Paradigm Shifting for Fun and Influence

Everything these days is a paradigm shift. Anyway, I was thinking about sociology and paradigm shifts and realized I should and some sociological speak to the question of rebranding conception. Here is a fun little stab at the Emergency Conraception tiff in sociological dialectic.

The transition in meaning of the term "conception" from fertilization to implantation is part of a broader progressive paradigm shift from a rigid Christian theological paradigm to a tolerant neopagan paradigm based on social progress. The antiquated Christian paradigm centered on an oppressive patriarchical model saw the invasion of the sperm into the ovum as the beginning of life. The tolerant neopagan of choice sees life beginning with the uteral embracing of a nascent embryo with the fetal bond of motherhood.

As with most paradigm shifts, the diversity tolerant paradigm is universally accepted in the educated scientific community and has quickly spread through open minded elements of the progressive society.

Typical of modern paradigm shifts, a marginalized reactionary element still clings to the antiquated terminology of the patriarchal sperm-centric view upon which it depends.

I think I still need to work on my socio-paradigmantic speak. I am not quite sure if I've injected enough insinuation with my combination of snarl words and purr words.

Speaking of the difference between patriarchical Christianity and matriarchical paganism. The Christian Science Monitor has a story on India's struggle to stop gender specific abortions. India passed a law that says you can't tell parents the sex of their baby because many families were getting the tests and aborting girls.

Rodney Stark is a true sociologist. His recent sociological history (The Rise of Christianity) noted that the Greco-Roman pagan societies had the practice of gender specific infantcide. Baby boys would go into the cradle. Baby girls would often be expose (i.e., dropped into the sewer). Stark's sociological history suggests that Christianity's emphasis that all people are children of God, meant that they ended up with the women. Even silly beliefs like the idea that you shouldn't abort children produced from rape led to the dominance of Christianity and the diminishing of Rome.

Much as I think women should abort products of rape, I can't help but recognize Stark's observation that this marginalized group of people called Christians did rise to dominance. They also make better company than mean spirited things in the professoriat.

In the war of definitions, I think this neoprogressive view that life begins at implantation has much staying power.

Splitting Hairs on Pregnancy

Speaking of definitions. There is a hair we can split.

Implantation is the point a female first reacts to the presence of a fertilized egg. Pregnancy tests look for the hormones released at implantation. Add to this the fact that a large number of eggs fail to implant.

A person in hair splitting mode has justification to say pregnancy begins with implantation.

To support this hair splitting, one could note that with in vitro fertilization, the egg is fertilized in a test tube. There is a point when the egg is fertile, but not in the women. Clearly, the women is not pregnant. I wonder if one should say the test tube is pregnant?

Anyway, with hair splitting, you can create a stipulated definition where pregnancy is the period between implantation and birth. Let's stipulate that gestation refers to the period from fertilization to birth. You now have created a wonderful world where gestation and pregnancy mean different things.

With the stipulated definition of pregnancy, you can then argue that aborting an embryo before implantation does not abort the pregnancy. Yes, it aborts the gestation, but not the pregnancy. Aren't stipulated definitions wonderful?

The problem is that when you use stipulated definitions in public discourse, is that you have to be extremely clear that you are using stipulated definitions. If you use the word "pregnancy" and the audience is thinking "gestation" then you are not communicating. When you are pulling such a trick intentionally to manipulate an argument, then you are pulling an underhanded trick to thwart communication and stop communication.

If you use a stipulated definition, you have to be completely certain that others understand your stipulated definition.

Anyway, I decided to check on the current definition of "pregnancy". I checked several sources including Websters, Britannica, Dictionary.com and older printed dictionaries. Each of the sources I checked had pregnancy listed as from fertilization to birth. The really surprising thing is that the current definition at Wikipedia says "Pregnancy is the carrying of one or more embryos or fetuses by female mammals, including humans, inside their bodies."

Perhaps this isn't surprising. Most of the legitimate work on understanding the birth process is by people trying to create life and not by people trying to rid unwanted life.

As a test, I tried changing a sentence on the Wikipedia article that was saying that the opinion that pregnancy begins with fertilisation is a prolife view. The change was reverted within 3 minutes. I've comtemplated adding a link between the Wiki article on Emergency Contraception and the Wiki article on Pregnancy. It appears that someone tried that trick in the past. Not wanting to engage in flame edits, I don't think I will do that.

Dictates of the Right

The far right is as dangerous as the far left.

In the case of the morning after pill, there are some voices on the far right that would say that even the possibility that the medication aborts an embryo after fertilization means that the medication should be banned and the producers of the medication should be summarily executed as baby killers. Utah legislators would probably hold such an opinion.

Fortunately, the far right tends to be small and usually ignorted. The reactionary right really only gets a toehold in discourse when there is something to react against.

In the case of Plan B, we have a medication that can substantially decrease unwanted pregnancies. Rather than arguing what we can do with this medication, the far left has taken the low row and intentionally undermined the debate by trying to redefine conception as beginning at implantation.

The current insistence on the left that we say conception occurs at implantation ends up giving rise and credibility to the far right. The attempt to manipulate the debate at the subliminal drives people from talking about the benefits and dangers of the medication and into a shouting match about the definition of terms.

Manipulating the debate destroys the middle. When you no longer have a middle, you are left with either a dictatorship of the left or right. In most cases you see a violent thrashing between left and right.

It seems to me that the middle has to protect the terminology. The danger, of course, is that an excessive argument for preserving terminology can end up feeding the right.

When the left wins, we lose our ability to make rational choices because the left destroys the ability to engage in discourse. When the right wins, we lose our choice to their dictates.

Who's Doing the Labeling?

It seems to me that the right is just as prone as the left to use subliminal tactics like labeling to win debates. Labeling is the process where you try to rebrand words or to otherwise inject hidden meanings into the terms of the debate.

My experience is that the center is the group most likely to reject labeling. The center often wants to have a language where different opinions can be expressed.

Anyway, I was reading the current Wikipedia Article on Plan B. The current edit strongly implies that prolife activists want to relabel the terms of the debate so that Plan B would be regulated as abortion and made illegal. Here is a sample sentence: "Pro-Life groups often label emergency contraceptives as 'abortion pills', rather than 'contraceptive pills.'"

It really seems to me that it is the left which is doing labeling in this debate. If that is the case, then this sentence accusing the prolifers of label is simply an example of projection. Projection occurs when you project your methods on your opponents. Oddly projection often works. To effectively rebrand a term, you eventually have to have a way to attack the people using the old terminology. So, if you are trying to rebrand a term, you will eventually get to the point where you have to accuse your opponents of rebranding.

The reason that, in this case, it is the left that is rebranding is because there has been a tradition in Western history to say birth begins at something called "conception" and that interfering with the birth process between this thing called conception and birth is an abortion. In this old style of language, a contraceptive would be anything that prevented the start of the birth process.

The terminology that defines the morning after pill as a contraceptive breaks this tradition. The new terminology prevents people from being to express their idea.

The reason that I think the left side of this debate has engaged in intentional relabeling is that they did not need to chose the term "contraceptive" to describe their product. The term "emergency birth control" is available and could have been used to describe the class of medication. Calling the medication "Emergency Birth Contol" would have allowed debate about the product without all of the complex discussions about when conception occurs.

Calling the class of medication is a direct attempt rebrand the word conception. This rebranding hampers the ability of people to debate the issue. The actual effect of the redefinition is that is splits people into intransigent camps.

Personally, I see the arguments for this class of medication as so compelling that I think it should be widely available (regardless of the terms used). With the old terminology, one can argue that emergency birth control combines contraceptive methods with embryonic abortions to prevent the need for the more intrusive fetal abortion. With the old terminology, one can argue that embryonic abortion appears to be a natural form of birth control in that a large number of fertilized eggs fail to implant.

From a pro choice point of view one can argue that a woman should have an absolute choice about what gets implanted in her uterine lining. In the case of rape, one can argue that since a women did not have a choice in the sexual act, that she has an absolute choice in what happens at the uterine lining.

With the old terminology, you can build the argument that, although conception occurs at fertilization, the a pregnancy truly starts when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine lining. Again, this compelling argument supports choice.

With this model you can effectly argue that Plan B should be defined and regulated as an early term form of birth control. Plan B should not be regulated as fetal abortion!

The old terminology, of course, lets right wing kooks express their opinions. A medical professional who has vowed never to interfere with the development of life can express why she refuses to administer a given medication.

The old terminology lets one express the opinion that, while Plan B should be used in cases of rape, it should not be used as a primary means of birth control. In the case of rape, rapid application of Plan B prevents both the number of embryonic and fetal abortions. However, if used as a primary means of birth control, Plan B will simply create a large number of embryonic abortions. These embryonic abortions would have been prevented if other means were used as the primary means of birth control.

One advantage of the old terminology is that it allows you to build a hierarchy of ideas and express the opinion that some of the ideas in the hierarchy are preferble to others. For example, the hierarchy might be abstinence, contraception, embryonic abortion, fetal abortion and late term abortion.

Within this model, you can discuss the merits of different ideas. For example, couples have the decision of using pure contraception (things that only block fertilization) or combined contraceptives (methods that block fertilization but also block implantation). The new definitions end up tricking people into using methods they may have rejected if people did not muddle with the language.

Of course, the old style terminology does allow the right to make their arguments against Plan B. So, while the old terminology allows arguments on both sides of the issue, the new terminology only allows arguments on the left. Redefining conception as implantation deprives the ability of others to express their opinions.

Since the old style terminology means that right wing kooks can argue their case, there is a possibility that the will win and get legislation passed against emergency birth control.

Of course, even with the new terminology, there is a chance that the right might win. The right is as good as the left at forming automous groups that force their views on others. I have the misfortune of living in Utah where the average legislator is denser than the granite in the mountains.

My experience in life is that trying to win debates on the subliminal level actually results in entrenching and further empowering dictatorial forces on the right. The far left and right use the same techniques to stifle debates. They tend to tune in and re-inforce each other's tactics.

Personally, I believe that our laws should err on the liberal side, but that our actions as individuals should tend toward the conservative. The old style terminology is suitable for this end. The old style terminology provides both a philosophical and moral basis for making Emergency Birth Control widely available. It also provides a language that individuals can use for making the important decisiions that affect their lives.

The attempt to rebrand conception to mean implantation has the effect of polarizing people and is likely to result in the situation where people are either coerced into taking medication that they would otherwise avoid or in the situation where iconoclasts on the right prevent access to a medication that could help people (especially rape victims) take control of their lives.

We should err on the side of the terminology that lets us discuss the issue and should avoid trying to win debates by undermining the process of discourse.

Choice

Yesterday, I had a big talking down to about how I am a right wing kook. Not only am I a right wing kook. I am a right wing kook who dictates to others (despite the fact that I have never once dictated to the person in question, I am a right wing dictatorial kook simply because I do not engage in the group think of the day!).

The reason I've been dwelling on the "Is Plan B abortion question?" is because I have big problems with new speak. I disagree with the progressive scientist in that I do not believe we achieve social progress by manipulation the terms of the debate.

I believe strongly in women's choice. However, to make a choice, a person has to have information. Being duped into taking Plan B is not a choice! When the progressive scientist tries to force an action by manipulating terms, they undermine a women's choice.

Personal choices about reproduction sit why high up there with the most important choices a person makes in their life. There are women who have decided that, under no circumstance, will they do anything to artificially stop the development of a person in the birth process. That is a legitimate choice.

People who made that choice need to know which birth control techniques work by blocking implantation. Manipulating the terms in the debate make it hard for people to make that choice. Even worse, when a person finds out that the "contraceptive" that they've used for the last umpteen years worked by blocking implantation and not blocking fertilization, the person will feel betrayed and angry.

I believe strongly that choice should be the center of any laws regarding reproduction. I also believe that the individual women in question should be the primary decision maker. I campaigned against the Utah consent law because it makes a girl's parent the decison maker. The girl should be the decision maker!

Back to choices, I find it patently unfair to force a doctor to administer a pill that the doctor finds objectionable. Although I have read Chomsky, I do not believe that it will ever be possible to convince a doctor that Plan B only stops pregnancies by stopping fertilization. Yes, Chomsky looms higher than God in the academic community, however, the biological processes are part of the natural world. Eventhough manipulating terms might manipulate politics, it will never change physical reality. Linguistics does not change the physical birth process.

Although it is wrong to force doctors to administer something they find objectionable, we are fortunate in that the morning after pill can be self administered.

Here I am 100% supportative of making Plan B over the counter!

This is why I am so angry. In the world of over the counter drugs, we depend entirely on the marketing of the drug makers to educate people in their decisions.

It appears that drug makers for "emergency contraceptives" have undergone a massive misinformation campaign to create the illusion that the drug does not cause embryonic abortions when it blocks implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining. The misinformation campaign guarantees abuse of the substance. I am against government regulations. However, misinformation campaigns end up necessitating regulations. This class of medications should be called emergency birth control and not emergency contraception. My idea of good marketing material would be something like: "Plan B is an effective means of birth control that can be taken after sexual intercourse. Plan B stops the production of ovaries, it makes existing eggs infertile and it releases hormones to prevent fertile eggs from implanting in the uterine lining, effectively aborting any fertilized eggs." Good marketing material might include a chart showing the number of blocked fertilizations contrasted with the number of embryonic abortions. Good marketing material might note that it uses same hormones used by the body to prevent the implantation of multiple embryos, and that there is a large number of natural abortions.

The medication should continue to emphasize that the pill does not affect eggs that been implanted in the uterine lining.

Honesty creates the dialog needed to make choices. Dishonesty creates an environment where we need government regulation.

In my opinion, emphasizing that blocking implantation of an embryo effectively aborts the embryo helps support the cause of later term abortions.

The original argument for abortion was that human life goes through stages and that aborting a pregnancy during the early stages is not equivalent to murder. Calling the loss of embryos an abortion supports this argument. Saying that conception occurs at implantation makes it harder to justify fetal abortions.

I believe strongly in choice. Real choice revolves around knowledge. Undermining the language to win debates will end up in dictated solutions. This opinion labels me a right wing kook. I hope that someday we break this mold where kookery is the only way to have dialog.

Compelling reasons for Plan B

I realize that my last posts sound a bit like I promote the arch conservative view on Plan B. In reality, I am trying to hash out this question of redefining terms to win debates. Abortion rights advocates seem to have decided that the only way to win their debate is to create an environment where they have a different set of terms than the right. Once we are separated by terminology, the hope is that people will divide into camps based on our feelings.

Almost all of the left leaning articles I have read on Plan B seem to use the simple format of trying to force a new set of terminology on us. To re-inforce their position, they then paste negative labels on the people who use the old terminology. I guess we are supposed to develop the image that new speak is rational and scientific, while classical speak is fuddyduddy old style thought.

My opinion is that the integrity of the debate is more important than the policies passed at a given time.

Rather than trying to find ways to divide people into camps. I wish the people supporting Plan B would be making a greater effort to argue the compelling case for Plan B. Here is what I consider to be the compelling case:

Nature has given us a safe and effective means to stop a pregnancy at implantation. It even appears that nature uses implantant as a natural method of birth control.

To understand this, we need to review the human birth process. Women do most of the work in the birth process. The process starts with ovulation. In ovulation the female produces a serios of eggs that float down the fallopian tubes. If these eggs come in contact with sperm, they become fertile. The fertile egg will float down the fallopian tube. The egg will then implant in the uterine lining. At this step, the female body starts forming a sack for the egg. To prevent multiple pregnancies, her body then releases hormones that tells the uterus to stop accepting eggs.

I guess that means that most of us have twin brothers and sisters who didn't make it because we occupied the stall.

I understand that in a typical pregnancy, several fertilized eggs fail to implant. Our human bodies are using this form of natural abortion at implantation as a means to allow people to concentrate more resources on fewer children. Dogs and cats have babies in litters.

The morning after pill has two actions. The pills stop ovulation and they release the hormones that block implantation. The morning after hormonal medications have a phenomenal 99% success rate.

The compelling argument for Plan B is that the pills use a natural process built into our bodies to control pregnancy.

The fact that the medication uses a natural process to abort the development of a fertilized egg is quite compelling. We should use this technology in birth control.

The fact that we are using a natural process to abort eggs does not mean that there are no moral issues involved with the technology.

I am a staunch believer in the woman's right to control her reproductive process. A woman should have the legal right to control implantation of fertilized eggs in her uterine lining.

My belief in empowering women does not mean that there are no moral dimensions to the debate. These moral dimensions exist. In my opinion empowering women means that we must empower them to make the difficult decisions.

Manipulating the debate by changing terms does not empower people. Manipulating the debate by changing terms takes away from a person's ability to make the important choices in their lives.

Physically taking actions to prevent implantation is different from the fact that the process occurs naturally.

Women who takes a medication thinking that it is preventing fertilization will feel betrayed if ever she finds out that the pill was, in fact, stopping implantation.

I agree with using the medication in the cases of rape or as a back up form of birth control. I find myself wavering when prevented with the idea of using this as a primary form of birth control.

While I think the medication should be available for rape victims. I find that I have a hard time asking medical professionals to take an action that interferes with the development of a fertilized eggs.

I understand the "progressive scientist" view that changing the meaning of words might ease some people's conciences when administering the medication. However, the moral dimension of this issue arise from the what the pill does, and not from our terminology. No matter how hard we try to change biological processes by changing definitions, we will not change biological reality by changing terms.

Progressive scientists are more in the tradition of voodoo doctors than medical doctos.

Plan B is a relatively natural medicine that can help us control birth and prevent unwanted pregnancy. However, women are only truly empowered with this issue by engaging in the moral debate.

Plan B ... Let's Start Shouting

In my last post, I was upset that "progressive scientists" had tried to manipulate a debate about Plan B by changing the definition of conception. To make Plan B more palatable, they wanted to change the definition of conception to mean implantation.

I was sad to hear on NPR that social conservatives had block a vote on a Plan B bill. This bill would have required hospitals to give Plan B to rape victims.

IMHO, the truly controversial part of this bill is that you are requiring Doctors and a hospital to do something that they do not want to do.

If you listen to the report. Notice how Libby Lewis totally trips over herself as she tries to redefine terms. She says the pill works by preventing ovulation (which is true). She then says Catholics "believe" that it also stops implantation of fertilized eggs. It is not a matter of belief that Plan B stops the implantation of fertized eggs! It is a fact that Plan B stops the fertization of eggs.

Interestingly, the Catholic hospitals that do not want to give the medication blindly actually test to see where a woman is in ovulation. Essentially, the Catholics are trying to devise a Plan C that only stops ovulation, but does not stop implantion.

Is this logic clear? If the Catholics have a Plan C that stops ovulation. Then the difference between Plan B and Plan C is that Plan B stops implantation!

Assuming that the Catholic Hospitals really are using Plac C to stop ovulation, then Connecticutt law would be forcing the hospitals to be taking action to directly abort the development of a fertilized egg.

Personally, I favor Plan B. I think rape victims should take the pill. I think they should abort the embryo by blocking it at implantation.

The question of the Connecticutt law is if health care givers should be forced to give the pill to people. This is very close to demanding that health care workers violate the hippocratic oath. If a hospital worker is forced to use Plan B in lieue of a Plan C, then you have a law that requires health care workers abort an embryo after conception.

Although I favor Plan B. I have to concur that this sounds like a bad piece of legislation. Libby Lewis presented a very bad piece of journalism that intentionally masked the issues at debate in the law.

What I am trying to point out here is that the "progressive scientists" are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to manipulate the law by changing definitions.

I agree that Plan B is the best option. However, I have to concede that forcing a health care worker to administer Plan B is a very bad idea.

In the case where a health care worker does not want to administer or even sell the pill, we need to get the rape victim to someone who will administer it. Libby Lewis's report even indicates that the Catholic Hospitals were willing to do that.

Lewis presents this particular debate as one where the social conservatives were trying to force pregnancies on rape victims. In reality it was one where the state was trying to force health care workers to violate their personal code of ethics.

The problem with this modern dialectics that tries to manipulate debate by changing definitions is that we end up wasting ourselves on garbage legislation. This was a bad bill. Forcing a hospital to use Plan B instead of Plan C is equivalent to forcing the hospitals to violate their principles and it forces health care workers who see a fertilized egg as a viable entity to violate the Hippocratic Oath.

If we weren't trying to manipulate the debate by changing definitions, it would be clear as to why this was a bad law. We would be in a better position to go back and write a good law.

Unfortunately, the thing the progressive scientists are doing with their insistence on using underhanded methods to manipulate the debate is entrenching and strengthening their opposition.

Is Emergency Contraception Abortion?

If so; what does that mean?

Recently, I stumbled into a nest of “progressive sites” that were livid about right wing kooks who were opposed to a class of medicine that marketers have labeled “emergency contraception.” This is a class of pills that a woman can take a day after sex and prevent pregnancy. The pills have a triple action: The pills stop ovulation, they make any eggs infertile. The pills also prevent the implantation of fertile eggs in the uterine lining.

Emergency contraception uses many of the same hormones that women release when they transition from ovary production mode to baby production mode.

Anyway, I decided to research the issue. Here, I found something that really got my blood boiling. Apparently, the progressive science community as decided to unilaterally redefine the term conception. To make the pills more palatable to the political community, the progressive science community has decided to define conception as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining.

It is this redefining of terms for political ends that really gets me in a tizzy. The redefining of terms for political ends destroys our ability to communicate.

The old model of discussing the birth process use the term “conception” to refer to the act that launched the baby production process. The old process used the term “abortion” to refer to anything that stopped the process.

Now, it just so happens that there is a very large number of natural abortions. For example, if two eggs are fertilized, one of the eggs will get in the uterine lining. The uterine lining will release hormones that prevent other fertilized eggs from implanting.

In the old scientific model, one would have to concede that emergency contraception works both as a contraceptive and an abortive, depending on where the woman is in the birthing process.

My understanding is that the old scientific model referred to the loss of a fertilized egg before implantation as an abortion. The used the term miscarriage for the loss of the fetus after implantation.

Some thirty years ago, abortion was considered a natural process and did not carry a social stigma, which is why abortion advocates chose to use the term. The argument some thirty years ago would be that scraping a fetus from the uterine lining was really not that much different from the natural abortion that occurs when a embryo fails to implant in the uterus.

Today, the term “abortion” has a very strong social stigma. Most people associate it with surgical procedures where doctors remove a developing fetus. Simply mentioning the word causes many people to stop thinking and to start yelling.

I understand why progressive scientists want to change the definition of the terms “conception” and “abortion.” If you hold the opinion that the public at large is just too plain stupid to discuss science issues rationally, then one falls into the trap of thinking that the only way to hold a debate is through the manipulation of terms.

Unfortunately, when you try to win the arguments by destroying the foundations of the debate, you end up creating this shrill environment where everyone yells past each other.

Don’t the progressive scientists realize that when people feel that they are being manipulated in an underhanded fashion, they tend to over react in opposition to your ends.

Personally, I think we should resist the progressive scientists and avoid this traps we create when we try to manipulate public through the redefinition of terms.

There is a very important distinction between preventing pregnancies by blocking fertilization and blocking implantation. Both policy makers and decision makers need to have a way to discuss this important distinction.

Many couples do care about the specifics of their birth control, and they prefer methods that stop fertilization. Likewise, this is an important issue for policy makers. Should policy makers allow “emergency contraception” to be market as a primary means of birth control?

Most of the literature I’ve found from those promoting the day after pill emphasizes that “emergency contraception” is exactly like other forms of contraception. Yes, the day after pill uses the same hormones to stop ovulation and block the uterine lining as the pill. The difference between the two medicines come from their use. If you follow the directions, the primary effect of the pill is to stop ovulation. The pill should have a low percent of embryonic abortions. The primary aim of taking a day after pill is to stop implantation. The day after pill will have a much higher number of embryotic abortions.

I’ve come across many sites claiming that the day after pill will stop a large number of abortions.

Here, again, I think we do better with the old terminology. With the old terminology, one might say that the day after pill will prevent a large number of fetal abortions. The pill does so by reducing the number of fertilized eggs and by aborting fertilized eggs at implantation. In the case of rape, clearly the pill will reduce both the number of embryonic and fetal abortions.

However, in discussions about using the day after pill as a primary means of birth control, we find ourselves in a situation where we are simply trying to replace one form of abortion with another. In this regard we find that the “emergency contraception” pill does not work exactly like other forms of contraception (as the literature says). There is a very good argument that the morning after pill should not be promoted as a primary means of birth control.

I am in favor of both the use and widespread availability of the morning after pill. I believe that the pill should be offered to rape victims. However, I do not believe we need to bastardize our language to make this class of medication acceptable. The class of medicine should be called emergency birth control. The drug makers should not mislead the public into thinking that the primary effect of the medication is blocking fertilization. The pill has a dual action of blocking fertilization and implantation (ie, and embryonic abortion).

If we cannot sell the pill based on what it does, then we are doing the world a great disservice by changing the definition of words to make the morning after pill appear that it is something that it is not.

Thoughtful people who are truly against abortion do see the power of this medication, especially in cases of rape. The true dangers of this class of medication come when people start replacing true contraception with emergency contraception. When this happens, you start generating a large number of artificial embryonic abortions.

Yes, I agree there is a hard time holding discussions with iconoclasts in places like the Utah legislature.

Trying to win the debate by changing definitions, however, takes us out of the realm of rational discussion and into that of shrill manipulations. It is in this arena of shrill manipulations that iconoclasts do their most damaging work.