Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comA French drug company is hoping to offer American women something their European counterparts already have: a pill that works long after "the morning after."
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
UN says Fukushima radiation doses below norms"Pre-diabetes," diabetes rising among U.S. teensScientists turn skin cells into beating heart muscle1 in 3 developmentally delayed babies untreatedFake drugs impede progress made in war on malariaAbstinence-only sex ed defies common senseSigmoidoscopy an option for colon cancer screeningDunkin Donuts going zero grams trans fat Bagged lettuce recall expands across nationBorn to run barefoot? Some end up getting injured
Leave a Comment:
The statement made by the "professionals": ""We're very clear on the fact that this is indeed a contraceptive — a method of prevention of pregnancy," Gainer said."" is a lie. There is a big difference between the science of the two terms. A contraceptive prevents conception (fertilization). The term "pregnancy" refers to an embryo that has already been conceived, implanting in the endometrium of the uterus. This medication is clearly not a contraceptive, and I think Gainer knows this well.
Where did you get that it's "clearly not a contraceptive", because it clearly is a contraceptive.
A pregnancy can't occur from just a fertilized egg; the egg must implant for development of a fetus to happen. Every day, in the wombs of thousands (perhaps millions) of women around the world, eggs are fertilized but a pregnancy never happens because the eggs don't implant. Or, they implant, stop growing for some reason & are flushed out with the women's next cycle without a "pregnancy" ever happening.
Thus, a drug that decreases the probability of implantation (as this one does) works to prevent a pregnancy from happening. And is indeed a contraceptive.
This is 2010 and we shouldn't even be having the discussion about whether or not a woman can do what she wants with her body and her health. It's archaic and offensive.
I hope they approve this.
Moxie, grl: If an egg has been fertilized, conception has taken place. This usually occurs in the fallopian tubes, although not always. A contraceptive prevents such conception by preventing the release of an egg, or at least preventing any subsequent fertilization (othewise, it cannot be called a contraceptive). So, if conception has already occurred, then the means of stopping or preventing a pregnancy cannot by definition be called a contraceptive. Once an embryo successfully implants in the uterus and can be detected by tests, it is termed a pregnancy. These are scientific terms, they mean what they mean. You cannot simply give them your own meanings.
I presume Sparky is a major supporter of organizations that care for and adopt children from women who must have children and can't afford them or whose Christian fathers have left them after learning about the pregnancy. Anti-contraception (yes you Mr. Pope-man) is anti woman and anti-child when worrying about a fertilized egg is more important than worrying what priests are doing to children once conceived.
I presume Ron is weird to go off on such a tangent (and sounds like a Christophobe to boot). I'm stumping for truth from professionals. If it's not a contraceptive, then don't pretend it is. Be honest about such matters. Don't lie. Don't use the presumed ignorance of your audience to try to gain acceptance of such a product. Be up front. After all, this is 2010, and continuing to lie about such products is archaic and offensive.
Those who claim to want less government must accept an individual's right to embrace this product. This drug will benefit many women of all ages!
This is awesome...I really hope that the FDA approves it. Having a drug that's effective for five days would be great. Heaven forbid something prevents you from being able to make it to a pharmacy right away.
Yeah, like you are too hung over, or haven't finished your stash.
Or like you've been raped and the hospital in your town is a Catholic hospital and the doctors refuse to prescribe you this drug. Or the only pharmacy's employees take issue with women controlling their own reproductive freedom.
Or you're a woman who has sex for pleasure vs. procreation and do not wish to be punished by way of forced birth.
Please try to absolve yourself of the notion that any woman who has sex or whose primary birth control has failed is irresponsible and not capable of making her own decisions.
Or you're in a rural environment and the only pharmacy for miles is closed for the weekend, so you either have to drive hours out of your way (which is tough if you don't have a car, if you have to work, or if you have kids at home already to take care of) to get Plan B, crossing your fingers the whole time that the extra time spent driving doesn't make it so ineffective that it doesn't work.
Women's lives are complicated. It's not just party girls and procrastinators that have to worry about getting emergency contraceptive on time.
if this pill were designed to work for men's reproductive control in mind we wouldn't even be having a debate. if it's safety were verified it would be on the market as soon as the trucks could pull out of the loading docks at the pharmaceutical companies. the perception of women as being incapable of making reproductive choices for themselves and then ultimately responsible for them is one of the greatest absurdities and injustices of the modern age.
grow up, people. this isn't 1952.
I agree. Hands-off government means hands off. If the drug is safe for women, if used as directed (as it is used by countless European women), the FDA should approve the drug. The laws of this country should support its people by allowing them to make their own choices for their own lives, and their own families, without restriction and without playing "big brother".
So, you are saying that the Government should support me by allowing me to kill my children? Or is it okay for it to play "big brother" in those things you might not support?
I am saying that I support women to make their own choices when it comes to carrying out or terminating an early-term pregnancy. Don't read into it, or put words into my mouth. Actually, I am a hands-on government kind of gal (and darn proud of it) so I would support a whole heck of a lot. :D
There's no need to oppose this under the guise of "protecting" women---Like contraceptives before it, this too will make put the choice in women's hands--where it belongs.
that's sort of the problem for most of the idiots opposing this type of medicine. they feel that they are more capable of making the call on what a woman should do with her uterus than the woman.
AP, it ain't a contraceptive! Coldcrankcase, it takes one to know one.
anyone paying the slightest bit of attention can recognize an idiot opposing a positive thing. it takes an intellectual child with internet access to make the kind of pointless retort you just made.
Hi crankcase. Once again, it takes one to know one.
I'd call you a name, but I know that's something only uneducated people do and that it is not nice. Since I'm both nice and educated, I avoid doing the infantile things you have done here.
Umm...even if it does cause an abortion (which it very well may not be). Abortion is legal in the United States. Just as "conservatives" may not want liberals to tell them what to do with their: money or guns. It may be none of their business to tell women what to do with their bodies. Government hands off should apply universally you can not pick and choose. You abide by your morals and we'll keep ours...
Based on those standards, I feel that killing is okay as long as you use a knife and do it quickly. You abide by your morals, and I'll keep mine.
I just think it's great that there is another drug out there to give women more options. If the drug is safe, there is no reason why the FDA shouldn't approve it. Those against using such drugs due to "moral or religious reasons" do not have to use but should not be allowed to dictate if other women can or cannot use it. By opposing something just because of a religious argument is ridiculous and absurd in the 21st Century. Let us hope the FDA will approve this drug.
"By opposing something just because of a religious argument is ridiculous and absurd in the 21st Century." How so?
Maybe because this is America and we're not a theocratic nation?
because religion is an inconsistent and idiotic method of deciding any moral issue. i have a hard time taking advice on abortion from people who's 'god' claims to have butchered the first born of egypt. you can't be anti-abortion and pro-plagues of egypt at the same time, anymore than you can be a vegetarian with a ribeye in your mouth.
So, you are a bigot who can't respect those who believe in God? Are you certain it was God who "butchered the firstborn of Egypt"? Butchering babies sounds a lot like partial-birth abortion to me. Perhaps the human race hasn't advanced as far as some would like to believe?
i'm not surprised that you would be the one to reply with such blatant stupidity. no, i have absolutely no respect for those who believe in a god just because they are deluded enough to believe in a god. if you are a christian or jew and follow the old testament as the word of your god, then you may be familiar with the following passages from exodus:
11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
"saith the LORD" . pretty unambiguous. i can understand you not being aware of this passage, as i'm certain you are functionally illiterate and having someone else type your pathetic rantings into a computer for you. i'm also certain that you are yet another fine example of a "christian" who's never taken the time to read the bible you so mightily thump.
try to educate yourself, if only slightly, before you reply to this.
Hi Crankcase, thanks for displaying your ignorance of Biblical (Torah) scripture.
Since I led you into this, please tell us all the exact book and verse where it says God did the slaying.
Oh, by the way, I did not bring up the bible, you did, and you were in error. An apology would be nice, but then, you have already proven that you are neither nice nor educated. You are a legend in your own mind.
I shouldn't derive such pleasure in having an intellectual argument with an unarmed person.
Well, apparently the "crank" is not able to respond without giving away his error.
So that any others who may read this exchange can know the correct answer, it is in Exodus chapter 12, verse 23. It is the Destroyer (possibly Satan or at least one of his minions) who does the killing, not God.
@sparky
Exodus 12:23 "For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you."
How would you even get satan from that. It was stated multiple times before this passage that god would bring this about (starting with exodus 11:1 with one more plague I will bring before pharaoh lets you go and 12:12 being the most famous). Just from the passage, it states the lord will smite the Egyptians.. then uses a title not used before (or rarely) to state who would kill them. I'm pretty sure most would read this as the lord being "the destroyer". It is really strange to pin this on the devil, since the only time Satan killed anyone in the bible... he had to get god's permission to do it first.
By 12:29 you reach past tense, and god has already smoted the folks and super-killed some baby cows.
this sparky character lacks the intellectual prowess necessary to understand what we're trying to put across here. i really don't understand how anyone can function in the world with this level of blatant stupidity.
Hi Crank, still in denial I see. Pray the Destroyer (that's with a capital D) does not enter your home prematurely. See, it was the Destroyer that did the killing. Oh well, Mama was right, you shouldn't try to teach a pig to sing. Your barbs don't strike. I'm rubber, you are glue....., well I'm sure children such as you know the rest of that one.
Approve it. A lot of people say they want less gov't intervention in their lives...well, here's a perfect way to reduce gov't intervention: approve this drug.
Viagra works 'against nature, ' doesn't it? And yet, it won approval, for doing something that nobody actually needs-- more dirty old man sex...lol
For all of the statements that this is the "21 century", why is it that we modern women are unable to have protected sex? We are able to do everything else in this life, but to have protected sex seems to elude us.
No protection against pregnancy is 100% (except of course, abstinence).
Some research has come out recently - about a quarter of women have had their birth control and/or condoms tampered with by controlling, abusive partners. It's called reproductive coercion and it's a major roadblock to women who would very much like to be responsible birth control users. Ella should help these women by giving them more time to get to a pharmacy without worrying about their abusive boyfriends/husbands finding out and punishing them for it.
Cincha I hope you never have ED and need Viagra. I do agree that there are men out there that do not need it but do not for one minute think that every man that takes Viagra is a dirty old man because it is not true. Do the research before making a statement like that. ED is a true illness believe me we have been through the "ringer" on it. As always just my opinion.
Could you please recycle even more poorly researched articles with a greater right-wing/anti-science bias? Pretty please, with a cherry on top?
When it comes to this stuff I feel I have absolutely no say in it as I have man bits. A woman's body is her business and I find it ridiculous that so many men feel they have any right to chime in.
I think it is everyone's responsibility to fight for the freedom to make our own personal health decisions.
Anytime any contraceptive is approved, there is almost always some type of controversy over it (that it will be misused, encourage immoral behavior, bad for the woman's health etc). When ED drugs came out, the same people who always bring up this argument against contraception were silent. I'm sure that there are men out there who misuse the product (party drug), men who don't need it or men who use it cheat on their wives and have sex outside of marriage (these are the main argument that people against contraception make against women when the FDA approves new methods on contraception.
In a few cases ED drugs have been used to sexually abuse children and rape women. I've never heard of a case where a woman has used birth control pills or other type of contraception to molest children or abuse men. No one would suggest because of the actions of these few men that these drugs be taken off the market or that everyone who uses ED drugs engages in this type of behavior.
If people are so concerned about women having an unwanted pregnancy, then perhaps if she has access to reliable contraception, this is less likely to happen. When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, the focus is all on her (how irresponsible, what was she thinking, etc). It is rarely on the man who fathered her child. He's a part of it as well.
I wish the right wing would stop putting bureaucrats in charge of family planning. Everyone should be able to make these intimate decisions for themselves in consultation with their family and church. They should not have to get permission from a government panel. If the drug is safe and effective then it should be allowed.
Safe for who?
Why does your "everyone" exclude the one whose life is being taken? Since they are currently powerless, is this some sort of power play? Would things change if we had to wait until they were 18 before we tried to abort them, when they might fight back?
lol Sparky, you are about as dumb as they come...first of all, a fertilized egg is not a life. Secondly, it's none of your business what a woman does with her body since you're a man (most likely) and finally there is no god. It's a fairy tale.
So please just shut up
Hi Doug, are you able to function without being so offensive? Actually, I'm writing not speaking, so asking me to shut up is kinda dumb - yes?
You are certainly positive about that "no god" thing aren't you? I, on the other hand, am positive there is. One of us is right, the other is wrong. If you are right, I've at least had peace in this life. If I'm right you'll have no peace for eternity. I like my chances better.
Anti-choice crusaders unite-yet again, let's confuse the issue of contraception with abortion and purport to know what is moral and right and what is God's will!
Let's insist that women are too fragile and too stupid to understand that hormonal contraceptives may not not only prevent fertilization of an egg but make the womb inhospitable for implantation of an erroneously fertilized egg.
Let's blame women for being "fast" and "loose" and "sluts" who tempt men into fornicating, not holding men responsible for "fast" behaviors like "sleeping around" and failing to use condoms or Gasp! pushing for development of a male hormonal contraceptive that will render sperm impotent and thus prevent not only fertilization but also the issue of a fertilized egg being unable to implant in an inhospitable womb.
Let's pretend that responsible women and married women do not seek out birth control, emergency contraception and abortion services. Let's paint all abortions as the result of immoral women taking the "easy" way out-not heart wrenching decisions reached after careful thought and analysis.
Let's not discuss the men who are an integral part of the fertilization process.
Anti-choicers unite over your hatred of big government and government interference in everyday life, except when it comes to a woman, her body and unintended pregnancy.