Posted on 06/29/2010 4:02:55 PM PDT by wagglebee
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.
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.
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).
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).
Wonder if she will be charged with murder since, technically, it was not HER right to choose.
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?
You do sound like Planned Parenthood. The definition of embryo.
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.
Yes.
Are you for eighty-sixing your child?
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.
“Are you 4, 8, 16, 32 . . . sick?”
That’s how it struck me. “You’re sick with the population explosion.”
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.
I’m a little off on the science. It’s not quite 2 weeks. It’s actually around 7-10 days. My bad.
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.
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.
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.
Likely, yes.
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.
You're splitting hairs.
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).
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.
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.