Friday, May 03, 2013
When Is the Beginning Not the Beginning?
Any embryology textbook will lay out this fact. Life begins at conception. And conception is fertilization. Science has spoken…and science doesn't change.
However, as I pointed out in a post yesterday ("Change the Words, Change the World"), agents of social change frequently begin changing attitudes by changing the language in which the issues are discussed. A case in point is human reproduction, more specifically the intersection of scientific realities with the ideologies involved in the sexual revolution and the population control movement.
The language of reproduction began to change in the 1960s when population control advocates were looking to sell so-called "birth control" chemicals and devices among cultures that had a high respect for prenatal life. The problem was that the action of the pills and IUDs acted (at least some of the time) subsequent to conception. That is, they didn't always prevent conception. They prevented the embryonic baby from developing further. And that is abortion.
The primary techniques utilized by these misnamed drugs and devices was to prevent the developing person (already begun at conception and now growing quite rapidly as he or she made it down the Fallopian tube) from implanting in the wall of the cervix or, if implantation did occur, to dislodge the embryo from its new home in the womb. But this is all after conception. These drugs and devices destroy lives that have already begun.
Again, the science couldn't be clearer. And science isn't going to change. But the language…that's another thing. So that's where the population control advocates (and others who wanted to promote the sexual revolution) went. They pressured groups like the American Medical Association to change the definition of conception, to move it further down the line somewhere.
But where? Where along the timeline of the prenatal child's development could the new definition be placed? Anywhere would be arbitrary. Anywhere would be unscientific. Because the new life had already begun at fertilization and it will continue until…well, until death.
The response from the would-be population controllers? "Put the new definition of conception anywhere you want -- as long as it's after the abortifacient action that these new drugs and devices utilize. You see, we can't push the product if people realize they act post-conception. They don't want abortion on their conscience. So shift the definition so that we can sell them as preventing pregnancy rather than stopping a pregnancy that's already underway."
And that's what happened. Though it makes no scientific sense, though it's a lie of the most sinister proportions, the definition of conception was disconnected from fertilization and linked instead to the embryo's implantation in the uterine wall. The effects of this lie have been universal…and unbelievably damaging to life, health, family and culture.
This now brings me to this week's outrageous decision by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman which will require pharmacies to allow young girls to buy Plan B "morning-after" pills as well as its cheaper generic brands.
An AP News story, "Obama OK with morning-after pill sales at age 15," written by White House Correspondent Julie Pace and others, is the usual mix of mainstream journalism: a quite liberal slant on the matter from the reporter, a lot of omissions of relevant data, a lot of quotes from progressives, and one quick line to the contrary from a conservative voice. And there was this concluding paragraph, one that demonstrates just how brazenly the lie (shielded by the shift in language) continues to be promoted.
Ms. Pace writes, "If a woman already is pregnant, the morning-after pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg. According to the medical definition, pregnancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg implants itself into the wall of the uterus. Still, some critics say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it may also be able to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, a contention that many scientists - and Korman, in his ruling - said has been discredited."
No, Judge Korman, the science of embryology hasn't been discredited in the least. The hard facts of reality, even when they are denied by fools and charlatans, still exist.
No, your honor, the discrediting that you (and AP reporters) should concentrate on is that awesome day when the immoral ideologies that underlie the population control movement -- ideologies that use smoke, mirrors and dirty tricks to take the lives of innocents -- will face a much higher court.