How so? As you said, it's a natural phenomenon. I'm not sure how this turns into a dilemma for the pro-life community.
Well, in Wisconsin, a pro-life group considers birth control abortion, so this must be, also.
"the embryo was a formed fetus with a head, hair and eyes"According to all of the anti-abortion arguments I have read this definitely fits their definition of human life. How can destruction of this embryo be justified while others can't?-nice catch iT
There are several birth control options which are abortifacient. I hope that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone here. I'm not sure what the exact stance of the Catholic Church is on such cases, though I should note that the article seems to indicate that they originally thought it was a tumor, and only after extraction realized it was a fetus (which would certainly reduce culpability if you were looking at this from a most legalistic and rigid POV).I know that the Catholic Church prefers that even non-viable embryos be allowed to be taken to term, but in this instance, no such thing would ever have occurred, having been absorbed over 9 years earlier by its twin. The Catholic Church also is clear that ectopic pregnancies, which can only be treated by removal of the fallopian tube (otherwise the woman will die) is an acceptable procedure. Similar with uterine cancer, whereby the uterus is removed to save the mother with the secondary effect being the death of the fetus. I would imagine this case is similar in nature.
Tom - There are several birth control options which are abortifacient.I'd argue that no method of "birth control" - that is, something you take on a regular basis to prevent pregnancy - could be considered an abortifacient. There are some one-time use emergency methods that might qualify, but that's it.Also, this story is somewhat horrifying, mostly for the little girl involved. Eesh.
Emily - I'd argue that no method of "birth control" - that is, something you take on a regular basis to prevent pregnancy - could be considered an abortifacient.If the birth control method has the effect of inhibiting implantation, then it can also reasonably be called an abortifacient. Some hormonal contraceptives and even IUD's, in addition to inhibiting fertilization, also inhibit implantation. Making the abortifacient term relevant.
Post a Comment