Do Oral Contraceptives Really Cause Abortions?

[mark_a]

Here’s a link to an interesting article posted by Plinko on another thread.

prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm

The article is from the Pro-life Association of Physicians. They believe that oral contraceptives do not cause spontaneous abortion or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Her’s a sample:

There is a third reason that a pro-life physician who is convinced that life begins at conception may reject the notion that OCs are abortifacient: he is convinced that there are less, not more, unintentional abortions in woman on OCs compared to women who are not. For a drug to be classified as abortifacient, conception must occur, and the loss of these conceptions must exceed the baseline loss for populations not using the drug, or be shown to occur solely as a result of the drug. Even if there is a palpable accidental abortion rate on the OC’s through the third mode of action, this is much less frequent than the accidental miscarriage rate in the population of sexually-active women who are not on OCs. All things considered, there are less miscarriages in women on oral contraceptives than in women not on oral contraceptives.

It seems to me to be saying that oral contraceptives can be viewed in a positive light since they would actually help reduce spontanious abortions (miscarriages).

What do y’all think?

 

[lynx]

AFAIK oral contraceptives do not cause abortions and might reduce the risk of cancer.

 

[flyingfish]

What do y’all think?

I think it’s an interesting argument. I would agree if the main goal was to avoid failed implantations that it would make sense to take oral contraceptives.

But I guess that from the standpoint of sin, regardless of how many failed implantations a woman not on birth control has, those failed implantations are the fault of human biology.

If a woman on oral contraceptives has even one failed implantation as a result of the oral contraceptive, then wouldn’t it be her fault because she took the oral contraceptive?

Though I guess you could also argue that the woman not on OC is still at fault because she is having sex which is causing failed implantations. But this would imply that having sex period is immoral because it causes abortions. Hmm…

I guess it depends if you use outcomes or intentions as the main way to determine what is moral.

 

[kage_ar]

Read the physicians instructions for any brand of them and you will find that the pharm companies believe they do.

 

[Corki]

Here’s a link to an interesting article posted by Plinko on another thread.

prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm

The article is from the Pro-life Association of Physicians. They believe that oral contraceptives do not cause spontaneous abortion or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Her’s a sample:

It seems to me to be saying that oral contraceptives can be viewed in a positive light since they would actually help reduce spontanious abortions (miscarriages).

What do y’all think?

It does not change the view of oral contraceptives to a positive one IF they are being taken for contraceptive purposes. The only thing this data does is to provide more rationale on the side of proportionality when applying the principal of double effect. If the currently available BCPs are shown to NOT impede implantation (or if a pill like that is developed in the future) some comfort is offered to women who take the hormones to treat medical conditions.

 

[Innocent16]

The Answer is an unequivocal YES. Oral Contraceptives absolutely can and do cause abortions.

Here is how it happens—the oral contraceptive causes the fertilized ovum to be rejected from implantation in the uterine wall or lining. Because the fertilized ovum or “Blastocyst” is not able to implant in the Uterine wall—it receives no “nourishment” and thus dies.

The Blastocyst or fertilized ovum “withers on the vine” to use a garden or vineyard metaphor. My close friend is a Catholic OBGYN GYNECOLOGIST SURGEON and we discussed the topic in EXTRAORDINARY DEPTH and then I did extensive research on my own over several months. I became extremely aware of all the facts and terms used as well as the mechanics of the pills involved.

I encourage anyone who sincerely is seeking the TRUTH on this matter to go to the OBGYNS FOR LIFE or Pro Life OBGYNS (Google the Name and you will find them) website or consult the National Right to LIfe for more literature on the matter.

The American College of OBGYNS is absolutely pro-abortion. They changed the definition of Pregnancy in the 1970’s to allow the contraceptive PILL to escape the onus of being labled as an ABORTIFACIENT DRUG (which it is).

Under extreme pressure from BIG PHARMA they have tried to change the medical definition for the beginning of pregnancy. They no longer call FERTILIZATION the start of pregnancy. Now they call IMPLANTATION the start of pregnancy.

This was a CRAVEN and kniving or wickedly shrewd way to circumvent the opprobrium and unpleasant reality that the Oral Contraceptives have the distinct possibilty of causing an abortion of the new life or Blastocyst.

The abortion effect may not happen every time–BUT and this is an important CAVEAT—IT CAN and certainly DOES cause the abortion of many many new HUMAN LIVES which are then in the medically termed state of Blastocyst.

The terms of Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo, Fetus and Baby, INFANT, TODDLER, CHILD, ADOLESCENT, ADULT, SENIOR CITIZEN are merely terms to describe the same HUMAN LIFE but in different STAGES that we ascribe these words to.

The terms are merely semantics or scientific terminlogy used to desribe the SAME HUMAN LIFE.

For anyone who doubts or scoffs or mocks what I say—I challenge you to contact the Pro Life OBGYN groups in the U.S. and LISTEN TO THEIR POINTS.

I know you scoffers probably like the convenience of THE PILL and I hate to “burst your bubbles” of “blissful ignorance” and thoughts of “no culpability” but I have to, for reasons of conscience, inform you that the Oral Contraception–For Certain Can and DOES cause the ABORTION OF NEW HUMAN LIFE in the form of Blastocysts which is again merely a medical term that scientists and physicians use to desribe the a HUMAN LIFE in but one stage our HUMAN LIVES.

 

[Seatuck]

epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/A_Longer_Condensation_of_Does_The_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions.shtml

aaplog.org/PositionsAndPapers/OralContraceptiveControversy.aspx?fileID=3

 

[flyingfish]

The Answer is an unequivocal YES. Oral Contraceptives absolutely can and do cause abortions.

Here is how it happens—the oral contraceptive causes the fertilized ovum to be rejected from implantation in the uterine wall or lining. Because the fertilized ovum or “Blastocyst” is not able to implant in the Uterine wall—it receives no “nourishment” and thus dies.

I think the argument is not that oral contraceptives do not cause abortions.

Naturally, when a woman is not on any contraceptives, a certain number of fertilized eggs will fail to implant. Say hypothetically, 100 eggs in the lifetime of the woman.

The argument is that when a woman is on oral contraceptives, the chance of an egg being fertilized in the first place is greatly reduced. Say, only 5 eggs in the lifetime of the woman will be fertilized if she takes oral contraceptives the whole time.

Even if oral contraceptives will prevent 100% of fertilized eggs from implanting, it will still mean (in this example) that only 5 fertilized eggs will get aborted. But in the natural case it will be 100. A greater number.

I made up the numbers to explain the argument how it could be that taking oral contraceptives would reduce failed implantation even if it it causes failed implantations.

 

[Holly3278]

Yes, oral contraceptives really do cause abortions. Of course, Planned Parenthood will deny this but that is because they do not believe the fact that pregnancy begins at conception. No, they believe that pregnancy begins at the implantation of the zygote in the uterus. This is not true. There is a unique child with a unique soul present at the very moment of conception.

Take a look at Planned Parenthood’s website and you will find that many, if not all, hormonal contraceptives, not just oral contraceptives, have the potential to cause the abortion of a zygote (IE unborn child with soul). Even the evil Planned Parenthood organization admits to this on their very own web site. Of course, they will vehemently defend their position by saying that an abortion does not take case when in fact, it can and sometimes does.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Consider the following moral dilemma: There is a trap door on a path, and people who walk over the trap door invariably fall through to the trap, where they have a 50% chance of surviving and a 50% chance of dying. Now suppose you have the ability to (mostly) block the trap door, so that only 1 out of 1000 people walking over the trap door will fall through, and the rest will continue along the path untouched. However, by blocking the trap door, you will have also made the trap less hospitable, so that anyone who actually does fall through the trap door will now have a 90% chance of dying and only a 10% chance of surviving.

Question: Is it moral to block the trap door in this fashion? Clearly you will be saving many people by doing so.

Analogy: trap door = ovulation, trap = uterus lining. So if the pill is considered an abortifacient, then the above action to save peoples’ lives must be considered immoral by the same logic.

 

[St_Francis]

I think the argument is not that oral contraceptives do not cause abortions.

Naturally, when a woman is not on any contraceptives, a certain number of fertilized eggs will fail to implant. Say hypothetically, 100 eggs in the lifetime of the woman.

The argument is that when a woman is on oral contraceptives, the chance of an egg being fertilized in the first place is greatly reduced. Say, only 5 eggs in the lifetime of the woman will be fertilized if she takes oral contraceptives the whole time.

Even if oral contraceptives will prevent 100% of fertilized eggs from implanting, it will still mean (in this example) that only 5 fertilized eggs will get aborted. But in the natural case it will be 100. A greater number.

I made up the numbers to explain the argument how it could be that taking oral contraceptives would reduce failed implantation even if it it causes failed implantations.

This is somewhat tricky because taking the Pill for the purpose of controlling fertility is wrong in and of itself.

The fact that fewer eggs are fertilized while on the Pill does not mitigate the fact that the fertilized egg that *is *lost due to the Pill was *killed *rather than just lost.

So, it is more moral to lose more very young unborn babies just as a matter of course than it is to kill just one.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think the argument is not that oral contraceptives do not cause abortions.

Naturally, when a woman is not on any contraceptives, a certain number of fertilized eggs will fail to implant. Say hypothetically, 100 eggs in the lifetime of the woman. The argument is that when a woman is on oral contraceptives, the chance of an egg being fertilized in the first place is greatly reduced. Say, only 5 eggs in the lifetime of the woman will be fertilized if she takes oral contraceptives the whole time.

Even if oral contraceptives will prevent 100% of fertilized eggs from implanting, it will still mean (in this example) that only 5 fertilized eggs will get aborted. But in the natural case it will be 100. A greater number.

I made up the numbers to explain the argument how it could be that taking oral contraceptives would reduce failed implantation even if it it causes failed implantations.

Your number of 100 eggs fail to implant is significantly way off. Even high estimates show 50 percent of pregnancies end in early miscarriage. No woman conceives 100 times in the course of her lifetime. That would be almost 10 years of conceiving almost monthly and losing the baby.

Also, the failure rate of oral contraceptives is 1% for perfect use…5% for actual use. An embryo failing to implant would not be considered “failure” by the manufacturers. It’s one of the way the pill functions.

So for every 100 women on the pill 5 have a child. Significantly more than five will expel a fertilized ovum.

And a natural early miscarriage doesn’t usually occur because of failure to implant, but because of severe genetic problems with the embryo. Later miscarriages have to do with uterine/physical problems with the mother.

 

[mark_a]

Read the physicians instructions for any brand of them and you will find that the pharm companies believe they do.

From the article:

. . . the third proposed method of action, the so-called “hostile endometrium theory”, has little direct evidence to support it. Drug manufacturers have heralded it from the beginning without proof, and it has been echoed by two generations of investigators without verification.

Keep in mind this article is written and cosigned by Pro-life Doctors.

 

[mark_a]

The Blastocyst or fertilized ovum “withers on the vine” to use a garden or vineyard metaphor. My close friend is a Catholic OBGYN GYNECOLOGIST SURGEON and we discussed the topic in EXTRAORDINARY DEPTH and then I did extensive research on my own over several months. I became extremely aware of all the facts and terms used as well as the mechanics of the pills involved.

This was a CRAVEN and kniving or wickedly shrewd way to circumvent the opprobrium and unpleasant reality that the Oral Contraceptives have the distinct possibilty of causing an abortion of the new life or Blastocyst.

From the article:

A second reason that pro-life physicians may not hold the position that oral contraceptives cause abortions is that they are unconvinced by the evidence. There is ample data to support the first two method of actions of OCs mentioned above. But the third proposed method of action, the so-called “hostile endometrium theory”, has little direct evidence to support it. Drug manufacturers have heralded it from the beginning without proof, and it has been echoed by two generations of investigators without verification. There is indirect evidence that the OC produces a thinner, less glandular, less vascular lining, and there is direct evidence from the field of in vitro

fertilization that a thinner, less glandular, less vascular lining is less likely to allow the attachment of the new human being when it enters the uterus. However, when a woman taking OCs does ovulate, the corpus luteum (the ovarian follicle turns into the corpus luteum after ovulation) produces ten to twenty times the levels of both estrogen and progesterone seen in a non-non-ovulatory pill cycle. This results in the growth of stroma, blood vessels, glands, and glandular secretions to help prepare the lining for implantation. If there is no conception after ovulation, the corpus luteum ceases to function about two weeks after ovulation and menses follows. However, if conception occurs following ovulation, the embryo releases the human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (HCG), which stimulates the corpus luteum to continue its function until the placenta takes over hormone production two months later.

The proponents of the “hostile endometrium theory” argue that OCs are abortifacient based upon the third mechanism of action. The medical literature clearly supports the claim that the uterus becomes thinner and less glandular as a result of the OCs, however, the medical literature comes to this conclusion from non-ovulatory pill cycles. It is assumed that this finding in non-ovulatory pill cycles would prevent implantation of the embryo conceived in an ovulatory pill cycle, but this presumption is false. If a woman on OCs ovulates and conceives, everything changes: through the HCG’s affect on the corpus luteum, and the corpus luteum’s release of high levels of estrogen and progesterone, the uterus is able to nourish its new guest very well.

For anyone who doubts or scoffs or mocks what I say—I challenge you to contact the Pro Life OBGYN groups in the U.S. and LISTEN TO THEIR POINTS.

You’ll hear no scoffing from me. I’m trying to understand this group’s point of view.

 

[flyingfish]

The fact that fewer eggs are fertilized while on the Pill does not mitigate the fact that the fertilized egg that *is *lost due to the Pill was *killed *rather than just lost.

So, it is more moral to lose more very young unborn babies just as a matter of course than it is to kill just one.

See, I don’t think this way. If I believed that fertilized eggs were people, I would think that the action that would lead to fewer failed implantations would be the best action.

If more eggs are lost naturally than due to the pill (via reduced fertilizations), wouldn’t this mean that more people die? Why not take the action that leads to fewer people dying?

Your number of 100 eggs fail to implant is significantly way off. Even high estimates show 50 percent of pregnancies end in early miscarriage. No woman conceives 100 times in the course of her lifetime. That would be almost 10 years of conceiving almost monthly and losing the baby.

I made up the numbers to illustrate the argument of the OP, because it seemed quite a few responders were misunderstanding it.

I don’t claim to know how many eggs naturally fail to implant.

So for every 100 women on the pill 5 have a child. Significantly more than five will expel a fertilized ovum.

I don’t know how you can know this either. For example, if the primary mode of action of the pill is preventing fertilization, and rarely preventing implantation it could be that you could end up with more pregnancies than failed implantations.

 

[mark_a]

Yes, oral contraceptives really do cause abortions. Of course, Planned Parenthood will deny this but that is because they do not believe the fact that pregnancy begins at conception. No, they believe that pregnancy begins at the implantation of the zygote in the uterus. This is not true. There is a unique child with a unique soul present at the very moment of conception.

From the article:

In spite of the impressive voices that are speaking out about the abortifacient potential of OCs, there are many physicians who are convinced that life begins at conception and who do not believe that OCs are abortifacient.

A second reason that pro-life physicians may not hold the position that oral contraceptives cause abortions is that they are unconvinced by the evidence.

However, when a woman taking OCs does ovulate, the corpus luteum (the ovarian follicle turns into the corpus luteum after ovulation) produces ten to twenty times the levels of both estrogen and progesterone seen in a non-non-ovulatory pill cycle. This results in the growth of stroma, blood vessels, glands, and glandular secretions to help prepare the lining for implantation. If there is no conception after ovulation, the corpus luteum ceases to function about two weeks after ovulation and menses follows. However, if conception occurs following ovulation, the embryo releases the human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (HCG), which stimulates the corpus luteum to continue its function until the placenta takes over hormone production two months later.

The proponents of the “hostile endometrium theory” argue that OCs are abortifacient based upon the third mechanism of action. The medical literature clearly supports the claim that the uterus becomes thinner and less glandular as a result of the OCs, however, the medical literature comes to this conclusion from non-ovulatory pill cycles. It is assumed that this finding in non-ovulatory pill cycles would prevent implantation of the embryo conceived in an ovulatory pill cycle, but this presumption is false. If a woman on OCs ovulates and conceives, everything changes: through the HCG’s affect on the corpus luteum, and the corpus luteum’s release

*l. We know of no existing scientific studies that validate the “hostile endometrium is abortifacient” theory.
2. There is regular successful implantation of the invasive blastocyst on surfaces a great deal more “hostile” than “hostile endometrium” (e.g., fallopian tube lining). “Hostile endometrium” is not a demonstrated clinical reality.
3. The almost total absence of reporting of ectopic pregnancies associated with hormonal contraception would indicate the rarity of actual conception by patients using these modalities. (Minipill and norplant apparently are less effective in preventing pregnancies and ectopics).
4. Many factors play a part in how a family plans and spaces their children. It is not the purpose of this paper to promote, nor to oppose hormonal contraception. **However, if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient.

---

 

[mark_a]

I think the argument is not that oral contraceptives do not cause abortions.

Actually, the article goes into much detail and I hoped to better understand by dicussing the entire article. I thought the quote I pasted onto the OP though, would be a good way to start the discussion.

 

[plinko]

Summary for those who don’t want to read all this: The pill does not cause implantation abortions and drug companies are full of it.

"The proponents of the “hostile endometrium theory” argue that OCs are abortifacient based upon the third mechanism of action. The medical literature clearly supports the claim that the uterus becomes thinner and less glandular as a result of the OCs, however, the medical literature comes to this conclusion from non-ovulatory pill cycles. It is assumed that this finding in non-ovulatory pill cycles would prevent implantation of the embryo conceived in an ovulatory pill cycle, but this presumption is false. If a woman on OCs ovulates and conceives, everything changes: through the HCG’s affect on the corpus luteum, and the corpus luteum’s release "

For those who don’t quite like medical jargon, this paragraph is basically saying that the physicians who argue that birth control causes abortions are basing on the fact that the pill causes the lining of the uterus to become thinner. Basically, every month, a ‘functioning’ woman will grow new blood vessels and her mucus glands will release more mucus. Embryos like that, but if there’s no embryo, hormones cause the new blood vessels to rupture and you have menstruation. The birth control pill causes reduced formation of new blood vessels and so can be considered a hostile environment, since embryos want lots o’ blood. As a result, opponents of the birth control say “hey, since a baby can’t implant, it means it’s abortion!” Let me tell you why this is a fallacy.

IT IS A GROSS ASSUMPTION THEY ARE MAKING.

The birth control pill prevents ovulation; therefore, the studies done to see if the uterus is hostile looked at the conditions of non-ovulation. What about the condition of ovulation? A totally different thing happens. Once an egg is fertilized, the little pod it came out of (the corpus luteum) releases a boatload of hormones that drastically alters the entire biochemistry of the uterus.

Take home message: It’s a *big *leap to assume that because less blood vessels are being made, an embryo cannot implant. That’s all opponents of the pill are doing: they assume. And in this case, their assumptions are not based on any sort of empirical evidence. It is a blatant disregard for the scientific method. The pill is non-ovulatory; how can you prevent implantation when there’s nothing to implant?

To the person arguing that pharm companies say so, so it must be true, I call shenanagans. How many commercials do you see for law suits involving drug companies? They will say anything that has even one sentence in one study to back their claim and sell their product, even if that study or journal isn’t respected in the scientific community. They want to sell birth control to women who don’t want kids, so what do they do? They give you multiple reasons why their product ‘works’; women will read that and say, “wow, if the first mechanism fails, i have a backup mechanism. And it will cure my acne!” By toting the pill as a sort of wonder drug, they can sell more product. DO NOT look at drug websites as the end all-be all of information. Go to PubMed or Uptodate.com.

 

[mark_a]

Summary for those who don’t want to read all this: The pill does not cause implantation abortions and drug companies are full of it.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

What do you think of this part of the article:

Similarly, the breakthrough ovulation rate of progestin-only pills is 40 % according to one reputable study, and ranges from 14 to 84 %, which means that a large portion of the effectiveness of this modality is dependent on the abortifacient properties of the hormone. Therefore, we consider prescribing progestin-only pills to be a reckless disregard for human life and therefore the moral equivalent of a surgical or chemical abortion.

Are progetin-only pills currently being prescribed?

 

[plinko]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

What do you think of this part of the article:

Are progetin-only pills currently being prescribed?

Nope! Most (if not all; I’m not an expert in OB/GYN matters) birth control is a mix of estradiol and some form of progestin. I can’t think of or find a single birth control pill that is progesterone-only.