Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 6,322
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
Fair enough. I think you need to allow the fertilized ova to implant in order for a placenta to form. The definition of abortion that you've provided appears to require ejection of a placenta. Which would then make neither IUD an abortifacient. I tried looking up "abortifacient", but honestly I didn't think to look up a medical definition of "abortion".Yes, the two types of IUDs have been discussed (either earlier in this thread or one of the other almost identical threads). The medical definition of "abortion" is:
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2091Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.
A spontaneous abortion is the same as a miscarriage. The miscarriage of three or more consecutive pregnancies is termed habitual abortion or recurrent pregnancy loss.
As such, this statement:is simply wrong, as are all those who will impose their factually wrong opinions onto others.So depending on whether you think that causing the ejection of a fertilized ova counts as abortion... then one type may or may not be considered an abortifacient. But I don't think you can categorically say that IUDs are or are not abortifacients - there's too much room for interpretation.
I don't know what this has to do with anything. It seems a bit irrelevant.Lots of people hold the opinion that vaccines cause autism. Shall we allow those people to deny their workers health insurance access to vaccinations for their children?