Replies

What is 'very early abortive contraception'? RU-468? THe morning after pill (of course, that isn't abortive)?

Ronald Reagan explained the rape exception in a very nice way. He did not say that abortion was murder, but he did think that it was wrong. He said that just like a woman had the right to defend herself from the rapist, she had the right to defend herself from the result of the violent act that she did not ask for.

Some people definitely regard the morning after pill as being as much an abortifacient as RU-486 (you transposed a couple of numbers). They tend to be against any oral contraceptives; fortunately, the regular birth control pill is not likely to be banned just because they don't like it.

RU-486 is chemical abortion and can be done at any stage of pregnancy though there are higher risks later in the term. The morning-after pill functions almost identically to regular birth control pills, essentially making the womb resistant to a fertilized egg implanting itself. Since it takes up to 12 hours (as I recall) for an egg to implant itself, the morning-after pill is not necessarily a chemical abortion pill but it is questionable. Morally, it should be taken as soon as possible after the unprotected sex. I think you have something like 36 hours for it to be effective. Again, a woman should be able to 'choose' to recognize she was raped and at risk of pregnancy within 36 hours.

Ronald Reagan explained the rape exception in a very nice way. He did not say that abortion was murder, but he did think that it was wrong. He said that just like a woman had the right to defend herself from the rapist, she had the right to defend herself from the result of the violent act that she did not ask for.

Reagan was right on a lot of things but wrong here. If you have defined abortion as killing a human life then it is in no way 'just' to allow her to kill a child in self defense just because the father did something terrible. It is not about 'forcing' her to carry it. It is about not allowing her to kill it because she feels upset. Reagan's explanation is all warm and fuzzy but try to explain that to the many people out there that are the product of a rape. If their existence reminds their mother of something bad it does not invalidate their right to live. You can try to justify it as being compassionate but that does not show any compassion to the innocent child.
In the first part of Reagan's example the woman is defending her well being and maybe life from a violent aggressor intent on doing her deliberate harm. In the second case she is killing an innocent child because it reminds her of something bad that happened. Sorry, those are not even remotely equal.