#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Does hormonal contraception cause abortion?
No.
Side Score: 26
|
Yes.
Side Score: 25
|
|
1
point
3
points
No. Hormonal birth control is not contraindicated by pregnancy; if an egg has been fertilized and has implanted, hormonal birth control, even at morning-after pill levels, is not a threat to the embryo's life. Hormonal birth control functions by preventing ovulation. Some forms of it may somewhat decrease the likelihood of a fertilized egg implanted, but this reduction in likelihood (where present at all) is small, and not the goal of the drugs. Some might argue that this scenario could potentially be considered an abortion, but one would be pretty hard pressed to prove that a woman ovulated, the egg was fertilized, and the egg failed to implant specifically due to the action of the drug- especially considering the rate of successful implantation is far from 100% even without contraceptives having their effect. Side: No.
Hormonal birth control functions by preventing ovulation. Some forms of it may somewhat decrease the likelihood of a fertilized egg implanted, but this reduction in likelihood (where present at all) is small, and not the goal of the drugs. The goal of a majority of chemical contraceptives is to reduce the uterine lining, not just prevent ovulation. Ovulation prevention is difficult to guarantee because estrogen and progesterone are signalers for the endocrine system; no direct control over ovulation. It is like trying to adjust your T3/T4 levels from your thyroid by medicating the hypothalamus or even the pituitary. This is why most chemical contraceptives cover their bases by focusing on two aspects of pregnancy, ovulation and implantation. Side: Yes.
1
point
With respect, this debate is specifically referring to hormonal birth control, those which use the hormones that our own bodies produce to overregulate the cycle. "Chemical contraceptives" is a much larger category of substances than that under discussion in this debate, and would include such things as ru486 (which doesn't use hormones at all and very much does cause abortions) and hybrid forms that include both hormones and other chemicals. "Hormonal contraception" refers specifically to contraceptive methods that use hormones exclusively. But hormonal contraceptives do not have any of the affects that you assert. It's important to remember the scope of the debate; what you've done here is akin to arguing against someones claims regarding behavior patterns in sexually reproducing species by claiming no such behaviors can be observed in species who reproduce asexually. Put more simply: This debate is about hormonal contraceptives. Hormonal contraceptives are a subset of chemical contraceptives. Some chemical contraceptives cause the effects you note. Hormonal contraceptives do not. If you would care to provide an example of a hormonal contraceptive that has the effects you assert, we can discuss further. If your example is a non-hormonal contraceptive, or a hybrid contraceptive, however, it is not applicable to the scope of this discussion. Side: No.
Chemical contraceptives are hormonal contraceptives. Even barrier types are chemical contraceptives that contain doses of progestin. Spermicidal types are the only type that does not contain either estradiol or progestin. You are making a distinction where there is none. The most common birth control pill, combination estradiol and progestin, prevents endometrium regeneration which means lower chance of blastocyst implantation. Side: Yes.
1
point
Chemical contraceptives are hormonal contraceptives No. Hormonal contraceptives are a subset of chemical contraceptives. If this statement was true, then you could classify Mifepristone (ru486) as a hormonal contraceptive, and it is not. At all. Some chemical contraceptives contain no hormonal active ingredients whatsoever, as noted. Some, hybrids, a contain a mixture of synthetic compounds and hormonal active ingredients- this is the most common. In some cases, chemical analogues to hormones are used in place of the hormones. None of these are classified as hormonal contraceptives. A handful of chemical contraceptives exclusively use hormones as active ingredients, and these are what we classify as hormonal contraceptives- this is also their biggest selling point, as non-hormonal birth control tends to be more overall effective, but tends to have stronger side effects and weirds out those who have issues with "natural" vs "artificial" in this arena. I'm not making a distinction where there is none. You are failing to make a necessary distinction. This debate is about hormonal contraceptives specifically- not the full range of chemical contraceptives. Further, progestins themselves are not strictly hormones. Progestins are a group of synthetic chemicals that are somewhat analogous in effect to the hormone progesterone. While similar in effect (and in some cases structure), they are fundamentally different and carry differing effects and side effects- some forms have more in common overall with testosterone than they do progesterone. Progesterone, the actual hormone, does not cause the effects you mention- it is rarely used in pill form due to difficulties in absorbing it orally, though orally is hardly the only way to take a contraceptive anymore. Again, if you can note an actual hormonal contraceptive- not a synthetic analogue or other chemical agent or hybrid with those- you may have an argument here. Until then, you're offering oranges to support your assertions regarding apples, and that doesn't fly. Side: No.
In some cases, chemical analogues to hormones are used in place of the hormones. None of these are classified as hormonal contraceptives. No. Hormonal contraceptives are a subset of chemical contraceptives. If this statement was true, then you could classify Mifepristone (ru486) as a hormonal contraceptive, and it is not. At all. Hormonal contraception refers to birth control methods that act on the endocrine system. This would include all human hormones like progesterone, all synthetic hormones like progestogens or antiprogestogens. Mifepristone is a type of antiprogestogen. This means it fights progesterone for its binding site. It is classified as a steroid type hormone. EDIT: should have added that Mifepristone is not a contraceptive. It is a hormone though. Although... you could use it as a contraceptive like Plan-B. It is generally used for abortions though. Almost all hormone medications are synthetic. The only way to get real human equivalents is by harvesting near-human organisms. Most people do not like grinding up pigs anymore just to get some medication. I have no idea where you are getting your information. Modern medication, almost exclusively, uses synthetic hormones. The categorization you have come up with is not reflective of the real world categories. There are two types of signalers in the body: hormones and neurotransmitters. All drugs that target receptors act as some form of agonist to these two types of signalers. I already told you that the only types of contraceptives that are chemical but not hormonal are spermicidal ones which do not send a signal. Side: Yes.
1
point
Almost all hormone medications are synthetic. The only way to get real human equivalents is by harvesting near-human organisms. There is a key difference between synthetic progesterone (chemically synthesized progesterone) and progestins (synthesized chemicals with analagous effects [and sometimes structure]). Comparing synthetic progesterone to actual progesterone is like comparing a lab created diamond to a perfect specimen formed in the earth. Chemically, structurally, they are identical. Using synthetic progesterone is ultimately the same thing as using progesterone created by a living creature. You are using a human hormone, even if it wasn't actually created by a human body.
Comparing progestins to progesterone, on the other hand, is like comparing a cubic zirconium to a diamond. They have a similar appearance and function, and many similarities in properties, but are distinctly different, and even if they can be used equivalently in some scenarios (such as jewlery) the differences are still detectable, and other scenarios (such as when diamond is used to aid in cutting various hard things) the analogue is completely unsuitable. Hormone analogues are not hormones. The categorization you have come up with is not reflective of the real world categories. I exist in the real world, and I am not alone in my assessment, ergo it is reflective of real world categories. Even if you disagree with them, they are still valid categories and valid distinctions made by many. For better or for worst, there are very many people who are excessively comfortable with the idea of adding a synthetic version of a 'natural hormone' to their body and excessively uncomfortable with the idea of adding a similar but 'unnatural' chemical, regardless of the fact that the actual impact of the hormone may be WORSE than the analogue (such as progesterone vs. progestins when taken orally). These distinctions exist and are documented specifically for this crowd. Side: No.
There is a key difference between synthetic progesterone (chemically synthesized progesterone) and progestins (synthesized chemicals with analagous effects [and sometimes structure]). Comparing synthetic progesterone to actual progesterone is like comparing a lab created diamond to a perfect specimen formed in the earth There are structural differences. No one is arguing that. There are several ways to different between types of hormones. In the end, they are still all classified as hormones. I am not sure what you mean by other scenarios (such as when diamond is used to aid in cutting various hard things) the analogue is completely unsuitable. Exogenous hormones are designed to have the same binding site as the endogenous hormone. They will never be unsuitable. You are unique in your classification of progestogens like progestin as non-hormones. You might want to look up what a progestogen is, since you obviously do not believe me. Do you know the official definition of hormone? What is your definition of hormone? Your example of diamonds and cubic zirconia do not represent the differences between an endogenous hormone and a synthetic agonist. A diamond and a zirconia look similar physically but serve different purposes which is why they have different values. Endogenous and exogenous hormones serve the same purpose but look different physically. I exist in the real world, and I am not alone in my assessment, ergo it is reflective of real world categories. I understand that these are your personal views, but they do not reflect the standards of the scientific or medical community. That was what I meant by real world categories. Side: Yes.
1
point
Exogenous hormones are designed to have the same binding site as the endogenous hormone. They will never be unsuitable. You're looking at it wrong. Hormones can and frequently do have multiple binding sites. An analogue to a hormone that binds to the same key site does not necessarily bind to every site that the actual hormone does, and in some cases can bind to unrelated sites as well. Further, their chemical makeup is somewhat different, allowing for different chemical interactions and metabolic byproducts as a result. These are not necessarily negative, but they're still a big deal to many people. You are unique in your classification of progestogens like progestin as non-hormones. You might want to look up what a progestogen is, since you obviously do not believe me. Do you know the official definition of hormone? What is your definition of hormone? I'm working with the biochemical definition of hormone, which specifically refers to various compounds secreted internally by the endocrine glands to regulate various bodily functions. Your example of diamonds and cubic zirconia do not represent the differences between an endogenous hormone and a synthetic agonist. A diamond and a zirconia look similar physically but serve different purposes which is why they have different values. I'm referring to the usage of cubic zirconia in jewelery as imitation diamonds. In that usage, they serve the same purpose as diamonds, in enhancing the appearance of jewelry as a set piece and offering its interesting refractive properties as well. I am comparing this to hormone analogues, which are intended to perform at least one of the same functions as the actual hormone. Noting that cubic zirconia are poor choices for the industrial applications of diamonds is comparable to a synthetic hormone being unable to perform some of the functions as the actual hormone, and while the specific example doesn't support this, the intent is also to draw attention to additional effects (negative or otherwise) of the synthetic hormone above and beyond what the actual hormone does. I understand that these are your personal views, but they do not reflect the standards of the scientific or medical community. They do, insofar as the biochemical classification of compounds (relevant to both fields) is concerned. Referring to hormone analogues as hormones is not a scientific approach, but more of a colloquial approach. Side: No.
You're looking at it wrong. Hormones can and frequently do have multiple binding sites. I am not aware of hormones that have multiple active sites. Perhaps you are referring to different targets with the same receptor site? Hormones are generally built for specificity due to the nature of circulatory hormones. Even non-circulatory hormones are usually focused on one type of receptor or only nearby cells. Diamonds may have multiple uses, but hormones are targeted messengers. The analogy just does not work. Side: No.
1
point
I am not aware of hormones that have multiple active sites. Perhaps you are referring to different targets with the same receptor site? Then your understanding of receptors is somewhat lacking. In many cases, a number of different receptors with different functions are grouped together specifically because the same hormone binds to them via different portions of the molecule. The Opioid receptor, for example, is actually a category of ~4 major subtypes of receptors, each with several different subtypes; The hormone Enkephalin, by nature of its structure, is able to bind to all of these. Other agonists and partial agonists of the opioid receptors do not target all of them. Sometimes this is intended; the Mu-opioid receptor is generally targeted by pharmaceuticals rather than the Kappa-opioid receptor, due to the k-opioid receptor also triggering things such as dysphoria and hallucinations when agonized. That's just one example. There are other cases where the same hormone binds to multiple sites that aren't classified together for convenience, such as the action of insulin. In still other cases, the secreted hormone does not directly bind to anything- but rather reacts with something else in the bloodstream and produces multiple metabolic products that themselves target differing receptors. This could also be described as the same hormone binding to multiple sites, though technically it is not the hormone itself that does so. Pharmaceuticals can be structured so as to avoid producing one or more of the metabolic products. Side: No.
You are still confusing multiple receptor sites with multiple binding sites on the hormone. The two types of enkaphalins primarily targets delta type receptors. The mu receptor is targeted by endorphins. Kappa by a different peptide. Endorphins and enkaphalins are both peptide type hormones that target opioid ligand receptors. That does not mean they share the same primary target or tertiary structure. Hormones are meant to be specific. This means certain hormones target certain receptors. There is a weak agonist relationship when certain hormones share similar structures, but there are no hormones that have multiple conformations for multiple binding as you have suggested. Multiple targets do not suggest multiple binding sites. Several receptors will share the same hormone. As you have pointed out, opioid peptides bind to receptors with opioid ligands. This means those hormones are designed to specifically bind with that opioid ligand. Opioid peptides are not the multiple conformation hormones that you have claimed them to be. Side: No.
1
point
You're completely overlooking the importance of partial agonists and non-agonists/blockers that bind to these sites. It's easy to call them all specialized when you're only concerned with full agonists. Partial agonists with relatively high binding affinity are very important in regulating our functions, and while I'll concede that most hormones will only bind to a single type of site as a full agonist, most are capable of partially agonizing or blocking other types of receptors, and these functions are every bit as important in many cases as receptors that are fully agonized. Side: No.
partial agonists and non-agonists/blockers that bind to these sites. Partial agonists and antagonists are still bind to the same receptors. This does not mean these partial agonists or antagonists have multiple binding sites on them. It just means they share the same receptor targets as the endogenous hormone. while I'll concede that most hormones will only bind to a single type of site as a full agonist, most are capable of partially agonizing or blocking other types of receptors, and these functions are every bit as important in many cases as receptors that are fully agonized. All you are saying is that one receptor site can bind with many agonists and partial agonists. This does not mean those hormones have several active binding sites, which is what you suggested originally. I am only disputing statements like the following. No. Hormonal contraceptives are a subset of chemical contraceptives. If this statement was true, then you could classify Mifepristone (ru486) as a hormonal contraceptive, and it is not. At all. Some chemical contraceptives contain no hormonal active ingredients whatsoever, as noted. Some, hybrids, a contain a mixture of synthetic compounds and hormonal active ingredients- this is the most common. In some cases, chemical analogues to hormones are used in place of the hormones. None of these are classified as hormonal contraceptives. You're looking at it wrong. Hormones can and frequently do have multiple binding sites. An analogue to a hormone that binds to the same key site does not necessarily bind to every site that the actual hormone does, and in some cases can bind to unrelated sites as well. There is a key difference between synthetic progesterone (chemically synthesized progesterone) and progestins (synthesized chemicals with analagous effects [and sometimes structure])... Comparing progestins to progesterone, on the other hand, is like comparing a cubic zirconium to a diamond. They have a similar appearance and function, and many similarities in properties, but are distinctly different, and even if they can be used equivalently in some scenarios (such as jewlery) the differences are still detectable, and other scenarios (such as when diamond is used to aid in cutting various hard things) the analogue is completely unsuitable. Hormone analogues are not hormones. My response: I am not aware of hormones that have multiple active sites. Perhaps you are referring to different targets with the same receptor site? Hormones are generally built for specificity due to the nature of circulatory hormones. Even non-circulatory hormones are usually focused on one type of receptor or only nearby cells. I specifically differentiate between several receptor sites with several binding sites on the hormone. Your response: The Opioid receptor, for example, is actually a category of ~4 major subtypes of receptors, each with several different subtypes; The hormone Enkephalin, by nature of its structure, is able to bind to all of these. You seem to be confusing multiple receptor targets with multiple binding sites on the hormone. The same binding site on the hormone can bind to multiple receptor targets because those receptor sites share the same structure and/or conformation. Many G-protein receptor sites contain the same ligands which are targeted by specific hormones like the opioid receptors you mentioned earlier. That does not mean enphakalins or endorphins contain multiple binding sites on them. In addition, Mifepristone is classified as a hormone, at least by the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, the healthcare industry, biochemistry, etc. A synthetic exogenous messenger and an endogenous messenger are both hormones because hormones are defined by function. Side: No.
1
point
Partial agonists and antagonists are still bind to the same receptors. This does not mean these partial agonists or antagonists have multiple binding sites on them. It just means they share the same receptor targets as the endogenous hormone. Whether a given compound that binds to a receptor is an agonist, partial agonist, or antagonist is fundamentally determined by structure. There are numerous hormones that can bind to one type of receptor as an agonist, and others as partial agonists or antagonists, differentiated by their differences in structure. It's not the case that Hormone A binds to site A and only site A under all circumstances. Yes, this means that those hormones have several active binding sites, which is what I suggested originally. That does not mean enphakalins or endorphins contain multiple binding sites on them. In these cases, no- they have binding sites that are able to attach to different types of receptors with differing effects. There are hormones with multiple binding sites with different structure as well. In addition, Mifepristone is classified as a hormone, at least by the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, the healthcare industry, biochemistry, etc. This is true, but it is also a simplification, as I've already noted the biochemical definition of hormones previously. hormones are defined by function No, they are defined by being produced by endocrine glands for the purpose of regulating bodily functions. Side: No.
It's not the case that Hormone A binds to site A and only site A under all circumstances. Yes, this means that those hormones have several active binding sites, which is what I suggested originally. This does not mean they have several binding sites. It is still the same part of the structure that is binding to other receptors. The only possible exception would be man-made complexes that exhibit conformation changes revealing new binding sites. We do not have the ability to design or produce something like this yet. In these cases, no- they have binding sites that are able to attach to different types of receptors with differing effects. There are hormones with multiple binding sites with different structure as well. You presented enphakalins as hormones with mulitple binding sites structurally. Are you rescinding your previous statement? Name one hormone which presents with different active binding sites. Maybe you are confusing hormones with the receptors who undergo conformation changes which causes them to present with multiple binding sites. Side: Yes.
1
point
To be fair, I believe I named the wrong hormone. That said, I am not suggesting that such a hormone has several different sites that bind to different receptors. I am saying that such a hormones sites are able to bond to one type of receptor as an agonist, and a similar but different type of receptor as an antagonist. My apologies for the Enkephalin debacle, but that aside- are you misrepresenting my argument intentionally, or are you simply not understanding me? Side: No.
My apologies for the Enkephalin debacle, but that aside- are you misrepresenting my argument intentionally, or are you simply not understanding me? I have not misrepresented you. Do not resort to disingenuous claims simply to avoid admitting your mistakes. Here is the order of events as leading up to the current discussion as evidenced by the comment tree. 1) You claim hormone contraceptives are different from chemical contraceptives after I note the only exception would be spermicidal contraceptives. 2) You back up your statement by with the example of Mifepristone, ru486, and classify it as non-hormone. This has been shown as categorically false. Excerpt: With respect, this debate is specifically referring to hormonal birth control, those which use the hormones that our own bodies produce to overregulate the cycle. "Chemical contraceptives" is a much larger category of substances than that under discussion in this debate, and would include such things as ru486 (which doesn't use hormones at all and very much does cause abortions) and hybrid forms that include both hormones and other chemicals. "Hormonal contraception" refers specifically to contraceptive methods that use hormones exclusively. But hormonal contraceptives do not have any of the affects that you assert. It's important to remember the scope of the debate; what you've done here is akin to arguing against someones claims regarding behavior patterns in sexually reproducing species by claiming no such behaviors can be observed in species who reproduce asexually. Put more simply: This debate is about hormonal contraceptives. Hormonal contraceptives are a subset of chemical contraceptives. Some chemical contraceptives cause the effects you note. Hormonal contraceptives do not. If you would care to provide an example of a hormonal contraceptive that has the effects you assert, we can discuss further. If your example is a non-hormonal contraceptive, or a hybrid contraceptive, however, it is not applicable to the scope of this discussion... No. Hormonal contraceptives are a subset of chemical contraceptives. If this statement was true, then you could classify Mifepristone (ru486) as a hormonal contraceptive, and it is not. At all. 3) You assert progestogens are not hormones, specifically progestin. Excerpt: I'm not making a distinction where there is none. You are failing to make a necessary distinction. This debate is about hormonal contraceptives specifically- not the full range of chemical contraceptives. Further, progestins themselves are not strictly hormones. Progestins are a group of synthetic chemicals that are somewhat analogous in effect to the hormone progesterone... Again, if you can note an actual hormonal contraceptive- not a synthetic analogue or other chemical agent or hybrid with those- you may have an argument here. Until then, you're offering oranges to support your assertions regarding apples, and that doesn't fly. 4) You compound your ignorance by claiming that hormones have multiple binding sites on their structures even after I explained the difference between multiple binding sites and multiple receptor targets. Excerpt: You're looking at it wrong. Hormones can and frequently do have multiple binding sites. An analogue to a hormone that binds to the same key site does not necessarily bind to every site that the actual hormone does, and in some cases can bind to unrelated sites as well. 5) You bring up Enkephalins and opioid receptors and make false claims about those as well. Conclusion: I have already informed you all the above claims are false. You still refuse to accept this fact and even make the claim that I am misrepresenting you. Provide some proof. Stop making random assertions that do not match the science. Side: Yes.
This is true, but it is also a simplification, as I've already noted the biochemical definition of hormones previously. hormones are defined by function No, they are defined by being produced by endocrine glands for the purpose of regulating bodily functions. Find one modern biochemical text that does not recognize exogenous analogues as hormones. Side: Yes.
1
point
Find one chemically synthesized analogue that is produced naturally by an endocrine gland. You do not understand what a chemical analogue is. Analogue only refers to differences in structure. The body naturally produces similar variants of different hormones. The only distinguishing factor is between endogenous and exogenous analogues. They are still both analogues of the primary hormone. Your personal definitions do not match the real world definitions. I have already pointed this out. Since you brought up enkephalins earlier; Met-enkephalin and Leu-enkephalin are analogues of one another. There is your one example of endogenous analogues. You still do not understand what a hormone is, even after repeated explanations on my part. I have corrected all your mistakes but you fail to admit or even recognize them. From our conversation so far, it seems like you are not familiar with many aspects of chemistry and physiology. I am not sure why you are making so many false claims regarding these subjects. I do not have the time or the patience to continue correcting your personal definitions. If you continue to make false claims, please provide at least an encyclopedic reference (Wikipedia is fine) to validate your definition. Side: Yes.
1
point
You do not understand what a chemical analogue is. Analogues only refer to differences in structure. Yes, exactly. How do you figure that I don't understand what a chemical analogue is? To be fair, I should probably have said 'artificially synthesized' rather than 'chemically synthesized' as endocrine glands do in fact synthesize their hormones chemically. What endocrine gland produces Mifepristone? Your personal definitions do not match the real world definitions. I have already pointed this out. I'm saying that the real world 'definition' you assert is in fact a simplification for the benefit of the public and legislation. Since you brought up enkephalins earlier; Met-enkephalin and Leu-enkephalin are analogues of one another. There is your one example of endogenous analogues. And by virtue of both being produced by endocrine glands, despite both being analogues of one another, both are in fact hormones classified in the same group. You still do not understand what a hormone is, even after repeated explanations on my part. It is more accurate to say that you are unable to see the difference between a biochemical classification and a simplification intended to benefit public understanding and applicability of legislation. Compare the tomato; it is classified as a fruit botanically, but was classified as a vegetable in the US to facilitate a specific piece of legislation, as well as for the benefit of the public due to tomatoes not having the sweetness or tarness generally associated with fruits. I have corrected all your mistakes but you fail to admit or even recognize them. No, you have bantered with semantics and danced around the issue- for what purpose, I'm not aware. From our conversation so far, it seems like you are not familiar with many aspects of chemistry and physiology. I am not sure why you are making so many false claims regarding these subjects. I do not have the time or patience to continue correcting your personal definitions. I could say the same about you, and actually be correct on the matter. This and the fact that you have repeatedly failed to provide examples that were asked for to support your assertions in this and other debates has made me disinclined to have further discussion with you. Get your act together and maybe that will change in the future. Side: No.
Yes, exactly. How do you figure that I don't understand what a chemical analogue is? To be fair, I should probably have said 'artificially synthesized' rather than 'chemically synthesized' as endocrine glands do in fact synthesize their hormones chemically. What endocrine gland produces Mifepristone? So now you are changing your original statement of: "Find one chemically synthesized analogue that is produced naturally by an endocrine gland." to "Find one artificially synthesized analogue that is produced naturally by an endocrine gland." You want me to find something that is artificial and natural at the same time? I'm saying that the real world 'definition' you assert is in fact a simplification for the benefit of the public and legislation. US National Library of Medicine definition for progestin, which you have repeatedly classified as non-hormone. That is the official medical classification. Here is a list of clinical studies that all classify progestin as a hormone. And by virtue of both being produced by endocrine glands, despite both being analogues of one another, both are in fact hormones classified in the same group. You asked for "one chemically synthesized analogue that is produced naturally by an endocrine gland". I gave you what you asked for to prove my point, but you do not respond to the original point. Who is avoiding inconvenient information now? This and the fact that you have repeatedly failed to provide examples that were asked for to support your assertions in this and other debates has made me disinclined to have further discussion with you. Get your act together and maybe that will change in the future. Which one of your points have I not addressed? I just asked you for an example and you responded by asking for an example from me. That is deflection on your part, not me. I even took the time to provide an example for you and you change the wording of the original request to make it a paradox. You still have not provided any valid examples. Side: Yes.
In addition, Mifepristone is classified as a hormone, at least by the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, the healthcare industry, biochemistry, etc I can't find any source that specifically states Mifepristone is a hormone, is there a place you can point me to that says it is, or something that says that something like it is a hormone? Side: Yes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ The tile basically says it is a steroid hormone and an antagonist of progesterone/progestin. There are a lot of articles about it classifying it as a steroid hormone and antagonist. You can probably find more studies with google. Side: No.
You can probably find more studies with google. No, I can't, that was the point If you look up Mifepristone it only calls it a steroid, not a steroid hormone. Edit: It looks like you are wrong. It is not saying RU486 is a steroid hormone, it is saying that it is an antagonist of steroid hormones. Your source is not actually calling it a hormone. Side: No.
I don't want to go through this whole deal of explaining everything. Last lecture. Next time, just going to tell people to go learn biochem. Go look up the basic definition of: 1) hormone 2) progesterone 3) progestin ( 4) antiprogestin 5) ru-486 Basically, almost all chemicals that transmit action from one source to another through the circulatory system is a hormone. Progesterone is the human produced hormone. Progestin is a synthetic progestogen which is a progesterone agonist (something that binds to a progesterone receptor to elicit a response, happens to be the same as progesterone for progestogens) that binds to the same receptors and causes the same conformation change in the receptor similar to progesterone. Antiprogestins are synthetic compounds that bind to the same receptors but cause a different conformation change in the receptor so that it does not produce progesterone-mediated reactions and blocks progesterone from binding to the same site. Progesterone and all its agonists are classified as hormones. Very old textbooks still differentiate between endogenous and exogenous hormones. I also brought up the fact that this was the modern definition somewhere (because we understand more about physiology now). Side: Yes.
If we go by biochem definitions you fail. If we go by non specific definitions you are right. Basically, almost all chemicals that transmit action from one source to another through the circulatory system is a hormone. 1) hormones in biochem are a specific group of molecules. If we study more bio chem, there is no reason to use your basic definition. 2 - 4) Don't see how they are relevant. 5) RU486 is an abortion drug that contains a steroid compound that is not considered a hormone that interferes with other hormones in the system. Progesterone and all its agonists are classified as hormones. I don't see that anywhere please advise. What about antiprogestins? Are all antagonists classified as hormones as well? Side: No.
If we go by biochem definitions you fail. If we go by non specific definitions you are right. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/StructuralBiochemistry/CellSignalingPathways/EndocrineSystem "outside of the body, known as exogenous hormones or agonists. The introduction of exogenous hormones in the body is known as iatrogenic. For example, when certain hormones such as cortisol in the body is introduced, it causes the shutdown of the secretion of hypothalamus and anterior pituitary glands... The specificity of the response to any hormone lies in the properties of the receiving cells and not in the delivery of those hormones to the cells. Only the cells with the appropriate receptor molecules respond, even to the steroid hormones that will dissolve through the membranes of all cells." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocortisone (note the redirect, no differentiation between exogenous agonist and primary hormone) A steroid hormone is a specific type of hormone. Progesterone is a steroid hormone. Progesterone antagonists are steroid hormone antagonists. Hydrocortisone is a cortisol agonist. Cortisol is also a steroid hormone. Hydrocortisone is a steroid hormone agonist because cortisol is a steroid hormone. All of the above is classified as hormones because they all bind to hormone specific receptors. Progesterone and progesterone agonists (progestogens, antiprogestogens) all bind to the same progesterone receptors. Corisol and cortisol agonists (hydrocortisone) all bind to cortisol receptors. Making distinctions where there is none. I don't see that anywhere please advise. What about antiprogestins? Are all antagonists classified as hormones as well? Antiprogestogens (binds to progesterone receptor to block progesterone action) and protestogens (binds to progesterone receptors to mimic/promote progesterone action) are both agonists of progesterone. All hormones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progestogen (First paragraph) I honestly don't know how to explain this better. It just seems like common knowledge. Side: Yes.
"outside of the body, known as exogenous hormones or agonists. The introduction of exogenous hormones in the body is known as iatrogenic. For example, when certain hormones such as cortisol in the body is introduced, it causes the shutdown of the secretion of hypothalamus and anterior pituitary glands... The specificity of the response to any hormone lies in the properties of the receiving cells and not in the delivery of those hormones to the cells. Only the cells with the appropriate receptor molecules respond, even to the steroid hormones that will dissolve through the membranes of all cells." You have shown me what hormones can do, not that anything that does those things is a hormone. Your whole argument is in the entire debate is trying to argue that rectangles are squares. A steroid hormone is a specific type of hormone. Progesterone is a steroid hormone. Progesterone antagonists are steroid hormone antagonists. Hydrocortisone is a cortisol agonist. Cortisol is also a steroid hormone. Hydrocortisone is a steroid hormone agonist because cortisol is a steroid hormone. All of the above is classified as hormones because they all bind to hormone specific receptors. Progesterone and progesterone agonists (progestogens, antiprogestogens) all bind to the same progesterone receptors. Corisol and cortisol agonists (hydrocortisone) all bind to cortisol receptors. This says that it is a hormone because it falls into the classification of hormone, not because it binds to the receptor. It does not say anything that binds to it is also a hormone. Making distinctions where there is none. None of that defined why you think the stuff is hormones. Antiprogestogens (binds to progesterone receptor to block progesterone action) and protestogens (binds to progesterone receptors to mimic/promote progesterone action) are both agonists of progesterone. All hormones. Your source doesn't mention antiprogestogens. Good job. None of your sources say that a hormone antagonist is itself a hormone. You saying it is a hormone is not enough for anyone else, sorry. I honestly don't know how to explain this better. It just seems like common knowledge. All you need to do is point me to the source of information that demonstrates your opinion. I keep explaining to you exactly how it isn't common knowledge. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
|
Hormonal contraception may cause abortions since they prevent fertilization which means death for the zygote. It depends on a lot of factors. They can even cause menopause/ovarian failure which both mean infertility. Life in general can cause infertility. Something like 1 in 1000 women will be infertile by 30 years old. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
http://www.abort73.com/abortionfacts/whichbirthcontrolmethodscauseabortion/ And that's from a Pro-Life website. I think it is you who needs to "debate the facts", :) Side: Yes.
1
point
" A small device shaped in the form of a "T" that is placed inside the uterus by a health care provider. It works to prevent fertilization by keeping sperm from entering the fallopian tubes and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. " Side: Yes.
Mirena and Skyla are both progestin only intrauterine contraceptive device. Mirena was designed for women who have had one child, and Skyla was designed for nullaparious women. Mirena lasts 5 years, and Skyla 3. Skyla is smaller so it is is suitable for nullaparious women. Both work by releasing progestin, which is a synthetic form of progesterone into the woman's body. This prevents ovulation and pregnancy. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
I am not lying and I have done nothing wrong I have quoted you lying on 3 different occasions. You have lied about what pro-choice people think and do on multiple occasions. And nobody is "pro-abortion", they just think a woman should be able to choose. Why lie about that? Side: Yes.
Well, it depends on when you consider the cells aborted. If you consider destroying anything after fertilization as abortion, then most generic chemical contraception cause abortions. A majority of them affect the uterine lining which ends up killing the zygote. Ovulation is not always prevented. Eggs get fertilized. The thin lining is the last line of defense. If you are worried about killing the zygotes, then just take certain forms of progesterone only pills. Depending on the dosage cycle, some will not cause much thinning of the uterine lining, so normal menstruation will occur. That way if there is ovulation and fertilization, you won't feel bad about it. Oh, first comment is wrong. Used fertilization instead of implantation. Side: No.
|