“Strong Opinions, Loosely Held”
Elizabeth Hasselbeck doesn’t support the use of the morning after pill because she believes that “life begins at conception.” That’s a wonderful point of view if you ignore the pesky little fact that the only purpose of emergency contraception pills is to prevent conception from occurring. In fact, they have no effect whatsoever on a woman who is already pregnant. Now, no doctor would let you take them for fun but the point of the pill begins and ends well before Hasselbeck’s beliefs are relevant.
The test of her opinion rests at the moment someone informed her that she had misunderstood the medical function of the pill, a fairly common mistake. Did it change? Did she feel relieved or did she respond with “Hmmph, well I still don’t like it.”
Your opinion is either dependent on the facts or it’s not. When they change, you should shift along with them, not wobble and revert like an earthquake proof building. We know that, but try and see. Read something that directly contradicts a long-held opinion on a controversial issue (say gay marriage or tax cuts or some person you idolize), you can see how quickly you try to rationalize and preempt the arguments as though you have a stake in it. The reality is that it shouldn’t matter which side you’re on, so long as it’s the correct side.
I think that “OK, I know but still…” is about the dumbest possible phrase that can come out of your mouth. There’s almost never an excuse for it. It’s rooted in this delusionally coddled belief that you can somehow dissent from the world around you and it will make a difference. Look at the people who live their lives that way: George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Margaret Mead, Marxists, the annoying feminists who totally missed the problem with Hasslebeck’s argument and how that ultimately panned out for the things they all wanted to accomplish. The results do not look good.
This is an interesting manifestation of cognitive dissonance. When reality contradicts your beliefs you need to shift or have what they call a neurotic reaction. Sounds like Hasselback didn’t shift all that well.
That’s a good point, I didn’t catch that. According to the article she burst into tears and had to be delicately calmed down. I don’t recall there ever being a time that any argument ever made me react like that and I’m sure that’s because most people would have long since capitulated in light of the evidence.
Have you ever read up on the personality temperament theory by Keirsey/Myers Briggs. http://www.keirsey.com/?
It’s just a theory and it certainly isn’t all encompassing. But it groups people into four different categories. According to the theory, most people in the media industry are either Idealists or Artisans, whose natural inclination to making judgments are not based on feelings and rationality. Which makes sense – if everyone behaved logically all the time, there would never be any malfunctions that cause conflicts, frustration, climax, euphoria, etc. Ironically, these people are the most influential in media, as they command a strong presence and are capable of inflicting exciting drama. Thus the rise of people like Sarah Palin. This sounds like something she would say.
(sorry if i’ve posted under a different name–it’s been a while).
Hasselcrack *always* bursts into tears when she’s either wrong, said something stupid or said something stupid AND wrong.
She shares the same misconception as many others: that her opinion is valid because it’s *her* opinion…not because it’s backed by fact and therefore has merit.
You don’t need a doctor for the morning after pill, its otc (in PA at least), all you need is an ID.
Great post though, it pissed me off when someone is confronted with a fact that disputes what they believe and they say “It doesn’t matter, that’s just what I believe…” It’s reminiscent of the argument between creationists and anyone with two brain cells. I hate being wrong more than anything, but I like to think that I can admit when I am.
Overcoming bias had a similar post a few months ago called “The Dark Side of Epistemology”.
I’m fairly certain that the morning after pill does not prevent conception. It prevents implantation of the fertilized egg, but does not prevent conception. Normal birth control pills also do not prevent conception.
Hasselbeck will always be as ignorant as she’s told to be. Just like Jessica Simpson wondered aloud about ‘Chicken of the Sea’ to forward her dumb-ass blonde character, Hasselbeck will always maintain her strict right-wing persona and stand on the far right no matter what the facts are. Once some famous preacher comes out and says these things have nothing to do with pregnancy, THEN she’ll change her tune.
**-2008 End of Year Blog Marathon- You are my 69th stop in an 8 hour posting extravaganza! A link to your site will be posted at Stomped Monster!** Follow my marathon live at Twitter: DIY_Rain
That’s wrong. Conception takes several days to actually occur – the reason the pill has a the 72 hour guideline is to preempt the sperm from meeting the egg.
You’re definitely wrong about normal birth control pills which essentially mimic pregnancy and thus trick the body into not releasing eggs into the fallopian tubes. No eggs, no conception.
You and Elizabeth might get along well together.
It actually might be a little more complicated. Plan B may affect multiple early steps in pregnancy including 1) Ovulation 2) “Conception” – or sperm meeting egg and the transformation of two haploid cells into one diploid cell and 3) implantation.
I have never even looked for the basic research supporting these claims… They come from Barr, take it for what it’s worth. Another good post though. The post wasn’t really about pharmacology. Hassleback sucks.
I’m not intending to argue but this is what the Mayo Clinic has to say about the morning after pill:
“Here’s how the morning-after pill works. Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse. Instead, it occurs as long as several days later, after ovulation. During the time between intercourse and conception, sperm continue to travel through the fallopian tube until the egg appears. So taking emergency birth control the “morning after” isn’t too late to prevent pregnancy.
The active ingredients in morning-after pills are similar to those in birth control pills, except in higher doses. Some morning-after pills contain only one hormone, levonorgestrel (Plan B), and others contain two, progestin and estrogen. Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation). Estrogen stops the ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation) that can be fertilized by sperm. ”
From everything I know about the pill, it sort of runs a chemical interference to prevent the two from meeting. Conception is not a philosophical creation, it’s a medical event. It either happens or it doesn’t.
To quote you:
“only purpose of emergency contraception pills is to prevent conception”
“Progestin [can prevent] implantation”
Tese two statements contradict each
other. If you’re going to sneer at others
for being wrong, you should try and be right
You’re really obnoxious. The purpose of the morning after pill is to block the sperm from meeting the egg – some doctors have raised doubts as to whether they also block fertilized eggs. It’s not a contradiction, it’s a small technicality which you just Googled to try (unless of course I’m mistaken and you’re a preeminent contraceptive scholar) and be difficult.
Hasselbeck is clearly confusing Plan B with RU86, which is medically defined as a chemical abortion.
Many detractors from the morning after pill are disingenuous about their true position.
Everybody can agree that reducing the amount of abortions is a good thing. When a medicine that comes on to the market that arguably does that, they vehemently protest regardless of the science behind the medicine.
Because they are really interested in reducing/eliminating consequence free sex outside of marriage, or sex that occurs without procreation as it’s prime purpose. That position is unpalatable to most Westerners. So, under the guise of saving the unborn, these people protest against the very things that assist them in their stated goal, which is reducing/eliminating abortion of any kind.
This is one of the largest hypocrisies I can think of in society today.
Hasselbeck would have remained some Survivor contestant had she not been hired by The View. I’m sure somewhere out there, Barbara Walters is kicking herself in the ass.
Have you heard of the Hasselbeck/Hassenbeck issue from last year?
You can’t necessarily blame people like Miss Hasselbeck for behaving in this manner. People love to vilify those who they believe “do not hold firmly to their opinions” — example how John Kerry was crucified for being a “waffler.” Personally, I like my politicians to change their opinions over time, because it shows that they are thoughtful and considerate. But it’s exceedingly difficult because there are legions of people who are waiting to pounce on them for supposedly contradicting themselves.
Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what she is doing and what you’re talking about. Her opinion is factually wrong on about 5 different levels. And she is doing exactly what you claim not like – refusing to consider that and change.
People are suppose to pounce on misinformed opinions and if they’re correct in their criticism, those opinions should change. When they don’t, you’re dealing with someone whose opinion is independent of the reason they’ve given for supposedly believing in it.
The fact that you state George W, feminists, Marxists, and Margaret Mead all have something in common makes me sick.
The latter 3 all have well-thought out ideals and opinions that cannot be generalized with the simple “OK, I know but still..” reasoning you equate with Hasselbeck. As a feminist, anthropologist, and Marxist, I am deeply offended.
Have you read The Communist Manifesto? Do you fully understand the beliefs and ideas about community and workers it presents? Have you read Coming of Age in Samoa? I mean actually read the entire book, and not just a couple of key chapters. You shouldn’t generalize the opinions of others when you are not fully educated on theirs.
And I suppose whatever side you’re on is always the CORRECT side because you base all your decisions on fact rather than gut or emotion. You’re a real quality fellow, Ryan.
Okay- I am the biggest liberal pseudo-jew there is out there..I don’t care what you do with your body as long as it has no negative effect on me. With that said, I think Hasselbeck meant that live begins when a sperm joins with an egg. Not when an egg implants in the uterus, which is what Plan B prevents: implantation. NOW if EH had a friggen clue she could have backed her shit up with the AGE OLD argument of when life allegedly begins.
Undeniably believe that which you stated. Your favorite reason appeared to be at the internet the easiest factor to understand of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed even as other people consider worries that they just don’t realize about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whole thing without having side effect , folks can take a signal. Will likely be again to get more. Thank you