Advocates want birth control separated from abortion laws

[astegallrnc]

“there is no direct evidence that hormonal contraceptives (this includes pills, injections, patch, etc.) cause early abortion.”

There is no scientific proof (such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo).

Direct evidence would be the presence of an early embryo.

 

[bones_IV]

There is no scientific proof (such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo).

Direct evidence would be the presence of an early embryo.

Emergency contraception is not likely to decrease abortion. Right? A wife who is taking the pill for a medical reason (where there is no other possible medical solution after having checked with several different physicians and examined every other possibility) should at the very least avoid the sexual union with her husband at the time of the month when she is most often fertile (in order to avoid the possibility of the pill acting as an abortifacient). The better route would be to abstain from the sexual union while she is taking the pill for the very reasons you mention.

 

[astegallrnc]

Emergency contraception is not likely to decrease abortion. Right?

Please be patient with me. I’m not sure exactly what you are asking.

A wife who is taking the pill for a medical reason (where there is no other possible medical solution after having checked with several different physicians and examined every other possibility) should at the very least avoid the sexual union with her husband at the time of the month when she is most often fertile (in order to avoid the possibility of the pill acting as an abortifacient). The better route would be to abstain from the sexual union while she is taking the pill for the very reasons you mention.

I don’t believe there is official Church teaching that a couple should abstain. The apologists have answered similar questions and stated that abstinence is not necessary. I do not feel equipped to answer such a question, so I defer to others who are more knowledgeable than I. I am the first to admit when something is beyond my scope.

 

[LittleDeb]

I freely admit it’s a possibliity and that changes in the endometrium do occur in non-ovulatory cycles. However, according to this paper, if ovulation does occur, it’s not certain that the endometrium is inhospitable:

Actually we had a fairly good discussion about this particular research awhile back. I just can’t find the thread again. Their claim of not being a potential abortifacient in ovulatory cycles was shot down fairly well, using quotes from the article itself. It’s off-topic for here but I can go in to more detail if needed. It is a potential abortifacient. There has just been no research to find out how often it “succeeds.” (Sorry, I had to put that word in quotes because everyone here will agree with me that the word ‘abortion’ and the word ‘success’ cannot be used in the same context with a clean conscience.)

What some folks here are arguing is the difference between the words ‘potential’ and ‘certain.’ Unless it causes abortion every time, it is not certain. And since no woman has ever been willing to have her withdrawl bleeding checked every month for the possible presence of an embryo (sorry a ‘zygote’) we won’t ever know. The pro-contraception/pro-abortion advocates have no reason to fund the study. The pro-contraception/anti-abortion groups believe the research in the above cited paper, so they have no reason to fund it. Finally, those of us anti-abortion/anti-contraception advocates will refuse to do the research because it would involve encouraging a woman to contracept and possibly abort for the sake of the study. No win situation.

The hormones thin the lining of the uterus. A thin lining can cause an abortion. If something, anything, is directly responsible for the thinning of the lining that means it is a potential abortifacient. Autumn’s point is that the word potential must be emphasized for the argument to hold water.

Because it can cause abortion it belongs in the category with “things that cause abortion.” It just has a tentative balance in that category because the direct evidence is so difficult to prove.

Whew!! Deep breath. Pregnant women should not write/read about abortion…it gets us all worked up.

 

[fix]

There is no scientific proof (such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo).

Direct evidence would be the presence of an early embryo.

If I could barge in for a moment. I do not want to put words in your mouth but I would think you would agree that there is proof that the meds are abortifacient. That proof is from indirect evidence. You accept that. The point that is being missed in that direct evidence that would be acceptable to the pro choice crowd is not availble at this point for the reasons you mentioned.

I agree with your distinction and it is cited by the pro life Ob-gyn’s as you proved. So, when we say it is a potential abortifacient is it fair to conclude we intend to mean it does cause abortions some part of the time we just conclude this from circumstantial evidence and deduction not from direct physical evidence of aborted babies we can collect and examine?

Am I on the right track?