“Dear Andy,” began the email from NARAL Pro-Choice Texas‘s Executive Director Sara Cleveland, “Happy Mother’s Day from your friends at NARAL Pro-Choice Texas!” The email continued:

“We’d like to thank all of the mothers out there for their tireless giving and for the great job they did raising us to be men and women who work hard for reproductive rights.

It’s likely that your mom doesn’t need a new cardigan, some flowers that will wilt in a few days, or a gift certificate to a restaurant she’ll lose before she uses it. What better way to honor mom on Mother’s Day than to make a gift in her name to an organization that fights hard for the rights of mothers across the state of Texas? By donating at the $35 level in honor of your mother, you will secure a year-long membership to NARAL Pro-Choice Texas in her name…”

The irony is so thick that I can hardly breathe.

A mother is one who embraces motherhood. Motherhood is about giving birth to, nurturing and protecting babies in order to give them the most love, and the best possible start in life.

NARAL on the other hand, exists solely to destroy motherhood. NARAL encourages pregnant mothers to end their child’s life with abortion. That unfortunate woman is still a mother, but she is a mother of a dead child. Of course NARAL attempts to side-step the reality of abortion by claiming that they seek to improve the mother’s quality of life by assisting her to have her child killed before birth. Perhaps in order to enable her to be a better mother to the children she already has. Or perhaps because she is not yet ready to be a mother, and it would be best if she were able to wait a few more years before starting a family.

But is it ethical to kill one child in a family in order that the other children may have a better quality of life? And is it acceptable for a mother’s preborn child to be killed today in order that she may have “more time” to prepare for bringing a child into the World?

Do you share NARAL’s idea of a happy mother’s day?

Even those who profess to be pro-life usually don’t want me to reveal the truth about abortion — at least not through graphic images, or not on that particular day, or not in that particular place.  I, along with the rest of the Campus Life Tours team, am ostracized by society.  We lead lonely lives.  I want to be normal again.

Sometimes I try to imagine living like everyone else — without the spectre of abortion hanging over my every waking moment.

It would be nice to go through an entire day without thinking about tiny babies being cruelly torn limb from limb in their mothers’ wombs.  Saturdays would be a lot more fun if I wasn’t hyper-sensitized to the fact that most abortions are done that day.  Church would be more peaceful if I wasn’t chafing over the fact that the pastor neglected to mention abortion — again.  My friends would talk to me again without worrying that I would make them uncomfortable about their lack of action.  I would never get flipped off for merely standing with a sign.

Sometimes I wonder:  what if I did take a less extreme part in the pro-life movement?  What if?

Well, I simply cannot.  We, the Campus Life Team, ARE the normal ones. Thousands of babies are slaughtered every day in our country.  The normal, human response to the slaughter of children is a determination to do everything possible to save their lives and to expose the evil for others to see.  Those who do nothing to end it are the abnormal ones.

Everyone should be out on the streets drawing attention to the horror of abortion.  Babies are being killed, and some argue that graphic images are too extreme?!  Those who live at peace with the bloodshed are the extremists!

I am so glad that, through Survivors, I am able to do more than simply believe abortion is murder.  I am able to live out my belief.  Through events like summer camp, the International ProLife Youth Conference, and Campus Life Tours, Survivors is equipping more and more youth to live their lives as normal people – as people who will not rest until abortion is abolished in our country.

Alabama State Representative Ed Henry recently attended a pro-life rally where he opened his heart, explaining the reasoning behind his opposition to abortion. KFOX14 has the story:

The crowd attending the annual “Pro-Life Legislative Day” in Montgomery on Thursday got a surprise when Republican Rep. Ed Henry of Hartselle talked publicly for the first time about going with his pregnant girlfriend to have an abortion. ”I murdered my first child,” the freshman legislator told the stunned crowd.

Henry, R-Hartselle, came to the rally to talk about his bill that says elective abortions can’t be part of any health insurance plan offered through an insurance exchange in Alabama. The 2010 federal health care overhaul requires every state to have an exchange. He said he decided to talk about the abortion after meeting Jacquie Stalnaker of Birmingham, who told the crowd about being forced by her gun-toting boyfriend to have an abortion 25 years ago and the regret that followed.

“It ripped my heart out with the devastation these abortions cause. In ’91 I was in a similar situation where I had a girlfriend who was with child and I made a decision that I will regret — that we went and I murdered my child, my first child. I’ve never said this publicly,” he said as he choked back tears. He said the impact of it hit him several years later, when he was 30 and his wife was 12 weeks pregnant with their daughter. He recounted accompanying her for a medical checkup. “I saw that ultrasound of my baby, my child, and it came down on me like a ton of bricks that I had murdered my first child. And I will carry that with me to my grave,” he said.

“It should not be this easy for our children to kill their children. Keep fighting, please,” he told the crowd of more than 150.

Proponents of legal abortion are always telling guys that they have no say in the abortion debate. Yet abortion clearly affects men. half of those killed by abortion are male. 100% of those killed by abortion leave behind the father of a dead child. Many men are opposed to their wife or girlfriend making this “choice”. I spoke to a guy who was in this situation just recently.

On April 7 I was praying outside the Southwestern Women’s Surgery abortion business. I spoke to a young man. I asked him “is your girl in there?” He said yes. I implored him to keep his child. He told me “it’s not my choice. She decided this. I don’t like that sh**.” I told him my wife and I would adopt his child. He told me his girlfriend wouldn’t do that. And so a mere stone’s throw away from us, his child was killed and thrown into the medical waste container.

As a side note, it is worth noting that advocates of legal abortion are just fine with men speaking up about abortion – when they’re in favor of it. It’s only when they seek to voice their opposition to the practice that the “prochoice” lobby attempts to shut them down.

WFAA reports,

Police are trying to identify the man who entered the West 7th office of State Sen. Wendy Davis Tuesday (March 20, 2012) afternoon and threw two firebombs just outside the door. Two staffers were in the third floor office when the attack occurred around 4 o’clock. One of them had to leap over the flames to escape, then went to the break room, grabbed an extinguisher and put out the fire. No one was hurt, but the lawmaker’s office was damaged by the fire.

Pro-abortion advocate Jessica Pieklo chimes in,

The incident is the latest in a series of escalating attacks and rhetoric targeting vocally pro-choice legislators and family planning clinics. Previous attacks on clinics in Florida and California underscore the threat women and health care providers face simply trying to access or provide reproductive care.

If the lessons of Dr. Tiller and the long history of violence associated with the anti-choice movement tell us anything it’s that “life” is of little value to a movement grounded in denying women the basic right to make their own medical decisions.

How many stories like this do we hear? Mothers and child-killing specialists fearful for their lives – heck, they’re “simply trying to access or provide reproductive care”… Let’s be clear, the above attack was cowardly and must be condemned by all who call themselves pro-life.

But how often do we hear about violence occurring on the other side of the fence? LifeSiteNews reported on March 18, 2011:

A homemade “bomb” akin to a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a pro-life activist during a 40 Days for Life prayer vigil. The attack took place at around 6:15 p.m., March 17, 2012, near the All Family Health Care abortion center in Kalispell, Montana. …The device was thrown at one of the vigil participants, an elderly retired woman, by an unidentified assailant as she walked on the public sidewalk near the abortion facility.

The victim did not see the thrower, nor did she see the device before it exploded on the sidewalk behind her, making a loud popping noise as it burst into flame. The victim was unhurt. Though perhaps the most dangerous event in memory, Trierweiler said that projectiles were not uncommon: last year elderly participants were struck by water balloons; at other times, critics hurled baby dolls smeared with fake blood.

According to the Thomas More Law Society, which has filed a complaint with the FBI about the incident, a Kalispell police officer arrived only after a lengthy delay. The Society reports the police officer told the 40 Days prayer vigil participants that they should expect this kind of reaction if they’re out protesting.

That’s never going to make the evening news. Because this is not supposed to happen! Pro-lifers are supposed to be the violent, hateful, misogynist types, while pro-choicers are portrayed as being freedom fighters, and tireless champions of women’s empowerment.

Abortion is not about women’s empowerment. Mothers don’t choose abortion – they are victims of abortion. The spineless men in those women’s lives either weren’t their for their woman; abandoned their woman, or pressured their woman to “take care of it.” And these child-killing specialists hailed as heroes by advocates of legal abortion – some of them – such as Curtis Boyd – genuinely believe in what they’re doing, yet the majority cower in their offices counting their blood money, lying to themselves in an effort to justify their evil, pathetic occupation – preying on abandoned women and helpless, tiny little children.

No. From my experience, the vast majority of “prochoice” individuals are angry – more often than not, because they themselves have been affected by abortion. I have had a bottle thrown at me as I stood on a street corner, displaying to all passers-by the reality of “choice.” That same day, a friend of mine was shoved, and had his sign kicked from him as he stood peacefully doing the same thing.

Real pro-lifers are not a threat.

Unstable, hurt people are a threat. And I’ll quickly acknowledge it. These people can be found on both sides of the debate.

Related Reading: Prolife Violence In Perspective

Meet Til, the days-old earless baby bunny from Saxony in Germany. Spiegel Online reports, ”The future had looked so bright for tiny Til, a baby rabbit born without ears three weeks ago in a small zoo in Limbach-Oberfrohna in Saxony, eastern Germany. Earless rabbits are very rare, and that factor combined with his cuteness would surely have made him a media celebrity.

But at 17-days-old, the rabbit with a genetic defect, was plastered across German newspapers on Thursday, the same day a small zoo in Saxony was to have presented him to the world at a press conference, reports Stuff. The cameraman told Bild newspaper he had not seen Til, who had buried himself in hay, when he took the fateful step backwards on Wednesday. Here is what happened next in the words of Uwe Dempewolf, the director of the zoo:

“We are all shocked. During the filming, the cameraman took a step back and trod on the bunny,” Dempewolf said. “He was immediately dead, he didn’t suffer. It was a direct hit. No one could have foreseen this. Everyone here is upset. The cameraman was distraught.”

A day later, Google tells me there’s 321 articles on this tragedy. The World mourns.

baby with Down Syndrome

And yet as at 2002, it is reported that 91-93% of preborn babies in Europe diagnosed with Down Syndrome are killed intentionally by this thing we call abortion. Down Syndrome is a chromosomal condition caused by the presence of all or part of an extra 21st chromosome. That is to say, just like the baby bunny, a baby with Down Syndrome has a defect. Individuals with Down syndrome usually have low intelligence, such as to constitute mild to moderate intellectual disability, Wikipedia tells me.

What the hell.

A disabled bunny is accidentally killed and the media goes wild, memorializing its tragic death.

A disabled human is accidentally NOT killed, and her parents go wild:

“An Oregon couple has won a $3 million settlement from a Portland hospital they sued after doctors missed diagnosing their daughter’s Down’s syndrome before she was born, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to abort her. As reported by the Oregonian newspaper, Ariel and Deborah Levy insisted that they would have aborted daughter Kalanit, who is now four years old, had Portland’s Legacy Health hospital informed them of her disability.”

Ariel & Deborah Levy. If you’re reading this, you need to know that you are not worthy of your beautiful daughter. What you are worthy of, is a conviction of “intent to kill”, and being locked away for the rest of your miserable, selfish little lives. You claim to love your daughter, yet in the same breath you say you wish that she had been killed prior to being placed in your arms. What useless, pathetic, nihilistic, heartless, brainless parents you are. Your four-year-old daughter with Down Syndrome has a superior moral compass to you both.

And to the rest of you reading this who are not Kalanit’s parents: are you proud of the society you live in? The society where less than 10% of babies diagnosed with this mild disability escape the pathetic fate of being destroyed, dismembered and discarded before birth? The World that kills 120,000 of its most helpless citizens every day; the World that kills over 46 million of its most innocent citizens year after year?

If you’re ok with that, please be my guest and go chill with Ariel & Deborah Levy at the club for people with disabled brains.

If you’re not ok with that, for your own sake, and for the next generation, open your mouth for the speechless, and work with me as we make abortion unthinkable!

The Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released regulations mandating coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. Under the mandate, the government forces all insurers – including religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces all employers – including religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces all employees and students as well as religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.

News of the HHS Contraception mandate led to a massive outcry led by the Catholic Church and then swiftly backed up by leading Protestant leaders including Mega-church pastor Rick Warren who tweeted,

“I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29.”

And Richard Land, a pro-life leader who is a top official with the Southern Baptist Church who stated,

“When it comes to abortifacients, and many birth-control methods are abortifacients, this mandate is reprehensible in its demands for people to violate their conscience. We are not going to do this. We have a First Amendment right to freedom of conscience, and we’re going to defend it. If we have to defend it by going to jail, so be it.”

Today, President Obama announced a “revision” of the policy that he stated would accommodate religious freedom within the confines of the bill. He said,

“Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services — no matter where they work.  So that core principle remains.  But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”

LifeNews reported on Congressman Chris Smith’s immedate reaction to Obama’s announcement. The leading pro-life advocate in the House stated that he was strongly opposed to the revisions:

“The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else. It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naïve or gullible would accept this as a change in policy. The newest iteration of Obama’s coercion rule utterly fails because it still forces religious employers and employees who have moral objections to paying for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception to pay for these things, because it is still the employers who buy the coverage for their employees. Today’s announcement is a political manipulation designed to get Obama past his own self-made controversy and past the next election.”

And then this just in from Nancy Keenan, head of NARAL: Pro-Choice America:

Today, President Obama showed us all that he is firmly committed to protecting women’s health. The Obama administration’s policy will make sure women of all faiths who work at religiously affiliated hospitals, universities, and service organizations will get contraceptive coverage. It guarantees that women will not encounter any barriers from their bosses or insurance plans in getting birth control without a copay.

Jill Stanek has discussed the recent outpouring of support from pro-legal-abortion groups for Obama’s so-called revision of the mandate.

Are you still confused by the mandate? The abortion lobby isn’t. They’re putting their backs behind this mandate because they know that it is being executed in an effort by the Obama Administration to extend an olive branch to their somewhat disillusioned supporters from inside the abortion lobby.

Not only this, but don’t be under the false impression that this is the end of the road for Obama’s mission to take over health-care insurance and to dictate what will and will not be covered. Next on the health-insurance agenda will be a mandate forcing private employers to fund abortion coverage in health-insurance plans for their employees.

Don’t believe me?

NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson is already reporting that the HHS Contraception Mandate could lay the groundwork for, if elected to a second term, Obama to force insurance companies to pay for more than just drugs that may cause early abortions — but surgical or RU 486 abortion drug-induced abortions themselves.

Welcome my friend. Welcome to the machine.

In September 2006, I began publicly fighting a bill designed to outlaw spanking of children in New Zealand. Incensed by our government’s audacity in their agenda to strip away parental authority, and after many debates and much thinking, I began to identify as a Libertarian. It was also around this time that I started to become aware of, and started speaking against the silent holocaust that was taking place in my country that is referred to with the clean, clinical-sounding term, “abortion”.

I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul. I part ways from him in only a couple of areas. On one aspect of his foreign policy, and then on two aspects of his position on abortion which seem to fly in the face of his otherwise stellar pro-life position.

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Issue:
Paul has said that the U.S. is to blame for the attacks of September 11, 2001. This statement is unfounded; he is taking his non-interventionalist policy too far. I agree that some of the unjustified military actions of the U.S. were partly cause for the attacks, but it is going too far to say that the U.S. is squarely to blame. He is naiive in his understanding of Islam, and Islamic states. He would do well to listen to Congressman Colonel Allen West on this subject.

Ron Paul’s States-Rights Abortion Issue:
Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion. This is frankly absurd. The Constitution also guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In order for Paul to remain consistent on this issue, he would have to also say that States should determine whether or not murder of an adult human was a crime.

Ron Paul’s Rape-Pregnancy Issue:
And then this just came out a couple of days ago. CNN’s Piers Morgan asked Paul how rape pregnancies should be handled. Paul replied,

“If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen… because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem.”

Morgan asked, “Life doesn’t begin at conception?,” to which Paul replied, “Life does begin at conception.” Morgan followed up with, “Then you would be taking a life,” to which Paul offered the following muddled answer:

“Well, you don’t know if you’re taking a life either, because this is an area that is — but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life.”

This is pretty disappointing. Paul appears to be saying that, because we can’t be sure whether or not a life is present (and he is correct here), then we can just go ahead and provide the mother with drugs designed to prevent implantation in her uterus of a tiny human-being (zygote). That’s a fairly happy-go-lucky position to take on an issue of life or death.

Mitt Romney & Newt Gingrich:
Mitt Romney tells us he is pro-life, however there is overwhelming evidence showing him to be a flip-flopping moderate who is actually an enemy to freedom and the sanctity of all human life.

Newt Gingrich speaks very well, however he is another big government Republican. Not only this, but he is an adulterer who is currently on his third wife. How could we trust him to be faithful to us?

Why I’m endorsing Rick Santorum
I believe that Santorum does fall into the trap of believing that the government is the answer to many of our problems. He is much more “big government” than I would wish for. However it is impossible to deny that he is a man of principle, who stands unwaveringly by his faith and convictions. Santorum understands that even more of a threat to America than the economic crisis is a crisis of morality.

Also, it comes down to the numbers. Santorum has won five primaries, whereas Paul has not yet won any. Santorum has 72 delegates – 8 times as many as Paul. Admittedly, Paul has been able to pull in significantly more money than Santorum – but look at the return Santorum is getting for his dollar. While Santorum’s triple win yesterday did not gain him any extra delegates, it may win him over some new supporters, providing him with the momentum and funding required to keep fighting for the Republican nomination.

I’m still a Libertarian, and I’m still a Ron Paul supporter – but for this primary election, I’ll be getting behind Rick Santorum.

I believe he can do it.

When someone tells me that they are pro-choice, I always think – well heck, I’m pro-choice too!

Proponents of “abortion as a woman’s choice” will tell you that they think that women should have the right to choose. Choice is placed on a pedestal; it is high up, and we must not question it. Discourse over the nature of the choice is discouraged. Instead emotive and often frenzied campaigns are run calling for the right for women to choose to be upheld.

I am a strong proponent of freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom of expression; of freedom in general. However one person’s freedom ends where another’s freedom begins. I do not have the freedom to take your life against your will. This would be contrary to the meaning of freedom. Pre-born babies are not asked for their opinion before the suction tube is inserted into their mother.

Survivor: Gianna Jessen

As saline-abortion survivor Gianna Jessen has said, “if abortion is about women’s rights, then where were mine?”

It is clear that every non-coerced action we make is a choice. That a given action was a choice has no bearing on its morality.

Rape is a choice. Men have a choice whether they rape a woman or not, however it would be outrageous for me to suggest that somehow, because this is a choice, that it makes rape an acceptable activity. The fact that it’s a choice has nothing to do with its morality, therefore I would be stupid to bring up “choice” as an argument in favour of decriminalising rape. There is only one correct choice, and that is the choice not to commit rape.

The two questions we must ask, – and answer before we make a decision about abortion are: 1) Whose choice are we taking into consideration, and 2) Which choice is the correct one?

1) The decision whether to abort a foetus or not affects two people: the mother and her pre-born child. Therefore, as with all contracts, both parties must have their choice respected. If one of the parties’ choice is ignored, then the decision will be unjust. We cannot know what the baby’s choice will be, as we are currently unable to communicate with pre-born children to ask them whether they wish for their life to be terminated or not. If a foetus gave consent to its destruction, I would support abortion in this instance. Realistically speaking however, a foetus not only lacks the rational capacity to make such a decision, but we would be unable to ascertain its decision even if it were able to make one. Therefore, as with all contracts, we have an obligation to err on the side of caution, and postpone killing the pre-born child until such time as it is able to consent to its death. This may all sound fairly cold and heartless, but consider: how many people do you know who would agree to your proposition of killing them? None.

If a mother, or a relative, friend or doctor of the mother wishes to kill the pre-born child, this wish is superceded by the natural rights held by the foetus – to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2) Which choice is the correct one? I absolutely support a woman’s right to choose – given that she makes a moral choice. Nobody has the right to choose to harm another person without their consent. The correct choice is life for the baby.

As far as I can tell, pre-born babies are not yet of a rational capacity to even contemplate whether they wish to die or live. Their natural bodily functions are all crying out “live”, however they have not yet grasped the concept of the desirability of living within their own minds. Therefore they do not have the ability to choose one way or the other. In saying this, pre-born babies do have other thoughts, such as recognising the sound of their mother’s voice… It is possible that there may be some pre-born babies – who, if asked, (were the technology available) – if they supported upholding choice on the issue of abortion, who would respond that they do not. It follows that the vast majority of babies would support the non-abortion choice, as very few humans – when asked, will volunteer to have their lives ended.

In summary: Choice has nothing to do with morality, therefore choice does not impact on the acceptability of abortion. A choice is only permissible if it does not take away the choice of another person.

Here’s a video version I did of this article:

“Sir Francis Bacon said it best when he wrote, ‘Knowledge is power,’” says AbortionWikiDirector, Andy Moore. “AbortionWiki makes use of this power by documenting the U.S. and international abortion industry and lobby on one wiki-based website.” (The Orate Frates, January 19, 2012)

AbortionWiki is a new website that was just launched…yesterday, on January 19th!

What is AbortionWiki’s goal? According to their website:

“AbortionWiki aims to be the reference of choice for all information relating to abortion. The act of abortion has killed more individual humans than all genocides or natural disasters in history put together. While AbortionWiki takes an unashamed pro-life stance, we also recognise that fact is fact. The truth supports the pro-life position and so for our benefit and for the benefit of all people we will enforce stringent referencing on all statements…”

I thought it was quite interesting that Sir Francis Bacon was quoted by Andy Moore, the Director of AbortionWiki. Sir Francis Bacon was born on January 22, 1561 and the 39th anniversary of Roe v Wade is this Sunday, January 22nd.

And, what has [Sir Francis Bacon] had to say regarding the Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States?

Turning around this one thing, beloved, can be a staying action on all other predictions that I have given you concerning nuclear war and earth changes. The stopping of the slaying of innocents–this is the key to the reprieve and the key to the mercy out of the heart of Mother Mary as she does intercede for the nations before the throne of grace. ~ Saint Germain’s Prophecy for the New Millennium, pages 275-276.

Sir Francis Bacon also said, “Silence is the virtue of fools.”

When it comes to the issue of abortion and the defense of innocent life, I most definitely agree with him.

Head over to AbortionWiki.org where you can read up on all things related to abortion.

“It may be the furthest thing from your mind right now, but it’s not too soon to think about family planning. You’ll want to have made some decisions about postpartum birth control before your baby arrives. If you’re considering a tubal ligation, be aware that most states require you to sign a consent form…”

Clicking on the “family planning” link takes you through to a page listing various birth control options. Among the options presented, is Emergency Contraception (ECP), commonly known as the Morning After Pill. Here’s what BabyCenter.com thinks about this drug:

“If your regular contraceptive method fails you or you forget to use it or use it incorrectly, using emergency contraception can significantly reduce your chances of getting pregnant. Emergency contraceptive pills — sold under the brand name Plan B — are the most commonly used method. (Alternatively, you may have a copper IUD inserted to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex.)

Depending on which regular method of birth control you’re going to use, you might consider buying a pack of Plan B pills so you’ll have them immediately available in case you need them. The sooner you use emergency contraception after unprotected sex, the more likely that it’ll be effective. Since Plan B contains only progestin, a single treatment probably won’t have any effect on your breast milk.”

Note that BabyCenter.com states that using ECP can significantly reduce your chances of getting pregnant. However clicking on the “emergency contraception” link in the above excerpt takes you to a page where BabyCenter.com explains exactly how ECP works:

“ECPs are a regimen of hormone pills that can prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse by temporarily blocking ovulation, interfering with fertilization, or thinning the lining of the uterus to keep a fertilized egg from becoming implanted.

It takes about five days for a fertilized egg to implant in the uterus. If you use ECPs after a fertilized egg has implanted in your uterus, they won’t disrupt the pregnancy, and there’s no evidence that they’ll harm a developing embryo, either.”

This explanation is correct. However note the section I highlighted. BabyCenter.com themselves admit that taking ECP may cause a “fertilized egg” (abortion-rights-speak for 5-day-old human being) from attaching to the wall of the uterus.

Of course this causes the tiny human-being to be expelled from the mother’s body, as she was unable to latch on to the nutrients and support required to nourish her.

The accuracy of BabyCenter.com’s claim that ECP prevents pregnancy depends upon the understanding of when pregnancy begins. Advocates of abortion like to tell us that pregnancy begins upon implantation, however the medical community is by no means in agreement on this subject.

Ultimately, regardless of when pregnancy technically begins, BabyCenter.com is advocating the killing of human beings at just a few days old, by use of the Morning After pill.