A Different Take On Christianity And Abortion

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

So the vessel for the soul is empty the whole time it is in the womb?

Was Adam an empty vessel before God blew the "breath of life" into him, making him a livng soul? Did God "know" Adam before he created his body?

Even a premature baby is aware, feels, responds, and adapts to its environment.

A premature baby is a "born" baby.

At birth, the baby's lungs are filled with fluid secreted by the lungs and are not inflated. When the newborn is expelled from the birth canal, its central nervous system reacts to the sudden change in temperature and environment. This triggers it to take the first breath, within about 10 seconds after delivery.
en.wikipedia.org...

Jesus states in the Bible that the flesh is NOT life . . .

Why do you insist on claiming that life is in the flesh?

The life that results as the breath of God cannot Biblically be actual air.

-FBB

EDIT
Obviously because if you are pro-abortion then you will use any and all means to get your way. There is no point arguing further because people will not change their minds, especially so when they realize the lengths to which some will go to get their way.

Sorry, this thread is moving too quickly for me to get a firm handle on. May I just throw out some observations with the hope that some may be relevant?

I noticed that a poster mentioned that opposition to abortion is relatively new, and that opposition is not Biblical. I took a quick look at the teachings of the Catholic Church, which always seems to be the one considered in this question.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."

"My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth."

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

"You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish."

"God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

www.vatican.va...

I must admit that I find it very strange that the OP is using the Bible as a standard for making moral judgments. Very welcome, but strange. Does she give the rest of the Bible, or at least the New Testament, that same moral authority?

If not, then why accept it's statements on this one particular issue as persuasive? If we only accept the teachings which we happen to agree with, then it is worthless as a guide. If she does accept the entire New Testament as true and her moral authority, then I welcome her as a sister.

As far as the scientific side of the question, if the child is not a "person," what is it? It's inside the mother, but it can't, scientifically, be considered as part of the mother. Nor can a bullet, lodged in someone's arm, be considered a part of the person, even though it is inside.

Clearly, it is a living "entity" in it's own right. What biological classification is it in? Is it a plant? An amphibian? An insect? Of course it belongs to Homo Sapiens. No scientist would claim otherwise. Is it the same individual as the mother? No, DNA tells us that. What other conclusion is there than the foetus is a living member of Homo sapiens distinct from it's mother?

As I said, the comments may or may not be relevant, but they seemed that way to me.

reply to post by charles1952


There are many times, that words escape my mouth and come out like a statement from the layman. Charles "everything" you posted is relevent to the topic of discussion.

This in particular is point blank on que~

Clearly, it is a living "entity" in it's own right. What biological classification is it in? Is it a plant? An amphibian? An insect? Of course it belongs to Homo Sapiens. No scientist would claim otherwise. Is it the same individual as the mother? No, DNA tells us that. What other conclusion is there than the foetus is a living member of Homo sapiens distinct from it's mother?

I deeply enjoyed your quote from the vatican. It coincidently goes along with the "LDS/Mormon" religion (oddly enough not part of the Catholic church but derives many teachings from) which I was raised nor am I any longer affiliated as ~ In the church it talks about the pre-mortal life as "god" knew each an everyone of us before we incarnated. That all life is sacred whether it is embryo or even "living tissue".

Thank you for sharing, it helped clear the fog of what I was trying to convey~

Best regards,

Nathan

reply to post by Kali74


I am vehemently against abortion, as I feel that even that spark of life at the moment of conception is a miracle and a gift from God. But the decision to have an abortion is a hugely personal thing and the person having to make the decision to have an abortion or a baby will ultimately be the one having to live with their choice. It's not mine nor anyone else's place to judge them, only to offer comfort if needed.

Maybe I just have that opinion because I am a man and if pregnant would be rich and happy, but those are my feelings on the matter. Since you asked.

There are other, more secret reasons abortion, especially after the third month, is frowned upon in most Religions and cultures. It has to do with aborting the soul incarnation process and leaving them stuck on the astral plane.
Not that modern secular dogma has any clue of this.
But ask any women whether they felt good about their abortion.
I seriously doubt they do.

No, I dont believe the Govt should have any say in this, I am "pro choice" even if its a bad choice.
But the notion that this is just some hateful doctrine exclusive to illiberal christians is false.

Instead of campaigning for abortion the left should be campaigning for contraception.

reply to post by charles1952


The Catholic church hasn't always had a unified stance on abortion.

In 1679, Pope Innocent XI publicly condemned sixty-five propositions taken chiefly from the writings of Escobar, Suarez and other casuists (mostly Jesuit casuists, who had been heavily attacked by Pascal in his Provincial Letters) as propositiones laxorum moralistarum (propositions of lax moralists) and "at least scandalous and in practice dangerous," and forbade anyone to teach them under penalty of excommunication. The propositions included:

34. It is lawful to procure abortion before ensoulment of the fetus lest a girl, detected as pregnant, be killed or defamed.35. It seems probable that the fetus (as long as it is in the uterus) lacks a rational soul and begins to first have one when it is born; and consequently it must be said that no abortion is homicide
en.wikipedia.org...

At least some were concerned about the fate and the outcome of the effects of an unwanted pregnancy on a young woman. Some Catholics still are, and Catholics will never be unified in their positions on abortion and birth control.

St. Jerome (circa 340 - 420) wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs"

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):

He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.

Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days (about 17 weeks) into pregnancy.

For a time, the Catholic church allowed abortions to save the life of the mother, but later rescinded that tolerance.

Leo XIII (1878-1903):

He issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used late in pregnancy and is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.

He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life. The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for previous centuries ended. The church required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy. This position has continued to the present time and forms a main component of the Church's "Culture of Life." Unfortunately, it can result in the premature death of pregnant women, as almost happened during 2009 at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, AZ.
www.religioustolerance.org...#

The fact is, the Catholic's ever changing position on abortion is NOT based on basic biblical philosophies at all, but on the opinions of those who are in power at any particular time.

reply to post by charles1952

I must admit that I find it very strange that the OP is using the Bible as a standard for making moral judgments. Very welcome, but strange. Does she give the rest of the Bible, or at least the New Testament, that same moral authority?

I'm not using the Bible as a standard for making moral judgements. My take on the Bible is irrelevant. My point is this... the Bible does not state anywhere that abortion is wrong or against God, so where did the position come from?

reply to post by Kali74

Dear Kali74,

First, if I didn't mention that I'm grateful for this thread, I'm sorry. It's interesting and thought provoking.

As for the Bible being a source for this opinion on abortion, did not the two quotes I provided satisfy you? Or the two quotes from Church Fathers from the first hundred years of Christianity? I would have thought that those would have been sufficient to show that an anti-abortion stand has a Biblical and Christian basis.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If so, please try again, it's a pleasure to speak with you.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Skyfloating
There are other, more secret reasons abortion, especially after the third month, is frowned upon in most Religions and cultures. It has to do with aborting the soul incarnation process and leaving them stuck on the astral plane.
Not that modern secular dogma has any clue of this.
But ask any women whether they felt good about their abortion.
I seriously doubt they do.

No, I dont believe the Govt should have any say in this, I am "pro choice" even if its a bad choice.
But the notion that this is just some hateful doctrine exclusive to illiberal christians is false.

Instead of campaigning for abortion the left should be campaigning for contraception.

I'm aware that other religions frown upon abortion, Islam for one, outlaws it... I don't know you should make the assumption that because I made a thread pointing out that not all Christians feel the same way about abortion as is the popular notion, that I'm attacking Christianity rather than opening up a debate. Based on the assumption I've attacked Christianity, you've made another huge leap into that I don't know about other religions.

Nor do I find the popular Christian position that abortion is wrong, hateful. I find it hypocritical for Christian Americans to influence law based on their religious beliefs, but the belief itself? No, not hateful.

Nobody is pro-abortion nor campaigns for abortion... just for the choice. And please don't pretend that we don't advocate for contraception.

Your post is odd.

reply to post by charles1952


windword beat me to it lol. The Catholic Church hasn't always held a damning position on abortion. But as far as influence on American law, it's not the Pope who holds sway but the Christian Right who are very big on the idea that if it's in the Bible it is 'law'. So if the Bible doesn't say abortion is a sin, why do they consider it so?

reply to post by Kali74


I think in order to use that scripture in Genesis, you would have to take into consideration Adam was not alive at all, not until god breathed life into him,

On the other hand a fetus is alive.

Life is getting complicated for me. Comments from both Kali74 and windword? Is this fair?

If I understand it there are now at least two arguments in play.

1.) Some members of the Church have not agreed with the Church's position. That's true, and I have no difficulty agreeing. There are groups of Catholics now who believe that there should be female priests, Gay marriages, married priests, abortion and contraception, and on and on. Just about every Church position is criticized and rejected by one group or another.

The religioustolerance website is interesting, but it has at least one major factual error.

The church required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy. This position has continued to the present time and forms a main component of the Church's "Culture of Life."

The Church allows for abortion to save the life of the mother, and has from before Roe

Second, by looking at that website, the list of Christians supporting the current Church poisition is far more extensive than the few who questioned it. As my quote from the Catechism indicates, the Church has held abortion to be sinful, from the 1st century, despite the opinions of a relatively small number of dissidents. Or did you think that the Church was so rigid and monolithic that it never had disagreement or debate?

2.) The other argument seems to be that the Catholic Church's opinion isn't the one we should be looking at, it's the opinion of the conservative Protestants who believe that if it's in the Bible it's the law. This confuses me. If there is a Biblical basis for the opinion for Catholics, why should Protestants be different?

Besides, the real argument to change the law isn't religious, it's scientific. The religious argument is to change people's hearts. The protection of innocent life isn't a religious position, it's a human universal. The only question being discussed is whether it is an innocent life. that discussion is easy to summarize.

"There's something living inside your body."
"Yes, I know. I want to kill it."
"Before you can do that, we have to know it's not human. We can't have you going around killing innocent humans."
"Well, it's not human."
"If you're so sure, tell me what it is, that isn't human."
"Well, I don't know, maybe it's not human."
"What? You want to kill it and you don't know if it's human or not?"
"Well, it is human, then, and I'm killing it in self-defense, I'm more important than that other human in me, so I get to kill it."

A very strong case can be made against abortion without using religion at all.

This is also why, I bang my head when I hear someone say, "I'm opposed to it, but it's a woman's right to choose." If you believe that what is inside her is an innocent human life, how in the world can you say a woman has the right to kill it? Many people claiming the "I'm opposed, but" postition haven't stopped to think it through. It's an impossible example of fence straddling. If it's a person, no one has any right to kill it. If it's not a person, why would you be opposed?

reply to post by Kali74

Christians came to believe that abortions are against God when the bible doesn't decree that.

Thou shall not murder.

Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:
www.abort73.com...
I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.1

On the other side of the pond, Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate:

We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life… the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?2

Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and abortion supporter, makes a similar concession when she writes:

Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.3

Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:
www.naapc.org...

I think science is going to eventually prove abortion is murder, and we will have to face the harsh reality, of infanticide.

and what we did and what we allowed to happen.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Dear Stormdancer777,

I never knew that existed, thank you very much.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, pretty much wraps up our show for tonight. We'll be back next week to watch abortion supporters fill in the blank in this sentence "It's perfectly all right to kill completely innocent humans because _________."

Join us then, won't you?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

The position of the Catholic Church, through Papal bulls, has changed in it's approach to when an abortion is acceptable, when it's a sin and when it's a mortal, grievous sin. It's not just disagreements among it's members and clergy.

If there is a Biblical basis for the opinion for Catholics, why should Protestants be different?

I haven't seen any Biblical basis for the Catholic position on abortion, just a self proclaimed moral high ground.

"There's something living inside your body."
"Yes, I know. I want to kill it."
"Before you can do that, we have to know it's not human. We can't have you going around killing innocent humans." "Well, it's not human."
"If you're so sure, tell me what it is, that isn't human."
"Well, I don't know, maybe it's not human."
"What? You want to kill it and you don't know if it's human or not?"
"Well, it is human, then, and I'm killing it in self-defense, I'm more important than that other human in me, so I get to kill it."

This is an invalid argument. Of course a fertilized living egg is a human egg, fertilized by living human sperm. This is not up for debate.

What a fertilized egg is NOT is a person. Life doesn't begin at conception, it is transformed. There was a chemical reaction that occurred to activate a DNA sequence containing the information to allow that body to become capable of the creation of a potential human person.

We don't have respect for ALL life. God gave Adam dominion over the animals and therefore we are justified to use them for labor, kill them for food, or just because they're pests. Likewise, we are given dominion over the animal nature of our bodies and are justified to cull our own procreative outcomes.

Abortion isn't the end goal, family planning is. Abortion is an intermediate step until we can effectively control our own physical reproductive organs. Good contraception, birth control and sex education is the best we can do right now.



]

reply to post by windword

WARNING! DANGER......Read the Following Before Reacting to this Post.....DANGER WARNING!

Dear windword,

1) I hope you know I have a great deal of respect for you.
2) I am taking your posts completely seriously.
3) Different does not mean better or worse, it's just different
4) I have no intention of insulting you or belittling you in any way.
5) I understand that this is a vitally important topic to you, perhaps the most important issue you face.
6) I don't know your background.

Now, to my post.

I don't believe I have ever seen thinking and statements which are so alien from mine. It's as though you were typing every twentieth word from the dictionary. I know it's English, but beyond that I get lost when I try to find the meaning. (Remember, different doesn't mean better or worse, it's just different.)

The Church has not changed it's position on abortion:

The first distinction to be made is between moral law (as conceived in the Catholic tradition) and canonical penalty. Whereas the Church's moral law has always classified every destruction of the unborn as gravely sinful, its canonical penalties have varied throughout history and were sometimes modified either by the cultural attitudes and scientific opinions of the day, or because of their lack of effectiveness.

www.catholicculture.org...

I've provided two verses and quotes from the earliest Christians. Of course there is a Biblical basis.

You tell me that what's inside the mother is a fertilized human egg. In other words, and just as accurately, it is an individual human being at an early stage of development. There is nothing else it can be considered. Stormdancer777 provided quotations from leading abortion advocates and providers, saying "Of course, there's a person inside the mother, we have to admit it and move on."

My conversation was not an argument, so it can't be an invalid one. It was a question. Is the foetus a distinct, innocent, member of Homo sapiens? I don't see how any can reject that position, but if you can, I'd be pleased to hear about it.

There was a chemical reaction that occurred to activate a DNA sequence containing the information to allow that body to become capable of the creation of a potential human person.

What? What in the world can all these words mean? A DNA sequence was activated inside the foetus. Once activated, that sequence allowed the foetus, (Ok, I'm with you so far.) "to be able to create a potential human person." What? A "potential human person?" That's how abortion supporters describe a 'foetus," isn't it? So we're reduced to "Upon fertilization a foetus is able to create a foetus."

But again, I insist that a potential human person is just a person at a very early stage of development. You might object to the use of the word "person," but I'm not giving it any special legal meaning. A potential adult is a teenager, a potential teenager is a toddler, a potential toddler is a baby, and a potential baby is a foetus.

We

are justified to cull our own procreative outcomes.

This may be the most completely alien thing you've written. "Procreative outcomes?" That's bureaucratic, fake science talk for "Children." You're a "procreative outcome." Watch out for the cullers. We're justified in killing innocent kids because there's a verse in the Bible that says God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the animals? How do you know we didn't lose that dominion when we were kicked out of the garden.

Abortion isn't the end goal, family planning is. Abortion is an intermediate step until we can effectively control our own physical reproductive organs.

What are you thinking? We can control them now. First abstinence. If that's not enough, tell me what the per centage of pregnacies there will be if the woman is on birth control, the man is using condoms, the woman and man may or may not be fertile, and the woman has access to Plan B. One pregnancy in 100,000 perhaps. But women aren't using what they have available now. If they're not using the tools they have to prevent pregnancy, why allow them to kill the innocent after they become pregnant?

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm ranting, but I just can't tell what you're thinking.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

There's nothing debatable about pedophilia.

You've made yourself a hypocrite.

Murder of those without understanding is okay, but rape of those without understand is not okay.

I haven't breathed my own first breath, I haven't had my first penetration...

So destroying penetration is a sin but destroying breath is not.

And you have a kid.

Shame on you for your level of evil. You think only of the things of this world.

And you left Christianity without seeking further wisdom. I was introduced to Christianity at the age of 16 by people that didn't understand Christianity very well themselves (though they claimed they did!). But I followed to the understanding, not quitting though those that gained me quit, for a time at least.

What have you done?

Seek love and life again, and stop teaching people that it is okay to submit to their desire to destroy for their freedom; for they will never be free again, for they will always remember that soul they prevented. ALWAYS.

Read my post history from way back when. I remember. I won't forget.

Life does indeed begin at conception and this is also supported by the Bible. If it wasn't the case why do we find scripture that says... "5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This we find in 1 Jeremiah and clearly shows that God is telling Jeremiah that not only did he know him before he was even born, but on top of that, he already declared his destiny. Hope this helps you

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by windword

 

The Church has not changed it's position on abortion:

The first distinction to be made is between moral law (as conceived in the Catholic tradition) and canonical penalty. Whereas the Church's moral law has always classified every destruction of the unborn as gravely sinful, its canonical penalties have varied throughout history and were sometimes modified either by the cultural attitudes and scientific opinions of the day, or because of their lack of effectiveness.

www.catholicculture.org...

I've provided two verses and quotes from the earliest Christians. Of course there is a Biblical basis.

What is that biblical basis, please?

The Church has most certainly changed it's position on abortion, whether or not it's murder and what kind of sin is involved. Tell me, does the church still think it's a grave and mortal sin to kill to save a life?

You tell me that what's inside the mother is a fertilized human egg. In other words, and just as accurately, it is an individual human being at an early stage of development. There is nothing else it can be considered. Stormdancer777 provided quotations from leading abortion advocates and providers, saying "Of course, there's a person inside the mother, we have to admit it and move on."

That's not what was said. A fetus, an embryo or a fertilized egg is not a person. No one denies that abortion takes a life. It's the viability of that life that's being questioned.

It is not accurate to say that an individual human being is living inside a woman. It isn't a sovereign independent person until it takes it's first breath. If, according to the Bible, the soul enters the body upon first breath, a fetus doesn't have soul, then abortion isn't murder.

My conversation was not an argument, so it can't be an invalid one. It was a question. Is the foetus a distinct, innocent, member of Homo sapiens? I don't see how any can reject that position, but if you can, I'd be pleased to hear about it.

What does innocence have to do with anything? God didn't care about the innocence of the unborn when he instructed the temple priests to perform abortions on the suspected unfaithful pregnant women, or on the innocent children of the enemies of Israel.

A DNA sequence was activated inside the foetus?

Humans don't hatch from eggs, they're transform from fertilized egg bodies through the unfolding blueprint of activated DNA. A lot has to happen before a fertilized egg becomes a person.

A potential adult is a teenager, a potential teenager is a toddler, a potential toddler is a baby, and a potential baby is a foetus.

A potential person is NOT a person any more than a pollywog is a toad.

We are justified to cull our own procreative outcomes.

This may be the most completely alien thing you've written. "Procreative outcomes?"

Culling is the action of choosing the best and rejecting others. We have a right to decide when and under what circumstances we want to start or add to our family. We are not slaves to our biology.

How do you know we didn't lose that dominion when we were kicked out of the garden.

Genesis 9:2 " And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."

Abortion isn't the end goal, family planning is. Abortion is an intermediate step until we can effectively control our own physical reproductive organs.

What are you thinking? We can control them now. First abstinence. If that's not enough, tell me what the per centage of pregnacies there will be if the woman is on birth control, the man is using condoms, the woman and man may or may not be fertile, and the woman has access to Plan B. One pregnancy in 100,000 perhaps. But women aren't using what they have available now. If they're not using the tools they have to prevent pregnancy, why allow them to kill the innocent after they become pregnant?

The Catholic church rejects all form of birth control, except abstinence. Is it a greater sin to use birth control or to have an abortion? If one uses birth control that causes a fertilized egg to be discarded before implantation, thus causing an abortion, is that a greater sin than using birth control, but lesser than abortion, in the church's eyes?

Over 50% of all abortions are performed on women whose contraception failed. Plan B only works if one knows there's a problem. Many woman don't know they're pregnant until it's too late for Plan B. And, accidents happen. Why should we force women to give birth to unwanted children?