Ok, so that title is a bit misleading. There's actually no debate among doctors (those without an anti-choice bias, anyway), medical associations, and FDA officials about when pregnancy begins. They all agree that moment is when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall. Most folks in the anti-contraception, pro-forced-pregnancy movement believe, however, that "life" begins at the magical moment when sperm meets egg, regardless of whether that egg implants.
I bring this up because it's relevant to a case recently dismissed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in which parents filed a lawsuit after their teenage daughter received emergency contraception at a city health center and was told (correctly) that it would prevent -- not terminate -- pregnancy. Sherry Colb at FindLaw explains:
The plaintiffs in Anspach v. City of Philadelphia alleged that at the girl's request, the health center gave her a "morning after" pill, but without notifying her parents and without informing her that the medication could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting inside her uterus. Her parents contend that this information would have been of great significance to all three of them, because the prevention of implantation constitutes an abortion according to their religious beliefs.
Of course, parents have no right to be notified when contraception is dispensed to their daughter. And emergency contraception does indeed prevent pregnancy, not end it. So the court had no problem throwing out the suit.
Colb connects this to the whole embryo debate. Some legal experts think that the 400,000 embryos currently sitting in fertility clinic freezers could form the basis of a serious legal challenge to Roe. (I'm not convinced.) And when it comes to how these embryos will affect the right to contraception, agree with Colb -- that conception in a petri dish actually further supports the medical standard that pregnancy begins at implantation.
Is there any reason to view implantation, rather than conception, as the morally relevant moment for purposes of saying whether an abortion has taken place? Consider the case of in-vitro fertilization. A woman has her egg harvested for fertilization by a man's sperm cells in a test-tube. Conception takes place. Notwithstanding conception, however, no one, at this point, can be said to have become pregnant.
Well, except that many anti-choicers claim that not implanting these test-tube embryos is tantamount to murder. I'm just waiting for the day when they start pushing false "research" showing that all women who have thawed their embryos are plagued by severe, life-long depression.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The great conception vs. implantation debate.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/6171
I agree with you in that I don't see how the embryos could affect Roe, given that Roe is really about a woman's right to privacy concerning medical decisions involving her body.
The arguments I fear are the ones coming from the conservative Supreme Court justices who claim that there is no constitutionally-protected right to privacy.
It shouldn't even be a debate, because there's no scientific evidence that birth control pills(either emergency or daily) cause zygotes not to implant. Less than half of all zygotes (in uteruses) will implant anyways, so it's not like we can blame the pill for any specific non-implantation. Pro-lifers are just being crazy and anti-women when they attack birth control. Not that being crazy and anti-women is a new thing for most of them.
As a self-identified feminist and a Catholic, this topic fascinates me. It really blows my mind that abortion is so taboo, and yet fertility treatments in which so many extra embryos are PURPOSELY created, more than most women would be willing to bear to term, is so completely socially acceptable. Is it because one results in a baby at the end? Let's add fertility treatments to the list of topics (such as contraception) that "pro-life" organizations refuse to address head-on.
(Note: I am very pro-choice, of the "safe, legal, and rare" variety.)
So then they all agree that ectopic pregnancies where the embryo ("fertilized eggs" can't implant, by the way) implants on a woman's fallopian tube aren't pregnancies?
Every time a pro-choice blogger says "fertilized eggs" or "eggs" implant they are showing either 1.) a large degree of ignorance about when and how implantation works or 2.) an intentional use of misleading language.
Thanks for bringing up this case. Rachel Rebouche here at the National Women's Law Center just blogged about it last week.
It's a good thing the Third Circuit rejected the parents' claims. Melissa Anspach had every right to ask for emergency contraception, and her parents had no constitutional right to know about their daughter's contraception choices.
I'll bite JJ - what is your point? Since ectopic pregnancies are not viable (cannot develop into fetuses), the implantation language still stands. How is the language misleading exactly?
JivinJ: Thank you for the vocab lesson. I think the point that is being made has to do with anti-choice agitators also often being anti-birth control. What's your stand on that?
I'm all for women being informed regarding how their contraception works. However -
(1) The parents have no right to pry into their daughter's reproductive life without her permission.
(2) There is no proof that EC prevents implantation, and it is DEFINITELY not the intended function of EC.
And out of curiosity, do these people actually think petri dishes can become pregnant?
Mirm,
No, the language wouldn't stand unless you think ectopic pregnancies aren't pregnancies. Whether a pregnancy could come to term or not has nothing to do with whether it's a pregnancy or not. The language Ann provides is misleading because 1.) "fertilized eggs" don't implant anywhere - a human embryo of around 100 or so cells implants and 2.) because embryos can implant other places besides the uterine wall.
Sgzak,
What's my position on what? Birth control? I have no problem with contraceptive methods which prevent conception.
DrkEyedCajn -
Interesting how they avoid topics that are inconvenient for their agenda. As far as the in vitro thing, I always figured it was because it is so expensive, therefore a debate would become something of a class issue.
I think it can't be repeated often enough, as a couple of commenters have already noted, that there is no evidence that Plan B prevents implantation. Even some anti-choice OB-GYNs admit this, and call on others in the anti-choice movement to stop dishonestly promulgating the story that it does. Every time we repeat without challenge the claim that Plan B/HBC prevents implantation, we're helping promulgate the belief that this is established science, when in fact the available evidence points the other way.
JivinJ: Why don't you say what you really mean "a beautiful 100-cell baby implants..."
I don't think the question for most of us here is the science -- the question is who gets to determine what a woman is allowed to do with her body.
I know there's power in words, but really "embryo" = "fetus" = "baby" = "fertilized egg."
The language Ann provides is misleading because 1.) "fertilized eggs" don't implant anywhere - a human embryo of around 100 or so cells implants and 2.) because embryos can implant other places besides the uterine wall.
Until implantation, "fertilized egg" is a perfectly acceptable term and is often interchanged with embryo or zygote (which is the actual correct term - zygotes become embryos). Ann's language is not misleading, it's truthful.
Let's re-word Ann's statement:
"They all agree that moment is when a fertilized egg implants in the reproductive lining, usually the uterine wall."
There, all cleared up and completely accurate.
Yes, I'm cynical, but what do you suppose the odds are that those parents came up with this lawsuit on their own, and were in no way "encouraged" by some anti-choice faction?
I don't think anti-choicers get all up in arms about frozen embryos because they were created without all the nasty sex for which women have to be punished by forced pregnancy.
That, and the fact that if they actually had to deal with the topic consistently and logically, it would make their heads explode.
M D,
I'm sorry but your assertions are simply not true. Pro-choicers don't accept it when prolifers use term like "baby" to describe a human embryo so why should prolifers accept it when pro-choicers use terms which are simply inaccurate. Either Ann is ignorant about implantation or she's using a misleading term for the sole purpose of dehumanizing the unborn.
Shelby Woo,
Simply asserting this doesn't make it so. A "fertilized egg" or zygote is a one-celled entity. By the time an embryo implants, the embryo is made up of around 100 or so cells so it's clearly incorrect to equate a one-celled "egg" with an organism which has hundreds of cells. You should also know there isn't "reproductive lining" in the fallopian tubes.
JivinJ... so? OK, I accept all of your terms. Could you address the issues now?
I'll bite JJ - what is your point? Since ectopic pregnancies are not viable (cannot develop into fetuses), the implantation language still stands. How is the language misleading exactly?
Actually, Mirm, I have heard of cases in which ectopic pregnancies have resulted in viable fetuses. There was a woman in the Middle East who had a somewhat normal pregnancy and carried her fetus to full term, until she tried to push. I don't remember the specifics of what happened at the hospital, but eventually the fetus, for lack of a better term, died, and because it had not grown inside her uterus, her body treated it and recognized it as a foreign body for several years. Tissue grew in layers around the fetus (think of oysters and the way pearls come to be). She was alright until something went wrong and the woman went back to the hospital where the doctors figured out what was wrong and removed the fetus.
There was also a case in Europe, I believe in or near the United Kingdom, in which a woman was carrying triplets, one of which had implanted itself outside of the womb. She carried all three either to full term or to almost first term, before all three were born via cesarean section.
That's very interesting, Blurple. Of course, these anecdotes should have absolutely no bearing on the treatment of women with ectopic pregnancies (which we can all agree are almost always dangerous, anecdotal exceptions notwithstanding) or the availability of abortion to women who choose to end pregnancies for whatever reason.
But it is interesting.
I suspect that if you're remembering those anecdotes correctly, Blurple, they weren't ectopic pregnancies, but pregnancies where the zygote has implanted somewhere else. Ectopic pregnancies refer only to pregnancies in which the zygote implants in the fallopian tube, which is far, far to small to accommodate even the smallest baby, which is why it bursts and woman dies. If a zygote implants somewhere else in the abdominal cavity...well, it still couldn't really come to term, because the placenta needs to be attached to the uterine wall. I'd need to see some citations before I could get a grip on what was going on in those two cases.
As it turns out, I'm wrong. I'm sorry about that. A fallopian pregnancy simply cannot come to term. Impossible. But in about 2% of ectopic pregnancies, the implantation takes place elsewhere, usually in the cervix or the ovaries. Very rarely, a woman who has had a hysterectomy can experience a pregnancy that just implants in the abdomen (how the placenta works still confuses me) and even more rarely, the fetus can be delivered via surgery.
Anyway--hey! Wikipedia is full of interesting info. Here's what they say about the placenta issue: "In such a situation the placenta sits on the intraabdominal organs or the peritoneum and has found sufficient blood supply." Interesting, and it sounds uncomfortable. They go on to add "This is such a rare occurrence that true data are unavailable and reliance must be made on anecdotal reports.[4][5] However, the vast majority of abdominal pregnancies require intervention well before fetal viability because of the risk of hemorrhage."
Well, make of that what you will, because it is Wikipedia.
Two things- Fetus and embryo are medical terms and are NOT interchangeable. They refer to different stages of development.
Also, I happen to know a lot of pro-lifers who care very deeply about what happens to frozen embryos and do view their destruction as ending a human life, and therefore as morally unacceptable. I agree that part of what makes many people upset about abortion is the belief that it will encourage promiscuity (particularly women's sexual freedom), but it simply won't work to say that pro-life issues boil down to being anti-sex. There are a lot of things that get people to feel passionately "pro-life", including the basic underlying concern that ending a human life (even one dependent on a petri dish or a woman) is morally unacceptable.
JivinJ:
I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it doesn't change the fact (not an assertion) that "fertilized egg" is a perfectly acceptable term in both the medical and scientific communities as well as with laypersons. You can easily find numerous references to the fact that, in humans, it ISN’T called an embryo until AFTER implantation (heck, that's even in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary).
I was going to get into it with you about the fallopian tube lining comment when I realized that you are quibbling over semantics because can’t dispute the content of the Ann’s post.
I'm glad that we're starting to see more people use the term "anti-choice" because every time I hear the term pro-life I want to slap Ann Coulter or one of her crazy flying monkeys.
As far as I know, everybody is pro-life.
I like life. You like life. We all like life.
But me, I like choice to.
Err.... I'm confused.
No pro-lifer really says that pregnancy begins at conception.
They say that life begins at conception. Obviously, we need not all be part of expectant mothers in order to be alive.
Prevention of implantation = the deliberate ending of a human life. It's akin to starving someone to death.
----
Jstein,
I'll try to be nice about this. I'm not anti-choice; I am, however, anti-abortion. I'm working on a project to give options to pregnant students on campus (98% of whom abort) - flexible leave policies, health coverage, academic and community resources, etc - and will be working with other area colleges on it after I'm done with mine. I advocate and vote for resources for pregnant women and children. I donate what little money I have to charities that help young parents. I fully support contraception (and, FYI, Plan B doesn't bother me, although I understand why people are bothered by it).
Calling me "anti-choice" is total bullshit.
"Pro-choice" is not what we would like to call you, but it is what you like to be called. You can drop "anti-choice" and be civil about it, or you can let us re-name you. Let me tell you, the "anti-black baby" crowd isn't going places for y'all.
Finally, as Feminists for Life always says, "If by choice, you mean abortion, just say it." That's really what is meant by "anti-choice." Just come out and say we are againt abortion, not against choices. Abortion removes many more choices for the child than its absence does for the mother. Less abortion = more choices in the world.
Oenophile you may call me whatever you want, just remember that I fully support stem cell research so that you can label me completely and wholly to your satisfaction.
But as to your comment, I have to wonder, exactly how many choices or decisions do you think that mass of quiverfull cells (aka your "child") is making right now?
It's amazing how many black women coming to the clinic where I used to do escorting were swayed by the older white men holding aloft a sign saying "Abortion kills black babies." They were often swayed, for instance, to give the sign-holders a good tongue-lashing before continuing in to the clinic, heads held high. So, you know, go for it.
Oenophile, abortion is a choice, and if you are against abortion you are for limiting choices. That's anti-choice. Yes, there are other choices to be made after the fetus is carried to term, but you still consider carrying a pregnancy to term as the only choice that should be made. So, again, you are anti-choice. I am pro-choice b/c I support both the decision to have children and the decision not to. Beyond that, it's wonderful that you are working to make it easier on women who, b/c of their financial situations, would otherwise abort. But you can't do anything about the women who simply don't want to be mothers. No matter what assistance you provide, it won't make them magically embrace becoming a mom.
"Prevention of implantation = the deliberate ending of a human life. It's akin to starving someone to death."
No, it isn't. Because in order for someone to be starved to death they have to have a series of complicated organs not getting the nourishment that they need in order to survive. Starving a person to death involves time and suffering. It also requires a post-mortem medical examination and a damned good alibi.
Preventing implantation of either a fertilized egg or an embryo (I really don't care which) is not akin. It's more like... accidentally getting an organic chicken egg with a little red spot in your batch of a dozen that you buy from the store. Was it fertilized? Yes. Is it a chicken? No. Is it even a dead chicken? Umm... no. It's still an egg.
"Prevention of implantation = the deliberate ending of a human life. It's akin to starving someone to death."
Because everyone knows that slowly killing a sentient being is EXACTLY like preventing the implantation of a clump of cells that MIGHT become a person.
Sgzak,
Which issues are you referring to? I answered your question regarding my position on contraception.
Shebly Woo,
Last I checked Merriam Webster wasn't a medical dictionary or an embryology textbook.
If embryos aren't really embryos until they implant then it would make no sense to call embryonic stem cells "embryonic" would it, since those cells from unimplanted embryos?
You should take some time and study mainstream embryology textbooks. "Fertilized egg" is not an accurate term for a 100+ celled organism which implants and continually asserting that is or citing a non-medical dictionary doesn't make it so.
I find it unfortunate that pro-choicers like yourself and Ann desire so strongly to use misleading terms when the only reason I can think of for doing so is to dehumanize the unborn.
Oenophile, if you want to call yourself anti-abortion that's fine, but I don't think it's accurate to call pro-choicers pro-abortion. It's not that I find the term offensive, not at all, it's just that I don't think that abortion is awesome and to be recommended to all. I believe that women's rights to control and make choices over their own bodies and medical decisions is one of the most important rights. My support of choices doesn't start and end with abortion, either. It goes to allowing women to choose how they give birth, whether it involves as little medical intervention as possible or whether it involves an elective, scheduled cesarean, or anything in between. I believe it shouldn't be a crime for women to drink or do drugs during pregnancy. I believe women have the right to choose to get sterilized, even if they're young (adults) and "will change their minds", and the right to choose not to, even if they're mentally handicapped and someone doesn't want them reproducing. In every situation when it comes to women and what happens to our bodies, I say that women have the right to be informed and make our own choices. That is why I go by pro-choice, and not pro-abortion.
JivinJ:
Embryo! Embryo! Embryo! People all over this thread are using the word embryo and it doesn't change anyone's argument! Embryo!
It was pointed out before that you are obsessed with semantics because you can't actually answer the ideas proposed in this thread, and I think you've just proven that to be true.
Sgzax,
Again, what specific ideas or arguments proposed do you want me to answer?
if we are being acturate then lets use blastocyst......
It was said - They say that life begins at conception. Obviously, we need not all be part of expectant mothers in order to be alive.
Then freeze all the unwanted embryos so they can be alive, and we don't have to be pregnant. While you're at it, every plant, is alive, as are bacteria etc. so mind what you eat and which medicine you take as you wouldn't want to commit murder would you.
JivinJ:
I don't want to put words in sgzax's mouth, but I think what sgzax is trying to say is:
Even if you call it an "embryo "rather than a "fertilized egg" how does that change the debate?
Do you think ectopic pregnancies should be terminated?
You can't be serious. Do you not take suffering into account? A fertilized egg will not suffer if it's flushed out of a woman's body rather than implanted.
A born human will suffer immensely if it's starved to death, however. So will a born cow, or a born cat.
To me, the question is not "what species is it?" but "can it suffer?"
And since a fertilized egg is not sentinent or capable of suffering, it's death is nowhere near as tragic as a starved person's (or starved cat).
Sarah MC,
I can't suffer if my throat was slit when I'm under anesthesia. Would killing me in those circumstances be wrong?
Maybe whether an organism in a certain state can suffer or not, isn't a good criteria for whether we should be allowed to kill them.
M D,
I'm not sure it would change the debate. I would just prefer if pro-choicer didn't use misleading terms in the same way pro-choicers prefer that prolifers not use misleading terms.
I'm not opposed to the removal of ectopic pregnancies. If you can't save the child, it doesn't make much sense to endanger the mother's life.
JivinJ, embryos are not "in a certain" state like people under anesthesia are. People under anesthesia are people with functioning brains and nervous systems who, as born people, are able to suffer. That's why they have to go under anesthesia in the first place.
Embryos aren't able to suffer because they don't have functioning brains or the complex systems necessary for it. At all. They can't suffer, they can't feel joy, they can't feel surprise, they can't feel fear, they can't feel loss, they can't feel excitement, they can't feel pain... etc. They can't feel. They are essentially nothingness.
Sarah MC,
So then the ability to suffer is or isn't a good criteria for killing organisms?
Embryos certainly are in a certain state. There in the embryonic state of development.
Are you now asserting that having a "functional brain" is what makes an organism worthy of "personhood" and legal protection?
It's a little late in the thread, but I just want to say:
The issue is not whether the fetus has rights. The issue is whose rights take precedence - the woman's. Always, every single time. Period.
I think it should be known that it seems JivinJ, from clicking on the link, runs a fairly combative anti-abortion blog. JJ from the tone of your blog it sounds like you're not remotely interested in having a conversation but instead ignoring everything else to push an agenda.
I'm not sure it would change the debate. I would just prefer if pro-choicer didn't use misleading terms in the same way pro-choicers prefer that prolifers not use misleading terms.
If it doesn’t change the debate, then what is your point? No one was “deliberately misleading� anyone, they just used a term with which you don’t agree. Your pointed has been conceded to.
I assume, then, that you agree that the anti-choice/pro-force pregnancy crowd deliberately misleads, contorts facts, or flat-out lies to push their agenda, since your only quibble was with two words (that you admit doesn’t change the point of the post)?
Roni,
The tone of my blog? Combative? I'm not sure the pro-choicers who read my blog on a regular basis would call me "combative?" Do mean the fact I make prolife arguments? Is that a combative tone? Presenting arguments you disagree with?
Shelby Woo,
No, they used a term that is either - 1.) deliberately misleading or 2.) they are ignorant about implantation and how it works.
Why would you assume prolifers do all those things because I've pointed out Ann's error. How does one lead to another?
"There's actually no debate among doctors (those without an anti-choice bias, anyway), medical associations, and FDA officials about when pregnancy begins." -----THAT IS A BALD FACE LIE!!! If you don't believe me then just pick up medical dictionary or if you don't have access to a medical dictionary you can look it up on www.answers.com!!! Here's what it says below
DEFINITION
The period from conception to birth. After the egg is fertilized by a sperm and then implanted in the lining of the uterus, it develops into the placenta and embryo, and later into a fetus. Pregnancy usually lasts 40 weeks, beginning from the first day of the woman's last menstrual period, and is divided into three trimesters, each lasting three months.
DEFINITION
Pregnancy is a state in which a woman carries a fertilized egg inside her body.
"There's actually no debate among doctors (those without an anti-choice bias, anyway), medical associations, and FDA officials about when pregnancy begins." -----THAT IS A BALD FACE LIE!!! If you don't believe me then just pick up medical dictionary or if you don't have access to a medical dictionary you can look it up on www.answers.com!!! Here's what it says below
DEFINITION
The period from conception to birth. After the egg is fertilized by a sperm and then implanted in the lining of the uterus, it develops into the placenta and embryo, and later into a fetus. Pregnancy usually lasts 40 weeks, beginning from the first day of the woman's last menstrual period, and is divided into three trimesters, each lasting three months.
DEFINITION
Pregnancy is a state in which a woman carries a fertilized egg inside her body.
Yeah, I really believe answers.com or a dictionary above actual doctors and scientists.