Hollaback girl? What ever do you mean? Well folks, I usually do "holla" back in my own home and vent my opinions in private, but Elisabeth Hasselbeck on the series "The View" this week has gotten me hot and bothered, and not in a good way. Ya see folks, no matter what Gwen Stefani meant in her song, I am going to holla my way into a response against Mrs. Hasselback's passionate and extreme view on Emergency Contraception displayed earlier this week on The View.
Currently in the news, EC is up YET AGAIN for OTC (over the counter) approval by the FDA. This is the 3rd time in as many years, and Mrs. Hasselback had this to say about EC (check out dlisted.com for a youtube video of her response): basically, human life begins at fertilization for Mrs. Hasselback, when the egg is fertilized by a sperm. This is the generally accepted definition by many pro-lifers, and while I disagree with her opinion, I by no means devalue or discredit her personhood. But ironically, she does mine. How you ask?
Well, let's begin with differentiating the definitions of abortion and emergency contraception. Abortion happens AFTER pregnancy has occurred, while EC intervenes to PREVENT the implantation of a fertilized egg, or the actual fertilization of an egg.
According to dr.spock.com, a fertilized egg is only ONE CELL called a zygote. The cells then begin to multiply and cluster into a ball. This ball is called a blastocyst. It will take on average 3-4 DAYS for this blastocyst (or clump of cells multiplying and dividing) to travel down to the uterus to implant itself into the lining, where it will burrow into the uterine wall where it becomes an embryo, and begins to feed off the uterine wall.
Now, according to Mrs. Hasselback's definition of life, this clump of cells is what is referred to as "life" or "personhood."
Okay. But what is personhood? And how do we define it? If EC is going to be said to be "killing" a "personhood" or a "potential" personhood, then we must understand what makes a personhood and therefore, what factors are needed in order for that personhood to be considered "killed" "murdered" or "dead."
Also according to dr.spock.com, at 3 weeks of pregnancy, the embryo is the size of a head of a pin. Not detectable by the human eye; a clump of cells. It is generally accepted by the medial community that a heartbeat can begin anywhere from the 6th to 8th week.
But does a heartbeat constitute personhood? It is important to point out that the idea of personhood in and of itself is an abstract term, one that is not accepted by a mass group of people. It changes and mutates depending on its context and who is delivering the message. Second, pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception, but there are also passages in the bible that state life begins when blood appears and the jewish interpretation of life or personhood is at childbirth. So which one do we follow? (religioustolerance.org)
Many medical professionals have argued about what constitutes this personhood. According to Paul Campos, a professor of law at the University of Colorado, states "Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question at whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: it is essentially a religious or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world."
For many medical professionals, many measure what is life by what is death. Death, in the medical community, means flat-lines, or there is no central nervous system function, and no electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex. If a person meets this definition of flat-line, then they are legally and medically dead. By an embryo's central nervous system is still forming, and there is no electrical activity in the underdeveloped brain. Perhaps there is a heartbeat, but once the cells that formed the heart begin to beat to pump the first bit of blood into the cells so they can continue to grow and multiply, then that is not life, but the ability of the developing cells to insure they can continue to grow and multiply. The electrical activity and central nervous system does not begin to work in the fetus until somewhere between the 14th and 22nd week. Therefore, the fetus is considered "dead" until the electrical activity and CNS begins to function. If it is dead, then it is not alive. Basic logic.
In addition, how should we classify a fungus? Isn't that a clump of cells multiplying and dividing? A bacteria? Is that life also? Is an egg, the ones we eat, a life? And if we are defining life, logic dictates that we cannot pick what is life and what is not; if life is a personhood, or something that has cells that multiply, then why not animals? Cows? Dogs? Pigs? Animals that people eat? Test on? How can we be selective of what is valuable life and what is not? If a clump of cells is to be valued, then logically, that has to be extended to all things that meet the definition of "life."
More so, what about the issue of privacy? Is it not true that a human being's body is their own personal property? And when did it become the norm to value a potential life over one currently living?
Why are we so concerned about the potential of a person when we have real persons right now who are starving (South America, etc) who are homeless (right here in good 'ole USA) and 54 million Americans who do not have healthcare? Why are unborn fetuses valued MORE than current human beings and their own lives?
Or my life for that matter? Are women's bodies only baby factories, whose life purpose is to procreate and then give up their own personhood for their baby? It seems that's what's being demanded and asked of women. Since when did my life (as a 26 yr old Ph.D student) become less valued than that of a clump of cells? And who gets to decide what is and is not valuable?
If women do not fulfill their potential of life, are then too murderers? Because they had potential they DID NOT USE? It seems we are heading in that direction.
Mrs. Hasselback also asked why "we" as women would want the govt. to leave the EC decision up to us (as a privacy) but ask for universal healthcare? Well, Mrs. Hasselback, it goes back to the belief that CURRENT life is MORE valuable than potential life; in addition, as a fully developed human being (and not a fetus, embryo, etc.) I have the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to LIVE and afforded to me by the Constitution: (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) is guaranteed to me; however, if I can't take care of my LIFE then how can I pursue happiness or enjoy liberty? Health is a part of life, and we are guaranteed this; it becomes the responsiblity of not only this country's govt. by also this country's PEOPLE. We have an obligation to value the life (as we like to preach that we do) of every single US citizen in this country. If we do not, we are all equally to blame and are all murderers of life if we stand by and let a man in Missouri fail to receive a heart transplant b/c he was denied by his insurance, or a woman in California who cannot afford chemo for her breast cancer. WE are all guilty and are hands are not red with the blood shed from unwanted cells, but from the blood shed by this existing persons, who more fully meet the definition of "life" more than ANY fetus, embryo or fungus could.
When are we going to wake up and realize we are all hypocrits? We are all guilty until we leave behind our ways of individualism, selfishness, and all around chosen ignorance.
EC is NOTHING compared to what we are doing to US citizens and people around the world. What about Israel? Do they not value life? They are targeting and killing mostly children, hospitals, grocery stores, etc. And if you INCREASE contraception, you DECREASE abortion. And that's what you're so afraid of right? It seems to me supporting something that can heed an abortion is something that is saving a life, according to you. Why not support it?
