New at Reason

gaius marius|1.12.05 @ 3:29PM|#

it's difficult enough, isn't it?

|1.12.05 @ 3:33PM|#

Does this "behind the pharmacist" rating exist for any other drug?

Gimme Back My Dog|1.12.05 @ 3:36PM|#

women in the pharmacy access and advance provision groups did not experience a significant reduction in pregnancy rate.

This is only surprising if you still buy into the notion of "unwanted pregnancy". Any woman-- outside of those unable to consent-- in 2005 who gets pregnant only does so because she wants to get pregnant.

|1.12.05 @ 3:37PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog-
Or if the contraceptives used by her or her partner fail.

|1.12.05 @ 3:41PM|#

Ron,

Plan B isn't just a contraceptive; it doesn't just "prevent" pregnancy. From the first link in your article:

How does Plan B work (mechanism of action)?
Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium. [emphasis mine]

In the case of preventing implantation, Plan B is essentially an abortifacient. It makes it impossible for an already-existing embryo to implant, resulting in the embryo's destruction.

True, many on the pro-life side seem to believe that contraception encourages promiscuity -- a conclusion I find as dubious as you do. But don't pretend that's their only reason for opposing this drug.

|1.12.05 @ 3:44PM|#

I feel so dirty.

|1.12.05 @ 3:47PM|#

It makes it impossible for an already-existing embryo to implant, resulting in the embryo's destruction.

Does that mean we should ban spermicides? Or are sperm only half a person? Is 26* chromosomes the basis for significant life, and what does that do to lesser organisms with less chromosomes?

*Not sure of the number. Its been a while since I had biology.

|1.12.05 @ 3:53PM|#

I wondered if this was just an oversight on Ron's part, but then I came across this line:

It has no effect once an egg is firmly implanted in the uterine wall.

:sigh: Ron, I trust you know that eggs don't implant in the uterine wall, embryos do. I expect more from you and your colleagues than misleading propaganda for the pro-choice side of every life issue.

|1.12.05 @ 3:55PM|#

PintofStout,

If you want to see my side of the embryo vs sperm debate, look in the archives. We've discussed it at least once a week.

Gimme Back My Dog|1.12.05 @ 3:57PM|#

Jennifer,

Yes, I meant any woman who has unprotected sex, not any woman who gets pregnant. In the case of failed contraceptives, somehting like Plan B wouldn't work since the woman in question wouldn't know she needed it until it was too late.

|1.12.05 @ 4:01PM|#

I would consider myseld pro-life. Meaning: it's my life, leave me the hell alone!

|1.12.05 @ 4:02PM|#

Crimethink,
How far do I have to go back before I stop seeing "refer to the archives"?

|1.12.05 @ 4:02PM|#

Monty Python theology aside, nobody actually thinks a sperm is a person, Goddammit.

|1.12.05 @ 4:05PM|#

If an embryo is a person, why not a sperm? Afterall, an embryo is only, what, 100 times more cells?

|1.12.05 @ 4:07PM|#

it's the individualism of the sperm that is ruining incubation ;)

|1.12.05 @ 4:13PM|#

no one notices ripped/torn/lost condoms?

|1.12.05 @ 4:13PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog,
They know if the condom breaks.

|1.12.05 @ 4:18PM|#

Interesting that they said GIRLS under 16 would require a prescription.

So I guess the brazen hussies' slap & tickle partner can walk up and get Plan B without a prescription?

|1.12.05 @ 4:19PM|#

POS,

To put it briefly, the difference is that a single-cell zygote develops into something else on its own (a two-celled embryo, then four, etc); a sperm will remain a 23-chromosomed half-cell for the duration of its existence.

Or, to look at it another way, if you believe that a living, breathing human being is a person, search back through the history of their existence for a moment of sudden and profound change at which you could say a non-person became a person. The first one you'll find is when two 23-chromosome half-cells, which were incapable of further development on their own, combined to form a single 46-chromosome cell which had the ability to divide and grow.

|1.12.05 @ 4:27PM|#

:sigh: Ron, I trust you know that eggs don't implant in the uterine wall, embryos do. I expect more from you and your colleagues than misleading propaganda for the pro-choice side of every life issue

*Sigh* Crimethink, I trust you have SOME ability of reading comprehension. When you look at the preceding sentence in the article, it is clear that Ronald is referring to a fertilized egg in the statement "It has no effect once an egg is firmly implanted in the uterine wall."

Personally, I really don't expect more from you than distortion for the anti-abortion side. You're batting a thousand, kid.

|1.12.05 @ 4:27PM|#

...sudden and profound change...

That makes a lot more sense to me and it's the first I heard it. THanks for actually summing it up.

|1.12.05 @ 4:29PM|#

It is funny how this seems to get the cart before the horse. I suppose the issue of EC may be more timely since a company has actually applied for OTC status for it (though it's kind of old news). But how about an argument for making the pill available over the counter as it should be instead of being held hostage to coerce women into birth control counseling and into submitting to pelvic and breast exams? Why should EC be OTC while regular BCPs remain prescription-only?

|1.12.05 @ 4:31PM|#

Kirsten,
What is EC?

Excuse my ignorance.

Jeff|1.12.05 @ 4:33PM|#

What about the rights of the unconceived?

|1.12.05 @ 4:33PM|#

Please, don't forget the children?!?!?!

|1.12.05 @ 4:38PM|#

It would be easy for someone who thought that any substance should be controlled to possibly not have a problem with this. It is also very easy for someone who thinks that there should be no control (except self-control) over substances or anything by the state to see a problem with it, regardless of what drug.

|1.12.05 @ 4:44PM|#

pedant,

1. At best, "fertilized egg" is a misleading term. The result of fertilization is not merely a certain type of egg, it is a totally different type of entity. As I stated, it has 46 chromosomes and more importantly, it can divide and grow. An egg cannot. At the very least, it is misleading to refer to an embryo simply as an "egg", since the latter term usually refers to a female reproductive cell.

2. Ron's distortion of the issue is not limited to that line. He makes it seem as if the only reason anyone opposes this drug is because they believe it encourages promiscuity. Now, he states that the drug can prevent implantation of an embryo, yet doesn't seem to recognize that destroying unimplanted embryos is a hotly debated topic in its own right...despite having written many articles regarding the politics of embryonic stem cell research.

|1.12.05 @ 4:49PM|#

Pint-
EC - emergency contraceptive (I believe)

crimethink,
We've gone over this before, but the previous major change I can think of is birth. When it can breathe, eat and survive on its own (yes a baby needs help with some of those things, but it no longer requires someone else's digestive system and circulatory system to survive). I don't want to get into the whole debate of when a person is a person, but ignoring the actual birth and calling fertilization the only major event that changes personhood is a pretty major oversight.

|1.12.05 @ 4:56PM|#

crimethink says:

"yet doesn't seem to recognize that destroying unimplanted embryos is a hotly debated topic in its own right..."

Over sixty percent of Americans favor stem cell research. The only "debate" comes from high level politicians who use the power of the state to their own ends. But California has changed that, and others will soon follow suit.

|1.12.05 @ 4:57PM|#

Crimethink, an IUD also prevents implantation, but that doesn't make it a 10 year ongoing abortion.

Plan B may not be ideal, but it beats the hell out of a 20th week D&E.

|1.12.05 @ 4:58PM|#

crimethink,
Also, you can't say an embryo develops "on its own," it requires a womb and a whole lot of energy, help, etc. from its host (since it could be in a body other than its mothers). While a baby requires feeding, care, etc., it does not require specialized "equipment". Any idiot can take care of a baby, feeding it, keeping it warm, etc., a developing embryo cannot survive without a womb or, in later stages, highly specialized medical equipment.

|1.12.05 @ 5:01PM|#

kmw,

So once a majority supports something, the debate is over? Geez, we might as well just give up talking about social security reform and drug legalization, since I'm sure over 60% of Americans favor the status quo in those areas.

|1.12.05 @ 5:02PM|#

Remind me again what role the FDA is supposed to play in this debate?

|1.12.05 @ 5:12PM|#

Mo,

The fetus has his/her own circulatory system from quite early in gestation (~10 weeks iirc). If the fetus were merely hooked up to the mother's circulatory system, everyone would have to have the same blood type as their mother.

Also, for some time before birth, the fetus' digestive system is ready to go; it is not used simply because the placenta is still there to provide nutrition. Ditto for the respiratory system.

Really, birth is not a major occurrence at all in the internal development of a human being. Only the respiratory system is immediately affected by it, and as I said, it doesn't really undergo any changes, it just gets jump-started.

|1.12.05 @ 5:21PM|#

Re: implantation - In the recent article by Ron about embryonic stem cell research, wasn't part of the point that a small MAJority of fertilized embryos/eggs get flushed out naturally? Therefore, Plan B's function is to increase the likelihood of an already likely result, right?

|1.12.05 @ 5:22PM|#

crimethink,

George Barna did a poll in the last year that found 33% of Americans favor converting the United States into an official theocracy.

Once you cross the 60% boundary, you�re going to encounter the fringe groups that will hold all kinds of illogical views. I�d be willing to bet that 30% of all Americans are racists. That doesn�t mean there�s any chance in hell of going back to pre-1950s America. In the Senate, 60% is enough to end debate.

|1.12.05 @ 5:23PM|#

Mo again,

Actually, between fertilization and implantation, the embryo does not interact at all with the mother's body. Yet it still develops.

In any case, the phrase "on its own" was meant to convey that a sperm must meet an ovum in order to become something else. Whereas an embryo develops at first without depending on meeting another entity.

|1.12.05 @ 5:26PM|#

And yes, I guess that makes libertoids a fringe group.

The few. The Proud. The Libertarians.

|1.12.05 @ 5:30PM|#

Maurkov,

An IUD does indeed bring about abortions. By preventing implantation, it causes the destruction of embryos.

temporary K,

How would you feel about intentionally infecting a few sub-Saharan Africans with HIV? Since a relatively high percentage of them would contract it anyway, all you're doing is making a likely result more likely.

|1.12.05 @ 5:39PM|#

I would LOVE to go to a pharmacy in one of our more uptight states and buy a six-pack of these things. I doubt I'd ever use a single one; I just want to practice the technique of legalized murder known as "goading someone into a heart attack."

|1.12.05 @ 5:40PM|#

kmw,

Do you have more information on that "official theocracy" poll? Forgive me for being a bit skeptical.

Needless to say, I vehemently disagree with your contention that if more than 60% agree on something, the debate is over. At various times, more than 60% have approved of Bush's job performance, the Iraq war, and opposed medical marijuana. Yet the debate on those topics was far from over.

|1.12.05 @ 5:44PM|#

Jennifer,

As always, if a pharmacy's customers or employees were that opposed to the drug, they would be free not to stock it. At least until the Dems take back the White House.

Sorry to spoil your fun. ;-)

|1.12.05 @ 5:45PM|#

Crimethink,

Sure thing!!!!

Here you go:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=168

|1.12.05 @ 5:45PM|#

Crimethink-
I don't care about the pharmacists; I'm gunning for the "Do it for my children!" soccer moms.

|1.12.05 @ 5:51PM|#

Crimethink,

I must point out, I'm not suggesting that you keep you voice quiet on your heartfelt beliefs. The more gadflies in society, the better.

I'm just suggesting that if your view has less then 40% support, you have a rough road ahead of you to change things.

|1.12.05 @ 5:52PM|#

kmw,

Um, yeah. Does it not strike you as odd that, according to Barna's poll, 8% of atheists, and a full 21% of non-Christians, support a constitutional ammendment making Christianity the official religion of the US? Needless to say, I think Mr. Barna cooked the results.

|1.12.05 @ 5:56PM|#

When was that poll taken? How soon after Islam was the percieved Enemy-of-Freedom-to End-All-Enemies-of-Freedom?

|1.12.05 @ 5:57PM|#

Jennifer,

In that case, you've just handed me another argument for keeping it prescription-only: protecting the lives of innocent soccer moms, whose personhood is not open to dispute. ;-)

|1.12.05 @ 6:01PM|#

[Gunnels alert]
My last post was a joke.
[/Gunnels alert]

|1.12.05 @ 6:03PM|#

Crimethink,
Earlier you asked the event that made someone a living, breathing human being. Your proposal was at the moment a 46 chromasome cell was formed that would begin splitting. But wouldn't it be when the breathing started?

|1.12.05 @ 6:05PM|#

Has anyone hear heard about the statistical link between abortion rights being held up in courts and 18 years later a drop in crime rates? I can't remember where it was.

|1.12.05 @ 6:06PM|#

KMW-
I'm sad to say that history is full of examples of a determined minority taking power, especially if they're willing to be vicious about it. The Bolsheviks were outnumbered by the Mensheviks; the Nazis were small in the beginning; etc.

Crimethink-
Maybe their personhood is not open to dispute in your worldview; make no such assumptions about mine.

|1.12.05 @ 6:07PM|#

Goddammit! What do I keep doing wrong with HTML?

|1.12.05 @ 6:12PM|#

Save the Soccermoms!

They're hot.

|1.12.05 @ 6:28PM|#

Jennifer,

Oh, right. Well, in that case I guess it depends on how civil the stem cell opponents are.

|1.12.05 @ 7:06PM|#

Captain Awesome,

I did not ask when someone became a living, breathing human being; my thought experiment was to think of a currently living, breathing human being and roll back through the history of their existence, looking for the time when a non-person became a person. My argument is that you won't find a time that could qualify at any point after conception.

|1.12.05 @ 7:10PM|#

KMW-
Not "stem cell opponents;" ABORTION opponents. I don't know of anyone who's ever said "I'm pro-choice on abortion, but I think stem-cell research is just wrong."

|1.12.05 @ 7:11PM|#

And the supposed legal-abortion-crime-drop study is an excellent example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after, therefore because of) fallacy. It's just as easy, and just as invalid, to link the legalization of abortion to the social security crisis, or the high cost of building due to a shortage of skilled carpenters.

|1.12.05 @ 7:13PM|#

Or, to look at it another way, if you believe that a living, breathing human being is a person, search back through the history of their existence for a moment of sudden and profound change at which you could say a non-person became a person. The first one you'll find is when two 23-chromosome half-cells, which were incapable of further development on their own, combined to form a single 46-chromosome cell which had the ability to divide and grow.

That's like saying, "Take red and blue, and search through the colors between them for the point where red becomes blue." Just because you can't point to an exact point where X becomes Y doesn't mean that X is the same as Y. The same thing happens in languages; you can travel the route Lisbon - La Coruna - Madrid - Barcelona - Toulouse - Paris - Geneva - Genoa - Naples without encountering a place where people in neighboring villages can't understand each other. Does that mean that Italian and Portuguese are the same language?

It's very easy to be able to say that you think that a baby and a fertilized egg are different entities, that one is a person and the other is not, without being able to draw a clear line as to where the difference is. We're talking about the endpoints on a continuum here. I don't think that it's necessarily wrong to think that a fertilized egg is a person, but it's not nearly so clear cut as you make it out to be.

|1.12.05 @ 7:14PM|#

Jennifer,

Actually, the original 60% figure given by kmw was in regard to stem cell research, which I had maintained was a hotly debated topic.

|1.12.05 @ 7:23PM|#

Crimethink-
Oh. Well, I still think it's safe to assume there's a LOT of overlap in the anti-abortion and anti-stem cell communities.

I thought Grylliade's metaphor was a great one. Personally, I'm pro-choice and think "person" status comes when the fetus is capable of an independent biological existence--breathe with its own lungs, handle food with its own digestive system, and regulate its body with its own brain.

|1.12.05 @ 7:33PM|#

crimethink,
Yes, all the internal organs are developed at the time of birth and not used, but birth is still a major part. If you use the existence/nonexistence of organs then there are many points in the development that you could use, first heartbeat, first signs of brain wave activity [my personal favorite landmark], first kick, etc. To say there are no major points between a full adult and conception is dishonest.

Maybe you cannot find a time where the transition occurs, but that is the crux of the entire philosophical debate. Just because there isn't a black-white line doesn't mean it didn't happen. Birth and conception are the two most popular points for a reason, they are easy. I wouldn't say after 8 months development a fetus is not a full person, but I wouldn't say that it is after 8 days either. And yes I am biased towards differentiated organisms, I admit it that my own perception of what is and isn't a human being is biased towards having things like a nervous system. Sue me.

|1.12.05 @ 7:37PM|#

Thank you grylliade for making my point for me more eloquently.

|1.12.05 @ 7:42PM|#

grylliade,

I'm not saying that adult = baby = zygote, I'm saying that, while each is at a vastly different stage of development, they all possess personhood, and therefore the right to life. Personhood is not a quality that admits to shades of gray; you either have it or you don't.

Also, in the abortion debate, we're not simply engaging in vain speculation about baby X and zygote Y. We're asking, is it permissible to kill zygote X? What about baby Y? If X but not Y, at what point in development will X's life be protected?

These aren't merely philosophical questions, they are quite literally a matter of life and death. If you get the dividing line wrong, you risk either forcing women to continue pregnancies for no reason, or allowing innocent persons to be killed. "It's somewhere between zygote and baby" ain't gonna cut it.

|1.12.05 @ 7:44PM|#

Jennifer, HTML assistance:

I think you're having some problem ending the italicization after you start it.

As you demonstrably know, you start the italics with [i] (only you enclose the "i" with the "less than"/"greater than" symbols instead of the [ ] brackets).

What you may not know, or maybe it isn't working because of persistent typos or something, is that you need to signify the end of the italics with [/i] (only, again, you use the "less than"/"greater than symbols" instead of the [ ] brackets).

Apologies if you already know all that and there is some other problem.

|1.12.05 @ 7:49PM|#

Well, now, let's see if this works.

I think maybe I was doing i-backslash instead of backslash-i.

|1.12.05 @ 7:49PM|#

Jen, addendum -- It just occured to me that you may be using a "" instead of a "/" when you terminate the italics. That seems like the kind of error a relatively savvy but unpracticed HTML user might make.

|1.12.05 @ 7:55PM|#

Heh, cross-posting. "Great minds," etc.

|1.12.05 @ 7:56PM|#

Lisa: But you know, Bart, some philosophers believe that nobody is born with a soul -- that you have to earn one [Bart eats the piece of paper] through suffering and thought and prayer, like you did last night.

|1.12.05 @ 7:58PM|#

Mo,

How is birth a major part? Like "viability", it is totally within the control of those on the outside; it can be (and often is) induced at will. It has absolutely nothing to do with the internal development of the human being. Or does an obstetrician have the power to endow personhood by choosing when to perform a caesarean?

Regarding the alternatives you offer, according to the NIH's medical encyclopedia*, brain and heart development begin at week 3, the heartbeat is detectable at week 4-5, and brain waves are detectable at week 10-12. All these events occur during the first trimester, when RvW asserts the entity has no more rights than a blood clot. Not that I'm conceding that any of these points can really stand on its own as the beginning of personhood, but let's not kid ourselves; they're much closer to conception than to birth.

|1.12.05 @ 8:00PM|#

* the encyclopedia is available at:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

|1.12.05 @ 8:02PM|#

You know, Captain Awesome, that would make a great new Reader's Digest feature--in additiion to "Life in these United States" and "Humor in Uniform," they could have "How I Earned my Soul."

|1.12.05 @ 8:04PM|#

Crimethink-
As for Mo's talk of viability, what do you think of my idea of using biological independence? Granted, this would not be a clear-cut figure but would vary from individual to individual, but that's true of ALL major stages in human development.

|1.12.05 @ 8:05PM|#

Jennifer,
"...I'm gunning for the 'do it for my kids!' soccer moms".

You may be the funniest (intentionally) person to hang out at this blog.

Joe is still the funniest, but not necessarily funny as in humor.

|1.12.05 @ 8:08PM|#

I might add that, since RvW's scant scientific justification was based on the embryonic (pun intended) form of embryology available in 1973, those who treat its findings as gospel, despite more recent evidence that the unborn develop their vital systems very, very early in gestation, are among the most anti-scientific true believers of all.

|1.12.05 @ 8:12PM|#

Jennifer,

A search of this page finds no references to biological independence before your last post. I'm too lazy to look for it manually, so please explain what this means.

|1.12.05 @ 8:12PM|#

Jennifer: FYI, I posted the HTML 40% because I am a nice guy who loves all mankind, and 60% because I am saddled with a sexist and retro but ineradicable "white knight"/"damsel in distress" complex that compels me to render assistance to females whenever needed (and makes me terribly easy to manipulate). If you fail to say "thank you" in a breathless manner, it leaves the experience incomplete for me. :(

Oh, well. I'm off to see if I can find someone who needs a jar of pickles opened. That's hot.

|1.12.05 @ 8:13PM|#

Jennifer,

I tried to do *less than* GRIN *greater than* at the end of that post, but it apparently disappeared.

This is what I should have done:

[begin snark] Well, in that case I guess it depends on how civil the stem cell opponents are. [end snark]

The key phrase being "civil."

But you're correct on the base issue. Thank you, teacher, may I have another? [GRIN]

|1.12.05 @ 8:15PM|#

Stevo,

In that case, would kmw suggest that the nice guy who loves all mankind is doomed forever to domination by the white knight/damsel in distress persona? ;-)

|1.12.05 @ 8:17PM|#

Also, Stevo Darkly, keep in mind that for all we know, Jennifer is a 69-year-old gay man with irritable bowels.

Of course, for all you know, I might be Gary Gunnels. Kind of exciting, isn't it? :)

|1.12.05 @ 8:18PM|#

Plan B and other recent emergency contraception drugs work primarily by preventing ovulation or fertilization. There is only a slight risk of Plan B preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum. Incidentally, many common over-the-counter medications, such as Advil, also carry a slight risk of preventing implantation. Quick, let's start up a campaign against those too! Let's not be inconsistent now!

|1.12.05 @ 8:19PM|#

No, I'd say he's codependent. But who among us isn't.

|1.12.05 @ 8:21PM|#

Crimethink-
It was at 7:23, and the idea is that personhood, whatever that means, is established when the baby can live independently outside its mother--breathe and digest food on its own, fight disease with its own immune system, regulate the body with its own brain, etc. I say 'biological' independence because no baby or child can be 'independent' in the more commonly used meaning of the word.

Stevo-
Thank you. And I said that with the exact same tone of voice as that cernterfold model you dreamed about three nights ago.

KMW-
Oh. That makes a lot more sense, then.

NoStar-
Thanks.

|1.12.05 @ 8:34PM|#

Jennifer,

OK, I see. Well, firstly, all those things happen well before birth. Secondly, as you said, it'd be very difficult to determine a precise time for a particular fetus.

Thirdly, you have to consider the consequences of such a decision: adults who need machines to assist their breathing or digestion would not be considered persons either.

And lastly, are you really comfortable with the idea that our personhood flows from the proper operation of our lungs and intestines?

|1.12.05 @ 8:45PM|#

How is birth a major part? Seems like it's a pretty clear line. The whole breathing, living, etc on their own.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the internal development of the human being. Or does an obstetrician have the power to endow personhood by choosing when to perform a caesarean?

Isn't the same true regarding fertilization of an egg? A scientist can make an embryo that will do nothing, no dividing, no differentiation, without killing or freezing it? Are they making souls and messing with the big guy. Whether or not something is under control of outsiders doesn't mean it isn't significant.

I don't agree with RvW, it's a stopgap solution at best and not really the issue here anyways.

|1.12.05 @ 8:51PM|#

WOF,

I'm not convinced that the chances of preventing implantation are only "slight". The reports I've read merely say that it is possible, they don't offer odds.

And I'm sure the probability is much smaller for other medicines than it is for one whose sole purpose is to prevent one from "getting pregnant".

|1.12.05 @ 8:51PM|#

Now I feel all kinds of better.

Even though crimethink tried to ruin it for me.

Actually, crimethink, the WK/DID persona is mostly balanced out another "Evil Stevo" persona, so "nice guy who loves all mankind" usually ends up in charge, unless I have too much to drink.

Speaking of being outnumbered, crimethink, I you argue your points ably and for the most part with uncommon civilitly. (As long as you keep "Unborn Angel" and the b-word away.) This whole thread was pretty civil, actually.

|1.12.05 @ 8:54PM|#

"Civility," dammit.

|1.12.05 @ 8:58PM|#

I'm with Stevo, seems like the H&R comment boards have gotten a lot more civil during my vacation. Heck, even Gunnels is being pretty civil (but what's up with the song lyrics, does he think he's a Volokh?).

Not that I mind the civility here, I always thought it was one of the more civil comment boards that I've read.

Libertarians - We may be a fringe group, but we're a polite one.

|1.12.05 @ 8:58PM|#

Mo,

As I said before, birth has zilch to do with the internal workings of the human being. It is far-fetched indeed to say a non-person becomes a person without any fundamental physical or mental change.

Also, recall that since RvW, upwards of 35 million fetuses have been aborted legally in the US; the vast majority had beating hearts and detectable brain waves. Some stopgap.

|1.12.05 @ 9:02PM|#

I think that the end of election season did a lot to dissipate the tempers 'round here.

|1.12.05 @ 9:05PM|#

Crimethink-
Notice I did specify the brain as functioning, among other criteria, so yes, I do think it's a good definition of personhood.

I assume you are thinking of 'ensoulment.' As an atheist I of course have no such concerns, but I will tell you something that used to bother me back when I still was a Believer with a capital B:

I had been taught that good souls went to heaven, along with the souls of babies who were too young to be bad. And I had also been taught that whether or not you make it to Heaven is far, FAR more important than anything which does or does not happen in life. So from an eternal perspective, aborting an unborn baby would actually be good for the child, because it guarantees he'll go to Heaven without running the risk of growing up to be something evil, like say an atheist libertarian. (If you Christians are right, then when I'm turned away from the gates of Heaven my last rational thought before I begin my eternity of torment will be, Why oh why did I have to live to see adulthood? Why couldn't I have died when I was still a good little Christian girl? Before I read those evil Carl Sagan books?)

I remember when the Pope spoke out against giving the morning-after pill to rape victims in Bosnia, and I said to a formerly Catholic friend of mine, "But the moms are all Muslims, which means the babies will grow up to be Muslims and their souls will go to Hell! Why is the Pope so insistent on the birth of babies he KNOWS will go to hell if they live past the age of seven?"

I know this sounds like I'm being flippant, but I'm really not trying to be. This seriously did bug me. Of course, back when multiple-personality disorder was a popular movie-of-the-week theme I also wondered if they had multiple souls, too. I never could convince my Sunday-school teachers that my questions and concerns were sincere.

|1.12.05 @ 9:05PM|#

Ha! Now that I'm free, living, breathing, and digesting on my own, I will wreak vengeance on all who dared oppose me! They will all wish they were dancing in toilet bowls, mwwhaaahaa.

As the wolf-spaceship said in that arcade game, BEWARE I LIVE!

|1.12.05 @ 9:23PM|#

Jennifer,

Needless to say, it doesn't work that way. First off, at least in Catholicism: there's no set belief as to the destinies of those who die as unborn children or newborns whose parents did not intend to have them baptized. Most people seem to believe that they all go to heaven, but that is not necessarily the case. They all suffer from original sin, and ultimately it is God who will judge them by standards known perhaps to him alone.

As far as your question about dying as a good schoolgirl as opposed to an evil libertarian (ha), that's a problem that arises from the tension between free will and predestination at the very heart of Christianity. You can't cheat God by picking the right time to die, for you or someone else, but at the same time your moral state at the time of death is important to your destiny. The only sure-fire way to heaven, for the Catholic, is to live the right way all the time, which is of course difficult if not nearly impossible.

But in any case, killing someone while they're in a state of grace so that they'll go to heaven can't be a good thing. That would be taking away their right to choose their destiny for themselves, and as Davey would surely say, interfering in God's domain.

|1.12.05 @ 9:23PM|#

This is an interesting digression into the concept of personhood for the umpteen millionth time. (Actually, it isn't, but I'm being polite.) But it's all a bunch of bullshit handwaving tangential to Ron's post. The fact of the matter is that abortion is legal and the United States -- and it's certainly legal at a point so early that the goddamned embryo hasn't even implanted yet -- and therefore abortifacents are legal, and the FDA therefore has no business keeping this drug from users as long as it's been shown to be safe. They're simply catering to the antiabortion crowd, which last I checked is not in the FDA's mission statement.

|1.12.05 @ 9:27PM|#

Phil,

No, Ron's point is about how stupid the opponents of Plan B are, because they think contraception encourages promiscuity. I innocently pointed out another possible motivation, and was immediately dragged into the personhood debate again, kicking and screaming.

That's happened a lot recently, hasn't it... ;-)

|1.12.05 @ 9:34PM|#

But in any case, killing someone while they're in a state of grace so that they'll go to heaven can't be a good thing.

Well, certainly not a good thing for the killer, but definitely good for the killee. Jesus merely gave his life to save others; imagine one giving up his soul!

Of course as far as this discussion is concerned, the problem is that the existence of a soul is not something that can be proven in a secular fashion, and thus cannot be made into law, according to the Constitution. There are plenty of non-religious reasons why a free and functioning society shouldn't let its members run around destroying other human beings, but destroying souls is another matter. Hell, some primitive people believe I can kill your soul by taking your photograph and then burning it, but even if this belief somehow replaced Christianity as the dominant religion in America it would still be unconstitutional to make photo-burning a legal equivalent of murder.

|1.12.05 @ 10:10PM|#

But, contrary to some who are trying to put words in Crimethink's mouth, he isn't arguing about souls or ensoulment. In fact, in an earlier thread, I believe he specifically disavowed such considerations as not having any weight that should be honored in a political debate.

There are plenty of non-religious reasons why a free and functioning society shouldn't let its members run around destroying other human beings,

Exactly! The debate is, "What is a human being, and therefore possessed of the right not to be arbitrarily destroyed?" Crimethink is arguing about where the dividing line between "human being"/"not human being" should be -- not about souls.

|1.13.05 @ 3:36AM|#

re: personhood

What about adult humans makes you think they are persons but adult non-human animals are not?

Now take that answer and apply it to the proces of human development from fertilization to death, and decide where the tranistion to personhood occurs.

That's the answer. Wasn't that easy?

Brendan Perez|1.13.05 @ 7:50AM|#

The under 16 thing is a nice backdoor for the anti-B groups to work their way in.

Give 'em time, they'll begin complaining that people over 16 are buying them for their under 16 friends and the age needs to be 18 and a while after that, perhaps we'lll get the same rehashed nonsense with a push for 21.

Chances are, we'll get some off-the-wall, one-in-a-million story about a 9 year old who had sex with a 25 year old, got pregnant, used the Plan-B given to her by her partner, etc.

It's funny how 95+% of all OTC prescription drugs are spit along the lines of over/under 12 with "adults" and 12-17 receiving the same dose. The higher age limits point to something mroe than safety concerns, usually social engineering or age based bigotry.

If a 12 year old can be prescribed the same dose as an adult would receive for Vicodin, Codeine, OxyContin, orr birth control pills, then they should be allowed the same "adult" dose of other drugs like Plan-B and "drugs" like alcohol.

|1.13.05 @ 10:10AM|#

"It's funny how 95+% of all OTC prescription drugs are spit along the lines of over/under 12 with "adults" and 12-17 receiving the same dose. The higher age limits point to something mroe than safety concerns, usually social engineering or age based bigotry."

No, it has to do with body weight and the ability to metabolize the drug. For example, I will give me son coffee, but at 60 pounds I dang sure ain't going to give him more than a third of a cup or he'll be running up the walls and across the ceiling. And 12-17 year olds are adults we just treat them like teen agers.

|1.13.05 @ 10:17AM|#

I doubt if this is a political issue. The drug is relatively new to the US market and the FDA is notorious for overkill and foot dragging, which this magazine has documented with numerous articles over the years. But this time, since it has to do with birth control issues it's suddenly not mere ineptitude but some vast right-wing conspiracy.

Set aside the histrionics and take a look at how long it took them to approve Claritin for OTC sale. And that isn't an abortion inducing drug it just stops you from sneezing.

|1.13.05 @ 10:31AM|#

Possibly worth noting that the Claritin approval had nothing whatsoever to do with safety -- it was 100% an insurance/who pays issue. Claritin was OTC in Great Britain years and years before it was in the US. I routinely brought 'extra' back with me before we finally allowed it to become OTC.

regards,
Shirley Knott

|1.13.05 @ 11:25AM|#

Regarding one of the points in Ron's article, as to why the FDA should care about venereal disease outbreaks.

All right, this item is not the FDA's portfolio -- I'll surely agree on that. But I think it's the provenance of the Surgeon General and the Public Health Service. So... my libertarian instincts fall apart on the questions of epidemics and the public health.

Where does libertarianism fall on the loss of liberty inherent in quarantine? If libertarianism accepts "national defense" as among the legitimate roles of government, at some point restriction of movement in an epidemic situation is a valid tool to use for the defense of the nation. But something about the powers of the public health apparatus still bothers me, and I can't figure it out.

Any takers?

|1.13.05 @ 11:41AM|#

Keith-
Well, there's the old "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose" canard; if I have a deadly, contagious disease that might kill anyone standing downwind of me, then keeping me quarantined would be a legitimate function of the government. However, this particular case doesn't meet that standard.

|1.13.05 @ 12:54PM|#

semantics:

preventing implantation isn't contraception, as previously noted. however, pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation, according to the medical definition I remember from school.
a fertilized egg is actually a zygote until it divides

|1.13.05 @ 2:59PM|#

crimethink,

If you're interested in the scientific literature on the subject:

Marions, L. "Emergency Contracption with mifepristone and Levonorgestrel: Mechanisms of Action." Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2001; 64:227-34.

Durand, M. et al. "On the Mechanism of Action of hormonoal contraceptives and IUDs." Am Jour of Obst & Gyn, 1999; 181 (5): 1263-69.

Both studies show no direct evidence that ECPs work by preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum.

On the other hand, studies have shown that ibuprofen and other common, over-the-counter non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can double the risk of an early miscarriage:

Nielsen, G. L., et. al. "Risk of adverse birth outcome and miscarriage in pregnant users of NSAIDs." British Medical Journal 2001; 322: 266-70.

Li, D. K. et. al. "Exposure to NSAIDs during pregnancy and risk of miscarriage." BMJ 2003; 327: 368-71.

So, if our real reason for restricting access to, or even banning, ECPs is their supposed risk for preventing implantation, we ought to be consistent and advocate restricting or banning Advil, Motrin, and all sorts of other common medications that probably have an even greater risk of doing so.

|1.13.05 @ 3:02PM|#

before implantation, the zygote does actually divide, thus becomming an embryo -- although it is merely dividing the same mass into smaller cells. so plan B would contribute to the deaths of some "embryos" -- but they are pre-implanation embryos, so it doesn't abort a pregnancy.

|1.13.05 @ 5:53PM|#

What difference does it make? Life doesn't begin until it is wanted.

|1.13.05 @ 6:28PM|#

Abortion is a wonderful thing. It is the most important right any woman has, a prerequisite to all other rights. It is an empowering experience, it is about doing what's right for you, puitting yourself first. If I decide I don't want some lump of tissue that has invaded my body, even at 9 months, then it isn't alive.

|1.13.05 @ 7:07PM|#

Just joking.

|1.13.05 @ 11:58PM|#

Okays. I have a personal story to tell: a testimonial if you will. About this time last year, I had an "emergency situation" that required me to get Plan B while visiting Austin, Texas. I was visiting my long-distance boyfriend for Valentine's Day. We feared our condom may have slipped, so we decided it would be best not to take chances, since we were both poor college students and wanted the chance of a future for ourselves. Unfortunately, with that decision made, we spent almost our entire time together (from Thursday night when I arrived until Saturday evening - I had to leave Sunday morning) trying to get ahold of Plan B. Because I had no prescription, I could not get the drug ANYWHERE. We tried EVERY drugstore, grocery store, etc. inside and outside of the city limits, only to be sneered at by our minimum-wage Christian brethren. We searched desperately for a Planned Parenthood. Every PP listed in the phone book had either closed down or was "no longer available at the number listed". Finally, on Saturday afternoon, we accidentally found a clinic that could supply us PB. Problem averted -- narrowly.
Now, I am no "hussy", and I do not consider myself "promiscuous" in the least. I am not poor, uneducated, or STD'd, and I use protection (condoms). We both felt that we were going through many unneccessary problems and hassles simply because we opted against using birth control pills regularly, especially while being in a long-distance relationship. What sense does it make to require a prescription for Plan B, if it is an emergency situation?! NONE! It's like demanding a prescription for a fire extinguisher in the event of a fire. I wasn't using it as regular "birth control"; if we hadn't found that clinic by accident, I'd probably be one depressed, poor, unwed mother raising a poor bastard right out of college, instead of getting my career goals together as I am now. If prescriptions for Plan B are required by law, then if you consider cases like mine, just about EVERY female who doesn't want children, but who has recreational sex, will have to be on SOME sort of prescription, be it Birth Control proper, IUD, or "Plan B". In effect, making Plan B a prescription drug would have the opposite of the effect intended: think of the logic: If there is a girl having unprotected sex (or else has an accident like broken condom) and she has a prescription for this pill, logically she can rely on her prescription. Personally, I take pills as little as possible, so that is why I do not take birth control. If a girl wanted a pill to prevent pregnancies, she'd buy traditional preventitive BIRTH CONTROL, not the "morning-after" pill. I say this from experience. Anyone responsible enough to realize within 48 hours that they may have had exposure to sperm, who has undergone the chance of embryo-implanation (conception) is going to avoid this risk as much as possible, and avoid a recurrence of the situation, especially considering the cost of one pill. That is why a prescription is stupid. Do you really think anyone is going to bother to get a damn prescription for a pill that they may only use once or twice in their life? Doubtful. It's just a moral filibuster from Christian America (The Man), to screw middle-class young adults like me over with a baby I can't afford, or even worse, an abortion I don't want to have and can't afford, either. (And don't even think about responding to me that I can't afford to have sex.) We were sweating bullets as each minute passed during that weekend, thanks to Uncle Sam. Nobody - I mean nobody - having sex who has a mishap will even consider getting a prescription for Plan B until the accident happens. And how long would it take to get an appointment to get "evaluated" for a prescription? Ha. Probably more than 48 hours. Surprise! Enjoy your new life as parents.
If we hadn't have found that unlisted clinic, then what? Unwanted pregnancy! Poverty! What's worse, self-righteous, religion-influenced attitudes such as "now you're going to have to suffer the consequences of your un-Christlike behavior, horny heathens" don't simply punish the poorly-coordinated would-be parents: there are also more children who grow up in hostile, poor, single-parent, or orphaned environments, instead of the happy homes that every baby should have. Sorry if this post came off as hostile, but, it is.

|1.14.05 @ 12:04AM|#

As a short follow-up: if my experience is any indication, making a "behind the pharmacist" law is worse than a prescription, judging by most of the people we encountered in Texas. If we did that, most would have simply replied that they didn't have it (which is what most of them said, anyway).

|1.14.05 @ 1:07AM|#

plan B would contribute to the deaths of some "embryos" -- but they are pre-implanation embryos, so it doesn't abort a pregnancy.

Only if one defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation. Still, no matter what word games one wishes to play, one cannot ignore that the moral debate over abortion primarily concerns the destruction of an embryo, not the ending of a pregnancy.

|1.14.05 @ 3:13AM|#

Indeed. But at some point someone got started with semantics and things went down hill from there.

I guess no one appreciated my thought problem from January 13, 2005 03:36 AM.

|1.14.05 @ 10:44PM|#

crimethink:

that is how the beginning of pregnancy is defined, medically

many embryos fail to implant naturally, for unknown reasons

I consider myself pro-life, and of course a zygote/ embryo is alive, but we're going to have to accept the fact that before some point we consider it acceptable to prevent that life from developing...killing it. Otherwise, we'll have to make in vitro fertilization illegal.

Reason.com

New at Reason

gaius marius|1.12.05 @ 3:29PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog|1.12.05 @ 3:36PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog|1.12.05 @ 3:57PM|#

Jeff|1.12.05 @ 4:33PM|#

Brendan Perez|1.13.05 @ 7:50AM|#

Leave a Comment

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices: