All of us pro-lifers have heard of the term "chemical abortion" i.e. an abortion committed with a drug.
Well, now there is a new phrase to add to our lexicon: "Chemical pregnancy".
According to this abstract from a study on IVF, there are two types of pregnancy.
One is "clinically recognized".
And there is a "chemical pregnancy".
When two gametes fuse, that's a chemical pregnancy.
When the embryo implants, that's a "clinically recognized" pregnancy.
So I have a question.
If abortion is about a woman's right to control her own body, but she only has a "chemical pregnancy"-- which is not inside her body--
Does she still have a right to terminate this pregnancy? Can we confer rights on the embryo now? It's not about the woman's body any more, is it?
I've always maintained that abortion is not about a woman's right to control her own body.
It's about the ability to kill undesired offspring.
To me, the term "chemical pregnancy" shows what pro-lifers have been saying all along-- pregnancy-- and thus life-- begins at conception.
