So much of the arguments for abortion are based on subjectiveness. When does life begin? Depends on the mother’s thinking, right?

When, in the timeline of growth, does a fetus become a baby worthy of protection? Even our President says that question is above his pay grade. What he and many pro-choicers mean is that the baby is worthy protecting when the mother says so and not a moment before. That’s the argument we hear.

But then why do the same pro-choicers attempt to cloak early stage abortion in some kind of science by making a distinction concerning implantation. I’ve heard that birth control pills and even the morning after pill are not abortion because they’re believe to occur before this “magical moment” of implantation.

We’ve even heard the argument espousing confusion about implantation from Catholic bishops in Connecticut who have allowed morning after pills to be taken in Catholic hospitals after allegations of rape.

Today, the story about the couple who had the wrong baby placed into her womb from IVF had this sentence:

The recipient – who doesn’t want to be identified – chose to take an abortion pill before the embryo was allowed to implant into her womb.

If they’re saying it’s an abortion pill why even bother to say that it was taken before implantation?

There’s all this pretended confusion about implantation. Yes, it’s a necessary part of life but why are many pretending that implantation is when life begins. There’s no logic to it as far as I can see.

I understand why some “pro-lifers” might want to pretend because then they can seem more moderate and not call birth control an abortifacient.

But why would so many pro-choicers who already have come out saying a baby is only a baby when the mother says so even bother with making up that implantation is the true start of life.

Am I missing something?