Shoehorning science to fit an agenda? May 8, 2006Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Global Warming, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mechanistic Relativism.
There has been much hollering on the Lefty blogs lately about misrepresentations regarding the Plan B contraceptive. Moonbats such as PZ Myers (whose blog I am on a self-enforced 2-week hiatus from commenting upon; I always sin against charity in that bizarre echo chamber) and DailyKos are the two loudest, most recent gibbous-moonbayers on this topic.
Their claim is essentially this: characterizing Plan B as anything like the RU-486 abortion pill is misleading. It is designed strictly to prevent ovulation;
How many times do I have to say this? There is ABSOLUTELY NO CLINICAL EVIDENCE FOR ANY EFFECT OTHER THAN ON OVULATION. Vague hypotheticals that it might do X, Y, or Z don't cut it, unless you've got some supporting observations. (Myers, commenting on Kos and quoted in Pharyngula)
It has no impact on recently fertilized eggs, meaning it is NOT an abortion pill. Anyone who speculates otherwise is just plain wrong. Darksyde over at Kos says essentially the same thing.
Yet the FDA says something rather different:
Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.
This is the great hypothetical that Myers is in such a snit about. Interesting that the number one government agency in terms of med oversight states that Plan B could have an abortifacient feature to it.
Myers insists that to speculate to this without obeservation "> . .(won't) cut it." Why not? He is deliberately setting the table to make it a priori in favor of ruling against the notion of Plan B being an abortifacient because he knows to observe it in action as such is verging on impossible. To do this by means of clinical observation, we need to have numerous poor women engage in "unprotected sex" near their ovulation dates, take Plan B, then insert medical imaging equipment in utero to see if 1)an egg has been recently fertilized and 2) to make sure that the egg does not implant. Not that any egg WOULD implant when the uterus and cervix are being clogged by imaging equipment. And even with this equipment, finding a fertilized egg I expect is not all that easy. And isn't there some concept from basic high school science that states to observe a phenomena is to alter its outcome? Here's a CLASSIC case for that to occur.
The FACT remains that Plan B does thin the walls of the uterine lining, making implantation of a fertilized egg that less likely. Even Wikipedia agrees on this.
But then, Myers is less than concerned if this does prove to be true:
Even if one in a million times some zygote got flushed (compared to the 500,000 times in a million that it will be spontaneously aborted), WHO CARES?
That's our Pharyngula boy for you! Ever-caring about the welfare of "zygotes".
And I would be willing to bet that the odds are less than 1/1,000,000. FAR less. Myers is being disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Anyone know any stats out there about female sex drive in relation to nearness of ovulation? Not that human females experience estrus, but I bet that the drive increases right around the time the ovary lets go of the "gamete."
There is so much to comment upon here: The Left Science/Materialist-Atheist reliance on observed phenomena as the sole arbiter of truth; the mad desire to excuse all abortifacients as acceptable; the continued demeaning of anyone or anything that dares to challenge the self-appointed purveyors of scientific truth, to the point of saying that any scientist who challenges the temple wisdom is a heretic. For example:
It does not help that the FDA website offers what appears to be a politically motivated description of the effect of Plan B here: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm.
This last from a commenter on Pharyngula now claiming the FDA is a Bush stooge.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
"Plan B is not an abortifacient!! You can't prove otherwise!!", this despite the evident reality that there will be numerous instances when Plan B will be EXACTLY that, an abortifacient.
"We are causing global warming!!!" I've already assaulted this bit of specious nonsense here, here, here, here, and here. The concern is that we have people trained in science bending their own discoveries to fit their personal biases.
Which is quite human, of course. But isn't this why we tried to reduce all truth to what is observed, objectively?
Yet, in contraception, in global warming, and even in AIDS prevention, we keep coming up against trained, supposedly coolly objective scientists blowing that very cool and reaching back feverishly into the vat of red-hot subjectivism to back their personal biases.
Science as religion, anyone?