posted
Javert, Great article, thanks for posting it. I hope everyone reads it. It sums it up nicely with the fire extinguisher analogy.
Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you take the pill right after the condom breaks, it works better than if you take it a day later. So, getting a prescription takes time and increases your chance of getting pregnant. I also have trouble getting upset over fertilized eggs that early not implanting. Some drs estimate as many as 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant. Implanting is not a guaranteed thing.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whew, I had a whole post typed out, but I'm way behind by now.
quote:Right; I objected to your attitude and phraseology, which suggested a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.
Just wanted to say I didn't mean to have an "attitude" that was objectionable. I'm learning a lot from this thread. I can understanding why my "phraseology" (or perhaps my analogy) might be objectionable. It's just that I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that planning ahead would be more difficult than trying to fix things after. Or that something as serious and needing of consideration as this should be treated like a headache or sniffles, with a pill you can take over the counter to get rid of it.
We get the behavior we encourage. I know realistically we're not going to encourage more "risky behavior" with the availability of this pill, but we're certainly not going to discourage it. I just want to encourage people thinking and taking consideration of their behavior and their choices, especially in an area so important as procreation.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" It's just that I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that planning ahead would be more difficult than trying to fix things after."
Its more difficult to plan ahead for many things, then to fix them afterwards. You can't REALLY plan ahead for dropping a glass when setting the table, but its pretty easy to clean up the shards afterwards. People spend years planning how to get their children into great colleges. Then the kids that don't go to great colleges go to good colleges. There's not much difference between the university of wisconsin, and harvard, educationally. Yeah, you won't make the connections at UW as you will at harvard. But its a pretty good fix for not getting into harvard or yale or princeton. People spend a year planning their wedding, and then if something goes wrong still enjoy the day. Etc.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't thank me, thank Dr. Drew. He may have been in a really bad Olson Twins movie, but he's still pretty smart.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The American Medical Women’s Association likens it to keeping a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. Does the presence of a fire extinguisher mean you’re going to torch your food? No, of course you’re not planning to have a fire, but if you do, you’re grateful that the extinguisher is there.
Most teenagers don't feel the desire to set their kitchens on fire-- in a safe, convenient, and fun manner.
It's a poor analogy. Sex is desirable; fire in the kitchen, less so.
quote:This makes me think the issue isn't about personal choice/rights at all, so much as making it so that birth control is not available, and that giving people who don't want to sell it their choice, but denying those who do want to sell it, is a means to this end.
Yes, yes. And for my next trick, I shall revoke women's rights to vote and hold property. Fear me, I am the PATRONIZER!
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's a poor analogy. Sex is desirable; fire in the kitchen, less so.
You're not likening the two properly. Sex and good food: both pleasurable. Accidental pregnancy, fire in the ketchen: both bad. Fire extinguisher and Plan B: quick resolutions.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenna, I was in a conversation with some friends of mine once, all LDS now, most of whom had grown up LDS. We got to talking and it turned out that 7 out of the 10 of us had been date-raped or someone had tried to at least once. Obviously that's not representative. But if there's a form of birth control that you can use after the fact to possibly stop implantation if you are date raped (after which many girls are too ashamed to tell their parents or anyone else what happened), shouldn't it be available? And not just to 18 year olds, but to all teenage girls it might happen to? That's my view on it. I mean, ideally, you get to a doctor that night or maybe the next day, get tested for VD, get the pill. But what if you don't? And many teenage girls just don't.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Jenna, I was in a conversation with some friends of mine once, all LDS now, most of whom had grown up LDS. We got to talking and it turned out that 7 out of the 10 of us had been date-raped or someone had tried to at least once. Obviously that's not representative. But if there's a form of birth control that you can use after the fact to possibly stop implantation if you are date raped (after which many girls are too ashamed to tell their parents or anyone else what happened), shouldn't it be available? And not just to 18 year olds, but to all teenage girls it might happen to? That's my view on it. I mean, ideally, you get to a doctor that night or maybe the next day, get tested for VD, get the pill. But what if you don't? And many teenage girls just don't.
Ultimately it comes down to: do you want to pander to the lowest common denominator? And if so, which side is the lowest common denominator?
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the fire extinguisher analagy works that well. After the morning after pill, you have to have a heavy period, probably only like 2 weeks since you had the last one. Perhaps better than being pregnant for most women, but still, quite the deterent. It's like the fire extinguisher causes pain and misery when used. No way are woman going to be using it as primary birth control method. Also, too expensive for that.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have never heard of these things being a necessity in all cases to get the morning after pill. I am open to the idea that I am wrong. So, if anyone else has any views on how hard it is to get the morning after pill in their area, I'd like to hear it.
If you can get to a Planned Parenthood, it's fairly easy, though they do give you a pregnancy test. If Planned Parenthood is closed, it's really not so easy. You have to go to the emergency room, where they perform a whole lot of tests and an exam. Happened to one of my friends a year ago. She and her boyfriend had sex on a Friday night, and the condom broke. So if you need a Plan B prescription on a weekend, it's difficult.
posted
Scholar, agreed, it shouldn't be used as primary birth control.
Now, just to play with the analogy, have you ever fired off a fire extinguisher in a small room? That chemical stuff gets EVERYWHERE, and is certainly not fun to breath or clean up.
This is just arguing semantics, of course...the fire extinguisher analogy isn't perfect, but it's probably the best one we have at the moment.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ultimately it comes down to: do you want to pander to the lowest common denominator? And if so, which side is the lowest common denominator?
Are you implying that rape victims are the lowest common denominator? I'm determined not to argue about this, I'm just curious.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I have never heard of these things being a necessity in all cases to get the morning after pill. I am open to the idea that I am wrong. So, if anyone else has any views on how hard it is to get the morning after pill in their area, I'd like to hear it.
I deliberately specified that it was not applicable in all cases; I am not disputing that it can be easy to obtain a day after pill by prescription, I am disputing that always (or even mostly, or even half the time) is, which is what you seemed to be implying.
quote:That would be why I asked you the question.
I am glad that the morning after pill is more easily available.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Just doing a little poking around on the web, and it seems like the morning-after pill is something where how hard it is to get is strongly dependent on who is dispensing it and where you live? Hmmm.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you implying that rape victims are the lowest common denominator? I'm determined not to argue about this, I'm just curious.
quote:Who do you mean when you're talking about the lcd? I'm confused.
If you believe that life begins at conception, you ultimately have to decide which group you will disenfranchise when making a moral decision about the legality and availability of the day-after pill.
By advocating against the pill, you are advocating against rape victims by saying their needs matter less. By advocating for the pill, you are advocating in favor of the rape victims, saying their needs matter more.
Edit to add:
By advocating against the pill, you are advocating in favor of the unborn babies created at conception. By advocating for the pill, you are advocating against the unborn babies created at conception.
Assuming, of course, that you agree conception is (even periodically) being allowed to take place despite the use of the day-after pill.
That's all I meant.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you believe that life begins at conception, you ultimately have to decide which group you will disenfranchise when making a moral decision about the legality and availability of the day-after pill.
What do you mean by "conception"? "Conception" could mean "fertilization" or it could mean "implantation"-- personally, I'm in favor of the latter if you're going to make the "life begins at conception" argument (which I'm not sure whether I agree with or not, but that's another matter), because so many fertilized eggs just don't implant. It doesn't make sense to me that every single fertilized egg is a real live baby already.
I'm assuming by "conception" you mean "fertilization", though. But in any case, the pill, if taken very quickly, can also prevent fertilization. So unless you're arguing that sperm is also a bunch of real live babies, I'm not sure that's an accurate point.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand how you can say, on the one hand, that a person's beliefs should be honored to not sell, but on the other hand, a person's belief's should not be honored when they wish to sell birth control. This makes me think the issue isn't about personal choice/rights at all, so much as making it so that birth control is not available, and that giving people who don't want to sell it their choice, but denying those who do want to sell it, is a means to this end.
1.) Many people, and the law in general, see forcing someone to do something to be a far greater imposition on personal autonomy than prohibiting something. And yes, I'm aware many things can be couched as both a requirement and a prohibition, but in the case of forced sale of something, the distinction is clear.
2.) There is a distinction between the morning after pill and hormonal birth control with respect to prevention of implantation. With the former, there was, presumably, nothing preventing ovulation from occurring, either due to omission or failure of the method. With the latter, there was something preventing ovulation. Therefore the chances of an egg being present and fertilized are far greater in the case of the morning after pill.
3.) Did Scott advocate banning hormonal birth control or merely the morning after pill? If he did, I didn't see it, but I haven't read closely enough to be sure.
4.) There are many advocating for a right of conscience for pharmacists and not advocating to keep plan B prescription.
5.) Perhaps you missed Scott's implication that your accusation of dishonesty is, well, patronizing. It's not clear Scott intended to help you understand your conclusion to be wrong so much as to chide you for implying dishonesty in the discussion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, as for your #2, the morning after pill PRIMARILY works by preventing ovulation, not preventing implantation. It's my understanding that the actual window of fertility is pretty small, so the morning after pill helps to push that window away from the time of unprotected sex.
I was about to write my own opinion on that subject, and since he already has responses I'll go ahead. If a person is on birth control every month and then has unprotected sex while on birth control, most likely no egg was going to get released because the birth control has been the there all week. But if you aren't on birth control, and you take the morning after pill, it can only prevent the egg from being released if it hasn't already been released. If it just got released right before Plan B, or in the first hour or two, then the egg could still be fertilized and the implantation prevented. A person on birth control will not have that released egg except very rarely. So yes, the chance of a fertilized egg being created then destroyed is much higher with Plan B than with birth control.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1.) Many people, and the law in general, see forcing someone to do something to be a far greater imposition on personal autonomy than prohibiting something. And yes, I'm aware many things can be couched as both a requirement and a prohibition, but in the case of forced sale of something, the distinction is clear.
If you're saying that not letting birth control be sold is less of an imposition than forcing someone to sell birth control, or the morning after pill, the distinction's not clear to me from a general point of view. Sorry. That is, some people are going to see not being allowed to sell birth control/morning after pill as much more of an imposition than being forced to sell it, and vice versa.
quote: 2.) There is a distinction between the morning after pill and hormonal birth control with respect to prevention of implantation. With the former, there was, presumably, nothing preventing ovulation from occurring, either due to omission or failure of the method. With the latter, there was something preventing ovulation. Therefore the chances of an egg being present and fertilized are far greater in the case of the morning after pill.
I see that now that you point it out. Didn't occur to me before.
quote: 3.) Did Scott advocate banning hormonal birth control or merely the morning after pill? If he did, I didn't see it, but I haven't read closely enough to be sure.
Just the morning after pill. With your point number two above, I see the error in how I expressed myself, that I wasn't clear (see below).
quote: 4.) There are many advocating for a right of conscience for pharmacists and not advocating to keep plan B prescription.
I know. What I was trying to say was that it doesn't make sense to me how you can say a person is advocating for a 'right of conscience for pharmacists', when a person doesn't advocate for pharmacists to sell the morning after pill, if that is what their conscience dictates.
quote: 5.) Perhaps you missed Scott's implication that your accusation of dishonesty is, well, patronizing. It's not clear Scott intended to help you understand your conclusion to be wrong so much as to chide you for implying dishonesty in the discussion.
I didn't mean to imply dishonesty at all. I genuinely had no idea where Scott was coming from or why he was angry.
Frequently in conversations on this and other forums, it becomes clear that the words we choose, or positions we seem to take with the words we choose, are not entirely consistent with a principle we hold or think we hold. Often, it is not clear to another person how this principle is working itself out within another context. Sometimes people misunderstand what the other person is saying.
Scott never made the point in this thread for a right of conscience for pharmacists, however this point does seem to me to bear upon this thread, and I just happened to think of it when reading Scott's post and just kind of muddled it in with what he was saying. That's all. I wasn't trying to imply that Scott was being dishonest, I was just confused as to how the two viewpoints (the right of conscience to not sell/sell birth control versus selling otc maf pills) could reconcile themselves. From your point number two above, I can see how from a certain perspective, they do.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:" Therefore the chances of an egg being present and fertilized are far greater in the case of the morning after pill." I'm not sure this is right at all.
How is it not right?
In the time between sex and the morning after pill, an egg might be fertilized, right?
If what everyone is saying about hormonal birth control is accurate, the pill prevents fertilization as its primary method of control, meaning that the up-to-72-hour window for fertilization that exists with plan b simply doesn't exist with the pill.
quote:Dag, as for your #2, the morning after pill PRIMARILY works by preventing ovulation, not preventing implantation. It's my understanding that the actual window of fertility is pretty small, so the morning after pill helps to push that window away from the time of unprotected sex.
The point is that either plan B does nothing to prevent pregnancy after fertilization or it has a greater chance of preventing implantation than the regular pill, because the pill certainly reduces the chance of fertilization.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you're saying that not letting birth control be sold is less of an imposition than forcing someone to sell birth control, or the morning after pill, the distinction's not clear to me from a general point of view. Sorry. That is, some people are going to see not being allowed to sell birth control/morning after pill as much more of an imposition than being forced to sell it, and vice versa.
It is almost a foundational tenet of our legal system that the law is more likely to prohibit an action than to require an action. For example, I can legally walk by a drowning baby who is not in my care and not pull the baby out of the water, even if there is no risk to me, simply because the law creates no general duty of rescue.
Many people see the distinction between saying, "You must do X" and "You may not do Y."
I'm not trying to convince you that there is a distinction. I haven't given any reason as to why I think this to be so. I'm merely pointing out that there are many people who do think so. The general principle that prohibition is less onerous than mandating is likely a majority view among legal scholars.
All that's required is that you recognize this belief exists, and exists strongly, to see why one might hold the two views you described without it meaning that "the issue isn't about personal choice/rights at all, so much as making it so that birth control is not available."
quote:That's all. I wasn't trying to imply that Scott was being dishonest, I was just confused as to how the two viewpoints (the right of conscience to not sell/sell birth control versus selling otc maf pills) could reconcile themselves.
I see. I misinterpreted your statement, then. I'm sorry.
As of now, I don't think there's enough evidence on implantation effects that I advocate for banning plan B or hormonal birth control. #2 makes it more likely that I would advocate to ban plan B if such information became available.
But the reason I wholeheartedly support a conscience clause (at the employers' discretion) is because of #1, regardless of my opinion on the specific drugs themselves.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, I'm confused by your response - moreso your first than your second. You stated that you thought this ("Therefore the chances of an egg being present and fertilized are far greater in the case of the morning after pill") might not be true. Without going into the rest of the argument, how is this sentence not true?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you mean by "conception"? "Conception" could mean "fertilization" or it could mean "implantation"-- personally, I'm in favor of the latter if you're going to make the "life begins at conception" argument (which I'm not sure whether I agree with or not, but that's another matter), because so many fertilized eggs just don't implant. It doesn't make sense to me that every single fertilized egg is a real live baby already.
I'm assuming by "conception" you mean "fertilization", though. But in any case, the pill, if taken very quickly, can also prevent fertilization. So unless you're arguing that sperm is also a bunch of real live babies, I'm not sure that's an accurate point.
I remember reading about the morning-after pill issue on Dr. B's blog, and in the comments thread this issue was addressed. Apparently (according to the people on the thread; I'm certainly not a doctor) it takes quite a while for the sperm to actually reach the egg and fertilize it. In the meantime, the morning-after pill prevents fertilization. There were several studies examining the effects of the morning-after pill later on after intercourse, and they showed that the morning-after pill is not effective at preventing implantation for an already-fertilized egg. The warning on the bottles and in information about it is a medical disclaimer so that they can't get in trouble in case new studies show that it does in fact prevent implantation of fertilized eggs; it uses "may" in the way scientists tend to, as in "we have no evidence that it does and a bunch that it doesn't, but of course we're not 100% positive." The way that the general public uses may implies a higher probability, which is where the confusion comes from. (Like people misunderstanding the use of the word "theory" in the theory of evolution through natural selection.) It's like people being ultra-careful to use "seems like" and "apparently" and "I'm not an expert, but..." online.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
1. I read, I think on a link in this thread, that Plan be can be taken up to three days after unplanned sex, exactly how long after intercourse does semen remain in the body? I mean, how long after sex can a woman still no be pregnant, but still can get pregnant?
2. How long after fertilization does implantation occur?
3. What studies/tests are there that I can read that actually say that Plan B causes fertilized eggs not to be implanted?
(Been a long time since I took a health class)
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plan B becomes less and less effective the lonager you wait to take it, remember. I seem to remember my health class saying that sperm could stay alive for like a week, but I don't know if that's true.
posted
I was thinking sperm lived in the female body for well over a day, but I couldn't remember exactly. This page is interesting. It says sperm can live 48 hours in the best of conditions.
posted
Back to the rape issue...I don't really like that we are making it easier for rape victims to not report their crimes. Darn it, I want those crimes reported so the justice system can go after the rapists. One of the things that encouraged women to come forward and go to the hospital was so they could get morning after treatments and such to help prevent pregnancy and get checked for STD's.
Now we've made it even easier to "hide" the fact that you've been raped by getting the morning after pill over the counter. I can't help but think that will lead to more rapes going unreported and I can't believe that's a good thing.
I also am not sure about the idea of minors getting the pills (yes I know they're not supposed to but we all know how easy it is for minors to get someone to buy them booze and cigarettes, let's face it - a 15 year old is going to be able to get her hands on this) and taking them without the supervision of a physician.
Has this been adequately tested in minors? Are we sure it's safe for young teens? Heck, not even teens, are we sure it's safe for 10 and 11 year olds? My husband has delivered a baby to a nine year old mother before, so we could be talking about very young girls.
I don't know, I just don't like the idea of it being so easily available. Although I'm staunchly pro-life, I don't have a problem with birth control methods that prevent fertilization and since that's the primary way this regimen works, I'm not against it being available at all, I'm just not happy about the over the counter status.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Your #5 isn't quite right; I wasn't implying Storm was being patronizing. I was using sarcasm and hyperbole to convey the ridiculousness of Storm Saxon's assertions.
quote: This makes me think the issue isn't about personal choice/rights at all, so much as making it so that birth control is not available, and that giving people who don't want to sell it their choice, but denying those who do want to sell it, is a means to this end.
At the time that this statement was made, only two (or three) people in this thread had offered objections to the Plan B pill. Both of those objections were specifically framed in language that made the reasons for the objections very clear. Storm Saxon chose an alternative explanation that seems to fit HIS preconceptions of why people object to this pill; reasons that had nothing to do with those given.
Instead of addressing the concerns raised by opponents of the pill, he chose to call them liars instead.
While I'm not convinced that the closed-minded attitude portrayed by OSC's leftists guerrilitas is the norm, this conversation is CERTAINLY a prime example of what he often talks about. Storm Saxon maligned opposers of this pill, not on any objections they'd made on this thread, but on his own concepts and prejudices about them.
quote:Barr plans studies to back non-prescription use by a broader age group, said company spokeswoman Carol Cox.
Paul Goldner, this would seem to indicate that those studies do not presently exist, which is why I raised the question. If the studies do already exist, then why would the company be planning to initiate studies on younger age groups?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He added that information about mid-adolescents cannot be used to extrapolate how younger girls would act. In addition, he said there was insufficient information that young teenagers would use the product correctly without the help of health care providers or parents.
I happen to agree with Galson, and nothing in that article reassures me that this is not the case. I don't trust my 13 year old to take medication without my or a doctor's advise, I certainly wouldn't want my 10 or 11 year old child responsible for it.
A 10 year old is not the same as a 21 year old, even if she is sexually mature and menstruating. Now, of course, a 10 year old isn't old enough for consensual sexual activity in my opinion, so I reiterate my concerns that making this type of thing more readily available decreases the likelihood that abuses or rapes of young girls will be reported. And no, I can't prove that is the case, it's just my opinion, but it's one of the reasons I can't be fully behind this, even though I have no religious or philosophical objections to morning after pills in general. I think they should be available, they just should be prescription-only.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was incorrect about the Pill being available OTC in the US. I thought that had finally happened about a year ago, but it was fought down (again) based primarily on objections that women might use it instead of Plan B. So maybe now that Plan B has been made OTC, the Pill can be as well.
Also, it is almost certainly true that the odds of affects on a fertilized egg are higher than with regular BC (because of opportunity, as Dags mentioned). However, the odds (as best as anyone has been able to figure) are still EXTREMELY low. Fertilization does not occur until HOURS after intercourse -- most estimates I have seen say up to 12 hours. (Considering that the majority of fertilized eggs never implant (someone said 50% above, but most of the estimates I've seen are more like 60-80%) even without any chemical interference, it is probably impossible to prove the odds one way or the other.)
And sperm's lifetime is generally considered to be 3-5 days (or at least, that's what my doctor and all the books said when I was researching infertility a dozen years back) . . . the precise time period Plan B is considered to be potentially effective during. IOW, Plan B works by preventing ovulation from occurring during the 3-5 days that the swimmers stick around.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's actually the same medication, in a higher dosage. One of the sites I found gave instructions on how to use various different brands of birth control pills as a substitute for Plan B, by taking a larger dose.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
