 |
|
I'm trying to understand this argument.
Posted on: May 30, 2019 at 14:53:01 CT
CulturedDan MU
Posts:
94597
Member For:
15.26 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
The authors in that paper are arguing that Plan B is, in fact, an abortafacient because destroys the fetus after fertilization.
"The controversy over LNG-EC focuses mainly on whether it is an abortifacient, that is, whether it causes the loss of life after fertilization. "
"Some today advance the argument that LNG-EC is not abortifacient because they attempt to define pregnancy as beginning at implantation and argue that any loss of life prior to implantation is not abortion. This definition was first promoted by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)2 in 1965 (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Terminology Bulletin 1965), who attempted to redefine life as beginning at implantation. If one accepts this definition, then one may conveniently forgo mentioning its abortifacient effect to patients, as any destruction of life prior to implantation would be defined as “prior to being pregnant.” This argument justifies its conclusions by arbitrarily altering the definition of when life begins. We consider this argument devoid of biological accuracy. For clarity, the terms used in this paper accept the definition that any hormone or device that causes an artificial interruption of life after fertilization is an abortifacient."
gametes are necessary for life - they are not living beings, just like a skin cell is not a living being.
I'm trying to understand the stillborn statement, what do you mean by that?
"The controversy over LNG-EC focuses mainly on whether it is an abortifacient, that is, whether it causes the loss of life after fertilization. "
"Some today advance the argument that LNG-EC is not abortifacient because they attempt to define pregnancy as beginning at implantation and argue that any loss of life prior to implantation is not abortion. This definition was first promoted by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)2 in 1965 (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Terminology Bulletin 1965), who attempted to redefine life as beginning at implantation. If one accepts this definition, then one may conveniently forgo mentioning its abortifacient effect to patients, as any destruction of life prior to implantation would be defined as “prior to being pregnant.” This argument justifies its conclusions by arbitrarily altering the definition of when life begins. We consider this argument devoid of biological accuracy. For clarity, the terms used in this paper accept the definition that any hormone or device that causes an artificial interruption of life after fertilization is an abortifacient."
gametes are necessary for life - they are not living beings, just like a skin cell is not a living being.
I'm trying to understand the stillborn statement, what do you mean by that?
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
I'm trying to understand this argument. - dangertim MU - 5/30 14:53:01