(Part 1 of this Lifeline can be found here)
The PDF of Dr John Ling's book on the Morning After Pill is now available here
But why this insistence on a new biology? Let’s not forget that this ruling was made just five years after the emergence of In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF), which would have imposed one or two logical problems of its own, as well as ethical, of course. In terms of a new biology, however, IVF takes the first part of a pregnancy out of the womb and puts it in a petri dish, therefore disassociating fertilisation and pregnancy. During this time the woman, quite clearly, is not pregnant and will not be so until the embryo is put in her. She is only said to be pregnant once it is confirmed that the pregnancy has established itself i.e. after implantation of the embryo. Thus, pregnancy has a delayed start in IVF. But to redefine the general meaning of something according to exceptions will always lead us to trouble.
Bringing this back to the situation we are considering, the action of the morning after pill and whether it results in the loss of a pregnancy, the inescapable reality is that the morning after pill can and does result in the loss of a newly conceived human life in embryonic form. It ends that life by preventing it from implanting and so continuing its growth and development.
It ends life. It therefore ends a pregnancy. It is undoubtedly an abortifacient. To conclude anything else is to fudge logic for the sole purpose of quieting the conscience that convenience has disquieted. I’m sticking to my old text book.
Indeed, if the makers of Levonelle were honest enough to call an embryo an embryo, the advert would never have been broadcast; it too would be awaiting the outcome of the BCAP and CAP consultation relating to proposed changes in advertising practice for abortion services, the advertising of which is currently not permitted.
One has to wonder though, what all this advertising is for. To help us get off the European leader board for the highest number of abortions as well as teenage pregnancies? Well, if that’s what they’re intending, it probably won’t help. Quite the reverse, in fact. Recent research shows that the morning after pill does not even succeed in achieving this. In a review study published in 2007 in Obstetrics and Gynecology, a team of researchers noted that increased access to emergency contraception showed no significant differences in unintended pregnancy or abortion rates. They concluded by saying,
“To date, no study has shown that increased access to this method [emergency contraception] reduces unintended pregnancy or abortion rates on a population level.” (1)
The reality is that the marketing of Levonelle is about convenience, convenience in having sex. Originally intended for emergencies only, the morning after pill has become a routine part of many, many women’s lives. In fact, a recent study revealed the alarming statistic that half of women polled in a UK university had taken the morning after pill. The vast majority of these women, 70%, had taken it because they had had unprotected sex (2).
And this is the crucial thing. The morning after pill changes behaviour. More women are taking sexual risks and from an earlier and earlier age. The result is that more human lives are conceived, rendering that 95% success rate in the first 24 hours, in real terms at population level, impotent. The overall result is an increase in the number of conceptions, implantations, babies born; or more likely, babies aborted.
What the long term after effects of these mornings after mornings after mornings will have on the emotional well-being, sexual health, and fertility of women and men in this country, as well as abortion statistics, nobody really knows, but I think it’s a pretty sure bet that the news won’t be positive. In not too short a time that jaunty tune of the purple-hued ad will more than likely be striking a more somber tone.
-_______________
(1) Raymond E G, Trussel, J, Polis C B, ‘Population Effect of Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pill’ Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol 109, No 1, January 2007
(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1176454/Morning-pill-choice-50...