Which is, or course, not at all the question you were asked.
A architect’s design is not a building. A foundation, dug and cemented, is not a building. The scaffolding, fully erect, is closer to being a building, but not there yet. When its finished, and all the plumbing and electricity is connected, its a building.
An embryo is a potential human being, nothing more, and nothing less. Worthy of consideration for being nothing less, to be sure. But declaring an embryo to be equal to a baby degrades the value of baby, and exaggerates the value of embryo. It is not reasonable. Reasoning is often difficult and leads to painful choices made without perfect information, made in the absence of stark and clear definitions.
To pretend that such clear definitions exist when they do not simply cheapens our reason and degrades our humanity. The night is dark, vast and indifferent, and our light is all we have. May even be all we are.
Then, so are miscarriages, yes? Medical opinion is that miscarriages are failed attempts at growing a fetus from an embryo, it is Mother Nature discarding failed efforts. If we had some sort of technology to prevent miscarriages of defective embryo, would we be obliged to demand that women adopt it? Even if the prospect is grim, we should subject women to enforced pregnancy? Because of its status as a human being gives us no moral option? (Whats the latest estimate, about 25%?)
Because birth control pills do not prevent conception, they prevent the implantation of fertilized ova in the uterus. By your definition, that is the intentional killing of a human being. Do you advocate for the rights of some unborn children, but not others?
Well, yes, but they also prevent the pituitary gland from producing follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, which prevents ovulation in the first place.
From some casual research, it looks like there’s dispute on whether hormonal birth controls prevent just ovulation (and thus fertilization and the creation of a “unique human genome”, for what that’s worth) or implantation as well. I could buy that they do both, with the exact mechanism depending on where the process happens to be when the solution takes effect.
An IUD, though, looks specifically like a contra-implantation device (or least it prevents implantation in addition to potentially causing earlier interruptions). So… banned for killing a human?
What if someone comes up with a birth-control device, be it physical or chemical, that is an order of magnitude safer than existing methods, more effective, less expensive, but unambiguously has a contra-implantation effect?
That’s what the anti-abortion advocates tell themselves to make a contradictory position more palatable. It’s like the firing squad with one rifle loaded with blanks; a covenient self-deception that lets them believe birth control doesn’t kill babies.
So to be clear: are you denying that birth control pills prevent the pituitary gland from producing follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, which prevents ovulation?
I’d be okay with saying hormonal birth control kills “babies”… I dunno, half the time? How well established is the exact mechanism by which oral contraceptives work? Could they interrupt fertility at any of several junctures, including before ovulation and before implantation? If sperm-meets-egg is the defining moment, does birth control become murderous if it takes effect afterward?
I’m denying that is the only mechanism that suppresses pregnancy. How can you permit a birth control method which, as one of its designs, ends the life of unborn children?
The pill prevents ovulation. When I said that before, you hinted that this wasn’t true. Now you’re conceding it’s true? What so you contend is going on that ends the life of unborn children when there’s no ovulation happening?
You don’t agree that one of the designs of most birth control pills is endometrial atrophy and edema which prevents implantation? Little babies are crying out as a result of your denial of science.