Contraception rejection II
Perhaps obstetrician/gynecologist Rachel B. Rapkin, writer of the letter “Contraception confusion,” is too young to remember that until 1965, the medical profession knew enough about biology that it defined conception as “the union of the sperm and ovum ... fertilization,” and that moment marked the onset of pregnancy.
That year, the American Medical Association, in its almighty wisdom, changed the definition of the onset of pregnancy to “implantation.” Nothing was different. Nothing changed but the words. But now the drug companies, the medical societies and the abortion industry can say emergency contraception does not cause an abortion.
But it does. And changing words does not change facts.
The writer is executive director of the Pittsburgh-based group People Concerned for the Unborn Child (pcuc.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Why the difference?
- No ‘pass’ for Obama
- Pa.’s ‘safety laws’
- Arnold must cut police force
- Right to veto
- Gas industry obfuscates the truth
- PETA & its tactics II
- Today’s technology
- Expanding their options
- UAW won in Tennessee
- Uncaring toward soldiers