I just got back from the Commons with my lunch, and on the sidewalks around the Hulman Memorial Student Union, someone has written messages in sidewalk chalk about emergency contraception and how it helps prevent abortions and how it needs to be made more readily available in the United States. Now, this may just be me, but isn’t emergency contraception itself actually a form of abortion? The point of emergency contraception is that if you have unprotected sex or have an accident during sex (e.g. ruptured condom), you might get pregnant and the emergency “contraception” is a way of making sure that pregnancy doesn’t hold either by killing the zygote or by preventing it from embedding itself in the uterus’ lining. If killing the zygote were done later, it’d be called “abortion” because by then, it’d be a fetus (which I prefer to call “a baby,” but that’s too personal and realistic for some people’s tastes), but apparently doing it when it’s still just a tiny sack of cells isn’t abortion, it’s “contraception.” The definition of contraception is “deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation.” I guess that by preventing the zygote to attach to the uterean walls would technically prevent impregnation, but it doesn’t prevent conception–it kills what was conceived. I think I’d need to know how emergency contraceptives work to be able to more fully understand it, but just the idea of it still makes me queasy.
There are repercussions to having sex (wanted or unwanted sex as in the cases of molestation and rape), and the biggie is making babies. That’s kind of the evolutionary point to sex, after all, and if babies are something you don’t want, then don’t let the swimmers get to the egg in the first place. I know accidents happen like I said above, but getting a super-concentrated dose of “kill-baby-now” because you might, just might be pregnant seems like overkill. I mean, the day after is hardly any amount of time to know whether there’s life there yet or not. It just seems like a rash, spur-of-the-moment sort of action to me.
I guess one of my biggest worries is the amount of abuse something like this could cause, like guys saying they don’t need to wear a condom because the girl can just swallow a whale-load of hormones the next day, or girls giving up regular birth control pills or not being as careful about them since they can just get a mega-dose the morning after. I guess it all boils down to two things: killing babies and responsibility. Most Americans are already horribly irresponsible about sex anyway, and I don’t see how this could help. Is prevention really all that hard? Are people really just that stupid that they need quick fixes and miracle cures in lieu of the smarter solutions and personal responsibility? Wait, what am I talking about–this is the United States. Of course these people just want to wave a magic wand and make it all go away. The idea of “hard work” went out of style long ago, and I guess that includes bucking up, taking responsibility for our actions, and raising our kids or being grown-up enough to say, “I fucked up” and put them up for adoption.
I dunno, this is probably all just me, but I just have issues with the idea of emergency “contraception,” mostly because I think it’s mislabeled and therefore misleading. It’s not a contraception–it’s an abortion in a bottle. It’s a quick fix for a larger problem, and I personally don’t see how it can do much good. But that’s just me–I don’t like the idea of killing babies or being irresponsible, and I bet there’s a whole slew of people out there ready and willing to jump down my throat about how wrong and ignorant I am. Let them. That’s one of the joys of free speech and free will–and I’m not changing how I feel for anyone else but me.
Well sure:
Well, people would stop eating veal if it were actually labelled "hobbled and forcefed dead baby cow" It's all in the presentation. Of course you're right, responsibility is gone.
:
Hey Erin, just checking in on you. Hope everything is going well in your world!
About the EC thing, current evidence shows that emergency contraception works mainly by preventing ovulation. Many people are not aware, but women are actually most fertile right before they ovulate–sperm stick around in the reproductive tract for around 5 days. The "usual" course of things is sex, then woman ovulates, sperm finally make it up to where egg is and egg is fertilized. Under "homepage" I left a link to discussion of the current understanding, if you're interested–that page links to the original article in the New England Journal of Medicine if you have access through your school.
So EC really is contraception and works pretty much the same way as birth control pills (or patch, or shot) do.
I personally support the use of EC. I have some myself in my medicine drawer. It's not for everyday use, but it's there in case the condom breaks. I went off my hormonal birth control a while back because we were concerned about the long-term health risks considering I had taken it for such a long time period already.
While I agree that some people are sexually irresponsible, I don't think that availability of EC or abortion really has that much to do with it. I think people tend to overlook the fact that this has always been a problem with humans as far back as you look, and the prevalence of the problem 50 or 100 years ago is underestimated. I also think it is slightly naiive to say that women who have "accidents" should carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption–in the majority of unintended pregnancies this doesn't happen for a variety of reasons. The women end up keeping the babies themselves, which is subsequently brought up in a less-than-ideal situation. It's really a matter of seeing the situation as the affected people see it instead of from an idealistic perspective–I gave up much of my idealism a while back.
Just something to think about.
baby:
You really think the reason philosophers have never been able to successfully rectify the concept of fetus in the early stages of pregnancy with "baby" is because it's too realistic and personal? You should read the book, "morality and moral controversies." It's a text for ethics 101 students. It gives you the best articles ever written on the topic. I think you over-simplify quite a lot.
Thanks!:
Hi, Acyle! Thanks for the info on EC. I wasn't sure how it worked, and my entire argument was contingent upon: IF it works this way, THEN I feel this way about it. So IF it actually killed the baby, THEN I was against it, but IF it genuinely works the same as birth control by preventing ovulation so there's no conception at all, THEN it can therefore be helpful and good.
One of the biggest reasons why I posted anything on the topic at all was so I could get feedback from other people. I don't change my opinions completely based on what other people say (that's part of being a good Existentialist), but I always want to know what other opinions are out there, what information they're based on, and how my own opinion can be more accurate based on new information. Now knowing that EC is more a form of super-concentrated birth control which prevents ovulation at all, I can rethink my stance on it and consider other possibilities. I can't really change opinions overnight–these things take some time to mull over if I want to be thorough–but I've got a better look on the topic, and that's a start. The goal of debating (in my opinion) isn't to win or lose; it's to educate and inform so people can make more informed decisions and be more open and understanding of the other side even if not everyone entirely agrees. So I'm grateful for all the feedback I've gotten, and I'm glad everyone was willing to stand up for themselves.
As for women who carry the "accidents" to term and the socioeconomic problems associated with that, I am aware that in many cases this can mess up or ruin their lives. Isn't this where society should be stepping up and stepping in? In an ideal world (and I know for damned sure this isn't it but I have yet to lose that shred of idealism which keeps me sane), they'd get they help they need, but this isn't that world and our society's too fucked up for that. I believe this side of the argument is generally about protecting the mother and not the child, but even that alters down the road because if we protect the child in lieu of the mother, then the child grows up in disadvantaged or downright horrible environments which is then against the welfare of the child.
I know there is more to this than just "killing is wrong" or "it's not really a baby yet," but in the short amount of space I gave the topic of EC, there's not room for EVERY contingency, EVERY situation. Of course it's over-simplified; I was trying to get some very broad ideas out there for discussion. Overspecify and it takes forever (kind of like this response, actually) to cover a topic. Also, I overgeneralize and call them babies because that's how I view them–not how philosophers and doctors view them. I often get the feel from people who debate this topic frequently that they don't like refering to babies as such because it's not authoritative–it's not scientific enough, it's not accurate enough, it's not philosophical enough, etc.–and by linguistic standards, when such euphamisms or technical terms are used, that is done so as to avoid the use of familiar or personal language in order to sound/be more authoritative or official. This is a personal choice. I prefer the use of the familiar because the scientific is distanced–that's what scientific language is. Fetus once had a more general term, but over time and through science and philosophy, it has become narrow and specific. I don't want to be that specific. I choose to use the word "baby" based on choice, not on philosophy or science. It may not even be the most accurate linguistically, but it is how I view it. As for realism, perhaps that's my idealism kicking in again. Damn idealism–I really ought to stop hoping for the best of humanity. 😉 This coming from an Existentialist, right.
Maybe this summer when I have time after the thesis is over and Sycamore Advantage is over, I'll check out that book and learn more about the baby/fetus argument. I want to be informed, even if it doesn't change what I believe. The most (and the best) it can do is keep me honest and truthful, and I think that's important. So thanks to everyone who has given me feedback–I have more to think about now and I really appreciate that.
baby II:
The reason that it's not correct in your passage to use the word baby is because it presumes the very point in contention. Which is circular. Which is a logical fallacy.
*Shrugs*:
I've never been in debate club or anything like that, so bear with me. This is just a blog (and a pretty poor one at that), and therefore is just a stream of consciousness of my thoughts. I'm no authority; I'm not claiming to be, and I'm no deep philosopher who understands the finer points of creating a "perfect" argument. I'm still figuring this out for myself, so it's not going to be perfectly logical–I have a lot of room to grow. If you knew me, you'd know that not everything I say makes sense to other people because I have a difficult time expressing it in a way so as to make myself clear. So if I make mistakes, I'm human. I'm working on that. Maybe in a few years I'll get a robot brain so I can catch circular logic and fallacies, hehe. Until then, I'll just blog my ideas and see where they go. 🙂
EC:
I took EC once… it costs $30 so I can definitely tell you I, along with other minimum wage workers, won't be abusing it! lol Have a good weekend and I'll have to come in and talk to you when Im over this sickness thing
Baby III: I wanna play too.:
Woman, you is dumb. Your logic is dumb. Your ideas are dumb. Your head is dumb. Ignorance does not justify ignorance so I must flame you. Mwa hahaha. Now take your piddly graduate education, sit in the corner, and cry while I recite the text book from a 101 class. This is what they did to me when I first admitted I was not totally informed about an opinion and I liked it so much I came..twice. Now cry.
Admitting ignorance is not important:
Hmmmm….Shouldn't be taken so personally. But whatever gets you there….And I do and did enjoy being shown when I was wrong…but I don't think that's masochism, it's just education. And yes, I think it's important to be right about important things.