When Does Life Begin? The Scientific Definition of an Abortifacient ...

Nursing Students Student Assist

Published

The question about what constitutes an abortifacient came to light with the latest Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision. An abortifacient is a drug or device which terminates a human life after it has already begun. What do you think? Is this true?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nephrology, Cardiology, ER, ICU.

Is this for a school assignment?

moved

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospital Education Coordinator.

life begins with conception. The rest is just numbers.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

^^ Opinion, opinion, opinion.

It's important to remember that up until the late 19th century the Roman Catholic Church's official doctrine (opinion) was that there was no "life" until "quickening," the time when the pregnant woman felt movement in her uterus. Before that occurred, there was no problem at all with anything used for "bringing on one's cycle" by any means available. You can look it up.

The concept of "life begins at ... " is still not generally accepted, precisely because it is a matter of opinion. I don't see as it ever can be any other way. Are prions "alive"? Viruses? Bacterial mats? Why can't you believe what you believe, and you let me believe what I believe? As the bumper sticker says, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one."

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

The abortifacient issue is just a strawman, what supporters of hobby lobby are arguing is that the 4 drugs they didn't want to cover were abortifacients because they believe life begins prior to the implantation of the egg in the uterus, which just extends the false claim that these 4 drugs block implantation, which is a scientifically disproved claim. If there was any evidence at all that these 4 drugs could be considered abortifacients it would have been a much different case, since the ACA specifically excludes coverage of abortifacients.

Medical Experts Agree: The Morning-After Pill Does Not Prevent Implantation. The National Institutes of Health, the Mayo Clinic, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics all agree that the morning-after pill does not prevent implantation, the medical beginning of pregnancy. From The Daily Beast:

In federal law and medical terms, pregnancy does not begin with a fertilized egg, but with a fertilized egg that has implanted in the uterus. The contraceptives in question--Plan B, Ella, copper and hormonal IUDs--do not cause abortions as the plaintiffs maintain, because they are not being used to terminate established pregnancies.

[...]

Since the FDA approved Plan B in 1999, repeated studies have shown the drug does not inhibit implantation. After
The New York Times
' Pam Belluck investigated these findings in 2012, the NIH and the Mayo Clinic updated their websites to remove the implantation clause. In Europe, the label for the drug Norlevo, which is identical to Plan B, has already been changed to reflect the most recent research. And the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception have issued statements saying levonorgestrel-only emergency contraceptives do not stop implantation. [The Daily Beast,
3/22/14
]

NPR: Contraceptives Are Not "The Same As The Abortion Drug." As NPR reported, studies have shown that contraceptives such as the "morning-after pill" do not terminate pregnancy like RU-486, which "isn't considered a contraceptive and isn't covered by the new insurance requirements":

The most heated part of the fight between the Obama administration and religious groups over new rules that require most health plans to cover contraception actually has nothing to do with birth control. It has to do with abortion.

Specifically, do emergency contraceptives interfere with a fertilized egg and cause what some consider to be abortion?

"The Health and Human Services preventive services mandate forces businesses to provide the morning-after and the week-after pills in our health insurance plans," said David Green, founder and CEO of the arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby, one of the firms suing over the requirements. "These abortion-causing drugs go against our faiths."

The morning-after pill he's referring to is sold under the brand name Plan B. The week-after pill, which actually only works for five days after unprotected sex, is called ella.

Both are classified by the Food and Drug Administration as contraceptives. Neither is the same as the abortion drug RU-486, or Mifeprex. That pill isn't considered a contraceptive and isn't covered by the new insurance requirements.

The constant references to Plan B and ella as abortion-causing pills frustrates Susan Wood, a professor of health policy at George Washington University and a former assistant commissioner for women's health at the FDA.

"It is not only factually incorrect, it is downright misleading. These products are not abortifacients," she says. "And their only connection to abortion is that they can prevent the need for one." [NPR,
2/21/13
]

NY Times: Emergency Contraceptives Work To Prevent Ovulation, Not Implantation. The New York Times explained that emergency contraception works to preempt pregnancy. By delaying ovulation, Plan B stops an egg from being released for fertilization. Some emergency contraceptives may also work to thicken cervical mucus to make it more difficult for sperm to swim. Plan B does not stop implantation after fertilization has occurred. From the Times:

Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents' definition of abortion-inducing drugs.

[...]

By 2007, scientific consensus was building that morning-after pills did not block implantation. In one study using fertilized eggs that would have been discarded from fertility clinics, Dr. Gemzell-Danielsson found that adding Plan B in a dish did not prevent them from attaching to cells that line the uterus. [
The New York Times
,
6/5/12
]

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice, Palliative Care.

Good day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9yGVmN0hs destroys the left's arguments about the four (4) contraceptives in question as not being abortion related.

Thank you.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Good day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9yGVmN0hs destroys the left's arguments about the four (4) contraceptives in question as not being abortion related.

Thank you.

Faux News. Big surprise. No thanks, I'll stick with the NIH and IFGO.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice, Palliative Care.

Good day:

If you take the time to watch the short video (unless you are completely afraid of facts), the end sources include SCOTUS, the government itself, the FDA.

Thank you.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I'm not at all afraid of facts; I justdon't care to waste my time on Faux News.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice, Palliative Care.

Good day, Elkpark:

I'm told liberals are afraid of facts. If you cannot watch a short video that gives you the information about how the 4 contraceptives are abortifacts where the actual sources come from SCOTUS, the government itself including the FDA (that labels the drugs), then you are only proving the rumor that liberals are afraid of facts.

Thank you.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Good day, Elkpark:

I'm told liberals are afraid of facts. If you cannot watch a short video that gives you the information about how the 4 contraceptives are abortifacts where the actual sources come from SCOTUS, the government itself including the FDA (that labels the drugs), then you are only proving the rumor that liberals are afraid of facts.

Thank you.

Obiously, from your posts, you're "told" all kinds of weird stuff, so I'm not suprised you've been "told" that liberals "are afraid of facts." I'm not at all afraid of facts. Whether or not one or another forms of contraception are abortifacients that cause an "abortion" is a matter of opinion, not fact, because what, exactly, precisely, constitutes a pregnancy that can be "aborted" is a matter of opinion, not fact, as shown on many threads on this site. You say toMAYto, I say toMAHto ... (is there a "shrugging your shoulders" smiley?) What facts, exactly, do you consider me "afraid" of??

My fondness for facts, rather than opinions and nonsense, is precisely why I avoid Faux News.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment