Wednesday, September 26, 2012

How the Purists Can Destroy America and the West (and Still Feel Good About Themselves)

This is written and originally posted by: Bill Muehlenberg. Below is his quoted text. Original post found here: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/09/11/how-the-purists-can-destroy-america-and-the-west-and-still-feel-good-about-themsleves/




There is a very easy way in which misguided and mistaken purists (which includes plenty of evangelicals) can destroy America: simply allow Barack Hussein Obama back in. And that may well happen, because so many of these confused and undiscerning believers will in fact act much like the hypocritical Pharisees of old. 
They will do this with a misplaced sense of purity – whether spiritual or theological or political. They will mistakenly think they must remain pure and only vote for a perfect candidate. Otherwise they foolishly think they have become involved in “evil” compromise.
They simply forget that we live in a fallen world, and there is no perfect political party, no perfect politician, no perfect public policy, and no perfect voters. There is nothing perfect in a fallen world, so if they think they can somehow wait around until Jesus Christ finally runs against Obama, they are living in la la land. It just ain’t gonna happen. 
As I have said so often now, Romney is not my preferred candidate – not by a long shot. But he is the only one we have now to face Obama. So we either vote for Romney to displace Obama, or we allow him back in by default – with all the evil which that will entail.
These Christian purists, who think they can just sit this one out, or vote for a third party, will do only one thing: ensure that Obama gets back in to do even more damage. These purists then will have blood on their hands. But they will offer plenty of lame excuses as they push their mistaken notions of purity. Here are four of them: 
One. ‘Romney is a Mormon so I just can’t vote for him.’ But this election is not so much about voting a Mormon in, as voting out the worst president ever. And it is not just about Romney v Obama, but the Republican Party v the Democratic Party. We are not really voting for a Mormon or a Marxist, but one or other of the parties. That must not be lost sight of here.
As Al Mohler rightly argues, we have two different worldviews competing in this election: “The nation’s political polarization is clearly evident in the radical distinctions between the Republican and Democratic platforms. But this polarization is not merely political. It is fundamentally moral and ideological. These two platforms present two contradictory understandings of realities as basic as human life, liberty, and the institution of marriage. Though the two parties have taken opposing positions on many of these issues for years, the radical nature of this current polarization is new.” 
The Democratic worldview is fundamentally different from that of the Republicans. And if Romney gets in, he of course is greatly restricted by his own party, by Congress, and so on. So it is not a theologian-in chief we will be voting for here, but an entire worldview – either a good one or a bad one. But see more on this here:
www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/05/13/on-mitt-romney-and-americas-future/www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/05/17/on-mormon-presidents/ 
Two. ‘But Romney has flip flopped on many key issues, is not really fully pro-life, and so on.’ As I said, he is not my preferred candidate and yes he has flip-flopped. But he and his party are light years ahead of Obama and his party on pretty much every issue. So refusing to vote for him because of some misplaced purity will help no one – it will just mean we get more Obama, more abortion, more of the homosexual agenda, more pro-Islam and more anti-Christian agendas. So the purists will have that on their consciences to deal with. But see my links above for more on this. 
Three. ‘God is sovereign so we should just leave this all in his hands – it is not our responsibility.’ Sorry, this is another foolish cop-out. It is our responsibility. There is always cooperation between God and his people. When he commanded us to make disciples of all nations, he expected us to actually do something, not just sit on our butts and talk about God’s sovereignty. It is the same with being salt and light. 
The idea that we should just sit back and do nothing is irresponsible and unbiblical in the extreme. Simply try telling the Christians who languished in concentration camps under Hitler that “God is in charge” and things will sort themselves out. Sorry, it took allied tanks to stop Hitler, in addition to prayers and trust in God. God works through his people, and we all have a role to play. 
Four. ‘But it is evil to choose between the lesser of two evils.’ These purists foolishly insist on perfection or nothing. They want an unblemished candidate, or they want one who is 100% on side with their views on abortion, or whatever. “We can only have a perfect candidate or we are not voting.” This is simply more Pharisaical baloney purity. Such a thing is just not going to happen in a fallen world, and we always have to choose between the lesser of two evils in all areas of life. 
Gary DeMar has just written an excellent piece on this and is worth quoting at length: “You’ve heard anti-Republican critics say, ‘I just can’t vote for the lesser of two evils.’ If this is true, then you can never vote since we’re all evil, although some are more evil than others. I have a number of Calvinist friends who use the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument. If you know anything about Calvinism, then you know the acronym TULIP. The ‘T’ in Tulip stands for Total Depravity. It also goes by the names total inability or total corruption. It’s not that a person is pure depravity but that all his actions and thoughts are tainted by evil. Sin has corrupted every part of our being. 
“This means that any choice of a political candidate is a lesser of two totally depraved people. The people that say they will not vote for the lesser of two evils will get one of the two evils whether they vote or not. In this election, they may get the greater of two evils. And it’s not just the greater evil of one man we may get, but we may get the greater of two evils when it comes to judges, new laws, executive orders, wealth confiscation, and a whole lot more. The past four years should be a wake-up call to the no lesser than two evils crowd. 
“Then there’s the claim that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties. Nonsense. Let’s say that since 1980 all conservatives had followed the ‘I won’t vote for the lesser of two evils candidate.’ Where do you think we would be today?” 
He continues: “What’s so irritating about those pushing a third party is that they never really do it. The presidency is the last political office they should be pursuing. If the no lesser than two evils crowd were really serious, they would be putting up local candidates in elections all across the country. They should have been doing it for 30 years. If you can’t win locally, you’re not going to win nationally. If there is no broad-based national grassroots support and a demonstration of success politically, what do the critics of the ‘Republicrats’ expect to accomplish at the top of the ticket? 
“There’s talk of Ron Paul running as a third-party candidate. What’s it going to prove? Let’s say he gets 10 million votes. He won’t get a single electoral vote. And even if elections were won by majority vote totals and not by electoral votes, he still wouldn’t win anything. The lesser of two evils franchise will say that they will be ‘sending a message.’ Yeah, that they’re idiots.”
Exactly right. There is one person who simply loves all these purists: BHO. He knows he will get back in because all these confused and muddled Christians somehow think they must be pure, and must refrain from voting, or vote for a third party candidate in some misguided protest vote. 
They are doing nothing but this: ensuring that BHO gets back in. That may well spell the end of America as we know it. That may well make the homosexual and abortion tidal waves even greater. That may well mean the end of our religious freedoms. 
But these foolish purists will sit back and pat themselves on the back. They will see America destroyed, but hey, at least they retained their precious and perverted “purity”. Not only will they have to explain their total irresponsibility to their children and grandchildren who will have to suffer through all this, but one day they will have to explain their gross abdication of responsibility and unbiblical actions to God as well. 
Why do the strong words of rebuke Jesus gave to the Pharisees keep coming back to me here?
www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/06/the-great-american-worldview-exercise-the-2012-election/godfatherpolitics.com/6969/a-response-to-the-no-lesser-of-two-evils-crowd/

Pepsi, Senomyx & Dead Babies


This is written and originally posted by: Bill Muehlenberg. Below is his quoted text. Original post found here: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/03/06/pepsi-and-dead-babies/



For some time now we have known that the taste of Pepsi is based in part on the use of aborted babies. And now the Obama administration informs us that this is no big deal – just business as usual. Just more chilling scenes from the culture wars and the battle for life. 
Last year pro-life groups were already warning about this, and asking that those concerned about life boycott PepsiCo for this practice. It is still continuing, and Obama’s people consider it to be just fine. Here is how one news story reported matters last year:
“Scores of prolife groups are calling for a public boycott of food giant, PepsiCo, due to its partnership with Senomyx, a biotech company that uses aborted fetal cells in the research and development of artificial flavor enhancers. LifeSiteNews previously reported on Senomyx’s partnership with major food corporations, most notably PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, and NestlĂ©.
 

“Pro-life watchdog group, Children of God for Life (CGL), is now joined by major pro-life organizations calling upon the public to target PepsiCo in a boycott. Pepsi is funding the research and development, and paying royalties to Senomyx, which uses HEK-293 (human embryonic kidney cells) to produce flavor enhancers for Pepsi beverages. ‘Using isolated human taste receptors we created proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems that provide a biochemical or electronic readout when a flavor ingredient interacts with the receptor,’ says the Senomyx website. 
“‘What they do not tell the public is that they are using HEK 293 – human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce those receptors,’ stated Debi Vinnedge, President for CGL, the watch dog group that has been monitoring the use of aborted fetal material in medical products and cosmetics for years. The aborted fetal cells are not in the product itself. However, ‘there are many options PepsiCo could be using instead of aborted fetal cells,’ noted Vinnedge.” 
That report came from May of last year. Despite many people sharing their concerns with the company and with the government, it seems their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Obama’s administration has dismissed these concerns, and simply want Pepsi to carry on with business as usual. 
Consider this news item from yesterday: “PepsiCo has come under fire from pro-life advocates because it has been contracting with a research firm that uses fetal cells from babies victimized by abortions to test and produce artificial flavor enhancers.
“Now, the Obama administration is set to face more criticism because an agency has declared that Pepsi’s use of the company and its controversial flavor testing process constitutes ‘ordinary business.’ In a decision delivered February 28, the Security and Exchange Commission ruled that PepsiCo’s use of aborted fetal remains in their research and development agreement with Senomyx to produce  flavor enhancers falls under ‘ordinary business operations.’
 
“Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life, the organization that exposed the PepsiCo-Senomyx collaboration last year, informed LifeNews today that a letter signed by Attorney Brian Pitko of the SEC Office of Chief Counsel was sent in response to a 36-page document submitted by PepsiCo attorneys in January 2012. In that filing, PepsiCo pleaded with the SEC to reject a Shareholder’s Resolution filed in October 2011 that the company ‘adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private and collaborative research and development agreements.’ 
“PepsiCo lead attorney George A. Schieren noted that the resolution should be excluded because it ‘deals with matters related to the company’s ordinary business operations’ and that ‘certain tasks are so fundamental to run a company on a day-to-day basis that they could not be subject to stockholder oversight.’
“Vinnedge said she is appalled by the apathy and insensitivity of both PepsiCo executives and the Obama administration. ‘We’re not talking about what kind of pencils PepsiCo wants to use – we are talking about exploiting the remains of an aborted child for profit,’ she said. ‘Using human embryonic kidney (HEK-293) to produce flavor enhancers for their beverages is a far cry from routine operations.’
 
“Vinnedge said PepsiCo also requested the resolution be excluded because it ‘probed too deeply into matters of a complex nature upon which shareholders cannot make an informed judgment.’ ‘In other words, PepsiCo thinks its stockholders are too stupid to understand what they are doing with the remains of aborted children,’ she said. ‘Well they are about to find out just how smart the public really is when they turn up the heat on the world-wide boycott’.”
So the battle continues. The moral of the story is this at least: the next time you are craving a cola, avoid Pepsi. And tell others about these ghastly practices. Boycotting their products should also be part of our response. Contacting them and letting them know what you think is another option. You can contact Pepsi at this link and share your concerns: cr.pepsi.com/usen/pepsiusen.cfm?date=20120305
www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-groups-call-for-pepsi-boycott-over-aborted-fetal-cell-lines/ 
www.lifenews.com/2012/03/05/obama-agency-pepsi-using-aborted-fetal-cells-is-ordinary-business/

Pre-Born Baby a Parasite?

Under construction

Sanger/KKK/Darwin/Slavery/Abortion Link

Under construction

Abortion in Rape or Incest

Under Construction

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Voting for Romney: A Lesson




Found a few awesome quotes on Facebook from people trying to express their views. All of them are compiled below mixed with our stance, to make our position. 

Votes are the only proper and peaceful way to change the laws within our democratic republic. It will take more than votes, certainly, but you can't do it without votes. Romney believes in exceptions due to rape and incest. Obama believes in abortion on demand and late term abortion. I'll take Romney over Obama any day. We can work with Romney. Obama allows abortion on demand!!!! Unseating O is a great beginning to abolishing abortion in U.S. 9/25/2012 NYC schools (13 of them) handed out plan b to students. As young as 14...God doesnt want us to sit on our butts and do nothing!! Vote this clown out! Romney used to be pro-death, and he's not completely on board with being staunchly pro-life, BUT he's a million times better than the so-called man we have now in the White House. 

A few right-wing extremists are even going so far as to harassing others about voting for a 3rd party. Voting third party is ridiculous. We all know what happens when a 3rd party comes into the picture and we all saw what happened the last time a 3rd party member tried to run for President. What a complete, joke. A vote given to someone else is a vote for Obama. Plain and simple. 

Tell me you know the hearts of every candidate, and that voting for a "lesser" of two evils isn't good. Unless you ARE a saint yourself? People need to stop being so self-righteous and learn to add, maybe even learn to Love America and wish to see proper Hope and Change. Yes, we need to pray, fight, speak, adopt, foster, repent, demonstrate the Fathers love & VOTE as part of an overall front on the evil of abortion. There is a movement taking place, slowly - it's happening. Are we there yet? No. Do we lay down the "political" weapon in our arsenal? I think not! Romney has been endorsed by every major pro-life group in the U.S. His record as governor was more pro-life than when Reagan was governor of California. Reagan helped bring about more restrictions against abortion in our entire lifetime! Add, people! Wilberforce did not end the slave trade in one vote, but he did over time, make the slave trade unprofitable. Same is true regarding Lincoln. Lincoln was not strongly against slavery, but he was open to its end. Romney is of the same state of mind as Lincoln it seems. If pro-life legislations comes to Romney, he would vote for it. Obama would not. If you let Obama win by not voting for Romney, you have the blood of more babies on your hands. They would be killings that could have been thwarted with someone ACTUALLY open to life and political issues. Lets get our head on straight here and think of how history has moved people to overcoming great evils.

If you are failing to see these glaring truths from history: think of Wilberforce and Lincoln. They were not perfect. But they helped bring about great injustices. If people did not vote for Lincoln and sat out the election because he wasn't a perfect abolitionist, a southern slave-promoter would have been elected and we may have seen another 80 years of it. This is the scenario we have today. 


Wilberforce, the great abolitionist of Slavery, made many compromises to further the cause of ending slavery. To him, some progress was better than no progress. Had he refused to consider any and all legislation except for a pure bill totally abolishing slavery, he would have accomplished nothing. Instead he was able to eventually destroy slavery in England. It is painfully obvious, of the only two choices we have for president, which one will further the cause for life, and which one will further and accelerate the cause of death. 

While we may not agree with everything Mr. Romney stands for, we agree with much of it. We're electing a leader for many purposes - one of which will be to help shape the abortion travesty. We believe we have to do everything within our power to save a single unborn child. If that means voting for Romney to save all children outside of rape and incest, by your own admission - that's the bulk of the abortions. This by no means stands to be that we are giving "in" to evil. We have 2 options Nov. 6: continuing permitting and even promoting abortion or gradually taking it apart. Doing something is better than nothing; the sooner you learn this - the better.

If you believe that Romney, because he permits certain exceptions to abortion that this is an evil act??? You completely dismiss his positions he holds to. Right on his campaign site, he says he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, that no taxpayer funding should go toward abortion, and that supports cutting off funding to planned parenthood (the largest abortion provider in this country by far). And this is not going in the right direction? Let me ask you as well, would you have voted for Abraham Lincoln? This is what Lincoln said after being elected president, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . [¶] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."[Roy P. Basler, ed. The collected works of Abraham Lincoln (Rutgers U.P., 1953) vol 5 p. 388] 



We think people who claim that voting for Romney is evil - are being flagrantly inconsistent. Romney has taken stronger positions against abortion than Lincoln had during his entire first term of office. Here is something you need to consider: if Obama is reelected, funding DEFINITELY continues for planned parenthood. Any hope of bringing the issue of unborn personhood before the supreme court dies because Obama will be able to appoint more pro-abortion justices.

The other side of this coin is where we disagree. We believe it is our role to elect someone that is open to abortion's end and not strongly fighting to see it continue. There has never been a perfect candidate that has held office in this country. This type of thinking would not have allowed Wilberforce to bring about the end of the slave trade or Lincoln to sign the emancipation proclamation. All political office holders are flawed men. By having Romney in office, when pro-life representatives bring before his desk legislation that works toward ending abortion, you think Romney will not sign it? Or, if Personhood U.S.A. is able to finally have one of the state amendments challenged to the Supreme Court, do you think the declaration of the unborn as persons is more likely or less likely with Romney as president? Remember that Romney has a 100% Pro-Life VP to deal with!


Here's some things to keep in mind about Obama:
Obama voted against the BAIPA *four* times when he was in the Senate. He is for partial-birth abortion. He is against parental notification for minors. He, along with the Democratic platform, is 100% for abortion for any reason (even gender selective abortion) & any time. Completely unrestricted butchering of babies is what we have with Obama as our President. How is this better than a man who YES has changed his mind about abortion and agrees with it in the case of rape/incest? Lets work with him on it. See what he can bring to the table. Look at the bigger picture on all of this. Bottom line is, do you want less babies dismembered by abortion or not? We all want Roe vs Wade overturned but we need to look at the REALISTIC options we have in front of us for who our next president WILL be. 

We do not appreciate nor respect stances against our nations political system. Seems as if those who are against our nations political system don't care about the United Stares of America. Furthermore, the "anti-political" illusion is exposed as high politics as these people continue to beat the subject into the dirt. Abortion is in fact the most important issue in the world but, to as some put it, "refuse to be used" makes these people useless.

We are voting for Mitt Romney not because he was our first choice, but because if we don't- we will guarantee a 100% Anti-Life President who is destroying our country to continue bringing about our demise and continue endorsing the genocide of the unborn to heinous degrees!!! This is the most important election EVER. We guess if you are sitting back on your bum: you're waiting for Jesus Christ to run? It's not about Romney, it's about the survival of the U.S. We will be totally destroyed with 4 more years of Obama.



You should check out how mad NARAL is at Romney for what he's stood for and voted for. Very smart decision to stay tuned to the Pro-Death side of the fence for this reason, only. Check it out here, it's pretty informing and straight to the point!!!!: Click 

Check out the flyer they made:






Monday, September 24, 2012

Birth Control+Abortifacient from Abort73

Do you recognize that human life begins at the moment of fertilization? You should because scientifically within the Biological Sciences' world, it does. If you already recognize this then you must be against some different forms of birth control (or all - as a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman has stated below), as it could cause an already fertilized egg to abort. Only a fertilized egg is the Biological beginning of human life itself. 

From our very own AZ Right to Life: Check this out


Birthcontrol methods that might cause an abortion (all of this from Abort73, we own none of this information): Please keep in mind the failure rates.



Intrauterine Device (IUD) - A small device shaped in the form of a "T" that is placed inside the uterus by a health care provider. It works to prevent fertilization by keeping sperm from entering the fallopian tubes and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is less than 1%.*
Depo-Provera - Hormones delivered through injections, or shots, in the buttocks or arm every three months. It prevents ovulation, thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is less than 1%.*
Oral Contraceptives (Birth Control Pills) - Delivers hormones orally through a daily pill that prevents ovulation, thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is 5%.*
The Patch (Ortho Evra) - Hormones delivered through a skin patch worn on the lower abdomen, buttocks, or upper body. It prevents ovulation, thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is 5%.*
The Hormonal Vaginal Contraceptive Ring (NuvaRing) - Hormones delivered through a ring that is inserted into the vagina for three weeks at a time. It prevents ovulation, thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is 5%.*
Emergency Contraception ("Morning After" Pill, Postcoital Contraception, Plan B, etc.) - Delivers hormones orally through a high-dosage pill that prevents ovulation, thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is 1%.*
_________________________________
Abort73 also provides us some methods which cannot cause an abortion, but some do have a slight risk of not working properly.
Continuous Abstinence - The only method that is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and disease.
Surgical Sterilization (Tubal Ligation or Vasectomy) - Permanent surgical methods of birth control. Tubal ligations prevent a woman's eggs from reaching her uterus. Vasectomies prevent sperm from entering a woman during intercourse. The estimated failure rate is less than 1%.*
The Male Condom - Prevents sperm from reaching the egg. The estimated failure rate is 11-16%.*
Diaphragm - A shallow latex cup that prevents sperm from reaching the egg, requires a visit with your health care provider for proper fitting. The estimated failure rate is 15%.*
The Female Condom - Worn by the woman, prevents sperm from reaching the egg. The estimated failure rate is 20%.*
Cervical Cap - A thimble-shaped latex cup that prevents sperm from reaching the egg. The estimated failure rate is 14-29%.**
Periodic Abstinence or Fertility Awareness Methods - Being abstinent on the days you may be fertile or using a "barrier" method of birth control (condoms, diaphragms, or cervical caps) on fertile days. Though the US Department of Health and Human Services lists a relatively high failure rate (25%*), other scientific bodies indicate that when used correctly, the failure rate can be less than 1%.*** Because fertility awareness requires more time and engagement than other methods, "perfect use" is harder to achieve.
_________________________________
Among those who are ideologically opposed to abortion, there is much debate about whether hormone-based birth control methods can result in an abortion. The point of contention centers on the question of whether or not the thinning of the uterine lining is sufficient to prevent implantation. If you go to the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists website, you will find two different position papers on this subject. One portion of their membership believes that birth control pills are abortifacient, and the other portion believes that, while the condition of the uterus is altered, it does not thereby prevent implantation. (Read farther down).
*Department of Health & Human Services. "Birth Control Methods," http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/birth-control-methods.pdf (Nov 21, 2011).
**Planned Parenthood. "Cervical Cap (FemCap)," http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/cervical-cap-20487.htm (2011).
***ScienceDaily. "Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds,"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm (Feb 21, 2007). 




In 1965, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a bulletin to redefine the term "conception." That bulletin stated that conception should be understood to mean "the implantation of a fertilized ovum."1 Why this change? The timing of their decision makes it almost certain that it was politically rather than scientifically motivated. The FDA had recently approved the sale of hormonal birth control pills, but "the pill" didn't fit the traditional definition of "contraceptive." Why? Because it doesn't just prevent conception; it also inhibits implantation–or at least purports to. If breakthrough ovulation and fertilization occurs (which is the biological beginning of individual, human life), the embryo may find it difficult to implant because of changes the pill makes to the endometrium. This created an ethical problem for doctors who wanted to assure their patients that the pill is a contraceptive and not an abortifacient. How did they deal with the dilemma? They changed the definition of "conception." By saying "conception," but meaning "implantation," it became possible to market hormonal birth control pills as contraceptives – as something thatprevents "conception."

If you look through the ACOG website today, you won't find a glossary of terms, but you will find numerous references to their altered definition of pregnancy and conception. In a pregnancy FAQ, they state that "fertilization, the union of an egg and a sperm, is the first step in a complex series of events that leads to pregnancy" (emphasis added).2 On a page titled, "Contraception," they state that the IUD "can stop pregnancy" by "thin[ning] the lining of the uterus making it harder for a fertilized egg to attach."3 On theirBirth Control Pills FAQ, they state that one way the pill can "prevent pregnancy" is by making the uterus lining thin, "making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it."4 By redefining the recognized beginning of pregnancy, birth control methods that would have otherwise been said to end pregnancy, can now be said toprevent pregnancy. These semantic changes do nothing to alter the biology of prenatal development, but they do plenty to confuse the ethical implications. In a 2005 Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, Rachel Benson Gold argued that "according to both the scientific community and long-standing federal policy, a woman is considered pregnant only when a fertilized egg has implanted in the wall of her uterus."She goes on to say that though conception is "often used synonymously with fertilization… medically, (it) is equated with implantation." This is clearly an overstatement.
In The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, which is a standard teaching text on prenatal development, the authors note that obstetricians date pregnancies in one of two ways – either "beginning from the first day of the last normal menstrual period (LNMP)," or "at fertilization or conception, about two weeks after LNMP."6 Note the interchangeable use of fertilization and conception, which is repeated again in a summary bullet on the same page. No mention is made of anyone aging an embryo from the time of implantation. In the index of Human Embryology & Teratology, the entry for "conception" takes you to a page describing the process of fertilization.7 Nothing is said about implantation. On the next page, it says that, "just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization." Alexander Tsiaras, who served as the Chief of Scientific Visualizatiion in Yale University's Department of Medicine, did a TED lecture in 2010 which included a sample of the video he created called, From Conception to Birth.8 Not surprisingly, the animated sequence begins with fertilization, not implantation. Finally, Merriam-Webster,9 MedicineNet,10 American Heritage,11 MediLexicon,12 Dictionary.com13 and WebMD14 all define conception as the union of sperm and egg. Only Webster's recognizes an alternate usage that relates to implantation. Four of the definitions explicitly identify "conception" as the onset of pregnancy.

The Guttmacher report is only able to point to one recognized, medical body that makes conception synonymous with implantation and that is ACOG. No mention is made of the Journal of Maternal-Fetal Medicinestudy which found that 73% of participating ob/gyn's stated that conception is synonymous with fertilization.15 According to that same study, 50% of the OB/GYN's surveyed indicated that pregnancy begins at fertilization. Forty-eight percent indicated it begins at implantation. The study concluded: "Neither ACOG definition has been consistently adopted by its members whose definitions are more consistent with lay and embryologist definitions…. The ACOG is urged to reconsider its definitions." Quoting ACOG, in a text box titled "When is a Woman Pregnant?," the Guttmacher report states that "if fertilization does occur, the zygote divides and differentiates into a 'preembryo' while being carried down the fallopian tube toward the uterus."16Why do they put "preembryo" in quotations? Because it's not a scientifically-valid term. Human Embryology & Teratology offers this rebuttal:
The term "pre-embryo" is not used [in this textbook] for the following reasons: (1) it is ill-defined because it is said to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation; (2) it is inaccurate because purely embryonic cells can already be distinguished after a few days, as can also the embryonic (not pre-embryonic!) disc; (3) it is unjustified because the accepted meaning of the word embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks; (4) it is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new human organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization; and (5) it was introduced in 1986 "largely for public policy reasons."17
Reason number five is particularly telling–indicating again that ACOG's decision to redefine pregnancy was primarily a political one. Though obstetricians have largely ignored ACOG's revisionist definitions, government employees have been more willing to buy in–at least in part. In the 1975 version of the Federal Register, in a section titled, "Protection of Human Subjects," the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (now HHS) declared that, "'Pregnancy' encompasses the period of time from confirmation of implantation until expulsion or extraction of the fetus."18 They further declared that, “'Fetus' means the product of conception from the time of implantation until a determination is made, following expulsion or extraction of the fetus, that it is viable." The "Protection of Human Subjects" amendment was first added to the Federal Register in 1973,19 to ensure that no human subjects would be used for medical testing without giving their full, informed consent. The 1974 version proposed adding language to specifically address fetuses.20 The 1975 version was the first to define "pregnancy" and "fetus."
It is worth noting that according to the 1977 version of the Federal Register, the reason HHS federally defined pregnancy as beginning at implantation was because, "No medical tests exist which can confirm conception."21 They call their definition "a matter of practical medical and regulatory necessity," and notice they use the word "conception" as though it were synonymous with "fertilization." Even though it is no longer true that pregnancy can't be detected until fertilization, the definitions established in 1975 have been left unchanged.22 Third Way memo points to these definitions as "proof" that emergency contraception is in fact, contraceptive and not abortive.23 But those who claim a "long-standing federal policy" of defining pregnancy to begin at implantation are missing a significant fact. As indicated by the 1977 preamble, these provisions were not made with emergency contraception in mind. Contraception isn't even mentioned. The issue was the role pregnancy plays on informed consent. Certain medical tests might be fine for a woman who is not pregnant, but dangerous for the offspring of one who is. The emergence of in vitro fertilization presented other definitional challenges. When does a woman whose ovum is fertilized artificially actually become pregnant? HHS decided to define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, arguing that this was a "practical necessity" since implantation is the earliest point at which pregnancy can be verified. But if that's really the case, definitions based on a practical-ignorance of fertilization should not be applicable to things like embryonic stem cell research or in vitro fertilization, where it is medically known that fertilization has occurred. Nor is it appropriate to argue that since we couldn't test for pregnancy before implantation in 1977, we shouldn't have any ethical concerns about birth control methods that impede implantation today.
Outside the Federal Register's guidelines for protecting human subjects, the closest we got to a federal definition of pregnancy was a 2008 draft of President George W. Bush's "Provider Conscience Rules." It stated that conscientious objectors to abortion could opt out of "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."24 Had that language remained, it would have essentially defined fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy. In the version that actually became law, the specifics of what could constitute an abortion were left undefined, but The Washington Post noted that "both supporters and critics said the regulation remains broad enough to protect pharmacists, doctors, nurses and others from providing birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraception and other forms of contraception."25
Upon taking office, NPR reported that President Obama planned to immediately rescind the newly passed "Provider Conscience Rules",26 but public opinion delayed him by almost two years and resulted in a limiting of the Bush legislation instead of a full reversal.27 In the current language of the conscience protection rule, you will read the following:
The 2008 Final Rule did not provide that the term ‘‘abortion,’’ as contained in the Federal health care provider conscience protection statutes, includes contraception. However, the comments reflect that the 2008 Final Rule caused significant confusion as to whether abortion also includes contraception. The provision of contraceptive services has never been defined as abortion in federal statute. There is no indication that the federal health care provider conscience statutes intended that the term ‘‘abortion’’ included contraception.28
Though this explicitly declares that medical providers cannot conscientiously refuse to distribute contraceptives, it makes no reference to contraceptives that have the potential to cause an abortion. And the only way to conclusively say that the birth control pills or IUDs are contraceptive and not abortafacient is to define pregnancy as beginning at implantation instead of fertilization. For their part, Planned Parenthood is happy to accept this modified definition of pregnancy and states on their website that "Pregnancy begins during implantation when the hormone needed to support pregnancy is released."29 Planned Parenthood, of course, sees nothing wrong with abortion. They're perfectly willing to destroy human embryos and fetuses at any stage of pregnancy. For those who do have an ethical problem with abortion, the birth control debate becomes much more complex. Does the birth control pill cause abortion? For the most part, it all depends on when you think pregnancy begins. But anyone who wants to make an ethical distinction between emergency contraception and regular birth control pills would do well to consider one more statement from Rachel Benson Gold's Guttmacher report. She writes that anyone in favor of "enforcing a definition that pregnancy begins at fertilization" must realize that such a definition "would implicate not just some hormonal methods, but all of them."30

Abort73s Works Cited:
    • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Terminology Bulletin. Terms Used in Reference to the Fetus. No. 1. Philadelphia: Davis, September, 1965.
    • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. FAQ156, PREGNANCY. “How does pregnancy begin?” http://www.acog.org/~/media/For%20Patients/faq156.ashx (2011).
    • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fact Sheet; Tool Kit for Teen Care, 2nd. Ed. “Contraception.” http://www.acog.org/~/media/Departments/Adolescent%20Health%20Care/Teen%20Care%20Tool%20Kit/Contraception.ashx (2010).
    • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. FAQ021, CONTRACEPTION. “How does pregnancy begin?” “Contraception”:http://www.acog.org/~/media/For%20Patients/faq021.ashx (2011)
    • Rachel Benson Gold. “The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy (May 2005, Volume 8, Number 2). http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html
    • Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. (Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003), 90.
    • Ronan O’Rahilly & Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd edition. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2001), 87, 495.
    • Alexander Tsiaras: “Conception to birth—visualized,” TED Partner Series(Dec 2010) http://www.ted.com/talks/alexander_tsiaras_conception_to_birth_visualized.html
    • Conception: 1. The process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2011) http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/conception
    • Conception: 1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization. 2. The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium. (MedicineNet, Inc., 1996-2011) http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=31242
    • Conception: 1. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000, 2009) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conception
    • Conception: 2. Fertilization of oocyte by a sperm. (Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 2006) http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=19609
    • Conception: 2. fertilization; inception of pregnancy. (Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, 2011) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conception
    • Pregnancy and Conception: Most doctors calculate the start of pregnancy from the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the “menstrual age” and is about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. (WebMD, LLC, 2005-2011) http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception
    • Joseph A. Spinnato MD. “Informed consent and the redefining of conception: A decision illconceived?” The Journal of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (Volume 7, Issue 6, pages 264–268, November/December 1998) Abstract.
    • Rachel Benson Gold. “The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy (May 2005, Volume 8, Number 2). http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html
    • Ronan O’Rahilly & Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd edition. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2001), 88.
    • Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Federal Register, “Protection of Human Subjects,” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/documents/19750808.pdf (January 13, 1975), 33529.
    • Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Federal Register, “Protection of Human Subjects,” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/documents/19731009.pdf (October 9, 1973), 27882.
    • Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Federal Register, “Protection of Human Subjects,” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/documents/19731009.pdf (May 30, 1974), 13914.
    • Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Federal Register, “Protection of Human Subjects,” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/documents/19770113.pdf (January 13, 1977), 2792.
    • Department of Health & Human Services, Code of Federal Regulations, “Protection of Human Subjects,” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html (July 14, 2009),  §46.202.
    • Rachel Laser, “Emergency Contraception: Contraceptive, not Abortifacient” The Third Way Name Project,“Protection of Human Subjects,” http://content.thirdway.org/publications/43/Third_Way_Memo_-_Emergency_Contraception_-_A_Fact_Sheet_-_EC_is_Contraceptive_not_Abortifacient.pdf (accessed Dec 13, 2011).
    • Rob Stein, “Workers’ Religious Freedom vs. Patients’ Rights,” The Washington Post.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003238.html?sid=ST2008082103218 (July 31, 2008).
    • Rob Stein, “Protections Set for Antiabortion Health Workers,” The Washington Post.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/21/ST2008082103218.html (Aug 22, 2008).
    • Rob Stein, Deirdre McQuade, & Nancy Northup, “Obama To Rescind Provider Conscience Regulation,” Talk of the Nation. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101349857 (Mar 2, 2009).
    • Chuck Donovan, “Conscience Regulations: HHS Stops (Just) Short of Rescission,” The Foundry.http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/18/conscience-regulations-hhs-stops-just-short-of-rescission/ (Feb 11, 2011).
    • Department of Health & Human Services, Federal Register, “Rules and Regulations,” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-23/pdf/2011-3993.pdf (Feb 23, 2011),  9974.
    • Planned Parenthood, “Am I Pregnant?,” http://www.plannedparenthood.org/info-for-teens/pregnancy/am-pregnant-33831.asp (2011).
    • Rachel Benson Gold. “The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy (May 2005, Volume 8, Number 2). http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html