Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Fermi Paradox & the Great Filter- Are We Likely Doomed?

Sherlock Holmes as Cyborg and the Future of Retail

Artificial Intelligence, Anthropics & Cause Prioritization

What is the Difference between Posthumanism and Transhumanism?

Building the Virtues Control Panel

Convergent Risk, Social Futurism, and the Wave of Change (Part 2 of 2)


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
by Martine Rothblatt


comments

Ste4en on 'What is the Difference between Posthumanism and Transhumanism?' (Jul 29, 2014)

OC on 'The Maverick Nanny with a Dopamine Drip: Debunking Fallacies in the Theory of AI Motivation' (Jul 29, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'The Problem with the Trolley Problem, or why I avoid utilitarians near subways' (Jul 28, 2014)

instamatic on 'Beauty Is Skin-deep—But That’s Where Genetic Engineering Is Going Next' (Jul 27, 2014)

instamatic on 'Why We’ll Still Be Fighting About Religious Freedom 200 Years From Now!' (Jul 27, 2014)

contraterrine on 'Radcliffe-Richards on Sexual Inequality and Justice (Part Two)' (Jul 27, 2014)

contraterrine on 'The Sad Passing of a Positive Futurist' (Jul 27, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Transhumanism and Marxism: Philosophical Connections

Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee

Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work…

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Nanomedical Cognitive Enhancement
Jul 11, 2014
(6048) Hits
(0) Comments

Interview with Transhumanist Biohacker Rich Lee
Jul 8, 2014
(5905) Hits
(0) Comments

Virtually Sacred, by Robert Geraci – religion in World of Warcraft and Second Life
Jul 3, 2014
(4482) Hits
(0) Comments

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
Jul 5, 2014
(3722) Hits
(18) Comments



IEET > Rights > FreeThought > Personhood > Privacy > Life > Access > Enablement > Innovation > Health > Contributors > Valerie Tarico

Print Email permalink (4) Comments (2883) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


The Big Lie about Plan B–What You Really Should Be Telling Your Friends.


Valerie Tarico
Valerie Tarico
Ethical Technology

Posted: Dec 13, 2012

It’s time, once and for all, to clear up the confusion about Plan B on progressive message boards, Facebook pages, forums and comment threads. Tweet this: Plan B doesn’t cause abortion. It stops or delays ovulation. No egg, no fertilization, no pregnancy – no abortion. It’s that simple.

In reality, Plan B prevents abortions because it reduces the fundamental cause of abortions—unwanted pregnancy.  About 40% of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. When used within a 72 hour window after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure, Plan B prevents 70% of the accidental pregnancies that would have occurred. One U.S. study estimated that emergency contraception prevented 51,000 abortions in a single year.  Since half of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort under normal circumstances, those who think fertilized eggs are persons should also credit emergency contraception with preventing at minimum an additional 64,000 fertilized-egg suicides in that same year.

If your friends want more than a tweet worth of accurate information, there are three kinds of emergency contraception (EC) widely available in the United States:

  1. Pills that contain a progestin, levonorgestrel—sold as Plan B or under the trade name Next Choice.  Plan B or Next Choice should be taken as soon as possible and within 72 hours of unprotected sex and is 70% effective in preventing pregnancy.
  2. Pills that contain ulipristal acitate –sold under the brand name Ella. Ella has a longer window of effectiveness and can prevent ovulation if taken within five days after unprotected sex.  It is 85% effective in reducing pregnancy.
  3. A copper IUD  sold under the name Paragard.  Inserted within five days of unprotected sex, a copper IUD is 99% effective in preventing pregnancy, and it then provides ongoing hormone-free contraception for up to twelve years.

Of these three, the copper T may interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg, should one exist. However, its primary mechanism of action is to reduce sperm motility, which means it probably averts more fertilized egg deaths than it causes. Both kinds of EC pills function by stopping or delaying ovulation. Although there has been speculation about whether they might also block sperm or implantation, research has failed to find evidence of either of these.

To quote the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals:

Inhibiting ovulation may be the only mechanism of action for levonorgestrel-only ECPs [emergency contraceptive pills]. Recent studies have found no effect on the endometrium. In one study, levonorgestrel 1.5 mg had no effect on the quality of cervical mucus or on the penetration of spermatozoa in the uterine cavity. Animal studies demonstrated that levonorgestrel administered in doses that inhibited ovulation had no postfertilization effect that impaired fertility. . . . This question of postfertilization effect may never be answered unequivocally because no test exists for fertilization; however, the best available evidence indicates that levonorgestrel does not interfere with any postfertilization events.

So why does the Religious Right keep telling us that post-coital contraceptives function by aborting teeny babies? Because in the minds of many true believers, when you’re on a mission from God the end justifies the means. That’s one reason religious belief has such inconsistent moral consequences, including wildly inconsistent effects on truth seeking and truth telling. Chris Rhodda’s book, Liars for Jesus, focuses primarily on the way that Christian fundamentalists are rewriting history to justify theocracy. Katherine Stewart’s book, The Good News Club, sheds light on the deceptions fundamentalists use to woo grade school children for conversion. A NARAL investigation exposed a host of deceptions that are the stock in trade of Crisis Pregnancy Centers including the falsehood that abortions causing breast cancer. Different lies for different ends.

Of course, the term “lie” implies that the perpetrators know what is real and are intent that others should not. That is probably true of some Religious Right leaders. But psychological research shows that we all are best at deceiving others when we deceive ourselves.  Consequently humans have a vast capacity for self-deception when they are motivated to believe one thing or another. Some religious right activists may know that they are spreading falsehoods. Many more, though, are simply indifferent to the truth value of their arguments or are engaged in “motivated belief” – filtering evidence to convince themselves that whatever serves their ends is true.

If it wasn’t clear two weeks ago, it should be clear now why conservative Christians have been so insistent that Plan B is an abortifacient, despite all evidence to the contrary. The end they are after isn’t fewer abortions – it’s less sex. Or, at least, less sex that fails their definition of God’s will.  In the words of Rick Santorum: “Contraception is not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. Sex is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal but also procreative.”

The reality that Plan B and other emergency contraceptives are not abortifacients but are in fact genuine contraceptives is an inconvenient truth for Mr. Santorum and the Religious Right.  That is because, however much ambivalence there may be in this country about abortion, very few Americans share their aversion to effective contraception — or having an effective back up when Plan A fails.


Dr. Valerie Tarico is a psychologist with a passion for personal and social evolution.  In 2005, she co-founded the Progress Alliance of Washington, a collective of future-oriented donors investing in progressive change.  She also is the founder of WisdomCommons.org, an interactive website that showcases humanity’s shared moral core via quotes, poetry, stories and essays from many traditions. Tarico’s book, Trusting Doubt:  A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light, offers personal insight into how we can apply “constructive curiosity” to our most closely guarded beliefs. 

As a social commentator, Tarico writes and speaks on issues ranging from religious fundamentalism to gender roles, to reproductive rights and technologies. A primary focus is on improving access to top tier contraceptive technologies.  To that end, she serves on the board of Advocates for Youth, a D.C. based nonprofit with wide-ranging programs related to reproductive health and justice.  Tarico co-chairs of Washington Women for Choice, serves on the Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest Board of Advocates, and is a Senior Writing Fellow at Sightline Institute, a think tank focused on sustainable prosperity. Her articles appear at sites including the Huffington Post, Jezebel, Salon, AlterNet, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and at her blog, AwayPoint


Print Email permalink (4) Comments (2884) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


This is an informative distinction, between Plan B and Mifeprex, but considering the Plan B website says:  “it may inhibit implantation,” we can’t pretend its use is innocuous.

Retreating a step:  I don’t see how the abortifacient likelihood (or lack thereof) of Plan B has anything to do with Mr. Santorum’s claim.  What is wicked about contraceptive use?  Does its wickedness derive from a subjective and arbitrary interperetation of God’s will, or does its wickedness derive from its opposition to what is fulfilling and perfective of man?

No god who tests his puppets with arbitrary commands would be worth following, but the God who respects human freedom, and acts with unspeakable generosity to inform man of what is good for man, is owed nothing less than one’s entire life — and that joyfully, naturally.

It is neither perfective nor fulfilling of human powers to decouple another’s sexuality from their personality (which contraception does).  It is unreasonable and blithesomely arrogant to propose that I can see into the future and declare another person’s life not worthy of coming-to-be.  Such arrogance, in turn, becomes a habit of mine, which increases the likelihood of future arrogance; and indeed, a contraceptive mentality links arms with abortion, euthenasia, and gay marriage for this very reason:  entrenched arrogance.

And so, contraception is just plain bad for men and women, regardless of their creed.

http://www.planbonestep.com/pdf/PlanBOneStepFullProductInformation.pdf





The perception that choosing not to have a child is arrogant is entirely subjective. It is logically sound to hold the opposite view: choosing to have a child is arrogant. In making that decision an individual is implicitly suggesting that they believe that they are capable of performing the incredibly challenging task of raising a happy and healthy child all the way to adulthood (followed by a more hands-off approach to support for the rest of their lives).





Michael,
  You seem to beg the question by asserting that children are “chosen” at all.  Only the process is chosen; the incidences of conception are random.  Choosing to undergo the baby-making process _can_ be a humble choice, but _a priori_ decisions that no person is worth the pleasure of that process are never humble.

Also, there is a difference between simply not willing to attempt pregnancy, and actively willing against pregnancy.





I use ‘choose’ in the normal sense of actively deciding to take action(s) that are believed to result in a (greatly) increased chance of the chosen result occurring. The previously stated view is logical under this normal use of ‘choose’.

The only reason I stated it was to point out that the labeling of those who choose to have greater control over their pregnancy as arrogant is inherently subjective. Any attempt to control or plan anything can be framed as arrogant.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Nanomedicine: nanobots could eliminate all diseases; even death

Previous entry: I’m Just a Love Machine

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376