---

The emergency contraception pill should not be confused with mifepristone (also called Mifeprex, and formerly known as RU-486), an abortifacient which is taken to end a pregnancy after implantation has occurred. The morning-after pill must be taken before implantation, or it will have no effect.

Emergency contraception may, however, prevent the implantation of an embryo in cases where it fails to prevent fertilization in the first place.
[...]
Recent medical studies in animals (the rat and the monkey) were inconclusive as to how often or whether emergency contraception prevents implantation; however, this mechanism of action cannot be ruled out in all cases, as it is impossible to prove a negative.

---

---

In May of 2005, a study was published showing that Plan B 'appears to work by interfering with ovulation, thus preventing fertilization, and not by disrupting events that occur after fertilization.'

---

Originally posted by Bio

---

Silvershield: renember the link I posted some time ago to prove sientifist worry about moral, did you at least read it? it say that once a certain line of cell devlopped that mean the zygote have a certain chance to be able to suffer and this is essentially immoral to abort it. also if you guy worry THAT much about moral, why are you christian, this religion caused more suffering and death than Hitler, but you consider Hitler evil and christianism good

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

[entire post]

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

They said "may" because they can't prove it doesn't, can't prove a negative and all that. Covering their asses. But as I say, it works by preventing ovulation by preventing a spike in the "Luteinizing Hormone" and nothing has shown a link to affecting the uterine wall.

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

And regardless, aside from the "No contraception EVAH" people I just linked to who even seem to hate the Pill, the opposition centres around the idea of promoting promiscuity, not preventing implantation.

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

(It's probably worth noting also that the FDA, Gynacalogical associations and so forth define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, because until then it's just floating tissue)

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

Finally I'd point out that this pill will actually CONTRIBUTE TO DECLINING ABORTION RATES. Isn't that what you people want? Let's say, for arguments' sake, that it stops implantation 1 time in a 100 and prevents ten pregancies by preventing an egg from popping at the wrong time. Haven't you just stopped ten future abortions for the cost of one fertilised egg?

---

Originally posted by Bio

---

if you guy worry THAT much about moral, why are you christian, this religion caused more suffering and death than Hitler, but you consider Hitler evil and christianism good

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

Finally I'd point out that this pill will actually CONTRIBUTE TO DECLINING ABORTION RATES. Isn't that what you people want? Let's say, for arguments' sake, that it stops implantation 1 time in a 100 and prevents ten pregancies by preventing an egg from popping at the wrong time. Haven't you just stopped ten future abortions for the cost of one fertilised egg?

---

Why do you assume that each of those unfertilized eggs would end up as an abortion? There's a difference between a woman who is willing to use contraception, and one who will go all the way and actually abort the baby she's conceived once that contraception fails. That expulsed zygote very well could've been tolerated to full-term if it had implanted and begun to grow as normal; there's no evidence to suggest that the mother would perceive the abortion as an act equivalent to just "finishing the job the pill started."

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

Taking a post-sex contraceptive implies not wanting babies. It then follows that many will then have abortions if they don't have access to an option such as this.

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

And as for claiming to know better than gynacologists... that's just nutty and shows both ignorance and arrogance. Agnorance, if you prefer.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

"Not to any more magnitude than the family dog will display those same behaviors. "

Maybe the family dog should'nt be butchered either, but never-the-less i've known month old babies who clearly displayed likes/dislikes and the ability to learn at a very fast rate, like a human

---

ression or significant learning beyond a superficial level.

Originally posted by Jomb

---

I dont think man should lord over nature, i think man should be one part of nature. But that is no longer possible, because of our obscenely vast population, now the best we can do is try to preserve what's left of nature.

---

The only way man can be part of nature is to live in tents, wear loincloths, and eat tofu. At this point of development, the human race is no longer a part of the natural order of the world, and cannot practically reassume that role. That's not a function of our "obscenely vast" population, but of our state of technology and lifestyle.

Originally posted by Jomb

---

To your second paragraph... why do you suppose it's necessary for people to sawdown rainforests and such on a grand scale? Its because we have enormous needs due to our enormous lumbering masses of people. Were there less people there'd be less need. Less need equals less sawed down rain-forests, less polution, less shit being spilled from boats accidently, etc.

---

No, rainforests are sawed down on such a grand scale because Earth's reasonable human population cannot control its consumption. If the people on this planet were not used to such excess, then we wouldn't need to saw down rainforests, we wouldn't have as much pollution, and there'd be fewer oil spills. Don't make it out as if the current rate of consumption is just barely satisfying humankind when, in reality, it's far greater than what the population "should" require.

Originally posted by Jomb

---

And this is an intangible you claim to define by DNA. I define it by sentience. This is still the heart of our disagreement, and unlikely to be resolved

---

We've argued this point back and forth about a million times already.

Originally posted by Jomb

---

You misunderstood my example, i said vacant of mind, but still possessing those neurons responsible for keeping the machine running, so to speak. Like a person who has permanent brain death but can have their body survive on life-support, or a child born in such a state. A body with no mind still has human DNA, and with great effort can be preserved. By your definition it should be done, by mine its not worth fighting for.

---

My pro-life stance deals with euthanasia, too. So, as long as that person persists, his life is worth something.

Originally posted by Jomb

---

In your mind yes, but its not coming across as being very logical or reasonable I see many holes which you never adequately fill in.

---

Whether you agree with me or not, I don't see how you can say that I'm not being logical or reasonable.

Originally posted by Jomb

---

You told me that the reason a mindless zygote is worth preserving is because it has human DNA, and had nothing what-so-ever to do with a mind. Therefore it ought to follow that since a human limb has the exact same DNA your zygote has, it ought to receive the same protection. Really there are many more similarities between a limb and a zygote. Both are alive, both have the same identical human DNA, both a parasites which cannot survive on their own. Yet, for seemingly arbitrary reasons you would fight to the death for the zygote but not care about the limb.

---

I think you're taking the DNA criterion to a kind of unecessarily ludicrous level by comparing a severed limb to a zygote. Separated from a body, that limb quickly becomes useless and thoroughly dead. But that zygote is 100% of its being - that is, the entire organism is contained within that physical object. A limb is a piece of the greater human body, and is not itself a human being in any sense.

Originally posted by Jomb

---

If you would just admit its about a soul then it'd make sense This is the best example of where you fight for DNA when convenient and ignore it or dance around the topic when inconvenient.

---

Wow, mentioning the soul was probably the worst mistake I've ever made. If I didn't make that casual, irrelevant comment, you wouldn't have any way to divert attention from the legitimate points that I propose. Instead, you're trying to tell me what my argument is.

Originally posted by Jomb

---

I could, with an egg cell. The day may be fast approaching when its quite possible to take a mix of amino acids and fabricate a sperm cell in a machine with any characteristics we want to give it. Then what?

---

Ok, now stop bending my proposal to fit your needs and instead tell me how you'll turn a sperm, on its own, into a human being.

Give me some sort of scientific evidence that your hypothetical is remotely possible, or will someday be possible, and I'll address it.

Originally posted by Jomb

---

Chimpanzees have the logical ability of a human child between 5-6 years old. They are clearly sentient. I would look upon anyone who killed a chimpanzee in cold blood as a murderer, because its the sentience which matters to me, not the DNA.

---

Just for the record, my sources place it closer to 2-3 years, but it doesn't matter.

The ability to learn through basic conditioning is not an indication of any sort of overwhelming sentience. Any animal can be conditioned, either operantly or classically, to respond according to specific stimuli. The higher natural intelligence of apes allows them to take that sort of learning to a greater level, but you must distinguish between the ability to learn and the actual characteristic of sentience (which, for definition, is essentially self-awareness).

Originally posted by Jomb

---

Yes, but then i changed my example to the historically accurate but remarkable similar and not at all far fetched example which you just ignored completely twice.

---

I didn't ignore you, you stated your point in a less than ideal way. Don't make it out like I'm trying to avoid your points.

Homo sapiens - that is, the modern human - is genetically distinct from earlier evolutions. If you have basic knowledge of taxonomy, you know that Homo erectus, by virtue of its different Latin name, is a completely different species. However, I don't know enough about the characteristics of that species to say much more about it.

Originally posted by Arwon

---

OK, I still think you're wrong because not nearly that many women are going to decide against abortion when they know they don't want kids enough to run out and get an emergency after-the-fact contraceptive...

---

Running out and getting the Plan B pill requires so much effort that a woman must be absolutely positive that she wants an abortion before she'll devote the time to acquiring it? I disagree; the pill can be gotten over the counter (at least in the UK, from what I read), and as such requires little more than a simple jaunt down to the pharmacy. The inconvenience of making that trip isn't really enough of a downside to make a woman more thoroughly consider its use.

Originally posted by Arwon

---

but anyway try a little thought exercise for me: Assume that this pill DOES prevent a greater number of abortions than it does prevent implantations. be it by a factor of two or five or seventy eight.

Actually, let's assume it prevents abortions at a one-to-one ration with every implantation stopped. Is this pill then, on balance, a good thing? Would you trade, one for one, the one less abortion for the prevention of the implantation of a fertilised egg? Or do you actually exactly equate a mere fertilised egg with a fetus of some months' development?

---

I still think your hypothetical is flawed, or at least I still disagree with it. The existence of this pill, and its billing as a method of preventing a zygote from actually forming, makes it appear to be a reasonable alternative to conventional birth control. I mean, consider that a certain person is opposed to abortion at all stages, but is under the impression that the Plan B pill doesn't actually destroy a zygote but instead keeps it from forming. That person could realistically be motivated to discontinue the use of condoms, the Pill (the "other" pill ), and similar products, because they are a hassle to use or for whatever other reason, because that person believes that the morning-after pill has the same effect but is less of a hassle.

Are you understanding me, or was that too much of a jumbled mess?

Originally posted by Arwon

---

I'm now focussing on whether your objections to the destruction of a fertilised egg are of the same degree as your objections to the destruction of a mid-term fetus. I find that drawing equivalency between the two is misguided and offensive, as the potentiality of life is vastly vastly different... so I am trying to get you to figure out if you actually view the two as exactly equivalent.

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

If this drug didn't exist, more women would concieve, because they couldnt control their ovulation in this manner. At least some of them would have abortions at a later date.

Now, assume hypothetically, that the mathematics work out that: for every fertilised egg that gets destroyed in one woman, you're preventing one future abortion for another woman, through somebody managing to prevent ovulation from occurring at the wrong time. The maths may or may not work out, but since we don't know whether it prevents implantation at all and we know that at least some women don't want pregnancy and would have an abortion, it's a reasonable assumption that you're preventing abortions through the use of this drug.

If you have a drug that prevents abortions through preventing fertilisation in many women, but which occastionally destroys a fertilised egg in the process as a side-effect, is that a fair trade-off for less abortions over-all? Are you actually capable of thinking in the aggreggate here, at the overall social mathematics of abortion?

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

In such a situation as I posit, you're ending up with the net destruction of less "lives" (I'm running with your definition of live beginning at fertilisation, even though I find it absurd) so doesn't that make the occasional unproven possible prevention of implantation worth it?

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

Finally, on an unrelated note, I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people who oppose abortions full-stop. There's just not that many people who consider the fertilised egg or zygote like a full baby and oppose their destruction on principle. There's not that many peopl who want to restrict these sorts of things, at the expense of choice and womens' rights. This is especially the case if you look beyond America. You absolutists don't have a majority in the US and beyond there, I doubt you'd even have a substantial minority.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

My textbook to my Psychology class claims that human babies/children are exceptional learners, and infact learn some things easier than adults (language for example). I consider learning to be one important aspect of sentience.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

No, man can be part of nature by being part of the food chain like any other animal. This is no longer possible because the vast quantity of people would rapidly extinct all game animals if we were trying to live off of them, and we would'nt be able to forage enough plantlife for humanity to live on anymore. Therefore it is essential that we keep livestock and grow food on farms for survival. I'm not arguing that we are part of the natural order anymore, i'm arguing that due to our ridiculously overwhelming population we no longer can be.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

So you actually believe that, were we to just recycle and conserve energy, rainforests would'nt get sawed down? Actually though its irrelevant to the discussion whether you think that or not, because argueing how things would be if only humans were all perfect is silly. We can only argue how things actually are in this not-at-all-hypothetical situation. The fact is that people consume this much, and its not going down, actually its only going to rise, and dramatically. Were their less people, we'd have to try pretty damn hard to tax the environment. When you're talking about 8 billion or more people, the environment will be taxed no matter what, and over time it may be broken permanently.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

How so? Seperate the zygote from the host body and it to will die, exactly like that limb. So you believe that the brain is just one part of the human body and if surgically removed the body left behind is still a human worth protecting, but the brain, as a component part, is disposable in the same way a limb is?

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

Lets just take your argument one step further, you would tell me that a sperm is disposable, so lets say i collected that disposable sperm. Then you'd tell me an egg is disposable, so lets say i collected that disposable egg. Behind your back i merged these two inconsequential things. Now i have a zygote, which to you = a full grown man. The sperm and the egg have the same potential to become human that the zygote has, why do you protect the zygote, but not the sperm and egg? This is another example of where your logic fails.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

You just said it yourself, sentience is self-awareness. This is the exact trait great apes have been proven to possess, and its what allows them to make tools. You cant make a tool without first imagining a future situation in your mind in which it would be used. Great apes are among the few creatures on the planet which can recognize themselves in a mirror, which is the test for self-awareness.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

There was a time when Homo Sapiens existed alongside Neanderthals. Neanderthals are related to humans, but are not their ancestor, more like a seperate evolutionary direction. Neanderthals left behind clothing, spears, etc. Things which only a sentient could make. There is some evidence that they had religion, as in some areas they buried their dead with dead bears. Homo Erectus also existed, though very briefly, alongside Homo Sapiens. Homo Erectus is generally regarded as a likely ancestor of man, but they were still distinct specie. Homo Erectus was not as intelligent as Homo Sapien of Neanderthal, but was still clearly sentient. There is evidence that they would seek out fire to use for heat and possibly for cooking, for example, which is something you'd need sentience for. There was also a time when Australopithicene lived alongside other sentient beings, and they were a different line of evolution altogether, being more related to a gorilla than man. They appear to have used simple tools, such as clubs and sharpened rocks. But really my whole point to bringing up any of this is to try to figure out if you'd extend to other sentient beings the same regard you give a zygote, not to give you a primatology or archaeology lesson

---