Letter: Plan B ends embryo's life

Monday, November 10, 2008

I would like to alert you to the verbal acrobats accomplished by Planned Parenthood when they stated that Plan B was not an abortifacient since it "prevents pregnancy" instead of terminating the pre-born child, the embryo ("Plan B use increases on campus," Nov. 7). Planned Parenthood has redefined pregnancy to be "the moment when the embryo implants in the uterus" instead of the moment of conception. Thus for 10 days, there is a pre-born child in the woman, yet she is not pregnant.

Plan B works in three ways: two of which are preventing ovulation and preventing fertilization. Through the use of hormones, Plan B can also prevent the implantation of the embryo into the uterus, as stated in a recent study in 2007 by Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford and stated by the American Medical Association House of Delegates.

Terminating the life of an innocent human being at any age since conception can never be justified, and as such Plan B cannot either. I hope and pray that everyone will soon appreciate the wonder and greatest blessing that is a child.

— — Andrew Schaeperkoetter is a senior from St. Louis.

Comments

Capers12 (anonymous) says...

The American Medical Society defines pregnancy as the moment when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, not when an egg is fertilized. This is not the language of the pro choice movement, as you claim, it is, in fact, established scientific and medical fact. Therefore, preventing a implantation of a fertilized egg (which is not an embryo, and definitely not a fetus which is necessary to establish viability) is not considered an abortion.

Please see the FDA's regulations and guidelines, not the Bible, for medical facts.

Furthermore, in woman's lifetime, there may be many instances when an egg is fertilized and does not attach to the uterine way. This is natural; we do not investigate a woman's uterus on a monthly basis to see whether or not fertilization has occurred, and we do not criminalize women for having miscarriages... women should be allowed to make conscious decisions about their reproductive health care, and not leave life changing decisions up to luck and circumstance.

If you have moral objections to taking emergency contraception, please, by all means, don't take it! If you have moral objections to life saving blood transfusions, you can deny them, as well, it doesn't mean that your choice is the best or right choice for all people. There is no place for religion in medicine. Ethics? sure, but not religious dogma. And religious dogma is exactly what you're espousing.

November 12, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

linguo_the_grammar_robot (anonymous) says...

"Terminating the life of an innocent human being at any age since conception can never be justified, "

Sure it can. A fertilized egg is not an 'innocent human being'.

November 12, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

missmia (anonymous) says...

I agree that people should appreciate the wonder of having a child- when they are ready to do so!

"Terminating the life of an innocent human being at any age since conception can never be justified" - so you think governing someone else's body can by justified?

November 12, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

I'm pro choice and all that jazz, but I don't like it when people try to say "it's scientific fact" about something or another because a group of doctors say it.

Whether it's a pregnancy upon fertilization or upon implantation is NOT a "scientific fact," it's an arbitrary judgment. It's also an arbitrary judgment when we decide the point at which human life becomes legally binding as such. For some it is upon fertilization, for some it is at the beginning of the third trimester, and for others (myself included) it is at birth. In no case is a FACT involved in the same sense that 1+1=2.

November 12, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

wrburns (anonymous) says...

Capers12: Look to the FDA for medical facts? You mean, the same folks that said Vioxx was harmless? Perhaps it would be wise not to hold the FDA as an infallible source of medical knowledge.

November 12, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

pump (anonymous) says...

Whatever the case, I hope that we can just stop being hypocritical and have equal distribution and delivery of our laws. For example, if abortion is legal from fertilization until birth, how is is fair (or just) to call the murder of a pregnant woman a double-homicide? Take out whether or not the baby/fetus is "wanted," someone needs to answer this truthfully.

Religion and emotion aside, we need to start having honest discussions about our policies. The sooner we can do this, the sooner we move forward.

November 12, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

One major reason I begin to define life as human only after birth is that if we decide that human embryos are equivalent to full-fledged humans in the law's eyes, we are allowing a massive number of people to die due to pregnancy complications/miscarriages/failed implantations every year. The number of deaths occuring in this manner would make gestation the most risky and deadly period of life.

Given this definition of human life, the only appropriate decision of a responsible and ethical society would be to allocate its research and medical resources to preventing miscarriages/failed implantations since combined these would easily become the number one cause of death in the world.

I think you can see where I'm going with this...

November 12, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jgarrison (anonymous) says...

connerm, i do appreciate what you are saying, but there are already medical researchers and organizations who take data and do studies on causes of miscarriages and failed pregnancies...that should not be the basis of not giving a fetus "human" status until the moment the baby is born. and I don't think we are not "allowing" the embryo to die, it simply happens and there is nothing we can do in that case. why call a baby with a progressive disease human?...they are probably just going to die anyways!...u see what i'm saying?
Also, the really dangerous part in all of this is the question of who should have natural rights, including the right to a life...only those who can speak for themselves? then there's the logical slope of "what about persons with disabilities, the elderly, ect?...."
In my view, an embryo, having its own human dna distinct from mother and father, should be considered a human being (albeit preborn), having those natural rights...at least the one allowing them to live! ...but i'm sure that's going to bring up a lot of other comments here. ;)

November 13, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement