Abortion and IUD - the same?

[MrsMeganMc]

I was just thinking about this issue - hoped you folks over here could help.

So - we know that the IUD works as an aborficant, but an individual would never know if they did nor did not conceive a child.

Whereas with abortion - you know you are pregnant and killing the child.

Is a person’s standing with the church the same with an abortion as with an IUD (i.e. excommunication)?

Thanks!

 

[SumEns]

IUD’s, like any other birth control method (except natural family planning) disallows the possibility for the creation of a new life. In other words, it is against the natural law, and therefore immoral. By using an IUD you destroy the procreative aspect of sex. Knowledge of pregnancy is irrelevant. If the device is used, it is done so to restrict the possibility of conception. Sex is meant to be open to life, if it is not, it is sinful.

Hope that answers you question.

 

[1ke]

I was just thinking about this issue - hoped you folks over here could help.

So - we know that the IUD works as an aborficant, but an individual would never know if they did nor did not conceive a child.

Whereas with abortion - you know you are pregnant and killing the child.

Is a person’s standing with the church the same with an abortion as with an IUD (i.e. excommunication)?

Thanks!

No, I do not believe the canon on excommunication includes methods of contraception that may have an abortifacient property. They are certainly reprehensible methods of contraception, but the excommunication penalty is for those who specifically *procure *an abortion.

 

[Trishie]

If you use the IUD knowing it is an abortficant, and if you are fertile (or otherwise why implant it) then you are agreeing to the deaths of any children who are conceived. The unnoticed death of a conceived child is no less the death of a person than if someone knows about it.
I know it’s a hard thing to face, but if anyone believes that it is a least possible and even probable that any child of theirs died in this way, then, after they have been to confession, I ask The Lord to heal the sorrow and dismay they may feel.

I know of someone who was unaware the IUD was a form of in situ abortion and suffered great distress when she found out the facts by reading. She prayed to know how many children she’d lost, and she related that on her way home from church, a man handed her two camelias. They were white, each with one tiny fleck of pink. She was convinced that this was an answer and that she’d lost two children with the IUD.
I do hope and pray that others will find ways of healing in these sort of matters.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

So - we know that the IUD works as an aborficant, but an individual would never know if they did nor did not conceive a child.

Whereas with abortion - you know you are pregnant and killing the child.

Hello!

This is my opinion in this:

Whether a woman knows she did or did not conceive a child, the mere fact that the IUD is inserted to prevent implantation of any fertilized ovum that is conceived, the intent to abort or kill is there.

Some medical complications/concerns may arise with the use of this device that may be detrimental to mother and fetus.

Perhaps you can google articles on pregnancy despite IUD in situ. I found a site that might be interesting about 1 case (out of ten documented cases) where a newborn had a major lip defect. I can’t seem to create a link to it.

Fetal defects are rare (but can happen) in pregnancies despite IUD in situ. Most pregnancies like these are lost through miscarrages or abortion.

 

[Wowbagger]

Actually, last I checked, there was no proof that IUD’s were an abortifacient. There was good evidence both ways, with, frankly, the balance leaning towards them not causing abortions.

Now, this was two years ago, and it quite surprised me then, but I think it’s still true. Thus, though extremely negligent while there remains any doubt (and probably mortally sinful in that respect), without full knowledge and full consent, it can’t fall under the abortion excommunication law.

I’m happy to be corrected on either point.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Actually, last I checked, there was no proof that IUD’s were an abortifacient. There was good evidence both ways, with, frankly, the balance leaning towards them not causing abortions.

Now, this was two years ago, and it quite surprised me then, but I think it’s still true. Thus, though extremely negligent while there remains any doubt (and probably mortally sinful in that respect), without full knowledge and full consent, it can’t fall under the abortion excommunication law.

I’m happy to be corrected on either point.

I think it rather depends where one thinks life actually begins. Does it start with ferilization of the ovum or does it start with implantation. Catholic teaching tells is it is the former.

So, if IUD prevents the implantation of a fertilized ovum (that is, another life separate from the mother) causing it to die…then that is abortion, therefore, IUD is abortifacient.

Do you believe that just because a fertilized ovum was not able to implant, that there was no pregnancy and there was no life that was lost?

 

[Jermosh]

I was just thinking about this issue - hoped you folks over here could help.

So - we know that the IUD works as an aborficant, but an individual would never know if they did nor did not conceive a child.

Whereas with abortion - you know you are pregnant and killing the child.

Is a person’s standing with the church the same with an abortion as with an IUD (i.e. excommunication)?

Thanks!

Its a good question, the answer would be no IMO. Its sorta the difference between manslaughter and murder, one can be from drunk driveing accident, the other is a planned out attack to kill someone.

 

[Wowbagger]

I think it rather depends where one thinks life actually begins. Does it start with ferilization of the ovum or does it start with implantation. Catholic teaching tells is it is the former.

So, if IUD prevents the implantation of a fertilized ovum (that is, another life separate from the mother) causing it to die…then that is abortion, therefore, IUD is abortifacient.

Do you believe that just because a fertilized ovum was not able to implant, that there was no pregnancy and there was no life that was lost?

No, no, no, rest assured, I am fully on board with the Church here–and I cannot comprehend any other way of thinking about it. Duh: new life begins at fertilization.

Thing is, I’ve seen no proof–and pretty decent evidence both ways, with the weight leaning against–that IUD’s do not prevent implantation. Their effect may be (and even appears to be) purely spermicidal/ovicidal, doing the contraception prior to fertilization.

It would still be grossly negligent to use one (to say nothing of the grave sin of artificial contraception), because IUD’s may destroy zygotes/blastocysts… but it doesn’t seem like they do.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

No, no, no, rest assured, I am fully on board with the Church here–and I cannot comprehend any other way of thinking about it. Duh: new life begins at fertilization.

Thing is, I’ve seen no proof–and pretty decent evidence both ways, with the weight leaning against–that IUD’s do not prevent implantation. Their effect may be (and even appears to be) purely spermicidal/ovicidal, doing the contraception prior to fertilization.

It would still be grossly negligent to use one (to say nothing of the grave sin of artificial contraception), because IUD’s may destroy zygotes/blastocysts… but it doesn’t seem like they do.

You’re right in saying that studies show that the primary effect of IUD is spermicidal/ovicidal. However, we cannot negate the fact that when fertilization does occur (and the possibility of that will always exist), such as those pregnancies despite IUD in situ, will end either in miscarriage or abortion because of its secondary effect which is to alter the environment of the uterus making it “hostile” for the fertilized ovum to nidate (that is, to get implanted in the uterus, thereby killing it.

I saw this interesting article in this site called Dr Walt’s blog:

http://www.drwalt.com/blog/2008/05/07/the-iud-is-much-more-likely-to-have-an-abortifacient-effect-than-to-prevent-cancer/

**

Dr. Spinnato concluded, “the analysis of the evidence strongly suggests that the contraceptive effectiveness of [IUDs] is achieved by both a prefertilization spermicidal action and a postfertilization inhibition of uterine implantation.”

A more recent review, by my good friend, Joe Stanford, M.D., concluded, “although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.”

For those who believe life begins at conception or fertilization, then a “postfertilization inhibition of uterine implantation” would be an abortifacient effect.

**

In another article found here from Family Health International:

http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/factsheets/mechact.htm

I quote, in part:

B]Is the IUD an abortifacient?

…Should fertilization occur, the chances for establishing a pregnancy likely decrease as the fertilized egg approaches the uterine cavity. Thus, the IUD appears to work at a much earlier stage of human reproduction than was previously thought; prevention of fertilization seems to be the dominant mode of action.

The possibility of killing the unborn is always there if one decides to use an IUD.