The "Morning After" pill

Marc™ wrote:Without digging through the muck, I'm just gonna say that the MA pill just hinders conception from happening....it closes the door before the intruders (sperm) get into the house. It's no more an abort drug than spermicidal condoms are.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

Nystyle709 wrote:

How can you abuse it? You can't get 'high' with it. The MA pill prevents conception. So if somehow in the five days before it loses its potency and a sperm cell actually fertilized an egg, the MA pill won't 'abort' the zygote or harm it in any way like some people believe. Nothing happens.

I imagine that someone could force someone else to take it.

If you're trying to say what I think you're trying to say.....that scenario so far-fetched that it's not even relavant enough to be called abuse. No one can force somebody to take anything. And like I said before, if you actually do become pregnant, the MA pill does nothing. No slight against you personally, but it's like a lot of people who are 'pro-life' are also 'anti-birth control'. No, you can't get an abortion because you're 'killing' a baby but you also can't do anything to stop yourself from getting pregnant. If people don't want kids, they don't want kids. I'd rather you take every measure you can to stop yourself from getting pregnant rather than go through the ordeal of an abortion.

Abuse does not = getting high, IMO.

What does it equal? Going by your logic in this sense, people can abuse condoms. I fail to see how you how much abuse you can do with birth control.

I don't know all the facts about EC, but it used to be, I believe, that it allowed a sperm to fertilize an egg, but made the uterine environment hostile to the fertilized egg. Maybe it's not that way any more, but birth control pills and depo provera do the same thing, only they also reduce the chances of ovulation. Still, some pregnancies are prevented, if you read the fine print, by the same mechanism. I personally don't take hormonal bc because I don't want to take that risk. I believe that life begins at conception, but I don't go around shoving that view down the throats of others, because we are all entitled to our own opinion about it.

I don't take pescription birth control either but however it prevents conception, then mission accomplished. Doesn't matter how. If you believe life begins at conception, then why are there concerns about how it prevents it? Conception still isn't happening, therefore....you're not 'taking' a life. Condoms do the same thing. It disrupts the biological nature of a sperm reaching an egg when two people have sex. If you are not against birth control, then I don't think you should be against this either.

Because of my beliefs about life beginning at conception, I believe that EC is just as serious as an abortion and shouldn't be something taken lightly. I think the same thing about hormonal birth control though, which is only available with an Rx.

Impact wrote:It shouldn't replace other protection methods, it should function as a failsafe and last I checked, that's what it does and how it is generally used.

If you use it as a sole method of birth control, you are leaving yourself open to unnecessary risk.

It is like being a construction worker. You could wear a hard hat, which is generally a good protection measure on a construction site. You could also wear gloves. That is another good protection measure on a construction site. You could also wear both, that way you are maximally protected.

There is no good reason not to "stack" birth control methods to ensure the greatest possible protection from the worst case scenario.

If only one can be used at all, I don't think it would be good to use this particular method if other better options are available.

If you can get a shot or take daily pills, the way I understand it those are better protections against pregnancy than this so they should be preferred. If you can't afford anything that provides a statistically better likelihood of preventing pregnancy than this, then by all means use this.