#1: "Including but not limited to" - those two were *going* to get together and become an embryo, but you stopped them! #2: Morning after pills and IUDs both count as "birth control" and both cause a fertilised egg to get tossed. Ditto birth control pills themselves, as I recall - they don't stop you ovulating, and they don't stop sperm and ova from gettin' jiggy, they just stop your body from *not* stopping it by fooling it into thinking you're pregnant already, as I recall. #3: And if you're applying the 14th amendment to "microscopic-Americans", termination of an ectopic pregnancy is murder.
If your body thinks you're pregnant, it won't ovulate. If you actually are pregnant, do you (not you specifically) ovulate? No. Hormone balance is about the same for both cases.
It's the "about the same" that makes the difference. The combination pill (progesterone/estrogen) doesn't always prevent ovulation (blame it on differing hormone levels); while very rare, it is possible to use it correctly and still get pregnant, which kind of requires you to be ovulating.
Essentially, you can take the pill, not fool your body well enough, and get a fertilized egg. It may get flushed out next time you bleed, you may never know, but you still conceived.
The progesterone-only pill does less to make you stop ovulating, and more to reduce the odds that sperm makes contact with the egg, or that a fertilized egg will attach and grow. Again, it's still possible to conceive.
I just caught that "but not limited to" clause, which fucks the whole thing up. You're right about morning after pills and IUDs and, as far as I remember, birth-control pills. All in all, I don't like this bill. If I'm going to wax mystical, I'm tempted to say that the soul attaches at birth.
I kind of doubt that; an egg or sperm alone doesn't seem to qualify as human life. Lacking 23 chromosomes kind of puts a serious dent in their ability to meet the definition.
(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human person' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.
It's that "but not limited to" thing which makes it all really complex. Like a lot of crap Congress does, it's vaguely worded, probably intentionally, which makes it a load of bullshit.
I don't believe my hair cells count as a human being, nor my egg cells, nor my skin cells. And including eggs and sperm would make it murder to ejaculate in most cases or menstruate in any.
I have faith in people's ability to be idiots, but not that much faith. (And I am praying I won't be proved wrong.)
To the best recollection that I have of how the birth control pill works, it does not prevent ovulation, but it does prevent implantation (similarly to the IUD). If your body thought itself to be pregnant then it wouldn't shed its lining (that would be horribly detrimental to a developing fetus). I could be wrong, so I'll go check my texts and post my updated and ultimately correct version. Morning after pills just flat out hormonally kill a developing embryo by making the uterus more or less hostile and toxic.
I just checked and I described one kind of Birth control pill that is pretty well just progesterone (which it turns out also makes the cervix more musoucy and makes it harder for sperm to get though), the other (and more traditional) kind of pill does indeed prevent ovulation. The trend is towards prescribing the newer progesterone pills since the medical community feels they present fewer long term health risks. I have no idea what I've helped prove here today.
Mostly that the pill, both versions[1], does not absolutely prevent conception. As such, it could arguably be outlawed under the proposed Consitutional amendment, since should someone taking the pill manage to conceive, it is likely to result in the termination of said conception.
Making BCPs illegal on that basis would require people to decide that the great unlikeliness of concieving while on the pill is not a concern, only the fact that the pill would prevent said conception from coming to term.
...I am trying to believe that people would not make this decision. --- [1] Because while the combination pill can be reasonably expected to prevent ovulation, there are cases when it doesn't, if only because the hormone levels aren't quite perfectly geared to what you need. Hence the failure rate.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 09:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 10:35 pm (UTC)#2: Morning after pills and IUDs both count as "birth control" and both cause a fertilised egg to get tossed. Ditto birth control pills themselves, as I recall - they don't stop you ovulating, and they don't stop sperm and ova from gettin' jiggy, they just stop your body from *not* stopping it by fooling it into thinking you're pregnant already, as I recall.
#3: And if you're applying the 14th amendment to "microscopic-Americans", termination of an ectopic pregnancy is murder.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 10:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 11:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 05:43 am (UTC)Essentially, you can take the pill, not fool your body well enough, and get a fertilized egg. It may get flushed out next time you bleed, you may never know, but you still conceived.
The progesterone-only pill does less to make you stop ovulating, and more to reduce the odds that sperm makes contact with the egg, or that a fertilized egg will attach and grow. Again, it's still possible to conceive.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 05:50 am (UTC)#2) Kind of, response to
#3) Yeah, but not terminating an ectopic pregnancy could also be murder. And pardon my cynicism, but at that point, only one of them is paying taxes.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 09:20 am (UTC)You're right about morning after pills and IUDs and, as far as I remember, birth-control pills.
All in all, I don't like this bill.
If I'm going to wax mystical, I'm tempted to say that the soul attaches at birth.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 11:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 05:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 09:14 am (UTC)It's that "but not limited to" thing which makes it all really complex. Like a lot of crap Congress does, it's vaguely worded, probably intentionally, which makes it a load of bullshit.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 05:33 pm (UTC)I have faith in people's ability to be idiots, but not that much faith. (And I am praying I won't be proved wrong.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 07:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 05:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 05:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 02:14 am (UTC)Morning after pills just flat out hormonally kill a developing embryo by making the uterus more or less hostile and toxic.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 02:18 am (UTC)I have no idea what I've helped prove here today.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 02:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 06:10 am (UTC)Making BCPs illegal on that basis would require people to decide that the great unlikeliness of concieving while on the pill is not a concern, only the fact that the pill would prevent said conception from coming to term.
...I am trying to believe that people would not make this decision.
---
[1] Because while the combination pill can be reasonably expected to prevent ovulation, there are cases when it doesn't, if only because the hormone levels aren't quite perfectly geared to what you need. Hence the failure rate.