Does the morning-after-pill count as abortion?

Temujin

Well-known member
Question is in the title - that's all!
Yes. Of course. It meets the definition of terminating a pregnancy prematurely. Both the standard pill and the coil can prevent implantation of a fertilised egg, hence they too should be considered abortifacients.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I would say not because doesnt it stop the release of the ovum which means it contraception.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I would say not because doesnt it stop the release of the ovum which means it contraception.
The standard pill is designed to disrupt the release of the ovum, but the hormonal ballance is also disturbed so that if an ovum is released and fertilised, implantation is inhibited. The morning after pill works by disrupting implantation by thickening and hardening the walls of the uterus. The coil works in a similar way, but the active ingredient is copper ions rather than hormones.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The standard pill is designed to disrupt the release of the ovum, but the hormonal ballance is also disturbed so that if an ovum is released and fertilised, implantation is inhibited. The morning after pill works by disrupting implantation by thickening and hardening the walls of the uterus. The coil works in a similar way, but the active ingredient is copper ions rather than hormones.
So more contraception than abortion.

Ask yourself why, when I explained the pill inhibits fertilisation, you decide to tell me what I have just told you?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
So more contraception than abortion.

Ask yourself why, when I explained the pill inhibits fertilisation, you decide to tell me what I have just told you?
Because it is more complicated than that. I suspect that what the OP is asking is whether stopping pregnancy in the very early stages counts as abortion or contraception. At want point does pregnancy start, such that preventing that stage from occurring constitutes abortion? Scientists can keep human embryos alive for 14 days before destroying them. Does that count as abortion? There is no pregnancy and no prospect of one. The 14 day limit was arrived at for a reason, presumably that such early embryos can never be considered as viable human beings with rights.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Because it is more complicated than that. I suspect that what the OP is asking is whether stopping pregnancy in the very early stages counts as abortion or contraception. At want point does pregnancy start, such that preventing that stage from occurring constitutes abortion? Scientists can keep human embryos alive for 14 days before destroying them. Does that count as abortion? There is no pregnancy and no prospect of one. The 14 day limit was arrived at for a reason, presumably that such early embryos can never be considered as viable human beings with rights.
The question is simple enough, but the answer not so easy. .. it depends on what stage the woman takes it at
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Because it is more complicated than that. I suspect that what the OP is asking is whether stopping pregnancy in the very early stages counts as abortion or contraception.
Exactly - "at what point does contraception become abortion?"
I have already heard from people in there that not having sex while married is immoral, because it prevents children from being born.

Yes - I am serious, but I don't know if they were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

Temujin

Well-known member
Exactly - "at what point does contraception become abortion?"
I have already heard from people in there that not having sex while married is immoral, because it prevents children from being born.

Yes - I am serious, but I don't know if they were.
I've heard that before too. I've heard of a woman married to an evangelical who had 14 children. She was told that if she became pregnant again, there was a high risk that she would die. She became pregnant again, and died. That's God's will for you.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
I've heard that before too. I've heard of a woman married to an evangelical who had 14 children. She was told that if she became pregnant again, there was a high risk that she would die. She became pregnant again, and died. That's God's will for you.
The problem with dying because of a mistake, is that you can't learn from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Question is in the title - that's all!
Any bill that is not---"contraceptive" in nature--in that---it prevents conception, but rather works by inducing an abortion--counts, by definition, as an abortion.

This is why the term "contraception" is a bit of a misnomer, but also why people like you seem to think of abortion as nothing more than just a more extreme form of contraception. In other words--for people like you, abortion is just a surgical method of contraception, while pills are a drug induced form of contraception. You may not like abortion---but not becasue there is anything morally wrong with it----you do not like abortion like you do not like heart surgery. Abortion for you is just a regrettable surgical procedure that needs to be done--if----the pill didn't work, much like heart surgery is a regrettable but necessary procedure if the angioplasty doesn't work.

But words mean things.

A true "contraceptive" works by preventing conception. A "contraceptive" that works by inducing an abortion is not a contraceptive--since--conception has already happened. The pill does not work by preventing conception, but by inducing an abortion.

Assuming the morning after pill does not work by preventing conception, but by inducing an abortion----yes-----it would count as an abortion.
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
The standard pill is designed to disrupt the release of the ovum, but the hormonal balance is also disturbed so that if an ovum is released and fertilized, implantation is inhibited. The morning after pill works by disrupting implantation by thickening and hardening the walls of the uterus. The coil works in a similar way, but the active ingredient is copper ions rather than hormones.
The point is that it isn't a contraceptive.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Because it is more complicated than that. I suspect that what the OP is asking is whether stopping pregnancy in the very early stages counts as abortion or contraception.
It does not matter how early in the pregnancy one "terminates" the pregnancy. Once conception has happened, a "termination" of a pregnancy is an abortion. Whether that happens through a drug or surgery it is an abortion.

When conception happens, a woman is pregnant with a child. A woman becomes mother, the man involved a father. Before conception happened you had only an egg and semen. Contraception would prevent the egg and semen from uniting and forming a child.
At want point does pregnancy start, such that preventing that stage from occurring constitutes abortion?
Conception
Scientists can keep human embryos alive for 14 days before destroying them. Does that count as abortion?
Yes. An embryo is a fertilized egg, correct? Then it is an abortion.
There is no pregnancy and no prospect of one. The 14 day limit was arrived at for a reason, presumably that such early embryos can never be considered as viable human beings with rights.
Viability has nothing to do with what constitutes our humanity. A person is a person. If a pregnancy is "unviable" that the person conceived does not magically turn into a non-person.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
It does not matter how early in the pregnancy one "terminates" the pregnancy. Once conception has happened, a "termination" of a pregnancy is an abortion. Whether that happens through a drug or surgery it is an abortion.

When conception happens, a woman is pregnant with a child. A woman becomes mother, the man involved a father. Before conception happened you had only an egg and semen. Contraception would prevent the egg and semen from uniting and forming a child.

Conception

Yes. An embryo is a fertilized egg, correct? Then it is an abortion.

Viability has nothing to do with what constitutes our humanity. A person is a person. If a pregnancy is "unviable" that the person conceived does not magically turn into a non-person.
I am pleased to read your post, as I once had a long discussion with a fellow officer, a Catholic, on this very subject. He said the same as you, that anything which terminated the pregnancy, for example by preventing implantation, was an abortion.

Personally, I do not care about the distinction, which is merely technical. The notion that a newly fertilised egg is a person, is so ridiculous that it devalues the humanity it seeks to promote.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I am pleased to read your post, as I once had a long discussion with a fellow officer, a Catholic, on this very subject. He said the same as you, that anything which terminated the pregnancy, for example by preventing implantation, was an abortion.

Personally, I do not care about the distinction, which is merely technical. The notion that a newly fertilised egg is a person, is so ridiculous that it devalues the humanity it seeks to promote.
Since the human being is a person, and starts their life as a zygote, anyone who denies that is deluded and dehumanising persons.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I am pleased to read your post, as I once had a long discussion with a fellow officer, a Catholic, on this very subject. He said the same as you, that anything which terminated the pregnancy, for example by preventing implantation, was an abortion.

Personally, I do not care about the distinction, which is merely technical.
A fellow officer? Officer of what? Are you police or something?

And words mean things--by the way---so this is not merely "technical."
The notion that a newly fertilized egg is a person, is so ridiculous that it devalues the humanity it seeks to promote.
How so? Why?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Since the human being is a person, and starts their life as a zygote, anyone who denies that is deluded and dehumanizing persons.
Exactly: a zygote is term used for a human being at the very beginning stages of development. A zygote is what a human being looks like at that stage of development.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
A fellow officer? Officer of what? Are you police or something?

And words mean things--by the way---so this is not merely "technical."

How so? Why?
I was an army officer. (Later a police officer) We were serving in Northern Ireland at the time.

Sure, words mean something. The difference between contraception and abortion in the case of the Pill is merely technical however. The Pill is designed to prevent fertilisation (contraception) but can also act to prevent implantation (abortion). There's no way of telling any specific occurrence of either effect.

If you make fertilisation the point at which a human being is a person, then you devalue human life. Fertilised eggs are everywhere, in cold storage, on Petri dishes, in toilets all over the world. Take the well known ethical dilemma of a five year old child trapped in a burning room with a container with 1000 frozen fertilised eggs. You can only rescue either the child or the container. THAT is why a fertilised egg is not a person. Because no-one thinks it is a person.
 
Last edited:
Top