Posted on 03/29/2006 10:31:42 AM PST by ladyshealth
Emergency contraception, Plan B, and abortion.
Note: Many forms of contraception, including Plan B® and emergency contraception, use various mechanism to prevent and end a pregnancy. The primary mechanism stops ovulation, and if that fails, a secondary mechanism is the prevention of implantation of a newly created human.
Misinformation?
Those promoting emergency contraception, including Plan B®, claim such drugs do not cause abortions. They claim that those opposing emergency contraception are not telling the truth and trying to redefine pregnancy, when it's the other way around!
In fact, here is a quote from the Planned Parenthood website:
"In order to hinder women's access to this important method of contraception, they falsely claim that emergency contraception (iEC) is an abortifacient, and they disseminate other misinformation about its safety and efficacy."
Planned Parenthood itself is spreading false information while in the same stroke of the pen accusing their opposition of doing exactly that.
Groups like Planned Parenthood are able to make their claims regarding emergency contraception due to the fact that there has been a long standing attempt to redefine the word pregnancy.
The Meaning of "Pregnancy"
Long ago, medical professionals have changed the accepted starting point of pregnancy from fertilization to implantation. This redefinition was political in nature and done to further the acceptance of contraception, to help distance it from abortion. Consider that since abortion was not legal in many States until 1973, and contraceptive drugs came out much earlier, they would be illegal since they would be abortifacients. This is why the definition of pregnancy was changed -- to disguise the abortifacient aspect of these drugs.
Abortion rights groups are using this redefinition to bolster their claim that birth control and emergency contraception are not abortifacients.
However, this politically motivated redefining of pregnancy is not accepted by all physicians nor all dictionaries. Many doctors and dictionaries describe pregnancy as beginning at conception, and define conception as fertilization. In fact, Stedman's Medical Dictionary, a well respected and recognized publication, defines pregnancy as beginning at conception, not implantation. According to this definition, drugs which prevent implantation do indeed cause an abortion!
Word Games
The makers of Plan B® emergency contraception know this as well, but are playing the same word game as Planned Parenthood in order to hide fact that their drug can indeed act as an abortifiacient. Here is a quote from their site:
"Plan B® is an emergency contraceptive that can still prevent a pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected sex...Plan B® should be taken within 3 days (72 hours) of unprotected sex and can reduce the risk of pregnancy by 89%. But the sooner you take it the more effective it will be. Plan B® is not RU-486 (the abortion pill); it will not work if you are already pregnant."
Notice how they make it seem like this pill doesn't harm a pregnancy? But they aren't telling the whole story here, that it indeed can terminate the life of an unborn human! And they are spreading misinformation with their statement that it "will not work if you are already pregnant" when in fact it will according to a majority of the definitions of pregnancy!
These statements are examples of how changing the definitions of a word can be used to hide the truth.
Conclusion
The battle over the definition of pregnancy has a direct impact on the future of contraception methods which prevent implantation. If the medical definition of pregnancy is restored to its prior meaning (and the meaning virtually most dictionaries use), many forms of contraception would be undeniably recognized as being potential abortifacients. (Potential in that they often do prevent ovulation, and as a backup they may prevent implantation).
It's not entirely clear that the abortifacient mechanism of these drugs are effective 100% of the time -- even surgical abortions are not always successful and babies are born alive. But these drugs are designed, from the beginning, to prevent implantation. If they were designed that way, make no mistake the intention was to cause a termination of a pregnancy prior to implantation. Regardless of if this can be medically termed as an abortion, a newly created human being is still killed as a result of these drugs.
>>It is the moment of implantation that is generally regarded as "conception".
Same word game to excuse abortifacient drugs.
Conception is defined in most dictionaries as being fertilization, not implantation.
Since ovulation is only a very short time in the menstrual cycle, andthe egg is only viable for 24 hours after being released, the vast majority of the time it causes early abortion by making the uterine lining inhospitable.
Only approx 1 day out of the cycle could plan B possibly prevent ovulation, and I'm not sure it does then, but I could be wrong.
I will not prescribe this under any circumstances.
Well, if they admit that much at least it pushes their definition of when life begins back to conception (instead of when the head exits the birth canal)
I wonder if they realize this?
How is having a menstrual period earlier than normal "wrong"?
Yes, and IUD is an abortifacient. Some are impregnated with hormones and the claim is that the hormones act to prevent fertilization, but I still believe the primary mechanism is prevention of implantation
I have had 2 miscarraiges of deeply wanted children, and still mourn their loss. I did nothing to cause this, and I deeply resent your insinuations.
I do not believe that abortion in the case of rape or incest is acceptable. Why should the truly innocent life be taken for the crime of others? I have an adopted child, and adoption is an option. I also believe that an abortion and its consequences are as psychologically damaging to a woman as the rape or incest, so it is not the easy way out for anyone.
Becuase it is done with the express purpose of denying implantation to an embryo that has already been created. This is abortion. I believe abortion is wrong
That's what I thought too. Maybe they WERE wrong in health class back in the 70's. /so
Is birth control acceptable?
What is the problem with involuntary manslaughter for a miscarriage? Involuntary manslaughter results from an accidental killing of a human. Isn't the fertilized egg a person?
Birth control is acceptable to me, it does not destroy a life already created.
Involuntary manslaughter implies the person charged did something to contribute to the death or "accident" In the case of a miscarraige, the mother does nothing to contribute to the cuase of the miscarraige.
I don't believe that. Of course, you are welcome to do so.
In the case of a natural failure to implant ( and I'm not sure I agree with your premise, the early miscarraige rate seems to be approx 30-50%, and in some of those cases an embryo never develops (blighted ovum) nothing is done by anyone else to help this process
You have your own conscience, I could not live with mine if I deliberately did something to prevent the development of an already conceived human being.
Under your line of reasoning, mothers should be brought into court for involuntary manslaughter for giving their kids junk food-it might eventually cause heart disease and lead to their death.
You have your line and I have mine, but I do not feel my position is ridiculous no matter how much you try to make it so. I can sleep at night.
i think the pro-life movement should figure out where it wants to draw the line.
i would be happy to draw the line at "implantation" and accept "plan B" pills IF it meant outlawing all type of abortion (like South Dakota's law).
if pro-life wants to draw line an fertilization then it needs to clarify that it is against IUDs, planB, birth control pills (that contain progesterone), in-vitro-fertilization, etc.
(i know that some 'pro-life' people are consistent and not hypocrites -- i don't have a problem accepting their viewpoint, but in this society i think a South Dakota type law should be a good compromise)
I agree. My personal thought on women who have abortions is that they are selfish. Only God gives the gift of life and to throw that away under any circumstances is wrong. For a woman to have an abortion from rape or incest, I believe, is a slap at God's hand to perform something miraculous to take the place of the bad thing that happened. Think of how many childless couples are out there who would love to take and care for such a child. Even children with disabilities are so special, and they somehow seem to touch people's lives in special ways. People have no faith anymore. As a mother, I would gladly give my life for my children if it ever came down to it, so I don't believe the "mother's life in danger" line either.
Just my opinion.
Among all the other common things... refusal to take prenatal vitamins, refusal to have protected sex which can result in disease, consumption of alcohol in the first three weeks of pregnancy... BEFORE a pregnancy test has confirmed the pregnancy, and those who take toxic medications out of necessity, before or after they learn they are pregnant. A doctor can say that the effects from these medications are minimal in the first trimester. But what if the doctor is wrong? etc...
Ironically, how do you prosecute these women when there is no outward evidence that a crime has happened? They may be guilty under "a law", but there is no evidence. They aren't going to tell anyone they did these things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.