[hnbad]

While the GOP now literally has candidates in its primaries that explicitly position themselves in favor of "maybe some people should have access to abortion sometimes and we shouldn't put people in prison for it", prior to the catastrophic failure of its so-called culture war, the GOP actually had very vocal factions explicitly framing contraceptives as abortion - starting with the "morning after" pill, which literally prevents impregnation rather than inducing abortion in any sense of the word, but up to and including the regular "pill", which simply prevents ovulation at all.

Sure this is still not at the level of banning all forms of contraception, but it's not a long shot and given the historically evident incremental nature of this combined with the focus on "abstinence only" sex ed (i.e. no sex outside marriage, i.e. no need for easy access to condoms or any other OTC contraceptives) I don't think this can be dismissed as a "slippery slope" fallacy either.

[jtbayly]

You are spreading misinformation about basic scientific facts. You should do some more study. The Pill prevents birth via two major methods. One way is preventing ovulation, yes. The other main way is by preventing the fertilized egg from successfully implanting. That is also how the morning-after pill works.

A fertilized egg has its own unique DNA, and begins development and dividing immediately. By the time it implants, it is made up of 200-300 cells.

Yes, this is, objectively speaking, an abortion.

[hnbad]

You're conflating the two things I said. The pill interferes with the menstrual cycle to prevent ovulation and, usually, menstruation. The morning-after pill acts similarly in that it interrupts ovulation but additionally prevents any blastocysts from implanting, yes. That's why I'm saying it's usually the rhetorical gateway when trying to attack contraceptives before doing so is rhetorically viable.

A blastocyst has 200-300 cells, yes. But if you hadn't stopped reading the Wikipedia article (or high school biology textbook) you'd have noticed that it also says that a blastocyst begins to form about five days after fertilization and implants two days later. Also even without chemical intervention only 30% of fertilized eggs survive to develop into blastocysts and successfully implant -- with implantation failure being the most likely outcome even if the fertilized egg develops to that stage. A lot of the lead-up treatments in IVF processes only exist to ensure that a blastocyst can develop and sucessfully implant itself.

Note that the literal "morning-after" pill (effective within 72 hours after intercourse) available over-the-counter in most countries including the US often only contains a progestin, i.e. it's just a higher dose equivalent of the regular pill. What you are talking about are pills containing an antiprogestin, which indeed can also act as an abortifacient, even though I've never heard any medical professional refer to a failure to implant as an "abortion".

That you're conflating all three of these pills (the Pill, the OTC morning-after pill and the one containing an abortifacient) is a good demonstration of the "incremental contraceptive ban" strategy I described.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

A blastocyst that doesn't implant is not a pregnancy.

[jtbayly]

A blastocyst that is intentionally prevented from developing further by making the uterine environment inhospitable is precisely the same thing both in intent and outcome as what happens with a medication abortion (RU-486):

“RU-486 works by blocking the action of the hormone progesterone, which is needed to support the development of a fertilized egg.” (From https://www.britannica.com/science/abortion-pregnancy )

The pill works at times by thinning the uterine lining, which is needed to support the development of a fertilized egg.

You can talk about what changes have or haven’t taken place in the body of the mother, but these are the same thing, just accomplished by two different means. We have other means as well.

[yamazakiwi]

You're focusing too hard on conflating the actions with the outcomes. A woman using preventative medicine to decrease the chance of a pregnancy is by definition not an abortion.

You're argumentation would also imply that if a man has a nightly emission he is performing abortion because a child could have been created, then listing the biological comparisons between a nightly emission and abortion claiming similarities make them the identical.

[yamazakiwi]

In this case no one is pregnant yet, so it is not an abortion by definition. It so deliciously ironic that you accuse them of spreading misinformation.

[jtbayly]

We could argue about the meaning of the word "pregnant," but let's be plain. contrary to the original comment, fertilization does occur still at times, and then biology tells us that a new life with its own DNA has entered the picture. (This is why nightly emissions have nothing to do with this, bringing in your other comment.)

That life is intentionally terminated by birth control and the morning-after pill in almost the same exact method as RU-486, which we know as the "abortion drug." Both cause the thinning of the lining of the uterus, preventing attachment or causing the loss of attachment to occur, respectively.

Most people who work in the field of abortion know this, and that is precisely why they bring up the loss of birth control as one of the (either intended or unintended) consequences of outlawing abortion.

In other words, both pro-choice and pro-life people know this is true, and acting like pro-life people are ignoramuses for believing this reveals a real lack of understanding of the science, not to mention the politics, and the moral questions involved.

[yamazakiwi]

>>We could argue about the meaning of the word "pregnant," but let's be plain. contrary to the original comment, fertilization does occur still at times, and then biology tells us that a new life with its own DNA has entered the picture. (This is why nightly emissions have nothing to do with this, bringing in your other comment.) That life is intentionally terminated by birth control and the morning-after pill in almost the same exact method as RU-486, which we know as the "abortion drug." Both cause the thinning of the lining of the uterus, preventing attachment or causing the loss of attachment to occur, respectively.

I wish your comment included the importance of sperm and eggs individually to the process of creating life. Any argument you make about life creation should be made hollistically, and drawing the line at the pregnancy because that is near the time medication is administered is a mistake, particularly since that is likely temporary and we will see many other solutions in the future. I'm not sure what you are trying to say by comparing the morning after pill to RU-486 other than you view them the same. That's like saying calling out of work sick the night before and calling out 5 minutes before your shift are the same thing because you used a phone and the result was you didn't go to work, so I'm not sure if that's really what you're implying.

>>Most people who work in the field of abortion know this, and that is precisely why they bring up the loss of birth control as one of the (either intended or unintended) consequences of outlawing abortion. >In other words, both pro-choice and pro-life people know this is true, and acting like pro-life people are ignoramuses for believing this reveals a real lack of understanding of the science, not to mention the politics, and the moral questions involved.

I don't think most pro-choice or pro-life people know much at all about the subject and are opinionated anyway. As with most contentious political topics.

It would be a mistake to assume that all pro-life people are ignoramuses or lack understanding of science. This bias comes from the media showing pro-lifers purposefully rejecting science historically. The media has also shown many years of pro-choice pretention and that is why none of this reveals a lack of understanding of science as much as it reveals our laziness towards learning truths and our reliance on others to provide talking points that confirm our naive suspicions; especially if they allow you to uninvolve yourself directly with the problem, and that's on both sides without a doubt.