At the moment of conception a new unique human being is formed. The DNA that results at that moment is not the mothers and not the fathers and contains all the information about this new unique human being (male, female, eye color, etc)
Preventing this conception from happening is one issue and many will argue that even this is morally wrong.
Destroying this newly concieved human being is quite another.
Mifepristone blockade of progesterone receptors leads to the deterioration of the uterine lining in which the embryo is implanted. As this deterioration worsens, the uterus is no longer able to sustain the pregnancy and the embryo is destroyed.
Misoprostol acts to expell the now dead human being, but not without risk. There are numerous record of deaths from this regiment and especially when no medical facilites are available precisly in the undeveloped counties where this is being touted as an alternative to medical abortions.
This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with terminating the lives of human beings and ignoring the risks and damage that result.
In rebutal to the Kristof piece-
From: http://www.frcblog.com/2010/08/kristof%E2%80%99s-misguided-blithe-endorsement-of-misoprostol-abortions/
"It is interesting that Kristof mentions that this regimen is used out to nine weeks in the U.S. because it fails over a fifth of the time. That is, it leaves either an incomplete abortion or an ongoing pregnancy. Typically, women need a surgical procedure to stop bleeding or infection when this happens. In the article, however, Kristof announces that the misoprostol-only abortion is the revolutionary approach to be used in other parts of the world.
He isn?t as curious as he ought to be about why the progesterone-blocking chemical is the lynchpin of Western abortions, but is not needed for poor women in poor countries. He does note that ?[r]esearchers are finding that if women take misoprostol alone, effectiveness drops to 80 to 85 percent.? As noted above, the FDA-monitored trials produced much lower rates of effective use, but let?s give Kristof his estimates. He is admitting that these women will have a failed abortion up to 20% of the time ? that is, ongoing pregnancy or incomplete abortion. They will be subject to hemorrhage and infection.
The FDA informed Chairman Mark Souder that 116 cases of severe bleeding requiring transfusions had been reported to the FDA by March 31, 2006. Gary and Harrison reported that 237 of their 607 reported hemorrhage and that 42 cases were life-threatening. All of the patients who experienced ?life-threatening? bleeding would have died had they not received timely access to medical and surgical services.
This is not a game, and women who do not have access to modern emergency rooms will become very ill and may die if they have chemical abortions. Chemical abortions require more oversight to be performed safely ? not less."
The bottom line - abortion terminates the life of a human being no matter how "scientific" we make it sound.
Now science is on a path to end the battle over contraceptives with a simple ulcer medicine.
It’s called misoprostol, created by G.D. Searle. Searle first gained financial prominence as the maker of Enovid, the first oral contraceptive.
(I got the picture here from an Internet pharmacy which has the drug for sale under Searle’s brand name, Cytotec.)
Misoprostol’s use as a “morning after” pill was pioneered in Brazil, but it has other uses as well. In the U.S., for instance, it is frequently used to induce labor. (The illustration shows its use against ulcers, frequently caused by over-use of NSAIDs like aspirin.)
Misoprostol is often taken alongside mifepristone, also known as RU-486, as a “morning after” pill. Because mifepristone has no other uses, however, it’s not a real revolution.
Nor, for that matter, is Plan B, recently approved for over-the-counter use by the FDA, or even ella, recently approved for prescription use, which may be effective for several days after sex.
You may argue over whether such “emergency contraceptives” or “medical abortions” are ethical. That is not the issue. The issue is that they are private. Some can be obtained from a clinic, others from a pharmacy.
Misoprostol may be the most important of these drugs because of its other uses, one of which is to help avoid complications from naturally-occurring miscarriages.
Plus, as Nicholas Kristof noted recently in The New York Times, misoprostol is cheap. In India it can be had for just pennies per pill, as opposed to $5 for a blister pack with mifepristone.
Enovid is about 50 years old, thus there are many editorial celebrations going on about it right now, including a PBS special. It was a revolution for people in America and the West, because it let women decide when they might have children. The sexual revolution followed.
But the pill is far from universal adoption. It must be taken daily, and many women forget. Many Americans oppose it, though the 1965 decision in Griswold vs. Connecticut — usually cited as a privacy case, it was really about an 1879 law outlawing contraception — means there is little they can do about it.
Except there is. Pharmacists can refuse to sell the pill. They can refuse to sell RU-486 and even refuse to sell misoprostol. Again, that’s an American story.
Misoprostol is not an American story. It’s not being dispensed solely by pharmacists. It’s not only useful for this purpose. And women who treat other women are being encouraged to see this as a sound way to save the lives of their patients.
In effect, it is one way that the debate over contraceptives is resolving itself.
