These questions sound bizarre, but it shows how distorted the abortion debate has become and how abortion advocates mislead the public. Advocates of the Plan B/Early Contraception/Morning after pill say that the pill will not terminate pregnancy. This leaves the hearer with the impression that Plan B does not take a human life.
It is true that the common medical definition of when pregnancy begins is when the newly conceived human being implants him or herself into the womb. This definition means that you existed for a few or for several days before making your mother pregnant!
This definition is used to evade an important point. It is a biological fact that each human life begins at conception, not at implantation. This is true even if pregnancy is technically defined as beginning at implantation of the unborn into the womb. This explains how abortion advocates can make it appear that the Plan B/Morning After/Early Contraception pill does not cause an abortion because it technically does not "terminate pregnancy" under this definition. It leaves the impression that no life exists prior to implantation.
Whether or not pregnancy is defined as beginning when the unborn implants into his or her mother's womb does not change the fact that a unique human being exists several days before implantation. A chemical abortion of a newly created human's life can occur by using Plan B without "terminating pregnancy" or before pregnancy occurs.
This illustrates the absurdity of the abortion debate and how abortion advocates mislead the public to keep them from knowing that Plan B does sometimes cause an abortion and that forcing pharmacists to fill Plan B prescriptions makes them participants in ending the life of a new person.
This fact must matter and abortion advocates must know that, otherwise they would not try to evade this point. Unfortunately yesterday's RGJ editorial uses this same logic to say that the Plan B pill does not cause an abortion.
I wish to comment on the recent conclusion of the Nevada 2nd Congressional District Republican Primary. When Sharron Angle was a candidate, Pro-Life Republicans had a candidate for whom to vote.
ReplyDeleteA 2004 authoritative source of moral guidance for Catholics voting in the National election was the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" , published by Catholic Answers out of San Diego.. The principle of the Voters Guide was to state that there are some moral and political issues about which no one can compromise. The five "non-negotiable" issues are abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, and homosexual "marriage". The "Voter's Guide" states that Christians should not vote for candidates who support the above planks.
In Nevada's 2nd Congressional District, the "Voter's Guide", will be a useful tool in the hands of senators
and Congressman wishing to be unequivocal in their support of principles outlined by the Church. Unfortunately, at this time, Mr. Heller, the Republican running for Congress having stated his pro-abortion affiliation. I have my doubts as well as to how strong his opposition is to embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, and human cloning.
ReplyDeleteI cannot, in good conscience, vote for a man whose moral principles deviate so far from the principles of Christian faith!
As much as we find the prospect of a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, I hope it will not be necessary to make a choice between 2 pro-abortion candidates.
To add insult to injury, Sharron Angle has made no attempt, in her endorsement of Heller, to urge Mr. Heller to reverse his position. Fifty percent of the Party voted for Sharron Angle, and many of them are Pro-Life. Will he simply tell us to put up or shut up?
We have gone too far with this holocaust to compromise on this issue! Pro-Lifers STAND UP. Be counted on this issue! Make your views known! Do not accept this issue being swept under the rug by anyone!