Most BC pills actually prevent ovulation. No ovulation = no egg = nothing to abort. Even the most common IUD’s are generally not regarded as abortifacients by the medical community.
This notion that something “could” be an abortifacient and therefore, it must be interpereted as such, with no real evidence to that fact, is a dangerous slope that many people, even those who are nominally prolife, don’t want to ski down.
What do you mean by “no real evidence”?
Yep. It's exactly like the loony left view that guns are evil because they are sometimes used to commit crimes.
RockinRight,
The medical community changed the definition of the beginning of pregnancy to refer to implantation rather than the moment of fertilization.
Chemical contraception works in 3 different ways, most often by disrupting ovulation, but also through making the uterine walls inhospitable for implantation if a conception does occur. This is commonly admitted. For instance:
“Hormonal methods work in one of three ways: 1) preventing a woman’s ovaries from releasing an egg each each month; 2) causing the cervical mucus to thicken making it harder for sperm to reach and penetrate the egg; 3) thinning the lining of the uterus which reduces the likelihood that a fertilized egg will implant in the uterus wall.” http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/overviewtypesbirthcontrol.html
You’re misinformed.
The pill’s primary mechanism fails and conception occurs at least two percent of the time.
When the primary mechanism fails, the secondary mechanism kicks in — the lining is thinned and the embryo dies.
And sometimes both mechanisms fail, because two percent of women taking birth control pills correctly get pregnant.
The science and the statistics don’t say the secondary method “could” be an abortifacient — they say when the primary mechanism fails, it IS an abortifacient. The drug companies print this in the literature that accompanies every bottle. They must disclose the abortifacient “back-up” measure of these pills.
It’s true that most of the time, ovulation is prevented. But you’re being disingenuous not to acknowledge what the manufacturers themselves say about how these pills work: sometimes, ovulation and fertilization occur, and the pregnancy is aborted in the embryonic stage.
“Sometimes,” “Rarely” or “Hardly ever” still means they’re abortifacient.
And there are plenty of doctors, the ones who believe that life begins at conception, not implantation, who share that view.
There are also many second-rate doctors who have no idea the “back-up” mechanism exists.
What’s “dangerous” about pointing out quantifiable scientific evidence?
IUDs are purely abortifacient.
The medical community has conveniently re-defined conception from the traditional "fertilization of an egg by a sperm" to "implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall."
Therefore, they (think they can) say with a straight face that the Pill and the IUD and morning after pills are not "abortifacient" because by their definition "conception" has not yet occurred.
Medical dictionaries redefine "CONCEPTION" to obscure the TRUTH regarding contraceptive technologies
by Brian J. Kopp, DPM
The redifining of "conception" by medicine in new medical dictionaries: Verbal engineering always preceeds social (and medical)engineering
There are several major print medical dictionaries, and several online versions. Apparently, under pressure from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), many of them have changed the defintion of "conception" in the last few years, proving once again that verbal engineering always preceeds social (and medical) engineering.
Here is Tabor's Medical Dictionary's entry:
conception (kSn-s&p´shTn)
1. The mental process of forming an idea. 2. The onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall. SEE: contraception; fertilization; implantation.
Copyright 2001 by F. A. Davis Company
Here is the entry from "On-line Medical Dictionary":
conception
The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst, the formation of a viable zygote. Origin: L. Conceptio
However, Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary sits on the fence:
Main Entry: con·cep·tion
Pronunciation: k&n-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both b : EMBRYO, : FETUS 2 a : the capacity, function, or process of forming or understanding ideas or abstractions or their symbols b : a general idea
Yet the good old "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition," Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, is much more straightforward:
con·cep·tion (kn-spshn)
n.
Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote. The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions. Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought. See Synonyms at idea. Archaic. A beginning; a start. [Middle English concepcioun, from Old French conception, from Latin concepti, conceptin-, from conceptus. See concept.]
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc., does not mince words either:
conception \Con*cep"tion\, n. [F. conception, L. conceptio, fr. concipere to conceive. See Conceive.] 1. The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life.[remaider of definitions deleted]
WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University puts it succinctly:
conception n 1: an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances [syn: concept, construct] [ant: misconception] 2: the act of becoming pregnant; fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon 3: the event that occured at the beginning of something; "from its creation the plan was doomed to failure" [syn: creation] 4: the creation of something in the mind [syn: invention, innovation, excogitation, design]
I wonder how these medical dictionaries define a tubal pregnancy, if "conception" does not occur till after implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall?
I wonder why the "medical" definition of "conception" has been quietly changed?
No need to wonder, really. All the latest contraceptive technologies target the baby at its most vulnerable point, i.e., before implantation but after conception (as traditionally defined.)
If "conception" is not redefined, medicine must admit that these new technologies are indeed abortifacient. Then comes the whole problem of informed consent, conscience clauses, and a refocus of pro-life activity exactly where medicine does NOT want it: At that distinct line between conception and implantation, a line already crossed by hormonal contraception, the morning after pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, IUD's, cloning, stem cell research, and many other emerging technologies.
Here lies the future of the pro-life battle, or its failure, if none show up to do battle.
Conception/Fertilization
What's the difference?
By Cecelia M. Cody
I was out having coffee with a pro-life friend a few weeks ago and we were discussing the question, "When does life begin?" She was making a definite distinction between "conception" and "fertilization," so I asked, "What's the difference?" My friend explained that when we are defending the sanctity of life, we usually use the word "conception" to mark the beginning of life. For example, we tell people that life is sacred from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. However, she explained, due to some frightening happenings it may be time to be more precise with our language.
By "conception," we in the pro-life movement understand this word as meaning "the union of sperm and ovum." Another word for that same event is "fertilization." Even the U.S. Senate used these two terms synonymously as recently as 1982 in its two-volume report on the Human Life Bill then being debated. [1]
The meaning of the word "conception" has been intentionally changed by pro-abortion forces in recent years to refer not to the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, but instead to the implantation of the blastocyst (the newly developing human at about a week after fertilization) into the wall of the mother's uterus. This change in definition has become so commonplace that it is reflected in standard medical reference books such as OB & GYN Terminology: "Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization." [2]
One example of this change in definition is the following, a quote from Planned Parenthood's website:
"According to general medical definitions of pregnancy that have been endorsed by many organizations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the United States Department of Health and Human Services, pregnancy begins when a pre-embryo [3] completes implantation into the lining of the uterus. [4] Methods of contraception, including emergency contraception, prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation, fertilization and/or implantation."[5]
So what's the big deal? Well, this means that now if a preborn baby is purposely killed before implantation, what happens is not called abortion (the name it deserves), but rather contraception, or the "prevention of conception." Look at that Planned Parenthood quote again - they are admitting that some methods of contraception prevent "pregnancy" by preventing "implantation"! If a baby is alive and ready to implant it her mother's womb, isn't the mother pregnant? (Yes!) Wouldn't killing this baby be abortion? (Yes!) Well, not any more! This shift in language is a public relations move to cover up countless abortions. Beware of these new definitions of words when you hear someone talk about "preventing conception." What they really mean includes ABORTION.
So, should we use the term "fertilization" now instead of "conception," just to be crystal clear in what we mean? With modern technology, genetic manipulation, and the threat of cloning, there can even be problems with saying "fertilization." Yes, human life begins with the union of sperm and ovum. But now, even though the procedures used are immoral and contrary to God's plan for creating people, some human lives may begin by other methods of asexual reproduction and the transfer of cell nuclei. Similarly, if a person were ever cloned, he or she would still be a person, with full human rights and dignity. Using the word "fertilization" might be seen as excluding these instances of human life.
So now, to avoid any confusion about whether or not the smallest human beings are persons, it may be best to explain that "human life is sacred, and is to be protected, from the single-cell stage." This wording makes it clear that implantation is not the start of a human life, and that all human beings are members of our family regardless of the circumstances of their beginnings.
[1] See Human Life Bill, US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee of Separation of Powers, 97th Congress, S-158, April-June 1982, Serial No. J-97-16).
[2] OB & GYN Terminology, E. Hughes, ed., Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, 1972.
[3] Note: There is no such official term as a "pre-embryo." Use of this term is yet another attempt to de-personalize the preborn human being.
[4] ACOG, 1998; DHHS, 1978; Hughes, 1972; "Make the Distinction..." 2001.
[5] From website dated August 2002, http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/birthcontrol/ecandma.html