All they’re really doing with the life begins at fertilization crap is moving the goalposts to define things however they need to to prevent women from having control over whether or not she has a child other than through abstinence.

And unrelated, but ugh, I was trying to find sites about “chemical pregnancy” and now I’m just annoyed. So many of them have to say how unfortunate it is that 50% of fertilized eggs never implant/lead to actual pregnancy. I can understand this on sites for people trying to get pregnant, but I saw it on a couple sites just presenting pregnancy information.

I say that really depends on your point of view.

If I defined ‘pregnant’ to begin at fertilization, I’d have to admit that we couldn’t conveniently tell whether someone was pregnant for several days.

Yes, and the reason for that is that it’s quite common for fertilized eggs to fail to implant. So by the time you figured out that an egg had been fertilized, there’s a 50 percent chance that it would have already been rejected and flushed out by the body, which puts you back at Square One.

The reason we’re splitting hairs about this is that there are people out there who are actively working to get the birth control pill and Plan B banned on the grounds that it causes abortions. They are actively pushing the incorrect notion that pregnancy begins at fertilization and the only reason fertilization fails is by direct human intervention.

Treating something that fails 50 percent of the time as an inevitable event is what’s making us crazy here. Would we talk about the great success of our space program if half of the astronauts we sent into space died upon re-entry (if not before)?

I guess I’m also skeptical of the latter argument, though. If I defined ‘pregnant’ to begin at fertilization, I’d have to admit that we couldn’t conveniently tell whether someone was pregnant for a several days. So what? There is not in general a tendency to define medical terms so that it is easy to tell whether they apply. I mean, surely there are lots of medical conditions that do not show any symptoms for several days, right?

Look, I’m making people mad unnecessarily, becuase I agree that life does not begin at fertlization and I agree that the evidence suggests that EC etc. do not flush out fertlized eggs. I just think that this terminological stuff is not very persuasive, and I find it a little irritating.

This is a great discussion and I’m late joining in, but I have to say something that bugs me. The man is a walking penis. He’s an idiot. A stereotype.

That came up the first time this video made the rounds and, yeah, it’s pretty annoying. Way to play into the Women as Gatekeepers, Man=Penis, and all the other assorted sexist stereotypes, Planned Parenthood!

If you want more info, may I suggest Woman: An Intimate Geography by Natalie Angier.

There are a lot of loser men out there who don’t bother understanding the intricacies of sex beyond his role. I think that if the man in this cartoon was portrayed as empathetic, understanding, and eager to learn about the affects of his “role,” the video would serve as a better model for behavior.

Maybe not. I just see the clueless, idiot jock persona more and more these days, especially on television and advertising. One the one hand, these portraits reflect society, but on the other, they reinforce harmful stereotypes.