The personhood debate indeed presents a problem for the other side on the abortifacient aspect of birth control pills.

As Keith Mason of the CO personhood initiative told me, "Pro-aborts have either been lying for 40 years that the birth control pill doesn't kill a baby or lying now that it does. Does it or doesn't it?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh yeah, try to outlaw the pill.
The expression "peel it from my cold, dead hands" comes to mind...

"But MSM has to forward the ruse so it can say birth control pills can't abort, which they can."

*sigh*

Jill, do you have any scientific papers from non-biased sources that clearly prove that birth control pills cause abortions via preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus?

"Second, again, this "new life" is not a 'fertilized egg." The new life is an "embryo." Look it up. We don't call it fertilized egg stem cell research."

Technically, totipotent stem cells come from fertilized eggs, not embryos. The embryonic stage is a bit more advanced from the initial divisions in a fertilized egg from which totipotent stem cells are derived. By the embryonic stage, those stem cells are already starting to differentiate, becoming pluripotent.

This is according to my genetics textbook, by the way.

Hi Rae. I believe most birth control pills state it in the instructions.

I dont know how many times I HAVE TO ASK for y'all to STOP calling us PC's Pro Aborts!! I mean come on guys!

As Keith Mason of the CO personhood initiative told me, "Pro-aborts have either been lying for 40 years that the birth control pill doesn't kill a baby or lying now that it does. Does it or doesn't it?"

And now for this.
There are two types of BC pills:

(1)Combination Pills (they contain contain estrogen and progestin). Combination pills usually work by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). They also thicken the cervical mucus, which keeps sperm from joining with an egg. So please inform me how a z/e/f is killed if no egg was released and it was NEVER fertilized....

(2) Progestin Only Pills (these contain only progestin).work by thickening the cervical mucus. Less often, they prevent ovulation. The hormones in combination and progestin-only pills also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg. But there is no scientific evidence that this occurs. Once again, please inform me how a z/e/f is killed if the was NEVER fertilized or even released....

Oh and before I go back to studying:

Combination pills are the type of birth control most commonly prescribed by healthcare professionals.

Rae, nonbiased source? Okay.

Plan B (progesterone bc only) website, http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx:

Plan B works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb).

Ortho Tri-Cyclen (combination bc pill) product information, http://www.thepill.com/thepill/shared/pi/Tri-Cyclen_Lo_PI.pdf#zoom=100:

Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

Midnite, you didn't state your source, and I got my info directly from the manufacturer, which is certainly the most accurate, wouldn't you agree?

I love you Jill.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure no one denies that the pill can, though rarely, prevent implantation. I think rather than denying that fact, they had to change the definition of pregnancy to be at implantation.

oops my bad... the first post I grabbed off of wikipedia, and the second one I grabbed of the website for my birth control pill, Yasmin...

www.yasmin.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill

OK, seriously, gotta study, no time, no time, no time (Gots an Exam @ 7:00 tonight, one Tuesday 4:15, a take home exam due Tuesday by 7:00pm and one on Thursday @ 4:15)...

Please feel free to reply Jill or whoever, but I gotta study for a bit and will check back in a bit during my lunch break :-)

pregnancy has been implantation for quite a long time.

It's true that the labels on the Pill and Plan B say that they *may* (note, may) cause a failure to implant. That's because it has long been assumed that the thinning of the endometrium in Pill users would keep any embryo that was conceived from implanting. However, there has never been a study that actually showed that this happens. Furthermore, at least some pro-life OB/GYNs question whether the endometrium actually is thinner during those cycles when breakthrough ovulation takes place. Their argument is that ovulation itself triggers a release of hormones that signal the endometrial lining to build up.

In addition, recent research into the mechanism of action of Plan B strongly suggests that it doesn't prevent implantation.

By the way, it would be cool if there were an email address that went to all of the moderators. I just posted something that went into moderation because it contained links, and the page said to contact the moderators if you wanted the comment approved sooner. Only there are a bunch of moderators, and I don't know who's best to contact at any given time. Just a suggestion. :)

I love you, MK. Let's run off to DC together.

Midnite, 1:30p: Yasmin, hm. Interesting that the consumer page doesn't mention Yasmin can inhibit an embryo from implanting but its physician's page (http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/fhc/Yasmin_PI.pdf) does:

Although the primary mechanism of this action
is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increases the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation).

Would that constitute lying to you, Midnite? Uninformed consent?

No, Not really Jill.

Yes, I am on BC mainly for medical problems (which I have discussed here before), but I also rely on BC as one method of not getting preggers. I doesnt bother me how it stops me from getting preggers (nor not many other woman)just that it doesnt happen...

Midnite, you've gone from falsely asserting the BC does not inhibit implantation to saying "so what" when proven wrong on the very pill you're taking.

midnite:

here is what I found on the Yasmin website -

"The cervical mucus is thickened, making it difficult for sperm to travel toward the egg and fertilize it in case an egg is released. "

Sooo........ difficult but not impossible. The website does not tell you what happens when the difficulty isn't all that difficult and the sperm gets to the egg.

Rae - The definition of a human embryo in wikipedia is the moment of fertilization until 8th week gestational age. The definition of embryo is the free medical dictionary is the developing organism from fertilization to the end of the eighth week. The national library of medicines defintion is the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception.

I believe based on pure definition Jill was correct in saying the a fertilized egg is called an embryo.

Hi Jen.

"However, there has never been a study that actually showed that this happens. Furthermore, at least some pro-life OB/GYNs question whether the endometrium actually is thinner during those cycles when breakthrough ovulation takes place. Their argument is that ovulation itself triggers a release of hormones that signal the endometrial lining to build up."

Hmmm, that is interesting.

"In addition, recent research into the mechanism of action of Plan B strongly suggests that it doesn't prevent implantation."

That, too, is quite interesting. If it could be shown that Plan B in fact did not prevent implantation, then Catholic hospitals could and should dispense them to rape victims. Very good.

Midnite, you've gone from falsely asserting the BC does not inhibit implantation to saying "so what" when proven wrong on the very pill you're taking.

Jill, No I am not falsely asserting anything. The BC that I am is a Combination Pill. It restricts ovulation (99.99% percent of the time when taken effectively), i.e. no egg is released.... So if no egg is released there can be no implantation.

whoops, that was not supposed to all be italisized....

My bad.

Overview of the Pill (Yasmin):
http://www.yasmin-us.com/aboutbcp_1.htm

Birth control pills, or oral contraceptives (OCs), are commonly referred to as "the Pill." Among reversible birth control methods, the Pill is considered one of the most effective. A woman naturally produces two different hormones that regulate her ovulation and menstruation: estrogen and progesterone. Birth control pills contain synthetic hormones that are similar to these naturally occurring hormones. Combination pills contain an estrogen and a progestin and work in two ways:

The body is "tricked" into thinking it is pregnant. This prevents the release of an egg, or ovulation. Without an egg to be fertilized, a woman cannot become pregnant

The cervical mucus is thickened, making it difficult for sperm to travel toward the egg and fertilize it in case an egg is released
Today's combination pills
The most recently developed combination birth control pills are referred to as "low dose," meaning that they have 0.035 mg of estrogen or less. Through the years, research has shown that the higher amounts of this hormone used in older birth control pills are not necessary to prevent pregnancy. As a result, the doses have gotten lower, but contraceptive effectiveness has stayed the same. With "perfect use," meaning that the pills are taken exactly as directed, low-dose combination pills are more than 99% effective. This means that fewer than one out of 100 women will become pregnant when they take the combination pill in a way that is consistent and correct.

Benefits of the Pill:
http://www.yasmin-us.com/aboutbcp_2.htm

How Effective is the Pill:
http://www.yasmin-us.com/faqs_2.htm
---------------------------------------------
Birth control pills are a synthetic form of the hormones progesterone and estrogen. They prevent ovulation by maintaining more consistent hormone levels. Without a peak in estrogen, then, the ovary doesn't get the signal to release an egg. No egg means no possibility for fertilization and pregnancy. They also thicken cervical mucus so the sperm cannot reach the egg, and make the lining of the uterus unreceptive to the implantation of a fertilized egg.

http://www.healthywomen.org/healthtopics/birthcontrolpills
^ This site also has the pros and cons of Progesterone and Combination Pills as well as ECP (or Plan B). It is un-biased from both sides...

Bethany
Jacqueline
Jasper
Lauren
Mary Kay (MK)
Valerie

Will one of y'all please approve my last comment? I took lots of time finding the stuff!!

Back to studying. Read and ponder, and tell me your thoughts, I shall return during my next break from studying...

Hi Jill, why don't you talk about stuff that actually matters?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2225242,00.html

I don't ever see birth control going away. I really don't.

I got it for you midnite.....

;-)

Lillyfoot, care to elaborate?

valerie, welcome back!!

Thanks Valerie :-)

That's precious time away from studying for my exam tonight... (oops)

midnite, hello to you as well!

Lillyfoot, did you know that abortion clinics actually enable child predators?

where did everyone go? *sound of crickets*

I am just saddened to see people like Jill complaining about eggs and embryos when injustices like gang-raping 10 year olds is so prominent and that acts like these go unpunished.

Heather can you please give me some evidence as to how "abortion clinics" enable child predators? I prefer non-biased sources.

Lillyfoot,

http://www.childpredators.com/

Thanks, I said non-biased. ;3

What do you mean, non-biased? Someone who is neutral on child molestation?

Bobby, thank you!

It's interesting, if in fact, birth control was not, in your definition, an abortifacient....it would be "alright" in your opinion for others to use it?

Although, you'd still find it immoral because of the "being open to life" thing? Not everyone wants to be pregnant at all times, though....

Just a question...

Trying to make the pill illegal is going too far. And if you want to make it the same level as abortion abolition, the chance of it happening will become slimmer.

I also think it's time we hang up the semantics. "fertilized egg" vs "embryo"? We have better topics to discuss.

The FDA requires manufacturers to prove safety and efficacy not mode of action. There is no financial incentive to determine mode of action since companies can sell without determining it.

I am just saddened to see people like Jill complaining about eggs and embryos when injustices like gang-raping 10 year olds is so prominent and that acts like these go unpunished.

Heather can you please give me some evidence as to how "abortion clinics" enable child predators? I prefer non-biased sources.

Posted by: Lillyfoot at December 10, 2007 4:43 PM************************************************************************************************************************************************************* I find it sad that you aren't equally saddened by child molesters taking their victims to an abortion clinic to conceal their sex crimes.

Hi Lyssie, my friend. I'll answer your question. You are correct that I find it immoral anyway because it is not open to life and separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. I realize that not everyone wants to be pregnant all the time, and that is fine, but the nature of a contraceptive act needs to be judged in itself, not just the ends that it accomplishes. I would also argue that it is telling a lie in the language of our bodies. The marital act is the a covenant symbol, the renewing of the wedding vows, where husband and wife give themselves fully to each other. A contraceptive act withholds a certain part of you from your spouse; namely your fertility. You are saying to your spouse "I give myself totally to you, all that I am and have... except my fertility. That I do not want to share with you." So for those few reasons and many others, I see contraception as immoral.

Jill:

You never answered one of my questions in (one of) my posts above....

Context:
If for some reason an egg is released (which has happened with me b/c I still get ovarian cysts; another reason I am B.C.), the mucus is thickened so it is harder for the sperm to reach the egg, and thus no implantation.

Question:
If I ever get pregnant by accident, with my luck, it will be an ectopic pregnancy. Please tell me, since this type of pregnancy could kill me. What should I do exactly? Save the z/e/f or save myself?

When I saw that picture of the implanted egg, it is like seeing a miracle. Each of us once looked just like that picture.

The other day Laura and I were discussing society funding everything from welfare moms to student loans and research. She felt funding research was investing in miracles.

Now that I see this picture, I realize helping pregnant moms is investing in miracles.

That my dear friend Bobby is an interesting opinion on why BC is immoral. Never thought of it that way or heard it argued that way.

You've given me something to ponder....
And damnit, I still gotta study :-(

Bobby, thanks. :D

So that's why you don't have AS big a problem with NFP, because it allows for the fact that there is still the possibility of fertility? I know that you and Jacque still find fault with it, but there is no tampering with the actual fertility and no one is holding anything back from the other? It's just timing, not willful holding back of fertility?

To put it in simple terms, "birth control" prevents birth, and "contraception" prevents conception. Anything that ends the life of a living human being is an abortifacient and needs to end.

Just because an embryo travels to the uterus to be implanted, doesn't mean it's no longer human. Location doesn't determine humanity. An embryo is human from fertilization on, it's human as it travels down the fallopian tube and human when it implants. It's also human while growing in the womb and human while growing outside the womb.

My best guess is that Time's picture is computer generated and not real. Anyone know?

http://www.childpredators.com/

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at December 10, 2007 4:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We're going to outlaw abortion based on prank phone calls and mere allegations of abetting child abuse?
Heck, I know of an organization that's RENOWNED for abetting child molesters. I can post the convictions and the civil settlements to prove it. Shouldn't organizations like THAT be outlawed first?

Non-biased as in people who care about children and not about condemning organisations.

Child molestors also murder children to cover up their sex-crimes. In fact a lot of them kidnap said children and inprison them for long periods of time sometimes even years.
Child molestators taking the children to "abortion clinics" isn't as big a problem as you make it out to be. While it is very horrible that they will sometimes get away with it, doesn't mean that "abortion clinics" are responsible for the fates of the majority of these children.

Are you unaware of these or do you want to just focus on the rare to avoid the blatant issues?

I apologize that I have other things to attend to but I shall answer when I can.

Heather, would you mind not putting in long unbroken strings of characters (like your line of ****'s above)? It messes up the display, at least in some browsers.

prettyinpink, gotta disagree with you on the semantic issue. Abortion advocates use "fertilized egg" (which isn't accurate; the cell produced by fertilization isn't an egg, it's a zygote) to belittle the new human organism. And then most media outlets parrot the language of the abortion advocacy groups. It's worth pointing this out.

Jen R, sorry.

Great, midnite! Let me know if you have any questions or anything :)

Wow, Lyssie, I can't believe you remember that about me and Jacque! Nice! Actually, I wouldn't say that Jacque and I even have any problem with NFP, but it is with how it CAN be used i.e. with a contraceptive mentality. I think the main difference that is the most obvious for people to see between NFP and contraception is that when it comes down to it, the "birth control" that you are using in NFP is abstinence. So we do not believe that it is wrong to not want to be pregnant or even have children for a while. Next question- how can one do this? With contraception, you still enjoy the pleasure of sex without the consequences, but with NFP, the "contraception" is abstaining. It is analogous to dieting vs. bulimia. With dieting, you restrict portions of meals, sometimes abstain from snacking, discipline your body, etc. But with bulimia, you still get the pleasure and enjoyment of food, but without the consequences of the food i.e. the weight you gain or whatever. So that is one way we see it.

Hey Laura.

"We're going to outlaw abortion based on prank phone calls and mere allegations of abetting child abuse?
Heck, I know of an organization that's RENOWNED for abetting child molesters. I can post the convictions and the civil settlements to prove it. Shouldn't organizations like THAT be outlawed first?"

Well, no, I think that there are a lot more reasons to outlaw abortion, but what people are now doing is trying to attack abortion from every angle, showing that it isn't just about the unborn, it's about the mother, and teenage girls, men, pretty much everyone.

Hi Lillyfoot.

"Non-biased as in people who care about children and not about condemning organisations.

Child molestors also murder children to cover up their sex-crimes. In fact a lot of them kidnap said children and inprison them for long periods of time sometimes even years.
Child molestators taking the children to "abortion clinics" isn't as big a problem as you make it out to be. While it is very horrible that they will sometimes get away with it, doesn't mean that "abortion clinics" are responsible for the fates of the majority of these children."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I think it's a bit presumptuous to think that Life Dynamics doesn't care about children. I personally believe that most people at PP care about women and children, but that they are misguided. So to simply blow someone off just because you don't agree with them doesn't seem very productive to me.

And I agree with your first couple sentences about how evil child molesters are. I think it's kind of like I mentioned to Laura above that it is evidence for the seediness that tends to come with abortion. Vice does not produce virtue.

Bobby, that's a good analogy. So basically, you have no problem with someone simply using NFP to get into a healthier state to eventually get pregnant, or to use it while going through a particularly difficult time with job/money to postpone a child, or to give one's body a well-deserved break from pregnancy? I just can't imagine telling a woman that she's selfish for using NFP to prevent pregnancy if she's just not in a state of mind or willingness to be pregnant.

That's right, Lyssie. I mean, we are not all about everyone having as many children as humanly possible. Yes, children are a gift, a blessing, greatest thing in the world (I think) but some married couples may not be called to have many children or even any. Pushing things a bit further and coming at this now from a Christian perspective, we trust God with our money, time, fertility, everything. But that doesn't mean we're stupid about it, put no thought or effort into anything, and don't participate. I can't just blow money left and right and say "well, I trust in God. He won't let me go into debt." Often God gives us over to our stupidity. Same holds for our fertility; we trust God to not give us anything we can't handle, but we don't simply throw caution to the wind. So, the point of all my ramblings is that I agree with what you wrote above. God love you, Lyssie.

@Jill: Thanks, when I have some time I shall peruse those articles.

@Valerie: Thanks for the correction. I was under the impression that the embryonic stage was after a certain amount of cell divisions and up until that point it's a zygote or blastocyst. Hm. Ah vell. :)

@Bobby: How is the baby doing? Is she sleeping through the night yet (I suppose it's a little early for that but who knows...)?

Ha! Not bloody likely! But nah, she's doing really well. She does like to stay awake during the night, but it's a lot of fun. Honestly, you hear people say this so often, but it is so true that having a child cannot be described with words. So wonderful. Thanks for asking, Rae. I gotta get home now though, to said baby and lovely wife. God love ya'll.

Haha, Bobby...let's hope your little girl starts sleeping better. My mom said I was pretty good about sleeping through the night after a short time. However, and these are her exact words...."Your brother didn't sleep through the night for over a year. He was the best form of birth control anyone could ever ask for. Never again! Hahah."

We still tease him to this day. My mom says she wanted to "break the tie", i.e. have another kid, but by the time she was done being exhausted by my brother every night (as he constantly played Houdini at night and escaped from his crib and got outside, etc), she was pushing forty and just not interested in being pregnant again. Birth control indeed!

For what it's worth, re: the molestation discussion, I recently discovered that a friend of mine donated to my local pro-life group. She never identified herself to me as pro-life, and I don't even remember if I was active with pro-life activism back then, but I did find out eventually that she had been molested by her father. It's not too much of a stretch to think she probably donated because she had been forced to have an abortion by her father, which would have covered up his crime. I've never heard of an abortion clinic that didn't cover up for a child rapist. Incontrovertible evidence is clear that they routinely do so.

Lillyfoot,

This is a pro life site, hence the focus on abortion and abortion related topics. While the Aussie story is horrible, and talking about it is not a bad thing, it really isn't a "Pro-life" story...but I am glad you posted it.

Rae,
Yes I got your letter, but my days are nuts lately what with Christmas comin'. I'll write as soon as I can...

Lyssie and Midnite,
I know I've tried explaining the whole covenant/giving your whole self/not holding back thing, but God bless Bobby for saying it in a way that clicked. I myself practice NFP...going on fifty and not really wanting to be a mom when I have 2 grandkids. If it happens, it happens, but as Bobby said, it would be irresponsible of me to make like a rabbit and expect God to do all the work.

Also, there is something really beautiful about a husband and wife cooperating not to become pregnant by abstaining, and talking and working together as a couple.

Bishop Fulton Sheen was just on the radio talking about sex and once again, he pointed out that animals are purely physical. But human beings are spiritual. We have the choice to reduce sex to an "animal" mentality or raise it up to a spiritual exercise. NFP is keeping it spiritual while artificial BC brings it down to an animal level.

When we make love with our spouses it should happen on a number of different planes...Physical, Mental, Emotional AND Spiritual. These are the words we use when we offer ourselves to God also...mind, body, heart, and soul. Leave any one of those out and you aren't getting the whole experience...of God or sex.

@MK: Take your time! :) I hope everything is going well with your Christmas preparations!

(I want to send you a Christmas card if that is okay.)

Laura,

We're going to outlaw abortion based on prank phone calls and mere allegations of abetting child abuse?
Heck, I know of an organization that's RENOWNED for abetting child molesters. I can post the convictions and the civil settlements to prove it. Shouldn't organizations like THAT be outlawed first?

Posted by: Laura at December 10, 2007 5:18 PM

Any organization that is suspected of covering up for child molesters should be investigated. As you pointed out, others have been found to be involved, so we know it is not impossible. That is why people undertake to determine if there is reason to suspect so that the authorities can decide if it warrants investigation. Many problems are first reported by regular people and the police investigators figure out what is really going on.

I think any article that talks about injustices being forced on children should be discussed by everyone. Even "pro-lifers". Actually especially "pro-lifers" since your suppposed to value children enough to want to protect them in every stage of their lives. Including when they are out of the womb.

I tend to think that clinics "cover up" because they are more concerned with the immediate effect ie. the pregnancy and wellbeing of the child before they would move on to prosecuting the rapist. But do you know how many rapes that affect teenagers and adults don't get reported and go on for years at a time sometimes? Millions. Even the police don't like to put labels on rape. So prosecution for rape is rare. It's a legal battle noone wants to fight so it goes unpunished.

Abortion is only "seedy" when its illegal.

Laura,

We're going to outlaw abortion based on prank phone calls and mere allegations of abetting child abuse?
Heck, I know of an organization that's RENOWNED for abetting child molesters. I can post the convictions and the civil settlements to prove it. Shouldn't organizations like THAT be outlawed first?

Posted by: Laura at December 10, 2007 5:18 PM

Wouldn't you at least want to check out why the same response was given to the numerous prank phone calls?

Lillyfoot, you need to study up. Abortionists are raping, stalking, and killing women today! So, it's still very seedy.

Steve Kellmeyer has a very instructive August 1, 06
blog post titled, "Reality Check."

"Thus, it is not hard to find those who insist pregnancy begins at implantation, while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge their redefinition of reality ..."
skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html - 108k

Yes, ACOG redefined pregnancy as beginning at implanation
in the 1970s, if I recall properly.

Embryologists like Dr. Dianne Irving, Ph.D strongly disagree:

When do human beings (normally) begin?
"scientific" myths and scientific facts
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
http://lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html

Or then there is the "Father" of Modern Genetics, Dr. Jerome LeJeune: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

Heather, You need to wake up to reality. People do these things. Do not label them "abortionists" because one in a million might be one but the majority are your Average Joe. In fact we come across more rapists, stalkers and murderers (of born) people in our daily lives than we do not. The guy who smiled at you on the street could be the next Ted Bundy. You don't know. So don't go putting labels on people who in most cases aren't.

Heather, you're still more likely to be molested, stalked, or otherwise preyed upon by a Republican activist than by an abortion doctor.

Lillyfoot, stick around. I'll post some proof. Somg, will I be? Proof please.

Once again, the discussion digresses wildly. But on the subject of "word manipulation", I have found it to be absolutely true that the proaborts are the champions of the world in that area.

A perfect example is their repulsion to the word "proabortion". It describes perfectly what that are in favor of, and yet they recoil at being identified with the word "abortion".

In fact, they go so far as to ascribe any number of unsavory definitions to that word that no one other than a proabort actually thinks that word means. No prolifer I know has ever agree with their made up "definitions" for proabort.

Here's what several dictionaries say:
(Links are included, so it may be slow to appear)

pro-a?bor?tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a?bor?tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-b?n ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html

Main Entry: pro?abor?tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro?abor?tion?ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion

Heather, you're still more likely to be molested, stalked, or otherwise preyed upon by a Republican activist than by an abortion doctor.

Posted by: SoMG at December 12, 2007 2:00 AM
---------------------
Of course she would! She would never step foot into a mill!!! That's silly, SoMG!

Doyle,
How true!

If it walks like a skunk, smells like a skunk..it probably..no, IT IS ONE!

Tricky, deceiving little pro-aborts!

Heather, you're still more likely to be molested, stalked, or otherwise preyed upon by a Republican activist than by an abortion doctor.

Posted by: SoMG at December 12, 2007 2:00 AM************ I'll take the republican activist. Is he good looking?