09-25-2012, 01:31 AM
I've seen a lot of debate over this same issue in the press and in politicians' literature since the MAP hit the US market. It's a hot topic of debate between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. I don't have any medical education, but here's what I understand from previous readings and some research tonight.
The MAP is labeled as acting in one of three 3 modes to prevent pregnancy:
1.The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation
2.Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary
3.The lining of the uterus (endometrium) is irritated so as to inhibit implantation
These modes are included in literature that comes with the product and the FDA labeling.
In modes 1 and 2, the egg is blocked from being fertilized. In mode 3, the egg is fertlized, but is blocked from being implanted or attached to the uterus and therefore cannot get nutrients it needs from the woman in order to develop.
For someone who believes that life begins at fertilization, the MAP could be considered a potential chemical abortion (because it may act in mode 3 by denying an already fertilized egg implantation). Pro-life advocates have taken this stance in much of their literature.
For someone who believes that life begins later, with implantation, the MAP would simply be a contraceptive like any other and not an abortion pill under any of the action modes. Pro-choice advocates have taken this stance in much of their literature.
Looks like it may be a moot point anyway. I found this recent article (linked below) suggesting that more advanced science has determined that the MAP does not inhibit implantation after all. The scientific studies are convincing and the FDA is considering removing the "implantation" wording from the product label/literature (it was originally included because the pill was new and the manufacturers couldn't prove that blocking implantation wasn't one of the modes by which the pill worked at that time). Some anti-abortion groups are claiming that the scientists are operating under pro-life agendas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health...emityn.www
The MAP is labeled as acting in one of three 3 modes to prevent pregnancy:
1.The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation
2.Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary
3.The lining of the uterus (endometrium) is irritated so as to inhibit implantation
These modes are included in literature that comes with the product and the FDA labeling.
In modes 1 and 2, the egg is blocked from being fertilized. In mode 3, the egg is fertlized, but is blocked from being implanted or attached to the uterus and therefore cannot get nutrients it needs from the woman in order to develop.
For someone who believes that life begins at fertilization, the MAP could be considered a potential chemical abortion (because it may act in mode 3 by denying an already fertilized egg implantation). Pro-life advocates have taken this stance in much of their literature.
For someone who believes that life begins later, with implantation, the MAP would simply be a contraceptive like any other and not an abortion pill under any of the action modes. Pro-choice advocates have taken this stance in much of their literature.
Looks like it may be a moot point anyway. I found this recent article (linked below) suggesting that more advanced science has determined that the MAP does not inhibit implantation after all. The scientific studies are convincing and the FDA is considering removing the "implantation" wording from the product label/literature (it was originally included because the pill was new and the manufacturers couldn't prove that blocking implantation wasn't one of the modes by which the pill worked at that time). Some anti-abortion groups are claiming that the scientists are operating under pro-life agendas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health...emityn.www