People who support the rights of women want to reduce abortions just as much as do those who would attack the rights of women. The goal to reduce abortions is the same.
As advances in contraception continue, we shall find that abortion will become effectively obsolete--no doubt within the next 30 years.
Of course none of the "arguments" for stripping women of their rights hold any water.
There is no scientific basis for a soul, so a secular state cannot make judgements or policy decisions based on this superstitious definition of personhood. Any scientific definition rests on brain development, as that is what gives us cognition, feeling, consciousness, awareness, and human being.
Additionally, simply having human DNA is not any sort of argument to get around the fact that human life is a brain activity—something that rocks and human DNA do not have. My bowel has human DNA (and is very much alive)--but I had part of it removed without any screaming from the church pews.
In order to grant personhood to a fetus, we would have to assign it a "soul"--which is a fictional element with no basis in fact, or we would have to establish neocortical life. Even in the latter instance (which occurs after 6 months) one could still not violate the rights of the mother to her own body.
Now here is the “pro-life” view (which is anything but)--followed by the medical/scientific opinion as regards the use of emergency contraceptives. EC ought to become the default prophylactic measure in all situations where any probability of an unwanted pregnancy exists.
Pro-life view (prejudiced and biased and not factually based): EC increases abortions:
Family Research Council (FRC) is one of the leading fundamentalist Christian organizations. They frequently describe themselves as being "pro-family." They promote pre-marital abstinence, restrictions on abortion access, prevention of same-sex marriage, and reduced civil rights for gays and lesbians. Back in 2002, in one of their Washington Update reports called "Truth in Labeling," and in their article titled "Little Pills: Targeting Youth with New Abortion Drugs," the FRC describes, correctly, how EC can prevent ovulation, or prevent conception. However, they also state that EC can prevent implantation of the blastocyst -- an fertilized ovum -- in the uterine wall. 2,3 Medical researchers later concluded that this third effect is extremely unlikely or impossible.
The FRC indicates that "two percent of women said they used the morning after pill." It is not clear to what group of women they are referring. If we assume that a random sampling of all of the approximately 70 million American women in their of fertile years were involved, then this survey concluded that about 1.4 million women admitted to have taken EC by the time of the survey. Such a poll involves very personal questioning. In all probability, the actual number of users of EC is much higher -- say three million, because many women would be reluctant to discuss such a matter with an anonymous stranger. The chance of a pregnancy resulting from unprotected sex ranges from about 1% to 8%, depending upon when in the menstrual cycle the intercourse took place. A commonly accepted average is one chance in 50 or 2%. Thus, about 60,000 pregnancies were probably impacted by the use of EC. The medication is believed to be about 85% effective if taken within a day or two after unprotected intercourse. That is, 85% of the pregnancies that would have occurred without the use of Emergency Contraceptive Pills would not have occurred. Thus, EC has prevented about 50,000 pregnancies from proceeding prior to the survey. This number appears to have increased rapidly as more women become aware of the existence of EC.
Conception can happen a few days after unprotected intercourse. This would give the woman time to take EC and either prevent ovulation or conception. But, in rare instances, conception can occur within a few hours of unprotected intercourse. Thus, it is quite feasible for conception to have already taken place before the woman had an opportunity to take emergency contraception. In this latter case, research has since shown that there is a very small or even zero possibility if any that EC might interfere with implantation. However, most pro-life groups reject this finding.
Since FRC and most other pro-life groups define pregnancy as beginning at conception, and they believe that the use of EC can interrupt pregnancy by preventing the implantation in the wall of the uterus, then they believe that in a certain percentage of cases, conception will begin, the EC will prevent implantation by acting as an abortifacient. Thus a certain percentage of the 50,000 uses of EC would actually induce an abortion. Thus, the true abortion count, would have been increased by some fraction of 50,000.
This calculation is only valid if one accepts the pro-life belief that EC is capable of preventing implantation. However, as noted above, it appears that there is little or no chance that EC can interfere with implantation. If you accept this finding, then EC becomes a form of birth control and not an abortifacient. The true abortion count would not increase.
The pro-choice and medical view: EC reduces abortions:
the use of EC would eliminate the need for almost one million abortions per year. This would reduce the level of abortions to a small fraction of their present levels. A conference in India indicated that ECP could make a major impact at reducing that country's 11 million legal and illegal abortions each year. 7 Information sources provided by pro-choice, religious liberal and medical organizations state that EC prevents unwanted pregnancies and thus avoids the need for many abortions. The EC web site at Princeton University states that the:
"...use of emergency contraception does not cause an abortion. In fact, emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion. Medical science defines the beginning of pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman's uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after fertilization (and is completed several days later). Emergency contraceptives work before implantation and not after a woman is already pregnant. When a woman is already pregnant, emergency contraception does not work. Emergency contraception is also harmless to the fetus and the mother." 5
Subsequent medical research shows that it is nearly certain or impossible for EC to interfere with implantation.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that there are about 6.3 million unintended pregnancies each year in the U.S. 6 The FDA predicted that if doctors and women adopt EC, then up to 2.3 million of these pregnancies could be prevented. Since about 40% of unwanted pregnancies are terminated by abortion, the use of EC would eliminate the need for almost one million abortions per year. This would reduce the level of abortions to a small fraction of their present levels. A conference in India indicated that ECP could make a major impact at reducing that country's 11 million legal and illegal abortions each year. 7 |
