Emergency contraceptive=as bad as abortion?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:17 am

RedGlitter wrote: [...] Saying abortion doesn't come under health care if the woman just doesn't want to take "responsibility" baffles me. That seems more like a moral judgement than common sense. Right. It's as much a moral judgment as saying a pharmacy is wrong for making such moral judgments. Nothing wrong with moral judgments.

An optional abortion is no more healthcare than getting one's teeth whitened, liposuction, ear piercings, or tattoos. ... though it's less in the cosmetic category than this list.

RedGlitter wrote: I feel a pharmacy should stock as much stuff as possible.I agree. The key word is should. It's only good business sense to stock what sells. Not doing so loses money. What you've been arguing for is not should, but must; and must is a whole different situation.RedGlitter wrote: [...] By refusing to stock the termination pill, pharms are effectively saying "WE don't believe in abortion so YOU can't buy that here." This is a pharmacy not a fruitstand. I'm all for going to another fruitstand if they're out of apples but I do not think a pharmacy has a right to refuse to carry this product. That's precisely what they're saying, and they have every right to. The only limit to that is if they are the only pharmacy in the area, then public health and safety has to hold sway. But if a pharmacy chooses to close its doors and move to another town rather than sell Plan B, that's their right as well. Would you force them to stay in business?

If you want to take a private business' right of choice away (aren't you pro-choice?), then contact your gov't rep to open state-run pharmacies. You've no more right to tell a private businessman what to stock than I have to tell you what color to paint your bathroom.

RedGlitter wrote: Supposing in that 5 day conception period, she hasn't become pregnant YET. If she takes Plan B, all it will do is trigger her monthly cycle. That's not causing an abortion. I could liken this to refusing to sell condoms because they prevent pregnancy and if you're going to have sex you should take responsibility. Now before you point out that that would be preventing a pregnancy and not terminating one, keep in mind you don't know if that woman is pregnant yet, so why not give her the dang pill and the benefit of the doubt? That's a great argument to bring up to the pharmacist. Maybe that will change his mind without taking away his rights. Now there's a worthy goal.

RedGlitter wrote: I do understand what you are saying regarding a store not having to sell something. I would agree in most cases. But in the case of a druggist refusing to stock Plan B, I liken that to working in a meat packing plant and refusing to package the product because you are a vegetarian.How about a kosher plant refusing to sell pork? How about a butcher that only sells beef? I think that's closer to your mark, and perfectly acceptable.

Added: Why are your rights and desires more important than a businessman?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:24 am

According to Planned Parenthood: Pharmacies in Illinois will soon have to post signs telling women that it's their right to purchase contraceptives and how to file a complaint if their prescriptions are refused. Gov. Rod Blagojevich proposed the rule to back up his earlier executive order protecting access to emergency contraception.

AND...great news, too! In a victory of common sense over pandering politics, the FDA finally approves over-the-counter sales of Plan B! See this time line:

December 16, 2003: A joint hearing of the FDA Nonprescription Drugs and Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committees votes 23 to four to recommend that the FDA make Plan B emergency contraception available over the counter.

May 6, 2004: The FDA notifies Barr Laboratories, which manufactures Plan B, that its application for over-the-counter status is denied, citing concerns about adolescent use.

January 21, 2005: In a highly unusual move, the FDA misses its deadline to rule on the revised application. The agency indicates that review of the medication is expected to be completed in the near future but does not specify a date.

July 15, 2005: Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) obtain agreement from the FDA to rule on Plan B status by September 1, 2005.

August 26, 2005: The FDA announces yet another delay on issuing a decision on the application to make Plan B available over the counter.

July 31, 2006: The FDA announces it will open discussions with Barr Laboratories to make Plan B available over the counter for women 18 and over. The FDA states it will not approve Plan B for over-the-counter sale to young women under 18.

August 24, 2006: The FDA approves over-the-counter sale of Plan B to women 18 and over.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:52 pm

So it's done and over. Anybody still want to sue Walmart?

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:15 pm

Only if they can't find their Plan B pill next to the empty slot of Maalox.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:00 pm

I think after all that we've said, Accountable said what really matters: "An optional abortion is not healthcare." And how is it not? This is crazy. If I have a breast reduction whether for medical reasons of discomfort or cosmetic reasons like my clothes not fitting, that operation falls under health care as it is amputating a part of the body. An abortion is also an amputation of a "growth" from the body and it is no less health care regardless of the woman's reasons for doing it. What it smacks of to me is that you want to punish the woman for not wanting to have the baby for what you consider the wrong reason. Am I correct on this?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:38 am

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, a conservative group that opposes Pla B on moral grounds, said "The FDA has failed."

Funny...I didn't think the FDA was in the "morality" business, did you? I thought their job was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of legal drugs and make decisions as to how they might be safely used.

Yesterday I watched another conservative interviewed about this issue. He announced that "Plan B distracts from our 'abstinence only programs,' and they work!"

Really? The U.S. has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the Western world. "Abstinece only" does NOT work! Seems to me that witholding this product, which could help prevent some of those pregnancies is just what RedGlitter says it is....punishment.

"IF YOU'RE GOING TO PLAY, YOUNG LADY....YOU'RE GOING TO PAY!"

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:24 pm

RedGlitter wrote: I think after all that we've said, Accountable said what really matters: "An optional abortion is not healthcare." And how is it not? This is crazy. If I have a breast reduction whether for medical reasons of discomfort or cosmetic reasons like my clothes not fitting, that operation falls under health care as it is amputating a part of the body. An abortion is also an amputation of a "growth" from the body and it is no less health care regardless of the woman's reasons for doing it. What it smacks of to me is that you want to punish the woman for not wanting to have the baby for what you consider the wrong reason. Am I correct on this?Healthcare is that which is done for reasons of health. Breast reduction for cosmetic reasons is not healthcare, because nothing is required to maintain health.

How is defining healthcare punishment?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:25 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, a conservative group that opposes Pla B on moral grounds, said "The FDA has failed."

Funny...I didn't think the FDA was in the "morality" business, did you? I thought their job was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of legal drugs and make decisions as to how they might be safely used. I'm with ya there!

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:48 am

Accountable wrote: Healthcare is that which is done for reasons of health. Breast reduction for cosmetic reasons is not healthcare, because nothing is required to maintain health.

How is defining healthcare punishment?

Accountable as far as I know a lot of breast reductions are done because the weight of large breasts causes pain in the shoulders and back and therefore is for health reasons.

Anyway, personally I think that the availability of 'emergency' contraception is a good thing if only just one more method to avert an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion is legal but to not let it get to the medical intervention (hospitalised) stage must be a better solution.

I do have to add here though that there has been a report out in the UK recently saying that the availability of over the counter ec's hasn't done as much as the backers had hoped to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/stor ... 77,00.html

Oh yeah;

Disclaimer: Of course the corect use of contraception is the best way to prevent pregnancy blah blah blah...

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:51 am

Katy1 wrote: Accountable as far as I know a lot of breast reductions are done because the weight of large breasts causes pain in the shoulders and back and therefore is for health reasons.

Katy

Your are definitely right on this one. :-6

A breast enlargement, however, is *not* for health reasons.

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:15 am

Lulu2 wrote: Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, a conservative group that opposes Pla B on moral grounds, said "The FDA has failed."

Funny...I didn't think the FDA was in the "morality" business, did you? I thought their job was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of legal drugs and make decisions as to how they might be safely used.

Yesterday I watched another conservative interviewed about this issue. He announced that "Plan B distracts from our 'abstinence only programs,' and they work!"

Really? The U.S. has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the Western world. "Abstinece only" does NOT work! Seems to me that witholding this product, which could help prevent some of those pregnancies is just what RedGlitter says it is....punishment.

"IF YOU'RE GOING TO PLAY, YOUNG LADY....YOU'RE GOING TO PAY!"

I agree Lulu,

Perhaps women should 'pay' for a mistake or moment of stupidity with a lifetime of unwanted child rearing (possibly damaging the potential offspring) or give a child up for adoption? Both of which could possibly hold differing issues to be overcome by both mother and child. I simply CANNOT see how two tablets, taken post coitus to stop the implantation of a few cells, or even disperse those few cells if they are implanted, can be seen as worse than the implications that the gestation and birth of a unwanted baby could cause on both woman, child and possibly society

And abstinence may possibly work for kids who have 'the fear of god' in them or are naturally cautious anyway but does nothing for young, hormonal teens who by their very nature don't think of the future and live for the moment. We cannot assume that we can put wise heads on young shoulders, teens are self discovering and natural risk takers and this is why abstinence alone will never work completely.

Katy

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:13 pm

I agree with you , Katy. Unfortunately, some people believe those "few cells" are equally as important as the life of a woman and should, in fact, have precedence over her life.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:34 pm

Katy1 wrote: I agree Lulu,

Perhaps women should 'pay' for a mistake or moment of stupidity with a lifetime of unwanted child rearing (possibly damaging the potential offspring) or give a child up for adoption? Please tell me you don't think abortion is better for the child than adoption.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:30 pm

I don't care for the idea of the morning after pill but I would be greatly in favor of the just before ya do it pill, or something like that. I am one of those ones who think that life begins at conception. But I have no problem with preventing conception.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:58 pm

Katy1 wrote: Perhaps women should 'pay' for a mistake or moment of stupidity with a lifetime of unwanted child rearing (possibly damaging the potential offspring) or give a child up for adoption? Both of which could possibly hold differing issues to be overcome by both mother and child.

Right, the child won't have issues to overcome if it is dead.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katy1

Perhaps women should 'pay' for a mistake or moment of stupidity with a lifetime of unwanted child rearing (possibly damaging the potential offspring) or give a child up for adoption? Both of which could possibly hold differing issues to be overcome by both mother and child.

Adam Zapple wrote: Right, the child won't have issues to overcome if it is dead.

Isn't this a bit radical thought.....abortion or lifetime unwanted child. Must be something in between, I wish, I hope.:-3

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:29 pm

weber wrote: I don't care for the idea of the morning after pill but I would be greatly in favor of the just before ya do it pill, or something like that. I am one of those ones who think that life begins at conception. But I have no problem with preventing conception.
Great! Me either. But you didn't answer my question.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:32 pm

ADAM "Right, the child won't have issues to overcome if it is dead."

Honestly, Adam, you make it sound as if someone's beating a two-year-old over the head with a shovel! Plan B stops pregnancies before they get started. Let's not over dramatize, ok? :rolleyes:

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:39 pm

:wah: Oh, you'll be taking flak for THAT one, Pinks!

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:40 pm

Accountable wrote: Great! Me either. But you didn't answer my question.

Sorry, I was responding to OP. I'm not sure what your question was but I think maybe it was is abortion or adoption better.

I think adoption is better. However I have had two children and I would not be about fighting with a woman to have a baby she didn't want. When a woman carries a baby that she doesn't want, that baby is born with the feeling of being unwanted. The child in the womb carries the feelings of the woman carrying him/her. The attachment is very strong which ever way the mother is feeling.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:49 pm

But, Pinks...people who believe that a zygote has a soul don't DO research!

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:56 pm

Pinky wrote: What is so wrong with the mrning after pill? A foetus hasn't grown a brain or nerves or anything else by 72 hours...it's an egg! It's not killing anything.

Fair enough, abortion after a certain time is not nice...once it develops the ability to feel pain, etc, then I think it's wrong. But a newly embedded egg? C'mon - you do worse when you forget to water the plants.

Actually, I think the morning after pill is probably the least of any worries. In my list of priorities, it takes up little of my time. It is one answer that to me is a lot better than abortion. And I certainly agree with you Pinky that the world is overpopulated and there is less and less world to go around.:guitarist

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:59 am

Questions about the Plan B, or morning after pill:

They're the same thing, right? or have they come up with a new drug?

FDA has blessed it as safe?

Do the effect last, say, 24 hours or more? Could a woman take it before sex, as a prophylactic?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:03 am

Oh yeh, the world isn't overpopulated - not even close. every human can fit comfortably inside Texas. We also make/grow more food than we need to keep the entire population healthy.

Some pockets/areas/cities may be overpopulated, but not the world.

But that's a different thread. Sorry for the diversion.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:59 am

No, you're not. :wah:

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:51 pm

Accountable wrote: Questions about the Plan B, or morning after pill:

They're the same thing, right? or have they come up with a new drug?

FDA has blessed it as safe?

Do the effect last, say, 24 hours or more? Could a woman take it before sex, as a prophylactic?

it only works if it's taken before a woman ovulates...so there's a good chance it won't actually prevent the pregnancy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:18 pm

ARgi wrote: it only works if it's taken before a woman ovulates...so there's a good chance it won't actually prevent the pregnancy.I thought the whole purpose was for her to take it after sex to prevent prgnancy. :-2

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:21 pm

FDA's Decision Regarding Plan B: Questions and Answers

Please see Questions and Answers, August 24, 2006

1. What is emergency contraception?

Emergency contraception is a method of preventing pregnancy to be used after a contraceptive fails or after unprotected sex. It is not for routine use. Drugs used for this purpose are called emergency contraceptive pills, post-coital pills, or morning after pills. Emergency contraceptives contain the hormones estrogen and progestin (levonorgestrel), either separately or in combination. FDA has approved two products for prescription use for emergency contraception – Preven (approved in 1998) and Plan B (approved in 1999).

2. What is Plan B?

Plan B is emergency contraception, a backup method to birth control. It is in the form of two levonorgestrel pills (0.75 mg in each pill) that are taken by mouth after unprotected sex. Levonorgestrel is a synthetic hormone used in birth control pills for over 35 years. Plan B can reduce a woman’s risk of pregnancy when taken as directed if she has had unprotected sex. Plan B contains only progestin, levonorgestrel, a synthetic hormone used in birth control pills for over 35 years. It is currently available only by prescription

3. How does Plan B work?

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:39 pm

Thanks, that's more along the lines of what I remember. So, feasibly, it could be used as a prophylactic, though it's probably too expensive.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:06 pm

Well, it's a high dosage of the same oral contraceptives normally used over a month or 3-week interval. I don't think there's any reason to use Plan B on a regular basis.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm

InfraRedConnection wrote: I'm torn. I would like everyone's opinions (pro-choice, pro-life, indifferent, everyone).

I read an article about how some woman sued Wal-Mart for not carrying emergency contraceptive (the morning-after pill) and it made me think. Is that pill like having abortion? I mean...I know it isn't like having an abortion but is it just as bad? Something along similar lines?

What do you think?

ICBA to read all this thread, it's past my bed-time.

However:

This woman should be publically thrashed for being irredeemably stupid,

and have her right to shop rescinded;

If anyone took any notice at all of her actions, then they should be publically

thrashed, and sentenced to prison;

That pill is *the same* as having an abortion, *in the very simplest of terms*;

Using that pill is OK - objections to abortion increase in proportion to time

since conception, IMO.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:54 pm

Pinky wrote: What is so wrong with the mrning after pill? A foetus hasn't grown a brain or nerves or anything else by 72 hours...it's an egg!

No it is not. What do you teach? French[1]?

pinky wrote: It's not killing anything

AOL. "Preventing something that might have been", perhaps.

pinky wrote: Fair enough, abortion after a certain time is not nice...once it develops the ability to feel pain, etc, then I think it's wrong.

"It"? I don't like that usage. Until what point is "it" an "it"? I could ask, & we'd

be side-tracked.

pinky wrote: But a newly embedded egg? C'mon - you do worse when you forget to water the plants.

Aside from any inaccuracies or things to gripe about, I am sure that we agree

on this "Emergency contraceptive" - a "Morning after" pill is an advance.

[1] Sorry - I had to leave it in, though!

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:01 am

Accountable wrote: Please tell me you don't think abortion is better for the child than adoption.

First of all a group of 'potentially human' cells don't constitute a child. Up until a certain point in development a human foetus cannot be distinguished with that of a fish or a dog, they have none of the characteristics that make is a human, let alone 'a child' Referring to them as 'a child' is not only medically incorrect but is an underhand device to rouse sentimentality.

Yes, I do think that the destruction of a cell formation that has no consciousness and doesn't feel pain is far preferable to the gestation and birth of an unwanted child, whether or not adoption is brought into the equation.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:58 am

Katy1 wrote: First of all a group of 'potentially human' cells don't constitute a child. Up until a certain point in development a human foetus cannot be distinguished with that of a fish or a dog, they have none of the characteristics that make is a human, let alone 'a child'DNA Katy1 wrote: Referring to them as 'a child' is not only medically incorrect but is an underhand device to rouse sentimentality.Nothing underhanded about it. Children deserve our sentiment. I've never once heard of a woman miscarry and say "Damn! How am I gonna wash this group of cells out of my good skirt? This is gonna make me late for work!"

Katy1 wrote: Yes, I do think that the destruction of a cell formation that has no consciousness and doesn't feel pain is far preferable to the gestation and birth of an unwanted child, whether or not adoption is brought into the equation.It's a good thing you feel pain then.

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:31 am

[QUOTE=Accountable]DNA

Nothing underhanded about it. Children deserve our sentiment.

:sneaky: You know exatly what I'm saying, you're just being obtuse.

I've never once heard of a woman miscarry and say "Damn! How am I gonna wash this group of cells out of my good skirt? This is gonna make me late for work!"

Depends what you mean. If the woman was trying for a child or happy to be pregnant then I doubt she'd be over the moon, obviously. On the other hand I've personally known of a number of women who have been an emotional wreck because their period is late and then when it comes weeks later (more than likely an early miscarriage) they are massively relieved. But these are the things that women mainly talk about with other women, close friends or family for fear of being seen as 'bad people'.

It's a good thing you feel pain then.

Huh?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:07 am

Pinky wrote: By all means, make your point, but leave the personal insults out of it Bill.

Adios again.

If you think being called a french teacher, with a "sorry" for that mock insult, is

"personal insults", then I put it to you that you have a very thin skin indeed. If

it's something else, then you may enquire via PM.

Knickers. I should have PM'd on that one, too. Sorry cubed.

The above sentence eas edited in, to clarify for any mystefied readers. This is

turning into a bad day.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:15 am

Originally Posted by Pinky

What is so wrong with the mrning after pill? A foetus hasn't grown a brain or nerves or anything else by 72 hours...it's an egg!

Reply by Bill Sikes:

No it is not.

Reply by Pinky:

No it isn't what? An egg or a foetus? What it is then?

You said "A foetus hasn't grown a brain or nerves or anything else by 72

hours...it's an egg!". OK. If it's a foetus, it isn't an egg. If it's a fertilised egg,

it isn't an egg, it's a zygote.

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:26 am

You said "A foetus hasn't grown a brain or nerves or anything else by 72

hours...it's an egg!". OK. If it's a foetus, it isn't an egg. If it's a fertilised egg,

it isn't an egg, it's a zygote.

Hi Bill, I thought it was a cytoblast, or does that come after the zygote?

Katy

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:07 am

Accountable wrote: I thought the whole purpose was for her to take it after sex to prevent prgnancy. :-2

http://www.popcouncil.org/mediacenter/n ... ation.html

“There is no doubt that fertilization would not have taken place in those women should they have had intercourse prior to treatment, says Croxatto. “We conclude that the effects exerted by Plan B, when it is taken before the onset of the LH surge, may fully explain the pregnancies averted by emergency contraception. Failure to affect the LH surge, because treatment was begun too late in the fertile preovulatory period, explains the 20 percent failure rate of this method. Our data presented in this paper suggest that emergency contraception using levonorgestrel works by disrupting ovulation, not by interfering with implantation. This research was published in the December 2004 issue of the journal Contraception. "

it prevents ovulation...not implantation. it doesn't kill a fertilized egg, zygote, cytoblast, whatever... there is no debate about abortion here. this is why it shouldn't be used in place of other forms of contraceptive. If a woman has already ovulated and the egg was fertilized she's going to be delivering a large package in 9 months, regardless.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:12 pm

Accountable wrote: Oh yeh, the world isn't overpopulated - not even close. every human can fit comfortably inside Texas.
don't give them any ideas!!!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:59 pm

sunny104 wrote: don't give them any ideas!!!

:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 am

ARgi wrote: http://www.popcouncil.org/mediacenter/n ... ation.html

“There is no doubt that fertilization would not have taken place in those women should they have had intercourse prior to treatment, says Croxatto. “We conclude that the effects exerted by Plan B, when it is taken before the onset of the LH surge, may fully explain the pregnancies averted by emergency contraception. Failure to affect the LH surge, because treatment was begun too late in the fertile preovulatory period, explains the 20 percent failure rate of this method. Our data presented in this paper suggest that emergency contraception using levonorgestrel works by disrupting ovulation, not by interfering with implantation. This research was published in the December 2004 issue of the journal Contraception. "

it prevents ovulation...not implantation. it doesn't kill a fertilized egg, zygote, cytoblast, whatever... there is no debate about abortion here. this is why it shouldn't be used in place of other forms of contraceptive. If a woman has already ovulated and the egg was fertilized she's going to be delivering a large package in 9 months, regardless.

Very interesting, thanks for that:)

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:46 am

Katy1 wrote: Very interesting, thanks for that:)

yeah...at first i was very confused at what people were saying because i thought it was known. :-3

eyesopen · Post by **eyesopen** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:43 pm

I dont think its abortion the egg has to fertilized for conception to take place it just stops this from happenng a stronger for of the contrceptive pill?? I do not know what happens in the USA but i have never heard of someone being sued for not stocking and emergency pill before surely if a shop does not have the goods you shop somewhere else??? HOW ODD!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:50 pm

eyesopen wrote: I dont think its abortion the egg has to fertilized for conception to take place it just stops this from happenng a stronger for of the contrceptive pill?? I do not know what happens in the USA but i have never heard of someone being sued for not stocking and emergency pill before surely if a shop does not have the goods you shop somewhere else??? HOW ODD!

In England you're never more than 5 miles from a chemist so you can always shop elsewhere. In the US you can be more than 500 miles from the nearest chemist so you might be a bit late taking it.