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.