M
mikejet
Guest
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65E2DD20100615
Even with newer pills like ella those opposed to abortion still lobby against their use? My understanding though is that the new pill simply prevents ovulation. So it effectively prevents the woman from being getting pregnant and in no way can lead to an abortion.
So where is the issue? Shouldn't they be in favor of something like this? It's one thing to argue if the egg has been fertilized already but to be against something that prevents that from happening in the first place seems crazy.
If they are against this then they should be against all contraceptive use and try to stop them all because they all prevent you from becoming pregnant(though some more effectively than rabroad
hers).
Even with newer pills like ella those opposed to abortion still lobby against their use? My understanding though is that the new pill simply prevents ovulation. So it effectively prevents the woman from being getting pregnant and in no way can lead to an abortion.
So where is the issue? Shouldn't they be in favor of something like this? It's one thing to argue if the egg has been fertilized already but to be against something that prevents that from happening in the first place seems crazy.
If they are against this then they should be against all contraceptive use and try to stop them all because they all prevent you from becoming pregnant(though some more effectively than rabroad
hers).