I understand a blastocyst to be a baby post-fertilisation and pre-implantation: any point for defining the beginning of life other than fertilisation is arbitrary. When you have new DNA you have new life. I do consider ejecting/killing a blastocyst/baby to be abortion, and there's also the rhythm method.

From your earlier post:
I have little difficulty with abortion as a treatment for a woman who is otherwise in serious danger of losing her life, if the pregnancy continues. Given a choice of neither party surviving or just the mother surviving, I see little alternative to aborting the foetus.

I refer to them as 'babies', for that is what they are as soon as fertilisation has occurred. I do agree that one death is better than two deaths. My concern is that the medical profession far too readily decides that there is 'serious danger' and recommends killing the baby. It is very difficult for a woman to find a realistic assessment of the risks involved in continuing her pregnancy because the vast majority of doctors have a low threshold for saying "Kill the baby and save yourself'.

I am one of the few doctors who will spend time outlining the alternatives to abortion.

I am very glad to hear that. Adoption seems to be almost forgotten these days.

You misunderstood the post on the morning after pill. I did not say I was in favour of it, just that it was a much better alternative than abortion – medical or surgical. This is true both medically AND ethically. However oral contraceptive or IUCDs as far, far better than the MAP which is expensive, unreliable and has unpleasant side-effects. Technically, the MAP prevents implantation and is not an abortifascient (does not cause an implanted foetus to abort). It is much the same as the pill in this regard. If you are concerned that fertilised blastocysts are being ejected, and you consider that to be abortion, then your only available methods of contraception are mechanical (diaphragms and condoms)

If you want a more in depth idea of my views on abortion, I direct you to the very first MacDoctor post Abortion: A personal look. Essentially, I believe that abortion is always bad, but that sometime the alternative is worse.

For the record, my practice nurses make sure that abortion requests go to my secular colleagues – unless the woman has not yet made up her mind. I am one of the few doctors who will spend time outlining the alternatives to abortion.

That is a reasonable observation. But the truth of the matter is that there is NO country where that would be an ethical study. Either abortion is , or it is not permitted. There would be no ethical way to deny it, if it was permitted and no way to perform it , if it was not.

It may be possible to compare the mental health status of women in countries that restrict abortion to countries that have abortion on demand, but international comparisons are fraught with problems and it is practically impossible to eliminate all confounding variables.

This particular study demonstrates that the woman's reaction to the abortion is paramount when talking of mental health complications. It seems likely, therefore, that not having an abortion is going to be less traumatic, even if the choice is not offered.

Why are you, a christian, in favour of abortion/murder?

http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com...