What is Abolitionists United?

Contraception refers to a variety of methods intended to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy begins at conception when the father's sperm fertilizes the mother's egg, resulting in the fusion of maternal and paternal chromosomes, marking the beginning of a new human being. Contraception, as made clear in its name, is purposed to prevent conception from occurring. Unfortunately, some methods of modern "contraceptives" can inhibit implantation, which makes them abortifacients. While they are still often labeled as contraception, they are technically not contraception due to their ability to end a pregnancy after conception.

Here's the different ways contraception can work:

• Preventing Ovulation: Stops the release of an egg from the ovaries. (non-abortifacient)

• Blocking Sperm: Prevents sperm from reaching the egg. (non-abortifacient)

• Inhibiting Implantation: Creates a hostile environment in the uterus, preventing the implantation of the child. (abortifacient)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The following methods of contraception are NOT abortifacients, and we SUPPORT their availability:

• Abstinence

• Natural Family Planning (cycle tracking)

• Male & Female Condoms

• Vaginal Sponges

• Spermicide

• Cervical Caps/Shields

• Diaphragms

• Sterilization (vasectomy or tubal ligation)

• Levonorgestrel Emergency Contraception (i.e. Plan B One-Step)

  • Levonorgestrel is a synthetic progestin that delays ovulation by suppressing the LH surge, stopping egg release before fertilization can occur. A recent review of over 30 studies found that Levonorgestrel EC does not prevent or impact implantation and has conceptional rates similar to women who did not take the drug (Endler et al., 2022). The FDA updated Plan B’s label in 2022, confirming it does not affect implantation (FDA, 2022). Therefore, the current evidences shows that Levonorgestrel does not function as an abortifacient (that is, lead to the death of an unborn child who comes into existence at fertilization). We therefore do not oppose the availability of levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives so long as research continues to show that it does not function as an abortifacient.

The following methods can function as abortifacients, and we OPPOSE their availability:

• Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs)

• Hormonal Birth Control Pills

• Hormonal Shots

• Hormonal Implants

• Hormonal Vaginal Rings

• Ulipristal Acetate Emergency Contraception Pills (i.e. ella®)

  • Further information coming soon on ulipristal acetate.

In conclusion, Abolitionists United supports the responsible use of contraception as a means to prevent unintended pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases, provided they do not act as abortifacients. We support abstinence, natural family planning, and access to barrier-method contraceptives. We do not oppose the availability of sterilization methods such as vasectomies or tubal litigations. We do, however, oppose any "contraceptive" that has a mechanism of action that can prevent or inhibit the implantation of a fertilized egg. As a result, we oppose IUDs, hormonal birth control pills, and other forms of hormonal birth control due to their function as abortifacients. It is also worth noting that the birth control pill has major adverse side effects and risks for women. The World Health Organization has classified the birth control pill as a Group 1 carcinogen, the same ranking as cigarettes.

Overall, our stance on contraception is dependent on the type of "contraception" being described. If the purpose and effect of the contraception is, as the name suggests, designed to prevent conception (fertilization), then we do not oppose it. If the purpose or common effect is to prevent implantation of an already conceived child, then we do oppose it.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is the process of creating multiple human embryos by extracting eggs, receiving a sperm sample, and manually combining the sperm and egg in a laboratory dish to form an individual human zygote (early-staged embryo). Usually, only a select few of the human embryos are chosen for implantation. The rest are often discarded, frozen for an indefinite period, or even used in experimental research. This careless and reckless treatment of human embryos — each of whom are human beings deserving of equal protection — is fundamentally incompatible with the values of a society that should cherish and protect life at all stages.

Moreover, IVF frequently leads to the practice of selective reduction, where some of the embryos are intentionally destroyed post-implantation to manage the number of babies in a pregnancy. This practice is nothing short of abortive, deciding life and death on a basis as arbitrary as convenience and medical preference. Eugenics is also becoming prevalent in IVF, where embryos deemed to be unfit or possess undesirable genetic traits are discarded.

Therefore, we oppose in vitro fertilization. We urge the development and support of reproductive technologies and methods that respect all human life, without resorting to the creation and subsequent destruction of innocent children. We support and promote alternatives such as adoption, which affirms life and provides children in-need with a loving home.

Commercial surrogacy is the practice of hiring and paying a surrogate to carry a child that will then be handed over to the adults outlined in legal arrangements. Whilst illegal in most countries, commercial surrogacy is currently legal in the United States.

Commercial surrogacy commodifies both the surrogate mother and the child, turning human life and parenthood into a transaction. Abolitionists United opposes this practice as it exploits women, particularly those in vulnerable financial situations, and it treats children as products for sale. Purchasing a woman's body to carry a child for 9 months to then deliberately take the child away has serious moral and ethical issues.

Instead of surrogacy, we promote alternatives like adoption that respect and uphold the dignity of all human life. This supports both the well-being of women and children, and it provides loving homes for children in-need.

Euthanasia, also referred to as assisted suicide, is the termination of life by a physician at the patient's request. It is most often used in cases of severe and incurable illness to supposedly alleviate suffering. Euthanasia is banned in most countries.

We oppose euthanasia. We believe it is contrary to the medical profession's duty to heal and protect life. Euthanasia devalues the dignity of human life, and it portrays an alarming message that killing yourself is the answer to being severely disabled or ill. We reject the notion that suicide is the best solution for those who are suffering from a severe illness. We fear that euthanasia will become more common and accessible to a wide variety of people, not just the severely ill. With the advancement of "suicide pods" and laws in jurisdictions such as Canada that broaden the eligibility for physician-assisted suicide, it is clear that euthanasia is becoming a dangerous industry that will normalize and promote suicide as a solution to mental or physical problems.

It is important to distinguish, however, between euthanasia and the decision to forego extraordinary or burdensome medical treatment. Respecting a patient’s right to refuse excessive life support or invasive procedures that offer no real hope of recovery is consistent with respecting the natural course of life. Such decisions should be made based on the patient’s wishes and ethical medical guidance, focusing on comfort and the quality of life, rather than an intent to hasten and directly induce death.

Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty, is the state-sanctioned practice of killing an individual as a punishment for a crime. It is used primarily for severe crimes such as murder or rape, although certain countries use capital punishment for a wider variety of acts.

We are hesitant to approve of or support capital punishment due to its various concerning moral and ethical implications. We are concerned about the alarming percentage of innocent people on death row, and we are disturbed by the many instances of people being discovered as innocent after already being executed. We also believe that capital punishment by the government is a slippery slope, and it isn't too far-fetched to believe that the government could one day expand its usage to people that speak or protest against the government's actions. We tend to believe that capital punishment is a rather easy escape in many cases, and we instead prefer life imprisonment without parole in most cases where capital punishment is applicable.

We oppose the current application of the death penalty in the United States. Death-row inmates serve an average of 10-20 years on death row before execution, and on-top of the expenses that come with methods such as lethal injection, American taxpayers will spend more money than if someone were to spend life in prison instead.

We acknowledge and emphasize that whilst capital punishment is not an adequate type of criminal justice, it should not be equated to abortion. To equate capital punishment to abortion is to equate an evil criminal with an innocent child that has not done anything wrong. Such a comparison is disingenuous and fallacious, and it further dehumanizes and neglects the unborn.

We accept a diversity of viewpoints on capital punishment in our community. We believe that capital punishment should be significantly limited and regulated, only being used in extreme cases such as child rapists, serial-killers, or mass-shooters.