title: Artifacts, intentions, and contraceptives: the problem with having a plan B for plan B.
abstract: It is commonly proposed that artifacts cannot be understood without reference to human intentions. This fact, I contend, has relevance to the use of artifacts in intentional action. I argue that because artifacts have intentions embedded into them antecedently, when we use artifacts we are sometimes compelled to intend descriptions of our actions that we might, for various reasons, be inclined to believe that we do not intend. I focus this argument to a specific set of artifacts, namely, medical devices, before considering an extended application to emergency contraceptive devices. Although there is some debate about whether emergency contraception has an abortifacient effect, I argue that if there is an abortifacient effect, then the effect cannot normally be a side effect of one's action.
authors.affiliation: *Canisius College, Department of Philosophy, 2001 Main St., Buffalo, NY 14208. reedp@canisius.edu.
authors.forename: Philip A
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Reed
mesh_terms: D000028:Abortion, Induced / Q000941:ethics* / Q000379:methods / Q000523:psychology; D044363:Contraception, Postcoital / Q000941:ethics* / Q000523:psychology; D004864:Equipment and Supplies / Q000941:ethics; D006801:Humans; D033182:Intention; D016912:Levonorgestrel / Q000008:administration & dosage; D009014:Morals; D010686:Philosophy, Medical
chemical_list: D016912:Levonorgestrel
keywords: artifact; double effect; emergency contraception; function; intention