Text 12296, 110 rader
Skriven 2014-02-01 23:22:20 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
  Kommentar till text 12294 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Wendy Davis
===================
Hi Ross,

> Which at this point it was never a fetus...

Here, read this:


In order to prevent pregnancy, birth control pills employ several mechanisms.
First, the synthetic hormones may convince a woman'Ps body that she is
pregnant. This can stop the ovaries from releasing an egg. The Pill also makes
it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg, because the hormones thicken the
cervical mucus, making it difficult for the sperm to live and move.

The Pill also creates changes in the uterus and fallopian tubes that can
interfere with the transport of sperm.[1] Despite the hormones's ability to
prevent the release of eggs, sometimes a "breakthrough ovulation" takes place.
How often this happens depends upon several factors, such as which kind of pill
the woman is taking, how consistently she takes her pills, and even how much
she weighs. Even with correct and consistent use of the Pill, some formulas
allow ovulation in less than 2 percent of cycles, while others allow a woman to
ovulate during 65 percent of her cycles.[2]

When a woman ovulates, she can become pregnant. However, the Pill has
mechanisms that can cause an abortion before a woman knows that she has
conceived. If a sperm does fertilize the egg, the newly conceived baby (zygote)
may be transported more slowly through the fallopian tubes because of how they
have been altered by the Pill. Thus, the child may not reach the uterus, where
he or she needs to implant and receive nourishment for the next nine months.
Because the fallopian tubes are changed, the baby may accidentally implant
there, causing an ectopic or "tubal" pregnancy, which is fatal to the baby, and
can also be life-threatening for the mother.

If the baby is able to travel safely to the uterus, he or she may not be well
received. One reason for this is that the chemicals in the Pill thin out the
lining of the woman's uterus (the endometrium).[3] As a result, the baby may
not be able to implant. At other times the child will attach to the wall, but
he or she will be unable to survive because the normally thick and healthy
uterine wall has shriveled and is therefore unable to nourish the baby. The
Pill also impacts the woman's progesterone level. This causes the lining of the
uterus to break down and eventually shed as it would in a menstrual cycle,
further denying the baby's attempt to implant.

Many doctors are concerned about the fact that women often are not informed
that the birth control pill can cause an abortion as well as prevent pregnancy.
One medical journal declared, "If any mechanism of any OC [Oral Contraceptive]
violates the morals of any particular woman, the failure of the physician or
care provider to disclose this information would effectively eliminate the
likelihood that the woman's consent was truly informed and would seriously
jeopardize her autonomy. Furthermore, there is a potential for negative
psychological impact on women who believe human life begins at fertilization,
who have not been given informed consent about OCs, and who later learn of the
potential for postfertilization effects of OCs. The responses to this could
include disappointment, anger, guilt, sadness, rage, depression, or a sense of
having been violated by the provider."
[...]
One reason why certain doctors may not tell women about the abortifacient
nature of the Pill is that some physicians do not believe that pregnancy begins
with fertilization. Until the 1960s, when the Pill was invented, it had been
taken for granted that the union of the sperm and egg signaled the beginning of
pregnancy. In 1963 even the United States government published health
information declaring that anything that impairs life between the moment of
fertilization and the completion of labor is to be considered an abortion.[8]

Because many women would never have agreed to use a drug or device that could
cause an early abortion, those in favor of such contraceptives knew that the
issue had to be resolved. In 1964 a Planned Parenthood doctor speaking of
another type of abortifacient birth control recommended that scientists not
"disturb those people for whom this is a question of major importance." He
added that judges and theologians trust the medical community, and "if a
medical consensus develops and is maintained that pregnancy, and therefore
life, begins at implantation, eventually our brethren from the other faculties
will listen."

One year later the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
decided to redefine pregnancy. In its words, "conception is the implantation of
a fertilized ovum."[10] Instead of defining conception as fertilization, ACOG
decided that life begins nearly a week later, at implantation. At the time they
said that this was because pregnancy could not be detected before then. Today
science is able to detect pregnancy before implantation, but the ACOG still
won't correct its definition.[11] The original change had nothing to do with a
scientific discovery in women's health, reproduction, or biology.
Unfortunately, doctors today are split on the issue.[12]


1]. Walter L. Larimore and Joseph B. Stanford, CÇ£Postfertilization Effects of
Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,CÇØ Archives of
Family Medicine 9 (February 2000), 127. [2]. Larimore and Stanford, 127.
[3]. PhysiciansCÇÖ Desk Reference (Montvale, N.J.: Thomson, 2006), 2414. [4].
Larimore and Stanford, 131.
[5]. Larimore and Stanford, 133.
[6]. Federal Register 41:236 (December 7, 1976), 53,634. [7]. Larimore and
Stanford, 133.
[8]. Public Health Service Leaflet no. 1066, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education,
and Welfare (1963), 27.
[9]. Sheldon Segal, ed., et al., CÇ£Proceedings of the Second International
Conference, Intra-Uterine Contraception,CÇØ October 2CÇô3, 1964, New York City,
International Series, Excerpta Medica Foundation, No. 1 (September 1965). [10].
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, CÇ£Terms Used in Reference to the
Fetus,CÇØ Terminology Bulletin 1 (Philadelphia: Davis, September 1965). [11].
Shu-Juan Cheng, et al., CÇ£Early Pregnancy Factor in Cervical Mucus of Pregnant
Women,CÇØ American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 51:2 (February 2004),
102CÇô105.
[12]. J.A. Spinato, CÇ£Informed Consent and the Redefining of Conception:
http://www.chastity.com/node/423

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)