A Practical Solution To The Abortion Conflict

The debate about when a person begins to live will likely rage for some time … during which time a solution to the abortion conflict will not come from a winning hand of either.

Those who believe that a person begins to live at conception, though in the ever-increasing majority, are not sufficiently in power to base change on that premise, and those who believe otherwise by degrees, all the way to saying that a person doesn’t exist until they’re born, still carry clout.

But the philosophical debate does not solve my problem, the problem of hundreds of millions of women like me: we are tired of becoming undesirably pregnant, we are tired of invasive abortions, we are tired of failed contraceptives … and we aren’t going to stop having sex.

And for those of us brave enough to admit it, we are tired of killing newly conceived people, as that is simply depressing, even though we pro-abortionists will indeed continue doing so, as it is the lesser of two evils, though we are also tired of the damaging psychological consequences of committing abortion.

So, what is the solution?

The solution must be a practical one.

Both sides, those who believe that abortion is “murder” because a person begins to live at conception and those who don’t but are still tired of having to undergo abortions, deserve a practical solution that does not require the foundational debate to be resolved.

The practical solution, therefore, would be to develop and make available to all a new generation of conception prevention pharmaceuticals.

These are presently in development, and near to market.

They will coat released eggs with a sperm-barrier (those taken by women) and they will lop off the tails of sperm to prevent the sperm from being able to generate momentum necessary to penetrate an egg’s outer shell (those taken by men).

They are virtually 100 percent effective and safe.

Because no conception will be produced for those taking these pills, those who decry the murder of the newly conceived will be satisfied, and those who are tired of invasive abortion surgery and the guilt such causes will also be satisfied.

We have the pharmacological ability to produce these products, and some are now in testing.

However, they are presently being blocked from proceeding to market, not just because of the cost, which could be socially defrayed by cooperative government intervention, but by the very factions debating when a person begins to live.

The anti-abortionists, most of whom are religious, are opposed to this new pharmacology of conception prevention because they’re afraid that sex without the spectre penalty of pregnancy will make it too easy for people to be promiscuous, committing adultery which is “an abomination of God”.

The pro-choicers, as championed by Planned Parenthood, have long denied that a human being begins at conception and they’ve practiced abortion saying that a person most certainly doesn’t exist in the womb prior to the third trimester. So they are opposed to the new conception prevention pharmacology because they say it’s simply needless for most abortions, when what they really mean is that if such new generation technology hits the market that would be tantamount to refuting their position that a person doesn’t begin to live at conception, and they’re afraid of facing the possible reality that they are wrong, especially considering all the subsequent guilt-causing their being wrong would result in. In addition, abortion is a very big part of Planned Parenthood’s business, and they would prefer not to lose that revenue.

So what all we women need – better products that essentially end the progress-styfling abortion conflict – is being hindered by these two factions in the abortion conflict: the anti-abortionists and the pro-choicers.

Nevertheless, these advancements in pharmacological technology are the practical solution to the abortion conflict.

I do wish the ideologues didn’t have so much power in the matter.

It really isn’t even about the ideologies . . . it isn’t as simple as you’ve presented.

One of the big problems is that drug companies have very little incentive to release new contraceptives. Here is why:

  1. Contraceptives are taken by healthy, young people. What does this mean? Contraceptives have to have near zero side-effects. That makes them very difficult to develop.

  2. Contraceptives are already available. The pill works quite well if the woman taking it is responsible. So do condoms. Throw in the morning after pill and you’ve got three layers of protection for the overly paranoid. This means the market is pretty much saturated and anything that is more expensive won’t move.

  3. Contraceptives have to be reversible. Because of #1, largely, the long-term effects of contraceptives also have to be near zero. This is also really tough.

If you are that worried about it, just take the pill and make your male lovers wear condoms. And when absolutely necessary, go get a morning after pill. Any one of these should more-or-less work well enough but all three? You certainly won’t have to worry about babies. Blood clots, maybe.

I am struggling to find information about these new contraceptives in development. I would like to know more about them. Do you have links, Sabrina?

The closest thing I can find so far is RISUG, but that doesn’t sound quite like what you’re talking about.

Also, do you have links for where you learned that these factions are hindering the production and distribution of this new effective contraception?

This sounds like something you completely made up out of whole cloth. I would really like to see support for this. Why would allowing certain effective contraceptives to market force pro-choicers to face that they might be wrong? The “losing abortion business” argument is at least kind of plausible, but this argument makes no sense to me. If abortion is no longer necessary, that doesn’t mean anyone will become guilty about having performed abortion.

Xunzian: Sabrina will not like the morning-after pill because it acts by destroying the newly conceived zygote. She thinks that as soon as conception occurs we have a human being with rights equal to that of an adult.

The ideological aspect of the matter is hardly simple.

The ideology of both sides in the abortion conflict is an over-complexity that dumbs them both down.

That such ideological power rules the world is clearly evident from a brief glance at the front-page headlines.

The market for conception prevention is huge.

The pro-life and anti-abortion scores of millions of women seek a pregnancy prevention product that is easily reversible and doesn’t kill the conceived person within them.

The drug companies know this, and that’s why conception prevention products – that would hinder a sperm’s motility and harden a released egg shell against penetration – are in development and testing as we speak.

Last month I heard a TV news promo with “film at eleven” to the effect that one such product is near to market, soon to be officially announced.

If the only perspective we acknowledge is the one that matches the one we ideologically embrace, we will miss out on perceiving the greater picture of reality.

Women up to the age of menopause (late forties, early fifties) take the pill, and men who don’t get “clipped” and who are sexually active with fertile women sometimes use condoms as extra protection, especially in this day and age of STDs.

If you want to include forty and fifty something women and men of all ages in that “healthy and young” category, be my guest. You’ll at least make my mom feel younger as a result.

Standard birth control pills that systemically alter my system have side-effects now that are a bit unpleasant with regard to hormone and mood alteration.

And I’ve never met the man who said that a condom didn’t rob him of some pleasure. That’s definitely an unpleasant side-effect.

Actually, when we’re young we have a better tolerance for side-effects.

Regardless, it doesn’t really matter the user’s age or the type of pharmaceutical.

The fewer side-effects the better, always.

And yes, eliminating those side-effects can be quite the challenge, I would imagine.

Yes, if you aren’t dirt poor, there are products on the market, but all are quite sub-standard with respect to this topic.

But it screws up my hormonal balance with many unpleasant side-effects.

And, did you know that birth control pills are abortificants?!

Most don’t know that.

But that’s why the anti-abortionists were supporting those pharmacies that were refusing to dispense the pill.

The birth control pill comes in two basic formulations: 1) estrogen and progestin, and 2) progestin without estrogen.

Estrogen in the pills function to alter our systemic hormonal balance that thereby prevents ovulation. No ovulation, no conception.

But many women can’t handle estrogen in their pills – it can be deadly for them.

And, estrogen by itself has a low rate of efficacy, requiring it to be used in conjunction with a condom that many men refuse to wear.

So progestin was added to the estrogen based pills for women who could tolerate the estrogen.

Progestin functions primarily to coat the uterus with a substance that prevents a conception – a new human being – from attaching – impregnating – to the uterine wall. That makes progestin an abortificant, which is why the anti-abortionists support those pharmacies who won’t distribute birth control pills, as all the pills now contain progestin.

Progestin can disrupt our delicate system to the degree that it sometimes prevents ovulation, but that’s less than 50% of the time, and so progestin is worthless as a conception preventer.

Progestin always creates that impregnation preventing coating. That’s its primary function, which it does quite well, though there is still a few percent chance of it failing.

Thus pills that contain progestin are designed abortificants.

Planned Parenthood won’t tell you this, though. Their presentation is biasedly skewed to greatly hide this truth about birth control pills.

With respect to the abortion conflict, birth control contraceptive pills are essentially unacceptable by the pro-life and anti-abortion camps, which again, accounts for scores of millions of just women alone, not to mention their husbands (and boyfriends).

The new generation of conception prevention pharmaceuticals is being developed with these people in mind.

And, though that is beside the topically relevant point, there are many women who have a difficult time remembering to take their pill on schedule, so implants were developed, as indeed better delivery methods do need to be developed.

I can feel the dryness of a condom, and it detracts from the pleasure for me, let alone the detraction of pleasure experienced by my partner.

And one break, then it’s abortion time.

Completely unacceptable as a method of conception prevention.

But you’re missing the point of the topic of this thread.

This is a very real issue: preventing conception.

RU486 and other “morning after” pills function solely to kill the newly conceived person.

They are therefore not conception prevention but blatant abortificants, and they are thus unacceptable to the anti-abortion and pro-life masses.

Market saturation of the products you mentioned are irrelevant to meeting the great need I’ve presented.

Drug companies recognize the untapped market for pharmaceutical conception prevention.

And it isn’t just for the anti-abortion and pro-life masses.

Those of us pro-abortionists who recognize the reality that a person begins to live at conception are tired of going through the understandable but resigned guilt of having just killed our offspring. That’s not a “pleasant” experience to live with, to say the least.

And I can’t think of anyone who “likes” having the procedure of surgical abortion done to them, regardless of their beliefs about when a person begins to live. We’re simply tired of the low efficacy of old generation products.

Sure, we can pretend to be dumb and not know that birth control and morning after pills are abortificants, but mass ignorance cannot be maintained in this information age, and the damage to our truth-discerning ability wrought by self-deception is legendary.

We need these new generation of pharmaceuticals.

They will meet a great need … and hopefully their only “side-effect” will be to effectively end the abortion conflict, as if these are eventually the only pills used, the number of undeisred pregnancies (conceptions) will be drastically reduced.

The new generation of conception prevention pharmaceuticals indeed must be reversible. That is most certainly a design specification.

My understanding is that they are reversible – simply stop taking the pill.

Yes, that is true.

Nevertheless, the market for these new generation pharmaceuticals remains large and thus a drug company motivator, which is why some of these products are near to market from what I’ve heard.

Presently the long-term side effects of old-generation birth control pills remains. Cancer, if I recall, has been loosely linked to these pills, and I’ve known some women for whom it took a year for their ovulation to resume once they stopped taking the pill when they wanted to get pregnant.

Hopefully these new “designer drugs” will be progressive enough to be void of similar long-term effects.

You’ve asked that unacceptable question a few paragraphs above, and I’ve previously acceptably answered it there.

"All you gotta do is … " suggestions from men who seem not to grasp related women’s realities are not received well.

A morning after pill is a design-intended abortificant.

If you didn’t know that, now you do.

If you did know that, please try to keep topically relevant.

It isn’t post-natal babies that the anti-abortionists and pro-lifers are “worried” about.

It’s newly conceived people who are dying at the hands of pharmaceutical abortificants and surgical abortions that these political clout-carrying scores of millions of consumer women are very concerned about.

And thereby hangs the tale of this thread.

Yes, another quite unsatisfactory side-effect.

The ‘great need’ that you have stipulated only applies to your particular situation, whereas pharma is more concerned with ‘great need’ as defined by a large number of people.

They are disinclined to persue it for the reasons that I listed and your responses, while somewhat valid, are ultimately irrelevant to just about anyone besides yourself. While there are movements towards ‘personalized medicine’ I, for one, think that such an idea is largely a pipe-dream. Better suited medicine, perhaps.

You failed to get the gist of my post by breaking it down into parts. Read the whole thing again and try and see what I am saying. In many of your critiques you proved (rather than disputed) my point.

You’re sort of stuck between a rock and a hard co- err I mean place. I mean, if you want complete and total prevention (it seems like that’s what you’re saying) then you may have to cut the problem off at the other end, so to speak. That is, if you’re that worried about the religious perspectives perhaps we might suggest they get their tubes tied or the man get a vasectomy until the time is right for conception.

It seems like any other way, at this point can, offer a great save percentage but not good enough for total prevention of ‘life’ as it’s being defined by the religious imperative.

It is reality that drug companies are presently developing the conception prevention pharmaceuticals I’ve presented.

“My” situation is not en masse here.

I’m not an anti-abortionist or a pro-lifer.

The scores of millions of anti-abortion and pro-life women in America are indeed “a large number of people”.

Their very presence is what is driving the quite marketable and hopefully lucrative (from the drug companies’ perspective) development of these near-to-market pharmaceuticals.

These products are, from the perspective of the consumer masses and the responsive drug companies, obviously a great need.

How did you miss the reality of it?

Again, the drug companies are pursuing it developmentally.

There is backlash from the pro-choicers who don’t want to face the need for these pills and so they are lobbying against both the development of them and govenment subsidies to make these new generation pharmaceuticals available to all.

There is also backlash from anti-abortionists, most of whom are religious, who are afraid that the “perfect” conception-preventing pill, though a scientific marvel, would rob sex of the real risk of pregnancy, thereby encouraging promiscuity, which they oppose more, it seems, then “murdering babies”.

But the drug companies aren’t disinclined to develop the products.

The backlash simply hinders the marketability and therefore profit of the product.

Regardless, it’s difficult to stop Pandora Science.

And, again, this is not just about me, as I, as a truth-respecting pro-abortionist, am in a very tiny minority affected by these pills.

I presented clearly who is affected by these pills.

You seem to be hung up on me personally.

This isn’t about “personalized medicine”.

This is about meeting a medical need desired by many scores of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women plus their partners.

I’ve clearly presented the realities here.

You seem to be stuck on a mistaken preconception.

I wonder why.

I don’t think it’s “me” who failed to get the gist of anything here, Xunzian.

The question is why do you pretend to misunderstand what is clearly presented.

I wonder if perhaps it was you who didn’t really read all of my previous post.

Perhaps your preconceived take on reality is mistaken … and you’re merely slow in realizing your error.

But for whatever reason, try to change your mind, and accept the reality that these pills are indeed presently being developed and that is because there is a mass need for them.

The facts of the matter should not be in question.

The issue, that pro-choicers and anti-abortionists are blocking distribution of these new generation pharmaceuticals and for the reasons I presented, is more to the point.

The question is how can we effectively thwart this strange bedfellow alliance against the progressive implementation of good science into the general public market.

Your post doesn’t speak to both the related realities and the topical issue.

And getting my tubes tied is major surgery with a lot of dangerous side-effects. Plus, it’s not really reversible. Tube tying is not a solution for women who just don’t want to have children now, but may want to later. Tubing typing is simply not a viable birth control method for the masses. Because it’s both expensive and elective, many can’t afford it as their insurance won’t pay. And, again, it’s surgery – I don’t want to have to go under the knife again and again every time I go from not wanting a child, to having a child, to waiting a bit, to having another, to waiting a bit, to having another … . I’m most certainly in the vast majority on that matter. I just hate it when men tell women “all you gotta do is …” – it’s so disgusting.

Any vascectomy worth its salt as a conception preventer – double clipped and quadrupally cauterized – is essentially irreversible. Again, unacceptable for people who later want to have children … and you would be surprised how many men are afraid of that simple and quick little office procedure. Vascectomies don’t even begin to compare with tube tying.

The new generation prevention products are indeed being developed by pharmaceutical companies as we speak because there is a great need for them.

Whether or not they will get priority in these companies’ to-do list, and whether they will be eventually brought to market depends on overcoming the financially effective lobby of both the pro-choicers and the anti-abortionists against their affordable distribution to the public market.

Progestin prevents ovulation, when taken according to schedule, more than 99% of the time. That means that the vast majority of the time the current incarnation of the birth control pill is normally contraceptive, not ‘abortive’ (I use scare quotes to indicate that I intend your definition of abortion, and not the common nor the scientific definition. By either of those alternative definitions, neither the birth controll pill nor the morning after pill is abortive).So, assuming that someone cares about avoiding conception and not merely avoiding pregnancy, there are on the market viable options.
This is a major flaw with your argument. Current pills do what you’re asking, but if they are not taken according to schedule, they are not effective in the way you want them to be. The ‘abortive’ nature of birth control pills is a safe guard against human fallibility. If you’re that concerned, it seems that remembering to take a pill shouldn’t be that difficult. And regardless how effective pills become, pills that one forgets to take cannot be effective.

But personally, I think the best contraceptive is quality, comprehensive sex education. The more people know about sex, the better they will be at controlling its outcomes. It doesn’t matter how effective the science is if people don’t know about it.

Absolutely false, whether or not the pill is “taken according to schedule”. :unamused:

99% is an erroneous figure.

Less than 50% of the time is the correct figure with regard to the greatly used traditional “progestin” (progestogen)-only pills. These are the pills that are commonly prescribed, which include the norplant implant.

The less prescribed higher dosage progestin pill has a 97-99 percent ovulation prevention, but it is less prescribed because it really whacks a woman’s hormonal system, and is not recommended for most.

The standard “mini-pill”, as the progestin-only pill widely used today is called, fails to prevent ovulation “more often than not”, according to any reliable source on the matter, which means that progestin prevents ovulation less than 50% of the time, and though the mucous may sometimes prevent sperm and egg from uniting, the mucuses effect of thinning the uterine wall preventing impregnation of the newly conceived person is the primary function that kills a newly conceived person, thus making progestin an abortificant, despite what biased sources may say to the contray.

Again, the new generation pharmaceutical conception prevention pills are in development.

If there were other pills on the market that really prevented conception a reliable degree of the time and without debilitating side-effects, there would be no need to develop these new products.

But these new products are in development as we speak, pretty much indicating that their need is unfulfilled by the old generation abortificant oriented birth control pills.

In defense of your mistake, I realize that with all the bias that is presented both blatantly and subtly on internet sites (even the source of Wiki’s information) and by doctors with pro-choice agendas, separating what’s true from what’s false can be difficult.

It helps to do searingly honest extensive research and to obtain information from unbiased sources that are truly trustworthy.

Regardless of how you intend to use the word “abortive”, your error of fact renders any presentation with respect to the topic wrong.

As for “your” take on what is “common” or “scientific”, with respect to the truth, such is meaningless.

What matters to the hundreds of millions of anti-abortion and pro-life women is whether or not a conception occurs to be subsequently killed.

If there is a chance of that happening and by design of the pills, which is indeed the great case with progestin birth control pills, then that is simply unacceptable to them.

Attempts to discredit hundreds of millions of people, represented by those who have most assuredly done their homework, is really a waste of time for the obviously uninformed.

You can play word games all you wish, as usual, Carleas, but you’re fooling no one.

To commit abortion is to kill the conceived person who lives within the womb.

It doesn’t matter whether that abortion is committed surgically or chemically.

What matters to the hundreds of millions of anti-abortion and pro-life women is that a pre-natal person was killed.

“How” is irrelevant in this topically relevant sense.

No, there are not.

Your conclusion is based on your erroneous “99%” figure with regard to progestin in the commonly prescribed pill.

Therefore your conclusion is a mistake.

You would do well not to try to mislead women, women who might read this and conclude incorrectly that progestin pills are not designed abortificants.

Though I understand that abortion misery may love company, it’s really quite heinous to purposely mislead people to become killers against their knowledge.

I will therefore conclude that you were simply misinformed about your “99%” figure, and that you really didn’t intend to purposely mislead anyone.

Again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Thus I won’t label this paragraph of yours here continuous deliberate sophism.

You were simply misinformed about the erroneous “99%” figure.

Indeed, education is important.

And you illustrate here with your post what happens when people are improperly educated.

Even the many blatantly Planned Parenthood oriented pro-choice sites (which mistakenly downplay the frequent killing of the conceived person) admit that progestin in the commonly prescribed pill prevents ovulation only half the time.

Your “99%” figure was in practical error by about 50%!

That’s a huge error with regard to sex education.

If I had not corrected your error, innocent pro-life or anti-abortion girls could have read your post and concluded incorrectly that the commonly prescribed progestin pills were conception prevention by nature, and that would have been a drastically false conclusion for them to make, even if that woudn’t have bothered a pro-choice person like you in the least.

It’s important to get the facts right when educating one’s self about sex.

Unfortunately, those who are vested in the extreme ideological outcomes are less concerned about the facts, and more concerned with imagining that what isn’t true really is.

It is very important, therefore, for anyone who is seeking an education about sex to learn from a reliable source that isn’t trying to promote their ego-soothing agenda.

Though I am pro-abortion, I recognize that anti-abortion and pro-choice women have real needs that the old generation of contraceptives don’t meet and that the new generation of conception prevention pills currently in development at drug companies do indeed meet.

It is important to stay true to the facts, even if you don’t benefit from these products, as there are hundreds of millions of women who will benefit from them, and it is the kind of misinformation that you, perhaps unknowingly, presented that functions to delay bringing these very needed new pharmaceutical products to an affordable market.

I do realize, however, that because this topic is so highly charged emotionally, it is difficult to find an unbiased site on the internet or even in the doctor’s office that will present the truth of the matter.

Yeah . . . .

You’re gonna need to cite some primary sources.

M’Kaaaay?

The fact that these new generation of pharmaceuticals as I’ve described them – sperm motility prevention and egg shell penetration prevention – are in development is not rationally in question.

What is obviously at play preventing rational discussion is, as usual, the denial of those who have ideological agendas they wish to foist upon others.

Whether people are pro-choice, pro-life, anti-abortion or whatever, whether they recognize that a person begins to live at conception or not, far too many people are blinded to the realities of this issue by how they “wish” things were instead of really looking to see how things truly are.

I presented this topic as a practical and realistic solution to the abortion conflict, a solution which is in process, a solution which needs the help of everyone who can set aside their own agenda to create a win-win solution for all, a solution which will, hopefully, end the abortion conflict as a Congressional and divisive public topic.

But all I’ve gotten so far is a ration of overt to covert denial for the benefit of the poster’s ego-soothing.

Is there no one who really cares enough about creating obvious win-win solutions to help these products get affordably to market?

You still haven’t cited any sources . . .

Sabrina,

I think some of us are confused.

What does the pro-life and pro-choice spectrum have to do with a pharmaceutical industry which pushes through whatever can make them money? This isn’t about the groups because they’re simply labels – anyone who cares enough one way or the other concerning whether or not these drugs enter the market likely arn’t the majority among the people having sex anyways. With that being said, I find it hard to conceive that the pro-choice group is -against- these new drugs. They may not see a theoretical -need- for what they see as the equivalent, but I can’t see them as being opposed or taking any action to stop it.

Can you explain how it is, exactly, that both of these groups are blocking the momentum of one of the most powerful economical groups on the planet?

Hmm, this solution is just a part of the one I suggested on Jan 05 including the morality of not turning women into slaves. Contraception is just one suggestion:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 7&start=50

Look at the situation if abortion was illegal from conception:

The moment a woman “conceives” her body is now forfeit to the state for the purpose of her bearing a child. If she wants the child, great. If not, she is like a slave; slave to the fundamentalists, slave to the government, and even a slave to the baby itself. She doesn’t want the child.

Truly pro-life people (like myself) would focus on abortion prevention via education, contraception, and non-vaginal sex. Improving the adoption process also might be a way to get women to avoid abortions if they thought the child would have a good life.

So anyway, even IF the ovum developed a thinking, feeling baby in 10 seconds right after conception, if the woman still (in this imaginary scenario) had to carry the baby for 9 months, she should still have the right (with conditions) to choose whether or not she wants to put her body through it. For someone else to force her is diabolical.

Oops! Forgot vasectomy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy

I don’t think “some of us” are confused.

But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Your phrasing of the question is what may mislead you.

Try to understand that different people have different needs.

The hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women say that a person begins to live at conception.

They want a pharmaceutical product that works only to prevent conception.

They want this product because, though they don’t want to have a child, they also don’t want to kill the newly conceived person within them.

The only way to do this is to pharmacologically prevent conception from occurring.

But the present old generation of birth control pills – the regular everyday birth control pill itself, too often functions as an abortificant that kills the newly conceived person.

Thus the old generation of birth control pills is unacceptable to these people.

These pro-life and anti-abortion people comprise a very large segment of the purchasing population – there are hundreds of millions of them worldwide.

Thus drug companies, who realize this large population of consumers are not going to buy their old generation birth control pills that have an abortificant function, would indeed purchase a better product if it was made, a product that prevented conception as its only function.

That’s why these drug companies are presently developing these new generation of pharmaceuticals.

They expect to make lots of money satisfying the needs of hundreds of millions of women worldwide.

Does that make sense to you?

No, you are wrong.

The monikers “pro-life”, “pro-choice”, “anti-abortion”, “pro-abortion” and the like are valid identifiers which accurately imply to marketers each a preference for specific functions in their pregnancy prevention products based on their moniker.

That’s one of the reasons surveys on one’s moniker-reflected perspective on the topic are taken, so that marketers and Congressional representatives can optimally direct their efforts.

The reality of hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women who, thereby, want only a conception prevention product is realized by conducting such surveys in the past, and the result of such surveys have motivated drug companies to begin developing these new conception prevention products.

Though pro-choice and some pro-abortionist women might care less about how their product functions as long as it has a high rate of efficacy and won’t cause them to have to undergo a surgical abortion procedure, one size does not fit all in this matter, and pro-life and anti-abortion women do care how the product functions.

This is a really big issue, Old Gobbo, and the labels are accurate in this regard, and they help to get the right products developed for the right market.

The fact remains, that whether married or unmarried, hundreds of millions of women plus their partners are of the pro-life and anti-abortion perspective, and the modern-day fact of the matter that may come as a shock to you is that they are having sex!

The conception prevention products are currently being developed because there is a VERY large segment of the population who would use and benefit from them.

The reason these are not made a priority in testing and getting to market is because the pro-choice and religious factions are blocking them for the reasons I’ve already twice mentioned.

But the fact remains that they are opposed to these new generation conception prevention drugs, and for the reasons I previously mentioned.

First, pro-choicers are adamant that a person doesn’t begin to live until at least the third trimester. They have based their entire perspective of “abortion is okay” upon that premise. The very presence of these new generation conception prevention drugs is both a philosophical and economical refutation to their premise that a human being doesn’t begin to live at conception. They are understandably afraid that if they even just a little bit accept that maybe they are wrong and that a person does begin at conception that they will have to admit that they killed millions of people in thier mistaken perspective. Even though most may have done so unintentionally and not on purpose, that doesn’t matter. The guilt of having done so is quite overwhelming, an experience they would greatly prefer not to have. Do not underestimate the power of avoiding the experience of the guilt of killing people, whether done intentionally or not.

Second, the pro-choice Planned Parenthood has made quite the lucrative living from abortions. If better pharmaceuticals come out that prevent conception nearly 100 percent of the time, a much greater efficacy than with the present old generation pharmaceuticals, their abortion business will suffer greatly.

And third, once people get wind that they have a choice and that the new choice works better and essentially takes them out of the debate as to when from the moment of conception a person begins to live (immediately, when the heart beats, when the brain functions, at the second trimester, at the third trimester, at birth), they will most certainly choose the new product to releave them of their doubts. This will not only hurt sales of the old product, but the more people who switch to the new product, the less clout the pro-choicers will have in preventing Roe v. Wade from being overturned. The pro-choicers political concerns are HUGE in this matter. The more people taking the new conception product, the more people are thereby reminded that a person “might indeed” begin to live at conception, and abortion for real self-defense reasons indeed is murder or manslaughter and is therefore wrong. As the wrongness of abortion as an attitude spreads, so increases the chances for overturning Roe v. Wade.

These are the real and valid reasons that pro-choicers oppose the new generation of conception prevention pills.

And the religious anti-abortionists are just as opposed to these pills because they are afraid that a better product with less risk of failure will take the “responsibility” of creating a “child” out of having sex. This, they understandably fear, understandable when you accurately grasp their perspective on the matter (even if you don’t agree philosophically with it) will promote increased promiscuity, and, among their ranks. So they are quite opposed to the development of such pills, despite the fact that they will drastically reduce the incidence of abortion. The religious are quite conflicted in this manner. But, nevertheless, they oppose development of these pills and their strong (especially Catholic) financial lobby has an effect on both representatives and senators and the drug companies who would pander to them. The old generation drugs have a higher failure rate that these people say actually contributes to saying “no” to promiscuous sex or risk the chance you’ll need an abortion, and, they have a point in that regard.

But all this opposition is irrelevant with regard to what the hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women need and want: a product that works better and in the way that they want it to.

But, as I’ve just explained, they are opposed to them, and they do take lobbying action against the development and marketing of these new generation conception prevention drugs.

The technology to develop these drugs has been around for decades.

But the impetus to develop them has been thwarted by the pro-choice and religious anti-abortion factions … until recently.

But defraying the R&D cost of these drugs and making them an FDA priority is always subject to lobbying.

Until these resisters to progress get out of the way, we will not have these win-win pharmaceuticals in the hands of those lower on the economical scale who really need them.

  1. By lobbying the priorities of the FDA through Congressional representatives to put these new generation drugs on the back burner, thus delaying them … until the pharmaceutical company shelves the project. It’s a type of economic “filabuster” … that sadly happens all the time.

  2. By threatening a boycott of the drug makers’ other though non-related products if the drug company makes these new generation pharmaceuticals a priority.

These two foundational methods have had the usual success in dictating what comes to market.

Sadly, the “anti” forces are unjustifiably stronger than the “pro” forces.

That’s how strong boycotts are with regard to a company’s bottomline defense … and a representative’s desire for re-election.

But the “anti’s” are unjustified in preventing a needed and wanted product out of the hands of hundreds of millions of women.

This is the crux of the matter: to generate more power for the pro camp, those who need and want the product, and reduce the power of the anti camp who are thrwarting a greatly needed and wanted product from being made available.

And a lack of sources persists.

I like random speculation too.

Black helicopters, anyone?

No one wants to turn women into “slaves”, least of all other women.

These new generation conception prevention pharmaceuticals will, coupled with their increased efficacy, go a long way to preventing such macabre sci-fi from ever even being thought of.

Hopefully your education would be from a source that presents things as they truly are, and not from a biased source that spins things inaccurately to meet their own ideological agenda.

Case in point regarding education is with regard to the nature of contraception in the form of standard old generation birth control pills.

Many don’t know that these pills often function as an abortificant.

The fact that they do often function as an abortificant is simply unacceptable to pro-life and anti-abortion women.

If you are truly pro-life, this should get your attention.

If you are truly pro-life and female, it does.

How quaint.

My quite educated guess is that you are in the minority with regard to preference.

Given a conception prevention pharmaceutical that works with near-100% efficacy, anti-abortion and pro-life couples who are having sex want vaginal intercourse … and even without this product, they won’t tolerate such “abstinence” for long.

The conception pharmaceutical products currently in development render long-failed abstinence for anti-abortion and pro-life couples, pardon my redundancy, an anachronistic thing of the past.

Yes, but we women really prefer not getting pregnant over carrying a person NINE MISERABLE MONTHS to term, thereby building an emotional relationship with that person, only to surrender him/her, our very own child, up at birth. :imp:

Again, men and their "all you gotta do is … " suggestions about how we women should conduct our pro-creation lives. :unamused:

Nevertheless, these new generation of conception prevention pills basically solves a great degree of problems that would lead to having to make this abort or adopt choice.

The new generation of conception prevention pills are the preferable option of by and for women.

Agreed, for someone to force her is diabolical.

But that’s all quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Better is to increase the odds that she won’t be in that pregnancy situation to begin with, and, that the hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women can finally have a product that prevents so many of them from historically finding themselves in that situation.

Pro-choice people may not care much about the needs of pro-life and anti-abortion women in this regard, but the hundreds of millions of pro-life and anti-abortion women themselves, and their partners, do care.

There are no sources strong enough to change your mindset.

If you were really in the mood to learn something new, you would either trust my presentation’s obvious integrity, or source your paranoia away yourself.

If you cannot participate in the spirit of this thread’s hope for a win-win solution, why don’t you find another thread to derail.