“reduces the likelihood of implantation” means CONCEPTION has taken place and the pill alters the lining of the uterus making implantation less likely. The conceived human is then aborted.
Many of the various pill manufacturers put the insert on their website. They will be under the heading “patient prescribing information.”
Good idea!
I bet they don’t, but as someone who worked at a pharmacy for a brief time if you go and ask they will give you the package inserts for as many different manufacturers as you want. Well I would have anyway, we always had lots.
Because we in the anti-contraception crowd can, at times, overplay our cards. I’ve used this argument against the pill for some time, and I just want to be sure that I am, in fact, properly using the argument.
I was figuring your answer would be something like this. Just remember that even if the word isn’t there the definition usually is. You are NOT lying! Thanks. I understand that I am not lying, but my point is, many people struggle to find loopholes around things that COULD be clearer, although it might be clear as day to you and me. (Just note, for example, Notre Dame’s contortion act to get around Ex Corde Ecclesia with Obama.)
Good suggestion with the Mag ads too!
Agreed!!!
Probably not. Really, it’s semantics. Many non-Pro-Lifers (I’m not limiting it to the hard-core pro-abortionists, but mostly those who are uninformed and wavering - they are the vulnerable ones) are under the impression that “abortion” doesn’t happen until after implantation in the uterus occurs… that the human being (fertilized egg) isn’t considered “a pregnancy” until implantation. They don’t consider the pill’s mechanism of altering the endometrium as something that causes an “abortion” since they don’t believe there is “a pregnancy” until implantation. It’s semantics and word-play.
I know this is a sad thought. While it is sad that not even the mother knew, the fact that God DOES know should be a huge comfort. Those children are well taken care of, don’t you think?
crying: