Emergency Contraception: abortificant?

[Confused]

In a recent article in the American Scientific Affiliation (a site for Theistic scientists), an author, Dennis Sullivan, seeks to explain oral contraceptives as abortificants. Of note, the only issue I am bringing forth is the morning after pill.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF9-06Sullivan.pdf

He states:

There is also an important distinction between combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and emergency contraception (EC). With EC (sometimes referred to as the “morning-after pill”), a four-times normal dose of a combined oral contraceptive pill is taken over a 12-hour period. Since this regimen is designed to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse, it may act in two ways:
(1) by preventing ovulation,
(2) by interfering with implantation if ovulation (and therefore fertilization) had
already occurred.
Many (including the present author) feel that the supra-physiological dose of hormones used for EC is therefore an abortifacient at least part of the
time, though others would dispute this.

Up for debate:
1) Do you consider EC an abortificant?
2) Would you consider the use of EC against biblical doctrine in morality? Why?

My issue is that with the use of EC, you can't make a case of it being an abortificant if you can't make a case the person was ever pregnant. The point of EC is to make conditions hostile for implantation etc... However, unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the womans cycle is in fact in ovulation and that the released ova haven't already passed a point of viable fertilization, then how can you consider it an abortificant?

[ManBearPig]

Hmm I think your argument might be irrelevant. I think it's analogous to the following:

Say I take a pain-reliever even though I have no pain. Thus, the pill has no effect on me. I think with your argument, it shouldn't be considred a pain-reliever, right?

So I'll say it's an abortifacient. In case #2 anyway. And I think the Bible doesn't really comment on whether it's immoral or not. Abortion always reminds me of the laws in Exodus, where the punishment for taking someone's life is death, but the punishment for inducing a miscarriage in a woman is a monetary fine.

Someone will probably correct me on that...

[Confused]

Hmm I think your argument might be irrelevant. I think it's analogous to the following:

Say I take a pain-reliever even though I have no pain. Thus, the pill has no effect on me. I think with your argument, it shouldn't be considred a pain-reliever, right?

So I'll say it's an abortifacient. In case #2 anyway. And I think the Bible doesn't really comment on whether it's immoral or not. Abortion always reminds me of the laws in Exodus, where the punishment for taking someone's life is death, but the punishment for inducing a miscarriage in a woman is a monetary fine.

Someone will probably correct me on that...

Obviously the author of the article I posted did disagree with you. The article addresses the liberal vs conservative views on abortions and contraceptives (though I didn't post that part of it). Conservative Christians, Evangelical Christians, Catholics etc... all consider it unbiblical.
In your analogy of the pain killer, simply because you don't take if for pain doesn't change the chemical make-up of the pill itself. It will still produce act as endorphines attaching to you pain receptor. So the pill will still have the same result.

[ManBearPig]

In your analogy of the pain killer, simply because you don't take if for pain doesn't change the chemical make-up of the pill itself. It will still produce act as endorphines attaching to you pain receptor. So the pill will still have the same result.

Ok. But if, in a particular instance, a pain killer doesn't kill pain, that doesn't mean it can't be called a "pain killer". And if an abortifacient, if in a particular instance, doesn't cause an abortion, that doesn't mean it can't be called an abortifacient. Yes?

[Confused]

In your analogy of the pain killer, simply because you don't take if for pain doesn't change the chemical make-up of the pill itself. It will still produce act as endorphines attaching to you pain receptor. So the pill will still have the same result.

Ok. But if, in a particular instance, a pain killer doesn't kill pain, that doesn't mean it can't be called a "pain killer". And if an abortifacient, if in a particular instance, doesn't cause an abortion, that doesn't mean it can't be called an abortifacient. Yes?

Good question. But would it be an abortificant or a contraceptive? More so: how would we know if it caused on or not?

[Furrowed Brow]

Interestingly emergency contraceptive has been available in the UK over the counter for some time. It is legally classed as a contraceptive. a recent study showed that its introduction had no impact on the general abortion rate.

I'd say it is a contraceptive.

I think the question should be treated from a slightly different perspective. Human life starts from the moment one starts responding to the fetus as if it were human. We can all pick our own time scales. but I think you need to be sincere and not spout dogma. For me it starts some where around 12 weeks when those scans start looking darn human. I look at them, and you can tell me they ain't got a nervous system or whatever. But I'm suckered.

So the question is not about changes in the fetus but about changes in us.

[ManBearPig]

Good question. But would it be an abortificant or a contraceptive?

Ok I see. Yeah, I can't answer that. But I think you're missing my point: it doesn't matter if we know whether the pill caused it or not. All the matters is the pill functions as abortifacient/contraceptive in some cases.

Just like if I have a migraine, I may take an Advil. My migraine goes away on its own, even though the Advil probably didn't help at all (it never seems to anyway). That doesn't mean Advil ceases to be called a "pain-killer". It just means it didn't do anything in this particular case.

[McCulloch]

My issue is that with the use of EC, you can't make a case of it being an abortificant if you can't make a case the person was ever pregnant. The point of EC is to make conditions hostile for implantation etc... However, unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the womans cycle is in fact in ovulation and that the released ova haven't already passed a point of viable fertilization, then how can you consider it an abortificant?

Mrs. Schrodinger's fetus anyone?
Are you pregnant if you don't know if fertilization has occurred? Viability is not an issue. If, as the dogmatic opponents of abortion claim, that it is wrong to attempt to kill an innocent human person and that a new human person comes into existence the moment that the two sets of chromosomes combine, then EC will effectively be an abortificant in a significant number of cases. The issue is that the person taking the EC cannot know if it is simply delaying ovulation and preventing fertilization or preventing the implantation of an already existing set of new human genes.