E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, December 4, 2015

Chemical birth control, acting as an abortifacient

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

It is a common misconception that abortion opponents are inconsistent, or at least working against our own goals, by opposing birth control as a means to avoid abortion. But that ignores an important argument about chemical birth control, which I pointed out in the comments for a letter to the editor last week:

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that chemical birth control - which even Planned Parenthood admits can act as an abortifacient - is also the termination of a human life. Scientifically, they are correct. Whether a baby is killed chemically at the earliest stages of pregnancy or surgically later, it is still the destruction of a human life.

(I am not Catholic, by the way.)

I got some aggressive pushback against this statement, including some rather nasty personal attacks. I was called a buffoon (among other things) and repeatedly accused of being dishonest. But this is not something I just made up out of thin air. The federal Food and Drug Administration determined decades ago that because chemical birth control can prevent implantation of an embryo - a newly formed human being.

For those (like me) who believe that life begins at fertilization, this is unacceptable. Obviously, I understand why philosophical or religious opposition to chemical birth control would be controversial. What I find interesting is that the finding that chemical birth control (specifically the meaning the estrogen and progestin combination, commonly referred to as "the pill") can prevent implantation is so controversial and provokes so much rage.

It is especially interesting that this rage is provoked in people who support the right of women to have surgical abortions. Just form a visual perspective, a surgical abortion is a much more visually graphic and bloody procedure, as you can see from these pictures.

When you're dealing with preventing implantation, we are talking about something so tiny it is basically invisible. When an embryo fails to implant (naturally or as the result of chemical birth control) a woman will probably never even know that fertilization has taken place. Abortion-rights apologists routinely dismiss surgical abortion as removing "a clump of cells." This is obviously and laughably false in the case if a surgical abortion, but is an accurate description for chemical abortion. So what exactly is the big deal here? I honestly do not know the answer.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.