sex before marrying ?

[peezey 0]

Actually RU486 is just Mifepiestone, but used in conjunction with Cytotec because Mifepiestone doesn't always kill and expell the baby. Cytotec is used to induce uterine contractions and expell the dead or dying baby. Cytotec is not approved by the FDA to be used alone to induce abortion, but of course that doesn't prevent "off label" use for that purpose.

Hehehe, you don't know anything about how it works, do you? That does have a nice bible-thumpin' anti-women's rights ring to it though, the "kill the baby" part. WTG.

Well that's what it does, call it a fetus or call it a baby, either way that's how it works.

It works in bizarro world, since it's an embryo.

[Alex+R 0]

Actually RU486 is just Mifepiestone, but used in conjunction with Cytotec because Mifepiestone doesn't always kill and expell the baby. Cytotec is used to induce uterine contractions and expell the dead or dying baby. Cytotec is not approved by the FDA to be used alone to induce abortion, but of course that doesn't prevent "off label" use for that purpose.

Hehehe, you don't know anything about how it works, do you? That does have a nice bible-thumpin' anti-women's rights ring to it though, the "kill the baby" part. WTG.

Well that's what it does, call it a fetus or call it a baby, either way that's how it works.

fe·tus

–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology.

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Oops! Guess it's not a fetus either. At least google it before you claim to know what you're talking about.

[peezey 0]

No, I didn't say it was safe, only that it is done illegally (and unsafely) in the Philippines. And Cytotec is a very dangerous drug when used to induce abortions, but people still use it there.

It's used all over the world and FDA approved.

It's a drug used for treating stomach ulcers. It's used in poor countries to induce abortions. It can cause a ruptured uterus and severe birth defects in the baby if unsuccessful at inducing the abortion. It is NOT approved by the FDA for this purpose, or as far as I know approved in any other country for that purpose.

RU486, also known as medical abortion, is Misoprostol (cytotec) and Mifepiestone, two drugs used in combination as an abortifacient. Approved by the FDA for said use.

Actually RU486 is just Mifepiestone, but used in conjunction with Cytotec because Mifepiestone doesn't always kill and expell the baby. Cytotec is used to induce uterine contractions and expell the dead or dying baby. Cytotec is not approved by the FDA to be used alone to induce abortion, but of course that doesn't prevent "off label" use for that purpose.

If you're going to quote something you don't know about, at least quote the facts.

Mifiprestone counteracts the production of progesterone. This is never used alone in a medical abortion.

Misoprostol induces uterine contractions the day after ingestion of Mifiprestone.

Not sure if you had biology but embryo does not = baby.

Off label prescription of medication is not illegal.

The labeling of Mifiprestone doesn't say "steroidal used to kill babies".

You can say it nicer but that's what happens. Call it an embryo, a fetus, or a baby, whatever you prefer. The Mifiprestone terminates it and the Misoprostol finishes the job with uterine contractions. In poor countries Misoprostol (Cytotec) is used alone (often obtained illegally on the black market) to induce an abortion. I know someone who has done that. Unfortunately when Misoprostol is used alone it's not as effective as the RU486/Cytotec combo and sometimes (10% to 20% of cases, depending on the source you believe) the pregnancy is not terminated. Cytotec can cause severe birth defects and rupture of the uterus.

Stating facts has nothing to do with niceties. The drug combo is only about 90% effective. And the same risks apply. Cytotec can cause rupture of the uterus no matter when it is used. There is definitely risk invovled. You are right that it should not be done without being under the care of a doctor.

[garya505 2]

Actually RU486 is just Mifepiestone, but used in conjunction with Cytotec because Mifepiestone doesn't always kill and expell the baby. Cytotec is used to induce uterine contractions and expell the dead or dying baby. Cytotec is not approved by the FDA to be used alone to induce abortion, but of course that doesn't prevent "off label" use for that purpose.

Hehehe, you don't know anything about how it works, do you? That does have a nice bible-thumpin' anti-women's rights ring to it though, the "kill the baby" part. WTG.

Well that's what it does, call it a fetus or call it a baby, either way that's how it works.

fe·tus

–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology.

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Oops! Guess it's not a fetus either. At least google it before you claim to know what you're talking about.

And you think RU486/Cytotec is never used after the second month of gestation?

[Alex+R 0]

Actually RU486 is just Mifepiestone, but used in conjunction with Cytotec because Mifepiestone doesn't always kill and expell the baby. Cytotec is used to induce uterine contractions and expell the dead or dying baby. Cytotec is not approved by the FDA to be used alone to induce abortion, but of course that doesn't prevent "off label" use for that purpose.

Hehehe, you don't know anything about how it works, do you? That does have a nice bible-thumpin' anti-women's rights ring to it though, the "kill the baby" part. WTG.

Well that's what it does, call it a fetus or call it a baby, either way that's how it works.

fe·tus

–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology.

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Oops! Guess it's not a fetus either. At least google it before you claim to know what you're talking about.

And you think RU486/Cytotec is never used after the second month of gestation?

It works up to nine weeks. After that point, it doesn't work very well because a woman's progesterone level is usually too high to be destroyed by the drug. Maybe some people use it, but they're not going to have an abortion.

[peezey 0]

Actually RU486 is just Mifepiestone, but used in conjunction with Cytotec because Mifepiestone doesn't always kill and expell the baby. Cytotec is used to induce uterine contractions and expell the dead or dying baby. Cytotec is not approved by the FDA to be used alone to induce abortion, but of course that doesn't prevent "off label" use for that purpose.

Hehehe, you don't know anything about how it works, do you? That does have a nice bible-thumpin' anti-women's rights ring to it though, the "kill the baby" part. WTG.

Well that's what it does, call it a fetus or call it a baby, either way that's how it works.

fe·tus

–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology.

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Oops! Guess it's not a fetus either. At least google it before you claim to know what you're talking about.

And you think RU486/Cytotec is never used after the second month of gestation?

It works up to nine weeks. After that point, it doesn't work very well because a woman's progesterone level is usually too high to be destroyed by the drug. Maybe some people use it, but they're not going to have an abortion.

Exactly, hense the comments re: potential birth defects if used improperly. I'm not arguing people might get their hands on cytotec in other countries and use it improperly, but it is used legally and safely in many other places...the US, Europe, China, Russia.

This is why abortion shouldn't be illegal. Clearly women will attemp to terminate pregnancies regardless of the law. Since this is the case, it should be safe.

[garya505 2]

Actually RU486 is just Mifepiestone, but used in conjunction with Cytotec because Mifepiestone doesn't always kill and expell the baby. Cytotec is used to induce uterine contractions and expell the dead or dying baby. Cytotec is not approved by the FDA to be used alone to induce abortion, but of course that doesn't prevent "off label" use for that purpose.

Hehehe, you don't know anything about how it works, do you? That does have a nice bible-thumpin' anti-women's rights ring to it though, the "kill the baby" part. WTG.

Well that's what it does, call it a fetus or call it a baby, either way that's how it works.

fe·tus

–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology.

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Oops! Guess it's not a fetus either. At least google it before you claim to know what you're talking about.

And you think RU486/Cytotec is never used after the second month of gestation?

It works up to nine weeks. After that point, it doesn't work very well because a woman's progesterone level is usually too high to be destroyed by the drug. Maybe some people use it, but they're not going to have an abortion.

I know someone who did it with Cytotec alone at about 2 months. Anyway she claimed to not be pregnant afterwards.

If you look around you will find that Cytotec is in fact used in the first and second trimester to induce abortions, legal or not.

Edited December 30, 2006 by garya505

[Alex+R 0]

Actually RU486 is just Mifepiestone, but used in conjunction with Cytotec because Mifepiestone doesn't always kill and expell the baby. Cytotec is used to induce uterine contractions and expell the dead or dying baby. Cytotec is not approved by the FDA to be used alone to induce abortion, but of course that doesn't prevent "off label" use for that purpose.

Hehehe, you don't know anything about how it works, do you? That does have a nice bible-thumpin' anti-women's rights ring to it though, the "kill the baby" part. WTG.

Well that's what it does, call it a fetus or call it a baby, either way that's how it works.

fe·tus

–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology.

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Oops! Guess it's not a fetus either. At least google it before you claim to know what you're talking about.

And you think RU486/Cytotec is never used after the second month of gestation?

It works up to nine weeks. After that point, it doesn't work very well because a woman's progesterone level is usually too high to be destroyed by the drug. Maybe some people use it, but they're not going to have an abortion.

I know someone who did it with Cytotec alone at about 2 months. Anyway she claimed to not be pregnant afterwards.

If you look around you will find that Cytotec is in fact used in the first and second trimester to induce a abortions, legal or not.

2 months = more than 9 weeks? I'm not following. And it might be USED, Gary, but it's not going to effective. It's not about whether or not it's legal, it's about the fact that it actually doesn't work. Do your research.

[garya505 2]

Exactly, hense the comments re: potential birth defects if used improperly. I'm not arguing people might get their hands on cytotec in other countries and use it improperly, but it is used legally and safely in many other places...the US, Europe, China, Russia.

This is why abortion shouldn't be illegal. Clearly women will attemp to terminate pregnancies regardless of the law. Since this is the case, it should be safe.

There are lots of things that people will attempt to do whether it's legal or not, but that alone isn't a viable argument to make something legal. There are plenty of other arguments for legal abortion. If you want to argue on that point alone, I can give you a whole list of things that could be legalized.

[garya505 2]

Actually RU486 is just Mifepiestone, but used in conjunction with Cytotec because Mifepiestone doesn't always kill and expell the baby. Cytotec is used to induce uterine contractions and expell the dead or dying baby. Cytotec is not approved by the FDA to be used alone to induce abortion, but of course that doesn't prevent "off label" use for that purpose.

Hehehe, you don't know anything about how it works, do you? That does have a nice bible-thumpin' anti-women's rights ring to it though, the "kill the baby" part. WTG.

Well that's what it does, call it a fetus or call it a baby, either way that's how it works.

fe·tus

–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology.

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Oops! Guess it's not a fetus either. At least google it before you claim to know what you're talking about.

And you think RU486/Cytotec is never used after the second month of gestation?

It works up to nine weeks. After that point, it doesn't work very well because a woman's progesterone level is usually too high to be destroyed by the drug. Maybe some people use it, but they're not going to have an abortion.

I know someone who did it with Cytotec alone at about 2 months. Anyway she claimed to not be pregnant afterwards.

If you look around you will find that Cytotec is in fact used in the first and second trimester to induce a abortions, legal or not.

2 months = more than 9 weeks? I'm not following. And it might be USED, Gary, but it's not going to effective. It's not about whether or not it's legal, it's about the fact that it actually doesn't work. Do your research.

The example was just to point that Cytotec is used alone (NOT the RU486/Cytotec combo) to induce abortion, not that it was past 9 weeks. You seem to only be able to think in simple trains of thought.

According to the NIH, Cytotec alone will terminate a pregnancy in the first or second trimester, and is used for just that in some countries, legal or not. It seems everyone knows this but you. Do your research.

[Alex+R 0]

Sorry Gary, we were talking about RU486. Can't just conveniently change the subject back to suit your needs.

[Mr and Mrs Bird 0]

Back to the point sex before marriage.

It's very interesting to hear about other peoples cultures.

Since my country do live another way.

People here can live together for years before being married, just to be sure that this relationship works.

That's the reason it's so hard for me to understand that this sex before marriage is such a big discussion.

For us it's not a sacred thing and we do not call it have sex together.

We call it making love and a need from the beginning of our relationship.

And why shouldn't we feel this love.

I don't wanna insult any and do respect their way to live.

Just have to add my born up natual way to look at it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Back to the point sex before marriage.

It's very interesting to hear about other peoples cultures.

Since my country do live another way.

People here can live together for years before being married, just to be sure that this relationship works.

That's the reason it's so hard for me to understand that this sex before marriage is such a big discussion.

For us it's not a sacred thing and we do not call it have sex together.

We call it making love and a need from the beginning of our relationship.

And why shouldn't we feel this love.

I don't wanna insult any and do respect their way to live.

Just have to add my born up natual way to look at it.

Denmark and Sweden, increadingly secular nations, have gone so far as to institutionalize cohabitation, allowing cohabiting couples to have the same legal rights and obligations as married couples. So, in nations like Denmark, marriage has become a virtual substitute for marriage rather than a prelude to it. Subsequently, Scandinavian nations have extremely low marriage rates, but comparitively high divorce rates.

Likewise, feeling the love isn't working in North America. Studies done with cohabiting couples in the US and Canada show that they are even more likely to divorce after marriage than couples who did not. In the last 40 years, the number of couples living together in trial unions has grown ten-fold, and the divorce rate has also grown exponentially. 60% of all marriages are entered into after a period of cohabitation' 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

Of course, although there are variants to be considered depending upon the reasons for choosing cohabitation, the introduction of serial cohabitation, and the length of time the couple is engaged in it, the common mindset of long-term cohabiting couples is such that they are not ready to commit to each other, so they try the "half-way" position, which is not really half-way since living together and marriage are two different thngs. Ironically, those who live together before marriage appear to be the ones most likely to divorce. Couples in such relationships also tend to be unevenly matched, with one more committed to the other willing to settle for an unequal reciprocation from their partner.

A sample of source studies:

Balakrishnan, Rao, et. al., (1987) A hazard model analysis of the covariates of marriage dissolution in Canada. Demography, 24, 395-406.

David Popenoe and Barbara Whitehead, "The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America 2005," National Marriage Project, Rutgers University, http://marriage.rutgers.edu, p.21, 22.

Larry Bumpass and Hsien-Hen Lu (2000), "Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children's Family Contexts in the U.S.," Population Studies 54.

Booth and Johnson (1988). Premarital cohabitation and marital success. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 255-272.

Bumpass and Sweet (1989). National estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 26, 615-625.

DeMaris and Leslie (1984). Cohabitation with the future spouse: Its influence upon marital satisfaction and communication. Journal of Marriage and the family, 46, 77-84.

DeMaris and Rao (1992). Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital stability in the United States: A reassessment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 178-190.

Popenoe and Whitehead (2002), "Should We Live Together?", p.6, http://marriage.rutgers.edu/publicat.htm.

Teachman and Polonko (1990). Cohabitation and marital stability in the United States. Social Forces, 69, 207-220.

Teachman, Thomas and Paasch (1991). Legal status and the stability of coresidential unions. Demography, 28, 571-486.

Thompson and Colella, (1992). Cohabitation and marital stability: Quality or commitment? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 259-267.

Edited December 30, 2006 by szsz

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Back to the point sex before marriage.

It's very interesting to hear about other peoples cultures.

Since my country do live another way.

People here can live together for years before being married, just to be sure that this relationship works.

That's the reason it's so hard for me to understand that this sex before marriage is such a big discussion.

For us it's not a sacred thing and we do not call it have sex together.

We call it making love and a need from the beginning of our relationship.

And why shouldn't we feel this love.

I don't wanna insult any and do respect their way to live.

Just have to add my born up natual way to look at it.

Denmark and Sweden, increadingly secular nations, have gone so far as to institutionalize cohabitation, allowing cohabiting couples to have the same legal rights and obligations as married couples. So, in nations like Denmark, marriage has become a virtual substitute for marriage rather than a prelude to it. Subsequently, Scandinavian nations have extremely low marriage rates, but comparitively high divorce rates.

Likewise, feeling the love isn't working in North America. Studies done with cohabiting couples in the US and Canada show that they are even more likely to divorce after marriage than couples who did not. In the last 40 years, the number of couples living together in trial unions has grown ten-fold, and the divorce rate has also grown exponentially. 60% of all marriages are entered into after a period of cohabitation' 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

Of course, although there are variants to be considered depending upon the reasons for choosing cohabitation, the introduction of serial cohabitation, and the length of time the couple is engaged in it, the common mindset of long-term cohabiting couples is such that they are not ready to commit to each other, so they try the "half-way" position, which is not really half-way since living together and marriage are two different thngs. Ironically, those who live together before marriage appear to be the ones most likely to divorce. Couples in such relationships also tend to be unevenly matched, with one more committed to the other willing to settle for an unequal reciprocation from their partner.

Living together before marriage and having sex before marriage are two vastly different topics. Cohabitation involves property and all kinds of legal issues that don't exist with a couple who are in a sexual relationship, but don't live together. I don't think you can conclude that it is the sex part before marriage that results in higher divorce rates.

[Mr and Mrs Bird 0]

I won't defend my country because many things are so wrong here.

And I really don't like it.

I better say that I don't see any problems to make love with your only love before marriage.

My fiance and me could never be without since this is the time we have together in a very big moment

We look so much forward to get married because this is a time where everything can be planned more serius and don't have anything to do about making love.