The Morning After Pill Is Chemically Induced Abortion Video / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

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.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• the
• morning
• after
• pill
• chemically
• induced
• abortion
• abortifacient
• pro-life
• abortifacients
• plan
• pro-choice
• birth
• control

[madzyzome]

Hold on a second. There are dozens of types of contraceptives each with their own risks. This video is about the plan B progestrin only emergency contraceptive pill. Now you are talking about the birth control pill? Which one? Then you go on about prostate cancer risks in men AND you tell me to google it? Googling isn't exactly the way to find the truth. Just google Flood Geology, Expanding Earth Theory, and 9/11 conspiracy if you don't believe me.

[dso1971]

This law actually supports the rights of the pregnant woman.  Not only because there are exceptions for a woman terminating her pregnancy and the doctors who perform these procedures; but it enforces the notion that the pregnant woman alone gets to decide the course of her pregnancy. If someone murders a pregnant woman who is attempting to bring her pregnancy to term and her fetus dies as a result why wouldn't we charge that person to the highest measure of the law?

[thinker900]

Good! So the problem is what exactly?

[LoveRants4u]

well, the chemicals in that pill do stop a pregnancy AFTER conception, so yes it is an abortion.

[DemonicFigment]

@Janvierireland Why should they lie? It's legal.

[fashionhistorylover]

@YourHumanRights It's not sex by itself. All people have to do is look for natural birth control and test your partner for any stds before you sleep with them. It's the year 2011 people should not be catching stds and having unplanned pregnancies.

[PrincessBecca04]

@Janvierireland,

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Women who are raped to not HAVE to undergo a medical examination after being raped. If they choose to report it, an exam is usually done. However, if the woman does not want to report the rape for whatever reason, obviously a medical examination is done only if she chooses to go to a doctor and pays for it herself.

Feel free to message me if you'd prefer.

[Janvierireland]

@PrincessBecca04 ,women have to go through a medicalexamination after being reped because their life and/or health may be in danger from having caught hiv/aids or other stds from the rapist

[Janvierireland]

The doctor or nurse doing the medical exam would be caring and sympathetic.Unfortunately there is a small minority of women who will lie by saying they have been raped to get the morning after pill to aid their promiscuous lifestyles.

[YourHumanRights]

@kirbienstien

Conception can occur less than an hour after sex, whereas a pregnancy test is only going to be really accurate once a period is missed - which can be a month later..

I suggest that if you are going comment on threads like this, you educate yourself as to the science of human reproduction and development.