The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work (as does the regular birth control pill):
1. Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released;
2. The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
In other words, if the third action occurs, her body rejects the living human embryo, and the child will die. This result is a chemical abortion. (Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a living preborn human being—a life that begins at fertilization.)
This is old and out dated information, no longer valid. Two separate labs have verified the lack of post-ovulatory changes that could prevent implantation. See my # 22.
Which in the United States of America... unless you would like to install a religious icon to rule the country like Iran. People have freedom of choice.
I personally would rather have a pill on the market that aborts a 1 day old embreyo then for a society to go on fooling itself that a 6,7,8, or 9 month old "child" can't live outside the womb.
With advances like these many Oregon will get rid of one of it's insane laws. Which is to say that if the embillical cord is still attached to a baby then it is a fetus and cannot be murdered.(A woman had a child and dumped it a few miles from my work.. it still had the cord attached so police didn't bother to even try and find the woman.)
I agree with your definition. I had a discussion about this recently with an elected official who is also a doctor. His point was that by that definition (anything that interferes with implantation or growth of a fertilized egg is abortion), IUD's also qualify. Should they be banned, too? In fact, I think this view rules out just about everything that does not rely on a barrier.
Serious questions to ponder.