Pro-Life label can be Very Inaccurate

Posted by on Oct 5th, 2010 and filed under Defense. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry from your site

It’s very confusing when someone says they’re pro-life. What exactly does that mean? Does that indicate the alleged pro-life person would vote to directly affect Roe vs. Wade (SC decision in 1973 that made it legal to abort in all months of pregnancy)? Heath Shuler (D/NC) claims he’s pro-life, but his Asheville office said in 2008 that he would not vote to rescind Roe vs. Wade.

It’s easy to go a step further. Would it be OK to abort if you thought something was seriously wrong with the baby? If you knew it had Down Syndrome? If it was conceived by incest? By rape? What if you thought you needed to get rid of it for another reason?

With Tim Tebow, doctors told Pam (mom) she needed to abort Tim, because all the strong medications she took being pregnant while fighting amoebic dysentery, may have caused irreversible damage. Pam refused; Tim was born, and received the Heisman Trophy as a sophomore (2007) playing for the Florida Gator football team.

What most don’t realize, is taking a birth control pill every day will force the uterus to become inhospitable for the nurture of a fertilized embryo, and it will likely be flushed down the toilet. A complete baby–with the entire necessary DNA to become a full person–is killed. One would wonder what happens to his/her soul at that time.

Any emergency contraception has the ability to make the uterus inhospitable for growth, and thus force a chemical abortion. Planned Parenthood knows it is an abortion, and knows chemical abortions are common in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy (pill, morning after pill, RU-486, mifepristone/mifoprostol, methotrexate, Depo-Provera, Ella [Talking Points on Ella – Concerned Women for America], IUD, etc… All result in the elimination of necessary uterus lining, and the likely abortion of a fertilized embryo trying to implant.

Meanwhile, Anna Franzonello of Americans United for Life accused the Obama-led FDA, of ignoring women’s health with its approval of the Ella drug, which causes abortions, but is considered emergency contraception.

She stated: “In August 2010, the FDA approved the drug Ella. Like RU-486, Ella is a Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulator (SPRM). By blocking progesterone, an SPRM can either prevent a developing human embryo from implanting in the uterus, or it can kill an implanted embryo by starving it to death.”

If chemical abortion cannot be attempted, then the baby has grown too much. An “in-clinic” abortion must be done with all the associated tools (speculum, vacuum aspirator, and curette [for cutting]). Even the dictionary [Thorndike-Barnhart] defines an abortion as: [the inducing of premature delivery in order to destroy offspring].

One can obviously see misinformation given by Feminists Women’s Healthcare. Even though they call it a chemical abortion, they insist emergency contraception will not harm an existing pregnancy. They define pregnancy as implantation in the uterus. Emergency contraception medication typically makes the uterus inhospitable for implantation. Therefore the fertilized embryo is discarded shortly after attempting implantation.

In actuality, pregnancy occurs the moment the sperm joins the egg, when all of the DNA information exists for an adult human. It’s interesting how an ectopic pregnancy is indeed a pregnancy (implantation in fallopian tube), and is a baby in an improper place for growth. If these agencies didn’t think there was a pregnancy, they wouldn’t call it an “abortion”.

Mifepristone use is described by Feminists Women’s Healthcare: “Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone needed to maintain the pregnancy. Because this hormone is blocked, the uterine lining begins to shed, the cervix begins to soften and bleeding may occur. With the later addition of the second medication, misoprostol, the uterus contracts and the pregnancy is usually expelled within 6 to 8 hours.”

It’s scary to realize that many, who considered themselves pro-life, have really been aborting babies in the early stages of growth. Many alleged pro-lifers seem to be that type, especially for a pregnancy by rape or incest. Their haste to punish the culprit, or console the mother, is elimination of the baby’s life entirely. Should the baby be punished with death, for a crime of which it never even imagined?

Certainly, many will change their ways and become truly pro-life. Others will continue to kill, and still call themselves pro-life. Their dead baby deserves a lot more.

Maybe we can ask people who claim to be a pro-lifer to include a ‘caveat’ in that label. They could say they’re a pro-lifer, except if they know a child will possibly be born with Down Syndrome, or if it’s likely the baby will have a defect, or if a girl was gang-raped and she’s now pregnant. So killing it is the best solution they can come up with.

Kevin Roeten can be reached at

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to our newsletter

This Week's Poll