Abortion-inducing Agents by Any Other Name Still Kill

Push to Expand 'Post-Fertilization Contraception'

By Denise Hunnell, MD

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 13, 2013 - Claims of politicians not withstanding, the point at which human life begins is settled science. At the moment of fertilization, when the sperm and ovum join, a totally new and unique human being is formed. This single-celled zygote has the full complement of human DNA and immediately begins the self-directed process of maturation and development. His or her mother provides a nurturing environment for this growth, but she is a passive observer as her child grows from zygote to morula to blastocyst to embryo to fetus. There is no point along this developmental continuum where the child is any more or less alive, any more or less human. 
This inconvenient fact has been largely ignored by those who advocate for abortion, embryonic stem cell cloning, and assisted reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization (IVF) that use human embryos. Instead, they use language to cloud reality. At the moment of conception they call the newly formed person a “fertilized egg” as if conception results in the mere modification of the female gamete instead of the creation of a complete human being. Abortionists never speak of babies or unborn children. They call them embryos, fetuses, or just "products of conception." Abortion itself is described as the termination of a pregnancy with no reference to the loss of life that always ensues. Planned Parenthood never asks, “Would you like to end the life of your child today?” Their pitch sounds more like, “Let’s terminate your pregnancy,” or “Would you like to exercise your right to choose and have an abortion today?” Notice they never finish the phrase and tell a woman the complete truth about what she is choosing -- life or death for her unborn child.
Even the definition of pregnancy has been manipulated to bypass the recognition of conception as the beginning of life. Conception usually occurs in the Fallopian tubes of the female reproductive system. The resulting single-celled human being continues to grow and develop as he travels from the tubes into the uterine cavity. This takes about one week. Upon reaching the uterine cavity, if all goes well, this new life attaches to the uterine wall, a process referred to as implantation. Currently, both American and European medical societies choose to define pregnancy as beginning with implantation and not with conception. Utilization of this definition allows birth control methods that prevent implantation to be classified as contraception instead of abortion-inducing agents.
Cognizant that these word games do not change the reality that preventing implantation destroys a human life, advocates of the IUD, morning-after pill, and regular hormonal contraceptives have downplayed the abortifacient nature of such birth control. But now there is a push to drop the façade and embrace prevention of implantation as an acceptable mechanism for birth control. Writing in the Journal for Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, a team led by Dr. Elizabeth G. Raymond calls on the medical community to pave the way for the acceptance and development of new abortifacients. The first step is again a semantic maneuver with the adoption of the term “post-fertilization contraception” for medications and procedures that prevent implantation.
Dr. Raymond’s next step is to stop highlighting the pre-fertilization mechanisms of many common birth control methods and admit that they have post-conception effects that contribute to their efficacy. She claims that focusing on the prevention of conception attaches a stigma to the prevention of implantation, implying that the former is more desirable than the latter. It is interesting that Dr. Raymond freely confesses that the chronic use of hormonal contraception alters the lining of the uterus, making it less receptive to the developing embryo. Instead of minimizing the significance of these effects, Dr. Raymond urges medical professionals to celebrate the post-fertilization mechanisms. She claims that if doctors would only say that preventing implantation is a wonderful thing, women will believe that it is so.
Finally, she calls for more research and development of post-fertilization options for birth control. She envisions the development of a drug that could be used as "emergency contraception" as long as four weeks after sexual intercourse. In addition, such a pill could be taken once per month on a regular basis to prevent or disrupt a pregnancy no matter how many times a woman had sex during the month. Dr. Raymond argues that women want and need such a post-fertilization alternative and the development of such a pill has been stymied more by political controversy than by scientific obstacles. 
Dr. Raymond cites the results of numerous international studies that indicate women view a medical option for ending a pregnancy as more “natural” or more compatible with religious and ethical views that oppose surgical abortion. She suggests that a drug that evacuates the uterus without determining if pregnancy occurs is more acceptable in communities where explicit abortion is forbidden.
What Dr. Raymond is actually saying is that if abortion supporters in the medical community and their allies keep women in the dark about what is happening within their bodies, they will accept post-fertilization interventions. She seems to want women conditioned not to ask questions about whether or not conception has occurred and just destroy their uterine lining so that any developing child will pass unnoticed in the menstrual flow. They want to just pretend the week of life that occurs before implantation does not exist. 
This approach is very similar to that of abortion advocates who fight informing women of their unborn child’s level of development or showing women ultrasound pictures of their developing child. When a woman finds out that the child within her womb is not a lifeless clump of cells but a living human being, she is far less likely to abort. Likewise, if a woman realizes that her child’s life began at the moment of conception and not after implantation, she would see post-fertilization interventions for what they are -- abortions.
Life begins at conception. We cannot change that by refusing to recognize pregnancy until after implantation occurs. Similarly, calling an abortifacient “post-fertilization contraception” does not alter the fact that any medication or procedure that prevents implantation destroys nascent life. This life, no matter how small, is still a complete human being made in the image of God with an intrinsic dignity that must not be violated. No amount of Orwellian doublespeak can change this truth.
* * *
Denise Hunnell, MD, is a Fellow of Human Life International, an international pro-life organization. She writes for HLI's Truth and Charity Forum.

The Science of Life - Bioethicist Speaks on Importance of One of Us Campaign

By Elisabetta Pittino

ROME, June 04, 2013 (Zenit.org) - Elisabetta Pittino of the “One of Us” Campaign interviewed Professor Justo Aznar Lucea, Doctor in Medicine from the University of Navarra and Director of the Life Sciences Institute at the Catholic University of Valencia, to learn about the scientific basis of the “One of Us” initiative.
Prof. Aznar was the Head of the Clinical Pathobiology Department of the Hospital Universitario La Fe Valencia, from 1974 until his retirement in June 2006.
He has published 507 research papers, about 300 of those in some of the most relevant scientific publications. He directed 20 doctoral theses and 30 chapters in various books.
He has received several awards including the "Alberto Sols", the "Santiago Grisolía" and the prize "Health and Society", in his first call, to the best "Career Development" of Valencia issued by the Department of Health of the Government of this region.
He is a member of the Medicine Royal Academy of Valencia.
* * *
Q: Scientifically, when does human life begin?
Prof. Aznar: There is no doubt that human life begins with fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Fertilization initiates the development and activates the division of the zygote sustaining the development of that human being live without interruption (Annex 1).
Q: We can call the embryo "One of Us" ...
Prof. Aznar: After showing, in the previous question, the zygote and the early human embryo, from a biological standpoint, are living beings of our species, there is no difficulty to say that the embryo is "One of Us".
Moreover, in this struggle to defend the life of the human embryo, those who advocate that early human embryo is not a living being of our species, but a conglomeration of cells without any ontological or biological value, will have to demonstrate it is as they say, and it is something that so far nobody has being able to prove.
Q: Why, if science is so simple in showing the very beginning of human life with the conception, has the non scientific concept of a “pre-embryo” introduced and diffused?
Prof/ Aznar: The term “pre-embryo” is a semantic trick introduced by Clifford Grobstein (U.S.) in 1979 and confirmed and disseminated by the Warnock Report in 1984.
Without a doubt, the term pre-embryo is unscientific, and is solely intended to deprive human embryo, from fertilization to implantation consolidation, at about day 14 of life, its living human character, and in this how to manipulate and even destroy it without any moral responsibility. This is the only possible justification for using the term pre-embryo.
Q: What are differences between the embryo before the implantation and the embryo after the implantation? Is there any change in the humanity of the embryo? What is the difference between the embryo, the fetus, and the newborn? Are these differences substantial or not?
Prof. Aznar: There is no scientific evidence to endorse any biological differences between pre and post implanted embryo. From fertilization embryo development is continued, so to say that there are biological differences between before and after implantation is a semantic manipulation, which was proposed in the Warnock Report, expressing human life begins with gestation.. This undoubtedly led to deprive the human embryos of its biological and ontological status to manipulate them without any ethical responsibility. To hold this position is to ignore the biological reality of the human embryo and manipulate language for false purposes.
Q: What do you think about the "One of Us" campaign? Do you think it is right to ask to stop any research that Imply the destruction of human embryos?
Prof. Aznar: Of course the goal of the “One of Us” campaign is not only appropriate, but necessary.. We believe that it is not only positive for its immediate purposes, to promote a legislative initiative to prevent the manipulation and destruction of human embryos in the European Community, but also because the campaign itself is a magnificent instrument to support the defense of human life; it is needed to offer arguments that endorse this initiative when requesting people’s signatures. That is wahy we believe that an important part of this campaign is to properly train those gathering signatures, for them to be able to explain in depth the reasons that supports this request to the people.
Q: Do you think that limiting the research will open new fields?
Prof. Anzar: Certainly, when one initial scientific experience results immoral, and its lack of ethic principles recommend stopping that practice, this can stimulate to find alternatives to achieve the same benefit but ethically.
The main difference between human beings and animals is that the human is a moral being, it means that humans have to answer to the ethical implications of the actions taken, and scientists, as human beings, should respond similarly. Therefore, the negative ethical evaluation of any research activity should lead to stop it, but it also must open the door to other ethically acceptable research solutions.
A paradigmatic example of this are the experiences of Shinya Yamanaka, which led him to get cellular reprogramming and the regeneration of adult stem cells, which is why he was awarded the Noble Prize in Medicine in 2012, since his initial motivation to enter into these experiences were essentially ethical concerns.
Q: Is it right to sacrifice the life of some people to save other people?
Prof. Anzar: According to Kant’s imperative that affirms that human beings by their own dignity can never be used as a means to anything, even good, but always as an end for the actions that affect their own good, we seem to sacrifice embryos to achieve a third human benefit. Thus, it has no ethical justification.
Historically there are many previous experiences that support this claim, but I would refer to as a paradigmatic example made by Nazis with prisoners in concentration camps to experiment medical techniques that could be useful for German soldiers at war.
Q: The research on embryo stem cells, that kill many human embryos, after many years has not given any practical result ... why?
Prof. Anzar: This question is not correct; first we would need to differentiate between experimental and clinical results and essentially observe that on the ethical screen.
Certainly human embryos are a useful material for biological experiments, especially related to the development of human life in its earliest stages. I mean, it is undeniable after years of research with embryonic stem cells these practices are biologically useful, but it happens that these experiences, even though useful, are always unethical.
However, from the therapeutic point of view it is true that only a few clinical trials with embryonic stem cell are underway and that on the contrary there are huge numbers, more than 3000, with adult stem cells for therapeutic purposes.
Q: Adult stem cells: yes to research? Why?
Prof Aznar: Adult stem cells are particularly useful for use in restorative and regenerative medicine, one of the most attractive therapeutic possibilities of this century in which we are.
As previously stated currently numerous clinical trials are using these cells.
Essentially we can say that adult stem cells are the cells used in clinical practice today, because both embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are much more in an experimental phase.
Q: As a scientist, a doctor, a bioethicist, and as a teacher, do you think that in signing "One of Us", the European Citizens can help science and help Europe to come out from the crisis?
Prof. Anzar: I think that to affirm the signing of "One of Us" can help improve the crisis in Europe. However, that is if you think of the moral crisis, which surely is the foundation of all the crises, including the economic. I believe that in signing this legislative initiative, as scientists, doctors, bioethicists or teachers, may favor an in depth analysis of the moral crisis that exists in Europe, laying the groundwork, along with other actions, allowing us to start a new path to go out of it.
Q: So, would you appeal to your colleagues, to your students, to all the people to sign "One of Us"?
Prof. Anzar: As Director of the Institute of Life Sciences at the Catholic University of Valencia I proposed to the Board of Governors of the University to campaign to collect signatures from teachers and students to "One of Us". This campaign is underway and we have over 1500 signatures collected.

April 2013, current case in the debate about Euthanasia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22191059

Scottish Doctor admits assisting patients to die

A retired Scottish doctor has admitted in a newspaper interview that he supplied three patients with lethal medication so that they could end their lives. He made his confession as a way of supporting an assisted suicide bill before the Scottish Parliament. Dr Iain Kerr, 66, told the Scottish Herald that he had once advised a chronically ill retiree how to take enough antidepressants to die and gave married couple in their 80s sleeping pills. Both of these happened some time ago. He believes that he acted in the best interest of his patients. "I think there should be a change in the law because my personal experience is that there are people suffering distressing symptoms at the end of life which cannot all be palliated, and while people should be offered all the available treatments, there may be times when their preferred course of action will be suicide or to be assisted to die," he said. "I feel the law is out of step with what is socially acceptable to a large number of people," he added. His philosophy is uncomplicated. "The worst thing about death is not being alive. If being alive is not a bunch of cherries, what is wrong with embracing death?" The Scottish police is looking into the public confession. However, Dr Kerr is well known as a campaigner for assisted suicide and euthanasia. In 2008, the General Medical Council suspended him for six months for misconduct after he supplied an elderly patient with sleeping pills to kill herself. It described his actions as "inappropriate, irresponsible, liable to bring the profession into disrepute and not in your patient's best interest". In Scotland there is no law banning assisted suicide, so the legal situation is murky. The Crown Office spokeswoman said "Dr Kerr was investigated in the past in respect of his involvement in a number of deaths which were referred to in today's press. We have instructed the police to make enquiries into whether there is any new evidence available. Any new evidence will be considered by the Crown counsel". Dr Kerr was also criticised by the president of the UK's leading lobby group for assisted suicide, Sir Graeme Catto, a former president of the General Medical Council. "We simply do not condone healthcare professionals from medicine or nursing or any other group taking matters into their own hands. In Iain Kerr's case that is what he did." ht to BioEdge

Three parent babies - no longer 'playing God'

Britain is likely to become the first country to allow "three-parent babies", according to our  science reporter Nick Collins. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has recommended that the process – which involves taking a donor's egg and replacing its nucleus with that of the would-be mother, before undergoing IVF – be made legal for people trying to have children.

It's "three parents" only in that the DNA in the child's mitochondria (the little ex-bacteria which live in our cells and provide energy) will come from the donor, rather than the mother. As Nick points out, that makes up around 0.02 per cent of the total DNA in the cell, and is entirely separate from the nuclear DNA. But what's interesting is why the HFEA is recommending it: not only because it's safe, but because after a major consultation, it found that "there is broad support" for the procedure among the public.

I find that interesting because it's another step taken along the "playing God" route. IVF itself and test-tube babies were once thought of as playing God, but they're standard now. Stem cell research was playing God, but has become more accepted. Genetic engineering is still viewed with a bit of the Biblical fear, but steadily it's becoming more widespread.

As I've written plenty of times before, the "powers we dare not mess with" thing is as old as humanity: I dare say the first people who made fire were warned that they shouldn't meddle with things beyond their ken.But as Douglas Adams said and as I've also written before, technologies that are around when you're born are just ordinary; techologies invented before you turn about 35 are revolutionary and exciting; technologies invented after you turn about 35 are unnatural and wrong. Enough people must have been born since genetic modification became a useable technology for the balance to have shifted into the first two categories. Presumably the balance will shift even further in the next few decades, until mitochondrial replacement technologies – and people with "third parents" – are no more remarkable than contact lenses or artificial hips.

The really interesting question is: what's next? Will human cloning start moving from the basket labelled "unacceptable affront to nature" into the one saying "controversial technology"? And from there, one day, to "standard practice"?