Ladies, if you've always thought that your uterus just lies back, chillin and waiting for the right squiggly guy (aka sperm) to fertilise an egg, it turns out that you're wrong.
According to new research from Tel Aviv University, women can, to a certain extent, reject or accept sperm thanks to powerful uterine contractions and the motion of the uterus is argued to be at the core of reproductive success (i.e. whether or not you actually get pregnant). One anthropologist from Cornell has explained it thus:
"...The uterus actually plays a role in make sure sperm are in the right place at the right time. Apparently, uterine contractions squirt fluid, and sperm, upwards.
After conception, the uterus waits below, for about seven days, as the newly fertilized egg takes its own sweet time to float into the womb, and then the uterus goes into action again.
When the egg finally arrives, the uterus begins to contract again, performing a welcoming dance that sucks the new embryo into the soft lining of the uterine wall, and voila, we have a baby on the way."
In theory, evolution dictates then that women are able to choose (unconsciously) the best sperm and create the best genes for the future child. Yet, women often have sex even when they know that their partner is less than perfect, so.....
There goes that theory.
Source: Secret Birth Control Method
Showing posts with label birth control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label birth control. Show all posts
Self-induced abortion: life saver or health risk?
Today, a fascinating report from the New York Times describes a an unspoken tradition among Dominican women to perform their own 'abortion' using pills, herbal teas and other unconventional methods due to a wider cultural view of shame surrounding abortion, the use of condoms and denial about unplanned pregnancy.
A survey conducted by Planned Parenthood of 1200 Latinas in New York, San Francisco and Boston found "reports of women mixing malted beverages with aspirin, salt or nutmeg; throwing themselves down stairs or having people punch them in the stomach; and drinking teas of avocado leaf, pine wood, oak bark and mamon fruit peel." More recently, however, a number of Dominican women have been using misoprostol, an prescription drug that is approved for reducing gastric ulcers but induces miscarriage. Women often obtain the pills at pharmacies that are known to 'bend the rules' or from overseas. This is seen as the best available option to women who have no insurance, are not living in the country lawfully or who do not want to deal with the shame of pregnancy.
Women's health works, however, are concerned that women are not using these methods appropriately and might be risking their own health if using the traditional and over-the-counter methods incorrectly. Given the US abortion laws, some women are even being prosecuted for knowingly attempting to end their pregnancies. According to the NYT:
"In 2007 in Massachusetts, an 18-year-old Dominican immigrant named Amber Abreu took misoprostol in her 25th week of pregnancy and gave birth to a 1-pound baby girl who died four days later; a judge sentenced her in June to probation and ordered her into therapy. In South Carolina in February, a Mexican migrant farm worker, Gabriela Flores, pleaded guilty to illegally performing an abortion and was sentenced to 90 days in jail for taking misoprostol while four months pregnant in 2004..."
There seems to be widespread criticism of women who self-abort, mainly surrounding the idea that in causing themselves to 'miscarry' they turn abortion into a 'natural' process. I think we should be more concerned with helping women who can't afford to have an abortion with the appropriate tools to terminate a pregnancy rather than worrying about denial or what word is being used to describe such an experience. 'Miscarriage' or 'abortion', women should not have to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. In the case of these Dominican women, I think the consequences of having an unwanted child are more significant than the cost of having an abortion or 'miscarriage', etc.*
*This post is not intended to spark a heated debate as to the ethics of abortion. This is just my view and this is an old debate. Berating women who choose to have abortions is not productive and undermines the point of this post.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/nyregion/05abortion.html?pagewanted=2&em
A survey conducted by Planned Parenthood of 1200 Latinas in New York, San Francisco and Boston found "reports of women mixing malted beverages with aspirin, salt or nutmeg; throwing themselves down stairs or having people punch them in the stomach; and drinking teas of avocado leaf, pine wood, oak bark and mamon fruit peel." More recently, however, a number of Dominican women have been using misoprostol, an prescription drug that is approved for reducing gastric ulcers but induces miscarriage. Women often obtain the pills at pharmacies that are known to 'bend the rules' or from overseas. This is seen as the best available option to women who have no insurance, are not living in the country lawfully or who do not want to deal with the shame of pregnancy.
Women's health works, however, are concerned that women are not using these methods appropriately and might be risking their own health if using the traditional and over-the-counter methods incorrectly. Given the US abortion laws, some women are even being prosecuted for knowingly attempting to end their pregnancies. According to the NYT:
"In 2007 in Massachusetts, an 18-year-old Dominican immigrant named Amber Abreu took misoprostol in her 25th week of pregnancy and gave birth to a 1-pound baby girl who died four days later; a judge sentenced her in June to probation and ordered her into therapy. In South Carolina in February, a Mexican migrant farm worker, Gabriela Flores, pleaded guilty to illegally performing an abortion and was sentenced to 90 days in jail for taking misoprostol while four months pregnant in 2004..."
There seems to be widespread criticism of women who self-abort, mainly surrounding the idea that in causing themselves to 'miscarry' they turn abortion into a 'natural' process. I think we should be more concerned with helping women who can't afford to have an abortion with the appropriate tools to terminate a pregnancy rather than worrying about denial or what word is being used to describe such an experience. 'Miscarriage' or 'abortion', women should not have to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. In the case of these Dominican women, I think the consequences of having an unwanted child are more significant than the cost of having an abortion or 'miscarriage', etc.*
*This post is not intended to spark a heated debate as to the ethics of abortion. This is just my view and this is an old debate. Berating women who choose to have abortions is not productive and undermines the point of this post.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/nyregion/05abortion.html?pagewanted=2&em
Contraception = abortion?
There are times when I miss being an American and actually living in the US...but then there are moments, like right now, when I'm happy to be living in another country.
If you thought that George W. was just a 'lame duck', let me tell you...Mr. President is planning to suck every ounce of reproductive freedom from the wombs of American women. Here's why:
A report has been released suggesting that the Bush administration is planning to strengthen their opposition to abortion by redefining contraception as abortion. Under the new regulation, abortion would be defined as:
'...any of the various procedures - including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action - that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation'.
So basically 'pregnancy' is being defined as the presence of a fertilised egg and not an implanted fertilised egg (as most gynecologists and medical dictionaries would argue). Moreover, another niggling detail of this proposed bill is that it strengthens the legislation that already exists that says that federal employees cannot be fired from their jobs if they do not want to perform certain tasks that run counter to their religious/moral beliefs. Why does this matter? Well, because there are a number of federally funded health care services that will be able to refuse treating certain patients or refuse performing certain procedures if a doctor doesn't believe it is right. This means that women (especially poor and minority women) might have their access to contraception or abortion restricted if a doctor thinks its wrong. Health providers would also have the right to share their personal beliefs about abortion, for instance, with patients. Hospitals could potentially have the right to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims.
This is what happens when a President allows a veterinarian to be in charge of the Office of Women's Health (no, really!)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901576.html
On a lighter note, say Goodnight to Bush: http://www.goodnightbush.com/
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=11147
http://www.alternet.org/story/91654/?ses=52547cd5c8ab64e91c5c017223aa7cdb
If you thought that George W. was just a 'lame duck', let me tell you...Mr. President is planning to suck every ounce of reproductive freedom from the wombs of American women. Here's why:
A report has been released suggesting that the Bush administration is planning to strengthen their opposition to abortion by redefining contraception as abortion. Under the new regulation, abortion would be defined as:
'...any of the various procedures - including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action - that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation'.
So basically 'pregnancy' is being defined as the presence of a fertilised egg and not an implanted fertilised egg (as most gynecologists and medical dictionaries would argue). Moreover, another niggling detail of this proposed bill is that it strengthens the legislation that already exists that says that federal employees cannot be fired from their jobs if they do not want to perform certain tasks that run counter to their religious/moral beliefs. Why does this matter? Well, because there are a number of federally funded health care services that will be able to refuse treating certain patients or refuse performing certain procedures if a doctor doesn't believe it is right. This means that women (especially poor and minority women) might have their access to contraception or abortion restricted if a doctor thinks its wrong. Health providers would also have the right to share their personal beliefs about abortion, for instance, with patients. Hospitals could potentially have the right to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims.
This is what happens when a President allows a veterinarian to be in charge of the Office of Women's Health (no, really!)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901576.html
On a lighter note, say Goodnight to Bush: http://www.goodnightbush.com/
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=11147
http://www.alternet.org/story/91654/?ses=52547cd5c8ab64e91c5c017223aa7cdb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)