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?