Posted                      

quote:

---

The kindest technique

---

quote:

---

To kill something that you aren't sure is human or not seems to be a morally risky act.

It's up to those who want to propose the easy availibilty of abortion to demonstrate that a foetus is not human, not the other way round. Doubt on the matter is enough to make it morally safer not to use abortion.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Sharkshooter,

What you posted made me think the CNN link was going to be about abortion. It's only about the availability over the counter (rather than by prescription) of the combination pack of four birth control pills that have been used as "morning after birth control" for at least the last twenty years. So it's hardly new. And it isn't RU-486.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
You say there are no borderline cases, so either there is no line (everything's a person) or you have a clear person/non-person divide. I assume it's the latter, I just don't know where the divide is or how you're drawing it.
Would you regard a computer that could pass the Turing test as a 'person'? How about an animal (an alien, or a terrestrial creature, as you prefer) which could do the same?
I don't see why you regard a foetus as a person. It doesn't do anything 'persony'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Would you regard a computer that could pass the Turing test as a 'person'? How about an animal (an alien, or a terrestrial creature, as you prefer) which could do the same?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
When I said,

quote:

---

Would you regard a computer that could pass the Turing test as a 'person'? How about an animal (an alien, or a terrestrial creature, as you prefer) which could do the same?

---

that's what I was doing. Leaving aside the obvious point that the personhood of a foetus is questionable, hence this whole discussion.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

If someone you loved became unable, for whatever reason, to think rationally then you would be perfectly happy to say that your brother/mother/friend/lover/neighbour/co-worker etc was no longer a person?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I'm sorry, I just think this is absurd. We've actually got people here arguing about whether preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum is abortion. It makes my head want to explode. This would mean that the surgery to remove an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. I can only hope that some of the doctrinaire anti-abortion folks here would at least support that. To pretend that there isn't a difference between killing a newborn and killing a two week along undifferentiated proto-human or even between either of these and the just-pre-viability fetus(even if those lineds are hard to draw) is to oversimplify the status of the developing fetus in an extreme way that is as far as I can see unjustified by convinving theology or ethics.

I can't take this any more.

---

Sorry about what this is doing to your head, Laura, but yes, I for one do think that ending an ectopic pregnancy is abortion; it ends a pregnancy, and abortion is what we call that. In fact, even miscarriages are called, medically speaking, "spontaneous abortions" (though obviously we don't judge miscarriages on a moral scale).

However an ectopic pregnancy is obviously a form of "pregnancy" that, if allowed to proceed, would kill both mother and fetus. The fetus would die anyway, so the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life.

For someone to suggest, Laura, that any abortion opponent would be against this procedure is a caricature on par with the "clump of cells" one you railed against. But you weren't suggesting that, right?

Posted                          

quote:

---

What you posted made me think the CNN link was going to be about abortion. It's only about the availability over the counter (rather than by prescription) of the combination pack of four birth control pills that have been used as "morning after birth control" for at least the last twenty years.

The so-called morning after pills are taken, usually two immediately, then two twelve hours later, starting dose within 72 hours of unprotected sex, and act (in the same way regular birth control pills can) to prevent implantation should conception have occurred. The chances of conception from one act of unprotected intercourse are low, and so as a practical matter, it provides peace of mind after the condom blows; it has for years been given after a rape as part of the standard hospital follow-up. It ought not be any more or less controversial than other oral contraceptives, in my view. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

And if preventing implantation is abortion, then OCs are definitely abortifacients although this is not their primary mode of intended action.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I just think this is absurd. We've actually got people here arguing about whether preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum is abortion. It makes my head want to explode. This would mean that the surgery to remove an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It's logical isn't it? Life blatantly starts at conception and its illogical for someone pro-life to randomnly choose any other point.

---

Start's or, becomes a posibility? Defining life as starting at any particular point in time is tricky, what would be your criterion for defining life? How would you then define death?.
This is important as we might agree that you can't kill what is not alive. Or we might not,

--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:


Also it hasn't been around for the last 20 years. Furthermore it's only been regularly used in recent years with the development of, what in the UK is known as, levonelle-2. The previous form was fairly lethal so it wasn't really recommended.

Paddy

---

quote:

---

The treatment has been remarkably safe though a common side effect was nausea and vomiting. There were also theoretical, but unfounded, concerns over possible thrombotic side effects of the oestrogen component.[3]

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Defining life as starting at any particular point in time is tricky, what would be your criterion for defining life?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

This is way off-beam. The previous version of the 'morning-after pill' was the Schering PC4 which was licensed in the UK in 1984. It was superceded by Levonelle 2 a few years back.

---

quote:

---

The treatment has been remarkably safe though a common side effect was nausea and vomiting. There were also theoretical, but unfounded, concerns over possible thrombotic side effects of the oestrogen component.[3]

---

quote:

---

Defining life is actually fairly straightforward, albeit that there are some borderline cases such as viruses. The fetus is clearly living tissue. Moreover it is clearly a distinct organism, with a different genotype from the mother. But these are not the morally relevant issues

---

quote:

---

Life, in itself does not demand absolute respect - never mind the question of whether or not you are a vegetarian, have you ever used antibiotics, which kill bacteria?

---

Strangely enough I don't consider bacteria to be on a par with human life forms. This is also a slightly peculiar argument since we're supposed to be arguing about the rights of a foetus not whether or not its comparable to bacteria.

The comparison is slightly insulting to us former embryos...

Paddy

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
and please elucidate a case where someone is "borderline" between a person and an object. I can't think of one.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:

quote:

---

This is way off-beam. The previous version of the 'morning-after pill' was the Schering PC4 which was licensed in the UK in 1984. It was superceded by Levonelle 2 a few years back.

---

That's not exactly 20 years and it's usage was minimal. I'm interested that you were a nightline officer - were you only expected to have knowledge of it or did you give it out?

The PC4 MAP was also not recommended due to its high failure rate. It was only 57% "successful" in comparison to Levonelle-2 which is 85% "successful" (though readers ought not to rely on those statistics too much since its success actually depends on how long after you have had sex you take the drug). (Schering Health Care Ltd leaflet on Levonelle-2 entitled Tell me about emergency
hormonal contraception)

quote:

---

The treatment has been remarkably safe though a common side effect was nausea and vomiting. There were also theoretical, but unfounded, concerns over possible thrombotic side effects of the oestrogen component.[3]

---

Whilst the Ethics for schools website is generally good it is slightly outdated. I don't have the PC4 summary list with me so you'll have to believe me that it was more dangerous (or alternatively have a better look around the web).

However the side effects for Levonelle-2 are fairly vicious:

Effect Percent of women with effect
(n=977 women)*
Nausea 23.1
Low abdominal pain 17.6
Fatigue 16.9
Headache 16.8
Dizziness 11.2
Breast tenderness 10.8
Vomiting 5.6

All other undesirable effects 13.5**

*Lancet, 1998, 352, 428-433;
**mostly diarrhoea, irregular bleeding and spotting

As one can see the chances of those side effects are rather high in comparison to most medication and I know a lot of girls who having used the MAP once will never go back to it due to their own experiences. It's therefore ridiculous to claim this is a completely safe drug.

One must remember that the Chief Medical Officer also recently issued guidelines demonstrating that the MAP increases a woman's chance of ectopic pregnancy by 6%. That again is extremely serious as ectopic pregnancy is a major cause of infertility. Considering that over 1 million doses of the MAP are taken each year we ought to be concerned. Still, it's a nice little earner for Schering.


Paddy

---

quote:

---

Taking Levonelle 2 (the morning after pill) may put the user at increased risk of ectopic pregnancy, according to an editorial in Trends in Urology Gynaecology and Sexual Health. The increased risk is thought to be small and a causal association between the drug and ectopic pregnancy is not proven. The Medicines Control Agency data of 12 ectopics out of 201 pregnancies (5.9%)following failure of the drug, is thought to be an inaccurate assessment as either event might be under-reported. The mechanism of action of the morning after pill has yet to be determined although altered tubal motility may be a factor. (TUGSH 2003; 8(3):5-6)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

If you want to nit-pick about 19 years as compared to 20 - go ahead. It's 2004 very soon! It was routinely used then in the 1980s for exactly the same thing as it is now.

---

quote:

---

The new MAP Levonelle actually has a 95% efficacy rate if taken in 24 hours of intercourse. It's only 85% as you say if more than 24 hours has elapsed. These stats are from the same CMO's note which you were citing.

---

quote:

---

Which is very different from the sweeping claim which you make.

---

quote:

---

Finally I had to laugh at your description of the 'vicious' side effects of the MAP

---

quote:

---

Anyway the side effects of MAPs are hardly relevant to the issues of what constitutes a person and whether abortion is ever justified - which is the subject of this thread.

---

quote:

---

BTW to get the MAP prescribed in the 80s you went to a doctor one way or another. It was not available from student groups.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
I'm interested that you were a nightline officer - were you only expected to have knowledge of it or did you give it out?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:

quote:

---

If you want to nit-pick about 19 years as compared to 20 - go ahead. It's 2004 very soon! It was routinely used then in the 1980s for exactly the same thing as it is now.

---

Oh I'm not the nit-picking type. But my comments were in reference to the widespread usage. Though I ought to check when the product was approved.

quote:

---

The new MAP Levonelle actually has a 95% efficacy rate if taken in 24 hours of intercourse. It's only 85% as you say if more than 24 hours has elapsed. These stats are from the same CMO's note which you were citing.

---

Yup but the 85% statistic is an average (taken crudely, I'm told, by going on 36 hours - the mid-way point as 72 hours is the limit). Though to be fair it would be impossible for them to form any other average without recording the length of time it takes someone to actually use the MAP.

In reality I suspect few people use it within 24 hours. There needed to be (though not any more as of this month) 12 hours between the first and second pill and it's unlikely that most people would have obtained it within 12 hours of having sex.

quote:

---

Which is very different from the sweeping claim which you make.

---

I'm just going on the CMO's advice. Furthermore I think we ought to take anything mentioned in Trends in Urology Gynaecology and Sexual Health with the customary pinch of salt considering who its main readership and editorial is.

quote:

---

Finally I had to laugh at your description of the 'vicious' side effects of the MAP

---

I'm not comparing it to pregnancy but analysing it as a drug in its own right. You have to remember as well that in most cases the woman won't be pregnant. She will simply be swallowing a cocktail of hormones with no other effect.

quote:

---

Anyway the side effects of MAPs are hardly relevant to the issues of what constitutes a person and whether abortion is ever justified - which is the subject of this thread.

---

Very true. But thought I'd squeeze them in nonetheless.

quote:

---

BTW to get the MAP prescribed in the 80s you went to a doctor one way or another. It was not available from student groups.

---

I was double-checking as there have been reports that some people were giving it out illegally.

As a side note don't you think its deceiving of women to claim the drug is a contraception when at the very least it ought to be named a post-coital drug?

Paddy

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

You're muddying things here by factoring in 12 hours between pills

---

quote:

---

No, you weren't just going on the CMO's advice you were radically misinterpreting it by talking about using the MAP as increasing a woman's chance of ectopic pregnancy by 6%, whilst what we are actually talking about was the possible percentage of ectopic preganancies in the group of women for whom the pill failed - a further percentage of a percentage.

---

I made the point clear enough though - obviously it would only apply to those women who then become pregnant. I didn't think it needed to be spelt out

quote:

---

Your little exercise in well-poisoning is somewhat undermined by the fact that the Christian Medical Fellowship who ought to know what they are talking about, don't appear to share your concerns on citing this journal.

---

quote:

---

If you don't compare it to pregnancy then you are missing the point altogether.

---

quote:

---

As for terminology - it all depends on your view on the possible prevention of the implantation of a zygote. People who take a low view of that don't tend to have a problem with the term 'emergency contraception'. People who take a very high view of that tend to get very angry about it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:

quote:

---

You're muddying things here by factoring in 12 hours between pills

---

But it's significant. That 12 hours can be the difference between preventing conception and preventing implantation.

---

quote:

---

I made the point clear enough though - obviously it would only apply to those women who then become pregnant. I didn't think it needed to be spelt out

---

quote:

---

One must remember that the Chief Medical Officer also recently issued guidelines demonstrating that the MAP increases a woman's chance of ectopic pregnancy by 6%.

---

quote:

---

Just talk to any of the CMF staff, rather than selectively choosing statements they make, and I'm sure you'll find they have a healthy concern about the safety of the MAP.

---

quote:

---

No I'm not. I am talking about the safety of the drug not whether pregnancy happens to be more dangerous. I think its wrong to term pregnancy in terms of danger etc anyway since it demonises pregnancy and to some extent pregnant women.

---

quote:

---

Well a lot of feminists don't like it being referred to as emergency contraception. Contraception obviously refers to something which acts contra-conception. Clearly in this instance it is not contra-conception as it can work to prevent implantation. At the very least it ought to be referred to as post-coital and labelled accordingly so that women are aware.

If you're pro-choice then presumably you're all for women being given information to make choices? It's quite wrong for women to be deliberately deceived. It's like they're being tricked into taking this drug.

Paddy

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:


If you're pro-choice then presumably you're all for women being given information to make choices? It's quite wrong for women to be deliberately deceived. It's like they're being tricked into taking this drug.

Paddy

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
I have also been accused of hyping up the risks associated with the MAP. This seems an odd suggestion since I have only quoted the side effects supplied by Levonelle themselves.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
The researchers studied many pairs of identical twins, and didn't find any who were 100% genetically identical. All were between 90 and 100%.

Moo

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tabby Cat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
The researchers studied many pairs of identical twins, and didn't find any who were 100% genetically identical. All were between 90 and 100%.

Moo

---

I know this is from a few pages ago, and isn't particularly relevant now - but this can't be true!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If it was a 100% I would just like you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tabby Cat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
The researchers studied many pairs of identical twins, and didn't find any who were 100% genetically identical. All were between 90 and 100%.

Moo

---

I know this is from a few pages ago, and isn't particularly relevant now - but this can't be true!

Humans share at least 95% of their DNA with chimpanzees - possibly up to 98.5% - and any two humans are 99.9% genetically identical. Here's one link.

---

Just thought you might like to know. The genetic material in each of your cells (which if unwound and stretched out would be about 2m long) is approximately 97% junk. The chromosomes have various structures that aren't genes including telomeres (the ends) and centromeres (the middle). But in each chromosome only 3% is made up of actual genes (and bits needed to make the genes work). AND of your genes the biggest parts are junk as well! - these bits of junk are called introns are not part of the genes coding sequence.

So whilst we are approximately 97% the same as chimps we are also 97% junk. However if you look at the world you will see that we are very unlike chimps so if you want to know what makes us special, genetics doesn't have the answer - perhaps the bible does.

Alienfromzog BSc(Hons)

[ 23. February 2004, 12:34: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]