Wednesday, June 6, 2012

The Morning After Pill... Abortion?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Abortion is back in the news, fueled by possible misconceptions over exactly what the morning after pill does.

The New York Times - Labels inside every box of morning-after pills, drugs widely used to prevent pregnancy after sex, say they may work by blocking fertilized eggs from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Respected medical authorities, including the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic, have said the same thing on their Web sites.

Such descriptions have become kindling in the fiery debate over abortion and contraception.

Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized egg’s ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, “the moral equivalent of homicide,” as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it. Mitt Romney recently called emergency contraceptives “abortive pills.” And two former Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have made similar statements.

But an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents’ definition of abortion-inducing drugs. {Read More}

The New York Times report, which draws on scientific studies that strongly indicate that, “These medications are there to prevent or delay ovulation,” said Dr. Petra M. Casey, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Mayo. “They don’t act after fertilization.” has been met with views ranging from skepticism to outright scorn.

The Hope for America, in response to the new information and NYT article countered with this...

We can always count on "science" (often falsely so-called) coming to the aid of leftists.

"Science" assures us that man-made global warming is a reality. Leftists use that information to attack capitalism.

"Science" assures us that humans share common ancestry with chimpanzees. Leftists use that information to attack Christianity.

And now "science" assures us that the Plan-B pill might not kill an unborn child after all.

The claim now is that Plan B delays ovulation, rather than preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

We're curious as to why the FDA allowed a drug on the market when there is some controversy about what it even does to a human being's body. Or to the unborn child.

The third paragraph in the report begins as follows: "But an examination by The New York Times...".

Color us reactionary, but we're fairly certain that any investigation by The New York Times is going to end making liberals look better than they really are.

And this is no exception. The "investigation" discovered that Plan B is really just like a post-intercourse condom. It prevents fertilization. Nothing more.

Hope for America is {likely} basing their position on faith and words from scripture. Words written by the hand of man, not some divine "entity", thus the inherent contradictions and lack of reason. More to follow on this observation

A couple of rational individuals and their take on the issue of abortion rights. Which is to say the right of a women to control their own body. The first was written in the early 1970's, the second on June 5th of this year. Both make sound reasoned arguments for pro choice, albeit from different perspectives and rationale.

A Last Survey” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3 - Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . .. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.

Because the bible says so

Mindful Digressions - Perhaps the genesis of this social conservative view of the death penalty has its roots in the bible. (Get it...the genesis? I am so witty sometimes it scares me!) The so-called Good Book appears to actually promote capital punishment. The bible says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” [Genesis 9:5-6] and “Whoever strikes a man a mortal blow must be put to death.” [Exodus 21:12-14].

If the ultimate goal of life, according to Christianity (and many other religions), is to live your life on earth in such a way that when you die you will ascend to, and spend eternity in, heaven, being both pro-life and pro-death penalty makes no sense.

These believers claim that the souls of sinful, convicted felons on death row are going to straight to hell. They will not pass Go; they will not collect $200. Because of their sins, heaven’s gates are closed to them and they will burn in hell for eternity.

On the other hand, the soul of the poor, innocent, aborted fetus, which has not sinned, is going straight to heaven. Since no sins have been committed, no everlasting punishment is necessary. Thus, the aborted fetus has a one-way ticket to eternal bliss, right?

Isn’t time in hell without end punishment enough for the felon, while an eternity in heaven is sufficient reward for the aborted fetus? Seems to me that these pro-lifers should be happy for the aborted fetuses; they’ll be forever in the company of God.

Sadly, logic and reason have never been the strong suit of the religious.

And that is the reason/faith paradox. {The Complete Article}

May reasoned and rational minds ultimately prevail, and put this issue to rest once and for all.

Via: Memeoransum


  1. Good find on the article. Les. finds such as those are important and need to be taken into consideration in regards to the issue.
    making judgments of the religious based solely upon the conclusion of their argument without examining all of the premises used for that conclusion is an illogical argument, Les. but then again you presume that their beliefs are based solely upon faith, don't you?

    1. It has been my experience that for the most part, although not always, your assumption as to my presumption would be generally correct.

  2. Les,
    a suggestion if I may. get rid of word verification for your comment section. moderation is all you need to regulate comments.

    1. I'll give it a shot. If spam increases I shall have no alternative but to resume verification. I haven't the time to deal with "auto-bots" leaving comment.

  3. It's really very simple. If it's taken before. it's prevention. If it's taken after, it's abortion.

  4. now, your response has me curious, Les. why do you consider that reason/faith is self-contradictory rather than compatible as a religious person would say?

    1. Faith by it very nature and definition is not reason.

      However, there are people of faith who employ reason quite effectively in their life and decisions.

      The have incorrectly, in my view, reasoned faith is reason.

  5. The sad fact, Les, is that there are extremists on both sides of this issue. Yes, you have people on the right who think that the morning-after pill is an abortion but you also have people on the left who think that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion right up to the very due-date. Me - I've personally tried to stake out a middle-ground in which abortions remain safe and legal but also one in which some common-sense restrictions in the third trimester are allowed. No, it doesn't achieve the goal of making everybody happy but I think that a 65-70% consensus could ultimately emerge from it.

    1. I have taken the position, for years I might add, that the right to an abortion should cease when the fetus (unborn child) is able to survive outside the womb. either without or WITH conventional life support mechanisms.

      So yes, I would restrict abortion to the point in time science generally views the above description to occur.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.