Abortificients

[twf]

As Catholics we believe that all forms of artificial birth control are immoral, regardless of whether they are abortificients. That being said, I have seen it stated as fact on this forum, and elsewhere in the “Catholic world”, that the vast majority forms of oral birth control are abortificients. Is this really the undisputed fact it is presented as? Does anyone have links to some useful studies / papers on the matter?

 

[Listener]

I can’t quote any statistics, but I do feel that this idea is overblown. I think it says on the piece of paper that comes with birth control pills that there is a slim possibility that this could happen if the pill doesn’t work in the normal way (by suppressing ovulation).

It is also possible that the old-fashioned IUD does this, but now there are other IUD’s that suppress ovulation just like the pill does because they secrete hormones.

I read somewhere once that there is a group of Catholic doctors who don’t believe that there is any evidence that the pill causes early abortions. One of their arguments was that they have seen too many women who were on the pill get pregnant and carry the baby to term.

Then there is the fact that up to 50% of fertilized eggs are lost naturally when a woman is using no birth control.

It would be interesting to know if there is any hard, scientific evidence that people on contraceptives are losing fertilized eggs more often than a woman who is not using anything.

 

[ffg]

Then there is the fact that up to 50% of fertilized eggs are lost naturally when a woman is using no birth control.

Curious as to your scientific evidence for this ‘fact’.

50% of babies are lost naturally? A known? will be interested to see the support.

With regard to the subject, pills work in a few different ways, but if a little guy has some muscle to get through a dried up stream and plant itself on an egg, and the tube has the right conditions to get the little guy to the UT wall (all things being countered by the pill during fertility periods), the woman’s lining is dried up as the last resort of the pill and the fertilized egg has nothing to hold onto, thus descends.

Now is it possible to get pregnant while on Birth Control? Of course! How do you think folks like planned parenthood keep repeating customers?

If you get your birth control from PP, you can guarantee it is weak. This is supported by former PP directors. They want you back for the abortion.

A film called ‘blood money’ was an interesting one interviewing former workers.

 

[pensmama87]

I found the information about how the pill worked when I had a prescription for it (I was on Yasmin for about three years). It came in the package insert that described how it worked. It’s primarily designed to prevent ovulation. If there is breakthrough ovulation, the hormone in the pill also serves to prevent thickening of the uterus in preparation for possible implantation. So if fertilization occurs, but implantation does not, you have a very early abortion.

Some people get around this definition by saying that pregnancy does not begin until implantation, instead of fertilization, but the baby exists once the egg and sperm fuse, not once it implants.

I do think it’s very likely that a significant number of early miscarriages occur because of failure to implant, but something occurring by nature is not license for us to go and make it happen on purpose.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

As Catholics we believe that all forms of artificial birth control are immoral, regardless of whether they are abortificients. That being said, I have seen it stated as fact on this forum, and elsewhere in the “Catholic world”, that the vast majority forms of oral birth control are abortificients. Is this really the undisputed fact it is presented as? Does anyone have links to some useful studies / papers on the matter?

Here’s the product info sheet from a popular brand:

thepill.com/sites/default/files/pdf/OTC_LO_PI_-03H268.pdf#zoom=100

Under Clinical Pharmacology, it states that " Although the primary
mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)."

So, you have the manufacturers commenting that they believe it works in several ways, one of which is that it reduces the likelihood of implantation.

I would say that’s from a non-Catholic and pretty scientific source

 

[marymary1975]

If there is breakthrough ovulation, the hormone in the pill also serves to prevent thickening of the uterus in preparation for possible implantation. So if fertilization occurs, but implantation does not, you have a very early abortion.

Some people get around this definition by saying that pregnancy does not begin until implantation, instead of fertilization, but the baby exists once the egg and sperm fuse, not once it implants.

I do think it’s very likely that a significant number of early miscarriages occur because of failure to implant, but something occurring by nature is not license for us to go and make it happen on purpose.

^^^ this. Mist hormonal contraception today work in three simultaneous alternative ways, being one if them preventing implantation. All you need to do to know this is to read the information on the package or look at the medication description book that states how the medication works. In fact even the morning after pill still indicated that also works by preventing implantation. Si because life starts at conception, we consider them abortifacients. To the best of my knowledge the only current contraceptive that does not prevent implantation is Depo provera which fully supreses ovulation (hence women on it do not get any periods at all) and in consequence has very strong secondary effects and return to fertility after using it is very very hard.

 

[1ke]

Is this really the undisputed fact it is presented as?

Yes. You can read it for yourself in the physician’s prescribing information (not patient prescribing information, which is way dumbed down). These are generally available as links on the various pill websites (for example go to the Yaz website and it’s in the upper right corner of the main page).

It will list under Clinical Pharmacology the Mechanisms of Action. There will be three: suppress ovulation, thicken mucus to inhibit sperm transport, and thin the uterine lining to inhibit implantation.

So, yes, they are designed that way. They aren’t trying to hide it. Instead, the pharma industry has worked with the AMA to redefine pregnancy in the physician’s desk reference and other texts as implantation (also called nidation) rather than fertilization (up to 10 days earlier) so they can say it isn’t abortifacient. If pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation, and these drugs prevent implantation, then they are not aborting-- according to their twisted logic.

Do we know how often each mechanism is the one that is in effect? No. Although the Yaz pill did a study of ovulation suppression and it’s at 90% or so, if taken properly. When they introduced missed pills, and other “normal use” into the scenario then it dropped. The endometrial effect is always present to prevent implantation with breakthrough ovulation, so we don’t know but how often the endometrial mechanism of rejected implantation occurs but we do know it is **designed **to occur.

Does anyone have links to some useful studies / papers on the matter?

onemoresoul.com/contraception-abortion/risks-consequences/how-the-pill-and-other-contraceptives-work.html

 

[1ke]

Then there is the fact that up to 50% of fertilized eggs are lost naturally when a woman is using no birth control.

I don’t believe that is a fact at all. But if it were a fact, it’s a “so what” fact as it is completely irrelevant.

Natural miscarriages and purposeful abortions cannot be equated.

It would be interesting to know if there is any hard, scientific evidence that people on contraceptives are losing -]fertilized eggs /-] babies more often than a woman who is not using anything.

The difference being that the woman on contraceptive pills or IUDs does so purposely.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t believe that is a fact at all. But if it were a fact, it’s a “so what” fact as it is completely irrelevant.

Natural miscarriages and purposeful abortions cannot be equated.

The difference being that the woman on contraceptive pills or IUDs does so purposely.

Exactly. If children were regularly dying of the flu, dying in house fires, or getting lost in the woods and dying of exposure, it still would not be OK to infect them with a deadly disease on purpose, set their room on fire, or try to ditch them in the wilderness because you’d rather not have them, in order to avoid having so many kids around the house. The latter cases would not be deaths from “natural causes.”

 

[Vico]

As Catholics we believe that all forms of artificial birth control are immoral, regardless of whether they are abortificients. That being said, I have seen it stated as fact on this forum, and elsewhere in the “Catholic world”, that the vast majority forms of oral birth control are abortificients. Is this really the undisputed fact it is presented as? Does anyone have links to some useful studies / papers on the matter?

positivepharmacy.org/index.php/contraception/2-uncategorised/25-do-contraceptive-pills-cause-abortion

spuc.org.uk/education/contraceptives