Dueling Definitions of Abortifacient: How Cultural, Political, and Religious Values Affect Language in the Contraception Debate

Hastings Center Report 50 (4):14-19 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Contraception works by preventing fertilization of an egg or preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo. For those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation, contraceptives preventing implantation are not abortifacient. However, for those who assert that pregnancy begins at fertilization, any agent causing the intentional loss of an embryo, even prior to implantation, is abortifacient, both morally and for lack of a different term to describe the postfertilization, preimplantation loss. In the debate on this topic, much of the discourse on both sides wrongly focuses on the opposing side's perceived ignorance in denying scientifically proven definitions rather than on the substance of the conflict. Indeed, both sides accuse the other of prioritizing its “subjective” views over “objective” facts. In this essay, we unpack the scientific, cultural, and religious factors that underlie this debate. We argue that the only way to move forward is to clarify our terminology and engage with the substance of the argument, rather than merely the rhetoric.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,247

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Plan B Agonistics.Thomas J. Davis - 2010 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10 (4):741-772.
Moving the Goalposts in Human Embryo Research.Kevin Wilger - 2016 - Ethics and Medics 41 (8):1-2.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-07-18

Downloads
27 (#825,296)

6 months
9 (#485,111)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?