Tag Archives: contraception

Plan B is Not Abortifacient

As any regular reader of this blog is well aware, I’m strongly pro-life. However, I’m ticked off at my own movement right now because of crap like this [emphasis mine]:

"President George Bush shocked the pro-life movement with his support for over-the-counter access to abortion-drug Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill, for adults. However, Plan B ‘ought to require a prescription for minors,’ he said.

[…]

"’President Bush’s implied support of over-the-counter status for the abortion-causing drug Plan B is a betrayal of the pro-life principles he claims to support,’ said Stephen Peroutka, Esq., chairman of the National Pro-Life Action Center."

Let’s get with the program, people. Plan B is not abortifacient. Repeating "abortion" and "Plan B" in the same sentence over and over won’t make it so. As a devout Catholic, I’m no more a fan of Plan B than I am of condoms (or any other form of contraception), but since neither kill unborn children, there’s no just reason for banning them. Unless someone can provide evidence that Plan B causes abortions, I suggest we stop saying it does and move on to other matters. This is a poltical albatross.

[cross-posted at RedBlueChristian]

Update: Apparently, someone at Netscape.com saw fit to link to me as one of the "pro-life advocates [who] acknowledge that use of Plan B is not akin to abortion". I’m flattered by the publicity, but I really hope the inane and fruitless "conversation" going on in the comments over there doesn’t come here. I haven’t read such consistently belligerent and vapid comments since the last time I stopped by Eschaton. I don’t always agree with my readers, but I’m almost always appreciative of them and their ability to discuss matters reasonably and intelligently in the comboxes.

Update: Let Publius know whether you think I’m a "[d]ebunker of [a] commonly-held misconception or [an] advocate of netkookery".

Addendum: Serge at LTI Blog has begun a series of posts about Plan B.

Mangling, Mishandling, and Misrepresentation of Science in the Plan B Debate (Part II)

18 Replies

Read Part I of "Mangling, Mishandling, and Misrepresentation of Science in the Plan B Debate"

In all my searching, I have found no studies that support the notion that Plan B acts as an abortifacient. The only two proven methods of action are thickening of the cervical fluid and prevention of ovulation. The manufacturer of Plan B states that it may interefere with implantation, but I strongly suspect that they’re just covering their ass…ets.

Continue reading →

Mangling, Mishandling, and Misrepresentation of Science in the Plan B Debate (Part I)

9 Replies

In an effort to inform people that the Journal of Medical Ethics needs greater scrutiny in the peer review process, I’ve been scouring the net for mentions of "rhythm method", "Plan B", "embryo death", "Bovens", and related topics. In the process, I have come across some startling bad statements regarding the scientific study of fertility – on both sides of the political spectrum. Let’s start with some MSM headlines related to Bovens’ article about an alleged relationship between the "rhythm method" and embryo death.

Rhythm method kills more embryos than condom use
Controversial rhythm method study revealed
Rhythm method linked to massive embryonic death
How Vatican roulette kills embryos
‘Rhythm’ method a killer of embryos

Notice a trend in these headlines? They all assume two things: that Bovens published the results of a scientific study and that study clearly implicated the rhythm method with embryo deaths. IT’S NOT A STUDY! It’s a sloppy polemical essay. JME should be ashamed for publishing it.

In the wake of this publication, there have been numerous examples of folks showing a poor understanding of fertility and an unwillingness to be corrected. I am certainly no expert in fertility, but I have attempted to do my homework. If you believe my following observations are incorrect or misleading in any way, do not hesitate to let me know.

Continue reading →

Investigating NFP: Bovens’ Bovine Excrement

Investigating NFP: The Great Embryo Killer? (Part II)

2 Replies

Read Part I of "The Great Embryo Killer?"

Having used what he believes to be sound reasoning to implicate NFP in avoidable embryo deaths, he then entertains some possible pro-life responses. Since there’s little actual reasoning in Bovens arguements, I’d just as soon skip his charicatures of pro-life rebuttals. However, since they involve subtle changes to his arguments and could easily stand on their own, I’ll briefly address them, if only to highlight his slight of hand.

"So what is the alternative? If one is concerned about minimising embryonic death, then one should avoid types of contraception whereby each unintended pregnancy (due to its failure) comes at the expense of a high embryonic death rate. Given our first assumption, a condom user (who makes no distinction between HF and non-HF periods) can count on one embryonic death for each unintended pregnancy. A rhythm method user, however, should count on two to three embryonic deaths for each unintended pregnancy. Assuming a success rate of 95% for condom usage, we can count on an expectation of .5 pregnancies in 10 years. Hence, the expectation of embryonic death is .5 per ten years for a condom user, which is substantially lower than the expectation of two to three embryonic deaths per ten years on the rhythm method. Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method."

"So how can this argument be blocked? First, one could say that the empirical data are questionable. However, the result really depends on the simple assumption that embryos conceived outside the HF period are less viable than embryos conceived during the HF period. If this is the case, then the success of the rhythm method is contingent on a higher embryonic death rate and so every pregnancy due to a failure of the technique will come at the expense of a higher embryonic death rate—and this is all that is needed to get the argument off the ground."

If that’s the case, then the argument is grounded. Continue reading →

Pages: 1 2

Ales Rarus

A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog