This is second in a series of discussions regarding the morality of the Morning After Pill. he original conversation can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/prolifedemocrats
The tests are very accurate (there are several available and ridiculously cheap) so that when the test is administered it looks for several things, one of them being certain hormone levels that are indicative of either a pre-ovulation or post ovulation phase.
Whether there is abortion or not is dependent on what scientific reasoning you adhere to. If you believe life begins at conception, i.e. fertilization, then the action of the morning after pill stripping the uterine walls preventing implantation does make it an abortion. On the other hand, if you believe that life begins at implantation, or past the blastula stage, then no, an abortion has not ocurred. I believe as well as many scientists do, that life begins at fertilization so the most moral use (are there degrees or morality?) of the morning after pill is to prevent ovulation. No ovulation, no egg present, no conception.
If there already has been implantation, then stripping the uterine walls does not abort the baby, it only harms it, many times contributing to a miscarriage. So its use after implantation is even more harmful than its use before because it hurts two individuals, the mother and the baby.
I do concede that in reality, many fertilizations do not ever implant, some studies say as much as 1 out of 2, so that a woman's body can spontaneously abort many embryos before she has a successful implantation. That does not make my belief of the beginning of life any different, it only lets me not get really, really pissed at people who may use the morning after pill, because in reality, the morning after pill is by far better than an aspiration abortion, but still, it kills life and shouldn't be used.
The tests are very accurate (there are several available and ridiculously cheap) so that when the test is administered it looks for several things, one of them being certain hormone levels that are indicative of either a pre-ovulation or post ovulation phase.
Whether there is abortion or not is dependent on what scientific reasoning you adhere to. If you believe life begins at conception, i.e. fertilization, then the action of the morning after pill stripping the uterine walls preventing implantation does make it an abortion. On the other hand, if you believe that life begins at implantation, or past the blastula stage, then no, an abortion has not ocurred. I believe as well as many scientists do, that life begins at fertilization so the most moral use (are there degrees or morality?) of the morning after pill is to prevent ovulation. No ovulation, no egg present, no conception.
If there already has been implantation, then stripping the uterine walls does not abort the baby, it only harms it, many times contributing to a miscarriage. So its use after implantation is even more harmful than its use before because it hurts two individuals, the mother and the baby.
I do concede that in reality, many fertilizations do not ever implant, some studies say as much as 1 out of 2, so that a woman's body can spontaneously abort many embryos before she has a successful implantation. That does not make my belief of the beginning of life any different, it only lets me not get really, really pissed at people who may use the morning after pill, because in reality, the morning after pill is by far better than an aspiration abortion, but still, it kills life and shouldn't be used.
posted by Mark at 3:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home