Planned Parenthood II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Debates on this medium are very frustrating for me because I lack the ability to convey my message eloquently. Then you claim I am dishonest. That has never been my intention, nor will it ever be.[/quote]

My sincere apologies for assuming dishonesty. My issue was with the fact that you chose one secondary “may” sentence in support of a “well then it may not” argument – which would have been fine had the former been FIGO’s solitary claim. In fact, they explicitly preface the possible secondary method of action with a thoroughly-evidenced primary method of action (with neither being abortifacient). Thus, the “may not” objection does not stand. Furthermore, FIGO explicitly rules out disruption of implantation, based on the evidence.

[quote]
Let me try another tactic. If we are told that earth revolves around the sun, how many people that you have ever talked with have actually been to outer space to witness this phenomenon? No one I know has been out of our atmosphere. Yet if all the studies prove that we revolve around the sun, does that mean reality changes? Or does it mean we find science to prove what we want it to prove?

In a world that supports the open slaughter of innocent children, what do you think the majority of science will show?[/quote]

It’s unclear what you’re trying to claim here. The literature cited by FIGO is peer-reviewed and, obviously, has the confidence of the highest relevant medical body. You can deny it only with different, better evidence.

If you are alleging that there is some kind of conspiracy at play, you need hard evidence in support of this enormously (or astronomically, in keeping with your theme of outer space) unlikely claim. You can’t choose to believe some medical findings and disbelieve others because the latter conflict with your political or religious ideology. If the studies are legitimate and methodologically sound – and I seriously doubt you’ll show otherwise – then you don’t seem to have an argument here.

[quote]
Sure I picked a line or two that made zero logical sense to me. If one single portion of any study fails a test of logic or reason or science, the whole test is wrong.[/quote]

No, particularly because what you picked out was neither illogical nor unreasonable. There is a primary method of action; there may be a secondary method of action. Neither causes abortion. No failure of logic here.

302

It is in the past, so I am not going to harp over something over, over and over again.

What is the purpose of levonorgestrel? This is from their site ? ?To advocate for the use of misoprostol for post-partum haemorrhage (PPH) prevention and treatment by acting as a ?guiding? organisation for advocacy among the medical community and health professionals. This involves disseminating information on strong evidence-based results relating to the effectiveness and greater use of misoprostol, and developing materials for dissemination, including guidelines and protocols, for professional groups on the use of misoprostol for PPH.? The purpose was found here - FIGO Projects | Figo - Never do they talk about birth control the way other birth control works, it was developed to help stop Post-partum haemorrhage (PPH).

You also might check newer sources because I found this site after about ten minutes of searching - Levonorgestrel: Package Insert - Drugs.com - with a posting date of June 3, 2015 and that beats your newest source by a few years. And I quote ?Levonorgestrel is a progestin. Exactly how it works is not known. It may prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation, altering transport of sperm or eggs to prevent fertilization, or altering the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation should fertilization occur.? - I bolded the portion that contradicts your claims, for your information the drug works like every other method of birth control, by 1) sometimes inhibiting ovulation 2) impeding the flow of sperm and 3) by preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. In other words, different package but the artificial hormone works like every other one on the market.

From pubmed ? ?It works by preventing a woman’s egg from fully developing. It may also prevent the attachment of the woman’s egg to the wall of the uterus (womb).? - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0010919/?report=details ?

Now I mean nothing other than trying to be helpful. Which search engine do you use on the internet? Most people use google, yahoo, bing or something along those lines. Have you realized they all track you and build profiles on you? Do you know who else does creepy garbage like that? Pedophiles!! There is a search engine I found a few years ago called duckduckgo.com and they give everyone in the world the same results when using the same parameters. Try them for a week and if you do not like them, go back to your old engine.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Debates on this medium are very frustrating for me because I lack the ability to convey my message eloquently. Then you claim I am dishonest. That has never been my intention, nor will it ever be.[/quote]

My sincere apologies for assuming dishonesty. My issue was with the fact that you chose one secondary “may” sentence in support of a “well then it may not” argument – which would have been fine had the former been FIGO’s solitary claim. In fact, they explicitly preface the possible secondary method of action with a thoroughly-evidenced primary method of action (with neither being abortifacient). Thus, the “may not” objection does not stand. Furthermore, FIGO explicitly rules out disruption of implantation, based on the evidence.

[quote]
Let me try another tactic. If we are told that earth revolves around the sun, how many people that you have ever talked with have actually been to outer space to witness this phenomenon? No one I know has been out of our atmosphere. Yet if all the studies prove that we revolve around the sun, does that mean reality changes? Or does it mean we find science to prove what we want it to prove?

In a world that supports the open slaughter of innocent children, what do you think the majority of science will show?[/quote]

It’s unclear what you’re trying to claim here. The literature cited by FIGO is peer-reviewed and, obviously, has the confidence of the highest relevant medical body. You can deny it only with different, better evidence.

If you are alleging that there is some kind of conspiracy at play, you need hard evidence in support of this enormously (or astronomically, in keeping with your theme of outer space) unlikely claim. You can’t choose to believe some medical findings and disbelieve others because the latter conflict with your political or religious ideology. If the studies are legitimate and methodologically sound – and I seriously doubt you’ll show otherwise – then you don’t seem to have an argument here.

[quote]
Sure I picked a line or two that made zero logical sense to me. If one single portion of any study fails a test of logic or reason or science, the whole test is wrong.[/quote]

No, particularly because what you picked out was neither illogical nor unreasonable. There is a primary method of action; there may be a secondary method of action. Neither causes abortion. No failure of logic here.[/quote]

303

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
It is in the past, so I am not going to harp over something over, over and over again.

What is the purpose of levonorgestrel? This is from their site ? ?To advocate for the use of misoprostol for post-partum haemorrhage (PPH) prevention and treatment by acting as a ?guiding? organisation for advocacy among the medical community and health professionals. This involves disseminating information on strong evidence-based results relating to the effectiveness and greater use of misoprostol, and developing materials for dissemination, including guidelines and protocols, for professional groups on the use of misoprostol for PPH.? The purpose was found here - FIGO Projects | Figo - Never do they talk about birth control the way other birth control works, it was developed to help stop Post-partum haemorrhage (PPH).[/quote]

It is used as both an emergency contraceptive and as a form of long-term term birth control.

[quote]
You also might check newer sources because I found this site after about ten minutes of searching - http://www.drugs.com/cdi/levonorgestrel.html - with a posting date of June 3, 2015 and that beats your newest source by a few years. And I quote ?Levonorgestrel is a progestin. Exactly how it works is not known. It may prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation, altering transport of sperm or eggs to prevent fertilization, or altering the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation should fertilization occur.? - I bolded the portion that contradicts your claims, for your information the drug works like every other method of birth control, by 1) sometimes inhibiting ovulation 2) impeding the flow of sperm and 3) by preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. In other words, different package but the artificial hormone works like every other one on the market.

From pubmed ? ?It works by preventing a woman’s egg from fully developing. It may also prevent the attachment of the woman’s egg to the wall of the uterus (womb).? - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0010919/?report=details ? [/quote]

This is what I meant when I talked about the quality of sources. Those webpages are neither peer-reviewed nor cited nor signed, and, in fact, they draw their content from the same source – Truven, a private company with sprawling content-creation products drawn heavily from FDA drug product info. The woman from the pro-life organization quoted in my first citation – the NYT article – even said herself that the drug product information, which is a function of notoriously slow bureaucracy, for these contraceptives are out-of-date vis-a-vis the last decade of studies. The upshot is that the webpages are not authoritative in the face of a collection of recent peer-reviewed findings cited by the highest relevant medical body and attached to an unambiguous statement of fact about a drug’s mechanism of action. They adduce no evidence in refutation of FIGO’s position, which itself adduced much evidence. FIGO’s unambiguous claims stand unless new peer-reviewed research, clearly cited by an authoritative source, gives explicit reason to suspect otherwise.

304

So if pubmed does not meet YOUR criteria, please provide a list of sources that will meet that standard?

The group of people who developed the drug intended it to be used for PPH, not birth control.

If any drug on the market were to stop the release of an egg, the hormone would be called ovulation control. All synthetic hormones are called birth control; therefore they allow the release of an egg. This is why from the start I wanted you to tell me what the unborn are.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
It is in the past, so I am not going to harp over something over, over and over again.

What is the purpose of levonorgestrel? This is from their site ? ?To advocate for the use of misoprostol for post-partum haemorrhage (PPH) prevention and treatment by acting as a ?guiding? organisation for advocacy among the medical community and health professionals. This involves disseminating information on strong evidence-based results relating to the effectiveness and greater use of misoprostol, and developing materials for dissemination, including guidelines and protocols, for professional groups on the use of misoprostol for PPH.? The purpose was found here - FIGO Projects | Figo - Never do they talk about birth control the way other birth control works, it was developed to help stop Post-partum haemorrhage (PPH).[/quote]

It is used as both an emergency contraceptive and as a form of long-term term birth control.

[quote]
You also might check newer sources because I found this site after about ten minutes of searching - Levonorgestrel: Package Insert - Drugs.com - with a posting date of June 3, 2015 and that beats your newest source by a few years. And I quote ?Levonorgestrel is a progestin. Exactly how it works is not known. It may prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation, altering transport of sperm or eggs to prevent fertilization, or altering the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation should fertilization occur.? - I bolded the portion that contradicts your claims, for your information the drug works like every other method of birth control, by 1) sometimes inhibiting ovulation 2) impeding the flow of sperm and 3) by preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. In other words, different package but the artificial hormone works like every other one on the market.

From pubmed ? ?It works by preventing a woman’s egg from fully developing. It may also prevent the attachment of the woman’s egg to the wall of the uterus (womb).? - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0010919/?report=details ? [/quote]

This is what I meant when I talked about the quality of sources. Those webpages are neither peer-reviewed nor cited nor signed, and, in fact, they draw their content from the same source – Truven, a private company with sprawling content-creation products drawn heavily from FDA drug product info. The woman from the pro-life organization quoted in my first citation – the NYT article – even said herself that the drug product information, which is a function of notoriously slow bureaucracy, for these contraceptives are out-of-date vis-a-vis the last decade of studies. The upshot is that the webpages are not authoritative in the face of a collection of recent peer-reviewed findings cited by the highest relevant medical body and attached to an unambiguous statement of fact about a drug’s mechanism of action. They adduce no evidence in refutation of FIGO’s position, which itself adduced much evidence. FIGO’s unambiguous claims stand unless new peer-reviewed research, clearly cited by an authoritative source, gives explicit reason to suspect otherwise.[/quote]

305

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So if pubmed does not meet YOUR criteria, please provide a list of sources that will meet that standard?[/quote]

This is why I assumed you were being dishonest: you don’t seem to be willing or able to follow the basic steps of this exchange. As I’ve already explained, the citationless webpages you linked drew their content from a private business (not an authoritative medical body) which compiles undated FDA-required drug product information. As I’ve also already explained, the drug product information in question is, per a prominent pro-life scientist, out of date vis-a-vis the relevant medical findings.

As for your request that I “provide a list of sources,” I’ve already done that. What we are discussing at this very moment – and I shouldn’t have to explain this – is a publication issued by an international medical body. It is a simple and clear review of the current medical literature, the conclusion of which is the unambiguous statement that the drug in question does not inhibit egg implantation. This publication is meticulously cited and as authoritative as it possibly can be.

[quote]
The group of people who developed the drug intended it to be used for PPH, not birth control.[/quote]

Levonorgestrel is used as an emergency and long-term contraceptive. It’s unclear what you’re trying to get at, but I promise you it isn’t worth the wasted words. We are discussing a drug that is used to inhibit conception.

[quote]
If any drug on the market were to stop the release of an egg, the hormone would be called ovulation control. All synthetic hormones are called birth control; therefore they allow the release of an egg. This is why from the start I wanted you to tell me what the unborn are.[/quote]

This ^ is terrible. First, the drug in question is called a contraceptive…because it inhibits conception.

Second, and much more importantly, it wouldn’t matter if people called it “baby-killing abortion juice” – if the medical evidence shows that its mechanism of action lies in its inhibition of conception (by impeding egg release and, possibly, sperm motility), and not in anything relating to implantation, then it is not abortifacient.

Please don’t make me repeat anything I’ve said here.

306

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So if pubmed does not meet YOUR criteria, please provide a list of sources that will meet that standard?[/quote]

This is why I assumed you were being dishonest: you don’t seem to be willing or able to follow the basic steps of this exchange. As I’ve already explained, the citationless webpages you linked drew their content from a private business (not an authoritative medical body) which compiles undated FDA-required drug product information. As I’ve also already explained, the drug product information in question is, per a prominent pro-life scientist, out of date vis-a-vis the relevant medical findings.

As for your request that I “provide a list of sources,” I’ve already done that. What we are discussing at this very moment – and I shouldn’t have to explain this – is a publication issued by an international medical body. It is a simple and clear review of the current medical literature, the conclusion of which is the unambiguous statement that the drug in question does not inhibit egg implantation. This publication is meticulously cited and as authoritative as it possibly can be.

[quote]
The group of people who developed the drug intended it to be used for PPH, not birth control.[/quote]

Levonorgestrel is used as an emergency and long-term contraceptive. It’s unclear what you’re trying to get at, but I promise you it isn’t worth the wasted words. We are discussing a drug that is used to inhibit conception.

[quote]
If any drug on the market were to stop the release of an egg, the hormone would be called ovulation control. All synthetic hormones are called birth control; therefore they allow the release of an egg. This is why from the start I wanted you to tell me what the unborn are.[/quote]

This ^ is terrible. First, the drug in question is called a contraceptive…because it inhibits conception.

Second, and much more importantly, it wouldn’t matter if people called it “baby-killing abortion juice” – if the medical evidence shows that its mechanism of action lies in its inhibition of conception (by impeding egg release and, possibly, sperm motility), and not in anything relating to implantation, then it is not abortifacient.

Please don’t make me repeat anything I’ve said here.[/quote]

Kneedragger pubmed is a good source of peer reviewed articles the problem is your quote you provided proves nothing. According to your pubmed quote it says it MAY prevent implantation, which hasn’t been shown to be true for the drug and in Europe the drug company had to remove that claim.

What does the original intent for the drug have to do with anything? Viagra was originally intended for treating high blood pressure and Angina. Its not un common for a drug to be developed with an intent and once trials start they are found to have little effect on what it was originally intended for.

Like smh has said and numerous studies have found emergency contraceptives are only effective prior to ovulation, they are not effective after ovulation has occurred.

I haven’t read the whole debate, but from what I have gathered Kneedragger is trying to claim the emergency contraceptives are abortion drugs? These drugs in no way stop fetal development or cause a miscarriage this has been shown in studies. They don’t stop a pregnancy they only stop ovulation. Levonorgestrel tricks the body processes into thinking that ovulation has already occurred, by maintaining high levels of the synthetic progesterone. This prevents the release of eggs from the ovaries.

307

You made the claim smh that no babies are killed with levonorgestrel because it stops an egg from being released. Never once in any of the literature provided did I read that. The words may, might, possibly etc. are used but never once is anything said with absolute certainty. Why would you not want to ensure what is happening when talking about the life of one innocent child, not matter how inconvenient? Now I could have also missed it but it was never intentional. Please find where your statement has been verified by, in your words an authoritative medical body, who was not paid by the makers of the drug or a pro-death company.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So if pubmed does not meet YOUR criteria, please provide a list of sources that will meet that standard?[/quote]

This is why I assumed you were being dishonest: you don’t seem to be willing or able to follow the basic steps of this exchange. As I’ve already explained, the citationless webpages you linked drew their content from a private business (not an authoritative medical body) which compiles undated FDA-required drug product information. As I’ve also already explained, the drug product information in question is, per a prominent pro-life scientist, out of date vis-a-vis the relevant medical findings.

As for your request that I “provide a list of sources,” I’ve already done that. What we are discussing at this very moment – and I shouldn’t have to explain this – is a publication issued by an international medical body. It is a simple and clear review of the current medical literature, the conclusion of which is the unambiguous statement that the drug in question does not inhibit egg implantation. This publication is meticulously cited and as authoritative as it possibly can be.[/quote]

If the people who make a drug realize it has other uses, why would they NOT market the drug for those other uses?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]
The group of people who developed the drug intended it to be used for PPH, not birth control.[/quote]

Levonorgestrel is used as an emergency and long-term contraceptive. It’s unclear what you’re trying to get at, but I promise you it isn’t worth the wasted words. We are discussing a drug that is used to inhibit conception.[/quote]

This was intended as a comment about all the different forms of birth control or contraceptives. If these methods are so effective, why is it that well over half the women who go in for abortions use birth control? If any drug was the magic solution, why are more people not being even more selfish?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]
If any drug on the market were to stop the release of an egg, the hormone would be called ovulation control. All synthetic hormones are called birth control; therefore they allow the release of an egg. This is why from the start I wanted you to tell me what the unborn are.[/quote]

This ^ is terrible. First, the drug in question is called a contraceptive…because it inhibits conception.

Second, and much more importantly, it wouldn’t matter if people called it “baby-killing abortion juice” – if the medical evidence shows that its mechanism of action lies in its inhibition of conception (by impeding egg release and, possibly, sperm motility), and not in anything relating to implantation, then it is not abortifacient.

Please don’t make me repeat anything I’ve said here.[/quote]
Context matters and I apologize for taking anything out of the intended syntax.

308

If something MAY do something, logic dictates it has to MAY NOT do the same thing. I also fail to understand your last portion of the paragraph. The science here in America is different, better or worse than in Europe?

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
Kneedragger pubmed is a good source of peer reviewed articles the problem is your quote you provided proves nothing. According to your pubmed quote it says it MAY prevent implantation, which hasn’t been shown to be true for the drug and in Europe the drug company had to remove that claim.[/quote]

If a drug company has another use for a drug, why would they NOT market that use?

This makes zero logical sense to me. I may be stupid when compared to other people but I did graduate from college with a science degree.

This debate changes in how you define the unborn oldstyle00. I will ask so as to not be confused.

What are the unborn oldstyle00?

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:I haven’t read the whole debate, but from what I have gathered Kneedragger is trying to claim the emergency contraceptives are abortion drugs? These drugs in no way stop fetal development or cause a miscarriage this has been shown in studies. They don’t stop a pregnancy they only stop ovulation. Levonorgestrel tricks the body processes into thinking that ovulation has already occurred, by maintaining high levels of the synthetic progesterone. This prevents the release of eggs from the ovaries.

http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/clinical-proceedings/EC/MOA[/quote]
The ^ link was interesting. Yet I know we can all read it differently though.

309

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You made the claim smh that no babies are killed with levonorgestrel because it stops an egg from being released. Never once in any of the literature provided did I read that. The words may, might, possibly etc. are used but never once is anything said with absolute certainty.[/quote]

It’s not often that somebody so obviously and diametrically inverts truth/reality. You did read exactly that, both in the (authoritative) literature provided and in the excerpts of it that I reproduced on page 12 of this very thread:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]
The evidence shows that LNG ECPs…do not prevent implantation.[/quote]

There are more (same source):

[quote]
…cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo… do not interrupt a pregnancy (by any definition of the beginning of pregnancy)…[/quote]

You’re ignoring or forgetting or unable to follow the basic exchange of information. Anyway, it’s clear that this conversation has run its course and is resolved. Until next time.

310

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If something MAY do something, logic dictates it has to MAY NOT do the same thing. I also fail to understand your last portion of the paragraph. The science here in America is different, better or worse than in Europe?

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
Kneedragger pubmed is a good source of peer reviewed articles the problem is your quote you provided proves nothing. According to your pubmed quote it says it MAY prevent implantation, which hasn’t been shown to be true for the drug and in Europe the drug company had to remove that claim.[/quote]

[quote]
I am not claiming it is better or worse I am saying they are ahead in this instance at removing a claim by the drug company because it hasn’t been shown to change conditions in the Uterus to make it inhospitable to a fertilized egg.[/quote]

If a drug company has another use for a drug, why would they NOT market that use?

This makes zero logical sense to me. I may be stupid when compared to other people but I did graduate from college with a science degree.

This debate changes in how you define the unborn oldstyle00. I will ask so as to not be confused.

What are the unborn oldstyle00?

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:I haven’t read the whole debate, but from what I have gathered Kneedragger is trying to claim the emergency contraceptives are abortion drugs? These drugs in no way stop fetal development or cause a miscarriage this has been shown in studies. They don’t stop a pregnancy they only stop ovulation. Levonorgestrel tricks the body processes into thinking that ovulation has already occurred, by maintaining high levels of the synthetic progesterone. This prevents the release of eggs from the ovaries.

http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/clinical-proceedings/EC/MOA[/quote]
The ^ link was interesting. Yet I know we can all read it differently though.[/quote]

311

Still not good at the quoting thing on here.

Kneedragger do you know what levonorgestrel does in a woman’s body, what the actions are? First off it is a synthetic steroidal hormone that mimics progesterone, which women naturally make. Normally progesterone is low, but after ovulation progesterone increases to stop the release of another egg. The next action is preparing the uterine wall for implantation.

â??These medications are there to prevent or delay ovulation,â?? said Dr. Petra M. Casey, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Mayo. â??They donâ??t act after fertilization.â??

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administrationâ??s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label â?? despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation.

I guess what I am failing to understand is how you can have a position, which is clearly very contradictory to what studies have found and even how the hormone acts in the body. What kind of scientific background do you have? At this point I can see why smh is getting frustrated, he is posting actual research and you have your hypothetical fingers in your ears about everything he is posting.

312

My apologies for not finding this before, I do not devote vast amounts of time to this debate because I have some young children to take care of ; ) The underlined portion is of critical importance.

?To summarize: It is possible that Plan B may delay ovulation when given before or at the beginning of the fertile period, when the chance of pregnancy is slim to none, and therefore, it is not ?needed? to prevent pregnancy. When given after intercourse in the fertile period and before the LH peak that triggers ovulation, Plan B fails to act as a contraceptive 80-92% of the time; [i]it acts instead as an abortifacient, eliminating all embryos likely to have been conceived[/i]. When given on the day of ovulation or later to prevent pregnancy from intercourse during the fertile period, it almost always fails to prevent established pregnancies.

We can leave levonorgestrel to the side if you would like [science is NOT even conclusive, and that should raise its own questions]. Which other artificial hormones do NOT cause abortions in your view?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You made the claim smh that no babies are killed with levonorgestrel because it stops an egg from being released. Never once in any of the literature provided did I read that. The words may, might, possibly etc. are used but never once is anything said with absolute certainty.[/quote]

It’s not often that somebody so obviously and diametrically inverts truth/reality. You did read exactly that, both in the (authoritative) literature provided and in the excerpts of it that I reproduced on page 12 of this very thread:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]
The evidence shows that LNG ECPs…do not prevent implantation.[/quote]

There are more (same source):

[quote]
…cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo… do not interrupt a pregnancy (by any definition of the beginning of pregnancy)…[/quote]

You’re ignoring or forgetting or unable to follow the basic exchange of information. Anyway, it’s clear that this conversation has run its course and is resolved. Until next time.[/quote]

313

Do not worry about quoting, it takes a while before you get used to it. I use the quote button on a particular post and then transfer it to word and modify it from there. The [quote-] always starts the actual quote (in my example, take away the dash at the end of quote bracket). The [/quote-] always ends the quote (again in my preceding example take away the dash before the last quote bracket).

Now, on to your post. The cycle of a healthy woman has fluctuating hormone levels throughout that period of time. Progesterone can inhibit the egg from ovulating when she is pregnant because the progesterone level are so high. Please read the page posted above in my last reply to smh. Scientists are far from all being certain of what happens.

[quote]oldstyle00 wrote:
Still not good at the quoting thing on here.

Kneedragger do you know what levonorgestrel does in a woman’s body, what the actions are? First off it is a synthetic steroidal hormone that mimics progesterone, which women naturally make. Normally progesterone is low, but after ovulation progesterone increases to stop the release of another egg. The next action is preparing the uterine wall for implantation.

â??These medications are there to prevent or delay ovulation,â?? said Dr. Petra M. Casey, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Mayo. â??They donâ??t act after fertilization.â??

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administrationâ??s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label â?? despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation.

I guess what I am failing to understand is how you can have a position, which is clearly very contradictory to what studies have found and even how the hormone acts in the body. What kind of scientific background do you have? At this point I can see why smh is getting frustrated, he is posting actual research and you have your hypothetical fingers in your ears about everything he is posting.[/quote]

314

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
My apologies for not finding this before, I do not devote vast amounts of time to this debate because I have some young children to take care of ; ) The underlined portion is of critical importance.

?To summarize: It is possible that Plan B may delay ovulation when given before or at the beginning of the fertile period, when the chance of pregnancy is slim to none, and therefore, it is not ?needed? to prevent pregnancy. When given after intercourse in the fertile period and before the LH peak that triggers ovulation, Plan B fails to act as a contraceptive 80-92% of the time; [i]it acts instead as an abortifacient, eliminating all embryos likely to have been conceived[/i]. When given on the day of ovulation or later to prevent pregnancy from intercourse during the fertile period, it almost always fails to prevent established pregnancies.

We can leave levonorgestrel to the side if you would like [science is NOT even conclusive, and that should raise its own questions]. Which other artificial hormones do NOT cause abortions in your view?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You made the claim smh that no babies are killed with levonorgestrel because it stops an egg from being released. Never once in any of the literature provided did I read that. The words may, might, possibly etc. are used but never once is anything said with absolute certainty.[/quote]

It’s not often that somebody so obviously and diametrically inverts truth/reality. You did read exactly that, both in the (authoritative) literature provided and in the excerpts of it that I reproduced on page 12 of this very thread:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]
The evidence shows that LNG ECPs…do not prevent implantation.[/quote]

There are more (same source):

[quote]
…cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo… do not interrupt a pregnancy (by any definition of the beginning of pregnancy)…[/quote]

You’re ignoring or forgetting or unable to follow the basic exchange of information. Anyway, it’s clear that this conversation has run its course and is resolved. Until next time.[/quote][/quote]

So your rebuttal to smh posting peer reviewed research articles on the subject is to post from lifenews, which clearly has an agenda and they are getting their information from the NCB center (national catholic bioethics center). Neither of which can be considered as a reputable science resource. Looking at their stance on vaccinations and the use of conversion therapy for homosexuals was enough for me to stop reading.

The whole ncb center article is nothing more then an opinion piece using no actual scientific data. The whole article is purporting and the authors come to conclusions that aren’t backed by research. I can understand why smh has checked himself out of this debate your grasping at straws if you are using information like this as scientific. Nothing in this is peer reviewed, published in a scientific paper so other scientists can dissect the research. Its nothing more then a couple of authors coming to their own conclusions using very little science and with an agenda.

316

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/28/active-shooter-situation-reported-near-colorado-springs-planned-parenthood/?intcmp=hpbt1

Thoughts on the recent shooting?

318

Holy shit we have another bat shit crazy right winger , let’s forget about their period of gestation and go right to killing them in battle or let’s just let em die when they get old :slight_smile: Funny Shit

319

[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/28/active-shooter-situation-reported-near-colorado-springs-planned-parenthood/?intcmp=hpbt1

Thoughts on the recent shooting?[/quote]

I have seen little detail on this. Anyone have any updates?

Originally I read the shootout started outside and the suspect then ran into the PP.
Obama and the left are already pushing “military style weapon ban” even though sources said a handgun was used.

320

An agenda to save babies from being slaughtered in abortion. Yes, that is horrible. In addition, say this drug is all that it is claimed to be. How is having unprotected sex a good thing for anyone?