Asymmetrical Information

I'm not sure what your point is, but the reference to the sole mechanism of action of the Yuzpe method is, simply put, incorrect. One of the methods by which "morning after" pills work is proposed to be suppression of ovulation. Fact is, we're not 100% sure how or why the Yuzpe method works.

I confess to not understanding why anyone might care about this comment on morning-after pills, which looks like it's been put in there purely to avoid the possibility of product libel by a journalist whose eyes glazed over during the explanation. Anyone who is in the state of believing that this is a difference which makes a difference, is likely to be an opponent of contraception in any case.

Anyone who is in the state of believing that this is a difference which makes a difference, is likely to be an opponent of contraception in any case.

I confess to not understanding why a person in such a state is "likely" to be an opponent of all forms of "contraception:"

contraception: n. intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures. (for convenience, ripped directly from dictionary.com)

Persons/parties who oppose impregnation inhibitors are not necessarily "likely" to be opposed to devices and methods which prevent conception in the first place. For many this difference DOES make a difference, and they will politically oppose one but not the other.

Hence it could be convenient to be vague, or else use 'reasonable doubt' language, whenever referencing that point.

That doesn't square with anything my doctor told me about the morning after pill. It also doesn't square with what I know about the mechanism of fertilization. How in hell could a pill you take twelve hours after having sex suppress ovulation in the next four hours it would take for the egg to be released in time to make its way down the fallopian tube to be fertilized? The primary action of the pill is an abortifacient of some sort.

>>Persons/parties who oppose impregnation inhibitors are not necessarily "likely" to be opposed to devices and methods which prevent conception in the first place. For many this difference DOES make a difference, and they will politically oppose one but not the other.

I still don't understand this difference, which suggests to me that it's not obvious on the face of it what the hell it means. So the only people it will matter to are a) doctors b) women thinking of using this product and c) people who take the trouble to find out.

C) is a subset of "people who care about reproductive medicine in the absence of a direct and pressing need to do so", in which group I maintain my opinion that there are very few indeed who have not already made their mind up.

Your post is factually challenged.

"The morning-after pill works one way: by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus"

Lies. The morning-after pill delays ovulation, tightens the fallopian tubes preventing sperm from reaching the egg and *ALSO* prevents a fertalized egg from attaching to the uterus.

Hint - eggs are fertalized in the tubes. Just two posts back, you stated that eggs had to travel through the tubs to be fertalized. What percentage of the information you relay as fact here is actually total unsubstantiated bullshit?

Just a note for all of the bloggers who criticize reporters by name: Few reporters have any control over what happens to their writing after it leaves their hands.

At the journalistic office where I last worked, any employee below the level of editor who put out a story which was not unequivocally pro-choice, or who put out a story about the issue that even required the reader to think, if the reporter (not necessarily someone with that job title, but the person whose name goes on the article) was known to be other than unequivocally pro-choice, would be subject to a) a certain and complete rewrite by copy editors, and b) a tongue lashing from the immediate management ranging from questioning the morals of the reporter's mother to threats of outright violence.

This was the practice covering quite a few issues, not only abortion, and the Left/Right distinction was useless when predicting what got their goat.

In organizations, those who represent the will of the majority tend to rise to the top, and they often represent the logical conclusion of the will of the majority, even if the majority would not conclude this themselves. The leaders of one-party states suppress dissent by means which the ordinary Ba'athist would fear. On a much smaller scale, an exaggerated bias is to be expected when the partisans of senseless acts of violence such as abortion gain power over others in the media workplace, given the unchecked power of a monopolistic corporate or government press, without competition except from behemoths like itself. Brave bloggers don't really enter the picture to them, but keep up the good work. :-)

Here's an explanation of how ECB works, with pictures! It of course, adopts the definition of the beginning of pregnancy as implantation, not fertilization, but even so, prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg is not the only way in which ECBs may work.

I would also like to point out that the standard birth control pill does almost the same thing as the morning after pill. The standard birth control pill SOMETIMES prevents ovulation, but in the lower doses this is not always so. It does, however, prevent a satisfactory amount of Uterine lining from building up, so that a fertilized egg may not attach itself. Yet I am not aware of a large group of people who staunchly oppose Ortho Novum.

Anyway, I'm still not sure what the point of the post was? It reminds me of the time my brother had a NYTimes clip on his wall because he thought it was the stupidest headline he ever saw, "Cease Fire Broken Because of Shots Fired." The interesting thig was, it was absolutely acurate...there was a caese fire, none of the armies were paying attention to it, so it was broken because people were still shooting at each other. Sometimes the correct description just sounds dumb.

In fact, according to this source, the most current research suggests that the way ECBs usually work is by delaying or preventing ovulation, "In fact, this is the only way in which EBC pills have been proven to work." ECBs only theoretically might work by inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg.

I reiterate; nobody would possibly care enough to look up this information unless they already had a strong view on the issue.

dsquared, that's not what you said...

"So the only people it will matter to are a) doctors b) women thinking of using this product and c) people who take the trouble to find out."

I suspect many of us are women who know about this kind of stuff because we are sexually active and not interested in having children yet. Therefore some of us are women who have had to think about the potential of using the product...class "B".

It doesn't hurt that many of us are doctors too (not me personally).

Some folks, D^2, read material because they'd like to learn something new. It appears that you've finally owned up to not being one of those folks who suffer from curiousity.

It's never quite clear what D^2 suffers from.

Comments are Closed.