posted
[[[***EDIT: Anyone mess around in my thread -- we all know what I mean -- and I'll delete the whole thing and repost an edited version at my discretion. And I'll do my best to sic Kathy on your unsweet patootie. ]]]
It was a primary issue for this US election.
Am I clear in my understanding that those who oppose abortion for moral reasons, up to and including the morning-after pill, are equally opposed to the creation of embryos for in vitro fertilization, unless those embryos are also guaranteed to be gestated?
This is a correct assessment of the view of those Hatrackers here who oppose the morning-after pill and all other abortions, yes?
[I won't press for reasons or a defense of the position, promise. I just want to be sure I am clear in my understanding.]
[ November 04, 2004, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Am I clear in my understanding that those who oppose abortion for moral reasons, up to and including the morning-after pill, are equally opposed to the creation of embryos for in vitro fertilization, unless those embryos are also guaranteed to be gestated?
Yes, this is my position. I do not oppose the Pill, as it's abortificient properties are not proven.
posted
Also, a lot of people say that it matters on what it's purpose is....birth control has another use, but the morning after pill has no other use, so a lot os people object to it compared to the pill.
As mentione in every single one of he many pharisy threads , the pill has many uses, ad almost 1/3 of the women on it are taking it for non-birth control reasons.
posted
It's a finer line than I actually prefer to use in dividing the sides. It also deals with a process outside of the body, which does present a somewhat different set of circumstances.
If I am correct, the effort in creating these embryos comes from a desire to create at least one child. Many of the embryos created are not viable, a number do not "take hold" and become non-viable, and generally more are created than is thought necessary to help insure a viable pregnancy.
The moral implications of what to do with the unused ones is, at least right now, beyond my capabilities to make an informed decision.
However, I don't feel that it is on the same level as the decision to abort a fetus that has cleared all of the early hurdles simply because the mother chooses not to carry the pregnancy to term.
I guess that in my mind's eye, I am still seeing the petrie dish specimens as possibles more than probables. But an otherwise healthy child in the womb is very close to a definite.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not struggling with birth control issues, just issues of abortion. I specified opposing the morning-after pill because it clarifies that the earliest possible abortions are still at issue.
I'm trying to get my head around committing an action that will result in the death of a week-old embryo (if that) being immoral because it is murder, but then not being immoral, even if it results in murder.
Help me, Sopwith?
(I am trying to get it, I promise. I won't hound ya, cross my heart. )
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm trying to get my head around committing an action that will result in the death of a week-old embryo (if that) being immoral because it is murder, but then not being immoral, even if it results in murder.
I didn't follow that. Are you trying to determine if some people oppose the morning after pill but support in-vitro fertilization?
I'm looking at 400,000+ embryos that are unlikely to be used, thinking of the importance of family to the religious right -- and, in the context of growing infertility issues in this country, trying to make sense of what is going to happen with this.
I don't expect anyone to address all of this for me. Abortion=murder is clearly a watershed issue, though, and I'm trying to get the other perspective.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks too, BTW, for some emails that have been sent. I'm cool with trying to work this out on email (that is, to work out my grasp of it). No points to score here. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am FOR all forms (that I can think of) of Pregnancy Preventative measures. You have a slew of choices available to every woman/girl who chooses to engage in sexual relations to prevent that from happening.
If you have sex, you are gambling plain and simple. You have the possibility of becomming pregnant. That should be on your mind before you engage in that activity.
Once a "separate" human being is created (with a separate genetic code and identity and human traits) I believe that child is valid and has rights as a "human being". Geography doesn't make it not have the rights of a human being. Dependancy doesn't make it not have the rights of a human being.
Just because science makes it possible to "escape" the responsibility for our actions, doesn't mean we shouldn't take responsibility for them.
Everyone wants to make stupid mistakes and have NO consequences for them. Abortion provides that currently.
IMHO (and this is just my opinion) Except for cases of Rape, Incest or substantial health risks to the mother (possible mortallity) that Human Being has made no decisions justifying a death sentence.
I believe a woman's body is HER body and she has domain over it.
However, no human has a right to use their body to harm another human being or end the life of another human being. Especially a child.
I believe a woman or man who has stewardship over a child and fails to feed that child or provide basic life they are guilty of neglect. If that mother simply refuses to "breast feed" their baby due to "my body" I don't want to use my breasts to sustain it's life (assuming no other option for life sustaining sustenance is available) and that child dies, that is also negligence.
As soon as that fetus has it's own major "Human" attributes (brain, heart, etc. etc.) it is a Human Being. When that heart starts pumping should be the cut off for when abortion is legal or not.
It's not based on "morals" of religion. It's based of the scientific research that is currently available with regards to fetal development.
If that baby can think, dream, feel pain or be "viable". It's a human being and deserves such rights.
I may be stupid and choose to drink and drive, and that may kill someone, but just because I made a mistake, doesn't make me innocent. I have to pay a price. It's not 1st Degree Murder, but it's Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide and I should pay the price for my mistake.
I may sound like an A-hole for holding these opinions. Sorry, but Abortion is one of those things I can't for the life of me believe ever became legal. I don't know how it was possible. It still boggles my mind.
Everyone has a right to their body. But you also have responsibilities that accompany the decisions you make regarding that body.
Abortion has proven to be a complete failure in preventing teen pregnancy or unwanted pregnancy. None of those numbers are down from where they were Pre-Row v. Wade. They are astronomically HIGHER with Abortion legal in just about ALL occasions where it is wanted.
All it's done is give a pass for stupidity and bad decision making.
It's an out from responsibility.
Again, that is just my opinion, and is probably not shared by many, but that is it.
There are of course "religious" reasons as well, but those are personal to me alone.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, I didn't see here where you talked about in-vitro fertilization. Is it safe to say that because you believe a child is a protected being from the moment of conception -- the moment it gets its own genetic material -- that you oppose in-vitro methods?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. I didn't know how to reconcile that with this quote:
quote: Once a "separate" human being is created (with a separate genetic code and identity and human traits) I believe that child is valid and has rights as a "human being".
Or this one:
quote: If that baby can think, dream, feel pain or be "viable". It's a human being and deserves such rights.
You meant "has a heartbeat," though, right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: Sorry it looks contradictory. I mean that by the time you get a brain formed and the heart begins to beat, the chances of a successful pregnancy go way up. Successful Major Organ formation is a huge factor in viability of the fetus. Before that all kinds of problems can occur.
I've seen babies formed without brains, without lungs, without necessary viable Life Sustaining organs. If that is the case, then by the time the heart is formed and beating, with today's technology, you can be pretty sure if it's going well or not.
When I say "viability" I don't mean as in taking the baby OUT of the mother then, but as in it being a successful pregnancy.
When that heart starts beating the body of the baby starts to function, it's a Human Being.
posted
I don't know much about in vitro...but as others have mentioned, I thought that doctors try to implant them, but sometimes they simply don't take. So it is not the doctor who kills the embryo...but simply the fact that it did not implant (like a miscarage).
I don't mind birth control, is it prevents a life from forming...it does not take a life.
If birth control fails, there is always adoption.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know much about in vitro...but as others have mentioned, I thought that doctors try to implant them, but sometimes they simply don't take. So it is not the doctor who kills the embryo...but simply the fact that it did not implant (like a miscarage).
About 400,000 currently in storage, estimated. Most couples choose not to donate extra embryos to strangers after they have brought a child to birth, regardless of whether that was what they initially intended when they allowed those embryos to be created.
It costs $500 a year per embryo to maintain it in cryopreservation. The likelihood of a successful gestation decreases with passing years, although it looks like some are still viable at 10 years. The likelihood of mutations and other damage does increase with passing time.
When clinics dispose of these embryos (they are reluctant to do so without the couple's express approval, BTW, although maintaining them is expensive -- see above), they are often defrosted and allowed to grow through cell division for a day or so until they "die." Sometimes there are small ceremonies by the staff.
[ November 04, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am generally against abortion, and consider it wrong.
I am extremely uncomfortable with the morning-after pill. I'm uncomfortable enough that I refuse to use certain birth control methods that might do the same thing by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching.
But even though I am uncomfortable with it, I haven't decided I think it's wrong in general. I just don't know.
I have far less problem with the process of invitro fertilization, but am not sure why.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an idea why it might be different for you....or for some people at least...
In-vitro is for people who WANT life for their child but haven't been able to achieve it otherwise, where abortion is deliberate removal of life form the fetus for personal reasons.
Not that personal = uni,portant, as pointed out in other threads, it just means private. Some people have them for selfish reasons, some for other reasons, but one way or another the reasons for having an abortion usually remain privte.
In-vitro fertilization is costly and time consuming, but there is one reason to have it....creation of a new life that otherwise might not be possible. What happens to those surplus fetuses isn't ideal, but isn't much different from what happens in nature...they fail to develop.
posted
Good point. One shows a love for and a desire for life. The other... Well, the other doesn't do that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: When that heart starts beating the body of the baby starts to function, it's a Human Being. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of curiousity, when in the development of the baby does this occur? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I remember correctally it happens within the second trimester, somewhere in the middle of it. It varies quite a bit from pregnancy to pregnancy though.
posted
But it is still murder on the grounds of life at conception. Or at least manslaughter, no? Like when someone is unintentionally killed, but someone else is still repsonsible for the action that caused the death, even if that wasn't the direct intent?
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you responding to me? I never said that I believe that human life begins at conception. I think it probably doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, mph! (Really seriously) This is a tight topic, and I should be more careful about phrasing stuff.
I was addressing it to Kwea, and not as a challenge but more a puzzling through of things. I should have been more careful in being clear that it wasn't a challenge to him, too. (Kwea, I'll clarify in the morning, I promise. My hubby is already waiting in bed, though, and I have a vested interest in marital stability right now. Plus, he offered a backrub.)
I "get" your position, mph, FWIW. Of course, again, I don't hold those I "don't get yet" to be evil, silly or wrong -- I just can't get my head around a piece of it that is -- for me -- cognitive dissonance. No worries! Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: About 400,000 currently in storage, estimated. Most couples choose not to donate extra embryos to strangers after they have brought a child to birth, regardless of whether that was what they initially intended when they allowed those embryos to be created.
So they would rather they be killed than let someone else raise them? This just doesn't make any sense to me at all. To answer your question, I would consider this to be morally wrong.
quote: I should have been more careful in being clear that it wasn't a challenge to him, too
Don't worry about it, Sara...the only way I could take offense from you questions here is if I was looking for a reason...and I am not.
If you believe in life from conception, yes...the end result would be the same, but the intent makes all the difference....at least in Christianity it does.
Also, a lot of religions started off very much against any type of scientific reproductive techniques. However, even most of those organizations have bowed to public pressure and admitted that intent matters, and that many embryos die in the regular course of life.
If you have to decide which child to save in a womb because you can't possibly carry both to term, it is a horrible situation, but not a mortal sin. It is just the way things are...not a perfect situation, but a real life one that happens often. You choose the one that looks the healthiest and do what you have to do.
However, if you have a chance to save both and don't save either one of them, then it is different...or if you kill both because having them doesn't fit into your current lifestyle....
See the difference? It is all in the differences in the shades of gray, not just in black and white.
In order to help create life doctors have to keep options open, and so create more fetuses than necessary (in most cases)....but they are trying to create life, not extinguish life that previously existed before they became involved.
None of this is really what I personally believe, although I have had these thoughts before... ...
There are as many answers to these questions as there are people that face these situations every day, and I am not sure there is one right answer for each and every situation.
posted
When Kristine and I were going through fertility treatments, we had decided not to continue if artificial insemination didn't work. The cost was much greater and there was that whole moral question. We weren't sure what we would do if faced with the question of any remaining embryos. If we hadn't had Ryan on the last in-utero attempt, maybe we would have rethought things. I don't know. If I had known then what I know now about having a child, I can't imagine how I wouldn't have done everything in my power to get him.
It's my understanding that some doctors collect and inseminate as many eggs as possible to provide the greatest number of viable embryos. Our doctor was also concerned with the moral implications and would only inseminate as many eggs as he thought necessary to provide that one or two viable embryos. He told us that sometimes, more embryos than expected took and the question was still there. Sometimes, unfortunately, none of them took and the couple had to try again just to get the embryos. He was good, though, and his clinic has one of the highest success rates in the country.
To answer the question, I do have a problem with destroying remaining embryos. Although I understand that intent matters, it still doesn't seem much different than abortion to me. If we had gone down that path, I would have wanted to give any remaining embryos to another couple. It would have seemed strange knowing that I had another child out there that I would never know, but the alternative wouldn't be acceptable.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a little confused as to why fertility doctors could not take multiple eggs, fertilize them one at a time, and attempt to implant them one at a time. It would presumably take longer, but I can't see any other reason why it would be less successful. If it is known that single eggs are less likely to implant, then I will retract that one; I have not heard that.
I am not inherently opposed to fertility treatment, although it seems to me that with present world population standing above six billion it is not a great idea. Though I understand that many people want children, surely at some point the greater good should come into play.
So, to state it right out--yes, I think that in vitro fertilization, as currently practiced, is not right. In fact, I wrote to religioustolerance.org about it (they wanted to know why pro-life activists had so little to say about it). So far, as far as I know they have not added anything on the subject but their site is very large and I have not been there lately.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'll work on processing this today. Thanks so much for the heartfelt responses. I want to do them justice by additional active reading -- you've given me something to chew on.
Mabus, especially:
quote: In fact, I wrote to religioustolerance.org about it (they wanted to know why pro-life activists had so little to say about it). So far, as far as I know they have not added anything on the subject but their site is very large and I have not been there lately.
Really? This question is getting asked in the broader world? That's awesome. I hope they address it with an accurate representation of what they heard back.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara probably can answer that Mabus, but I thought each time an egg was frozen and thawed, there was a chance it would be damaged.
quote:I am not inherently opposed to fertility treatment, although it seems to me that with present world population standing above six billion it is not a great idea. Though I understand that many people want children, surely at some point the greater good should come into play.
If you still believe that when you're told you can't have a child through the fun way, let me know.
quote: Am I clear in my understanding that those who oppose abortion for moral reasons, up to and including the morning-after pill, are equally opposed to the creation of embryos for in vitro fertilization, unless those embryos are also guaranteed to be gestated?
Not okay with either, either. Unless those embryos are guaranteed to be gestated!
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: (I am trying to get it, I promise. I won't hound ya, cross my heart. [Smile]
Sara -- I don't think it is YOU that some are afraid of being hounded by. That is why some who probably could comment on your original question choose to stay out of this thread. You personally have no control over who posts in it, thus it could become a flame war beyond your control.
posted
Oh, Farmgirl, I have no issues with using the big delete button. *grin
I'll add a disclaimer at the top to this effect.
Emails are appreciated, too. I'm pretty good with the confidentiality thing. On the other hand, I also promise not to assume anything about those that don't feel inclined to tell me personal stuff. Not my style.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re heartbeat detection, this study seems to be saying that it's about 6 weeks:
quote:A gestational sac could be identified at 5 weeks' gestation; embryo heartbeat was imaged when the mean gestational sac diameter measured 2 cm, and embryo body movements could be seen when the mean gestational sac diameter reached 3 cm. In the present study, embryo heartbeat was identifiable after 6 weeks and 4 days with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 93.1%, positive predictive value of 96.9%, and negative predictive value of 100%. The embryo body movements, which were absent before 7 weeks' gestation, were observed after 8 weeks' gestation with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 92.8%, positive predictive value of 94.3%, and negative predictive value of 100%. With identification by transvaginal sonographic evaluation, the following can serve as markers of normal embryo growth: a mean gestational sac diameter greater than 2 cm in the presence of the embryo heartbeat, or a mean sac diameter measurement greater than 3 cm in the presence of embryo movement.
I'm not totally secure in my interpretation of the language, but I think this says heartbeat at 6 weeks 4 days, movement after 8 weeks. Both are in the first trimester, right?
posted
Here's what I sent. I entered the discussion openly and it would be disingenuous to hide now. Also, learning the flaws in one's own reasoning isn't the worst thing that can happen.
Sara, Like I said before, this is a tough one on the fertilized eggs and what to do with those that are not used. First, I think we need to separate it from the Morning After Pill and other forms of birth control. Something about it just makes me think that it is apples and oranges... both fruit, but different in nature. So, let's toss RU486 out. (BTW, I always thought that was an odd choice for a name for the Morning After Pill... I read it as Are You For 86 -- and to 86 something in the restaurant business is to tell the wait staff that something on the menu is no longer available... seemed slightly ironic and sinister to me).
Okay, on to my thoughts. I'll preface this by saying a couple of things. My fledgling religious beliefs will affect my views on this, they are as much a part of me as my right arm, I cannot and will not separate myself from them. And this is why I am answering by e-mail rather than by posting on the forum. To be honest, I fear, slightly, having to get into some extended argument with some over the most miniscule aspects of my faith and my poor human abilities to articulate them fully. Also, in the same vein, while I do have immense respect for you, I did feel, however slightly, that there was a chance that this was going to be a tripwire question that could explode a bit of a flamewar. Secondly, I have no degree in philosophy. I have no degree in the sciences. On the religious front, I'm only on my second trip through the Bible, and my attendance at church has been spotty, but is getting better. I have no expertise and honestly, little experience. Take what I say with a grain of salt, for I only know what I feel and what I have been able to sit down and reason out. Okay, on to the question at hand.
400,000+ embryos that are unlikely to be used and what should we do with them? Will destroying them be murder if abortion is?
First off, that's a huge overstock of embryos. They need to look at their policies to see if they are, by policy, creating more viable embryos than is necessary to accomplish most fertilizations. Seems like their success rates are good, but they have really been hedging their bets... I wish that some could be turned over to impoverished, infertile couples who are unable to afford the initial steps for in vitro, sort of adopt an embryo. But that's only going to be a drop in the bucket.
So... the moral dilemma continues. I had a similar dilemma over the idea of human cloning, that humans could create a form of life without the help of God, but then I realized that God puts the souls into people and that by cloning, we are only creating vessels. To think we would create a soul, an individual, would be like the jar manufacturer claiming that it had made the jelly in the jar... Sorry, rambling there, back on subject.
Your medical knowledge is encyclopedic while mine is of the hydrogen peroxide and band-aids variety. But if I understand correctly, these embryos are right at the moment of conception, basically just fertilized eggs, frozen and suspended in time before very much cellular development begins. They are at a state that in nature is at the very beginning and most tenuous point in development. From what my wife and I learned, at this stage in natural conception, a very large percentage of these embryos become non-viable for a variety of very normal reasons -- they don't nestle against the wall of the womb, or the pH levels aren't perfect, or some slight genetic defect causes them to abort. That sounds like it is simple to say, well, then they aren't necessarily viable then, but we must remember that at one point in each of our lives, we were one of those embryos waiting on the roll of the dice.
An egg and sperm separate are the components for a new life. A fertilized egg is a potential life. An early fetus developing in the womb is a probable life. A child finishing its term in the womb is an inevitable life. The further along the line we go, the easier it is to determine if abortion is murder. I've always been most comfortable setting the dividing line between the fertilized egg stage and the fetal development. I wish I could say there was some magical moment that I knew for sure, some sign like finger and toe development, but I really can't.
That sounds so simplistic and rough around the edges, but I believe that's really the best I can do with it at this time. I'm just one of God's uglier little kids, making mudpies and thinking I'm a genius. There are so many people much smarter than I, and even more who are wiser. There are definitely droves of folks more educated. So, like I said, please don't read too much into my reasoning. The flaws there are probably catastrophic.
posted
I haven't checked the link, but that sounds about right, Dag. Seems like there were no false negatives (100% sensitivity) but a few false positives (92.8% specificity).
For what it's worth, most abortions in 2000 were before there was a heartbeat in the embryo. This was a slim majority -- 57% -- but a majority nonethelesss. At that time, the embryo and its surrounding fluid and all encasing tissue layers measured 2 cm or less.
quote:In 2000, for women whose weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported, 57% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at [less than]8 weeks of gestation, and 87% at [less than]13 weeks (Table 6). Overall, 23% of abortions were known to have been performed at [less than]6 weeks of gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 17% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks of gestation; 4.3% were at 16--20 weeks, and 1.4% were at [less than]21 weeks. --CDC Abortion Surveillance Information for the US in 2000 [I had to substitute "<" with "less than" for html reasons]
I cite this not to make any point other than for those of us for whom heartbeat is a demarcation, this might be encouraging, and it might offer an area of possible coalition. It is also useful and accurate information for anyone involved. The CDC gathers this information yearly (all legal abortions must be reported), and I think 2000 is the most recent online published data.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed it would be awesome, Sara. Unfortunately it seems that what is going on is more along the lines that it is not being discussed (much) in the larger world and a relatively small number of people, mostly pro-choice, are puzzled by it.
Actually, Zgator, I have been told that (though not by any government, just my religion), and I have accepted it without much trouble. (When, or rather if, I ever get married, I will be allowed--but I do not know if that day will ever come.) But all I am saying is that we are having more than enough children by purely natural means and there is no good reason to help matters along with technology, unless one counts personal desires.
posted
Thanks, Sopwith. I'll save it and reread it when I am able to concentrate better. I really appreciate it! (Right now I'm smelling poo everywhere, secondary to a sinus infection, and my voice sounds like Marlene Dietrich. Dave thinks it's rather attractive (the voice, not the "I smell poo everywhere" issue), but I am currently desirous of a fluffy novel and warm blankies. Owie. Too much for me. But I'll watch the thread for flaming, no fear. )
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My personal belief (and I don't even know if my church/religion holds this same belief -- I have never asked them) is to me, a child is created as soon as the egg is fertilized.
So I guess I do have a problem with in-vitro, in as much as I do consider each fertilized egg to be a child.
Whether or not my views would be different if I was barren and trying to have a child and desparately wanting one, I don't know. That is a possibility.
I personally have often thought about the mental dilemma I would have in an ectopic pregnancy. The egg is fertilized, it is a viable fetus - yet it can kill both the mother and child if not removed. Fortunately, I have never had to make that decision, but I have often wondered WHAT I would do in that situation.
And since, at the time of the Bible, they did not address the day that man would have the ability to mix sperm and eggs in a test tube, I guess there are lots of different interpretations.
posted
Mabus, personal desires count for a great deal. I do understand what you're saying, but if overpopulation is a consideration, why are we fighting to save the lives of those with heart problems, cancer, what have you? If nature should run it's course with regards to having babies, why not let it run it's course with regards to disease?
Sopwith, I'm glad you decided to post that.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
]]]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
, the pill has many uses, ad almost 1/3 of the women on it are taking it for non-birth control reasons.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I "get" your position, for what it is worth.]![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
