New 5-Day 'Morning-After' Pill Tested For U.S. Approval

Jan 22, 2010 by Ted Goodman report
ellaOne (ulipristal acetate) is already available in Europe. (Image credit: Le Blog de le santé)
Advertisement for ellaOne

(PhysOrg.com) -- Currently, women who seek emergency contraception within 72 hours of intercourse can receive copper intrauterine devices. Though the devices are very effective at preventing pregnancy, they must be administered by a highly trained clinician and are not universally accepted by patients, as they have a higher risk of complications than oral applications. These factors stand as deterrents to some women obtaining emergency contraception after a 3-day period.

But a novel morning-after pill that was approved last March for use in Europe has undergone new testing for safety and efficacy in the U.S. The , ulipristal acetate (ellaOne), for who have had , claims to have enough potency to protect them from pregnancy for up to 120 hours after intercourse. The one similar pill, levonorgestrel, is already approved in the U.S., but it is effective only up to 72 hours.

Both levonorgestrel and the new medication, ulipristal acetate, are manufactured by HRA Pharma of Paris, which supported the U.S. study.

Researchers studied 1,241 women requesting emergency . The women enrolled in one of 45 Planned Parenthood clinics and received one 30 mg. dose of ulipristal acetate. Follow-up was performed by urine tests (chorionic gonadotropin) and the women’s return of menses.

Results indicate that ulipristal met the statistical requirements for efficacy with a pregnancy rate of 2.1 percent (26) of the women in the study. Additionally, it was found that ulipristal did not lose its potency over the time period administered (i.e., from 48 hours to 120 hours after intercourse), unlike levonorgestrel.

Side effects of ulipristal acetate were mostly headache, nausea, and abdominal pain, but the effects were mild to moderate and resolved spontaneously, according to the researchers.

The findings are published online by the Obstetrics & Gynecology journal.

Explore further: FDA OKs Merck tablet to reduce ragweed allergies

More information: Ulipristal Acetate Taken 48-120 Hours After Intercourse for Emergency Contraception, Obstetrics & Gynecology, February 2010 - Volume 115 - Issue 2, Part 1 - pp 257-263; doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c8e2aa

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Study recalculates costs of combination vaccines

Apr 17, 2014

One of the most popular vaccine brands for children may not be the most cost-effective choice. And doctors may be overlooking some cost factors when choosing vaccines, driving the market toward what is actually a more expensive ...

Drug watchdog urges vigilance in cancer drug theft

Apr 17, 2014

Europe's medicine watchdog urged doctors Thursday to be vigilant in administering the cancer drug Herceptin, vials of which had been stolen in Italy and tampered with before being sold back into the supply chain.

User comments : 73

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MikeMike
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2010
Gee, I've heard of marathon sessions, but 72 hours! I'm impressed!
joefarah
2 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2010
Another way to prevent life - the culture of death! And I'm sure the side effects will even take the lives of a few women - bonus for the culture of death.

Get real people! These are babies we're dealing with. FDA - you're responsible for this.
PMende
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2010
http://www.brown....asto.jpg

That's not a person. Sorry.
rproulx45
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2010
RE:Another way to prevent life - the culture of death! And I'm sure the side effects will even take the lives of a few women - bonus for the culture of death.

Get real people! These are babies we're dealing with. FDA - you're responsible for this.

Geez! Where are we going to find another baby? You act as if we invented death and are entitled to live forever. Shame on you sir, we all live, we all kill, we all die. Life isn't sacred, it just is.
rproulx45
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2010
PS- it's NOT a baby! it's Not even a couple of cells!
It is a tiny, tiny, speck of goo. You kill more substantial life when you scratch your rear end. Now enjoy a fine breakfast; eggs, sausage, potatoes, toast, all of which comes from a living thing.
joefarah
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2010
Obviously you need to do some homework. A baby's heart is beating, in utero, at around 20 days. So where did you go from a "couple of cells" to a beating heart in 15 days. In the first month of pregnancy, the head, neck, spine, liver, heart, lungs, blood vessels have all started forming. Your "Tiny speck of goo" is just brain-washed literature to help you cope with the killing.

I guess it's OK to kill the baby if it were you many years back - right? It has a soul and is a human being. Not what a human being looks like at age 90, nor at age 20, nor at age 5, nor at age 1, but at age 5 days.
You need to do some scientific research - otherwise, please don't post about what you don't know.
PMende
3.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2010
IT IS NOT A BABY. The link I posted is a picture of a blastocyst at age 5 days. That is not a human being. That's not a person. It can't think or feel. It doesn't have a soul. It's a pouch of agglomerated cells that will possibly one day BECOME a human - nothing more.
joefarah
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2010
It's what a human being looks like at 5 days, not a pouch of agglomerated cells. It does have a soul and unless prevented by someone else, has better than a 99% chance of being born. If you prevent it, you are killing the "person". The term person, unfortunately, has become a legal term that some countries choose to define as someone that has been born. Others protect the person from the moment of conception. So although the term "Baby" may not be technically appropriate at age 5 days (in utero), the term person is appropriate, as is the term "human being".
PMende
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2010
Tell me: what's your definition of a human being or a person? Are they a set of cells that have human DNA? Or are they living things capable of thought and emotion?

I vote for the latter - I don't think my skin cells are people.
joefarah
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2010
Your skin cells are not people. Your skin cells will not develop into a brain and beating heart - they will remain skin cells. Not so for the 5 day old person. A human being has different capabilities at different times and conditions of their lives. For example, the brain function which gives thought, also controls the beating heart at 22 days or earlier. In a coma, a person does not express emotion. Can you tell me when the brain function starts working? If not, you might want to reconsider your vote. Do you understand what constitues emotion? At exactly what point does emotion develop in a human being?
joefarah
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2010
The brain itself is not visibly developing until during the 3rd week (neural tubes, spinal cord, heart). In weeks 4 and 5, typically when you realize you're pregnant, we see the beginnings of the vertebra, the arms and legs, the foot and hand pads, the lower jaw, the larynx (voice box), and the start of the ears and eyes.

Anyone thing it's still a clump of cells at this point? Or is it OK to call the person human?
SincerelyTwo
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2010
joefarah,

so what. so what if females abort fetuses, it doesn't matter. objective reality does not dictate any laws which claims it's unnatural to abort an unborn embreo/fetus. there's absolutely nothing evil about it, it's entirely a personal choice. if females don't want children and want unprotected sex, then they should use these pills. simple as that.

and if a clump of cells is aborted from her body, so what?

you're projection your feelings on to something which may not even agree with you, your problem with the situation is actually you. you're pushing your ideals on others, you are not god nor are you any kind of objective observer credited with the power to make decisions for others. you have no natural right to control others will or ideals.
PMende
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2010
Tell me, joefarah: is it possible for a blastocyst to have two "souls?"
joefarah
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2010
Make a choice: Is there objective moral truth or not? If not, then all murder should be allowed. If so, then human life needs to be regarded as sacred. Nothing gives anyone the right to take the life of an innocent human being. I see you're using the "protect me" words like "clump of cells" so as to not admit that it is the taking of human life.

And why should you be able to project your feelings upon the person whose life is being taken, saying that person's life is worthless, when you would prefer that I don't project my feelings. What gives people the right to control those persons by taking away their very life?
joefarah
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2010
PMende - tell me first, how many seconds into conception have passed by the time twins are determined?
joefarah
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2010
As I have to leave now, the answer to your question is no... Twins are formed through two different eggs being fertilized, or through a division during the very first cell division - when the cells divide, but fail to remain joined.
SincerelyTwo
4 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2010
joefarah,

you're wrong, again. there is no objective opinion, and there is social contract, and there is objective truth in the strict sense of maintaining balance of forces and translations of energies, nothing to do with the 'will of man'. you've just demonstrated your lack of capacity to comprehend the exact nature of the concepts you're attempting to speak about. social contract and laws exist to promote* or attempt* to regulate* certain behaviors. if laws actually *controlled people there would be no murders, and clearly there are. and murders occur *at all because there is no *objective opinion or 'natural law' which prevents it.

it is both out of your control, and irrelevant. like i said, the most you could ever do is influence law, but you will NEVER actually stop anything.

just because YOU*** say "if a then b" does not make it so. your inability to discover reason is a problem of your mind, your lack of mental capacity.
PMende
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2010
Cleavage of the embryo/fetus can occur as much as 2 weeks after conception, though the likelihood of such a cleavage forming conjoined twins increases as time goes by.

Since there is only one soul in the blastocyst, when does the second soul appear in the formation of twins? Is there a time when the second blastocyst doesn't have a soul? Or does the soul split in half? Are twins really only half souled people?! Are conjoined twins some sort of monstrous mockery of the human form with one soul shared between two partially formed bodies and two fully functioning brains?
SincerelyTwo
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2010
joefarah,

the natural world exists as it does, and you can NEVER do more than *attempt to *regulate or *influence, you will NEVER completely control a damn thing that is larger in scope than your being or requires reach outside of your mind.

if you cannot see that, if you can't see and accept the nature of reality, then you're life will be spent on futile efforts that might affect 0.00000000001% of the population that you can directly reach.

... and that may be enough to make you happy in life. but that doesn't change your delusion.

extremist religious zealots disturb me since they display no sense of reason or logic in their efforts, it's only fueled by the need to control other people. which ironically seems to go against the teachings of jesus and what other figures you try to follow. those individuals exemplified passive-aggressive and intelligent behavior, and preached kindness towards others. and here i observe followers of Christian religions doing the COMPLETE opposite.
rproulx45
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2010
Make a choice: Is there objective moral truth or not? If not, then all murder should be allowed

All murdered IS allowed...obviously. It is codified in law; if murder occurs it is punished. Sorry, there is also no indication that eggs have a soul. Just a heartbeat, much like a squirrel , and I would've have been fine had I been aborted, after all I was not a human at the time, without a soul,eggs don't have souls, ask any breakfast chef.
Life is not sacred, a cursory glance at any religious scripture should have convinced you of that. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son... God says let him die, we have bigger issues to deal with. Life is NOT sacred.
joefarah
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2010
Sincerely Two,
I understand your position. Very clearly stated. I agree that laws don't control people. So we should have a law against abortion (i.e. one that doesn't control people, including the person in the womb). Why - well let's start with because the majority of americans find abortion morally wrong based on a very recent poll. This is especially the case for young adults. Less than 20% said it is morally OK. 25% said it's not a moral issue.

If it's a personal choice, why not give the person in the womb a choice. Every see a video of an abortion where the baby struggles to avoid it? Have you ever had the privilege of watching an abortion, including looking at the aborted baby?

PMende - I have no idea when the soul is imparted to conjoined twins.

rproulx - In my country, murder is not "allowed", by the strict definition and common usage of the word "allow". Punishment does not atone for murder. Only forgiveness can do that. Eggs do not have a soul.
joefarah
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2010
rproulx - Eggs don't have souls - human beings do.

You left out the rest of John 3:16... why did God give his only begotten son? Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths explicitly state that life is sacred. Some other scripture "Before I formed you in your mother's womb I knew you.". "You are precious to me" (these are God's words - so life might not be sacred to you but it sure is to God and to me.
rproulx45
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2010
The soul, perhaps, but not the life, or else it wouldn't expire.And if life is sacred to you, be sure you're good to it.
Edylc
2 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2010
I think it's funny that people insist on trying to get other people to agree with their opinion, everyone has an opinion, and on a matter such as this, there is no changing of opinions, "Oh my god, did you hear what that random person on physorg said?... I guess I had it all wrong..."
I don't think so.

My opinion, we have too many people already, look what china had to do, we're on our way to having to do the same, than you'll really have something to bitch about.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2010
@joefarah,

The whole discussion about "souls" is pointless. That's your religious upbringing, and you're free to live by it. However, I (and many others) don't share your mystical delusions. The objective moral reality is that there is NO SUCH THING as a "soul". The "soul" is nothing but a figment of human imagination.

Assuming you're American, I'd like to point out that in a nation where the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, you simply have no basis in trying to impose your RELIGION upon others.

By even contemplating the very prospect of anti-abortion laws based on your concepts of "soul" or passages from your holy book, you are in fact contemplation a COERCIVE IMPOSITION OF YOUR RELIGION UPON EVERYBODY ELSE.

Sorry guy, but that just won't fly.
rproulx45
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2010
and my final word on the issue courtesy of George Carlin...

http://www.youtub...6ziOyxoA
PMende
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2010
I like Bill Hick's take on the issue: "You're not a human being... Until you're in my phone book."
barakn
4 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2010
It's what a human being looks like at 5 days, not a pouch of agglomerated cells. It does have a soul and unless prevented by someone else, has better than a 99% chance of being born.

99%? Are you aware that it is in bad taste to make up false facts to support your opinion? 20-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort, usually before the mother was even aware she was pregnant. http://www.estron...mmon.htm
If one considers these spontaneous abortions acts of God, then God is the most prolific abortionist in history.
MGraser
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2010
One in every 5 babies are aborted (conservative number) as part of the bodies natural cycle. It's called spontaneous abortion and can be easily googled. This is a process setup by God, then, if you believe there is a god. http://www.medici...icle.htm

Are all of them aborted because God in his great wisdom knew it would be better for 20% of children with a soul to be aborted rather than born? Keep in mind that 20% is only identified abortions. Most will never know that they were pregnant in the first place and so the estimate is that as many as 50% are aborted naturally.

So, with that in mind, do you think that this pill that aborts within the first 5 days of pregnancy is really killing a child? If so, then consider what you believe God is doing.

I think it is a question to seriously consider and not be written off by what you were taught the bible said. "Being known" by God before conception is not the same as imparting a soul at conception.
MGraser
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2010
That's funny, barkn - I just posted the same stat! :)
david_42
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
If taking these pills is murder, then every woman who has ever had a miscarriage is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

By the way, according to the Christian Bible, the soul enters the body with the first breath, not at conception.
mertzj
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
Gee didnt know I was taking millions of lives every time I beat off... Shame on me.
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
Well, I hate to use a slippery slope argument, but this IS a slippery slope...

A few years ago it was "morning after" now its "five days", and then it will be a month...

And you murderers will say, "Well, it's not a human for such and such a reason, blah, blah, blah..."

Of course, we've all fallen off the cliff anyway for th emost part, since it's still "ok" to have abortions anyway.

Just remember, every time your doctor prescribes this, or the pharmacist, its really not all that different than baal worship or chemosh. Sacrifice your baby to the "god" of SELF...

Instead of the Hypocratic oath, doctors should now be required to take the HypocrItic oath. "first, do more harm..."
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
Every human is worth something to me, but since you atheists and murderers only value what benefits you personally...

What if you just killed the person who would have invented cold fusion.

Or the person who would have cured cancer?

Or the person who would have invented FTL travel?

The Western capitalist is transforming into the worst of the atheistic communist, and none of the things that were good about communism. Kill babies at anyone's conveniences just because you like to live like a harlot(whether male or female), but don't want a child.

It's time to realize you have de-humanized humanity, and reduced everyone to either a commodity or a "liability", and then just kill the "Liabilities", and if they're too young to fight back, all the better for you...or so you think...
marjon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
Make a choice: Is there objective moral truth or not? If not, then all murder should be allowed

All murdered IS allowed...obviously. It is codified in law; if murder occurs it is punished. Sorry, there is also no indication that eggs have a soul. Just a heartbeat, much like a squirrel , and I would've have been fine had I been aborted, after all I was not a human at the time, without a soul,eggs don't have souls, ask any breakfast chef.
Life is not sacred, a cursory glance at any religious scripture should have convinced you of that. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son... God says let him die, we have bigger issues to deal with. Life is NOT sacred.

Not even yours?
marjon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
What's the difference between five days after conception or five days before natural birth if life doesn't matter?
Heck, why not 5 days or five years after birth? They are not real people, yet.

Pinkie, for the record:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The new Senator from MA supported a law which allowed religious based hospitals and/or medical personnel to not dispense a morning after pill or perform abortions if it violated their religious beliefs.
His opponent, the 'liberal' Catholic, suggested such individuals should not work in hospital emergency rooms. She wants a religious test for employment?
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
What if you just killed the person who would have invented cold fusion. ... Kill babies at anyone's conveniences just because you like to live like a harlot(whether male or female), but don't want a child.


By that logic, you are "murdering" all that wonderful potential every time you decide to ABSTAIN from sex. After all, if you HAD that sex, then maybe this wonderful genius child would've been conceived. Therefore, your argument defeats its own pseudo-religious foundations by advocating a perpetual world-wide orgy.

And really, you can call a Barby doll a "baby" if you like. But it wouldn't mean the rest of us must use your warped definitions, or your twisted logic.
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
What's the difference between five days after conception or five days before natural birth if life doesn't matter?


My personal criterion for "personhood", is a human brain sufficiently developed to evince consciousness. Without consciousness, there's no "person". You can get rid of the rest of the body, including heart, lungs, guts, arms, legs, torso, even the face, the skull -- all of it -- except for the brain. As long as the brain is alive, the person's alive. If you destroy the brain, on the other hand, while keeping the rest of the body intact: you've destroyed the person, and what you have then is just a few pounds of human meat.

That's not just my definition, by the way. It's the scientifically and clinically accepted definition. Our society as a whole defines and verifies "death", as brain death.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2010
She wants a religious test for employment?


I really don't care what religious hospitals do, as long as they're private institutions. The Constitution puts limits in this regard only on the government, not on private organizations.

However, if those hospitals want to receive government funds, they'd better scrub themselves of any religious tests on patients or procedures requested by patients.

That's the Constitutional criterion: if you want to be on public money, leave religion at home. That, at least, is my stance.
marjon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
She wants a religious test for employment?


I really don't care what religious hospitals do, as long as they're private institutions. The Constitution puts limits in this regard only on the government, not on private organizations.

However, if those hospitals want to receive government funds, they'd better scrub themselves of any religious tests on patients or procedures requested by patients.

That's the Constitutional criterion: if you want to be on public money, leave religion at home. That, at least, is my stance.


All federal employees and employees of any organization that accepts government money can be forced to violate their religious beliefs?
Where is that in the first amendment?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2010
What's the difference between five days after conception or five days before natural birth if life doesn't matter?


My personal criterion for "personhood", is a human brain sufficiently developed to evince consciousness. Without consciousness, there's no "person". You can get rid of the rest of the body, including heart, lungs, guts, arms, legs, torso, even the face, the skull -- all of it -- except for the brain. As long as the brain is alive, the person's alive. If you destroy the brain, on the other hand, while keeping the rest of the body intact: you've destroyed the person, and what you have then is just a few pounds of human meat.

That's not just my definition, by the way. It's the scientifically and clinically accepted definition. Our society as a whole defines and verifies "death", as brain death.


How do you prove consciousness?
http://www.cathol...ccident/
marjon
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
"Jordan Phillips was 19 years old when he was involved in the car crash in which he sustained a brain injury.

Mr Phillips was taken to hospital and put into a drug-induced coma. Medics did tests on the teenager's brain and could not find any brain activity.

His parents were warned to prepare for the worst, but Mr Phillips gradually began to show signs of recovery.

Speaking to the Sun, Mr Phillips said: "For ten weeks I could hear everyone, but I couldn't say a thing.

"My biggest victory this year was being able to stand up without falling to the ground. After that I could really learn to walk again."

Mr Phillips is now back living at home and is expected to make a full recovery."

http://www.seriou...very.php
If life is not sacred, then why bother trying to keep anyone alive?
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2010
If life is not sacred, then why bother trying to keep anyone alive?

Easy: do unto others, as you'd have done unto you. A.K.A. the "Golden Rule": a universal principle present in all the world's religions and cultures. Scientifically speaking, in evolutionary biology, and in game theory, this basic strategy is commonly known as "tit for tat".

See, even Atheists enjoy the personal state of being alive and well. And most would prefer to keep it that way. Therefore, it is more than reasonable to agree to certain norms of mutual treatment and behavior, such that would help ensure prolonged and enjoyable existence for all members of a society. Call it "enlightened self interest".
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2010
How do you prove consciousness?

No need to "prove consciousness". It is enough to prove *potential* for consciousness -- or lack of such potential. Lack of a brain, for example, would strongly indicate lack of consciousness.

All federal employees and employees of any organization that accepts government money can be forced to violate their religious beliefs?
Where is that in the first amendment?

You have it backwards: federal employees cannot, in the line of duty, force their religious beliefs upon those whom they are supposed to serve.

As to whether or not a person can reconcile their job with their religion, is really up to the individual. Quakers shouldn't volunteer for the Army. People who are religiously opposed to abortion, shouldn't seek employment in abortion clinics. Simple, really.
PMende
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
All federal employees and employees of any organization that accepts government money can be forced to violate their religious beliefs?
Where is that in the first amendment?


Don't be a tit. The statement is that an organization which receives federal funds for operation may not use their operation for the promotion of a certain religious ideology. This would be a violation of the first amendment as budgets are passed by acts of Congress: they are law.

What this means is that an organization that receives federal money may not use religious justifications for not providing a certain service, and, therefore, neither may its employees. This is not to say that the person who works for this organization can be FORCED to do something, it means that if they are requested to do something they feel is a violation of their religious beliefs, they either get over it, quit or get fired.
rproulx45
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2010
RE:
Not even yours?

Not even mine.The world went on before me, and shall continue to do so after I am long forgotten. Life itself, just doesn't matter, if you abort the guy who invents cold fusion, you can also kill the guy who would have the anti-christ. In my life, I get to make the choices for better or worse, and when you take away access to legal regulated abortions, they're going to happen anyway. The law doesn't matter; abortions murder, drugs, all happen despite the law. The state gets to murder people it deems inconvenient, but that's OK. The feds get to murder large amounts of inconvenient people, fine let's re-elect the guy, abortion is murder...agreed. I just saying that murder is as much a part of the human condition as is sainthood.Banning it accomplishes nothing. Better to give women choices that are better than abortion, but nearly everybody who hates abortion also hates welfare, sex ed, and birth control. Life isn't sacred, it's bonkers, stark raving nuts.
PMende
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2010
Life isn't sacred, it's bonkers, stark raving nuts.


Oh man. Excellent.
tkjtkj
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010

Get real people! These are babies we're dealing with. FDA - you're responsible for this.


sigh! Another voice from the 'right' ... These are NOT BABIES!! they are CELLS! Actually , ONE cell.. You who would condemn abortion have yet to gather the intestinal fortitude to SUPPORT the kids that such a CELL might later produce!!!
CarolinaScotsman
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2010
So we should have a law against abortion (i.e. one that doesn't control people, including the person in the womb). Why - well let's start with because the majority of americans find abortion morally wrong based on a very recent poll. This is especially the case for young adults. Less than 20% said it is morally OK. 25% said it's not a moral issue.


There was a time in this country when the majority of Americans thought that "race mixing" was a sin. The fact that they were a mojority didn't make them right. Very often, our laws are to protect the minority.

No one has a right to tell some one else what to do or not do with their body or have done or not have done to it. Period. Every single person should have complete control of what happens to their body. Since an embryo or blastocyst or whatever is incapable of making a cognizant decision, they have no opinion or say in the matter whether they are human or not.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
RE:
Not even yours?

Not even mine.The world went on before me, and shall continue to do so after I am long forgotten. Life itself, just doesn't matter,


Now we understand how millions could be murdered in concentration camps, gulags and labor camps. People like you exist.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
All federal employees and employees of any organization that accepts government money can be forced to violate their religious beliefs?
Where is that in the first amendment?


Don't be a tit. The statement is that an organization which receives federal funds for operation may not use their operation for the promotion of a certain religious ideology. This would be a violation of the first amendment as budgets are passed by acts of Congress: they are law.

What this means is that an organization that receives federal money may not use religious justifications for not providing a certain service, and, therefore, neither may its employees. This is not to say that the person who works for this organization can be FORCED to do something, it means that if they are requested to do something they feel is a violation of their religious beliefs, they either get over it, quit or get fired.

So bottom line is the government CAN force people to violate their religious beliefs.
marjon
2 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
People who are religiously opposed to abortion, shouldn't seek employment in abortion clinics. Simple, really.

The issue was religious emergency room doctors and nurses who did not want to proscribe an abortion pill.
The 'liberal' solution was Catholics, people who hold life sacred, should not work in emergency rooms and try to save lives.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2010
Joe, it's very easy. A human walking around is a human being, a human in the womb is a human to be.
Human beings have rights, humans to be do not in as much as they cannot survive on their own.

You don't go to jail for recovering from a bacterial infection regardless of the fact you caused genocide against thsoe poor micro organisms.

As for the whole Catholic deal, we've already figured that out. If you object to the practice you do not have to perform the practice. You do need to give your patient the option and refer them to an accredited service provider at time of refusal.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
in as much as they cannot survive on their own.

Babies can't survive on their own.
How many months after birth does a baby become human?

If you object to the practice you do not have to perform the practice.


That is not what the Democrat Attorney General of MA thinks.
rproulx45
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
Now we understand how millions could be murdered in concentration camps, gulags and labor camps. People like you exist.

That's right. When people believe the word of one source, without regard to logic, you can count on that kind of behavior. Mr Hitler, being a christian, did not believe that the life of a Jew was worth keeping, a long held christian belief, that the only way to save a soul was to torture and then burn said offender. I agree with you completely that the one way and only one way theology of Christians is completely wrong and certainly led to the deaths of millions of jews.
SincerelyTwo
not rated yet Jan 25, 2010
rproulx45,

Did you think that by trying to compare the idea you dislike to an idea everyone dislikes would hedge an argument in your favor? Relying on correlation to win an argument is a sign of weakness and stupidity.

You're wrong on all accounts other than that Hitlers actions were inhumane, and you are in desperate need of help as you've developed deeply seeded delusions.

Everything is NOT on a 'slippery slope', I've been noticing a trend in individuals perceiving the world that poorly, is it cool to be an idiot now?

How do people bother trying to argue the importance of logic while making such inane statements, the core of all these issues are not the actions themselves but a lack of ability to truly understand them in the first place by morons like you.
rproulx45
not rated yet Jan 25, 2010
I am just saying this is a "Christian" issue and "Christians" can't be trusted to think clearly. Abortion won't go away if it's banned, it can't be done. It's a moot point and a useless time wasting argument. Thanks for the nice thoughts...
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2010

Babies can't survive on their own.
They can breathe, digest, fight off infections (albeit at reduced capacity), their liver works, their heart works, they generate their own functional cells, etc. They can survive at birth and after the midpoint of the third trimester without mechanical assistance. Prior to that they require a pseudo womb to survive as the standard world environment is too harsh.

That is not what the Democrat Attorney General of MA thinks.

And we see how far that got her.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Jan 25, 2010
So bottom line is the government CAN force people to violate their religious beliefs.

Only insomuch as the government CAN force people to work for it. Which, at least in this country, it no longer can (we banned the draft a while back...)

The issue was religious emergency room doctors and nurses who did not want to proscribe an abortion pill.

If they feel so conflicted about it, they can go and work for a Catholic hospital instead. I'm shocked at you, marjon: I thought you'd be opposed to people DEMANDING to work for the government rather than a private institution; I thought you'd find such a thing distasteful.

Sarcasm aside, you need to think more generally. Can a Muslim doctor, who treasures chastity as well as life, be forced to work on a woman without permission from her husband?

Or, how about allowing sale of abortion pills in over-the-counter market, without need for prescription in the first place?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
Can a Muslim doctor, who treasures life, be forced to work on a woman without permission from her husband?

Forced by whom?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
Forced by whom?
Well what would force a catholic doctor to prescribe the pill?

I'm guessing the same mechanism would be at play here. Religous tolerance isn't specifically for one religion.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2010
So bottom line is the government CAN force people to violate their religious beliefs.


If your religious beliefs involve appropriating government funds and authority to evangelize and enforce those beliefs to others, then yes, the government can force you to violate your religious beliefs, by not allowing you to do that.

And these pills are not abortion. They merely guarantee an occurrence, the rejection of a blastocyst, that had a roughly 50% chance of happening anyway. Abortion involves the physical or chemical removal of an implanted fetus from the uterine lining.

One thing I hope both the supporters and opponents of legal abortion can agree on is that abortion is always a painful, tragic occurrence for everyone involved. It WOULD be better if it never occurred. But the world we live in isn't perfect, and we have to balance the right of a person to control their own body against the government's right to enforce a certain moral code.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
government's right to enforce a certain moral code.

Government has no rights. Individuals have rights. Government has authority granted to it by the individuals of that society.
Just wanted to catch a little Freudian slip.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010

Government has no rights. Individuals have rights. Government has authority granted to it by the individuals of that society.
Just wanted to catch a little Freudian slip.

All depends on who has more guns.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
Forced by whom?
Well what would force a catholic doctor to prescribe the pill?

I'm guessing the same mechanism would be at play here. Religous tolerance isn't specifically for one religion.


Doctor's can be forced by the state to proscribe medication?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2010
Government has no rights. Individuals have rights. Government has authority granted to it by the individuals of that society.

How very Lockian of you, marjon. What do you think of "executive privilege", and "national security"? Were these ever granted to government by society, or are these examples of usurpation? Just curious as to your impression.

Doctor's can be forced by the state to proscribe medication?


You probably mean prEscribe (just FYI.) Since the state issues medical licenses, and prohibits practice of medicine without a license, then it follows that the state can force doctors to do any number of things: if they want to retain the official title, position, and job of a "doctor", that is.
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2010
Very well, we must balance the right of the individual to control their own body against the authority of the state to enforce a certain moral code. Nice attempt at belittling a differing opinion with sly innuendo though. People commonly use the notion that groups, such as governments, clubs and corporations have rights because of the consent and rights of the people who make them up. When one tries to score points in a debate by quibbling about semantics, then one has truly lost.
PMende
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
So bottom line is the government CAN force people to violate their religious beliefs.


No. Bottom line the government CANNOT force people to violate their religious beliefs. If you don't want to be required to perform abortions in a medical institution, don't take federal money. If you don't want to have to prescribe the morning after pill to women who request it, don't work for a hospital that requires its doctors to prescribe such medication for those patients who request it.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2010
Don't be so narrow in what a person's religious beliefs can entail, PMende. Their religion may well require them to attempt to seize control of worldly power and enforce their own religious code on others. Our government MUST violate such religious beliefs if it is to maintain the freedom of religion for all.
SincerelyTwo
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2010
Thrasynmachus

PMende said the government cannot force people to violate their religious beliefs (which is true), which is not identical to saying that the government must abandon religion in order to rule with objective sight (which it attempts* (and generally fails at)).

I have to deal with this article popping to the top of my 'Activity' list every freaking few minutes because of these retarded arguments all of you can't drop or come to conclusions on... can I remove these stories from that list? *looks for a way*

The government will never be able to PREVENT anything, if you people even bothered to read my earlier posts you'd recognize the futility in your current debate.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2010
Our government MUST violate such religious beliefs if it is to maintain the freedom of religion for all.


No, the citizen MUST ensure his own freedom. That of body and mind. The government holds no such charge but to prevent the loss of rights.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2010
Since the state issues medical licenses, and prohibits practice of medicine without a license, then it follows that the state can force doctors to do any number of things: if they want to retain the official title, position, and job of a "doctor", that is

Since the state is intent at controlling the medical industry will the state force people to become doctors?
MA is facing a shortage of primary care doctors because of its new state mandated insurance scheme. OB/GYNs are fleeing states that don't provide some sort of tort relief.
When the state squeezes the economic balloon, all sorts of unintended(?) bulges pop out.
jfiorica
not rated yet Feb 04, 2010
I don't make a habit of even commenting on these types of sites, but I think many of you don't quite understand how emergency contraception works. EC's prevent a woman from putting out an egg (ovulation). They do NOT abort pregnancy. They simply prevent conception from beginning. Nothing is killed, there is no "murder", because pregnancy is PREVENTED not ENDED.

More news stories

Treating depression in Parkinson's patients

A group of scientists from the University of Kentucky College of Medicine and the Sanders-Brown Center on Aging has found interesting new information in a study on depression and neuropsychological function in Parkinson's ...

Impact glass stores biodata for millions of years

(Phys.org) —Bits of plant life encapsulated in molten glass by asteroid and comet impacts millions of years ago give geologists information about climate and life forms on the ancient Earth. Scientists ...