Those definitions are written for the lay man and are not nearly specific enough. There are far more stages to prenatal development than simply embryo to fetus. And if abortion specifically pertains to the removal of an embryo or fetus, removal of a blastocyte is not legally an abortion. People are certainly allowed to have whatever opinions they like. And if emergency contraceptives are abortions in your mind and effect your decision making, that's perfectly fine. At this point in time, modern medicine just simply disagrees with that opinion.
I meant if the entire medical field as a whole changed their opinion of what abortion is, which would mean that some form of research had to be done to support that decision. Evidence based practice is a huge deal in medicine. The definition of "abortion" hasn't changed. I think the fact that every definition you or I or anyone else has given for that one word all being the same is at least some evidence that there's a current consensus among medical professionals about what constitutes abortion, don't you? They all say exactly the same thing.
You have nothing to apologize for. And while medicine is a constantly evolving field, I also think that's one of its virtues. Things change as new information is gathered. If there comes a point in time with emergency contraceptives are considered an abortive measure by the medical field, I'll change my opinion on it. Until that time, I agree with the current definition of abortion. That is, the definitions both you and I gave concerning the removal of an "embryo or fetus." Nothing in that says anything about a fertilized egg or blastocyte. Before the embryonic stage, it doesn't fit into the current medical or legal view of abortion.
I was going by the medical definition of what emergency contraception does. It's not currently considered to be an abortion by medical standards. That's what I was trying to get at. But trying to argue with Mattj in that thread right now is like talking to a brick wall... And a brick wall that shoots back nasty comments at that. I don't currently have the emotional or physical strength to deal with him right now. If he doesn't agree with medical opinion, that's fine. He's allowed to disagree with it. That doesn't change the fact that, medically speaking, it's not considered an abortion. That's all I was trying to get at.
I already said I'm not posting in the abortion thread again so I don't know why people continue to bash my arguments anymore. I really wish people would just drop it. However, I have to point out that your last response to me makes no sense. The definition you gave is pretty much the exact same one I gave in my first response to Mattj. It just seems that you don't understand my argument at all if you honestly think our definitions of "abortion" are different.