The Definitions Game in the Fight for Life

I've been trying to figure out how it is that the entire medical industry and pharmaceutical industry can get away with lying about chemical birth control. I finally figured it out. The definition of pregnancy has been changed by the American Medical Association. Until a couple years ago, pregnancy was defined as when the sperm enters the ovum, at that moment a woman is pregnant. But today, pregnancy is defined as when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.

So, if you are using chemical birth control in the form of the ring, patch, pills, IUD or the morning after pill, these are not abortifacients under the “new definition” since they keep your little embryo from implanting. Thus you have an embryo, but you are never “pregnant.”

This explains why all those doctors in the committee hearing testified that declaring the right to life begins at conception would outlaw all current chemical birth control. We are now at the mercy of medical professionals trained in school that chemicals which starve embryos to death are not abortifacient because pregnancy has not yet begun!

Peter Singer a bioethicist, wrote a book in 1979 entitled Practical Ethics which openly supports infanticide and according to Wesley Smith, this book has become ” a standard text in many college philosophy departments.” (p. 15, Culture of Death). Furthermore, Singer is so mainstream that he wrote the essay on ethics for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Today, Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values.

Singer claims that “humans” must be divided into persons and non-persons. The litmus test is on two grounds: being rational and having self-consciousness. An infant is certainly not rational nor is he aware that he is alive. Thus, he is a non-person and it is not in any way criminal to kill a non-person.

“The British academic John Harris, the Sir David Alliance Professor of Bioethics and director of the Institute of Medicine, Law and Bioethics at the University of Manchester in England, defines a person as “a creature capable of valuing its own existence,” which he believes could include people, animals, extraterrestrials and machines, but not some humans such as infants “during the neonatal period.” John Harris states:

To kill or to fail to sustain the life of a person is to deprive that individual of something that they value. On the other hand, to kill or to fail to sustain the life of a nonperson, in that it cannot deprive that individual of anything that he, she ,or it could conceivably value, does that individual no harm. It takes from such individuals nothing that they would prefer not to have taken from them….non-persons and potential persons cannot be wronged in this way [killing them against their will] because death would not deprive them of anything they can value. If they cannot wish to live, they cannot have that wish frustrated by being killed” (Culture of Death, p. 16).

My point here is that the idea that your personal family is safe because you do not hold to a dehumanizing philosophy, or that time is on our side because pro-abort people only kill their own, is completely false. The philosophy that opened the doors to forced sterilization, chemical birth control and abortion, are seeping into every area of our society and education system not only nationally but internationally. No one is safe. Our circle of silence has brought us to this frightening place. We must, by God’s grace, rise and turn back this tide of death.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 03/06 at 02:00 PM
M40o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr M50o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr

<< Back to main