The Concequences of Hetrosexual Sex

[JackLuis]

In an homosexual encounter, there may be dangers, but only Herto women get pregnant.

Well there may be ways, but in general pregnancy is a heterosexual hazard. Now a "New Drug" is approved and already the knives are being drawn.

How do you ladies feel about:
"The FDA panel asked many questions about the drug's apparently reduced effectiveness in overweight women, and its side effects.

"The most common adverse reactions were nausea, headache, dysmenorrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue, and dizziness," the FDA advisory committee reported on the results of Ella's clinical trials with 4,700 women."

I mean compared to pregnancy?

 

[Loring2]

Ru-486 to the rescue

As you intimate or rather the article does, the chemistry is only slightly changed ... but how to use it ... aaah yes. That's where the change has come.

Now we can have sex impulsively ... even those who can't afford to ... at least according to most husbands and a Church or two.

 

[R. Richard]

In an homosexual encounter, there may be dangers, but only Herto women get pregnant.

You have piqued my interest. Do you, now or in the past, write computer manuals?

 

[LaRocha]

Sorry to drop this news, but the Birth Control pill's been around for like forty years. The side effects for this pill actually read better than most contraceptive/morning after pills.

 

[Handley_Page]

You have piqued my interest. Do you, now or in the past, write computer manuals?

I have; and they can be interesting to write .

 

[R. Richard]

I have; and they can be interesting to write .

"In an homosexual encounter, there may be dangers, but only Herto women get pregnant.

Well there may be ways, but in general pregnancy is a heterosexual hazard. Now a "New Drug" is approved and already the knives are being drawn."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you write a computer manual and it's 90% correct, it's a piece of shit. I was a computer programmer and I suffered under the situation. I tend to be very sensitive in the area.

First, lets address the words, "... only Herto women get pregnant."
I'm assuming that ' Herto' refers to 'heterosexual' here. Of course many, many lesbian women get pregnant. Many lesbian women use in vitro fertilization, but when they can't afford the cost of in vitro fertilization, many lesbian women use the old, standard method, sometimes using a gay man. Thus, a 100% homosexual encounter may result in pregnancy and it's not even all that unusual.

There are also intersex individuals who are neither female nor male. It's my understanding that some of them can and do get pregnant.

Even in a strictly homosexual encounter, if one of a pair (or more) of lesbians has previously had sex with a fertile male/intersex, and tribadism is used, a lesbian may get pregnant from a homosexual encounter.

Now, for my complaint. I feel that the original writing was basically wrong and very confusing. It's the type of vague, confusing writing I used to find in computer manuals. Since you saw fit to reply to my posing, let me ask you, do you/did you write the type of computer manual that was the required 100% accurate, if computer programs generated by using said manual were to be 100% accurate? If not, why not?

Perhaps the worst case I ever had to deal with was a computer manual writtten to describe the use of a multi-tasking feature within a computer language/operating system. At no point in the manual was there any description as to how to set up a tasking schedule structure. I managed to get the people responsible for the manual in and asked them about the matter. They told me, in effect, 'Oops.' I pointed out that 'oops' equated to constructive fraud. My own management then pointed out that the people who wrote the manual weren't committing fraud, they were just too stupid to write a proper description. (I was still responsible for reading the manual and then writing code, supposedly based upon the manual. I managed to avoid killing anyone, but it was a close thing.)

 

[bronzeage]

In an homosexual encounter, there may be dangers, but only Herto women get pregnant.

Well there may be ways, but in general pregnancy is a heterosexual hazard. Now a "New Drug" is approved and already the knives are being drawn.

How do you ladies feel about:
"The FDA panel asked many questions about the drug's apparently reduced effectiveness in overweight women, and its side effects.

"The most common adverse reactions were nausea, headache, dysmenorrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue, and dizziness," the FDA advisory committee reported on the results of Ella's clinical trials with 4,700 women."

I mean compared to pregnancy?

I am here to testify, lesbian women can get pregnant, too.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Sorry to drop this news, but the Birth Control pill's been around for like forty years. The side effects for this pill actually read better than most contraceptive/morning after pills.

Yes, but the standard BC pill works by preventing ovulation so no fertilization ever occurs. These morning-after pills work after fertilization and prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. Since most anti-abortionists consider a fertilized human egg to be a human life, this pill--like abortion itself--is tantamount to murder in their eyes.

So let's not be naive here. This FDA approval debate has nothing to do with the safety of these drugs and everything to do with abortion politics.

When Bush was in office, his hand-picked head of the FDA denied approval on RU-486 even though the FDA Medical Board overwhelmingly advised for it. This decision so outraged the scientists involved that the head of the Womens' Health Office of the FDA resigned in protest. His rationale was that the drug's safety was in question, but everyone knew that was a red herring. The real reason was abortion politics.

The health risks to women (and child) involved in carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term are much greater than the risks associated with taking these drugs. But the health and well-being of the mother are of of much less concern to pro-lifers than the health and well-being of the fetus. Or the fertilized egg, in this case.

 

[Handley_Page]

" . . . let me ask you, do you/did you write the type of computer manual that was the required 100% accurate, if computer programs generated by using said manual were to be 100% accurate? If not, why not?

Perhaps the worst case I ever had to deal with was a computer manual written to describe the use of a multi-tasking feature within a computer language/operating system. At no point in the manual was there any description as to how to set up a tasking schedule structure.

(I was still responsible for reading the manual and then writing code, supposedly based upon the manual. I managed to avoid killing anyone, but it was a close thing.)

I once had a programmer who's 'in-word' was granularity. I tried for a week to get through to writing the Instructions, but failed. So I sat him down with a cup of coffee and a dictation machine and said "I don't understand this; please explain so I can write it up correctly."

He still failed to explain, so I re-wrote that section as if I was passing on a few hints.

 

[R. Richard]

I once had a programmer who's 'in-word' was granularity. I tried for a week to get through to writing the Instructions, but failed. So I sat him down with a cup of coffee and a dictation machine and said "I don't understand this; please explain so I can write it up correctly."

He still failed to explain, so I re-wrote that section as if I was passing on a few hints.

There are a numer of possible meanings to granularity. The most probable one is the splitting of code into modules. The more modules, the more granularity. Assuming structured design, smaller modules are easier to code, but require more passing of data from module to module. Larger modules are more difficult to code. but require less overhead in the passing of data. There are advantages and disadvantages to any level of granularity.

In order to really understand the impact of granularity, you first need to understand the impact of local versus global data. Again, there are advantages and disadvantages to use of local versus global data.

 

[stephen55]

Sorry to drop this news, but the Birth Control pill's been around for like forty years. The side effects for this pill actually read better than most contraceptive/morning after pills.

No and no.......and maybe...

The effect of androgens, estrogens and progesterones on inhibiting ovulation was worked out in the 1930's. In 1939, Russell Marker, a professor of organic chemistry at Pennsylvania State University, developed a method of synthesizing progesterone from plant steroid sapogenins. In the early 1950's, initial trials of hormonal contraceptives were being held. They were first approved for use as a contraceptive in the US back in 1960, although in June 1957, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Enovid 10 mg (9.85 mg norethynodrel and 150 µg mestranol) to treat menstrual irregularity. (Enovid went on to be marketed as a contraceptive.)

So, the Pill has been used in the US for fifty-three years.

The stated side effects of any medication include just about any possible effect and almost never mention what percentage of people will have them or to what degree. As a family doc who ran the local Family Planning (read: birth control) Clinic for fifteen years, I can say that about 95% of young women on the Pill (combined estrogen/progesterone contraceptives) have zero adverse effects and are often happier in that their periods are lighter and shorter, with reduced or absent menstrual cramping.

All "Morning After" contraceptives, whether progesterone activity blockers like this new one (comprimide....trade name ellaOne) and RU-486 (mifepristone) or the old stand-by...a higher dose of a regular Pill like Ovral, (two tablets given twelve hours apart) have considerable worse side effects. Nausea and vomiting is almost universal, thus the standard addition of something like Gravol to the mix.

As for whether the new "morning after" pill on the block has less side effects than the older morning after pills......HRA Pharma, the developer of ellaOne most certainly thinks so........but time will tell a more accurate story than their marketing department.