Now here's a pleasant topic

[bighairydog]

OK, sorry for hijacking your thread Matt, this post is the end of my hair-splitting.

Originally posted by RacerX
You continue to want to be the center of attention

Have you ever thought about taking a critical writing/reading course? You more than almost anyone I've conversed with could really use one.

These are a bit below the belt I feel. I don't appreciate being told that I need a course in critical reading, especially "more than almost anyone I've conversed with". I may accidentally misinterpret other's posts, but I don't skim over them and not read them with thought, as you imply you think I do many times. I do my best to understand what people are saying, and if I get it wrong, I am happy to be put right.

Not true, you can tell a lot about the emotional state of someone by their posts and use it to your advantage. I take great care in reading post very carefully for this very reason. Emotional people crack much faster than rational people (which is why you are so much fun ).

When debating, one of the things that gets to me is people who take this point of view. A debate suffers when people take the point of view that they can "win" by using emotional tactics to gain an advantage. I see debates as an interesting excercise in broadening points of view, not in trying to make others "crack".

However, my favorite RacerX quote of the day is, whilst discussing how to achieve zero tolerance for any fertilization: "Then we can remove condoms". Oh *that's* going to help ;o) (I know, I'm misquoting again, but I found it funny LOL )

OK, to Matt, now that I intend to stop ranting with two foot long, off topic posts in your thread, we can get back to it. To RacerX, I have enjoyed this thread - perhaps we can clash again on a point where we disagree, then we can really let the sparks fly (no more "what you failed to realise was that I was deliberately arguing against myself, and in the light of that I am quite correct ;o)

Bernie )

P.S. - Jadey: I love that sketch, but I'm afraid it most certainly was... )

 

[MDLarson]

OK, Orthotricyclen is the pill. As it was explained to us (her), it throws off the hormonal balance, so the conditions aren't right for fertilization. I quick looked it up on the net, but haven't had time to learn much about it.

Sorry to drag the suspense out a little more, but I don't have the immediate time.

 

[RacerX]

by Bernie
These are a bit below the belt I feel. I don't appreciate being told that I need a course in critical reading, especially "more than almost anyone I've conversed with". I may accidentally misinterpret other's posts, but I don't skim over them and not read them with thought, as you imply you think I do many times. I do my best to understand what people are saying, and if I get it wrong, I am happy to be put right.

I'm sorry, but I really did want to hear Matt's point of view on this subject, and you would not just leave it for him to respond. I didn't mean those in a personal way, and I'm sorry for the way they effected you.

When debating, one of the things that gets to me is people who take this point of view. A debate suffers when people take the point of view that they can "win" by using emotional tactics to gain an advantage. I see debates as an interesting excercise in broadening points of view, not in trying to make others "crack".

The point I was trying to make (and didn't make clear) was that you didn't crack and therefore this was an enjoyable exchange. Besides, the primary time that getting someone to crack emotionally is helpful is in driving away trolls (who really didn't want to be here to begin with).

However, my favorite RacerX quote of the day is, whilst discussing how to achieve zero tolerance for any fertilization: "Then we can remove condoms". Oh *that's* going to help ;o) (I know, I'm misquoting again, but I found it funny LOL )

No, actually that is a perfect quote. I hadn't thought of it that way, and when reading it in this light it is very funny.

And not a problem with the time issue Matt, philosophical discussions don't have time limits on them.

 

[bighairydog]

Orthotricyclen is a combination pill, which prevents egg release and sperm migration. Not going to bring up the debate about how effective it is again (and I couldn't find data on the web), but it is not the pill that only prevents implantation and not fertilisation.

BTW, there are some results from the poll I posted, but if we had more then that would be good. So far all the votes have been pro-choice.

Bernie )

 

[bighairydog]

Oh, and Cheers RacerX, I look forward to many more arguments to come (I'll be looking out for the next troll, then we can have a mutual target)

Bernie )

 

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by bighairydog
Orthotricyclen is a combination pill, which prevents egg release and sperm migration. Not going to bring up the debate about how effective it is again (and I couldn't find data on the web), but it is not the pill that only prevents implantation and not fertilisation.

Well, it seems as if I do not need to adust my beliefs or actions, as this pill doesn't conflict with my self-stated beliefs!

I came across this interesting quote, however, from this Catholic site:

I was on the "pill" for most of my reproductive life. I went through my time of month one spring and it felt wrong. Like a part of me had been ripped out. I then found a Christian Page on the "pill" and found out my gut feeling was right. I was on an abortion pill! (orthotricyclen). I cried and repented. I never have taken any artificial hormone again. Gladly, I am four months pregnant (after years of trying--the Pill messed me up for a while). I am sooo thankful to our Lord Jesus Christ for my little miracle.

As a disclaimer, I would not be so taken in by one source--it is obviously important to gather information from a variety of sources. I believe that Christian sites can be wrong, and perhaps this is a case of that.

That's all for now…

 

[MDLarson]

Oh, also, (as to avoid confusion) I am not Catholic. I guess I'm more Baptist than anything, but I consider myself "non-denominational".

 

[RacerX]

by Matt on 3/6
Well, it seems as if I do not need to adust my beliefs or actions, as this pill doesn't conflict with my self-stated beliefs!

by Matt on 3/4
To clarify, I would oppose any type of birth control that takes affect after conception.

So you have proof that when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism does not ever happen with your type of birth control then?

 

[RacerX]

Oh, also, (as to avoid confusion) I am also not Catholic. I'm an Atheist... which is also sorta "non-denominational".

 

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by RacerX
So you have proof that when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism does not ever happen with your type of birth control then?

No, I have no proof that conception "slipped by" the pill, nor could I provide such proof unless there was clear evidence of a conception (pregnancy). If the pill causes an abortion (after conception, of course), it is beyond my control and knowledge.

I don't understand why you are pursuing this line of questioning to such a degree.

 

[Jadey]

Originally posted by scruffy


That was downright tactful of you - you could have gone on the attack with the "every sperm is sacred" song.

Just be careful with that moderation stuff. Too much of it will kill you.

Damnit, you stole my next idea!

 

[RacerX]

Two points:

(1) This would have actually been my second post on the subject if I hadn't been mauled by that bighairydog, and it is your first actual response.

(2) You took great pains in defining the beginning of life and by your last post, it sounds as if you are trying to change those definitions (now we are back to a woman being pregnant instead of an egg being fertilized and dividing). One should not take subjects such as this lightly, and I have to believe that this subject is of interest to you (you did start this thread).

We should remember that being Pro-Life means that you are talking about matters of life and death, this is not a trivial matter in that case.

 

[RacerX]

posted by Matt
If the pill causes an abortion (after conception, of course), it is beyond my control and knowledge.

How does that old saying go? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

So if you fire a gun into the night, would that also be beyond your control and knowledge? Knowing your actions could do harm, and then not acknowledging them goes completely against the ideals that the Pro-Life movement would have us believe that they stand for... don't you think?

(please don't take this as harsh, but the subject matter is quite serious)

 

[MDLarson]

I'm beginning to get frustrated by this.

I was trying to answer the question you posed:

So you have proof that when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism does not ever happen with your type of birth control then?

I probably should have just said "No, I wouldn't know".

Why does it seem as if I am trying to change my definition? I'm not, and I used the terminology of pregnancy because it was an illustration of a failure of the pill. Technically, the period from conception to birth is considered pregnancy, so my original definition still stands, even when my words are taken out of context.

Knowing your actions could do harm, and then not acknowledging them goes completely against the ideals that the Pro-Life movement would have us believe that they stand for... don't you think?

I don't know what the success rate of Orthotricyclen is. I am assuming that it is trustworthy. I am assuming my actions are taking no harm. You are assuming that I know and don't care, but I'm telling you I just don't know.

And lastly, I do NOT take this subject lightly!
How can my recent posts possibly be construed as indifferent or insincere?

 

[Jadey]

If you do, as you say, take this subject so seriously, how can you be content with not knowing what in fact the pill that your wife takes does? If I held the same beliefs as you and asserted that I took them seriously, I would research into every facet of that type of medication.

 

[RacerX]

I didn't want you to be frustrated, but clear on what you are saying your beliefs are.

You said: clear evidence of a conception (pregnancy). This to me means that pregnancy is being used as visible proof of conception. If conception is pregnancy, then the pill could cause the end of that pregnancy (which is an abortion). By this then a failure of the pill would be that if, by chance, a pregnancy were to occur it would also go full term.

As for taking anything out of context, I can assure you I have no reason to want to do that. I am only trying to make sure that all your definitions match up to each other. I can quote larger or smaller sections, but when these sections come in conflict with each other, I am going to point them out.

(NOTE: This is not a timed test, where if you don't answer right away you lose points. This is an issue that you can and should think about at length before responding.)

by Matt
I don't know what the success rate of Orthotricyclen is. I am assuming that it is trustworthy. I am assuming my actions are taking no harm. You are assuming that I know and don't care, but I'm telling you I just don't know.

But that is the point isn't it. You can no longer make that assumption because you have been alerted to the possibility that harm (taking of a life by your definitions) can occur by continuing with your current life style. So in reality, you do know that there is a chance, but your life style is worth the possible harm (again, taking of a life by your definition).

And lastly, I do NOT take this subject lightly!
How can my recent posts possibly be construed as indifferent or insincere?

Lightly could come from you asking why I was pursuing this line of questioning to such a degree. This degree seems light to me for a life and death issue. As for indifferent or insincere, I never believed that of you. Someone who matched that description would not have started a thread like this one.

 

[bighairydog]

OK, in an effort to contribute something useful to this thread, I have some of that data people asked for. The thread has suffered so far, as people (i.e. me) talk about things as if they were facts, with no data to back them up. This post is a bit long (sorry) but useful, because now we have data:

First, some technical Orthotricyclen information from an online store that sells pills - it just confirms that it is the mixed oestrogen / progesterone pill, and the page is really boring.

Secondly, I think that the reason that Orthotricyclen is referred to as the "abortion pill" is because it prevents implantation if prevention of fertilisation fails:

Taken from a page of (pro-life slanted) info on the Orthotricyclen pill:

1. It can prevent ovulation (releasing an egg from the ovary)
2. It can cause the mucus in the cervix to change so that if sperm reach the cervix, they are not allowed to enter, and
3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first two actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the tiny baby boy or girl will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.

So how often do 1 and 2 fail, thereby causing 3 - abortion?

Taken from "Planned Parenthood" page with info on the pill (my additions in italics):
The [progestin-only] Pill is one of the most effective reversible methods of birth control. Of 100 women who use the Pill, only five will become pregnant during the first year of typical use.* Combination pills (like Orthotricyclin) are somewhat more effective than progestin-only pills. Fewer than one out of 1,000 women who use combination pills will become pregnant with perfect use** Five out of 1,000 who use progestin-only pills will become pregnant with perfect use.

* "Typical use" refers to failure rates for use that is not consistent or always correct.
** "Perfect use" refers to failure rates for use that is consistent and always correct.

OK, so 2 points from this, after some very rough analysis:

1) if we take the difference between the two figures (5 in 100 for the non-aborting progesterone pill, and an extrapolated 1 in 100 for Orthotricyclen) as an indication of how many embryos are aborted as a result of the Orthotricyclen pill, one can conclude that you are likely to have one embryo being fertilised every 20 years, and there is a high - 4/5 chance that it will be aborted, making it on average one every 25 years.

2) perfect use of the pill makes it 10 times more effective. Assuming this extra effectiveness is due to an equal benefit to the prevention of fertilisation stage and the implantation stage, perfect use will decrease the probability of abortions by around p*(1/sqrt(10)), or in English - you'd have 3.3 times less abortions. This would give an expected abortion rate of once per 80-ish years. (I think this might be in the same order of magnitude as a chef working in a kitchen, technically killing people by food poisoning, just as something to compare it with)

Matt: your moral dilemma is therefore, is this acceptably low? Nobody can lead a zero tolerance life - if you did then every time you bought a product you would have to research the ethics of it's production (e.g. are my trainers made with slave labour - it happens and loads of people die from that - should I research every trainer pair I buy?).

Food for thought

Bernie )

 

[bighairydog]

Oh yeah, and if you find the above morally unacceptable, then you can always switch to a progesterone only pill. These only inhibit ovulation, but will lead to pregnancy more often as they never abort the embryo.

To be morbid, multiply the number of years that your partner has been taking the pill by 0.04, and this is the probability that as embryo has been aborted.

Bernie )

 

[RacerX]

math by Bernie
1) if we take the difference between the two figures (5 in 100 for the non-aborting progesterone pill, and an extrapolated 1 in 100 for Orthotricyclen) as an indication of how many embryos are aborted as a result of the Orthotricyclen pill, one can conclude that you are likely to have one embryo being fertilised every 20 years, and there is a high - 4/5 chance that it will be aborted, making it on average one every 25 years.

Actually, when looking at this data consider this: 100 in 2000 women reach a point of at least fertilization, of that 100 embryos only 2 will not be aborted. So by Matt's standard for every 2000 women using Orthotricyclen over a five year period, 98 lives would be taken, and 2 are left up to some other possible abortion if the mothers decide to take further action.

Matt: your moral dilemma is therefore, is this acceptably low?

It still leaves you at effectively 5 out of 100 over a five year period, so I echo Bernie's question Matt. Is this acceptably low?

 

[bighairydog]

I stand by my maths, but perhaps didn't explain the logic behind it properly (now follows an exceptionally anal defense of the maths and logic in my earlier post, anybody who wants to take my word for it feel free to skip this post, or prepare to be bored by the boredom master )

The bit of logic that makes my maths work is that the progesterone pill doesn't cause abortion, and the combined pill is like taking the progesterone pill, plus an extra abortion agent - oestrogen - just in case some eggs get though (well it's not just for abortion, I think it contributes to sperm blocking too.)

The progesterone pill doesn't cause abortion, it just inhibits egg release, so any eggs that are released and fertilised under this pill become pregnencies. Therefore that 5 in 100 people get pregnencies under this pill is our benchmark for how effective pregesterone is.

The combined pill adds to the abovementioned pill the effect of oestrogen, which aborts the embryo if fertilisation occurs. Under the same conditions, this results in 1 in 100 people getting pregnencies, so the effect of adding oestrogen is to abort 4 out of the 5 would-be pregnencies from the progesterone pill.

Therefore the mean interval between pregnencies would be 20 years (5 in 100) times 5/4, i.e. 25 years.

There are admittedly problems with my statistics that I would have to confront if I were publishing them, but as an approximation, the figures I gave were valid for the purposes of us basing opinions on them

Bernie )