truth in advertising
By Diogenes (articles ) | August 27, 2007 12:28 PM
Barr Pharmaceuticals, the American distributors of the "morning-after" pill, continues to insist that their product can prevent pregnancy when it is taken after intercourse. And remarkably enough, the company has no problem finding reporters who are willing to believe that the pill can suspend the laws of biology and of logic, preventing something that has already occurred.
For example, Fox News gives some space to critics of the pill, but provides this gem:
Some critics-- including Roman Catholic leaders-- consider the pill tantamount to abortion, although Barr says it has no effect on women who are already pregnant.
Really? So if a woman has already conceived, the pill will do nothing?
If that's what Barr wants us to believe, then let's have a new advertising campaign for the "Plan B" pill. Right on the package, put a banner that reads: "If you're already pregnant, this pill will do nothing." See what that does to the sales figures.
|
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus: Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you! |
Easter Campaign: Progress toward our Spring 2013 goal ($25,254 to go):
$80,000.00
$54,745.55
32%
68%
|
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: -
Aug. 31, 2007 12:41 PM ET USA
You cannot expect "Truth" from a company that sells "a morning after pill". It is like talking to a brick wall or like talking to "Catholics for Choice", not only is their heart dark , but they are brain dead. Anybody that thinks it is okay for a mother to kill her baby do not have any scruples and certainly not trustworthy on anything they say. I would not trust them with a ten-foot pole. Reminds me of a snake under a rock or in the grass.
-
Posted by: -
Aug. 28, 2007 10:18 AM ET USA
Re language: The "new" prolife language ( used also by many doctors and scientists) is: life begins at fertilization. (We used to say life begins at conception but that implied implantation in the uterus). However, Barr should know that tubal implantations (tubal pregnancies) are considered human fetuses, human embryos, human zygotes. Whatever! They probably tested the drug first on these babies in a petri dish! No excuse for idiotic duplicity from Barr.
-
Posted by: -
Aug. 27, 2007 9:53 PM ET USA
David's right. This language-tinkering allows for most of the abortifacients, since they either prevent implantation, or render the uterine wall hostile to the very young child.
-
Posted by: -
Aug. 27, 2007 6:10 PM ET USA
Some time ago, the American College of Gynecology decided to make "implantation" the "legal" definition of pregnancy. Although this is false and quite likely politically motivated, this is what gives Barr the ability to say this.
-
Posted by: -
Aug. 27, 2007 2:25 PM ET USA
I suppose if one follows the illogical new 'science' that says pregnancy doesn't occur until sometime after implantation, it makes sense. Of course, its a biological urban myth, but there you are. Willing lies to make blood money and to placate women's history professors. The same illogic that says a baby isn't 'alive' until its placenta is birthed and it's detached from its mother physically. Legally, it can be drowned *even if crying* http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34900
