Replies

If a baby is a separate life at birth, it is life at 20 weeks. And it is its own life the minute the sperm cell fertilizes the ovum. And if one takes any definitive action to prevent a zygote from implanting itself in the uterine wall, one is just as guilty of abortion as if one cuts the spinal cord of a fully developed baby before it emerges from the birth canal.

For scientific reasons, I do not place a zygote as being the equivalent of a fully developed baby several months into the pregnancy. Most fertilized ova do not implant. Of the ones that implant, many do not survive long enough for the mother to know she is pregnant. Only about 10-25% of all fertilized ova are capable of survival to birth. At the time of implantation, the blastocyst has ~200 cells--meaning that it truly is just a ball of cells, with no distinguishing features at all. It is incapable of any feeling or self-awareness. From a technical standpoint, I cannot see any significant difference between a blastocyst and the human cells I grow for experimentation in the lab.

The neural tube starts to form about 3 weeks into the pregnancy. Because the sense of self and all awareness are rooted in the nervous system, I think that that is a good time to give the embryo legal protection from all harms.

With all that said, I still think this is a horrible move by the judge, one which will result in severe injury and death. Plan B is a potent endocrine disruptor. The body may be able to efficiently repair the damage after a one-time emergency use. But with it being available OTC, there will be many women and girls who take one every time they have intercourse, believing that its OTC availability means it is perfectly safe. It is not. Long-term repetitive use is likely to cause bleeding disorders, organ damage, and cancer, among other complications.

I wonder, can women and their families sue this judge for damages resulting from using this drug in a way never intended when the FDA approved its use?

This judge's opinion should not be allowed to trump the science-based regulatory decisions of the FDA. I would hope the head of the FDA stands up and says that the FDA refuses to change its recommendations without a good solid scientifically informed reason to do so.

For scientific reasons, I do not place a zygote as being the equivalent of a fully developed baby several months into the pregnancy.

Does it have its own DNA? Or does it have its mother's DNA (exclusively?

Most fertilized ova do not implant.

I realize that.

Life begins at fertilization. While a zygote (or a blastocyst) probably does not have feelings, it is a life. Whether that life is capable of feeling or not, it is a life. It is not man's (i.e., human's) place to interfere with the development of that life.

“I wonder, can women and their families sue this judge for damages resulting from using this drug in a way never intended when the FDA approved its use?”

I bet this is one of those products that comes with a label saying that it's a violation of federal law to use other than as directed. At some point there must be personal liability for what we do.

“This judge's opinion should not be allowed to trump the science-based regulatory decisions of the FDA. I would hope the head of the FDA stands up and says that the FDA refuses to change its recommendations without a good solid scientifically informed reason to do so.”

It was the FDA that issued a science-based regulatory decision that this should be OTC. The Obama Administration stepped in and made a self-admitted and “purely political decision” to restrict OTC sales because they thought it would be more popular.

From a technical standpoint, I cannot see any significant difference between a blastocyst and the human cells I grow for experimentation in the lab.

I'm not a scientist, but were you a blastocyst at one time?

Only about 10-25% of all fertilized ova are capable of survival to birth.

So?

Do they teach logic in scientist school?