For years, pro-choicers have been arguing that a baby is not really conceived until after implantation in the uterus. They’ve argued this vociferously so that they can also argue that The Pill is not an abortifacient.
Keeps the birth control business hopping, you know.
Case in point: The Well Timed Period wrote:
The prevention of pregnancy before implantation is contraception and not abortion. Intervention within 72 hours after intercourse cannot possibly amount to abortion, because implantation is not achieved until at least seven days after ovulation and the egg is capable of being fertilized for only about 24 hours.
Why implantation should be the demarcation point and not actual conception is not a question they ever answer. Now it has seemed logical to pro-lifers for years that conception would be a pretty defining moment as to the creation of a baby and not some random moment of implantation or say kindergarten.
Seems logical, right? But not to pro-choicers. That is, until now. You see, something has changed. Pro-choicers are now arguing vociferously that maybe conception is the key moment in defining personhood after all. Why?
I know you’re hoping it’s some kind of conscience pang or a change of heart. But alas it’s not. They’re arguing it because of the recent “Personhood Amendements” being circulated in a number of states in Montana and Florida and elsewhere like this one reported in Billings Gazette:
Anti-abortion activists launched a petition drive in Billings on Friday to give legal rights to fertilized embryos.
The personhood amendment would change Montana’s definition to include fertilized embryos, which would be protected against destruction in all cases. Amendment sponsor Montana Prolife Coalition has until next June 18 to gather the 48,673 signatures necessary to put the issue on the November 2010 ballot.
Pro-choicers can’t have fetuses being declared persons so they’re fighting it with rhetorical scare tactics like this from Women’s Issues:
The anti-abortion movement has been around for a long time, but now they are hell-bent on dismantling such basic human rights as access to family planning and contraception. That’s what they’re up to during this pro-choice administration.
Contraception?! Wait. I thought contraception wasn’t an abortifacient. I thought it wasn’t a pregnancy until after the embryo was implanted. But you see, it’s now in their best interests to demonize politicians who are for the “personhood amendment” by saying they’re not only against abortion but contraception.
Let’s face it. They’ve seen the polling. They know that in a straight up battle on abortion they might lose so they’re moving the line a little. Look at this political hit from TBO.com:
A proposed Constitutional amendment that could outlaw birth control pills in Florida looks a lot like federal legislation that state Attorney General Bill McCollum co-sponsored while in Congress
So you see pro-choicers are now willing to say that conception does take place before implantation.
They shouldn’t be able to have it both ways but the media is not going to out their bff’s in the pro-choice community. So which is it, pro-choicers? Is birth control an abortifacient or isn’t it?
September 28, 2009 at 4:28 am
*headdesk*
September 28, 2009 at 5:03 am
As you pointed out, they define conception as the point when implantation takes place to avoid calling the pill an abortafacient. That redefinition goes back to the 60s when the push for artificial contraception was taking off. They knew that if it got out that the pill does kill an unborn child they would have trouble selling it. & until recently, they were able to keep that dirty little secret secret, even among pro-lifers. But it is getting out & they know it, thus they are starting to panic & contradicting themselves as a result.
September 28, 2009 at 5:17 am
I am Catholic and follow the Church in opposing abortion and contraception, and considering fertilization the beginning of both pregnancy and human life.
But I don't follow what you're saying at all. Am I the only one?
The closest I can come to getting it is that you're trying to "catch" them in admitting that pregnancy begins with fertilization because they call the prevention of fertilization "contraception," rather than coming up with another name for that which prevents there being anything/anyone to implant after fertilization?
September 28, 2009 at 5:24 am
Theresa
They are afraid that a bill that would define embryos as persons would impact contraception.
embryos
contraception
If it is an embryo then by definition contraception has failed. Of course, this is not the case if what you call contraception is really post conception abortifacient.
Matthew is rightly claiming that they cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim a bill about embryos attacks contraception with proving the lie.
Language matters.
September 28, 2009 at 7:11 am
Mostly it seems that they are trying to get more people on their side, because they would lose the majority if the battle were about "abortion" but they might have the majority when it comes to "contraception". They are using that word to be manipulative.
September 28, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I'm in the personhood amendment game (I testified at MD HB 925 in March 2009). What they (con side) actually have been doing is defining the zygote (before implantation and maybe after) as a "fertilized egg", "fertilized ovum", or even just "egg" (The Woman's Law Center of Maryland).
This confusion technique gets people thinking that it's really not a person but is like a chicken egg in the store (which is unfertilized of course, but the idea makes the personhood advocates look really stupid and/or desparate).
As far as the contraception, they don't say it's an abortifacient, it just passing a "fertilized egg", etc. (How can anyone be against that?)
I would argue that an egg doesn't have a gender, a zygote does.
gbm3
September 28, 2009 at 2:44 pm
If you're interested in downloading the documents of the MD personhood amendment con side (HR MD 925 2009), the direct link is here. It's really sad and oh so illogical. (In the first doc, note that question six was in 1992, about 17 years ago. Views can change; it's really a non-argument.)
September 28, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The link above doesn't work. It's here: http://www.divshare.com/download/8592980-31e . Thanks.
September 29, 2009 at 3:41 am
For years, pro-choicers have been arguing that a baby is not really conceived until after implantation…
I cannot speak for the "pro-choicers" but to clarify, as it's clearly stated in the quote, implantation establishes a *pregnancy*, an anatomical/physiological state distinct from the process of fertilization and its products (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "actual conception", yes?).