What About the Morning-After Pill and Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
What About the Morning-After Pill?
What About Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
There has been much talk in the media of late about the morning-after pill. In late 2005, there was much editorial criticism of pharmacist James Haninger from Dublin, Ohio, who refused to fill a physician’s prescription for the morning-after pill, or so-called “emergency contraceptive.” He was vilified in the Columbus Dispatch newspaper for daring to deny women their right to contraceptive technology. Much ado has also been made in the media about the FDA’s politicized refusal in 2006 to disallow the morning-after pill from going over the counter.
The proponents of the morning-after pill and embryonic stem cell research habitually refuse to deal with the critical issue in the debate. Deceptive arguments, smoke and mirrors are all you hear from the media and the defenders of legal abortion.
For example, on the website of Planned Parenthood, the largest pro-abortion organization in the world, they claim that the morning-after pill “could prevent 1.7 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions each year in the U.S.” The deception is evident in their definition of pregnancy: they claim that pregnancy commences at implantation in the mother’s uterus. This definition is not scientifically sound. In fact, human life begins at fertilization in the fallopian tube about a week before implantation.
The proponents of the morning-after pill and embryonic stem cell research refuse to address the sound scientific facts upon which the arguments against the morning-after pill and embryonic stem cell research are based: that a human being’s life begins at fertilization (conception). Neither will they address the sincere ethical arguments leveled against them: that we should not kill or otherwise discriminate against innocent human beings on the basis of their size, their stage of development, their place of residence, or arbitrary qualities such as their perceived value, or convenience to their parents.
It is true that the morning-after pill may act as a contraceptive; if it is taken before ovulation, it may act to prevent conception. But if the pill is taken during or after ovulation, conception may and frequently does occur and then, the makers of the morning-after pill freely admit, it acts by preventing implantation of the newly-formed embryo into the uterine wall. This mode of action is not contraceptive because it does not prevent conception, but rather, this aborts the life of a week-old human being. Prescribing or consuming this pill, therefore, is a reckless disregard for human life, all of its contraceptive potential notwithstanding.
Similarly, pro-lifers do not have a problem with stem-cell research, as long as the stem cells are obtained from cord blood, or adult donors, and not obtained through the killing and exploitation of innocent human beings in the embryonic stage. Profiting off of the intentional killing of any innocent person makes us culpable for their death. Therefore, scavenging the carcasses of the victims of abortion or of left-over, unwanted embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics is unethical.
Neither newspaper editors, nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, nor Planned Parenthood, nor the Supreme Court, nor even can a unanimous democratic consensus overrule the Creator, who has not rescinded the commandment “Thou shalt not murder” for women in crisis pregnancies or for hopeful researchers. The right to life is God-given and inalienable.