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.
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.
posted by y-intercept at 4:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home