Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Woman Kills Wrongly-Implanted Embryos with Morning-After Pill
LifeSiteNews ^ | 6/29/10 | Peter J. Smith

Posted on 06/29/2010 4:02:55 PM PDT by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: chris_bdba
From Wikipedia:

The United States FDA states that progestin-only ECPs like Plan B work by preventing ovulation. It also says "it is possible" that progestin-only ECPs may interfere with the blastocyst implanting in the uterine lining, and that they have no effect on pregnancies if taken after implantation.[108][109]

Hormonal progestin-only and combined estrogen-progestin emergency contraceptives such as Yuzpe regimen or Plan B differ from the anti-hormonal drug mifepristone (also known as Mifeprex and RU-486). Yuzpe and progestin-only emergency contraception will have no effect if taken after implantation, whereas mifepristone can induce abortion if taken after implantation.

You are confusing high-dose hormonal contraception with actual abortifacients.
21 posted on 06/29/2010 5:29:44 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
How many times have we been told that the morning after pill DOES NOT cause abortions?

It doesn't. This woman wasn't pregnant, any more than the test tube the embyro had just come from was "pregnant". She just had an unimplanted embryo floating around loose inside her.

LifeSite is, as usual, distorting facts in the interest of maximum sensationalism. They use the term "implanted" repeatedly in the article, even though they surely know (unless they're just totally clueless about all of this stuff) that the embryo had only been *transferred*. Transfer comes first, and then the hope (in normal cases) is that implantation will subsequently occur (in a few days), but often it doesn't. Same as with natural conceptions -- a fertilized egg floating down the fallopian tube into the uterus may implant at which point the woman becomes pregnant; but very often it does not implant, and the woman never becomes pregnant.

*Nothing* causes abortion in a woman who isn't pregnant.

22 posted on 06/29/2010 5:49:04 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

Sorry, Bud, but you are the one who’s wrong.

You are spouting the Planned Parenthood line, that pregnancy begins when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.

That’s NEVER been the definition of pregnancy. It’s a cheap PP propaganda schtick.

Long before attachment to the uterus the woman’s body is doing all sorts of stuff in response to the fertilization of the ovum. Her body knows darn well that she’s pregnant, long before implantation in the uterine wall.

Be a mouthpiece for PP if you want to, but be honest about it and admit that’s what you are doing.


23 posted on 06/29/2010 5:58:13 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
The morning-after pill has NEVER been stated to act on an implanted embryo, which is what this story claims. If this is true, this would be a scandal of massive proportions. The way this story is written makes the events impossible by known science. It’s most likely misreported and the truth is probably the woman took not the morning-after pill but an actual abortifacient like RU-486.

No, what's going on here is that LifeSite is deliberately misusing terms in order to excite their largely ignorant readership, which will then provide LifeSite with more revenue. Read the article again. The claim is that the clinic "implanted" the embryos, and an hour later, told her the wrong embryos had been used and offered her the morning-after pill. No clinic has the capability to "implant" embryos, and no embryo has the capability to implant within an hour of being transferred (or of arriving naturally) into the uterus.

The woman had a loose embryo floating around in her uterus, and the morning-after pill ensured that it would never implant (though there was a much better than even chance that it wouldn't have implanted anyway).

24 posted on 06/29/2010 6:01:35 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: panzerkamphwageneinz

It was true then, and it still is (though since today’s birth control pills are lower-dose than those “way way back”, you’d need a couple extra for reliable effect).


25 posted on 06/29/2010 6:06:38 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Wonder if she will be charged with murder since, technically, it was not HER right to choose.


26 posted on 06/29/2010 6:13:24 PM PDT by twhitak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
You are spouting the Planned Parenthood line, that pregnancy begins when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall. That’s NEVER been the definition of pregnancy.

Actually, it's always been the definition of pregnancy, everywhere except extremist "pro-life" NON-medical circles. Refer to any obstetrics and gynecology textbook if you don't believe me.

Long before attachment to the uterus the woman’s body is doing all sorts of stuff in response to the fertilization of the ovum. Her body knows darn well that she’s pregnant, long before implantation in the uterine wall.

No, her body knows nothing of the sort. You're showing your ignorance with this statement. If the lining of the uterus is *already* expressing a certain carbohydrate molecule (which is only expressed for a few days in each cycle), then a normal embryo will react to the presence of that carbohydrate by beginning the implantation process, and triggering further responses from the uterine lining. The woman's body has no reaction to the presence of the embryo prior to the initiation of the implantation process, and in the earliest stages the physical changes are still very localized to a tiny area of the uterine lining (which is not a permanent part of the body).

The presence of an embryo is not able to cause the expression of the necessary carbohydrate, and one element of the "rhythm method" of birth control is timing sex long enough after ovulation that the normal uterus will no longer be capable of implantation, even though the egg can still be fertilized for a bit longer.

If you really care about these things, why not read up on them from actual medical sources?

27 posted on 06/29/2010 6:20:47 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
The woman had a loose embryo floating around in her uterus

You do sound like Planned Parenthood. The definition of embryo.

Encarta

human offspring in initial developmental stage: a human offspring in the early stages following conception up to the end of the eighth week, after which it is classified as a fetus

I have said it before, every one of your posts that I read sounds liberal.

28 posted on 06/29/2010 6:21:15 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
yes and what a handle....RU-486....as if a question mark belongs after the name.

Yes.

Are you for eighty-sixing your child?

29 posted on 06/29/2010 6:46:26 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

One thing that we have to unfortunately keep in mind is that they have defined pregnancy to begin at implantation, so technically, they can say that the morning after pill and some forms of birth control do not cause abortions because implantation occurs 2 weeks after onception. The life a person starts at conception, so these pills (the morning after especially) do end human lives.


30 posted on 06/29/2010 7:24:28 PM PDT by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

“Are you 4, 8, 16, 32 . . . sick?”

That’s how it struck me. “You’re sick with the population explosion.”


31 posted on 06/29/2010 7:30:56 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7; wagglebee

They define pregnancy at implantation, so that is how they can dance around the fact that these pills can prevent a newly concieved life from implanting. If you believe that life begins at conception, then you believe these pills can end a human life.

This is exactly why this clinic gave her the morning after pill. If the embryos had implanted, they would have given her RU486 or an abortion at a clinic.


32 posted on 06/29/2010 7:33:31 PM PDT by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

I’m a little off on the science. It’s not quite 2 weeks. It’s actually around 7-10 days. My bad.


33 posted on 06/29/2010 7:35:49 PM PDT by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

I did not know (though I suspected) that fertility clinics do not have the ability to implant an embryo. You are correct, of course, and this would explain why fertility clinics have such a relatively low success rate. An embryo left by itself, as fertility clinics apparently do, will likely not implant anyway.

Things like this bother me because it’s largely sophomoric and sensational reporting that borders on (if not crosses into) ignorance. I oppose abortion in all cases and will acknowledge that in very rare cases even the morning-after pill can be abortive. I stress very rare, as I have attempted to break this down in other topics in the past.

I just think this sort of pseudo-tabloid reporting does a disservice to the movement in general.


34 posted on 06/29/2010 7:40:39 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

I have acknowledged in the past (and even in this thread) that the morning-after pill can, in extremely rare cases, be considered abortive. I was taking issue with the article itself misusing the term implantation and the subsequent comments labeling the morning-after pill as something it is not.


35 posted on 06/29/2010 7:46:26 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

The primary purposes of the morning-after pill are 1) the prevention of ovulation and 2) the prevention of fertilization. The morning-after pill is abortive if and only if it has failed to do its job on counts 1 and 2 but somehow does its job on count 3, which is the prevention of implantation. If you’re going to make a statement like “these pills do end human lives” then you should be making the same claim about any routine medical procedure involving anesthesia.


36 posted on 06/29/2010 7:49:15 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: SevenofNine

Likely, yes.


38 posted on 06/29/2010 7:50:32 PM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Just some medical clarification for those who are making wrong assumptions, INCLUDING the author of this article:

A doctor TRANSFERS the embryos into the woman’s uterus. He does not, nor can he, IMPLANT the embryos into the uterus.

Embryos in a uterus might be no good. Their chromosomes are often (roughly 50% of the time) not compatible with growth to the 13th week of pregnancy. Very often, they are not even able to implant for that reason or another, like poor uterine lining or other defects in the uterus. Most embryos finding themselves in a uterus do NOT become babies.

Implantation, or, rather, the hormones the embryo gives off thereafter is the first sign of pregnancy. While the woman being told she had the wrong embryos in her, was pregnant until proven otherwise, no test on earth in those 24 hours could have determined pregnancy in her. Technically, she really wasn’t yet.

The thing with the morning after pill is that no one will ever be able to know whether it caused an abortion or not. It is preventing the living embryo from implantation. I do not believe in such a thing, but I think people need to know the real scoop medically.

Implantation is one of the hardest tasks of an embryo. MOST DO NOT MAKE IT, even when naturally conceived.


39 posted on 06/29/2010 8:00:48 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7; Pinkbell
The morning-after pill is abortive if and only if it has failed to do its job on counts 1 and 2

You're splitting hairs.

Preven EC

Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel are used together in this product as an emergency contraceptive (EC) to prevent pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse. Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary), disrupt fertilization (joining of the egg and sperm), and inhibit implantation (attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus).

Plan B

At the very bottom of the page, after repeatedly stating that it won't terminate a pregnancy and isn't harmful if you're pregnant, it says: You should not take Plan B® One-Step if you are already pregnant.

Hmmmmm.

40 posted on 06/29/2010 8:13:58 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson