MI - Teens tried to abort fetus with bat, Armada Township, Oct 2004

[Jacobi]

so what is it classified as? It has been all over the news lately as being offered to pregnant women who wish to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? There have been 3 deaths of women who have taken it while trying to abort.

The morning-after pill (Plan B) is simply an emergency contraceptive and classified as such. It is not strictly speaking an abortifacient because it is used before implantation has occurred (within 5 days). It used to be available over the counter until earlier this year.

The deaths you mention came from the RU-486 pill, which works in a different way to Plan B. RU-486 is commonly referred to as the abortion pill and is used early within the first trimester.

 

[Fran Bancroft]

Hmmm, I thought an abortifacient did exactly that...prevented implantation. In order to not be an aborifacient type of contraceptive, it would need to prevent impregnation, or "fertilization". An abortifacient dispells the fertilized egg (baby) from the woman. Has the verbage adjusted again to suit political positions?

The morning-after pill (Plan B) is simply an emergency contraceptive and classified as such. It is not strictly speaking an abortifacient because it is used before implantation has occurred (within 5 days). It used to be available over the counter until earlier this year.

The deaths you mention came from the RU-486 pill, which works in a different way to Plan B. RU-486 is commonly referred to as the abortion pill and is used early within the first trimester.

 

[Jacobi]

Hmmm, I thought an abortifacient did exactly that...prevented implantation. In order to not be an aborifacient type of contraceptive, it would need to prevent impregnation, or "fertilization". An abortifacient dispells the fertilized egg (baby) from the woman. Has the verbage adjusted again to suit political positions?

Fran, from what I read, medical experts have it that pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall, and that an abortifacient aborts the pregnancy from that moment onwards, within the first trimester.

The period between conception and implantation is when the morning-after pill works. You may view that as an abortion if you so choose -- many pro-life people do. I just wanted to make clear that there are two sets of pills, the later of which, e.g. RU-486, has resulted in some deaths to the woman.

 

[Fran Bancroft]

So, the answer to my question is essentially yes. The "verbage" has changed to suit a political agenda. Abortifacients, historically have prevented "implantation". I have not read the current information that changes this view, as you suggest it does.

A true "contraceptive" prevents fertilization, (unless that word has changed to suit the agenda as well).

Fran, from what I read, medical experts have it that pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall, and that an abortifacient aborts the pregnancy from that moment onwards, within the first trimester.

The period between conception and implantation is when the morning-after pill works. You may view that as an abortion if you so choose -- many pro-life people do. I just wanted to make clear that there are two sets of pills, the later of which, e.g. RU-486, has resulted in some deaths to the woman.

 

[Jacobi]

So, the answer to my question is essentially yes. The "verbage" has changed to suit a political agenda. Abortifacients, historically have prevented "implantation". I have not read the current information that changes this view, as you suggest it does.

A true "contraceptive" prevents fertilization, (unless that word has changed to suit the agenda as well).

You are both right and wrong, Fran. An abortifacient has always been defined as a subtance that induces miscarriage or abortion. I think what you are referring to is the change in the medical definition of pregnancy, which from 1972 onwards requires that implantation has already occurred. Due to this change, the term abortifacient could only apply to subtances acting from the time of implantation onwards, i.e. from the start of pregnancy. This may have been politically motivated to enable the sale of morning-after pills as "emergency contraceptives".

People who take either pill should know what they are doing, no matter the name given to it. But, it remains important, at least medically, to distinguish between the two sets of pills, because as I say, the latter is the more dangerous in terms of side-effects.

 

[fivekidz4me]

I thought the reason abortion is legal is to prevent such things as this incident. The mom is lucky to be alive, and not have internal damage. This is soooo not okay with me.

 

[BirdieBoo]

You are both right and wrong, Fran. An abortifacient has always been defined as a subtance that induces miscarriage or abortion. I think what you are referring to is the change in the medical definition of pregnancy, which from 1972 onwards requires that implantation has already occurred. Due to this change, the term abortifacient could only apply to subtances acting from the time of implantation onwards, i.e. from the start of pregnancy. This may have been politically motivated to enable the sale of morning-after pills as "emergency contraceptives".

People who take either pill should know what they are doing, no matter the name given to it. But, it remains important, at least medically, to distinguish between the two sets of pills, because as I say, the latter is the more dangerous in terms of side-effects.

IUD's prevent implantation, and were available before 1972. IUD's were available even BEFORE Roe v. Wade was decided.

 

[Jacobi]

IUD's prevent implantation, and were available before 1972. IUD's were available even BEFORE Roe v. Wade was decided.

You are mistaken. IUDs before 70's were inert and were used to prevent fertilization, and therefore were not marketed as emergency contraceptive. From the 70's onwards, the active IUD which released hormones became available and these, like the morning-after pill, could act as emergency contraceptive, i.e. prevent implantation, as well as work as a traditional contraceptive.

 

[Fran Bancroft]

What do ya want to bet that you and I are the only ones who know what we are discussing? LOL!

Okay, back to the abortifacients, my "understanding" the last time I researched this in 1993 was that abortifacients "prevented the implantation" of a ferilized ovum. NOW, that is important to some of us Conservative Christian Right Wing Fundamentalist Wacco's because, we consider the fertilized ovum a new life. Period.

Most women, when they get birth control have no idea what an abortifacient is let alone how it works. The few that do know (at least in part) what an abortifacient is (at least in part), and/or those that are trying to "avoid" using an abortifacient, are again "deceived" due to the change in verbage-assuming that the verbage/definitions have changed.

My point is, I believe most "birth control" is deceptive at best in the way it is marketed and sold and that women don't realized they do become pregant (yes I know we could argue about this word, but let's not) and while they become pregnant, yet, the embryo does not implant, the hormones in the womans body still change, and she still has symptoms, i.e. swollen, tender breasts, increased frequency in urination, etc. Further, here is the biggy- the "fertilized ovum"!

Some women don't care, most don't know the difference.

I know the difference and it fries me when I hear ignorant women saying things like "I don't believe in RU 486, or the morning after pill, so I use the pill instead"-well, it really isn't any difference with respect to the embryo. The embryo still exists and the embryo is aborted.

How many women would still choose their form of birth control if they knew the ovum was fertilized? I would speculate that the number would drop. I would also speculate that some women wouldn't care, because they have no idea what a fertilied egg means anymore, as they are barraged with lies that it is "tissue" only and not life, you know, beating heart, etc...

Interesting discussion Jacobi. I'm glad you are more familiar than most with this. I don't usually discuss this because it seems absolutely pointless. I think you've done a good job for the most part.

Bye for now
Fran

You are both right and wrong, Fran. An abortifacient has always been defined as a subtance that induces miscarriage or abortion. I think what you are referring to is the change in the medical definition of pregnancy, which from 1972 onwards requires that implantation has already occurred. Due to this change, the term abortifacient could only apply to subtances acting from the time of implantation onwards, i.e. from the start of pregnancy. This may have been politically motivated to enable the sale of morning-after pills as "emergency contraceptives".

People who take either pill should know what they are doing, no matter the name given to it. But, it remains important, at least medically, to distinguish between the two sets of pills, because as I say, the latter is the more dangerous in terms of side-effects.

 

[Timex]

The girl is younger than 18, so the decision lies with the girl and one of the parents. Since the parents did not know until she miscarried, it was technically an illegal abortion; hence, manslaughter. Though I could be wrong...

OK..so now we have a girl that isnt old enough to decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, yet IS old enough to be charged as an adult for a crime? She is either to young to make responsible decisons, or she isnt. The system needs to make up its mind.

 

[Jacobi]

OK..so now we have a girl that isnt old enough to decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, yet IS old enough to be charged as an adult for a crime? She is either to young to make responsible decisons, or she isnt. The system needs to make up its mind.

Granted, that situation would be quite silly.

 

[Jacobi]

Interesting discussion Jacobi. I'm glad you are more familiar than most with this. I don't usually discuss this because it seems absolutely pointless. I think you've done a good job for the most part.

Thanks Fran. You made some very good points and it made for a very interesting and enlightening discussion. Until the next topic, take care...

 

[BirdieBoo]

You are mistaken. IUDs before 70's were inert and were used to prevent fertilization, and therefore were not marketed as emergency contraceptive. From the 70's onwards, the active IUD which released hormones became available and these, like the morning-after pill, could act as emergency contraceptive, i.e. prevent implantation, as well as work as a traditional contraceptive.

Actually I am NOT mistaken about IUDs. One of the actions produced by any IUD, is a slight inflammation, which makes the uterus less hospitable to implantation.

How do you think an "inert" IUD works if it does not contain hormones or copper which kills sperm? Certainly not by preventing ovulation, only the progesterone ones claim to do that...So if ovulation is present, and sperm is not being killed (no copper in "inert" IUD's) how would the fertilization be prevented?

Perhaps I was mistaken when I thought that this discussion was open to everyone?

Timex: I think you are bringing up some great points that I also wondered about myself.

 

[Timex]

I have many issues when it comes to how we as a society are now treating our children. We have groups screaming about how bad it is to allow a 14 year old boy to play violent video game, because of the violence portrayed in the games...yet we see no problem with allowing a 14 year old girl to obtain an abortion, thus ending a real life, not a make believe life. We Charge 12 year olds as adults, and sentence them to life in prison, when we wont even allow them to make thier own decisions as to which classes they will take in junior high. If these issues are confusing to me..I can only imagine how confusing they are to our children. A child is NOT a mini adult, no matter how we try to make it appear that way. I look at my 14 and 16 year olds, and although they are bright, responsible kids, they are NOT adults. They dont think as adults. The ability just isnt there. I fully understand the problems we as a society are having with violent crimes being committed by juvenlies, but IMO...its not the fear of LWOP that is going to stop this violence, its somehow getting back to where life is respected.

 

[Anngelique]

I have many issues when it comes to how we as a society are now treating our children. We have groups screaming about how bad it is to allow a 14 year old boy to play violent video game, because of the violence portrayed in the games...yet we see no problem with allowing a 14 year old girl to obtain an abortion, thus ending a real life, not a make believe life. We Charge 12 year olds as adults, and sentence them to life in prison, when we wont even allow them to make thier own decisions as to which classes they will take in junior high. If these issues are confusing to me..I can only imagine how confusing they are to our children. A child is NOT a mini adult, no matter how we try to make it appear that way. I look at my 14 and 16 year olds, and although they are bright, responsible kids, they are NOT adults. They dont think as adults. The ability just isnt there. I fully understand the problems we as a society are having with violent crimes being committed by juvenlies, but IMO...its not the fear of LWOP that is going to stop this violence, its somehow getting back to where life is respected.

I fully agree with you Timex...

I also would like to add that the only thing that is going to stop our children from these horrific situations, (abortion, comitting violence, etc) is to stop the deteriation of the family as a unit. The world is so screwed up and kids don't have 2 parents in a home hardly ever any more. We are allowing schools and coaches and other troubled teens to raise our children. We have to be proactive and try to make our family home a warm, nurturing place, that our kids want to be. I have so much more to say on this subject but I don't have the time to write it at this time.

Thanks for your wise words...

 

[Jacobi]

Actually I am NOT mistaken about IUDs. One of the actions produced by any IUD, is a slight inflammation, which makes the uterus less hospitable to implantation.

In a study by Wilcox, Weinberg, Armstrong, et al., in 1987, it was concluded that the inert IUD had little preventative effect on implantation. It was concluded that the IUD primary effect is on the blocking of the sperm transport, and the preventing of fertilization via natural foreign body response. I do concede, however, that copper IUDs can prevent inplantation, but it was not marketed as such.

How do you think an "inert" IUD works if it does not contain hormones or copper which kills sperm?

It works by stimulating the woman's anti-foreign body response system, which is hostile to sperm. Using the IUD, the sperm transport is said to be interfered with an approximate 5% success rate of preventing fertilization. Using copper, the response is enhanced because the foreign body reaction is more pronounced. In a study it was shown that no fertilized egg ever made it to the uterine wall for implantation, therefore, it is classified as a preventative contraceptive. This is further proven by the fact that ectopic pregnancies are also prevented by use of inert and copper IUDs.

Non-inert IUDs, e.g. active IUDs are able to prevent implantation and target this specifically as do morning-after pills, and post 1970's, the active IUD was marketed as a preventative and emergency contraceptive.

Perhaps I was mistaken when I thought that this discussion was open to everyone?

I'm sorry if I made you feel unwelcome. Sincerest apologies.

 

[Mabel]

An autopsy on the fetus showed it to be about 6 months along. Apparently there will be no charges filed as the baby was not considered viable at this stage.

 

[Fran Bancroft]

Thank you, take care.

Thanks Fran. You made some very good points and it made for a very interesting and enlightening discussion. Until the next topic, take care...

 

[Fran Bancroft]

Jacobi, an excellent example of how to debate well. Thank you for a good exchange.

Thanks Fran. You made some very good points and it made for a very interesting and enlightening discussion. Until the next topic, take care...

 

[fran]

An autopsy on the fetus showed it to be about 6 months along. Apparently there will be no charges filed as the baby was not considered viable at this stage.

I don't understand how they can say this. I know someone born at 6 mos when her mom was in an auto accident. Granted she only weighed 1 1/2 lbs but she should be in her 50's today. Perhaps they should check with another doctor.

JMHO
fran