Letters to the Editor
-
I didn't read the article...
And you know why I agree with birth control...because I have it implanted in my arm.
because when I was 17 I made a stupid mistake and now I have to do it almost completely alone.
But I think there is a line....and we have crossed it.
I also believe we have 4 years of life left on this planet...
so why do I worry....people made evil happen...technology is the beginning of it....The world falling apart will be the end of it.
It may just be a theory...but google 2012, doomsday, the end of the world, whatever...
pretty scary shit.
and you know what...I don't even believe in god.
-
man...
I think I turned into brightstar...I think I know what he goes through.
-
actually you can control a period
It's called Seasonale. Athletes have been using birth control to skip periods during competitions for at least 20 years now.
-
Cataract
You were having a hard time a couple of weeks ago, so I'm not going to give you a hard time now.
Before, when I was talking about periods, I was joking. I was being sarcastic with a capital S. I was referring to the comment in the post about how the pill kills babies. The pill prevents an egg from being fertilized. It is no more killing anything than letting an unfertilized egg leave your body during a period.
If I got pregnant, I don't think I would get an abortion. Instead, I'd give the baby to a nice gay couple who can't have a baby themselves, and then I'd go find some anti-choice protesters and thank them for opening my eyes, and I'd let them know that I was going to be making two would-be daddies very happy.
-
@ Treeple, @Cataract
The pill prevents an egg from being fertilized. It is no more killing anything than letting an unfertilized egg leave your body during a period.
No, you're wrong. I'm sorry, but it's true. I'm very pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion, in fact, but there is no use in denying the truth. Whatever brand of pill you are on, google it, find the prescribing information, and find the part where it says that it prevents implantation.
Cataract, so you have Implanon?
Here's from the Implanon prescribing information:
Pharmacodynamics
The contraceptive effect of IMPLANON™(etonogestrel implant) is achieved by several mechanisms that include suppression of ovu- lation, increased viscosity of the cervical mucus, and alterations in the endometrium.
That last one there? That's the one that prevents implantation. Who knows how many fertilized eggs you've prevented from implanting?
Anyway, if we only have 4 years to live, what do you care if people abort babies? They'd only die in 4 years anyway.
-
@LeCastor
You are right ... to a point.
Birth control pills (containing both estrogen and progesterone) are designed to suppress ovulation. (According to the packaging, the FDA, and my OB/GYN). The follicles in the ovaries are prevented from maturing, the ovum is prevented from being released, and cervical mucous is thickened to prevent sperm from traveling far enough into the body. If there is no ovulation, there is no egg to fertilize. If the sperm can't make it to the egg, there is no fertilization.
Whether or not ovulation is suppressed 100% of the time is open to question. Certainly, no responsible doctor, pharmacist, or drug manufacturer would guarantee 100% effectiveness, especially given the likelihood of operator error (missing a day, being late, etc).
The pill does also prevent implantation, by making the uterine lining less hospitable to a fertilized egg. So, especially when used as an emergency contraceptive after intercourse has happened, it is *possible* that an egg has been fertilized.
But, saying that bcp's abort fertilized eggs by design is hyperbolic, IMHO. And it's one more "truthy" argument for radical pro-lifers to use against one of the most effective safeguards against unwanted pregnancies.
-
@ Taybee
Well, that's news to me. Good for them, I suppose, although at some point education has to just trump all; sharing straws for intranasal drug use is another disease vector, but if you get to the point of "giving out straws," you're toeing the line between diligence and silliness.
-
@LeCastor
It's hard to understand what side of this you are arguing -- you say you are "pro-abortion" (which is odd, because I don't think even abortion providers describe themselves this way) yet you insist that every BC method involves artificially flushing out fertilized eggs.
This is just being deliberately confusing. Hormonal methods like the pill, patch, NuvaRing, etc. prevent pregnancy by suppressing ovulation. When ovulation is suppressed, your body never prepares the lining of your uterus to accept a fertilized egg (hence the packet instructions you are copying), therefore EVEN a fertilized egg could not implant if you ovulated anyhow. That should be rare, but pills are now very low dose, and it doesn't take much to screw up on them. The old "high dose" (50 mg) pills gave you about a 48 hour "window" in which you were still safe -- the new low dose pills give you less than 24 hours. Take your pill late, forget one, throw up, let your NuvaRing slip out and don't replace it ASAP -- and suddenly you are very vulnerable to ovulating.
Also: low dose pills only contain exactly enough effective ingredients to control ovulation in women who weigh LESS than 150 lbs. I guess they didn't read all the CDC stuff about 66% of American women being overweight! If you are significantly over this weight, low dose pills may not offer enough protection for you, and at the minimum, you will be very vulnerable if you even take your dose a couple of hours late.
IUDs do work by preventing implantation. They can be even more effective than the pill, yet nobody completely understands how they work, which is unnerving. It seems like the presence of a foreign body just tells your body "don't implant any future eggs". (Mirena is a bit different, as it also excretes progestin, which suppresses ovulation.)
Every woman who is not completely infertile has probably had many fertilized eggs that did not implant -- even if you use NO birth control method of any kind. This is normal -- if you want to get all religious, its "god's plan". Some eggs are subprime and won't implant -- sometimes the lining of the uterus is just not good enough. Sometimes its no reasons at all, or blind luck. Nothing can be done about this, either to make it happen when you want it, or to prevent it if you want a baby. It's just how reproduction works.
Any fertility researcher would tell you that a fertilized egg means NOTHING if it doesn't implant. It's wrong to talk about life beginning at fertilization (if that's what LeCastor is trying to say, in a very arch, confrontational way). LIFE BEGINS AT IMPLANTATION. Even then it's not a guarantee -- at least 25% (maybe more) IMPLANTED PREGNANCIES fail and end up as miscarriages. These really aren't that different than an abortion -- the lining seperates from the uterus and passes out of the body, along with the fertilized, implanted egg or zygote (depending on how far along). In the very early stages, this would only seem like a late or heavy period, so the numbers (25% is the accepted figure you read most of the time) may be artificially low, because nobody goes to the doctor to report a period that is two days late or just slightly heavier than normal.
There is some good news, though, about the Abstintence Clearinghouse: when you get this desperate that you have to equate condoms (safe, effective, no side effects, prevent disease, prevent unwanted pregnancy, NO effect on fertilized or implanted eggs) as being as evil as a crack pipe -- you are desperate. You are on the ropes, my friend. You don't even have a coherent argument anymore to use against safe sex, or condoms or sex ed, because you have been reduced to bogus accusations and desperate claims out of left field.
That should be the sign of the end of the domination of Right Wing Christian Conservative mania, at least for a while. At the heart, they are not anti-condoms (or even anti-abortion) as much as they are anti-sexual pleasure, especially for women. They long for the days when you could scare people away from having sex by claiming that it was evil, would give you filthy diseases and result (every time) in a miserable, painful pregnancy and agonizing childbirth, culminating in giving your baby away to a "good Christian married couple" to raise. The spectre of filthy, shaming, disease and social ostracization really worked pretty well for them for a long time, and they are loathe to give it up even in the face of scientific knowledge and common sense.
On the other hand, to be perfectly fair: both anti-sex misinformation & hysteria AND the "sex ed in school" crowd have both really had virtually no effect on the behavior of the very people they want to address....teenage kids. Not only do teenagers still have sex -- often risky or unwise sex -- but their entire mindset (poorly described as "half formed brains") is that of risk-taking, "it won't happen to ME" and lack of responsibility. It's pretty unrealistic to think that a kid who can't remember his homework, never locks the house or takes out the garbage, forgets to fill the gas tank or walk the dog, is suddenly going to be a responsible, trustworthy, mature adult when it comes to sex and birth control.
That's why we have the mess we do now -- no real national consensus about how to handle this, conflicting values and moral beliefs, appalling misinformation bandied about, and kids who are subjected to TV/movies/books/internet that push fun sex with no strings that rarely even mentions consequences. And expensive birth control, lack of health insurance, and limited access to medical care for 40% of Americans.
It's not a good mixture, and there are most definitely problems, but I never saw a problem that was solved or even addressed by lies and half-truths.