By the technical definition of pregnancy the woman might not be pregnant.
Great, glad we established that.
I understand that the "morning after pill" sometimes works by preventing ovulation rather then by preventing implantation but I would think that this would be 50% or less of the cases that it is used.
"I would think...50% or less" is not very scientific, but OK, it seems fair as long as you don't lose sight of the fact that these are unconfirmed potential pregnancies or panic after coitus. Without MAP, maybe 50% would never have fertilized anyhow. Of those who did, some would never have implanted. I think I read that as many as 30% don't.
(None of this is meant to negate your assertions about conception or new life, or babies. We'll never achieve agreement there. I'd have to talk about seeds and oaks, and plans and bridges, and drag out hunger and AIDS and abuse. You'd you'd have to talk about souls, and sanctity, and killing babies.)
Banning MAP isn't going to save unwanted "babies," it is just going to mean that embryos will be left to ripen and develop further before the young woman/vessel goes through a more gruesome experience. Accepting that this is not a perfect world, in my private hierarchy of preferability, wherein fertilization prevention is preferable to implantation prevention, which is in turn preferable to RU 486, which is in turn preferable to mechanical abortion... MAP is the best option.
Obviously I support a woman's right to choose. |
