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.
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.
posted by y-intercept at 7:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home