Comments on: Science and politics

By: Amanda Butler

Amanda Butler — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:54:04 +0000

“Why not allow regular birth control pills to be sold over the counter?” Doctors do want to monitor patients on birth control pills to a certain extent. The Pill does sometimes raise blood pressure, and they’re particularly worried about this in smokers. “Do you smoke?” is one of the questions asked when women go in for a prescription (I’ve had friends lie and get away with it). I think it would be reasonable to sell birth control pills over the counter at places where the pharmacists were trained in taking blood pressure. Only if your blood pressure were above normal/healthy would you be required to see a doctor. They also might not be able to give you the ten months’ prescriptions like doctors can; perhaps only three months at a time so the blood pressure could be monitored more often.

By: WSM

WSM — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:47:42 +0000

This doesn’t seem more political than David Kessler’s work. I realize that academic lefties don’t approve of breast implants or smoking, whereas they do approve of sex, but that is a political judgment, not a scientific one.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:38:57 +0000

Here’s an even better question. Why not allow regular birth control pills to be sold over the counter?

By: John

John — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:08:28 +0000

A year ago the Nat’l. Institute of Health defined pregnancy as “from conception”. In the past year they have changed the definition under pressure from political activists determined to bypass parental notification requirements for prescription abortificients.

By: Gemma

Gemma — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:42:43 +0000

Actually, Plan B (the so-called morning-after pill) works primarily by preventing ovulation, not by preventing implantation. It’s nothing more than a double dose of the ordinary birth-control pill Progestin. There’s a very tiny risk of preventing implantation by using progestin, but no more so than by using other common medications, such as anti-inflammatory agents (ibuprofen, naprosyn).

By: raj

raj — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:48:53 +0000

What is the science issue here? The only issue is a political one: whether the substance should be available over the counter. I hate to tell you, but the fact is that there are no science issues regarding whether ANY substance should be available over the counter. The only issues regarding that are political ones.

By: Mark Byron

Mark Byron — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:42:12 +0000

Charles-”Birth is the defining moral moment when rights are conferred upon an individual.” Using the word “moral” implies that God (or something like it) is in the mix. What teachings do you use to define that point rather than sometime before or after birth?

By: Maureen

Maureen — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:16:18 +0000

“I can’t think of any justification for holding that an unimplanted but fertilized egg is not a person, but an implanted egg is.” Actually, there’s a pretty big difference—the unimplanted, fertilized egg is a clump of undifferentiated cells. The zygote can split into a multitude of individual zygotes—Brave New World, anyone?—and each of the zygotes can develop into its own person, each with its own soul. Now, since a zygote can split until it’s implanted in the womb and uterine hormones cause the zygote’s cells to begin to differentiate, and therefore the zygote has the potential for more than one life, I don’t see how a soul, or whatever it is that gives us human dignity, could come into play before implantation. What if a zygote received a soul before implantation, but it suddenly split? We don’t believe that genetically identical twins share a soul; therefore who gets the original soul? Surely it would be easier for the soul to enter the flesh when the individuality of that flesh is assured.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:10:20 +0000

I have no idea what the medical reasons for defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation are, but I’m quite confident that they’re medical reasons and not moral reasons. I can’t think of any justification for holding that an unimplanted but fertilized egg is not a person, but an implanted egg is. The claim that “emergency contraception” cannot cause abortion is very close to intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, because it disguises a serious moral issue behind a medical term of art.

By: Charles V

Charles V — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:52:28 +0000

Birth is the defining moral moment when rights are conferred upon an individual. Until that point, the rights of the mother should override any “rights” given to a fetus. This doesn’t mean that the fetus doesn’t deserve special consideration, just that it’s each mother’s right to decide which arbitrary biological or emotional milestone marks the beginning of her child’s life. In my humble opinion. So-called pro-lifers seek to impose their own arbitrary definition of life’s beginning onto all women, and not coincidentally, this earliest possible beginning of life allows the greatest amount of control over other women’s bodies.

By: rdb

rdb — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:38:15 +0000

Note that US Attorney General John Ashcroft has previous introduced laws asserting legal status begins at fertilization, which would make use of IUDs and the contraceptive pill abortion.

By: maurinsky

maurinsky — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:31:31 +0000

I think most pro-lifers are really opposed to people having sex for any reason other than to make babies within the confines of marriage, so I don’t think they care about any difference between fertilization and implantation. Many pro-lifers are opposed to masturbation because it’s against God’s plan (“Every sperm is sacred”).

By: sean

sean — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:54:45 +0000

again, i think using implantation as the relevant time of “life” could help pro-lifers get around lots of inconsistencies re: in vitro, stem cells, etc., but that’s an argument that has to be fully made, and i don’t think many pro-lifers are yet of that view, which is why they mostly object to EMC, even knowing the physiology of it.

By: sean

sean — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:48:30 +0000

i did acknowledge in my post (though clearly not carefully enough), that i understand the medical definition of pregnancy has everything to do with implantation. but my point was that for pro-lifers (at least the ones i know), it is the fertilization that is important. i was trying to make the distinction between beginning of “life” and of “pregnancy”. i didn’t want to start any arguments about “life” of course, but just wanted to point out that “life” is what matters to the “pro-lifers”. implantation is a more relevant time point from the standpoint of the mother, while fertilization is a more relevant point from the standpoint of the fetus.

By: eszter

eszter — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:32:36 +0000

I had provided a link to a page about this, but I just noticed the link was broken. I don’t know if you saw this on that page: “Medical authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists define the beginning of pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman’s uterus. [my emphasis] 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.” I realize you may be saying that some people may disagree with this as well. It may be, although I would like to know whether they actually understand the physiological differences between the various steps in the process. I guess one question is whether by “conception” one means fertilization or implantation.