News Speak: Into the Memory Hole

Warfare in the Womb

"Of all the risks that we must face in our lives, the most dangerous place we can be is in the womb,” claims the Christian apologetics organization GodandScience.org. Even in comparison with the Middle East and war-torn countries, the female body remains the most dangerous battleground over which American legislation has ever fought. Traditionally in many cultures, a woman found her identity in bearing children. Other cultures, however, have defined women through a wide spectrum of distinctions. Aside from abstinence, the best solution to preventing unwanted pregnancies, and ultimately abortions, is the imple­mentation of birth control, including the morning-after pill.

Currently, about twenty birth control methods exist, each with varying degrees of effectiveness, but the majority of them only work before intercourse. The morning-after pill, also known as Plan B, differs from the other types in its time of effectiveness, after intercourse, providing a second hope.

A major issue of contention regarding the morning-after pill is the time of dispensation and administration. Some positional groups and individuals cannot determine when life begins so they cannot make a solid argument against conception-preventing drugs. Among these is Abort73, a division of Loxafamosity, which clearly states on one page “human life begins at fertilization,” while that very portion of text links to another page declaring, “human life begins at conception.” Harris International conducted a poll that found the beginning of life to be the biggest dividing line between pro-choice and pro-life advocates.

Independent positional groups are not the only ones attempting to pinpoint the beginning of life. Politics has dipped its own proverbial foot into the dangerous debate waters. In January of this year, Virginia delegate Mark Cole proposed a bill that would define fertilization as the beginning of life. An anonymous poster on the Virginia Family Values PAC made a valid point when arguing, “Cole might as well claim that life begins in a twinkle in the would-be Daddy’s eye.”

Regardless of the facts, too many emotions continue to influence the definitions and bend them to fit certain arguments. To avoid these complications, a more objective source provides relatively neutral definitions for the confusing, abortion issue terms. Cancer Web, a project of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, characterizes fertilization as a “process in sexual reproduction, involving the union of two specialized haploid cells, the male and female gametes to give a diploid cell, the zygote.” The egg and sperm are not magic beans that produce life when amalgamated.

Furthermore, just as the union of two bodies in sexual intercourse does not create a marriage, the union of two otherwise neutral cells does not form a life. Only when the newly formed diploid cell implants itself into the wall of the uterus does it become a viable human being. The medical com­munity—as delineated by the ethically neutral Cancer Web Project (CWP)—refers to this implantation as conception, or “the onset of pregnancy.”

In contrast, the issue with the morning-after pill is the well-intentioned, though incorrect, notion that the pill aborts a conceived zygote. This has led to the refusal of some pharmacists to distribute the pill due to ethical and religious reasons. Peggy Pace, a Walgreen’s pharmacist who has turned away at least two prescriptions for the morning-after pill, receives protection from the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act regarding her decisions. She asserts, “it will end the life of an embryo” (Villa). By the CWP definition, a zygote does not become an embryo until “about two weeks after fertilization.” That point in time is far beyond the potential reaches of the morning-after pill’s “window of opportunity,” thus making her argument void. Currently, disagreement exists among researches on how the morning-after pill works—whether the process deters the release of the egg or prevents the implantation of the zygote into the uterine wall. The significance of the distinction is the viability of the fertilized egg as a human life before conception.
Unfortunately, clarified definitions do not solve this argument on their own. Public ignorance and manipulation of emotions leave the general populace with misnomers regarding the actual pill. A common result is the confusion of the morning-after pill, which prevents pregnancy, with abortifaceints that do end a life. The list of abortion-inducing pills includes Mifepristone (RU-486), Methotrexate, and misoprostol. These pills “are never dispensed from pharmacies” and “they’re given only under the supervision of a clinic or physician,” according to Joan Villa of the Illinois Times. Ethically sensitive pharmacists such as Peggy Pace need not worry about the possibility of administering abortion-causing pills. The morning-after pill is just as ethically acceptable as the condoms sold in front of the pharmacy counter.

The arguments will remain for both sides, and the majority of people will take staunch positions without regarding the evidence or seeking the truth. Hope, nevertheless, remains for both men and women affected by the risk of a pregnancy for which neither one is ready. At the time of its effectiveness, the pill prevents a pregnancy and renders little risk to the woman. The rate of its success is not faultless, but still considerably good. Considering the alternative, a decent chance is better than no chance at all. Thus, the morning-after pill serves as an ethically acceptable form of birth control.♦

posted by Lynette @ 12:50 PM