Posted on 05/28/2007 2:29:12 PM PDT by wagglebee
TORONTO, May 28, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a recent article in Fertility and Sterility R.T. Mikolajczyk and J.B. Stanford proposed a model experiment that estimated the effectiveness of the disruption of ovulation by Levonorgestrel used as an "emergency contraceptive," based on the prevention of fertilization.
They also demonstrated what was termed the "effectiveness" of levonorgestrel with or without "mechanisms acting after fertilization." If disruption of ovulation were the only significant mechanism of action of levonorgestrel, its "effectiveness" could not be much more than 50% if given immediately after intercourse. With delays in its administration, it would be substantially less.
This finding contrasts sharply with "effectiveness" rates reported in clinical trials, where rates as high as 95% are reported if administered within 24 hours after intercourse.
The authors suggest that mechanisms other than disruption of ovulation contribute to this "reduction of clinical pregnancy." Those mechanisms were said to include inhibition of sperm migration and reduction of sperm capacity for fertilization (both contraceptive mechanisms) and "mechanisms that act after fertilization," that is, prevent implantation of the embryo in the uterus.
That mechanism causes an abortion and does not "reduce clinical pregnancy." Only numbers can be reduced. The pregnancies are aborted, not reduced.
The word "effectiveness" is used by the authors in an ambiguous way. One meaning refers to disruption of ovulation, contraception, and the other refers to reduction in fecundity, but does not indicate whether this was the result of contraception, abortion, or both. This study does, however, provide strong evidence that levonorgestrel administered as an "emergency contraceptive" may act as an abortifacient.
The abstract can be found at:
http://www.fertstert.org/article/PIIS0015028206047327/abstra...
Which doesn't actually bother the proponents of Plan B at all, they just can't admit it publicly.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I agree. They just try to act like they care about that.
As if we didn’t know. They could care less. Wait till they find out the new non-monthly pill is more of the same.
When will women wake up?
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Duh.
M,
You may be interested in this link:
http://www.fertstert.org/article/PIIS0015028206047327/abstra...
if you click on “RELATED ARTICLES” in the box at right it has more of same.
.
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
All the BS about it not being an abortifacient was an attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes.
Are there any pills which lower androgens without being abortifacients?
Actually, conception doesn’t occur for about four days. But the trick is once the sperm and the egg are both present in the same location, and in no contact with the woman’s body, how does one prevent them from coming together?
Yes, by the way, I worded the question properly. I am not asking the question that some people may presume I am asking.
Thanks for the ping!
That does, and even some standard birth control can act as an abortaficient. Some use the idea that the ACOG defines pregnancy as beginning AFTER IMPLANTATION. However, LIFE ITSELF BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. It doesn’t bother the proponents of it like you said. Although, it must tug at their consciences because many won’t come out and admit, especially those who are pro-life in other aspects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.