X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:19:49 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      RU-486 and 'contraception'

Did anyone see that article on RU-486 in the newspapers this morning?

How many newspapers referred to the new "contraceptive" use of RU-486?

Did anyone who read one of these newspapers realize that it was a
complete and total lie, that what they described was not at all
contraceptive, but in fact was contragestive, but they used
"contraceptive" anyway just to make it sound benign and more acceptable?

The issue is that apparently some awesomely talented scientist (NOT!)
discovered that lo and behold, if you take RU-486 in the "morning after"
an unprotected encounter, it still works.  Don't know about you, but
this is no surprise to me, that if it induces abortion by unimplanting
the fetus/embryo, it can also prevent implantation.

Except that preventing implantation after fertilization -- after
conception -- is antithetical to the word "contraceptive", which means
that conception is block.

RU-486 is now acting like an IUD, as a contragestive -- or rather, more
accurately, an abortifacient.  The media is only trying to repackage
RU-486 in a more acceptable package so that it can be passed by the
FDA!! What a snow job!!  The big lie is that RU-486 is doing _exactly_
what we always knew it did -- induce abortions -- except that now, it is
being cunningly relabelled not as "abortion" but as "contraception"!

Do you know what's worse?  In 1966, the American College of Obstetrics
and Gynecology REDEFINED the definition of PREGNANCY in order to support
the IUD.  Instead of pregnancy being defined as beginning at
fertilization, it was defined as beginning at implantation!  Now this
same definition is allowing them to say that RU-486 now "prevents
pregnancy" because it prevents implantation, though in reality the egg
is fertilized and is a living human being! This subtle shift in
terminology is only designed to make people think it's doing something
different and more acceptable -- to make it even more benign-sounding
than the IUD, which is nothing more than an automatic abortion device!

I send the following letter to the editor to my local newspaper.  Feel
free to distribute it, resend it to your newspaper, or whatever.  In any
case, please write to your newspapers and inform their readers of this
deceitful terminology.

                                                           8 October 1992
                                                 1400 Worcester Rd #7519A
                                                     Framingham, MA 01701

Letters to the Editor
The Boston Herald
One Herald Square
Boston, MA 02106-2096

Dear Editor:
     First I would like to thank you for your newspaper's conservative
outlook.  I am quite weary  of reading liberal newspapers that present
only one political view and are filled with bias.  Several times I have
wished to write you to thank you for an editoral, on such topics as
abortion or homosexuality, but never had the chance.  I want to
encourage you, despite opposition, to continue this.  Conservatives need
a newspaper.  Anyone who dislikes your conservative outlook can find a
true friend the Boston Globe.
    However, I'd like to point out a grave error in terminology in your
recent article on RU-486 ("Abortion Pill Effective as Contraceptive", 8
October).  Your newspaper, and others, have used the term
"contraceptive" in reporting this story, and this is seriously incorrect
-- in this use, RU-486 is most /certainly/ not a contraceptive! A
contraceptive /prevents conception/ -- hence the name.  You /cannot/
prevent conception once conception has occurred, and hence any birth
control after conception is /not contraceptive/, but contragestive or --
more accurately -- *abortifacient*, which is /exactly/ what we always
knew RU-486 does -- induce abortions.  RU-486 does /not/ prevent
conception. Hence it /cannot/ be called contraceptive. It prevents
gestation and implantation, and causes abortion.  And while the American
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology may redefine pregnancy, I think
that anyone who sits and reasons it out will realize that pregnancy
results from fertilization, and that contragestives do not prevent
pregnancy, they simply end it soon after it starts.

    Sincerely,


    Eric James Ewanco
    (Phone: work, 508/493-1122)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU