The Des Moines Register is a little confused. They believe it is a sign of anti-abortion “extremism” that anyone could possibly object to “emergency contraception.” Euphemism aside, the argument of the editors stands or falls with the reader’s willingness to accept the arbitrary line between fertilization and implantation.
Side note: Some idiot’s going to come along with the contention that if the destruction of pre-implantation embryos is abortion, then God aborts His fair share because some embryos (no one knows how many) do not implant. First, this presumes that everything that happens currently was part of God’s original intention for His creation–ignoring one of the most important facets of Christianity: the corruption of sin in the world. Second, whether it is God or a broken creation, how does that give us the right to intentionally interfere with a human being’s life? Just because some people die of “natural” causes, does that give you the right to interfere with a given person’s life?
Back to the DMR:
It [the handing out of free Plan B contraceptives by Planned Nonparenthood] did catch attention – of the Iowa Family Policy Center. The group sent out an e-mail asking people to “pick up a free package of Plan B, and then dispose of it.” Among its stated concerns: The drug can abort an embryo.
But how can the drug induce an abortion when there is no pregnancy? …
There might be a legitimate debate to be had over abortion. But Plan B is an emergency contraceptive. It does not induce abortions.
See, because it’s only a pregnancy if it implants, and it’s only an abortion if it’s a pregnancy. Come on, this argument isn’t even going to convince those who take Plan B. What is the point of an “emergency contraceptive” if it doesn’t prevent, and failing that, get rid of, the “product” of a “consensual sexual liaison”? If the DMR is so narrow-minded as to define “abortion” as the ending of the life of an implanted fetus, what does it call it when a fertilized egg is prevented from taking its natural course and implanting in the uterus? Perhaps it can invent a new word for that.
But that’s not even my favorite part of the editorial. This is:
When we called the Iowa Family Policy Center, we were told life begins at conception, and even preventing an egg from implanting in the uterus is akin to abortion.
That response gives insight into the thinking of extremists who oppose contraception and make Planned Parenthood, which helps women avoid pregnancy, the enemy.
What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to euphemize. They even admit that the people they called said it was “akin” to abortion. Now, to me that doesn’t equal “is an abortion,” but that might just be me. Planned Singlehood no longer has anything to do with abortions; they just “help women avoid pregnancy.” Okay, I’ll ask the question the DMR is begging: by what means, specifically, does Planned Low Birthrate “help women avoid pregnancy”? Gasp! To even entertain the idea that Planned Kill Your Babies for Federal Funds could be the enemy! Oh, Oh! Can I ask it? The enemy of what? Enemy is the correct word for it: enemy of life, excepting that of women for whom pregnancy is the enemy.
Do editors actually read their editorials for sense before they print them?