clo,
I *do* wish you'd explain the comfort you find in Ron Paul's words.
What I mean by that is that the morning after pill does prevent zygotes from attaching themselves to the uterine wall. They then die. The pills don't cause ABORTION, per se, but only because abortion, by definition, is killing and removing an ATTACHED baby.
Where's the comfort in that?
Attachment is meaningless from an ethical perspective. It isn't what makes a baby a baby. Fertilization is.
If the detached zygote were removed and inserted into a different woman's uterus, the same baby would result.
So... why would a SINCERE woman be happy Ron Paul stated that the pill doesn't ABORT anything? He was pretty much just scoring an easy debate point by noting that Newt Gingrich had used an incorrect medical term to describe what the pill does.
Let's not forget that, when he said this, Ron Paul was on stage debating a non-doctor on a medical issue. I'm sure Ron was only too happy, as an OB-GYN, to show Newt up by pointoug out that Newt had strayed into an area where he had no competence. In a debate, you WANT to embarrass your opponent when you get the chance.
But, the pill is a baby killer. There's no denying that. It kills babies in their earliest stages. Neither Ron Paul nor anyone else who actually knows what he's talking about ever says otherwise.
Hormonally, it may resemble 'The Pill.' But in what it does, there's no comparison. When 'The Pill' is taken daily, there is no ovulation. No ovulation means no egg. No egg means no fertilization. No fertilization means no baby.
The morning after pill, on the other hand, is used when there may already be a baby. If there is, it kills it.
Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months
| 
