Debates on this medium are very frustrating for me because I lack the ability to convey my message eloquently. Then you claim I am dishonest. That has never been my intention, nor will it ever be.
Let me try another tactic. If we are told that earth revolves around the sun, how many people that you have ever talked with have actually been to outer space to witness this phenomenon? No one I know has been out of our atmosphere. Yet if all the studies prove that we revolve around the sun, does that mean reality changes? Or does it mean we find science to prove what we want it to prove?
In a world that supports the open slaughter of innocent children, what do you think the majority of science will show?
Sure I picked a line or two that made zero logical sense to me. If one single portion of any study fails a test of logic or reason or science, the whole test is wrong.
I ask questions and you claim I am intellectually dishonest. Never has been and never will be my intention.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
smh, please inform me how the morning after pill is supposed to work if it stops the egg from being released all while a woman?s body has a chemical drive to go out and procreate? Please explain how and why she would still have that drive if no egg is being released from her ovaries?
In addition I have never heard that the NYT was a fore runner in scientific studies. GOOD to know they think they are more than capable. Dr. Harrison also stated that she would ?prefer a study with more women and more documentation of when in their cycles they took Plan B. She added that if the studies done so far are correct, Plan B?s label should say it is ineffective after ovulation.?
Your second source and I quote ?may possibly prevent the sperm and the egg from meeting? which also means it might not prevent anything.
And finally your third article says ?Levonorgestrel did not impair the attachment of human embryos to the in vitro endometrial construct.? The artificial hormone was tested in a petri dish, where the similarities to an actual uterus and the mechanisms are not understood.
Please inform me what knowledge I was supposed to gain by reading these sources. In reality I have a slightly better understanding of why you believe a woman has the right to slaughter her child through something called a choice. I understand why but that by no means excuses your support of the murder.
I am glad you think I am so intelligent and that I am trying to trick you. I promise that I am trying nothing along those lines. Just please answer: In a broad sense, how do synthetic birth controls work?
By the way, your sources did nothing to prove that birth control was NOT abortificent, in other words causing the abortion of the new embryo. There are some scientists who question that claim but that really does not matter. Another interesting thing, who paid for all of these studies to be researched?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You want to pick and choose which topics you can debate? Please realize the reason you feel so opposed to that portion of the discussion. By the way, you may have debated the topic with other posters but not me.[/quote]
Of course I pick and choose which topics I debate. I also choose with whom I debate them.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please do not side step the question smh, just answer the following question. In a broad sense, how do synthetic birth controls work?[/quote]
Again, I don’t do the Socratic method of argument. (Maybe if I were discussing diplomacy with Richard Holbrooke, but I’m not.) If you have a claim you want to make, have at it. Make sure it stands on specific, current scientific evidence. Also, make sure it accounts with post-dated scientific evidence for things like this:
And, more importantly, this:
And this:
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/11/3031.long
[Note that levonorgestrel is the ingredient in some combination contraceptive pills and IUD’s, the latter of which I’ve already shown drastically reduce abortions.]
Edited.[/quote][/quote]
Like I said, junk science. Junk argument, too. You don’t appear to have even an elementary understanding of how to do this.
To take but one example: You try for a dismissal of my second citation by selectively quoting a single line that describes levonorgestrel’s possible secondary mechanism of action (mucosal thickening inhibitive to sperm motility). Dishonestly – and if you are dishonest again, this conversation will end abruptly – unquoted by you was the line about the primary mechanism of action:
[quote]
A number of studies provide strong direct evidence that LNG ECPs prevent or delay ovulation. If taken before ovulation, LNG ECPs inhibit the pre-ovulatory luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, impeding follicular development and maturation and/or the release of the egg itself.[/quote]
And, of course:
[quote]
The evidence shows that LNG ECPs…do not prevent implantation.[/quote]
[quote]
Emergency contraception is not the same as early medical abortion. LNG ECPs are effective only in the first few days following intercourse before the ovum is released from the ovary and before the sperm fertilizes the ovum.[/quote]
These ^ being consistent with, and indeed drawn directly from, both in vitro and in vivo experimentation. Now, my citation makes available much more information, including specific directions to the relevant medical literature. But my purpose here requires no more whatsoever. You see, I am excerpting from a publication of the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics (FIGO), an organization representing world medical experts and national medical societies in the field of our present concern. Which is to say, an organization of infinitely greater scientific and medical authority than, for example, you.
In order to even half-question the conclusions of FIGO’s literature review, you must adduce one of equal authority and confidence. It must explicitly account for the specific evidence cited by FIGO, it must bear the weight of an international medical body, and it of course must date from or postdate 2012 (i.e., it must stand on current findings). This last bit is particularly important, because my source references a relatively up-to-date state of the literature. Please note here that a link to an undated or obsolete junk website cannot stand against an official, current publication of the highest body in the relevant medical field.
Good luck with that. Again, if you’re dishonest, as you were in your last post, or if you find a way to misunderstand what counts as an actual counterargument, you may consider the debate concluded. And not in your favor.[/quote]