The Morning After Pill Is Chemically Induced Abortion Video; PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE; STATEMENT ON THE SO-CALLED "MORNING-AFTER PILL"; Vatican City, 31 October 2000. As is commonly known, the so-called morning-after pill recently went on sale in Italian pharmacies. It is a well-known chemical product -- of the hormonal type -- which has frequently - even in the past week - been presented by many in the field and by the mass media as a mere contraceptive, or, more precisely, as an "emergency contraceptive", which can be used within a short time after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, should one wish to prevent the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy. The inevitable critical reactions of those who have raised serious doubts about how this product works, namely, that its action is not merely "contraceptive" but "abortifacient", have received the very hasty reply that such concerns appear unfounded, since the morning-after pill has an "anti-implantation" effect, thus implicitly suggesting a clear distinction between abortion and interception, which is the preventing the implantation of the fertilized ovum, that is, the embryo, in the uterine wall. Considering that the use of this product concerns fundamental human goods and values, to the point of involving the origins of human life itself, the Pontifical Academy for Life feels the pressing duty and definite need to offer some clarifications and considerations on the subject, reaffirming moreover already well-known ethical positions supported by precise scientific data and reinforced by Catholic doctrine. The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation, that is, it can contain estrogens, or estrogen and progestogens or only progestogens, which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly "anti-implantation" function, i.e., it prevents a possible fertilized ovum, which is a human embryo, by now in the blastocyst stage of its development, which is the fifth to sixth day after fertilization, from being implanted in the uterine wall by a process of altering the wall itself. The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo. Only if this pill were to be taken several days before the moment of ovulation could it sometimes act to prevent the latter -- in this case it would function as a typical "contraceptive". However, the woman who uses this kind of pill does so in the fear that she may be in her fertile period and therefore intends to cause the expulsion of a possible new conceptus; above all, it would be unrealistic to think that a woman, finding herself in the situation of wanting to use an emergency contraceptive, would be able to know exactly and opportunely her current state of fertility. The decision to use the term "fertilized ovum" to indicate the earliest phases of embryonic development can in no way lead to an artificial value distinction between different moments in the development of the same human individual. In other words, if it can be useful, for reasons of scientific description, to distinguish with conventional terms such as fertilized ovum, embryo, fetus, etc.; different moments in a single growth process, it can never be legitimate to decide arbitrarily that the human individual has greater or lesser value -- with the resulting variation in the duty to protect it -- according to its stage of development. It is clear, therefore, that the proven "anti-implantation" action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing. Moreover, it seems sufficiently clear that those who ask for or offer this pill are seeking the direct termination of a possible pregnancy already in progress, just as in the case of abortion. Pregnancy, in fact, begins with fertilization and not with the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall, which is what is being implicitly suggested. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it. In the end, since these procedures are becoming more widespread, we strongly urge everyone who works in this sector to make a firm objection of moral conscience, which will bear courageous and practical witness to the inalienable value of human life, especially in view of the new hidden forms of aggression against the weakest and most defenseless individuals, as is the case with a human embryo. All images from Fair Use. Text from the public domain. Audio from Secret of the Rosary Films.
It works after conception also, therefore it is an abortion pill. With 26 million dead from AIDS, and 3400 aborted a DAY in the USA alone, and with all the cancers, clots and disease caused by female steroids - the sexual revolution has proven to be the most efficient killing machine in human history.
LOL
In your desperation to suppress the medical science, you're really making an ass out of yourself now..
Where does ANY medical organization say that estrogens and progestins do NOT cause breast cancer. Show us all your weird science where magically steroids stop causing cancer because of your politics.. Show us.
Google "progestin hypospadias"
this human pesticide also causes birth defects, especially to male offspring. Again, it makes perfect sense, and the numbers are conclusive.
You can NOT keep women in the dark about medical science forever !
Hypospadias has suspected causes including; phthalates, DDT, and polychlorinated biphenyls
In 2008, it was suggested that maternal use of diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogen, resulted in a 20-fold increase in prevalence of hypospadias although a followup study showed the risk, though present, to be much lesser.
So you base your claims on one study that later turned out incorrect?
"showed the risk, though present"
And I bet you searched long and hard for any news that fits your ideology. But biology does not conform to ideology - and hypospadias is just one birth defect to male parts that progestin causes.
who gave you the right to give a child birth defects ?
Is that you somehow holy "right to choose" too ?
I don't have the right to give children birth defects. Why would you think this? Throughout history how many consumer products have caused birth defects? No one does it on purpose.
What a cruel, horrrible person. If only it was you who had to face a life of cerebral palsy instead of your victims..
The abortion and pharmaceutical industries have merged, btw. The maker of RU-486, plan C made the nazi gas