The Abortion Supervisory Committee has recently come out with a report to Government on what is happening with abortion in NZ.
A couple of points that have really stood out to me were:
The second point is on the incredible number of abortions (2399 in 2006) due to oral contraceptive failure. Contraceptive failure that points to the probable abortificient nature of the pill failing in preventing implantation of a conceived child, as it is highly unlikely that the low dose pills available in NZ actually prevent ovulation.
In NZ the highest hormone level pill is 50mcg (see Medsafe). When the pill first came out it was 150mcg, much higher than what is available now. Studies on a higher hormone dose pill showed that ovulation was not prevented all of the time, that it was still possible to ovulate on the high hormone level pill. Since that time, hormone levels since have been lowered because of the terrible effects on the bodies of the women taking them.
The lower the hormone dose, the less chance of ovulation being prevented. That means that if a woman on the pill is sexually active, it is highly likely that she is conceiving. But no matter, the low dose pills still reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. The crucial thing for a newly conceived baby to do is to implant into the lining of the uterus to gain necessary nutrients for the continuation of life. However, the uterus of a woman on the pill is very hostile to the newly conceived baby as the lining is much thinner and makes a successful implantation less likely. This implantation can still occur, as our abortion statistics for women on the contraceptive pill show, but this is not the norm. What is more likely is that the baby dies and is flushed out with the next menstrual period. That is what I mean by the pill being abortifacient .
If the contraceptive pill only affected ovulation and not the lining of the womb, then it would not be abortifacient. However no conceptive pill purports to do this - they all say they prevent ovulation most of the time (highly unlikely) and as a backup change the nature of the lining of the uterus so as to make implantation of the conceived baby unlikely.
Of course the abortifacient nature of the contraceptive pill will not bother alot of people, but it should bother those who think they are only preventing ovulation, because in effect, it is very likely those people have unbeknownst and unexpectedly lost a number of children already due to the abortifacient effect of the contraceptive pill. That's a tragedy for those people. And for everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not.
The only caveat I need to add is that there are also pro-life physicians out there that do not believe that the evidence supports the hostile womb theory, that once a baby is conceived that everything works to enable implantation. That may be so, but personally, since this is a matter of life and death, that's a hell of a risk to take.
Hattip:
Who cares about a smack when we are killing 18,000 babies a year! ~ DumbOx, Being Frank
Related Links:
Report of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, 2007
Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive ~ American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
A couple of points that have really stood out to me were:
- the Committee will be looking at the availability and the need for second trimester services in all regions .
- In 2006, 2,399 abortions "needed" to be done as a result of oral contraceptive failure.
The second point is on the incredible number of abortions (2399 in 2006) due to oral contraceptive failure. Contraceptive failure that points to the probable abortificient nature of the pill failing in preventing implantation of a conceived child, as it is highly unlikely that the low dose pills available in NZ actually prevent ovulation.
In NZ the highest hormone level pill is 50mcg (see Medsafe). When the pill first came out it was 150mcg, much higher than what is available now. Studies on a higher hormone dose pill showed that ovulation was not prevented all of the time, that it was still possible to ovulate on the high hormone level pill. Since that time, hormone levels since have been lowered because of the terrible effects on the bodies of the women taking them.
The lower the hormone dose, the less chance of ovulation being prevented. That means that if a woman on the pill is sexually active, it is highly likely that she is conceiving. But no matter, the low dose pills still reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. The crucial thing for a newly conceived baby to do is to implant into the lining of the uterus to gain necessary nutrients for the continuation of life. However, the uterus of a woman on the pill is very hostile to the newly conceived baby as the lining is much thinner and makes a successful implantation less likely. This implantation can still occur, as our abortion statistics for women on the contraceptive pill show, but this is not the norm. What is more likely is that the baby dies and is flushed out with the next menstrual period. That is what I mean by the pill being abortifacient .
If the contraceptive pill only affected ovulation and not the lining of the womb, then it would not be abortifacient. However no conceptive pill purports to do this - they all say they prevent ovulation most of the time (highly unlikely) and as a backup change the nature of the lining of the uterus so as to make implantation of the conceived baby unlikely.
Of course the abortifacient nature of the contraceptive pill will not bother alot of people, but it should bother those who think they are only preventing ovulation, because in effect, it is very likely those people have unbeknownst and unexpectedly lost a number of children already due to the abortifacient effect of the contraceptive pill. That's a tragedy for those people. And for everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not.
The only caveat I need to add is that there are also pro-life physicians out there that do not believe that the evidence supports the hostile womb theory, that once a baby is conceived that everything works to enable implantation. That may be so, but personally, since this is a matter of life and death, that's a hell of a risk to take.
Hattip:
Who cares about a smack when we are killing 18,000 babies a year! ~ DumbOx, Being Frank
Related Links:
Report of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, 2007
Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive ~ American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Well, it all comes down to waht you'd rather have:
ReplyDelete1. Abortions or unwanted babies. Unwanted abbies that no doubt would end up in institutions, providing more fodder for those who like to prey on the innocent and more compensation for the state to apy alter.
2. Unwanted babies being adopted out to cultures other than that of their parents, thus creating another ticking time bomb of compensation claims.
3. There is a lot of evidence form the US that crime in certain neighbourhoods has reduced substantially since abortion became more readilly avaialable. Maybe it coukld work here, as well, in browner parts of aotearoa.
And, having a severely disabled niece I can say with certainty the world wouod have missed nothing had her mother chosen abortion.
been reading "freakonomics" have you?
ReplyDeleteI disagree somewhat with your conclusions Fugley. I'll probably detail why in a post, at some point.
ReplyDeleteAnd I strongly disagree with the morals in your proposition. If it all comes down to convenience, where do you draw the line? People with a genetic predisposition towards dyslexic writing get the chop? Or are you arguing on a "potential quality of life" basis. Do all single mothers on welfare get the big A. because you think they may not deliver on their responsibilities?
Would the world miss this person you mentioned if you could murder her now then (or 10 minutes after birth if you have a problem with the length of time?) What is the difference 10 minutes before birth or 10 minutes after to you?
To clarify: you could also add to your list the requirement to accept murder (taken from recent news article):
Botched abortions mean that scores of babies are being born alive and left to die, an official report has revealed.
A total of 66 infants survived NHS termination attempts in one year alone, it emerged.
Rather than dying at birth as was intended, they were able to breathe unaided. About half were alive for an hour, while one survived ten hours.
Fugley, as ZenTiger says, the argument that it's better to kill the unwanted before they are born could easily be applied to killing the unwanted after birth.
ReplyDeleteIt may be that abortion (the killing of small babies) reduces crime. Personally, I'm all for being convicted of a previous offence before applying the death penalty.
Also, I grew up with a severely disabled brother (full on autism, he doesn't talk and was very destructive), and I can't say that I'd like to live in a society where he may have been killed because his life isn't seen to have been one worth living.
If we want to say that abortion reduces crime, how about executing murderous scumbags, i'm sure the abortionists would be squealing against that, even though research shows that executing one murderer saves around 70 lives the following year.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing and kinda sick how people are perfectly willing to kill the unborn who have done nothing, let alone anything wrong, but yearn to save the lives of mass-murdering, throat-slitting adults.
How about we walk into da hoods of America and just shoot all the black men hanging around on the streets. I'm sure crime will go down, yeah didn't think so!
Kill everybody and the next year the murder rate will be zero.
ReplyDelete----------
It is easy to say "that's not a human" and then kill a zygote, say, or a tiny embryo.
However, I think that it's much more rigorous and honest to determine the desirable attributes of humanity and say, "that is a desirable human, we'll let her live".
There's a reason this question is never addressed from that direction. It's because once you start making lists and drawing features you can't help but sound like a racist, such as Family Planning's Margret Sanger, or a totalitarian such as Lenin or Himmler.
Our sparkling clean technique happens to be the carefree democratic, technocratic way of dealing with problems.