and request the morning after pill, no questions asked. Even if you don't like the idea, surely stopping the implantation of a fertilized egg would be better than aborting a 12 week fetus.

 

Agreed.

 

Can someone explain the reasoning behind being in favor of the availability of BC pills but not the morning after pill? Is to protect the health of the woman since she needs a prescription for BC pills so, therefore, is more likely to understand the inherent risks?

[Carol in Cal.]

however, I don't view the MAP as a contraceptive.

 

To me, morally acceptable contraception prevents the formation of a human being by preventing egg/sperm contact. Morally unacceptable abortifactants cause a human embryo or fetus to be killed, one way or another. The MAP fits into the second category.

[Chris in VA]

I'm not sure about your question, but I personally see no difference between aborting a fetus at 12 weeks or taking the morning after pill--it's still abortion to me, because I believe life begins at conception, not implantation.

It's why I don't use the IUD. I did use BC Pills at one point, until someone pointed out that it can cause a fertilized egg to not implant (rarely, but it happens).

I know my opinion is not popular. Not trying to convince anyone.

[Desert Rat]

That would be my guess. When the morning after pill first came out my boyfriend's sister was given this pill. It didn't work because she had an ectopic pregnancy. She had emergency surgery because the tube exploded. She was in pain for 2 days before going to the ER because she thought it was just the pill. I don't know if the situation would have changed had she been able to get the pill OTC, but as this is my only experience with it, I tend to think a doctor should oversee the process.

[KingM]

I'm not sure about your question, but I personally see no difference between aborting a fetus at 12 weeks or taking the morning after pill--it's still abortion to me, because I believe life begins at conception, not implantation.

It's why I don't use the IUD. I did use BC Pills at one point, until someone pointed out that it can cause a fertilized egg to not implant (rarely, but it happens).

 

Roughly 3/4 of fertilized human eggs don't implant anyway, so this is something that has happened to almost every mother already. This can happen for a variety of reasons: the egg has an abnormality, or the environment of the womb is slightly wrong, or any of a number of other things can happen, some of them probably caused by unknowing behavior of the mother. I think most women would rather have a fertilized egg fail to implant rather than lose a fetus at 15 weeks.

 

I guess what I'm asking is that regardless of your religious beliefs, is there any hope of convincing you that physically, it is not so traumatic to prevent implantation as to kill and extract a fetus and so we should increase the availability of earlier methods so that later methods become rarer?

[amy g.]

For myself, I do not believe in any form of birth control. I think it is IDEAL to live a life where every child can be welcomed and adored and given everything he or she needs. Unfortunately, that is not a situation everyone is in, so not everyone can choose what I have chosen.

 

I see a continuum. In my opinion, NFP or a barrier method is the next best choice.

 

After that anything that prevents implantation is less traumatic than a typical abortion, but that would be preferable to a late stage abortion.

 

Even a late stage abortion is preferable, to me, than parents who have children and abuse them, or allow Mom's new boy friend to molest them or actually kill them when the child is 3 or 4 years old.

 

For me, it is all murder, but not all murder is equal. If a child of mine was destined to be murdered, I would prefer a deadly gas to kill us both while I was holding my child tight. That would be murder, but I'd prefer it to my child being kidnapped and tortured to death.

 

I want to do my little part to make the world the kind of place where people have happy and secure lives and feel like they can take care of the children they conceive, or at least give them up for adoption.

 

However, I do believe there are selfish and evil people in the world who just don't want to be bothered. I prefer that they have easy access to all forms of birth control and even abortion if it will keep them from having a child they are just going to end up abusing and killing after birth.

[Chris in VA]

I think most women would rather have a fertilized egg fail to implant rather than lose a fetus at 15 weeks.

 

I agree with you here, but I am not talking about natural miscarriage, I'm talking about abortion, where the mother chooses to abort.

 

is there any hope of convincing you that physically, it is not so traumatic to prevent implantation as to kill and extract a fetus and so we should increase the availability of earlier methods so that later methods become rarer?

 

I'm not sure you understand my problem with the issue. Yes, of course it is less traumatic to the mother's body to prevent implantation. It is, however, the same outcome for the baby (and I know many don't agree with me, using the word "baby" in this case, but that's how I roll), so neither is an option I can support. I totally get how counter-cultural this way of thinking is, and I guess I just explain it as the lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and I guess I can say I'm not "convinceable" either.

 

The whole abortion debate is such a difficult topic. And yes, 3 of my very best friends had abortions, so I am very familiar with the topic.

[Pretty in Pink]

I understand what you are all saying about the morality of the issue. FWIW we believe that a zygote is a baby, too, and have chosen to forego the use on BC methods that prevent implantation.

 

However, I guess the crux of my question is this: If you feel this way, then do you believe the morning after pill should be legal or illegal? If you believe it should be illegal, do you also believe that birth control pills (or other contraceptives that have the capacity to prevent implantation) should be illegal?

 

I know this is a difficult topic and I'm trying very carefully to word my questions so as not to cause offense; I apologize in advance if I do.

[KingM]

I'm not sure you understand my problem with the issue. Yes, of course it is less traumatic to the mother's body to prevent implantation. It is, however, the same outcome for the baby (and I know many don't agree with me, using the word "baby" in this case, but that's how I roll), so neither is an option I can support. I totally get how counter-cultural this way of thinking is, and I guess I just explain it as the lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and I guess I can say I'm not "convinceable" either.

 

The whole abortion debate is such a difficult topic. And yes, 3 of my very best friends had abortions, so I am very familiar with the topic.

 

How about Amy's position above? She seems more in line with your beliefs religiously and put it better than I did.

 

If you can't agree on moral grounds, is there any way you can agree on physical terms? That is, abortions are going to happen anyway, so can't we try to have them occur at an earlier, less traumatic stage rather than later?

 

And barring that, would you be in favor of increased availability of birth control so as to reduce the number of fertilized eggs in the wombs of unwilling women?

[Erica in PA]

If you can't agree on moral grounds, is there any way you can agree on physical terms? That is, abortions are going to happen anyway, so can't we try to have them occur at an earlier, less traumatic stage rather than later?

 

 

 

Personally, one reason I would say no to that is because I think widespread use of the morning after pill would make abortion even more common than it already is. There are people who could not abort a 8 week old fetus, especially after seeing it on an u/s, who would have no qualms about aborting a newly fertilized egg.

[KingM]

Personally, one reason I would say no to that is because I think widespread use of the morning after pill would make abortion even more common than it already is. There are people who could not abort a 8 week old fetus, especially after seeing it on an u/s, who would have no qualms about aborting a newly fertilized egg.

 

Given that you accept that not everybody consider a fertilized egg to be the same as a fetus, do you think the morning after pill should be legal or illegal?

 

And if you say illegal, how do you justify this belief other than, "This is what I believe and what I believe that God teaches?"

[Pamela H in Texas]

Can someone explain the reasoning behind being in favor of the availability of BC pills but not the morning after pill?

 

Discussions like this kinda make me feel icky.

 

However, though I don't like it, I have to agree that I don't see much of a difference. When we realize that BC sometimes allows conception but prevents implantation/viability, what IS the difference? The majority of time, the MAP would not be preventing a pregnancy (because one wouldn't usually occur even without it), but preventing implantation/viability. It's the same thing.

 

I couldn't do either. I could never suggest either to anyone. Either has the potential to be killing a potential child.

 

I so can't wait for this evil system to be OVER. People under God's Government with Jesus as King will be so much healthier and LOVING and RIGHT. It'll be so nice when there isn't discussion about preventing viable pregnancy, killing embryos at any stage of development, etc. THANKFULLY!

Edited July 23, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[Chris in VA]

That is, abortions are going to happen anyway, so can't we try to have them occur at an earlier, less traumatic stage rather than later?

 

To me, that's like letting underage kids drink at home, because they are going to, anyway, and isn't it safer and less traumatic for them than going to a bar or sneaking it and having to drive?

 

I don't condone that, either.

 

As far as BC, honestly, I don't know. BC seems pretty darn available to me already. Almost any town has a drug store where condoms can be bought, or foam, or female condoms. Health depts really do still hand condoms out for free, and so do many schools (not all, of course).

 

It's not a question of availability, in most cases; it's convincing kids to use it. And it's still not 100%.

 

I appreciate your respectful tone, and allowing me to think things thru, KingM. I really, really do.

[Chris in VA]

Erica, that is an excellent point.

[Chris in VA]

And if you say illegal, how do you justify this belief other than, "This is what I believe and what I believe that God teaches?"

 

Aren't all laws based on somebody's beliefs? I guess who gets the final say is what voting is for.

[Perry]

Here is a quote taken from the other thread:

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

Can someone explain the reasoning behind being in favor of the availability of BC pills but not the morning after pill? Is to protect the health of the woman since she needs a prescription for BC pills so, therefore, is more likely to understand the inherent risks?

 

 

 

 

They are OTC, if you're 17 or older.

[Erica in PA]

Given that you accept that not everybody consider a fertilized egg to be the same as a fetus, do you think the morning after pill should be legal or illegal?

 

And if you say illegal, how do you justify this belief other than, "This is what I believe and what I believe that God teaches?"

 

Hmm... that is tough. I am not a law scholar by any means. Actually, not a scholar of any kind, now that I think about it! :) I really don't know if it should be legal or illegal. I just believe that it's immoral. Some immoral acts are legal (i.e. adultery), some are illegal (i.e. stealing)-- based on how much they negatively impact society. I do think that devaluing human life, even in the earliest stages, does negatively impact society, but I'm not sure that it does so in a widespread enough way to make it illegal.

[EthiopianFood]

As far as BC, honestly, I don't know. BC seems pretty darn available to me already. Almost any town has a drug store where condoms can be bought, or foam, or female condoms. Health depts really do still hand condoms out for free, and so do many schools (not all, of course).

 

It's not a question of availability, in most cases; it's convincing kids to use it. And it's still not 100%.

 

This is pretty much what I was going to say, although maybe I have a different point? I don't think the morning after pill is going to prevent abortions very much just because it is more available. Like the pp said, birth control is EVERYWHERE, but people still don't use it. Would I rather someone use the MAP than have an abortion? Yes, although I don't think that's a very good argument. It's less traumatic to abort a 12 week old baby than a third trimester baby, but that doesn't mean it is right. For that matter, it would be less traumatic to kill a 2 month old baby than a 12 year old child, because they wouldn't understand what was going on, but it is still horrible and wrong.

 

Personally, do I think the MAP is killing a baby? Ugh... I think abortion is wrong for biological/ethical reasons, not religious. A fertilized egg that is not yet implanted is a gray area for me. I personally would never use it, nor would I provide it for my child. If my child was raped though, I would probably choose to live with the guilt of the unknown in favor of protecting my child (although if they were late teens or older, I would leave it up to them).

[KingM]

I so can't wait for this evil system to be OVER. People under God's Government with Jesus as King will be so much healthier and LOVING and RIGHT. It'll be so nice when there isn't discussion about preventing viable pregnancy, killing embryos at any stage of development, etc. THANKFULLY!

 

Something--Jesus, disease, starvation, birth control, whatever--will eventually have to prevent birth. Human populations, as well as other life forms, will grow exponentially unless otherwise constrainted.

 

If every couple on earth had four children with a generation time of 30 years, we'd have more than 50 billion people by 2100. By 2200--roughly the time since the Declaration of Independence--we'd have 400 billion. By roughly the time we hit 2300, there would be a thousand people on earth for every one who is here now. New York City alone would have more people than currently live on the entire planet, as would the country of Belgium.

 

Someone might get hungry before that happens. As a result, I'm in favor of birth control for people who don't want any more children. Beats the alternative. :)

[KingM]

I appreciate your respectful tone, and allowing me to think things thru, KingM. I really, really do.

 

I don't like abortion. I don't think a fetus before the age of viability is the same as a newborn baby, but as I stated in the other thread, it is still an act of violence against something defenseless. I wish we could find some consensus between the two sides to reduce the number of abortions, since the Roe v. Wade issue is not going to be resolved any time soon.

 

ETA: Oops, I see you just mentioned this on the other thread. On a similar note, I had a discussion with a vegan who told me about how immoral beekeeping is because some honeybees die in winter when their honey is raided by the beekeeper. A minute later she was arguing a pro-choice position and I found myself wondering about the consistency of her worldview.

Edited July 23, 2009 by KingM

[johnandtinagilbert]

Discussions like this kinda make me feel icky.

 

However, though I don't like it, I have to agree that I don't see much of a difference. When we realize that BC sometimes allows conception but prevents implantation/viability, what IS the difference? The majority of time, the MAP would not be preventing a pregnancy (because one wouldn't usually occur even without it), but preventing implantation/viability. It's the same thing.

 

I couldn't do either. I could never suggest either to anyone. Either has the potential to be killing a potential child.

 

I so can't wait for this evil system to be OVER. People under God's Government with Jesus as King will be so much healthier and LOVING and RIGHT. It'll be so nice when there isn't discussion about preventing viable pregnancy, killing embryos at any stage of development, etc. THANKFULLY!

I totally agree. I'm sitting here reading this and my stomach is turning.

 

No, I don't think the MAP should be legal, just as I don't think abortion should be either. I choose Life -- all life, every time. FWIW, I am not a proponent of the death penalty either. I believe God will judge and vengence belongs to the Lord. JMHO.

 

Since I have witnessed people who use abortion as contraception, I can only imagine the same will be done with MAP. I am concerned that the MAP will encourage a feeling of sexual invincibility in young women who don't have a concern for or understanding of STI/D and would consider a pregnancy an inconvenience (with no thought to the child), so they'll just go ahead and take the MAP.

 

I also have concerns about the long term affects of the MAP, and birth control for that matter. The entire idea of changing the normal functioning of a woman's body seems a little too "God complex" for me. I am concerned for our society of young women in general b/c of the idea that it's all good to adjust our bodies for our convenience.

[Pretty in Pink]

I didn't realize that birth control pills were available OTC now. Now I know.

[Marylou]

Someone might get hungry before that happens. As a result, I'm in favor of birth control for people who don't want any more children. Beats the alternative. :)

 

By alternative you mean abstinence and self-control, right?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I used to be totally against abortion. I have come to be believe that it should be rare and legal despite the fact the I believe that life begins at conception.

 

What changed my mind was when I met a girl years ago who was gang r*ped at the age of 13 and also knifed in her private parts. This girl also became pregnant as a result. I do not think that I should be the one to tell her that she must go through with a pregnancy even though the baby was her child as well. The MAP pill might have spared her a lot of agony and the physical dangers that a pregnancy would have caused due to her injuries. I also think that she should not have to prove her case in a court of law since r*pe is often difficult to prove. I know this since a close family member is a prosecuter.

 

I have also taken care of several pregnant women with life-threatening conditions who were pregnant. Ideally I think everything should be done to save both mother and child, but that may not always be possible. This should be a medical decision, not a judicial decision.

 

I definately believe that the MAP and contraception should be readily available even to teenagers. Of course, I also believe that teenagers should be taught about the virtues of waiting till marriage and such. However, they need solid info on contraception and how to obtain it. My dear mother gave me this info when I was about 13. She also made it clear that if I needed it that she would help me and told me where I could obtain it. She also encourage me to abstain and I did.:) Having this info did not make me run out and have s*x.

Edited July 23, 2009 by priscilla
spelling

[StaceyinLA]

I just have to stick my 2 cents in here.

 

I am 100% pro-life. I do not agree with any form of abortion NOR do I agree with anything other than barrier b/c.

 

That said, I realize that this isn't an ideal world (which, IMO, would include NO abortion, NO child abuse, NO child murders, etc).

 

So, again IMO, I would rather see someone take the pill than have an unwanted pg. I would rather someone take a morning-after pill than have an abortion later.

 

I DO believe life begins at conception but I do NOT believe a blastocyst feels the pain of abortion that a fetus feels later in development. (much of the reason I am SO passionate about being anti-abortion is because of the horrendous pain and agony a baby in the womb suffers during an abortion).

 

And while I do not support abortion in any way, I think the use of the morning-after pill leaves out the need for a 3rd party (ie a dr). It pretty much puts the abortion solely in the hands of the one who swallows the pill (and on the conscience of the companies who make it of course).

 

While I certainly support the right of stores NOT to offer the pill (their choice IMO), if I had to accept abortion in any form, this would be the one.

[KingM]

By alternative you mean abstinence and self-control, right?

 

I did say couples. My wife and I did not have sexual relations before we married. However, I believe that love making is an important part of marriage whether or not one intends to use this to produce children. We are finished having new children, but I have no intention of practicing abstinence, nor do I think this is what either God or nature has intended.

[CatMomof3]

I agree with Chris in VA

[Tap]

"Plan B" is available in 9 states without a prescription. Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington. Specifically trained pharmacists can give it to anyone over 17 without a prescription.

 

The sex act must have occurred within the previous 72 hours so it is different than the other pill.

 

 

FYI: Birth Control pills are not OTC in the USA but they are in other countries.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Something--Jesus, disease, starvation, birth control, whatever--will eventually have to prevent birth. Human populations, as well as other life forms, will grow exponentially unless otherwise constrainted.

 

UGH. Since you quoted the part about being under God's Kingdom, I must point out that starvation and disease most certainly won't be a concern for ANYONE. No illness, pain, death, homelessness, hunger, etc. The scripture are clear on these. But sure, it makes sense that God will at some point have to do something. I do not know what that will be as he hasn't revealed that at this time. Imagination could give a few ideas (take away the desire/ability to have children, set up places other than earth for people to live, whatever), but regardless, it will be perfect and not have suffering attached to it.

 

Anyway, I would have left it alone but it was just too important. Jesus gave a foretaste of what he will do after this system is ended when he was on earth. The greater fulfillment will be awesome. God is much more capable than to allow suffering forever. It fulfills a particular purpose temporarily and it's almost over.

 

Thankfully, that will end discussions of when best to kill what some consider just a group of cells but that would be a person just like you and me if allowed to live.

[KingM]

I must point out that starvation and disease most certainly won't be a concern for ANYONE. No illness, pain, death, homelessness, hunger, etc.

 

That sounds nice, but even if you believe this, nobody knows when this will be. If all birth control were done away with tomorrow we'd eat ourselves out of house and home within a couple of decades.

 

I'm definitely in favor of family planning.

[KidsHappen]

They are OTC, if you're 17 or older.

 

Which is available OTC, BC pill or TMA pill?

[TXMomof4]

Given that you accept that not everybody consider a fertilized egg to be the same as a fetus, do you think the morning after pill should be legal or illegal?

 

And if you say illegal, how do you justify this belief other than, "This is what I believe and what I believe that God teaches?"

 

Obviously, not everyone believes that a 28 week old fetus is a baby. There are people who believe a baby isn't a baby until it is born on it's own. At what point do we say, I don't much care what you believe, that's a child in there?

 

I think the problem with the morning after pill is that it encourages thoughtless, rash behavior. "Oh, don't worry, I have a morning after pill." It makes it even easier to live a (I can't think of the appropriate word here) lifestyle focused on pleasure rather than consequences and negates responsibility. There are consequences outside of pregnancy when one has sex and those should be real considerations for people who choose to have sex (especially thinking of people in non-committed, non-monogamous relationships).

[Pamela H in Texas]

I am not in favor of ANYTHING (family planning or not). It's gonna be messed up here until God changes things. I completely support his Gov't, but I know I have to wait for his timing (and he's kind enough to explain why we're holding off just a little while longer).

 

People have proven they can't fix the situation. It's pretty sad when someone believes their only choices are to allow more people to kill babies more easily and earlier versus starving to death. And yet people keep turning to people for solutions. weird.

[Pamela H in Texas]

kids happen, the MAP is available to anyone over 17. You can get it from the drug store or PP or whatever. Just need some money. PP will also tell you (online at that) what birth control pills to take and how to use BC as "emergency contraception" "in case of an accident" @@.

[Greta]

Can anyone clear this up for me? I was under the impression that if the morning after pill was taken within 24 hours, it was most likely preventing fertilization. If it is taken 24-72 hours, then it is most likely preventing implantation. But everyone in this thread is speaking as if it only prevents implantation. Was my information incorrect?

[KingM]

Obviously, not everyone believes that a 28 week old fetus is a baby. There are people who believe a baby isn't a baby until it is born on it's own. At what point do we say, I don't much care what you believe, that's a child in there?

 

Right now, that appears to be viability outside the womb. My premise is that if the pro-life crowd would budge on some details, we could pull that date in the direction of conception a bit.

 

But there are so many people who think that a condom is evil that it doesn't seem like this will happen.

 

There are consequences outside of pregnancy when one has sex and those should be real considerations for people who choose to have sex (especially thinking of people in non-committed, non-monogamous relationships).

 

There may be consequences, but I think it should be up to one's own moral compass to make decisions about issues of human sexuality.

[Pamela H in Texas]

GretaLynn,

 

Actually, according to PP, it doesn't do ANYTHING in regards to implantation (which doesn't even make sense based on their own information). It is simply to prevent fertilization. Two things about that though:

 

1) it can be used for up to 5 days (though it's success rate is lower after 72 hours). Almost ALL fertilization happens well before 5 days. So how is it working those last 2 days?

 

2) it does seem like it'd be less effective than birth control in preventing implantation/viability because the lining would have been able to fully develop outside of those days.

 

HTHs,

[KidsHappen]

GretaLynn,

 

Actually, according to PP, it doesn't do ANYTHING in regards to implantation (which doesn't even make sense based on their own information). It is simply to prevent fertilization. Two things about that though:

 

1) it can be used for up to 5 days (though it's success rate is lower after 72 hours). Almost ALL fertilization happens well before 5 days. So how is it working those last 2 days?

 

2) it does seem like it'd be less effective than birth control in preventing implantation/viability because the lining would have been able to fully develop outside of those days.

 

HTHs,

 

 

This doesn't make any sense to me. The regular BCP is supposed to work in two ways

 

1) It changes the cervical mucus so sperm can not reach the uterus.

 

2) It prevents ovulation.

 

These both prevent fertilization. The MAP is basically super strong BCP but it can't work in either of the above ways because you are taking it after the fact when ovulation could have already accured and the sperm has already reached the uterus. If these two things have happened then fertilization could have already taken place, therefore it must work by preventing implantation. Yes?

[Word Nerd]

The morning-after pill works in a similar manner as regular birth control. Its primary means of preventing pregnancy is by preventing ovulation.

[KidsHappen]

The morning-after pill works in a similar manner as regular birth control. Its primary means of preventing pregnancy is by preventing ovulation.

 

So how does it work if ovulation has already occured?

[TXMomof4]

Right now, that appears to be viability outside the womb. My premise is that if the pro-life crowd would budge on some details, we could pull that date in the direction of conception a bit.

 

But there are so many people who think that a condom is evil that it doesn't seem like this will happen.

 

 

 

There may be consequences, but I think it should be up to one's own moral compass to make decisions about issues of human sexuality.

 

I'm not speaking only of moral issues - what about STDs? If there is an easy answer to prevent pregnancy why bother at all with condoms? We all understand (I'm assuming) that the only way to prevent STDs from being spread if you're not practicing abstinence is with a condom. However, I can just about guarantee that the incidence of STDs will increase if you remove the fear of pregnancy for young women.

 

It's all a moot point anyway. The MAP is available. Anyone can get it over the age of 17, right? And yes, I'd rather see that than later term abortions and abandoned babies. But I'd rather see real responsibility taught and this seems to directly contradict that idea.

[StaceyinLA]

in the sense that it prevents ovulation.

[Greta]

Thank you Pam and KidsHappen, but now that I think about it, I can see how it might prevent fertilization even days after. It depends on where the woman is in her cycle. A woman is potentially fertile if she has cervical mucous, typically the four or five days leading up to ovulation, because that keeps the sperm alive in the cervical crypts for up to five days. Only once the egg leaves the ovary does the sperm leave the cervix and head into the uterus. So if she has sex before she's actually fertile or early in her fertile phase, there would still be time for the MAP to disrupt ovulation. If ovulation has already occured then my guess is it is preventing implantation. Does this make sense?