Posted on 08/24/2006 6:26:38 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Once again, the evidence is good that the Plan B progesterone-only morning after pills only work before
ovulation during a narrow five-day range and they do not prevent implantation after fertilization - there's a good chance that the progesterone increases the implantation rate of any embryos begun after ovulation.
Just look at the information from this natural planning information website:
http://www.woomb.org/bom/science/physiology.html
See Figure 1
In fact, we give progesterone to protect early pregnancies. In natural cycles, progesterone increases after ovulation.
The most significant are the studies from Brazil by Croxatto and his group (H.B. Croxatto et al. / Contraception 70 (2004) 442–450)," which was a blind study, cycling women who were otherwise unable to get pregnant (sterilized or with - what I consider unethical and potentially abortifacient - IUD's) through 3 courses - placebo, and two forms of progesterone-only pills. The researchers followed the women with serial ultrasound and hormonal blood essays.
There is a study by Durand, et.al. (M. Durand et al. / Contraception 71 (2005) 451– 457), from 2001 which tested surgically sterilized women given 2 doses of Levonorgestrel, 12 hours apart. These women were studied by serial ultrasounds and women who ovulated also underwent endometrial biopsy.
There was no difference in their uterine lining function or anatomy although there was a difference in the expression of glycodelin-A. This protein prevents binding of the sperm to the zona pellucida of the oocyte and so, prevents fertilization. (There is some speculation that the protein acts to help implantation, too.)
This is old and out dated information, no longer valid. Two separate labs have verified the lack of post-ovulatory changes that could prevent implantation. See my # 22.
Theres a difference between allowing something, and federally funding it.
If it's dangerous, its dangerous. I for one don't care, Barr will just be slapped with the lawsuit card.
From a much more reliable source, the glossary of the International Society for Stem Cell Research:
http://www.isscr.org/scientists/guidelines.cfm
Embryo: The term “embryo” has been defined and used differently in different biological contexts. Classical embryology has used the term embryo to connote different stages of post-implantation stages of development (e.g. the primitive streak and onwards to fetal stages). Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (27th edition,1988 edition, W. B. Saunders Company) provides the definition: “in animals, those derivatives of the fertilized ovum that eventually become the offspring, during their period of most rapid development, i.e., after the long axis appears until all major structures are represented. In man, the developing organism is an embryo from about 2 weeks after fertilization to the end of seventh or eighth week.” An entry in Random House Webster’s College Dictionary reads: “in humans, the stage approximately from attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterine wall until about the eighth week of pregnancy.” However, the nomenclature has now been used generically by modern embryologists to also include the stage of first cleavage of the fertilized ovum onwards to nine weeks of gestation in the human and to term in the mouse. Two, four, and eight cell stages, the compacting morula, and the blastocyst are all more precise terms for pre-implantation embryos. Prior to implantation, the embryo represents a simple cellular structure with minimal cellular specialization, but soon after implantation a defined axis of development called the primitive streak begins to form. After this time twinning of the embryo can no longer occur as there is irreversible commitment to the development of more complex and specialized tissues and organs.
(emphasis is mine.)
More "compassionate" Conservatism? PATHETIC!!
Then haven't completely come around then.
Nope, it isn't apples and oranges at all. They two are completely related.
Well, that is definitely a possibility, if it is an incest/long-term abusive relationship abuse issue. But if it is a rape, it isn't an option, since Plan B requires a couple of doses.
1. I'm comforted in knowing that you have no actual say in what constitutes Truth.
2. Forced sterilization of every-other man and woman in America will prevent abortions, too. Good or evil?
3. Outstanding Wikipedia reference. It lends so much credibility to your argument.
4. Scientific definitions of "pregnancy" are irrelevant since science cannot determine the point of actual conception, which is the salient point on the timeline of life, not "pregnancy".
Oh, btw, when this was intitally posted, it was under breaking news. If this isn't breaking news, I don't know what is. The owners and mods can run this forum as they wish, but if social issues are given less of a priority than other issues, then how conservative is this site?
Good. I hope I never do.
On what issues are you a social conservative then? Just gay "marriage"?
But pro-contraception?
Many of us are pro-life and pro-contraception.
His veto did not ban embryonic stem cell research, but rather maintained his restrictions on federal funding of such. This action by the FDA deals not with federal funding, nor with newly approving a drug but with the level of doctor prescription required for an already legal drug. If the FDA runs every such decision by the president, then that would be micromanagement nearly on the same ridiculous level as Jimmy Carter overseeing the schedules of the White House tennis courts. The knee-jerk reaction to this decision, and hyperbolizing it as "Bush abandons social conservatives", is unbecoming.
Contraception will always lead to an acceptance of abortion, since some will need abortion is a "back up." Analysts, both left and right, have recognized this fact.
Which in the United States of America... unless you would like to install a religious icon to rule the country like Iran. People have freedom of choice.
I personally would rather have a pill on the market that aborts a 1 day old embreyo then for a society to go on fooling itself that a 6,7,8, or 9 month old "child" can't live outside the womb.
With advances like these many Oregon will get rid of one of it's insane laws. Which is to say that if the embillical cord is still attached to a baby then it is a fetus and cannot be murdered.(A woman had a child and dumped it a few miles from my work.. it still had the cord attached so police didn't bother to even try and find the woman.)
It isn't knee-jerk at all. Social conservatives advised President Bush a while ago to withdraw his nomination of Dr. von Eschenbach as the commissioner of the FDA for this very reason.
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.