The New York Times email succinctly encapsulated a prevalent discourse:

“Far-right activists have spread misinformation conflating birth control with abortion. But the vast majority of Americans support birth control access.” [6-5-24]

Is birth control tantamount to an abortifacient? Yes and no. It depends on how you define it.

Several decades ago, coinciding with the rise of artificial reproductive technology, researchers redefined the concept of “pregnancy.” Formerly, pregnancy commenced at the moment of fertilization, whereas the contemporary definition claims that the pregnancy does not begin until the developing child implants into the uterine lining.

While some may perceive this as semantic hair-splitting, George Orwell’s caution echoes:

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.

Historical precedents illustrate linguistic manipulation’s capacity to distort perceptions, from dehumanizing slaves to the eugenics movement’s condemnation of certain lives. The dichotomy in how we classify unborn children from fertilization exemplifies this linguistic manipulation.

Birth control, fundamentally, aims to regulate birth, operating through either preventing life’s beginning or terminating life before birth. Our immediate concern is when birth control terminates life that already exists.

Barrier methods (condoms, diaphragms, etc.), as well as sterilization, prevent conception, thus circumventing ethical dilemmas surrounding life termination.

Conversely, hormonal birth control employs chemical manipulation, primarily through three mechanisms: preventing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus to impede sperm mobility, and altering the uterine lining to deter embryo implantation. It’s this third mechanism that sparks contention, as it ends the life that began at fertilization.

Notably, the redefinition of pregnancy to denote implantation excludes embryos developing in vitro from consideration. Proponents of in vitro fertilization argue against characterizing embryo disposal as pregnancy termination. This semantic dance underscores the manipulation of facts to fit ideological narratives.

The debate transcends mere advocacy for or against birth control. Rather, it centers on methods that thwart developing life’s natural attachment to the uterine lining, thereby causing the death of this unborn child.

The Psalmist’s admonition resonates:

You who practice deceit, your tongue plots destruction; it is like a sharpened razor. You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than speaking the truth (Psalm 52:2–3).

In the discourse on birth control, the delineation between truth and manipulation shapes not just language but the very fabric of ethical discourse with potentially fatal consequences.