01.01.2015 Views

Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions

Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions

Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Dr. Stru<strong>the</strong>rs fur<strong>the</strong>r states; “Until <strong>the</strong> blastocyst implants…<strong>the</strong>re would be no loss of an embryo and,<br />

<strong>the</strong>refore, no abortion. Thus, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>oretical mechanism of reduced likelihood of implantation by<br />

whatever means would not be considered an abortion by any biological definition.”<br />

It is here that her presuppositions become clear. Having said implantation won’t be prevented, she<br />

<strong>the</strong>n says even if it is, <strong>the</strong> result isn’t really an abortion. This statement is profound both in its<br />

breadth and its inaccuracy. It’s a classic logic-class-illustration of faulty reasoning. It’s like saying<br />

“Sudden Infant Death Syndrome does not affect toddlers; <strong>the</strong>refore, it does not involve <strong>the</strong> deaths of<br />

human beings.” Such a statement assumes facts not in evidence: that infants are not people because<br />

<strong>the</strong>y are pre-toddlers. In exactly <strong>the</strong> same way Dr. Stru<strong>the</strong>rs assumes—without offering any<br />

evidence—that pre-embryo human beings are not really human beings.<br />

But if human life does begin at conception, which is <strong>the</strong> overwhelming biological consensus, <strong>the</strong>n<br />

causing <strong>the</strong> death of a “blastocyst” is just as much an abortion as causing <strong>the</strong> death (or as<br />

she puts it, “loss”) of an “embryo.” The days-old individual is a smaller and younger person than<br />

<strong>the</strong> embryo, but he or she is no less a person in <strong>the</strong> sight of God who created him. People do not get<br />

more human as <strong>the</strong>y get older and bigger—if <strong>the</strong>y did, toddlers would be more human than infants,<br />

adolescents more human than toddlers, adults more human than adolescents and professional<br />

basketball players more human than anyone.<br />

Dr. Stru<strong>the</strong>rs says <strong>the</strong> “reduced likelihood of implantation by whatever means would not be<br />

considered an abortion by any biological definition.” This statement is unscientific in <strong>the</strong> extreme. The<br />

biological definition she ignores is not just some obscure definition of life, but <strong>the</strong> precise definition,<br />

which <strong>the</strong> vast majority of scientists, including biologists, actually hold to—that life begins at<br />

conception. (See Appendix B: When <strong>Does</strong> Human Life Begin The Answer of Science.) An<br />

early abortion is still an abortion, and no semantics change this reality, even if <strong>the</strong>y manage to<br />

obscure it.<br />

The letter from Dr. Stru<strong>the</strong>rs certainly contains some valid information along with <strong>the</strong> invalid. But<br />

how seriously can we take its bottom-line conclusions that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Pill</strong> is not an abortifacient I showed<br />

her letter to one physician who told me a “healthcare information services director” is a public<br />

relations position with <strong>the</strong> primary job of minimizing controversy, denying blame, putting out fires,<br />

and avoiding any bad publicity for products, both with physicians and <strong>the</strong> general public. Perhaps this<br />

assessment was unfair—I don’t know. But after reading her letter I determined to personally call <strong>the</strong><br />

research or medical information departments of all <strong>the</strong> major birth control manufacturers and hear<br />

for myself what each of <strong>the</strong>m had to say.<br />

When I called Syntex, <strong>the</strong>y informed me that Searle had recently purchased all <strong>the</strong>ir “feminine<br />

products,” including <strong>the</strong> <strong>Pill</strong>. So I called Searle’s customer service line, identified myself by name,<br />

and was asked to explain my question. When I said that it related to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Pill</strong>’s mechanism of<br />

preventing implantation, <strong>the</strong> person helping me (who didn’t identify herself) became discernibly<br />

uneasy. She asked me who I was, so I gave her my name again. Then she asked me to wait while<br />

she conferred with her colleagues. After several minutes she got back on <strong>the</strong> line and said “Dr.<br />

Stru<strong>the</strong>rs will have to talk to you about this, and she’s not in.”<br />

Since Dr. Stru<strong>the</strong>rs was unavailable, I asked <strong>the</strong> woman if she could offer me any guidance. She<br />

said, uneasiness evident, “By any chance are you asking about this for religious reasons” I said,<br />

“Yes, that’s part of it.” She said, “Well, I can tell you that our pills are not abortifacients.” I asked,<br />

“Then why does your professional labeling talk about <strong>the</strong> <strong>Pill</strong> reducing <strong>the</strong> likelihood of implantation”<br />

She said, “I can’t answer that question. You’ll have to talk to Dr. Stru<strong>the</strong>rs.” I left my number, but<br />

Dr. Stru<strong>the</strong>rs never called me back.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!