On knowing what the choice is....

[Randers]

This about women knowing what they are choosing when they use an IUD and what they can do (only if they want to) if they want to extend their options. I think for the most part both sides present biased material on this issue (anti-abortion and pro-choice - I am pro-choice....).

I think this is a site without bias:

http://www.uel.ac.uk/

There is a professor there who states in his syllabus:

Prevention of Pregnancy: (Contraception):

5. IUD- Intra-uterine device, eg plastic or metal device which prevents implantation in uterus.

(Period - that's it - no wishy-washy stuff about not knowing how it works, blah, blah, blah).

 http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/M.S.Meah/page4.htm

---------------
Very straightforward.

Meanwhile - “Forty-five experts from around the world attended a 1-day seminar in September 2001 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, to identify ways that they might collaborate to overcome unnecessary barriers to the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs)....”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12127634&dopt=Abstract
---------------

This is what I think. If an IUD could stop fertilization merely by it’s presence - wouldn’t you be able to duplicate that in a petri dish or something? The presence of the IUD in the dish affecting the sperm mobility or motility or whatever....

But regardless of whether you agree with me on that. My question is - just assume for a minute that sometimes pregnancy is stopped by the prevention of implantation by the IUD and knowing that some women would rather that not be the outcome - why not advocate using multiple methods as a choice - if people wanted to? It would only be necessary for one week or so out of the month. Could use the sponge - or all kinds of things that wouldn’t be 100% by themselves but with the backup of the IUD it would be.

This would be the best way for women to choose to have all the bases covered that a person could cover if they chose to cover them.

I think that is a better approach than experts who seem more interested in convincing people that IUDs stop fertilization - when they don't.

[rebecca_herman]

1. IUDs

Isn't there a new IUD that releases hormons like those used in birth control pills? I think that type may prevent ovulation.

[iverglas]

2. here's a thought

Two, actually.

My question is - just assume for a minute that sometimes pregnancy is stopped by the prevention of implantation by the IUD and knowing that some women would rather that not be the outcome - why not advocate using multiple methods as a choice - if people wanted to?

(1) How about if people who don't want something to happen refrain from doing something that might cause it to happen?

If some women don't want pregnancy to be prevented (not "stopped", although I'd accept that you were not speaking literally) by preventing implantation of a hypothetical fertilized egg, maybe they should just not use IUDs. And if they're so all-fired anxious tabout the possibility of something like this happening, maybe they should ask a simple question when they're offered an IUD: "How does this work?"

(2) A lot of birth control counselling type outfits and people do advocate using multiple methods.

In particular, IUDs do not function to prevent the transmission of STDs (and in fact can contribute to the development of infections). Women are always counselled to use a condom, in addition to an IUD (or the pill), if they are at risk for STD infection.

Of course, if the barrier failed, there might (so you say) still be the chance of fertilization occurring and implantation being prevented, so the multiple methods chosen by someone with that concern would presumably not include the IUD.


I'm not sure how authoritative a professor's course notes are. (University of East London; being an East Ender by descent myself, I like the thought, but that's just me; it's hardly Oxbridge. I have no idea whether the individual whose site it is is biased, but that wouldn't be my entire concern.) There are professors' course notes on the net that say that me and my sibs (brown-eyed children of blue-eyed parents) don't exist.

I don't know what your point was in posting the link to the pubmed article. Family Planning experts want to "overcome unnecessary barriers to the use of intrauterine devices" ... so? Does the full article say that someone's personal objections to IUDs based on the possibility that an IUD would prevent the implantation of a hypothetical fertilized egg is an "unnecessary barrier" to the use of IUDs? I'd doubt it.


This is what I think. If an IUD could stop fertilization merely by it’s presence - wouldn’t you be able to duplicate that in a petri dish or something? The presence of the IUD in the dish affecting the sperm mobility or motility or whatever....

Have you actually investigated the mechanism by which it is hypothesized that an IUD may prevent fertilization? (Actually, I kinda think you have.) You might want to recall that women's uteruses, and women, are not petri dishes.

From a source I'll bet you'll love:
http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Network/v20_1/NWvol20-1IUDsperm.htm
(I have snipped things that I would have preferred to include, for copyright reasons; please do read it all.)

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) prevent fertilization primarily by interfering with the ability of sperm to survive and to ascend the fallopian tubes, where fertilization occurs. Having a foreign body in the uterus, such as an IUD, causes both anatomical and biochemical changes that appear to be toxic to sperm. Studies have generally found that sperm are not as viable among IUD users, compared to other women.1

... When a foreign body is in the uterus, the endometrium reacts by releasing white blood cells, enzymes and prostaglandins; and these reactions of the endometrium appear to prevent sperm from reaching the fallopian tubes. In addition, copper-bearing IUDs release copper ions into the fluids of the uterus and the fallopian tubes, enhancing the debilitating effect on sperm.

Evidence for these mechanisms includes physical examination of women's eggs. ...4 ... Half of the women using no contraception who had intercourse during the fertile period had ova that were consistent in appearance with fertilized eggs. In contrast, none of the ova taken from copper IUD users who had intercourse appeared to be fertilized. Also, no ova were found in the uterus of any of the copper IUD users. "IUDs exert effects that extend beyond the body of the uterus and interfere with steps of the reproductive process that take place before the eggs reach the uterine cavity," concluded Dr. Frank Alvarez and colleagues.5

But those folks aren't professors at the University of East London, I guess.

Oh, and here's what they actually had to say about those "unnecessary barriers to the use of intrauterine devices":
http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Network/v20_1/NWvol20-1CopperIUD.htm

An international mail survey being conducted by IPPF and the World Health Organization (WHO) has found that inaccurate information about IUDs is a barrier to use worldwide. Dr. Huezo says preliminary data about clients' questions and concerns revealed that rumors are commonplace. The survey was sent to national institutions providing family planning services in 75 countries.

"The most common misconception was that IUDs work by causing an abortion," says Dr. Huezo. "We also heard that the IUD causes cancer. This was a quite common perception, but it came as a surprise to researchers. Another concern is that the IUD moves outside the uterus and can travel as far as the heart or brain."

... For example, no scientific evidence indicates IUDs cause cancer. In fact, research suggests the devices reduce the risk of endometrial and cervical cancers. Although the IUD can be expelled through the vagina or very rarely can perforate the uterus during insertion, the IUD does not travel outside the uterus to other organs. IUDs prevent fertilization. Although the specific mechanisms are not fully understood, studies show the IUD effectively interrupts the reproductive process before implantation and pregnancy, suggesting that it does not act as an abortifacient.

Damn, it all just doesn't seem to be as non-wishy-washy as you say ... or maybe it is, it just isn't what you say it is.

Meanwhile, if a woman is worried about an IUD preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, she is entirely free to err on the side of caution and use some other method of contraception.

Myself, I tend to suspect that women who have that concern wouldn't be using much of anything other than a calendar, and maybe a thermometer ... and earnest finger-crossing ... anyhow.

[Heddi]

4. Wow. We kind of posted teh same thing

at the same time :)

Sorry for my dupe. Yours is much clearer

[iverglas]

5. now we'll wait for lwfern ...

who sneaked in ahead of me on that "John Kerry admitted" thing in the other thread, and may still be typing as we speak. Although I admit it's usually moi who takes the longest.

Ah, those great minds. ;)

[iverglas]

6. aha, I see that lwfern has already had a go at this

(and also similar things to say about that wishy-washy business; such great minds indeed!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2965487&mesg_id=2968229&page=

To our Randers:

Your planned parenthood link is exactly what we've been saying

It "usually works by preventing fertilization of an egg." This is what we've been trying to tell you.

That's exactly what you said it couldn't do, hopefully now that you've read that link you can understand you were mistaken, that is the primary way that it works, preventing fertilization.

If that fails, yes, it prevents implantation, but as my lower link shows (the one to the doctor spock site), you are more likely to have an unimplanted fertilized egg without birth control than you are with an IUD.

Amazing how some people just keep saying the same thing over and over again, as if nobody had ever replied to it before and there had been nothing said that called for response. Nope. Just repeat, add water ... and stir.

And of course, it never hurts to engage in a little baseless speculation and impugning of the integrity of strangers not present to defend themselves:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2965487&mesg_id=2967951

I think you have your facts wrong

Edited on Tue Jan-18-05 04:44 PM by Randers

They are not as sure as you think (I think they just say that they prevent fertilization because that is what women want to hear): ...

And don't forget to dismiss things that come with footnotes (like what's in my previous post), without bothering to give any good reason, for good measure:

That they couldn't find an egg (a fertilized one before it was discarded) doesn't really impress me as scientific evidence.

Not, I guess, if you don't understand (or acknowledge) what it is presented as evidence *of*.

Where's Randers?

[Heddi]

7. Yeah. It's funny. Being in nursing school

not only am I required to read nursing text, but nursing journals and medical journals and medical text books.

Since my plan is to become a nurse midwife and public health nurse (with a focus on pregnancy counceling and prevention), I've had to do ALOT of reading on various forms of birth control, contraception, abortafacents, etc.

I love this line:

They are not as sure as you think (I think they just say that they prevent fertilization because that is what women want to hear):

Uh yeah. Doctors and nurses tell people what they want to hear. Researchers tell people what they want to hear :eyes:

I think it's more of a case of : People dismiss facts that THEY DON'T WANT TO ACKNOWELDGE.

Medical ignorance....especially ignorance regarding basic medical facts just IRKS me to no end. It is especially frightening when someone with (obviously) NO medical background is doling out contraceptive advice like they were the reincarnation of Margaret fucking Sanger.

"I think IUD's work differently than the MILLIONS of studies testing the safety and effecacy of IUD's state. THEREFORE, I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Now go pound sand"

it would be funny if it weren't so tragic that this poster could really be influential to people who don't know any better.

[Randers]

32. "Margaret fucking Sanger"

I guess it figures that anyone expressing ideas that go against the generally accepted line of thought will be sneered at and berated.

Pro-choice people aren't supposed to be concerned with the entity that exists when the egg and sperm meet.

Pro-life people are supposed to be against women having decision making control about what point such an entity might be terminated.

I'm not in a group.

[Heddi]

33. Did you read what I wrote?

I said:

Medical ignorance....especially ignorance regarding basic medical facts just IRKS me to no end. It is especially frightening when someone with (obviously) NO medical background is doling out contraceptive advice like they were the reincarnation of Margaret fucking Sanger.

it's irresponsible for people with NO medical training and NO medical knowledge to dole out contraceptive advice like cookie recipes. EVERY woman's body is different, hormones are regulated differently, women are on medications that are contraindicated with the use of contraceptives.

It's dangerous and disingenous to give medical advice when you (editorial you) have no medical knowledge. *I* am not even able to give out medical advice even though I have medical and pharmacologic training.

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between a "difference of opinion" and "giving out erroneous and potentially dangerous medical information". I never said anything about your opinion, or said you belonged to any group, aside from the fact that you've continuously denied the proven, tested, reliable information that is out there regarding contraceptives & IUD's because it doesn't jive with what you want to hear.

[Randers]

34. I don't think it hurts anybody

to get other opinions.

Science isn't advanced by people ignoring observations.

Our countries conversation about birth control is not advanced by people keeping their mouth shut because they think differently about things from somebody else.

(Our country is pretty lame comparatively when it comes to sex education and birth control - see my other thread - I'm sure you are aware of this).

You can find a medical opinion to fit just about any side of this you want.

I think my observations are valid to the discussion. You don't. So we disagree.


(Did you think I didn't read what you said because I didn't insult you like you insulted me? - was I not defensive enough?)

[Randers]

9. One thing I think is odd

(I know I didn't explain it...)

After that group of people met in 2002 - the 45 experts who wanted to increase the use of IUDs - there was a new "spin". Prior to that nearly everyone said something to the effect of "we don't know how or why IUDs work..." while after that some advocates started saying that they knew 100% that IUDs prevent fertilization. Even though the studies they cite went back to 1975 or 1988. In other words - they didn't seem to be talking about new studies - they were just assuming they were more definitive.

(I also don't necessartily believe the studies that I've about for various reasons.)


I also think it's interesting that

The Dutch College of General Practitioners is very blunt and says:

A copper IUD prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the womb.

(They also site the same studies that US people do - about how IUDs work - they just consider the prevention of implantaion to be the primary method and to them that it all that matters. )

http://nhg.artsennet.nl/upload/104/guidelines2/E14.htm

While down in Argentina a Judge " Rules Abortifacient Birth Control Pill and IUD Illegal - Orders Them Destroyed"

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/may/03053002.html

------------------------

This is where my idea could come in handy if people like those in Argentina could trust the people to supplement their IUDs or their pills or whatever.

What I have seen over the years (and maybe all of a sudden IUDs are different and do stop fertilization - but I wouldn't count on it) is the pro-life people seem really extreme and promote the idea that "ack" - people are having "abortions" with these things so people shouldn't use them at all.... and the pro-choice people being mostly vague and wishy-washy about how often implantation might occur (and so I don't really trust them either).

I think it is quite possible that more information is available about how often eggs might be fertillized - but that isn't ususally said. I've seen studies referred to and then found out there were 4 people in the study.

I wish everyone would just be more open and that people who wanted to supplement did and those who didn't didn't. I think people wouldn' have to be so polarized as they are on this. Nobody trusts anybody and maybe me least of all - since I think both sides are whacked. I should probably just go live in the Netherlands...

[Heddi]

3. I don't think the IUD slows sperm motility

It prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, as do many forms of contraceptives.

There are barrier contraceptives, like the sponge (which is off the market now), the diaphragm, cervical cap, condom, etc---those just prevent the sperm from entering the cervix, traveling through and fertilizing an egg.

Hormonal contraceptives generally do one of two things:

1) Prevent a mature oocyte from being released from the ovary during ovulation (a non-mature egg can never be fertilized)

2) Allow an egg to be released during ovulation, but preventing that egg (once fertilized) from implanting itself on the uterine wall.

A woman who misakes a contraceptive as an abortafacent (two completely different classes of drugs) is most likley not to use contraceptives in the first place.

As far as the "one week out of the month" for using a backup BC method...that only works if you know your menstrual cycle down to the day. Many women do know when they reach different parts of their cycle, but MOST women do not.

You must remember that one of the side-effects of an IUD is irregular menstral cycles. For some women, the cycles become longer for 2 months, then shorter for 3 months, then they may have no periods (amenorrhea) for an unknown amount of time (this doesn't always happen for all women with IUD's, but it does happen for many).

With that in mind, any woman who wanted to use the IUD but didn't like the way it worked would really have to use a 2nd form of contraception any time she had sex, since her cycles can be unpredictable and labile.

As a health care professional, if a woman came in and wanted to be fitted with an IUD, but wasn't morally comfortable with the actions of the IUD, I would wonder 1)did she get proper patient teaching information before coming to her conculsion to be fitted with an IUD and 2) does she have adequate knowledge of the way that contraceptives, in general, work

[Randers]

11. From someone in the related discussion...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2965487&mesg_id=2968023&page=

"My OB/GYN is opposed to abortion due to religious reasons and that is why she told me about the studies - before those studies she referred people to another OB/GYN in her practice to get IUDs but changed her mind after this more recent study showed that the IUD does not work by preventing implantation."

It is clear that health care professionals - Doctors even - are contradicting what you say. I'm suggesting that healthcare professionals say exactly what you just said, "It prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, as do many forms of contraceptives" - and suggest to people who so desire - if that is not enough of a barrier for them - they could consider monthly temporary alternatives.

It is my theory (so I know you won't like it - because I don't know anything :eyes: ) that women using copper IUDs ( the hormone version sounds like it has different effects) may have their periods thrown off by fertilizing/so the body thinks it's pregnant/messes with the cycle phenomena. If women were taught what to look for in their body cycles - they probably could use a barrier for those few days or a week when they had the signs of ovulation and maybe their monthly cycle would be more likely to stay on track.

My suggestion also would include the bonus that conservative women (except for the ones who believe in no birth control under any conditions) would not be able to sustain their objection to IUDs - because they could also prevent fertilization which is some people's hangup. I think it would throw a monkeywrench into the pro-life movement if pro-choice people started suggesting this.

[iverglas]

12. which part didn't you understand?

before those studies she referred people to another OB/GYN in her practice to get IUDs but changed her mind after this more recent study showed that the IUD does **not** work by preventing implantation. (emphases added)

But you say:

It is clear that health care professionals - Doctors even - are contradicting what you say. I'm suggesting that healthcare professionals say exactly what you just said, "It prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, as do many forms of contraceptives" ...

Did you want to try that again?


(formatting edited)

[Randers]

14. let's see

gollygee said her Doctor said that the the IUD does **not** work by preventing implantation. No one knows just how it works, but evidence shows that it isn't by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs.

In other words - gollygee's Doctor is certain that the egg does not get fertilized. And insisted the new study(s?) back this up.

Heddi said, "It prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, as do many forms of contraceptives" ...

In other words - the egg is fertilized but not implanted.

That is the issue.

[iverglas]

15. I'm just not confused

Heddi said, "It prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, as do many forms of contraceptives" ...

Heddi did say that, I believe. Heddi seems like a very nice person, but I don't think she's an authoritative voice when it comes to the workings of IUDs.

Neither is the physician of the person you quoted in the earlier post, either, of course.

Apparently the structure of your post confused me, and I understood that when you said

It is clear that health care professionals - Doctors even - are contradicting what you say. I'm suggesting that healthcare professionals say exactly what you just said, "It prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, as do many forms of contraceptives"

you were citing what the poster in the other thread had said as support for what you were saying -- when she had said the exact opposite. Now it seems that you were citing the poster in the other thread as contradicting what Heddi had said ... and yet you were agreeing with Heddi ... and my heady's spinning.


I'm very much aware of what the "issue" is, thank you very much. I just don't think it's an issue.

For one thing, there is, really and truly, no proof that an IUD works by preventing the implantation of a viable fertilized ovum. The fact that you choose to disregard a body of evidence showing that an IUD does work by preventing fertilization (in the various ways that this might be done, which include a number of things besides decreasing sperm motility) does not mean that it doesn't exist.

For another thing, none of this is anything that matters to me or to the medical community or to anybody other than somebody to whom it for some reason matters in respect of herself. Anyone's "moral" objections to doing something, something that it is entirely, and entirely properly, legal to do, are entirely up to him/her, and are quite simply no one else's concern. No one that I know of is tying women down and forcibly inserting IUDs into their uteruses. This really is a case of if you don't want one, don't get one.

And if you (speaking entirely generically) are the kind of dancing angel on needle point counting fool that you are concerned about the hypothetical possibility of a hypothetical fertilized ovum failing to hypothetically implant in your uterus, then I'd have to assume that you (that generic you) would be the kind of fussbudget who would be busily scouring the internet for information about the "pro-life" purity of the means of birth control you use. If such a person were not doing such a thing, I just wouldn't take her concerns about all those hypotheticals too damned seriously.

But of course my feelings are not the issue, and it doesn't matter how seriously I take such a person. She can believe that IUDs carry alien spores that might hypothetically cause her to give birth to a Vulcan, for all I care. She's free to use or not use IUDs as she likes. No business of mine.

And it just isn't the business of the medical profession to pander to her dingbat willies, this being apparently the point you are aiming at. The medical profession is in the business of providing services and treatments that are recognized as efficacious for the purpose for which they are provided, and as not having the kind of unintended or perverse effects that would make them medically contraindicated for a patient. If a treatment has some hypothetical effect that would make it "morally" contraindicated for a patient, that is his/her business and problem, not the medical profession's. Let alone government's, were we thinking of requiring that the medical profession take such things into consideration when providing medical services.

If I want to know whether a drug I am prescribed was tested on animals, in the event that I were morally opposed to the testing of drugs on animals, it is my responsibility to inquire into the matter. It is not my doctor's responsibility to say "oh, by the way, I have to inform you that the drug I am prescribing was tested on animals". I don't pay taxes (up here in universal health care land), that doctors get paid out of, for them to spend their time researching and yacking at patients about this sort of thing, thank you very much, and I don't think it's what your insurance companies pay them for either.

Issue? Nope. Nothing to look at here, folks.

[Jackie97]

8. What I advocate.

I advocate that women be allowed access to information about the birth control that they use. This right is covered by US federal law already.

After they learn the facts about a birth control method (or even if they choose not to be informed at all), I advocate their right to make their own decisions. It's not my job to tell women what type of birth control to use and it's not my job to play mommy and tell them information that they should look for themselves.

[MichiganVote]

10. I advocate that men have an IUD implanted in their genitalia

The we'll be talking birth control with equality.

[Jackie97]

13. Uh.

I guess that was sarcasm. On a serious note, I'm all for a man's right to access birth control. I've heard there's a pill that might come out. It's just that men aren't screaming for their rights. I guess most of the them prefer the responsiblity to be on the women.

[MichiganVote]

18. People scream for rights when they are in pain.

Sarcasm or no, men still have a hell of a free ride when it comes to bc. If a cooil is good enough to market to woman, a similar item should be good enough to market to men.

[noamnety]

16. Randers, I know this is a great disappointment to you

But IUD's prevent eggs from being fertilized.

Now I don't know why that's a disappointment. It's clear you want to believe it works by not allowing fertlized eggs to be implanted. I don't know why you want so badly to believe that. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to your motives, why it's so important for you not only to hang on to this false belief, but to preach it to others.

As I said in the other thread on this topic, where I providing links to a US Government site and to the Dr. Spock site, it works by preventing fertilization. If that fails, THEN and ONLY THEN it works by preventing implantation. That failure rate - the rate at which an egg gets fertilized and doesn't get implanted - is LESS than the rate you would naturally get by not using birth control at all.

Now I don't know what kind of person works themself up into a morally traumatized state every time a woman gets her period, just in case there's a fertlized egg getting expelled. It's a natural thing to happen. It's how nature designed us. The majority of fertlized eggs do NOT implant themselves. So it seems to me it's a little psychotic to be holding little funerals and mourning the potential passing at that point, to begin with.

But if you ARE one of those people that feels that everytime a woman gets her period it's a tragic event on account of that possibility, then the reality is that it happens less often when a woman uses an IUD, because it is extremely rare for an egg to get fertilized.

[Randers]

17. Actually - I'm just the kind of person

that prefers honesty from corporations and from political movements.

That is not what I see from the pro-choice movement.

I think the pro-life movement is overly concerned with what other people are doing - and expect everyone to have the same value system and to care the same way about each fertilized egg. But I happen to think they might be right when it comes to saying look people this is how these things work.

So the pro-choice people, in my opinion, lose moral ground in that respect.

I think the pro-choice people may have valid reasons for not being straightforward. Like with the Argentinian example - so here these women don't have pills or IUDs as an option. I just happen to think - if some of the pro-choice people weren't misrepsenting the effects of pills and IUDs they could try to look for an alternate way of thinking to get people to consider using two types of birth control instead of none.


But I don't expect you to like what I say.

[iverglas]

19. what you see

That is not what I see from the pro-choice movement.

I think the pro-life movement is overly concerned with
what other people are doing - and expect everyone to have
the same value system and to care the same way about each
fertilized egg. But I happen to think they might be right
when it comes to saying look people this is how these
things work.

"Pro-choice" people advocate that women have legal access to abortion services.

Many of them may also advocate that women have ready access to a range of pregnancy prevention products. Many of them may even also advocate that certain products be used by individuals who want to prevent pregnancy, and promoted by society.

Hell, some of them probably even advocate the wearing and promotion of bicycle helmets, and the eating and promotion of tofu.

Bicycle helmets and tofu have nothing to do with the choice we are talking about when we say "pro-choice". Neither does anyone's opinion about how any particular pregnancy prevention product works.

There is one issue about which all "pro-choice people" agree: women must have legal access to abortion services. And that is the one and only issue on which we can be certain that all "pro-choice people" agree. Pretty much by definition.

"Choice", in this context, means (per my Concise Oxford) the power or opportunity to choose. In the very particular and only context we are in, it means the power or opportunity to choose abortion. (Having the power or opportunity to choose abortion necessarily implies having the power or opportunity to choose no-abortion, given how no one is trying to force anyone to choose abortion).

It has nothing to do with IUDs. And so no one's opinion about IUDs has anything to do with the choice that you are talking about.

So I can't figure out why, when you characterize people who disagree with you about IUDs, you call those people "pro-choice people". You might as well characterize people who ride bicycles as "Republicans", or call Republicans "people who ride bicycles". After all, some Republicans ride bicycles, and some people who ride bicycles are Republican.


So the pro-choice people, in my opinion, lose moral ground in that respect.

Ah, what an excellent ad personam arguer you are! Pro-choice people are immoral because they don't agree with your opinion about how IUDs work. Well ... so what?

A pro-choice person would undoubtedly lose moral ground if s/he were to argue that the earth is flat; s/he would obviously be a liar. And this would have something to do with the issue -- whether women should be prohibited by law from having abortions -- how? So the question of whether the person who said the earth was flat was pro- or anti-choice would be relevant ... how? And whether or not s/he was pro-choice would be worth mentioning in a discussion of the shape of the earth -- WHY?

You're talking about what the effects of an IUD are. What has anyone's position on women's right to choose abortion got to do with the merits of his/her argument about the effects of an IUD?

Nothing. So why are you identifying the people you disagree with as "pro-choice" -- even though some pro-choice people might agree with you and some anti-choice people might disagree with you when it comes to what evidence they accept as to how an IUD works?


I think the pro-choice people may have valid reasons for not being straightforward. Like with the Argentinian example - so here these women don't have pills or IUDs as an option.

You appear to be saying that you think that if people who support women's right to an abortion "admitted" how IUDs work, women could lose access to IUDs. Well, that's not too likely, unless women first lost access to abortion. But if that occurred, perhaps you're right; access to IUDs and the pill wouldn't be far behind. In the brave new world in which women could be enslaved in one way, certainly they could be enslaved in others.

But before you postulate any reasons for not being straightforward, you really have to establish that someone is not being straightforward. Or shall I now postulate reasons for what you're doing? Maybe I could even dream up some valid ones ...


I just happen to think - if some of the pro-choice people weren't misrepsenting the effects of pills and IUDs they could try to look for an alternate way of thinking to get people to consider using two types of birth control instead of none.

We seem to be assuming here that there are people in the world who are such fussbudgets that they won't use an IUD (or the pill) because they have somehow managed to hear the allegation that it will prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting in their uterus ... and who want to use birth control ... and who aren't motivated enough to figure out some other method to use.

These people evidently live in some sort of cocoon where they get all the latest anti-choice propaganda, and yet have never heard of a condom. So they just use nothing.

I'm still trying to figure out what fussbudgets like these are doing trying to prevent pregnancies anyhow. The subset of people who accept tales of IUDs and the pill being "abortifacient" as a reason not to use them who also wish to use any of that artificial birth control stuff at all must, it seems to me, be remarkably small.

The people who propagate these tales are, for the most part, really not wanting to persuade other people to use different forms of birth control, you know. People who profess to have scruples like these about IUDs and the pill generally just aren't people who want to use birth control ... or who want women to have control over their sexuality and fertility. They don't want to persuade women to use some other method. They want to make women stop screwing around and stop having the option of sex without pregnancy. And stopping women from having access to effective birth control is a pretty good way of accomplishing both those ends.

Do you actually know someone who has these scruples about IUDs and yet wants to fornicate madly and not get pregnant? I sure don't.

I'm just hearing a lot of people who want other people not to be able to fornicate madly and not get pregnant, and will try just about anything to achieve that end.

[Randers]

20. I think all of the choices are all wrapped up together

All of the birth control/abortion choices that is.

I don't see them as separate things.

What birth control choices a woman makes or does not make will affect whether she will be considering getting an abortion or not.

I think it is rather tragic that the more some people might be convinced that abortion is bad and then if they are convinced that IUDs and pills are bad - then she is far more likely to use a birth control method that doesn't work particularly well and to have an unplanned pregnancy.

So I hope such people can deal with it.

Why is it such a terrible thing to contemplate a possible alternative? :shrug:

I don't think that having one method that is pretty darn sure to stop the pregnancy and an alternate method that is likely (but not foolproof) to stop the conception is that bad of a suggestion.

(I also think there are probably a lot of women out there who don't know they are in the very beginning stages of pregnancy when they are. )

[iverglas]

21. think what you like

I think all of the choices are all wrapped up together
All of the birth control/abortion choices that is.

"Pro-choice" means in favour of women having the power or opportunity to choose abortion, i.e. in favour of abortion being legal.

No one's position on the legality of abortion determines his/her position on any kind of pregnancy prevention method. No one's position on any kind of pregnancy prevention method determines his/her position on the legality of abortion.

The issue is, and always has been, the legality of abortion.

What birth control choices a woman makes or does not make will affect whether she will be considering getting an abortion or not.

Indeed. And whether abortion is legal will largely determine whether she is able to get one if she chooses it.

The choice a woman makes, in respect of pregnancy prevention, abortion, or anything else, is her business.

Whether she is able to exercise that choice is a matter of public policy, and the position is that she must be able to exercise that choice is the pro-choice position.

There are lots and lots of choices a woman may make, apart from birth control choices, that will affect whether she is in a position to consider abortion. I'm not hearing you beating on the anti-choice brigade because, for instance, it isn't out there operating programs to persuade young women to stay in school, even though we know that a woman with good economic opportunities is less likely to engage in behaviour that will jeopardize those opportunities, or to be unwilling to continue a pregnancy because she can't afford to rear a child.

Gosh, I guess the anti-choice brigade's failure to operate student retention programs for at-risk girls, and lobby for affordable child care and decent maternity benefits, loses them some of that moral high ground.

As of course it does -- since they are the ones trying to force people to do things that are not in their best interests and doing nothing to help them avoid the need to do those things, or deal with the consequences of not being able to do them.

"Pro-choice people", on the other hand, are advocating that women be permitted to make their own choices. Period.

I think it is rather tragic that the more some people might be convinced that abortion is bad and then if they are convinced that IUDs and pills are bad - then she is far more likely to use a birth control method that doesn't work particularly well and to have an unplanned pregnancy.

Well do you really? Odd how you'd be working so hard to persuade people of exactly that, then -- that IUDs and the pill are "bad" if one believes that abortion is "bad". Aren't you beginning to feel rather more like part of the problem than part of the solution?

Why is it such a terrible thing to contemplate a possible alternative?

Who is saying that anything is a terrible thing -- or stopping anybody from contemplating anything?

If a woman doesn't want to use an IUD or the pill, no one on this earth is stopping her from not using them, or from using any alternative she likes.

Why on earth does the responsibility for arranging other options for such women rest on people who see no need for any other options, and who have lots of other more worthwhile things to spend their energy on?

If you decide that Round-Up is bad because it makes the faeries in your garden sick, is it my job to provide you with an alternative form of dandelion control?

If somebody thinks that IUDs and the pill are bad, and persuades women not to use them, surely the responsibility for providing those women with an alternative rests on them, the people who persuaded them not to use the perfectly good option already available to them.

Odd how they don't seem to be doing the job. Seen the anti-abortion league handing out condoms to teenagers lately?

Yes, the mala fides -- complete bad faith -- of the people doing the persuading is not a basis for rejecting the idea they're trying to persuade someone of. But there is nonetheless a fuck of a lot more evidence of their bad faith than there is of bad faith on the part of the "pro-choice people" whose integrity you have been merrily impugning, and so a sensible person would look very closely at the idea they are propagating.

They do have an interest in the matter -- they do want women to be without control over their sexuality and fertility, which is not in women's interest; it is in the interest of people who benefit from women being powerless. "Pro-choice people" do not have an interest in the matter; they want women, and no one else, to have that control and to have the power they are entitled to as human beings and members of societies.

You say that "pro-choice people" do have an interest in propagating false information about IUDs, because if the "real" information were known women could lose some of their control over their sexuality and fertility.

The answer to that is that "pro-choice people" don't give a damn how IUDs work, because it would be as unconstitutional to prohibit the use of IUDs no matter how they work as it is to prohibit abortion.

As far as anyone, pro-choice or otherwise, wanting to persuade women to use IUDs and therefore having an interest in propagating false information about how IUDs work, your argument simply makes no sense. If what such people want is for women to have the ability to regulate their fertility, then they already advocate that women have the widest possible range of options.

Lots of women are not suitable candidates for IUDs. Those women are provided with information about alternative methods. Why would anyone think that women with fussbudget "pro-life" scruples about IUDs would not be provided with information about alternatives? What evidence is there that such women are not provided with that information?

Like I said -- what cocoon do these women you are so concerned about live in, that they have heard about IUDs and been persuaded of their evils, but have never heard of condoms or diaphragms? Where are these women whose interests you are so concerned about?

I don't think that having one method that is pretty darn sure to stop the pregnancy and an alternate method that is likely (but not foolproof) to stop the conception is that bad of a suggestion.

And here I lose you.

You seem to be suggesting that women be advised to use the IUD but also to use, say, a condom, so that, if she happens to have a viable ovum in her body, the condom will stop sperm from reaching it ... but if the condom fails, the IUD will stop a fertilized ovum from implanting. And this responds to the fussbudget woman's concerns ... how?

(I also think there are probably a lot of women out there who don't know they are in the very beginning stages of pregnancy when they are.)

And I'm absolutely sure you're right, and that in fact most women don't know when they are in the "very beginning stages of pregnancy".

What it has to do with anything on the table here, I have no idea.

I gather that you claimed to have had symptoms of pregnancy, as distinct from pronounced but common symptoms of PMS, while using an IUD. You also claim that an IUD prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum; I haven't seen you claim that an IUD causes an implanted ovum to be expelled. So you're apparently claiming that you have experienced symptoms of pregnancy before the fertilized ovum implanted.

First result in a google search for pregnancy symptoms implantation:
http://www.babymed.com/docs/english/21.asp

Many women have typical pregnancy symptoms even before they miss their period. However, most of the typical pregnancy symptoms and signs are directly related to the pregnancy hormone hCG. Small amounts of hCG enter the blood stream several days after implantation, about 8-10 days after ovulation. Thus, typical pregnancy symptoms typically do not appear until the hCG has reached sufficient levels which is about 1-2 weeks after you miss your period (3-4 weeks after ovulation, or 2-3 weeks after implantation), at a time when the hCG has risen enough. Nothing will really confirm a pregnancy except a positive pregnancy test.

The first symptoms and the time of their appearance are listed here:

Temperature drop (dip) on Implantation day

Implantation bleeding or spotting: (a slight staining of a pink or brown color on average 8-10 days after ovulation)

Lower abdominal cramps

A positive blood hCG pregnancy test: About 10 days after fertilization/ovulation

An elevated BBT curve for 15+ days without a menstrual period

A missed menstrual period (amenorrhea)

A positive urine pregnancy test (HPT): As early as 10-14 days after ovulation/fertilization or 3-4 days after implantation. The more sensitive the HPT the earlier the pregnancy test will be positive

Nausea: as early as 2-4 weeks after ovulation (BrJObGyn 1989b;96:1304)

Nipple or breast tenderness: 3-4 weeks after conception ...

And the third, hitting more or less randomly:
http://www.webwomb.com/symptoms.htm

The onset and degree of pregnancy symptoms will vary within women. Many women experience them within days of conception, others take a few weeks before pregnancy symptoms kick in and a lucky few feel no discomfort at all. The early pregnancy symptoms listed on this page generally can be felt once implantation occurs (8 - 10 days from ovulation) and will lessen after the first trimester.

So I'm afraid that your claim sounds more like evidence of ESP than evidence that your IUD failed to prevent fertilization of an ovum. There are no symptoms of fertilization.

[Randers]

22. it's possible

that there are only 5 people in the world who care about this - I haven't taken any polls or anything. (Re: Where are these women whose interests you are so concerned about?)

Yet I suspect that pro-choice/planned parenthood and such think that women might care or they would be like the Netherlands Doctors and just say that these things are known to work like this... and people have used similar methods for thousands of years.

And the pro-life people care because they like to act like they have caught the pro-choice movement in a lie when planned parenthood refers to things as contraception when it isn't.

And when women talk about using IUDs with the understanding that they prevent conception - then that leads me to believe that others might be interested in alternatives - such as thinking of birth control as a two stage process - where you would use different methods for each stage. The contraception method not being as foolproof as methods which act upon implantation.

[noamnety]

23. Are you saying you like the IUD because it has two stages?

Some of your posts are hard for me to follow. It sounds like you're saying some women might ideally want a birth control method like the IUD which acts primarily by blocking contraception, but in the rare event that it fails to prevent that, it also blocks implantation. If that's what you're saying, I think all of us in the thread can agree with that - except for the part where you imply you'd have to use different methods for each stage, because the IUD is one method.

I was confused on the sponge/IUD combo from up above, because the IUD already does what a sponge does (prevent contraception) with more reliability.

Also, I don't follow the logic where you accuse planned parenthood of having an agenda and therefore lying about science to support that agenda. It seems to me that the church is more prone to lying about science, and more likely to have an agenda, but I can't find anywhere where you say that. Do you think Planned Parenthood is prone to lying, and the religious right is not?

[Randers]

24. I'll try to be more clear

Considering these or similar numbers...

Failure rates for birth control methods when used correctly
(Number of pregnancies per 100 women per year)

Male condom alone 11
Female condom alone 21
Diaphragm with spermicide 17
Cervical cap with spermicide 17 to 23
Sponge with spermicide 14 to 28
Spermicide alone  20 to 50 
Periodic abstinence 20

Oral contraceptives 1 to 2
Contraceptive patch* 1 to 2 
Vaginal contraceptive ring 1 to 2 
Hormone shots less than 1
Hormone implant  less than 1 
IUD less than 1

Surgical sterilization (female) less than 1
Surgical sterilization (male) less than 1

--------------------------------------
What I see on about every site about birth control -
the notion that one has to pick one method which is right for them.

I have known several people who have gotten pregnant with one or more methods (probably both were barrier methods or they forgot their pills).
Pro-life sites can be characterized by a lot of guilt inducing messages mixed with fear about using certain types of birth control - esp. IUDs. I think they over-emphasize or lie about possible ill effects. They also often state that IUDs and the pill are abortifacients.

Like others around here - I see IUDs (and probably the pill - sometimes) as interfering with implantation. I think it is possible - because I have experienced it - to start getting pregnancy symptoms while using an IUD - then to have the cycle messed up until the clock gets reset as it were. (I expect some people do not recognize the symptoms if they have used pills - because some of the symptoms can be caused by the hormones in pills - so they might think it's normal).

I'm not the only person who likes the idea of the IUD - you don't have the hormone changes of the pill - it's a sure but temporary solution. I think it's possible that there are also other people who like having the assurance of the IUD (or the pill for that matter) who would also like to use a barrier method (natural planning also works) to prevent fertilization - because of aspects of that that are undesirable.

I don't think Planned Parenthood lies as much as it seems to avoid or cloud the issue involved in birth control methods that interfere with implantation and I think they might overplay the possibility of the methods interfering with fertilization. I think instead of being wishy-washy they could just suggest that some people might be more comfortable using one method that prevents contact of the sperm with the egg. (For people who don't care if they get pregnant - just want to reduce the likelihood - maybe that is enough). For people who want to prevent the sperm and the egg from contact but who also want to make sure a pregnancy will not result - may want to use a barrier method with a 'for sure' method - like the patch or IUD. For people who just want to make sure that they are not getting pregnant and don't care about the sperm/egg interaction - a patch or IUD would be enough.

Actually - it would only be the pro-choice people who could consider suggesting all of those choices - because the religious right would not.

[iverglas]

25. can you explain this?

I already asked, but ...

Like others around here - I see IUDs (and probably the pill - sometimes) as interfering with implantation. I think it is possible - because I have experienced it - to start getting pregnancy symptoms while using an IUD - then to have the cycle messed up until the clock gets reset as it were.

Pregnancy symptoms do not occur UNTIL AFTER IMPLANTATION.

This is because it is IMPLANTATION that causes the release of hormones into the woman's bloodstream, and those hormones that bring on the symptoms.

A woman's body simply has no clue that fertilization has occurred. A woman's body does not react to fertilization.

You contend that IUDs INTERFERE WITH IMPLANTATION.

You do NOT contend that IUDs cause fertilized ova that HAVE implanted to be expelled.

So if you, while using an IUD, had a fertilized ovum in your reproductive system, but that ovum did NOT implant, how could you have experienced symptoms of implantation, which is what "pregnancy symptoms" ARE??


If this is the kind of "evidence" that you are relying on for your thesis that IUDs prevent the implantation of fertilized ova (and do NOT prevent the fertilization of ova) ... well, you aren't even making any bloody sense.


I think it's possible that there are also other people who like having the assurance of the IUD (or the pill for that matter) who would also like to use a barrier method (natural planning also works) to prevent fertilization - because of aspects of that that are undesirable.

And yet again -- YOU ARE MAKING NO SENSE.

If the first "that" in your "aspects of that that are undesirable" is the prevention of implantation, then WHY are these people who find it "undesirable" using an IUD in the first place??

Are you implying that you think that IUDs sometimes prevent fertilization of ova?

But if it were also the case that IUDs sometimes prevented implantation of fertilized ova, how the hell would any individual woman know what her individual IUD was getting up to, in any particular month or at any particular act of intercourse?

So she uses a condom for backup ... and if the condom fails and an ovum is fertilized (or so we'll imagine), she relies on the IUD to prevent implantation.

Sheesh, this may soothe her conscience somehow -- what, I tried to prevent fertilization, but it's not my fault if I didn't succeed and that poor little fertilized ovum got expelled by that big mean IUD? But it DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.


I think instead of being wishy-washy they could just suggest that some people might be more comfortable using one method that prevents contact of the sperm with the egg. (For people who don't care if they get pregnant - just want to reduce the likelihood - maybe that is enough).

You have an awful lot of hypothetical people in your thesis. These ones just sound like idiots. Why would anyone use an IUD -- the risks associated with IUDs may be small, but they're there -- if she didn't care whether she got pregnant??


For people who want to prevent the sperm and the egg from contact but who also want to make sure a pregnancy will not result - may want to use a barrier method with a 'for sure' method - like the patch or IUD.

They don't want the sperm and ovum to make contact, because it gives them the willies to think that a fertilized ovum might get expelled from their body before implantation ... but the bottom line is that they really don't give a shit, if that's what it takes not to get pregnant. Have I got that right, now?


Actually - it would only be the pro-choice people who could consider suggesting all of those choices - because the religious right would not.

No shit. And oddly enough, the pro-choice people -- by not having any position on the choices women make to regulate their own fertility -- pretty much do, by default, suggest that women consider any choice they feel like considering.

If you've ever heard anyone, pro-choice or otherwise, who suggests that anyone NOT use multiple methods if they wish to be absolutely sure they don't get pregnant, I'd love to know who it was.

[Randers]

28. " how could you have experienced symptoms of implantation"

From, A Child is Born http://www.albertbonniersforlag.com/900/900.asp

"However, the blastocyst often takes several days to select a suitable site for attachment and implantation."

I suspect it is possible that an a body could start getting signals before the blastocyst was fully implanted.

I know I'm not the only person to notice early symptoms...

"If you're extremely tuned in to your body's rhythms, you may begin to suspect you're pregnant soon after conception. But most women won't experience any pregnancy symptoms until the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall several days after conception. Others may feel no different for weeks and begin to wonder only when they miss a period."

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/general/7063.html

------------------------------------------

The healthcare workers that I knew didn't want to discuss it....

[iverglas]

31. proof by blatant assertion?

Or perhaps, even better, by "suspicion":

I suspect it is possible that an a body could start getting signals before the blastocyst was fully implanted.

And, sigh, I suspect that there are faeries at the bottom of my garden.

What the bleeding hell is the body getting signals from? A single cell that is not attached IN ANY WAY to that body? That does not give off ANYTHING -- no chemical, no x-rays, no psychic vibrations -- that the body could receive as "signals"?

Oh, I know. It's that special feeling that women get on their wedding night, that this was it.

But hmm, you say "before the blastocyst was fully implanted", and I guess that this "fully" is supposed to be meaningful. The fact remains that you have nothing but "suspicion" here, since the FACT is that typical pregnancy symptoms typically do not appear until the hCG has reached sufficient levels which is about 1-2 weeks after you miss your period. (Have you even read anything I have already posted? You certainly haven't responded to any of it.)

If sufficient levels aren't produced until 1-2 weeks after the missed period -- and that's 7-10 days after fertilization (which can occur days after intercourse, which can occur days after ovulation ...) -- what "signals" can these possibly be?


If you're extremely tuned in to your body's rhythms, you may begin to suspect you're pregnant soon after conception.

Well, that's meaningful. And babycentre.co.uk; very authoritative, I'm sure.

The only thing I can think of that it might mean, however, is that change in body temperature -- on implantation day. And since you're claiming that you felt "symptoms" (and as far as I know, we have never been told what they were) when nothing had implanted (because the IUD allegedly prevented this from happening), I'm still not getting it.

But I'm going to give up. Listening to repetitions of the same unsupported allegations and hypotheses and suspicions in response to the presentation of facts just isn't much fun.

The healthcare workers that I knew didn't want to discuss it....

Oooh. Dot dot dot dot. I guess there must just be a story there, if only we knew.

I have no idea what story was supposed to be told by http://www.albertbonniersforlag.com/900/900.asp. Nothing on that web page was remotely relevant to anything we are talking about.

[noamnety]

26. more questions for you

Do you think the Mayo clinic deliberately misrepresents science? I've never heard their reputation maligned before.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=WO00087

Do you think Meriam Webster's medical dictionary is lying when it says they prevent conception? Is your concern that some people might believe that life begins before conception?
http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=intrauterine+device

Since both barrier methods and IUDs prevent fertilization (the IUD more reliably than the barrier methods), what is the rationale for specifically suggesting a barrier method?

Also, this is just FYI for anyone interested in switching to IUD's - not a question, there's apparently a new kind of IUD (possibly just being developed?): http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_22269.html

[Randers]

27. Some people

define the start of pregnancy as when a successful implantation has occurred.

I don't have a problem with that definition.

So when the Mayo clinic says,
An intrauterine device (IUD) is a device your doctor places inside your uterus to prevent pregnancy.

I wouldn't disagree.

Mayo also says:

IUDs prevent pregnancy by stopping sperm from meeting with an egg. Some also work by changing the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant and thickening cervical mucous so that sperm can't enter the uterus.

So I'm talking about the "so that a fertilized egg can't implant" aspect.

As far as Merriam-Webster - if you look at their definition of conception, it says:

1 a : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both

So again - I'm talking about the difference between the fertilization and the implantation aspect.

-----------------

I'm perfectly aware that many would not see it as an issue whether the pregnancy is begun at fertilization or not. But some people do see it as an issue.

I think that some pro-choice people do not want people to think about it. Choice is choice, etc. But some people do think about it...

I think the pro-life people are pretty frigging nuts that they would rather have people get pregnant and have to go through considering whether to keep/abort at a later time rather than use a pregnancy prevention method that works on the the aspect of implantation (at least some of the time.)


on edit: spelling

[noamnety]

29. Please reread this

"IUDs prevent pregnancy by stopping sperm from meeting with an egg.

Some also work by changing the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant and thickening cervical mucous so that sperm can't enter the uterus."

Also, not instead of. You were recommending a method that prevents the sperm from meeting an egg, with a backup of preventing implantation.

This is what an IUD does. Whether you want it to function that way or not.

Nobody here has claimed that an IUD allows implantation of a fertilized egg. Nobody I know of ANYWHERE has misrepresented that fact, including Planned Parenthood.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly provided blatantly false statements about how IUDs work, claiming they do not ever prevent fertilization, and ignoring science in favor of religious rants and some sort of transcendentalist ESP. Additionally, you have made misleading statements to the effect that you are more likely to expel a nonimplanted fertilized egg with an IUD than without one, when in fact the exact opposite is true.

[Randers]

30. "What the $#%$#%@ Do We Know?"

I agree that people are more tuned in to what concerns them...