See? This proves that previous posts are NOT read before a response is given.
morning after pill, who's heard of it?
by peaceloveharmony 14 Replies latest social relationships
-
-
Adonai438
Yes, I've heard of the morning after pill. I did know the difference as well but do not agree with either one. The abortion pill induces miscarraige of a fertilzed egg/embryo/baby and the morning after pill makes it so the fertilized egg/embryo/baby cannot implant in the uterus. The outcome is no different-- and no better than the other.
Just food for thought.Also, as long as stories are being shared I'd like to post one of a friend of mine that went through a terrible thing with the morning after pill and the planned parenthood organization. I'm not trying to debate but I know my friend would want this shared. Consider this when thinking any of this seems harmless enough.:
When my friend was out of town she was raped. Obviously a horrible and unthinkable thing to have to live through. When she was taken to the hospital they gave her the morning after pill without telling her that if indeed she was pregnant that it would prohibit the baby from implanting. She found out afterward what it was and was quite upset. She would not have chosen to take it if she had known what it really was. But her story doesn't end there. The pill didn't work. The baby did implant and grow. She went to a free clinic (planned parenthood) when she got home to make sure everything was allright--(her health insurance was lapsed briefly at the time so she found a free clinic in the phone book)-- They informed her that the baby was most likely dead and they would have to do a D&C abortion. They performed some tests -none of which they shared the results with her -- and performed the abortion to 'clear' the uterus and sent her home. She had emense pain and bleeding and got an infection from the 'procedure' so she had to obtain her charts from this clinic to bring to her regular doctor now that her health insurance was back on. Her regular doctor upon examining her charts asked if she was aware of the test results of the baby that the free clinic performed. She was not and asked what they were-- the baby was alive and fine (heart rythem and other stats were recorded on the chart) when the free clinic told her it was not. The planned parenthood clinic performed tests that confirmed this baby was alive and did not tell her-- they let her think that it was dead and performed an abortion. She would not have willingly aborted her child had she known they were alive. This is not a harmless industry even after you get past the moral question. It's dangerous and this kind of thing happens more often than anyone wants to think it does. Not only has it killed over 1/3 of our nations babies since Roe V. Wade but it kills and permanantly hurts mothers. Consider it please.
-
Christina77
Dazed and Confused...
Yes I did read the entire thread before I posted and I do know what the difference is!!! HELLO!!! you need to be a little more understanding and not so bitter... Condom broke... if pill existed I would have gotten it and taken it!!! you need to read things a little better before you harrass someone for their post!!! And I do think that it was a wonderful invention for those that did not plan to get pregnant used controception and then something went wrong... I would not agree that this was an abortion pill, and would not use it as such... but if it happens again then I would use it... I am glad that the FDA is approving more alternatives for women... and not have to go through with an unwanted pregnancy because the man didn't buy a good enough condom or notice that he wasn't covered anymore!!!
-
Abaddon
In Britain the morning-after pill has been available for a couple of years over-the-counter, which means you ask for it at a pharmacy, they give a run-through of contraindications, and then you get it.
Ironically, given the topic of the thread, today in the House of Lords (in Britain) the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child are seeking to have the over-the-counter status of the morning-after pill overturned, on the basis of a 19th Century piece of legislation that prevents the selling of medicines designed to abort. By 19th Century, I am not being metaphorical; they dug up something from the 1868 Offences Against The Person Act.
There's no ruling as yet, and it is widely anticipated emergency legislation will be put through the House of Commons if the Lords rule that the old law over-rules current practice.
For those that want to know, taking three or four contraceptive pills at the same time has more or less the same result as the morning after pill, but should only be used if the proper medication is unavailable for whatever reason.
For the most part it is used in contraceptive accidents; broken condoms, missed pills. It is not effective as a regular form of contraceptive, partially as has to be taken within 72 hours, and partially as it often makes the woman feel ill due to the high levels of hormones in it. Many couples are in a safe exclusive relationship, and only use condoms as a form of birth control, in such instances there is no risk of STD, merely of pregnancy!
Use of morning-after pills is indeed on the increase, but this is largely awareness and availability linked.
For those that condemn anything that interferes with a fertilised egg, you might be interested to note that this moral objection rules out the IUD (Coil), and probably the Minipill too, as the former works by stopping implantation (although some are impregnated with hormones too) and the latter probably works some of the time by preventing implantation. Both these are arguably as abortive as the morning after pill.
It's also worthy of note that many eggs never implant anyway, so there is a fair case for differentiation between the morning-after pill and RU-486 in people who consider abortion wrong, but don't see stoping pregnancy (i.e., implantation) as something wrong. Until an egg is implanted, technically speaking a woman is not pregnant.
Although no doubt there is medical malpratice in abortion clinics, just as elsewhere, this at least, if there is a genuine case, is something one can sue for. One cannot sue when a women's womb is hacked up in a back-street illegal abortion.
If indeed the concerns are with the woman's health, then making sure no one has to resort to illegal abortions is a better method of ensuring a woman's health than banning abortions.
Just as with alcohol, drugs, sex, and mostly everything, passing a law does not stop people doing something. Normally it only means people do it anyway, with greater health risks and greater criminal control of the activity, and greater bribery and corruption of officials meant to enforce the restrictive laws.
This is not why I think anti-abortion activists are wrong; it is not an arguement from adverse consequences. I contend they are wrong as for the most part they are applying religious sruples to people who don't have them. But the terrible side-effects if they got their personal morals imposed upon everyone else should be considered.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
-
LDH
Dazed,
I read every comment before I posted, if you were referring to me.
Anyhow, I misspoke. I said earlier
The only women who would need to get this type of medication are women who do not have a medical doctor of their own
What I MEANT to say was--The only women who would need to get this medicine from a CLINIC are those that do not have their own MD.
Proof positive that I een re-read MY comments , Dazed.
Lisa