In this issue . . .
Q: If nobody knows you exist, are you still human?
A: The FDA recently approved “ulipristal acetate—an emergency contraceptive effective for up to 5 days.” Like other similar medications with an approved three-day window, this new drug contains a hormone which not only delays ovulation but also alters the environment inside the uterus to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. And like the others, it claims to not cause abortion if the woman happens to already be pregnant.
But what does “being pregnant” really mean? Some clever sleight of hand has been underway for years to allow “guilt-free” abortions by redefining the words involved.
The 1988 advent of RU486, freely acknowledged to cause abortion and approved in the United States since 2000, created a stir and prompted some medical and pharmaceutical personnel who were often not involved in the conventional “surgical” abortion industry to face issues of conscience and ask themselves, “am I willing to participate in abortion?” RU486 was obviously an abortifacient.
What about non-surgical termination of pregnancy before implantation—the so-called “morning-after pill”? Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 27th edition, copyright 2000, offered a bandage for the conscience of the general medical community and the society they serve: it redefined conception.
Once upon a time, conception was synonymous with fertilization; in the new millennium, conception became synonymous with implantation, which typically occurs 6-9 days later. Stedman’s semantic alteration, like an earlier change by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, reflected not medical science but sociological and political correctness.
Continue reading to learn more about the move to redefine conception, the devaluing of human life, and a biblical response to the issue.
News to Note Quick Look
Chuck vs. Pat: The fossil record doesn’t agree with Darwinian evolution: are evolutionists finally catching up to this long-time creationist claim? Read more.
What a watery world: “In the beginning, there was water.” It’s not quite Genesis 1:1–2, but the conclusion of a new study does line up with the Genesis account. Read more.
Network with Us!
This Week . . .
View the current prayer requests to keep track of and pray for current ministry needs.
Please do not reply to this email. If you need help or have a question, please visit our help area.
This message was sent to you at %%$email%% because you signed up online, at an event, or through a promotional offer of the Creation Museum or Answers in Genesis. Please add [email protected] to your address book to ensure our emails reach your inbox.
Answers in Genesis