Saturday, September 27, 2008

From Contraceptions to Abortifacients

This excerpt from the Facts of Life by Brian Clowes helps us to see where the battle on Contraception is going. It is important to realize some of these difference so when we are talking to people we might be able to give them a better answer then it is all the same.

The Future of Pro-Life Activism. The current paramount objective of "reproductive" research is to find the ideal abortifacient — one that will kill the preborn child every time without side effects to the woman. This emphasis on abortifacients, rather than contraceptives, has come about because abortifacients in general eliminate or greatly reduce user error, whereas contraceptives, which always remain under the control of the user, have much higher failure rates than abortifacients and are therefore less effective. In other words, abortifacients are much more efficient at ending pregnancies than contraceptives are at preventing them. The average user effectiveness rates of oral contraceptives, IUDs, Norplant and Depo-Provera are about 94 percent, and the average user effectiveness rates of the male and female condoms, cervical caps, diaphragms and sponge are only about 83 percent. This means that as women change their preferences from surgical abortion to chemical abortion, the future of pro-life activism lies not as much outside the abortion mills as it does inside and outside the major pharmaceutical corporations. Of course, no matter how effective abortifacients are at killing preborn children, just as they did with contraception, pro-abortionists will demand surgical abortion as a "backup." After all, abortifacients have been freely available since the mid-1960s, but have not significantly affected the abortion rate. This means that we will always have abortion mills — at least, until the law or public outrage shuts all of them down.

This is what they want us to believe about the Planned Parenthood ideas.

View Original Article

Blogged with the Flock Browser

No comments: