Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (7152)	3/2/2001 7:55:15 PM
From: YlangYlangBreeze	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You're right. You didn't mention souls, sanctity or even babies. I just mentioned themes from both sides as discussion we could avoid. It was meant as a semi-joke, as in let's not go there. You're right again. We haven't discussed banning MAP, you and I. I expressed my preference for MAP over other remedies, regardless of whether implantation is significant or not.. On average, if 100 women have unprotected intercourse once during the second or third week of their cycle, 8 will become pregnant. Following treatment with combined ECPs, 2 will become pregnant (a 75% reduction in the risk of pregnancy); Of those six who would have become pregnant, 3 or 50% of the remainder (your number) would avoid through ovulation prevention, 3 through failure to implant. 100 MAP doses 3 fertilizations have been prevented. 3 impregnations/implantations have been prevented. 2 women will be faced with a further choice. The 3 less fertilizations would at least seem like a good thing. If you think they would be likely to have an abortion anyhow, why is that not preferable to later procedures? Are you hoping to net some number of babies? I ask this in all sincerity. joelle