Morning After Pill

believe me, i've tried to teach him. he insists he's doing it right and that he's done it his way for years with no problems, and that my way is stupid. i'm just not going to let him put them on himself anymore.
i'm on tri-cyclen, and it does have the lowest progesterone level of any bc pill.

oh, and i just found out that the seventeen-year-old girl i know who got pregnant was ON THE PILL. see why i'm worried? granted, there's a good chance she wasn't taking it properly, but it really doesn't make me feel better.

anyway, it's been more than 72 hours. nothing left to do but wait.

 

This is not true with todays contraceptives. The dose of estrogen is so low that it no longer primarily suppresses ovulation. In fact, there are now progestin only birth control pills, which do not suppress ovulation at all. I am shocked that you are not aware of this, Huck. A lot of anti-abortion people are also against modern birth control pills.

Also, instead of zygote, I should have said blastocyst. In fact, it is not yet even yet a blastocyst, and isn't an embryo until about day 19. I put a link at the bottom for more information on stages of pregnancy.

How the emergency contraception pills work (as viewed by medical professionals, pro-choice groups, etc.)
-Physicians and other medical professionals classify the "morning-after" pill as a contraceptive. This is because it prevents the start of pregnancy. (If it could terminate a pregnancy which was already in progress, then it would have been called an abortificant). Pregnancy is defined as beginning when the fertilized ovum attaches to the wall of the uterus - typically about 12 days after conception.
-Emergency contraception is believed capable of working in one of three ways:
(1)If an ovum has not been recently released from an ovary, the medication will usually prevent it from being released.
(2)If an ovum has recently been released, the pill may prevent it from being fertilized.
(3)If the ovum has already been fertilized, it is believed that the pills will "alter the lining of the uterus inhibiting the implantation of the embryo." The exact mechanisms of the latter two processes have not yet been proven by research.
-If the ovum has developed to the blastocyst stage and has already attached itself to the uterine wall, the pills will have no effect. The pregnancy had already begun and will continue normally.

How the pills work (as viewed by some pro-life groups):
-Some pro-life groups accept the medical definition of pregnancy as beginning when the fertilized ovum attaches itself to the wall of the womb; they do not oppose the use of the morning-after pill. But other groups define pregnancy as starting at conception, when the sperm fertilizes the ovum. They also regard this as the instant where life (in the form of an ovum and sperm) becomes a human person. To these groups, any termination of the process after conception has occurred, is considered murder of a little baby -- of a human person at its most vulnerable stage.
-They believe that emergency contraception may work in one of three ways:
(1)If an ovum has not been recently released from an ovary, the medication will usually prevent it from being released. The pill would work as a contraceptive
(2)If an ovum has recently been released, the pill may prevent it from being fertilized. Again, it is a contraceptive
(3)If the ovum has already been fertilized, then they believe that both pregnancy and personhood life has begun. By causing the uterine wall to reject the blastocyst, the pills act as an abortificant. The medication murders the baby.
-If the ovum has already attached itself to the uterine wall, the pills will have no effect; they are neither a contraceptive nor an abortificant.
-There is no way for physician or pharmacist to determine the exact state of the ovum when the woman takes the pill. There is an interval of at least 24 hours between unprotected sex and conception. EC meets the pro-life definition of contraceptive during this interval. However, to be safe, these pro-life groups generally advocate that the pill never be taken.
CLICK HERE.

 

This is from the PI sheet of two popular OCP's:
MODE OF ACTION ORTHO MICRONOR progestin-only oral contraceptives prevent conception by suppressing ovulation in approximately half of users, thickening the cervical mucus to inhibit sperm penetration, lowering the midcycle LH and FSH peaks, slowing the movement of the ovum through the fallopian tubes,and altering the endometrium.

Oral Contraception Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

 

I'm aware of this debate in the pro-life community. As of now, though, the science is inconclusive:

http://www.cmdahome.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=2446081817&CONTEXT=art&art=1183

Your own link uses the term "blastocyst":

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage4.html

If emergency "contraception" works up to 12 days after conception, then by definition, it is not truly "contraception."

The link you cited describes implantation as necessary for the continuation (not the beginning) of pregnancy:

The blastocyst "hatches" from the zona pellucida around the sixth day after fertilization, as the blastocyst enters the uterus. The trophoblast cells secretes an enzyme which erodes the epithelial uterine lining and creates an implantation site for the blastocyst.

In a cyclical process of hormonal stimulation, the ovary is induced to continue producing progesterone while human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is released by the trophoblast cells of the implanting blastocyst. Endometrial glands in the uterus enlarge in response to the blastocyst and the implantation site becomes swollen with new capillaries. Circulation begins,a process needed for the continuation of pregnancy.
​

(Note also that the blastocyst "communicates" with the uterus prior to implantation.)

My main purpose (and that of the journal article I cited before) is full disclosure. You might consider the post-conception (abortifacient) effects of the "morning-after pill" morally inconsequential, but others disagree, and they should be able to make an informed decision. The term "emergency contraception" is highly misleading.

 

Emergency Contraception is only indicated to be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. At 72 hours, it is not yet a blastocyst. Emergency Contraception is contraindicated post 72 hours.

The science is conclusive about birth control regulating ovulation, especially with the newer progestin only pills, and very low dose combination pills. They only reduce ovulation by up to 50%.

I, too, believe in full disclosure and informed decisions. You get no argument from me there.

Definition of Pregnancy:

Ð The period of time from confirmation of implantation of a fertilized egg within the uterus until the fetus has entirely left the uterus (i.e., has been delivered). Implantation is confirmed through a presumptive sign of pregnancy such as missed menses or a positive pregnancy test [45 CFR 46.203(b)]. This "confirmation" may be in error, but, for research purposes, investigators would presume that a living fetus was present until evidence to the contrary was clear. Although fertilization occurs a week or more before implantation, the current inability to detect the fertilization event or the presence of a newly fertilized egg makes a definition of pregnancy based on implantation necessary.
www.clemson.edu/research/orcSite/orcIRB_DefsP.htm

 

If it prevents implantation, then (A) it is not merely "contraception" and (B) its effects extend beyond the first 72 hours.

Are these the only ones available now?

Then you see why the term "emergency contraception" is problematic?

The present inability to detect pregnancy prior to implantation has no bearing on the scientific understanding of when conception occurs.

 

Once implantation occurs, Plan B, or other birth control pills, will not do anything.

Obviously not. The original ones from the '60's are still around. We dispense about 98-99% low dose birth control pills. They cause fewer side effects and less chance of causing cancer, blod clots, etc.

No! It is contraception. It does not terminate pregnancy.

Conception occurs at fertilization. Pregnancy occurs at implantation. Implantation does not occur every time an egg is fertilized in a women not on birth control. The fertilized egg, for whatever reason, is simply washed out with the next period. Would you call that a miscarriage? (conception = creation of a concept)

 

No, but they can prevent implantation from occuring, which means their effects last longer than the first 72 hours following conception.

"Contraception" has always been understood to prevent conception. Pills that prevent implantation can be called "birth control," but "contraception" is a misnomer.

Why do you insist on using the term "fertilized egg" to refer to a week-old embryo/blastocyst?

Yes.

See the volume of medical references I gave you earlier.

 

Huck,

All birth control pills are called oral called oral contraceptives. I didn't name them, but I do see why you think the term is misleading. The term abortificant does not apply either. Maybe they should be called contrapregnancy pills, or something of that nature.

This argument, just like abortion, always gets back to how an individual defines life, and semantics.

You mentioned earlier that a fertilized egg can be grown in a test tube. This is also misleading. If it were that simple, we would have babies spawning off of used tampons. Nutrition and other chemistry is required for the fertilized egg to develop. A blastocyst, zygote, etc, etc, has absolutely no chance of surviving on its own. The biological definition of life includes several things that a zygote or blastocyst cannot do. Living things tend toward homeostasis. Living organism are highly organized, with organ systems or organelles, etc. Living organism can reproduce themselves, either by sexual or asexual means. Living organisms respond to external stimuli. etc, etc, etc..,
Even single cell bacteria, when exposed to antibiotics, will move franticly in an attempt to save themselves. If we put a blastocyst in a toxic solution, it would just float around until it died. A premature baby would also float about until it died, but it would scream, cry, wiggle, and hold its breath when face down, in an attempt to save its own life. A zygote or blastocyst is not capable of even attempting to sustain life in any sense of the word, in my opinion, but I am sure your will differ. A fetus can potentially sustain life. In my opinion, that is when life begins. Prior to that, it is the potential for life, a concept, hence conception and contraception.
I think what we can agree on is the need for accessible, reliable information, allowing people to make their own decisions.

 

I think the common definition of "pregnancy" could change in the near future, as we learn more about the early pregnancy factor (EPF) hormone, which is apparently triggered by conception and detectable prior to implantation.

So you deny that blastocysts is even alive, despite the fact that they grow and make preparations for implantation? How can they not be living organisms? Even sperm are alive; the only question is whether blastocysts are human. From a genetic standpoint, I don't know what other form of life they could be. Sure, they require nutrition and a proper environment to survive, as all of us do. They are not "potential life," but life with great potential:

http://www.lifeprinciples.net/ModelTeachText.html

Would you also support the right of medical professionals to refuse to dispense what they consider to be poison?

 

No. I don't believe it is their decision. A professional should use professional judgement, not personal judgement. It is the professionals job to counsel patients on their options, and work together with patients to provide a treatment best suited for an individual & an individuals situation. Pharmacists, especially in community pharmacy, do not have the information available to them to make that kind of judgement. Every medical professional knows going into the profession that they will be challenged by ethics that may not match their own. If an indiviual is not capable of separating his own personal beliefs from his professional judgement, & providing the best possible care to the patient being treated, he or she should not be practicing.

Sperm and blastocysts are alive, but they are not a sustainable life form. When you cut the head off of a chicken, the chicken is alive for several minutes, and will even run and flap its wings, but it is no longer a sustainable life form. When viruses invade a host, they act very much alive, but they are not a sustainable life form, and in fact, are not alive at all. My heart is a living organ, made of living tissues, and living cells, but it is not a sustainable life form. Life of an organism requires it to be able to, at least potentially, exist on its own.

 

"Freedom of choice" doesn't apply to those who want to have no part in killing the unborn? That's absurdly Orwellian.

They are in the proper environment. The crucial difference is that the sperm is not human. Upon fertilization, sperm and egg cease to exist, and a brand new life is created. After that point, all future changes can be described as development. Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, etc. are simply different developmental stages of the same organism.

If you were locked in an airtight vault without food or water, your life wouldn't be sustainable, either. Does that mean you're not alive?

Organs are functional parts of a larger organism; this is not true of the unborn, either genetically or biologically.

Says who? All life depends on other life to survive, in some way or other.

 

what a strange turn this thread has taken...

 

I still have potential for life. Despite whatever circumstance I am in, I have the potential to live and exist independent of another organism. All life does depend on other living things, but living organisms exist on their own, independent of any ONE organism. Even parasites travel from host to host.

 

This is a very hot topic. There are many health professionals on each side of the issue. Imagine if a young women presents herself in an ER, and for whatever reason her pregnancy is life threatening to herself. If its a small ER, their is only one doctor there. Should the doctor be able to refuse treatment because he/she wants to excersise his/her freedom of choice? Then two people would die, and not one, if you consider the embryo a person. The doctors professional responsibility is to the patient he/she is treating, not to the ideal of "Freedom of Choice." I think that you are oversimplifying life. There is much less black and white, and much more gray area.

Exactly, they can only be living in a specific enviroment, in one particular organism (or, thanks to science, a lab). They have no potential to independtly sustain life. I don't see how you can call a zygote a human life. (Please spare me the quotes from doctors, etc. There is plenty of "evidence" on both sides) It is part of the development of a human. I agree with that, but it is far from human itself. In my opinion, humans are much more complex than the sum of our development. If you eat an omlette for breakfast, is that the same as eating 3 chickens? Maybe, but I don't think so. They are just eggs.

I never said a zygote, blastocyst, etc, was akin to an organ. An organ cannot exist independent of an organism, and neither can a blastocyst. Is a freshly laid turtle egg, burried in the sand, a life in its self? It is not a life until it hatches, it is the potential for life. You could not call that egg a turtle. It is clearly a turtle egg.

 

The Mayo Clinic Home Health Book talks about fertilization, then travel down the tubes ("while the uterus prepares") about 5 days or so after fertilization the egg "at this point the egg clings to the uterine wall, for a few days, but does not yet dig in deeply, the egg releases an enzyme which eats away at the lining of the uterus... EIGHT DAYS have passed since fertilization. By the 12th day, the egg will be firmly embedded in its new home. At this point you are pregnant."

According to the MAYO CLINIC you are not "pregnant" until 12 days after fertilization, which makes "morning after" pills NOT aborficents. It ends with the statement that 50% of fertilizations end in miscarriage.

 

You must be talking about an ectopic pregnancy. In this case, as you note, both lives will be lost if nothing is done. Abortion in this situation presents no ethical dilemma whatsoever. Elective abortions (and abortifacients) are another matter entirely.

 

I've taken postinor2, two pills taken 12 hours apart, no period, no cramp, no nausea and no baby, great!

 

why does this stuff always turn into a self-riteous abortion for and against issue, for fucks sake, neither side will ever see eye to eye so just give up

 

oh, and for the original poster, get your boyfriend to buy "tighter fitting" condoms