Monday, February 18, 2008

Missouri wants PlanB Classified as Abortion Inducing

This is why all adults need to keep an eye on this stuff. Birth control matters. Reproductive health matters. If we don't pay attention, each state, one by one, is going to try shit like this.

OK, let me see if I have this straight. Based on what I have always read, heard and understood, the medical community considers pregnancy to begin when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining. There are plenty of times when eggs are fertilized, but do not implant in the uterine lining, and pass out of the woman's body without a pregnancy ever developing. That just happens naturally. That is not abortion.

In college I did a research paper on the difference with which pregnancy is described in regard to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and abortion. Women who undergo IVF have several fertilized eggs placed in the uterus to increase chances that at least one of those fertilized eggs will become implanted in the uterine lining. What blows me away is that right on the FAQ page of most sites for places which provide IVF, you'll find something similar to this:
What happens to any extra pre-embryos?
A: A maximum of four pre-embryos will be transferred to the uterus for possible implantation. Patients will have several other options regarding the disposition of the remaining pre-embryos. One option is to freeze pre-embryos for your later use. Other options are to donate or simply dispose of them. Excess pre-embryos, if any, belong to you, and you will determine what is to be done.

So if you do get pregnant and you have any leftover fertilized eggs, you can just toss those out or freeze them for later. It's totally up to the couple, since they "own" the eggs.

Uh, excuse me? How is it that couples who have "extra" fertilized eggs laying around, and just leave them in a freezer or toss them out and nobody gets all up in arms about it or tries to pass laws against it?

Not only that, but women who have 3 or 4 embryos implant can decide to have "multifetal pregnancy reduction", or "selective termination". Basically, abort some of the ebryos. Nobody gets upset about that either. That's okay, as long as you are having SOME babies.

OK, then how about this: instead of abortion, doctors can just "harvest" the fertilized egg and the woman can then decide if she wants to freeze it for later or just toss it out. Somehow, I don't think anyone would go for that. Because the truth is that the Right to Life nutjobs who support this kind of idiocy just don't want women to be able to take control of their reproductive health. They want a situation where women have sex only at risk of getting pregnant and carrying the pregnancy to term.

So women who don't want kids, have use birth control but have it fail - it's not okay for them to have abortions. But for couples who spend $10,000 and up on IVF, it's okay for them to toss out their extra embryos, nobody gets upset about that.

1 comment:

Margaret said...

I agree, this is completely ridiculous. You know why there is no uproar about IVF: the woman in question is trying to get pregnant! This makes her a higher moral being than a woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant. We, as women, are supposed to really, really, really want to have babies. *Gag*

I told an ex-friend several years ago that I had used the morning after pill, and I was quite surprised by her reaction. She seemed convinced that I had had an abortion, and was quite upset about it. I was like, what? It's emergency contraception. Get over it! Even if I had obtained an abortion, which I haven't needed to, it would be my business and mine alone. Geeze, some people!