Annejumps sent me this, and Cristina Page posted on it. Various anti-choice organizations are coming together and protesting the fact that many of you right now are not having to get abortions. You know, because you use contraception.
There’s an entire bit of pseudo-science woo to explain how the birth control pill actually causes abortion, but there’s no actual scientific reason to think it. The only reason they grasp at this is that the anti-choice movement is not, and has never really been, motivated by concern for fetuses, but more concern for women’s ability to control our fertility, and subsequently our lives, control they don’t want us to have. The pill is protested because their magical beliefs would have it “killing babies”, but that doesn’t explain their opposition to condoms, opposition that has led to abstinence-only education and abstinence-only strings attached to HIV relief funds to the rest of the world. Maybe it kills babies when sperm are deprived of the opportunity to swim free?
So they’re outing themselves now? That’s an interesting strategy, because birth control is so ubiquitous that most women, so far as I can tell, can’t imagine a world without it. Tying the anti-abortion movement to getting rid of birth control seems like a losing strategy all the way around.
Yes, but you have to throw one of those pills REALLY hard a baby to actually kill it. Plus, they’re all cartilaginous and difficult to injure with small objects.
Did you hear about the baby born with its mother’s IUD in its hand?
Gotta love how the anti-choicers can use a t-shirt to label the majority of women mass-murderers in three words.
Yes, because the founding fathers were able to see into the future and anticipate the creation of birth control pills, and they didn’t want you to have them! It all makes sense now.
The Founding Fathers didn’t give women the vote, either, which I think is something that anti-choicers need to grapple with openly, because I also think the conclusions they’d be forced to come to would also help improve their public image.
I don’t know, I don’t find it implausible that the pill might cause abortions. It’s “only” 99% effective after all, and it might increase the rate of spontaneous abortions in the remaining 1%.
At least that’s how I interpret it when the Duggars say they stopped taking contraceptives because she had a few miscarriages while on the pill. (never mind that she had a few miscarriages while off it, too)
Of course the number of abortions caused by the pill is probably negligible compared to the number of spontaneous abortions caused by whatever. If they ever did the study I’m sure they’d find hamburgers are a worse abortificient than the pill is.
“Plus, they’re all cartilaginous and difficult to injure with small objects.”
Insert joke from Knocked Up about how Ben’s character is afraid of “poking.”
“Maybe it kills babies when sperm are deprived of the opportunity to swim free?”
Listening to some of these people, you can’t help but get the idea that much of their fervor is derived from indignation on behalf of the spermatozoön. I mean, how unfair is it that, not only does a sperm cell have to go to all the trouble of swimming around in a woman’s ucky ducts and of impregnating her ovum in order to be considered as a discrete individual, but that it’s statistically unlikely that any one sperm cell will accomplish even that dubious goal? Where’s the justice in that?
Such a lot of bother to have to go through for so little payoff; why, it’s almost as crappy a deal as the deal that says a man has to take a woman out for dinner (three times, at his expense) before he’s allowed to get laid. And after all that trouble and expense, all he gets to do is to deposit his precious payload into an environment which, to put it mildly, is not necessarily welcoming. A man can’t win, I tells ya, a man just can’t win. (Maybe Mrs. Doctor Perfesser is right.)
Perhaps if the Sierra Club or some kindred environmental organization were to start a fund or a drive in honor of the preservation of the Endangered Sperm Cell some of these anti-choice fanatics would be appeased. Though I doubt it.
Incertus, one would hope so, but I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty scared of these people.
There’s a whole other line of argument, on top of the dubious biological claims they make, that using birth control puts you in a mindset to kill babies. By not being “open” to new life and by trying to have “no strings attached” sex, you’re laying the ideological and moral foundation for abortion.
But I think there is imperical evidence that just isn’t so (that is, they’re wrong on both counts). Among the more interesting statistics collected by the Guttmacher Institute is that roughly half of all abortions are had by the 7 percent of reproductive age women who aren’t using some form of contraception (obviously, that doesn’t include women who are trying to get pregnant).
While it’s probably safe to assume that those women have a lot more unintended pregnancies than women using contraception, women using contraception have plenty. The only conclusion I can draw is that women who aren’t using contraception are actually more likely to end an unintended pregnancy than women using contraception. I can only speculate as to why that is. Perhaps the same factors that caused them not to use contraception - extreme poverty, abusive/non-communicative relationships with their male partners, lack of education, lack of family support, rape or even substance abuse - make them that much more certain that having a baby is not a good idea.
So, just as feminism actually makes for better relationships, all stereotypes to the contrary, feminism (and birth control) apparently saves babies, as well.
You dump a couple tons of those little pills on anybody and it’s going to kill them. Trust me…
Actually, compared to the rhythm method, the pill saves, ummm, “lives” (meaning concepti):
“[I]f all oral contraceptive users converted to the rhythm method, they would be effectively causing the deaths of millions of embryos.”
http://www.physorg.com/news67783446.html
Anyone wanna counterprotest and call them murderers?
Or how about just concepti-destroyers, if we don’t want to use their language?
Come on. You know The Pill kills.
In some women, having birth control availabel kills their willingness to be mere obedient receptacles for men’s desires (and fluids).
Because this is a form of autonomy, which may lead to true independence, thinking that diverges from The Man of the House, and to all sorts of wild and free behavior, This Will Not Do!…
It also liberates men from the probability of fathering (more) children.
These “liberated people” might start questioning all sorts of things - and they might even question religion! And then the cash flow might dry up…
This is maddening to me every time I hear it, and every time i hear it I end up in a flaming argument with people who do not have facts on their side, and I quite enjoy making them look like the criminally ignorant jerks they are.
Y’see, I can’t have kids with my hormone levels where they are… they just won’t take… but if you add an estrogen-type-substance to the mix it balances out the testosterone long enough that there’s the chance of conception.
In fact, keep me on the pill long enough and there’s the possibility that my body will start producing ‘normal’ hormone levels all on its own.
These demented people practiacally faint at hearing this. The pill doesn’t kill babies, the pill maintains a particular chemical balance in the body that can either prevent or encourage conception (depending on pre-existing balances). By trying to ban the pill they are telling me that a) my doctor didn’t really need to go to school to figure out how to treat my syndrome, prayer is enough! and b) that I should never have children because my cure is someone else’s poison… but it’s not for my doctor to decide if I actually need this treatment, nope, let’s make it illegal…
/e storms off babbling and raging at the sheer wall of stupidity and ignorance indicate by this t-shirt
Caravelle, I think that we’re kind of fucked because scientists are scared to say anything for certain. It’s the same thing with the word “theory” in evolutionary theory. Wingnuts are able to exploit the ambiguity in the word to say that evolution is “just a theory”, when a theory is actually anything but. Scientists are unwilling to say that the pill doesn’t cause fertilized eggs to slough off, though that’s highly unlikely, because they can’t measure it.
One thing we do know for sure is that a woman who doesn’t use contraception kills a lot more fertilized eggs than a woman who does, because she makes them to die in the first place. If the precious life of fertilized eggs is really your central concern, you’d want the pill to be mandatory.
Norbizness: “Yes, but you have to throw one of those pills REALLY hard a baby to actually kill it. Plus, they’re all cartilaginous and difficult to injure with small objects.”
That’s awesome.
You’re not supposed to have sex for anything but making babies. Period. Because giving birth is Gawd’s punishment for women daring to have sex. It’s even worse if they actually enjoy it, of course.
The “Pro-life” movement isn’t about life. It’s about sex.
I think we need a tee shirt that says My Nutty Non-Scientific Religious Beliefs Kill!
If we add at the end Ask Me How!, it would be perfect…
Actually, Amanda, Scientists are trained never to make absolute statements of fact. The Scientific Method enshrines that there are no proven facts, just theories which answer all of the relevant questions and can be proven through repeated experimentation.
Thus those with “the TRUTH” on their side - i.e. faith based on nothing but belief - can always dismiss Science as “never being absolutely sure.” It’s asinine, but it’s part and parcel with their propaganda…because Scientists are honest enough to stick to their core belief system it can be used against them.
Still, to those who are well-educated enough to know the bedrock science, a “proven theory” is close enough to the “truth” as to be the truth…
Why the “actually”? I never said otherwise. That was my point.
There are varying degrees a scientist will speak with certainty. They’re a lot more willing to say that the pill is an effective contraception, because there’s a measurement. We don’t have a realistic way to measure sloughed off fertilized eggs, much less compare pill to non-pill users, especially since pill users ovulate so infrequently that any sloughed off eggs would be too insignificant in number to be measured, even if you could.
From the white baby savers’ website:
Emphasis mine.
I concede the point…I guess the core of my lamentation is that the very tools of scientific research are used by Those With Agendas to “prove” that science “doesn’t have the answers.” I find it very frustrating and irrational, especially because the answer usually is, “See? Science can’t say for sure, so pick up this three-thousand-year-old book and there’s the truth! Bam!”
I really wish people were educated to understand the difference between, as you say, scientific certainty and uncertainty.
In defense of scientists, I think they would be hard pressed to say the Pill never, ever discourages implantation of a fertilized egg. After five years on the pill, I had almost no period, so I doubt I had a very inviting uterine environment. So uninviting that a fertilized egg couldn’t implant? I don’t know how I would ever know without frequent ultrasounds between ovulation and my period every month, which hardly seems practical. But enough women end up pregnant on the pill that it’s pretty clear that lots of fertilized eggs manage to implant just fine.
deep6, great, now I feel the need to go and e-mail that site and try to change minds that not only won’t be changed, but that are clinging to ignorance…. thanks alot!
without looking, I’m already doubting the accuracy of their sources… let’s see if I was right…
And I particularily like Good to see that they are using impartial, unbiased science to make their decisions!Oh God, the first reference in their “side effects of the pill” section:
The stupid… it BURNS!
Swim free, sperm! Swim free!
Which is why I don’t think these people are all that concerned with the preservation of eggs. After all, women produce eggs, which means that eggs inherit a big bagful of Yuck. These people are concerned with the propagation of sperm, not as a means to make babies, but as an end in itself.
This is just my opinion, and I accept the fact that it’s an eccentric opinion, but so many of the anti-choice/pro-abstinence/junk-science talking points resonate with such creepy overtones that I’ve found myself unable to escape the implications of those overtones.
You’re not supposed to have sex for anything but making babies. Period. Because giving birth is Gawd’s punishment for women daring to have sex.
I tried to wrap my mind around that recently, and I just can’t.
1) Babies are a gift from God.
2) Babies can only be caused by having sex, even though having sex doesn’t always result in a baby.
3) God doesn’t want you to have sex unless you’re trying to have a baby.
4) God made sex generally pleasant.
Unless God is trying to mess with our minds, I don’t see how this all ties together.
@Amanda : as a scientifically-minded person I’ve been trying to find a short way to say “that wingnut argument is stupid” without saying anything inaccurate (i.e. “the pill does not cause abortions”).
How about “God causes more abortions than the pill does” ? (though if it were ever proven I’d totally replace “God” with “Hamburgers”)
I have always strongly believed that abortions should be illegal, unsafe, and plentiful, so I approve of the the Pro-Life’s actions
Why haven’t the drug companies/ manufacturers started a fightback against these threats to their profits? They have a lot more political clout than a few protestors.
Listening to some of these people, you can’t help but get the idea that much of their fervor is derived from indignation on behalf of the spermatozoön.
Also, on a feminist basis I find equating sperm cells with embryos extremely offensive, and pro-lifers aren’t the only ones who do it (even though they’re the ones who actually seem to believe it when they do). Never mind that it’s fundamentally inaccurate, but if we’re going to attribute babyness to a gamete the ovum is clearly the one. Hell, with a little genetic tweaking an ovum can theoretically become a viable embryo… good luck doing that with a sperm cell.
I might be a bit touchy in making this a feminist issue, maybe the “look, I’m a tadpole and I swim !” element has a bigger role in this than the “sperm=seed, woman=earth” thing. It still annoys me though.
These people are concerned with the propagation of sperm, not as a means to make babies, but as an end in itself.
Not all “these people”. There seem* to exist people who believe masturbation is evil because it kills babies. (hence my earlier comment about sperm=!babies)
It doesn’t get more insane than that, does it ?
*actually I read about that belief in a comic book that made fun of it, and a Michael Moore book. So not the most trustworthy sources ever, yet I have no trouble believing such people exist.
Unless God is trying to mess with our minds, I don’t see how this all ties together.
The impression I get from a lot of fundamentalist Christians is that God is trying to mess with our minds.
He put all those fossils out there and made ‘em millions or billions of years old just to mess with people’s minds. That way, when they end up in Hell for accepting all that evidence for evolution, God can go “Ha ha, shows what you get for believing the evidence I put out to fool you! SUCKERS!”
Basically, they think God’s a sadistic mofo.
Where’s the rousing chorus of “Every Sperm is Sacred”?
This isn’t a slogan (or argument) meant to convince anyone who disagrees with them, or who’s even undecided. I mean, who would it convince? The only people who wouldn’t think it was the equivalent to an “I’m with Stupid” shirt are already laboring under the belief that their job is micromanaging other people’s sex lives. It’s entirely for preaching to the choir/rallying the troops.
Basically, they think God’s a sadistic mofo.
Of course, Scott. Why else would He (God’s always a “He” to them) make sex the most pleasurable thing in life, then say “But if you do it–or even THINK about doing it–with someone who’s not your (hetereosexual) spouse, then you’ll burn in Hell for eternity!”
And this makes God different from Satan–how?
Regarding the science and what not. Scientist often speak in certainties, but just rarely in certainties of negatives. In this particular case, the best you can honestly say is that the consensus among scientific studies indicate that hormonal contraceptives do not interfere with implantation. Some studies do have findings that can be interpreted to the contrary, but they are certainly in the minority, and none, to my knowledge, actually look at women taking the pill. So anyone saying the pill causes abortions is either making shit up, case in point here, or relying on cherry picked studies of questionable relevance.
Exactly, D…science exists in a constant tension between theory and challenges to those theories, so one will always be able to find at least one researcher who challenges the consensus opinion and therefore have a “reputable source” to give weight to whatever political/theological opinion one might possess.
religion seriously needs to f off. i’ve been berated for years as a bad and sinful Catholic (by my oh so heavenly mother) for using birth control. It levels out my hormones and makes me ‘more human’ so I’m not getting off of it. It also allows me to NOT stay home for 2 days of the month with horrible cramps. So to further my career and my sanity - I shall continue to take my little friends. The pro-lifers and those who support that cause can kiss my butt. That ad makes me so angry!
“So anyone saying the pill causes abortions is either making shit up, case in point here, or relying on cherry picked studies of questionable relevance.”
All forms of lying, manipulation of evidence, and outright propaganda serve The Lord and His Great Purpose…
which, as noted above, seems to be chronic sadistic dickishness.
Blaspheme!
“which, as noted above, seems to be chronic sadistic dickishness.”
Actually, it reminds me of a less lethal version of the justification behind The Inquisition, witch-burnings, etc.
There was virtually no limit to the extent of the violence that could be used because the victim’s “soul” was at risk. So even if you killed them, it was okay because their soul was saved…
…which I’m sure was a great source of comfort to all those corporeal atoms left in the wake of the victim’s death…
It sounds like The Physician’s Desk Reference disagrees with you geniuses. But I’m sure most of you are M.D.’s and know better. Or not.
In summary, according to multiple references throughout The Physician’s Desk Reference, which articulate the research findings of all the birth control pill manufacturers, there are not one but three mechanisms of birth control pills:
1. inhibiting ovulation (the primary mechanism),
2. thickening the cervical mucus, thereby making it more difficult for sperm to travel to the egg, and
3. thinning and shriveling the lining of the uterus to the point that it is unable or less able to facilitate the implantation of the newly fertilized egg.
The first two mechanisms are contraceptive. The third is abortive.
Ironically enough, given how much these people seem to believe it, it’s philosophically impossible, as the truth is, in the religious world, supposed to come from God and God alone, or observations of things God has wrought. So it shouldn’t be possible to lie in his service: all lies are opposed to what he by definition is.
This falls through for those who are both religious and full of shit.
I think some people here are buying into the most recent anti-choice frame and its something that really bothers me. I recently had a run-in with group of anti-choicers trying to redefine pregnancy. Someone with more knowledge in this area please correct me if I’m wrong, but pregnancy doesn’t actually begin until implantation. And an abortion occurs when a pregnancy is terminated. Birth control might on rare occasions prevent a fertilized egg from implanting but that is not an abortion. I’m not trying to be nit-picky but the way the anti-choice crowd keeps dominating and moving the debate frightens me.
I’m with Olivia and Incertus Brian. By all means, let these people try to hang their “KILLS” rhetoric on something that millions of women depend on. That’ll erode their credibilty even further.
Okay, everybody out of the pool.
seroj has explained it all, and he used a medical reference book, so there’s no need to go on talking about it…
I guess the PhDs happen to disagree with the MDs then. And which of those would actually study what happens?
“Someone with more knowledge in this area please correct me if I’m wrong, but pregnancy doesn’t actually begin until implantation.”
Isn’t that a philosophical rather than scientific question? The possible answers range from at contraception to when the baby squeezes its entire body outside of its mother.
Your problem is that you’re not even asking the right question. Nobody here cares “when” pregnancy begins.
If a mother wants her baby, then she’s pregnant. If she doesn’t want her baby, then she’s infected by a parasite, not actually pregnant.
It’s a cool technique called framing.
“seroj has explained it all, and he used a medical reference book, so there’s no need to go on talking about it…”
Yep, medical reference for a medical discussion. It’s almost as authoritative as Mike S.
seroj,
How does that reference define the following terms:
Implantation, fertilization, pregnancy, contraceptive, abortive
I honestly have no idea what the answer is, I just want to know if your case is supported by the definition of the words that are used (and your definition thereof).
Also (from wiki):
I don’t understand how definitions drawn from a compilation of prescribing information is the be-all-end-all of medical definitions.I have a comment hung up in moderation, so basically here’s the meat, the Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) is a commercially published compilation of manufacturers’ prescribing information, not a medical reference book for defining actual medical terms. Let’s not give it more weight than it deserves.
when the baby squeezes its entire body outside of its mother
Nothing like leaving the woman out of the equation, eh?
yes, because pro-choices never leave anyone out of the abortion equation, do they?
I will give you points for unwitting irony.
kodiak, thank you.
Here’s an example of the kind of thing that science (even medical science) leads to: Helicobacter pylori and the eventual recognition that most ulcers are caused by bacteria…
seroj
May 5, 2008 at 3:28 pm
It sounds like The Physician’s Desk Reference disagrees with you geniuses.
It sounds like you don’t understand what a pregnancy is, Nancy Drew. Oh right: it means what you want it to, no matter what the docs say, yes? So to you, it means every event in which in egg is fertile, regardless of viability. Nice total ignorance of medicine, troll.
The only one left out of the abortion equation, unfortunately, is you.
I’ll bet the PDR doesn’t call what you describe ‘abortive’ now does it?
What a loser.
Unwitting irony indeed . . .
Seroj, there is no evidence to data to show that BC or Plan B affects implantation. Though absence of evidence != evidence of absence, no one can claim that there’s any proof that #3 actually happens.
As Kodiak said, the PDR is written by the manufacturers, who HAVE to say that implantation COULD be affected, if for no other reason than to simply cover their asses. Again, though … no evidence has been produced to date that backs this claim.
(I really hope this doesn’t go through 5 times since I’ve been getting error messages the last few times I’ve tried responding.)
No. Medically, pregnancy begins at implantation. Many fertilized eggs are menstruated out without ever implanting and starting the process of pregnancy. Philosophers can argue with that all they want.
I assume you mean “at conception”?
You’re thinking of “When does life begin”, which is a philosophical/religious question, and entirely separate from the question of when pregnancy begins. It’s reasonably certain that a woman is pregnant at some point before she gives birth.
By the way, of your two examples, the Biblical answer for when life begins is the latter.
No, a woman becomes pregnant when a fertilized egg implants. She then chooses whether she wants to remain pregnant. If she does, she carries the pregnancy to term, gives birth, and at that point becomes a mother. Many pregnant women think of themselves as mothers before that, and I’m not going to argue linguistic accuracy with them. If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, then she has the right to abort that pregnancy. A fetus has a great deal in common with a parasite regardless of whether the pregnancy is wanted or not.
If she’s on the Pill and she never becomes pregnant at all (that is, if an ovum, fertilized or not, never implants), then it’s all a moot point.
Not really. It’s just that in our equation, fetus!=adult woman.
Ah, no, because before you can have an abortion, you have to have a pregnancy, and pregnancy is defined as beginning at implantation, not conception. If you prevent implantation, you prevent pregnancy, no matter how many little zygotes wind up falling out as a result.
And contrary to what you might believe, there is an excellent, non-arbitrary reason for defining pregnancy thus, and that is that implantation–not conception!–is when the woman’s body actually starts playing host to the little underripe, half-baked, genetically-human thing inside her. While the zygote is on its merry little cruise down the Fallopian tube, it is not drawing sustenance from its mother’s body. And if nothing of your species is drawing sustenance from your body, how can you possibly be said to be pregnant?
Sorry, seroj. The pill works by excreting a hormone that the ovaries release right after a woman ovulates—which happens to be the hormone that makes the uterine lining hospitable to implantation. You could as easily argue, with equivalent evidence, that the pill is likely to make your uterine lining more hospitable.
The problem is with the information you’re quoting was it was a hypothetical that was floated and accepted as true, but quoting it doesn’t make it true. I’m afraid you’re going to have to show me some research and scientific evidence that the hormone that usually makes the uterus more accepting of a fertilized egg somehow, through demonic slut magic, makes it less accepting before I’ll believe you.
Evidence, not random quotes from editions that need better fact checking.
“I guess the PhDs happen to disagree with the MDs then. And which of those would actually study what happens?”
…and, of course, this points out a fundamental misunderstanding that some people (I’m looking at you seroj) have about physicians.
Your doctor is probably NOT a scientist, at least in any reasonable sense of the word.
Are there medical doctors who can be called scientists? Sure, there are MDs who are involved in research. They probably have more than just an MD behind their name, but they do exist.
But the vast majority of doctors depend on others for their information. They are in large part the very definition of what “expert systems” are modeled after. They are NOT pioneering new treatments, not doing basic research, not testing new compounds for their possible effectiveness against disease, etc.
Most doctors are (very well educated, experienced, important) human mechanics. They are hardly the ultimate source of “truth” when it comes to something as complex and difficult to research as fertilization, implantation, pregnancy, and how hormonal birth control works…
And weren’t you banned already for lying? I don’t allow scientific untruths to be hosted at my site, because you should have to pay for your own lying. If you want to lie, you will have to go elsewhere. We only allow scientific truths here, to the best of our knowledge, and the truth is that the pill works by preventing ovulation.
Really, I wouldn’t care either way, so you can trust me on this. If the pill worked by expelling a fertilized egg once a month, I’d take it with the same conscience, because a fertilized egg, while more human than seroj, still falls below thinking, breathing people on the humanity scale and I find giving it more rights than me, an actual human being, repulsive.
What everyone else said about pregnancy. You aren’t pregnant until implantation. And while inhospitable lining can prevent implantation, the lining doesn’t get that thin without other effects going on (which are caused by the same hormones) i.e. thick cervical fluid (= no fertilization) and repression of the ovarian function (= no ovulation to be fertilized in the first place).
Xtine–Your mom may not be as informed a Catholic as she thinks—the pill ban in place by the church does not extend to women with PCOS, endometriosis, or (I think) any medical problem which the pill prevents.
So she’s wrong.
Also, seroj, if failure to implant ends a human life, than like I and Amanda (and probably others) said upthread, periodic abstinence ends a lot more life than any other birth control method, including the pill and plan B.
And amen to what Amanda just said.
Please, people, don’t argue about the pregnancy beginning at implantation point. It’s technically true, but has nothing to do with the pill.
Nothing.
The pill works by preventing ovulation.
Even if a few fertilized eggs slip out of a woman on the pill, far more slip out of a woman using no contraception at all.
So, if seroj or anyone actually cares about fertilized eggs dying, they should want the pill to be mandatory, not banned. Because even if a few fertilized eggs slip out of women on the pill—though there is exactly zero reason to think that the pill made this more likely than not—you are seeing a lot fewer than coming out of women who aren’t using anything.
I, for instance, have probably lost 0 fertilized eggs in my lifetime, because of scrupulous use of the pill. A woman with 10 children has probably seen another 10 to 20 fertilized eggs slip out because they just didn’t implant. If you think passing a fertilized egg is murder, my hands are clean, but women doing what seroj wants them to do and being “open” to pregnancy every time they fuck are killing ‘em left and right.
When people start bringing up uterine lining, the best answer is not to debate when pregnancy begins, but to point out by not ovulating, women on the pill are killing a lot less fertilized eggs than those who continue to have unprotected sex.
RE the Physician’s Desk Reference - that listing is sort of like the litany of “may cause nausea, anal bleeding, warts, rains of frogs, or other side effects - call your doctor if any of those occur” warnings which appear in any drug commercial. All of the data collected during drug trials is collated and any vaguely-related side effects are listed, even if the consensus is that their likelihood is very remote. As mentioned before, the primary mechanism is well-known - preventing ovulation. Any other mechanisms are, as I understand it, in the “possible but unlikely” category.
Ohh, big world all scary. Women talk. Women take job from man. Women read!
Cripes, I thought I left these mental midgets behind after junior high…when they got tracked into ‘vocational’ and I didn’t have to go slow to protect their fragile egos. Give me meritocracy anyday.
Norbizness misses the point completely! The Pill’s risk to babies does not derive from tablets being thrown at them. Au contraire! The danger comes from the chance that the baby will use his tiny fingers to pop some pills out of the bubble pack and accidentally aspirate them into his lungs and choke to death. It’s a small risk, I grant you that, BUT IT IS REAL. That is why I’m gonna buy a whole box of those t-shirts.
You will pry my hormonal contraceptives out of my cold, dead hands. (Or off my cold, dead arm, as the case may be, since I don’t even use the Pill, I use the Patch instead.)
Hah! Nice.
I love the “baby squeezes itself out of it’s mother” image. She just lies there, fanning herself, whilst the little bugger digs it’s way out of her vagina.
The danger comes from the chance that the baby will use his tiny fingers to pop some pills out of the bubble pack and accidentally aspirate them into his lungs and choke to death.
Heh, Orange, good one. But since the placenta does the breathing for the fetus, not the fetal lungs, as long as the placenta doesn’t stuff itself with pills we’re back to the Norbizness method.
The following is from the transcript of the testimony of Jerome Lejeune, M.D. in the case of Junior L. Davis, Plaintiff vs. Mary Sue Davis, Defendant in the Circuit Court for Blount County, State of Tennessee, at Maryville, Tennessee (Dr. Lejeune is the scientist who discovered the cause of Down Syndrome):
“Now, life does exactly the same thing. Inside the chromosomes is written the program and all
the definitions. In fact, chromosomes are, so to speak, the table of the law of life. If you get the
right number of your table of the law of your life, then you begin your own life. Now, the voting
process does exist as well. It is the fertilization itself, because there are a lot of proposals, many,
many sperms. Only one got in; that is the voting process which enact the new constitution of a
man. And exactly as would say a lawyer, once a constitution exists in a country, you can speak
about it in the same way, when this information carried by the sperm and by the ovum has
encountered each other, then a new human being is defined because its own personal and
human constitution is entirely spelled out.
There exists a lot of minute differences in the message given by father and the one given by
mother, even by the same person; we do not give exactly the same minute information in each
sperm or in each egg. It follows that the voting process of the fertilization produces a personal
constitution which is entirely typical of this very one human being which has never occurred before and will never occur again. It’s an entire novelty. That was sure—that was known for let’s say not a hundred years but more than fifty years. But the bewildering was the minuteness of the writing of those tables of the law.”
(Emphasis mine)
Wow!
If this discussion didn’t end when seroj dropped his PDR bombshell on us, it HAS to end now, after Bismarck has shared his awesome Googling on us!
I feel so put in my place. If we still had any BCP around the house (vasectomy obviates their need here), I would immediately flush them down the toilet in a fit of righteous rage!!! We will no longer engage in a birth-control-pill-fueled Lifestyle Of Death!!!
…or maybe I’ll just remind myself that opinions are just like assholes: everybody has one and nobody wants to know about yours, Bismarck…
Bah. Bismarck’s just bitter because that little shit Wilhelm II kicked his ass out of the Chancellery and his ship sunk. Pay him no mind.
Bismarck,
When the information carried by the sperm and by the ovum has encountered each other it’s not a new human being [being] defined but rather a bunch of totipotent cells; each one of those cells can develop into a new individual (not to mention parts of a placenta).
Even by the knowledge at the time, and his own research, he was woefully wrong. And now even more so. Environment, stochastic epigenetic events & stochastic developmental events all affect the final person that comes to be. Of course honesty doesn’t matter much when pressing an agenda against choice.
ema,
Your argument is with medical science not me.
The abortion debate has always centered on whether the human life in the womb had any rights. When life begins is no longer a mystery.
Bismark: Doesn’t believe that identical twins are two separate people. After all, medical science has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that two individuals can form from a single fusion of an egg and sperm, or not individuals at all, if, as in half of cases, the fertilization leads to nothing of its own accord.
But really, your hard and fast beliefs about what makes an individual preemptively excludes identical twins from the category. Why do you hate identical twins, Bismark?
By the way, you’re the one arguing with medical science. You may not be aware, so I’ll inform you, that ema is an M.D. So when you say, “You have an argument with medical science” what you mean is, “I’m a moron who is trying to tell a doctor my penile powers make me smarter about medicine than she is.”
I’m dying laughing, by the way. You could have clicked over and found out she’s way smarter than you’ll ever be on this point, but you just assumed you knew more, and I think we all know the reason why.
But this has nothing to do with sexism! Nothing at all. Er, science religion um pulleditoutmyass, whatever can make your sexism sound a little more sound than, “Because I believe bitches ain’t shit neener neener neener.”
Bismarck,
Your argument is with medical science not me.
The abortion debate has always centered on whether the human life in the womb had any rights. When life begins is no longer a mystery.
You are confused:
1) I’m not arguing with you. I’m just exposing you to some medical facts.
2) Define “life.”
Amanda, ema may be a doctor (although Bismarck wonders how long that has been allowed to happen), but as you pointed out, Bismarck
ishas a dick.In the Rock, Paper, Scissors of life, the dick always wins…
Amanda,
I think that you know better than that.
Dude, for no good reason, you dissed identical twins. I believe that they are separate, unique people because I define people differently than you do. I think separate consciousness=separate person. You think unique DNA=separate person. Which means, by your own definition, that two identical twins, even though they have different minds, different birth certificates, different lives—are one person.
Clearly, I’m the one who is pro-life here, because I believe people have lives worth respecting, not nuclei or DNA molecules. I’m pro-life, dude. You appear to be pro-molecule. Save the O3! At what point, I have to wonder why you willingly eat at all, because every time you consume an individual plant or animal, you are destroying some unique DNA.
Amanda,
If you do know him better than that, let me say I am very, very sorry.
;)
As a major fan of DNA, Bismarck, I’m assuming you’re an evolution buff? Are you out there fighting the good fight against the creationists? Because boy, talk about some people that are against unique DNA, with its implications for descent with modification.
Bismarck had better never learn about the case of reabsorption of one zygote by another….which also happens.
Read somewhere that a certain percentage of people are walking around with more than one set of DNA due to this. (Supposedly causes problems with the body’s immune system–> one potential cause of auto-immune illnesses.)
Amanda,
I’m glad that you are entertained. I am well aware that there are many people who are smarter than I.
However, my only purpose was to provide some information that I believe had not been mentioned. I don’t believe that your personal attacks upon me contribute to the quality of the discussion. I know that you are smarter than that.
ema is a physician and I am a retired communications technician who merely quoted renowned scientist. I dare say that I have spoken with pro-choice physicians who have agreed with Dr. Lejeune on the question of when life begins.
I don’t know of any poll taken of the practitioners of medical science on where the majority stands on the question of when human life begins, but I have not encountered any who take your position. I realize that is merely anecdotal. Perhaps one of your readers has knowledge of such information.
I wrote recently about such a person, who had the DNA of two people. Sane people who realize that a person is more than molecule of DNA would realize that really, she’s just one person, but I’m sure Bismarck who thinks “one set of DNA=one person” would say she’s two people, right?
Probably not. His belief that personhood is determined by unique DNA is limited to when that is a convenient “secular” argument to paper onto his religious dogma.
Interestingly, by the one set of DNA=one person argument, separate sperm and eggs are also people, because before they fuse, a sperm and an egg also have DNA that’s separate from the host person. So when they fuse, that’s like the end of two people to create one! So like conception is murder!
I shouldn’t drive home the stake, but I’m a mean asshole. Now for a coda—some Bill Hicks.
“I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest with a gray gym sock.”
And really, the opinions of medical scientists as to when the soul invades a fetus probably varies, Bismarck, which is why religious questions like those are up to personal morality and not a matter of law, by dint of the First Amendment. But we can all agree that a born person is a person with rights, even those of us who don’t believe in souls. As to whether or not a “person” can be defined as you define it, “a creature possessing unique DNA”, well obviously, as you learned, the answer is absolutely not. That means a zucchini is a person, but an identical twin is not.
Thank you for your kind consideration of the information provided. The opinion of the court that follows summarizes the testimony - pro and con on the question. Perhaps you can find more cause for amusement.
The following is excerpted from the opinion of the court in the case of Junior L. Davis vs. Mary Sue Davis in the Circuit Court for Blount County, Tennessee, at Maryville, Equity Division (Division I)
Embryos—The Experts
Of the eight witnesses who gave testimony in this case, five of the witnesses presented themselves possessing the requisite knowledge, special skill, experience and education necessary to establish themselves as experts12 in their respective fields of professional endeavor.
Because of her special training as a Registered Nurse, Mrs. McCarter is an expert witness; Dr. King13 is a Medical Doctor and is a well qualified specialist in the field of Infertility/Reproductive Endocrinology; Dr. Shivers14 is a well qualified Embryologist and is experienced in the laboratory work necessary for in vitro fertilization and cryogenic storage of human embryos; Professor Robertson” is an eminently qualified Professor of Law whose scholarly treatises, dealing primarily with non-coital reproduction, have served as the basis for consideration of many medical-legal subjects; and Dr. Jerome Lejeune16 is an eminently qualified Medical Doctor, Doctor in Science, Professor of Fundamental Genetics and recognized throughout the world in his specialty, Human Genetics.
The expert witnesses (except Mrs. McCarter) offered opinions to assist the court in determining when human life begins. It should be noted that all four witnesses agree that the seven cryopreserved embryos are human; that is, “belonging or relating to man; characteristic of man …”"
The Court finds and concludes that the seven cryopreserved embryos are human.
Preembryo, vs. Embryo: Human Beings
Three of the experts, however, respectfully disagree with Dr. Lejeune that the human embryos are in “being;” that is, in “existence; conscious existence; as, things brought into being by generation …..or living, alive18. The three experts insist the entities are at a stage in development where they simply possess the potential for life.
In the analysis of the testimony offered on the point of whether or not the seven embryos are human beings, the Court believes it is helpful to even further condense the already summarized opinion testimony (Appendix B)19 of each expert on the subject:
Dr. Irving Ray King: There is a first a one-cell gamete20, a zygote (after the first cell divides), a preembryo (up to 14 days after fertilization) and finally an embryo (after 14 days and upon cell differentiation).
Dr. Charles Alex Shivers: A preembryo is a zygote up to 11-14 days and consists largely of undifferentiated cells; that after attachment to the uterus wall and the appearance of the primitive streak, the cells then become different; that is organs, organ systems, body parts and the like are formed. At the time of fertilization, genetic controls are “locked in forever” and control who the preembryo will later be, but, “….as far as we know … to my knowledge … ,there is no way to distinguish the cells [at the zygote stage] … [T]hey are the same [undifferentiated] …..
Professor John A. Robertson: A human preembryo is an entity composed of a group of undifferentiated cells which have no organs or nervous system. That at about 10-14 days, the preembryo attaches itself to the uteran wall, develops its primitive streak and life then commences. It is
. . not clear …..that a human preembryo is a unique individual; that simply because fertilization has occurred, the gamete contributors have not procreated21.
Dr. Jerome Lejeune: Each human has a unique beginning which occurs at the moment of conception. Embryo: “… that youngest form of a being …” Preembryo: there is no such word. There is no need for a subclass of the embryo to be called a preembryo, because there is nothing before the embryo; before an embryo there is only a sperm and an egg; when the egg is fertilized by the sperm the entity becomes a zygote; and when the zygote divides it is an embryo. When the first cell exists, all the “tricks of the trade” to build itself into an individual already exists. Shortly after fertilization at the three-cell stage, a “… tiny human being …..exists. When the ovum is fertilized by the sperm, the result is “… the most specialized cell under the sun …’; specialized from the point of view that no other cell will ever have the same instructions in the life of the individual being created. No scientist has ever offered the opinion that an embryo is property. As soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man. New findings recited [Jeffrey’s-DNA]22 23 definitely prove differentiation and that from the very beginning there exists an embryo.
Dr. King, Dr. Shivers and Professor Robertson rely at least to some degree on the report of the Ethics Committee of The American Fertility Society24 in forming the basis of their opinions. Each makes a distinction between “embryo” and “preembryo” in conformity to the AFS guidelines.
The ethical considerations by the committee for the AFS were referred to in, cited and relied upon by the Brief25 filed by Mr. Davis; testimony was given about the Committee and its work. Professor Robertson is a member of the Ethics Committee, Dr. King is a member of the American Fertility Society and various witnesses gave testimony indicating reliance on the pronouncements of the Committee.
The AFS guidelines were published by the Society in September, 1986 after the Committee’s last deliberation on April 14, 1986 in Norfolk, Virginia26. The guidelines were promulgated by the committee pursuant to the charge of the Society’s President by letter dated November 7, 198427, requesting the committee to address ethical issues regarding reproduction and to disseminate the committee’s knowledge of these positions on those matters.
In its report, the committee defined the term “preembryo”, and prefaced its definitions section with the following language:
“In order to avoid confusion, the committee found it necessary to adopt certain definitions for the purposes of this document.” [Emphasis supplied]28 The Committee then defined the word preembryo this way:
“A preembryo is a product of gametic union from fertilization to the appearance of the embryonic axis. The preembryonic stage is considered to last until 14 days after fertilization. This definition is not intended to imply a moral evaluation of the preembryo.”19
In reviewing the guidelines, it is of interest to call attention to several considerations set-forth in the report. One of those considerations is the recognition by the committee that there are several respected views relative to the moral and legal status of a preembryo. The committee adopted this view:
“A third view—one that is most widely held—takes an intermediate position between the other two. It holds that the preembryo deserves respect greater than accorded to human tissue but not the respect accorded to actual persons. The preembryo is due greater respect than any other human tissue because of its potential to become a person and because of its symbolic meaning for many people. Yet, it should not be treated as a person, because it has not yet developed the features of personhood, is not yet established as developmentally individual, and may never realize its biologic potential.”3°
Under the heading “Emerging Consenus On Preembryo Status,” the following statement is made:
“The Ethics Advisory Board, for example, unanimously agreed in 1979 that “the human embryo [i.e., preembryo in this report] is entitled to profound respect, but this respect does not necessarily encompass the full legal and moral rights attributed to persons” (Ethics Advisory Board, 1979).” [Emphasis supplied.]31
In the Committee’s summary of points of special interest, the following is found:
“The Committee finds that the human preembryo is not a person but is entitled to respect because it has the potential to become a person. This view limits the circumstances in which a preembryo may be discarded or used in research ..”32
The Court finds and concludes that the report of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society constitutes guidelines for those professionals involved in the field of fertility treatment; as Professor Robertson testified, they constitute guidelines for these professionals to be primarily utilized for litigation purposes. In other words, they are the self-imposed standards one professional would testify must be met by another professional, for example, in a medical malpractice suit. The guidelines do not have the force and effect of the law but must be considered by this Court for whatever probative33 value they may possess.
The Court finds and concludes that the guidelines of the AFS do not serve as authority for this Court in making a determination of whether the seven human embryos in question are human beings, and concludes the term “preembryo” has arisen in this suit primarily because the AFS Committee chose that term to avoid the confusion for the purposes of its own guidelines. The Court has made a thorough search of encyclopedias and dictionaries of which the Court may take judicial notice and the Court can nowhere find the word “preembryo” defined nor can the Court find even a reference to that term.
Careful scrutiny of the testimony and an exhibit at the trial gives the Court even greater assurance that the term “preembryo” serves as a false distinguishing term in this case.
Exhibit 8, at the trial, are the handwritten notes of Dr. King. Dr. King’s notes concerning the status of his patient, Mary Davis, covering the period of time from December 8, 1988 at 10:08 a.m. through and including December 10, 1988 at 3:31 p.m., all refer to the ova after fertilization as “embryo”; and the last document in that series of notes makes reference to the “condition of embryo” and variously describes the seven embryos as “… 4 cell embryo-perfect……
The Court finds it curious that Dr. King, who adopts the AFS guideline definition of a “preembryo” to distinguish it from an “embryo” would in his own notes call them embryo(s).
Counsel for Mr. Davis furnished the Court a revised copy of Professor Robertson’s paper34 written recently by him (probably finished in July, 1989), dealing specifically with the case at bar. The solution Professor Robertson set-forth in his paper is the same solution he offered through his testimony. He was asked about that opinion on direct examination by Counsel for Mr. Davis; he was cross-examined by Counsel for Mrs. Davis about his opinion cited therein. The paper is entitled Resolving Disputes Over Disposition of Frozen Embryos; from the title page through 31 additional pages (the entire text), Professor Robertson, speaking about the case at bar, referred time and again to the “embryos.”
It is curious that this very scholarly paper does not reflect the very fine distinction between “preembryo” and “embryo” made by Professor Robert son throughout his testimony at the trial.
The Court is persuaded that the debate between these most sincere and knowledgeable witnesses perhaps boils down to much the same debate Sweet Juliet had with herself when she rationalized her strong affection for Romeo, who was not a Montague:
“… ‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
… What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet …”35
The Court finds and concludes there is no such term as “preembryo”; that to use the term in the context of this case creates a false distinction, one that does not exist. The Court finds and concludes the seven cryopreserved entities are human embryos.
The danger comes from the chance that the baby will use his tiny fingers to pop some pills out of the bubble pack and accidentally aspirate them into his lungs and choke to death.
Ohh, it’s WAAAYYYY worse than that: it could be a boy baby, and he could eat them and get turned into a BOY GIRL BABY by all them icky girl hormones and that.
Then he’d die horribly when his wonderful fundamentalist thug classmates beat him to death for being a boygirl. That’s why we gots to ban them so our boys don’t become boygirls!
Bizsmack, I have two words for you to search up on that there googleing thang:
“Molar Pregnancy”
Now how much would you blather about spermy plus eggy = life?
The danger comes from the chance that the baby will use his tiny fingers to pop some pills out of the bubble pack and accidentally aspirate them into his lungs and choke to death.
Heh, Orange, good one. But since the placenta does the breathing for the fetus, not the fetal lungs, as long as the placenta doesn’t stuff itself with pills we’re back to the Norbizness method.
–No, no, no: the pills *fall* on the fetus, and knock it out of the uterus.
“Molar Pregnancy”
You mean your *teeth* can get pregnant?!?
EEEWWW!
Does that mean flossing kills babies, too?
Ooohhh, that reminds me of the wonderful ovarian tumor variety known as a germ cell teratoma! With teeth and hair, it must be human life!
Amanda, I’m not sure if I’m nitpicking your argument per se or just nitpicking something that seems to be underlying this thread, but it’s bugging me, so here goes:
In the original post, you discuss mostly how opposition to birth control and recasting birth control as abortion shows that anti-choicers care more about controlling women than about saving babies. And I agree completely with that.
And obviously, the primary and principal way the pill works is by preventing ovulation. No argument there.
But when you ask people not to argue that pregnancy begins at implantation (which is the standard medical/biological definition of pregnancy) and insist that there is no way that the pill ever, under any circumstances, could possibly make it less likely that a fertilized egg would implant, I think you’re detracting from your own point, which ultimately is that women have standing as human beings with agency and the right to control their lives.
I understand that the pill is a very popular form of birth control and is the one you yourself have chosen. Perhaps you feel an understandable need to defend it above other kinds of birth control. But by insisting with 100 percent certainty that the pill never, ever makes it less likely a fertilized egg would implant, you are staking the legitimacy of the pill on something you cannot prove and opening up other forms of birth control to further attack on the basis that they are even more likely prevent implantation.
That’s not quite right. You’re not the one staking the legitimacy of the pill on when life begins. You’re responding to an attack on something very important to all of us, but somehow your defense is leaving an opening that I’m not comfortable with.
I hope you don’t take this as concern trolling. I’m trying to work through something here, and I understand that’s hard to do that when you have folks like seroj and Bismark posting here, but I fear that by insisting that the pill never prevents implantation and asking people not to get into implantation as the start of pregnancy, you’re leaving open this whole flank that suggests that if it did prevent implantation, the anti-choicers might have a point. And they wouldn’t.
Bismark,
ema is a physician and I am a retired communications technician who merely quoted renowned scientist. I dare say that I have spoken with pro-choice physicians who have agreed with Dr. Lejeune on the question of when life begins.
No need for appeals to authority or opinion surveys. Direct observation works quite well in science. All you have to do is to look into a microscope and observe the totipotent cells.
I don’t know of any poll taken of the practitioners of medical science on where the majority stands on the question of when human life begins, but I have not encountered any who take your position. I realize that is merely anecdotal. Perhaps one of your readers has knowledge of such information.
As soon as you define “life” I’m sure we can look up the information.
Also, plainly Bismark is going to save a ton the next time he builds a house. All he has to do is go to an architect and have a set of blueprints drawn up. Voila! He will have a house of his very own. Because in Bismark’s world, blueprints=finished product.
DNA is the blueprints, dude. Not the person.
“DNA is the blueprints, dude. Not the person.”
Maybe Bismarck’s brain IS the same mush it was at birth, or the nothing it was at conception. Now you’ve made him feel like a freak. Congratulations, you insensitive meanies who pointed it out.
I think I can come up with a definition all scientists can agree on: Life began billions of years ago as one-celled critters first emerged. It’s continued unbroken since then. Any individual human being is a unique expression of the unbroken chain, but so is any cat, single-celled bacteria or egg that you scramble in your breakfast. A fetus is a unique link in the chain of life, but so is a sperm.
Everything after that is a matter of personal belief.
Clearly, for the sake of the self-interest of us all, we should create a definition of personhood that gives people rights that we all agree to honor so that the peace is kept and so that all of us are treated in a way we deem fair. There’s two modes of thought on what’s best, and both retain abortion rights (as any definition really should for legal purposes, because any definition that gets rid of abortion rights takes women out of the class we deem “persons”, and that’s unacceptable for reaching our goals of rights for all). One is that persons are those with separate consciousnesses. This has in its favor that it’s clearly what people believe, except when they’re fudging in order to take women’s rights away, because they don’t want women to have rights. We think identical twins are separate people, ergo separate consciousnesses=separate people. Fetuses do not have consciousnesses by any definition until well into the 3rd trimester, which is already an area where abortions are only performed under emergency circumstances.
Or we can define human beings on the basis of bodily intergrity. One body, one person. That means you’re a person when you’re born, but has troubling implications for Siamese twins.
I think it’s simplest to say that one consciousness is one person, but also point out that no person has a right to leech off another for life. You don’t get my kidney just because you need it. So it’s probably fine to say that a late term pregnancy contains a person, so long as women retain the right to abort late term pregnancies, which again is only done under emergency situations. But because pre-consciousness fetuses have less claim to personhood than even a cat or a dog, than there is no moral problem with early term abortion.
I think, because of the 1st Amendment, people have a right to believe in magic, if they wish, and if they believe that a zygote is a person by dint of magic, they are free to believe that. But they have no more right to impose their magic on me in this case than they do to force me to say a rosary.
But when you ask people not to argue that pregnancy begins at implantation (which is the standard medical/biological definition of pregnancy) and insist that there is no way that the pill ever, under any circumstances, could possibly make it less likely that a fertilized egg would implant, I think you’re detracting from your own point, which ultimately is that women have standing as human beings with agency and the right to control their lives.
Because it’s a red herring to distract from the point that women have rights that need to be defended. We get into a squall over when pregnancy begins, and the anti-choicers get to argue airy, philosophical points and take the conversation away from the fact that they think the vast majority of American women are murderers.
I think it’s a much better point to point out that they think that by not providing a sex cell to get pregnant, you’ve all but shot a person in the head.
That means, if applied fairly, that women who don’t have sex this month are murderers, pregnant women who aren’t ovulating are murderers, and men who masturbate are murderers. It even means that men who manage to get a woman pregnant as often as possible are murderers, because only one out of millions of sperm touches an egg, and the rest of those little “persons” die.
By pointing out that they think that retaining your sex cells is as good as murder, you have to force them to argue that all human beings everywhere are murdering all the time, because we kill sex cells non-stop.
Or they have to admit that they are lying about the murder stuff, and this is about making sure that women don’t have rights.
See, Bismarck has been able to ignore that birth control pills work by preventing ovulation and is just copying piles of text, hoping to drown out the doubts that his belief that women’s rights=murder doesn’t actually have a scientific backing. If we made him admit that he’s actually arguing that women are murdering simply by not fertilizing an egg, then every wet dream he’s had should put him in jail for life, then he’s sort of up a creek and has to come clean.
Long story short, it’s because they give you the fertilization/implantation red herring to distract you from the facts and confuse the issue. Just don’t take the bait. Point out that the pill works, in the practical sense, like a condom.
For whatever reason, some women are going to believe killing a fertilized egg is wrong and just not fertilizing it in the first place is okay. Anti-choicers are trying to trick those women into getting pregnant against their will by talking them out of using contraception. For their sake, keeping the discussion on clear terms, and not talking about unprovable and unlikely possibilities that confuse the issue, is best. We shouldn’t, as pro-woman sorts, want any woman to get tricked into pregnancy.
It may be useful to point out that the consciousness standard is one we currently use as a gradient, both in regards to how much privilege we give other species and individuals of our own. How we treat and what we do with animals is greatly determined by how much consciousness they have. Insects can be squashed without qualm, but harming a dolphin is abhorrent. And with humans, we don’t let 2 year olds drink or vote. Hell, we don’t even let someone under 35 become president. But when you hit the benchmark of 16 year consciousness, you’re capable of driving. So when you look at where a fetus fits into the standards we already have, it’s pretty damn low.
Part of the problem is that people use the word “theory,” in casual conversation, when they really mean “I have a hypothesis.”
You start with a hypothesis, and in the absence of supporting proof, you discard the hypothesis. Only hypotheses that can be proven get to be called theories but scientists, unlike the rigid-minded idiots that come up with crap like this, are willing to discard theories if a) the facts that support the proof are shown to be incorrect or b) new facts are uncovered that alter or destroy the theory.
Nice to see the anti-abortion movement finally showing their true colors, and admitting that they don’t really care about the fetusses, but that they just can’t stand womand having sex. Why not just say that, instead of this convuluted approach?
I’ve got another one: Men not having constant sex KILL BABIES!
was that friendly enough to keep up? Or do I have to tone it down more? Or is it just that you don’t want to hear my hypothesis?
uhh, whoops… Ignor the last paragraph on that, it’s a copypaste from a post I made on a less-then-objective blog elsewhere.
deep6 @ 21 quotes thusly from the website:
Minor health benefits, my left toenail. I have PCOS. Before I was diagnosed, I’d already lost one ovary due to a cyst that caused ovarian torsion, which untreated could have led to life-threatening infection. The pill makes sure that won’t happen again.
And even if they want to disregard the fact that it could save my health — if I lose the other ovary, then I’ll never be able to bear any children. That’s right, guess what, the pill actually preserves my fertility! That’ll make their heads explode.
(I’ve always been equal parts afraid and hopeful that some pharmacist would get on my case about the pill so that I could launch into that TMI rant.)
I’ve got another one: Men not having constant sex KILL BABIES!
I’ve always wondered that if abortions were illegal, wouldn’t the men responsible for the pregnancies be contributing to an ‘element’ of the crime, since the abortions wouldn’t have taken place but for their ‘activity’ in the first place?
Exactly my point. A woman doesn’t ejaculate an egg (i.e. “kill an egg”) when she masturbates to orgasm, does she? But what does a man do in the same circumstance?
I rest my case.
Amanda, I think a defense of contraception needs to be a defense of contraception. I think you’re the one taking the bait, not me. If the campaign was “The IUD Kills,” would we say “Well, they might have a point. It does prevent implantation.” I hope not. By saying “Don’t talk about fertilization vs. implantation!” I think you’re implying that if a form of contraception does prevent implantation, then it’s fair game for attack. I know that’s not what you think, but I think your argument could be extrapolated that way.
You probably think I’m splitting hairs. Maybe I am. But as someone who uses an IUD, I just see this gaping hole in the wall you’re trying to build. (And for the record, preventing implantation is not even the primary way the IUD works. The primary way it works is by thickening cervical mucus and creating a uterine environment toxic to sperm - and maybe eggs, too, though that’s less certain. I’ve seen you use misinformation about the IUD here.)
BTW, I have to say that I’d love to subpœna seroj as an expert witness for my side of this debate. For a change, I’m going to refrain from citing quotes, because in this instance the quotes are all right here, and anyone can read them. Now. Once it’s conceded that seroj’s explicit and overt position is that any fertilized egg that’s achieved viability constitutes a pregnancy, and once it’s also recognized that the mother’s position in the biological transaction which constitutes a pregnancy (remember that the mother is the provider of the egg) is, in seroj’s opinion, not to be acknowledged, what are we left with? Why, we’re left with seroj as the champion, not of the successfully fertilized egg, but of the Spermatozoön Who Lived.
Once again, I rest my case.
OK, so I’m not consistent. I’m quoting this in all its fulsome nutty goodness not only in order to ask “how on drugs do you have to be in order to come up with a speech like this” but as an example of the sorta kinda templates which rule the mental processes of people who confuse analogies with facts. Behold and learn.
OK, so I’m not consistent. I’m quoting this in all its fulsome nutty goodness not only in order to ask “how on drugs do you have to be in order to come up with a speech like this” but as an example of the sorta kinda templates which rule the mental processes of people who confuse analogies with facts. Behold and learn.
Chingona: I understand the point you are trying to make to Amanda– that it is possible that hormonal contraception might interfere with implantation in some cases– but I think you are missing Amanda’s point that since this is not something that can be proved scientifically and is not the primary mechanism by which contraception works, that it is a distraction from the larger issue. This is not a blind endorsement of a favored method of contraception, but an acknowledgment of the limits of science on the matter. As you have noted, enough women get pregnant on the Pill for us to conclude that suppressed ovulation is actually how it works in most cases.
I think I can come up with a definition all scientists can agree on: Life began billions of years ago as one-celled critters first emerged.
Bioticist.