F
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mark_a
Guest
So why does this pro-life group contradict many other pro-life groups about the abortifacient properties of some pills?
These statements from the article concern me:
These statements from the article concern me:
This paper is not meant to be the “final word” on this issue. If scientific study should validate that a hormonal contraceptive agent is partly abortifacient in its action, we would oppose that agent just as we oppose elective medical and surgical abortions.
We must constantly examine valid data as it becomes available in our effort to discern what is abortifacient vs. what is appropriate birth control to be used or prescribed by those who hold to the sanctity of human life from the time of conception.
CMDA has consulted many experts in the field of reproduction who have reviewed the scientific literature. While there are data that cause concern, our current scientific knowledge does not establish a definitive causal link between the routine use of hormonal birth control and abortion. However, neither are there data to deny a post-conceptional effect.
Because this issue cannot be resolved with our current understanding, CMDA calls upon researchers to further investigate the mechanisms of action of hormonal birth control.
Additionally, because the possibility of abortive effects cannot be ruled out, prescribers of hormonal birth control should consider informing patients of this potential factor.
And finally, after all the uncertainty and disclaimers from above:*We recognize the difficulties of providing informed consent **while handicapped by lack of definitive information. ***
What’s the deal?***I include here a statement from pro-life Ob/Gyns, wherein they strongly disagree with those who purport that oral contraceptives cause abortions. ***
C
chain
Guest
from memory that is quite old now - there are micro pill (I think that is the common word for progesterone only pills) that prevent ovulation, but they are “viewed” as less healthy by the population are are rarely prescribed in the US. I think at the time I got that statistic, it was also mentioned that the “view” was cultural and varied in different geographic regions.
Basically most woman felt having no period for a series of months was not normal.
My humble understanding is that the normal pill complicates implantation as part of increasing its effective rate. As such one could argue it is more immoral than abortion - because it is probably more common. Either way it is humanity trying to define truth rather than accepting God’s plan.
Basically most woman felt having no period for a series of months was not normal.
My humble understanding is that the normal pill complicates implantation as part of increasing its effective rate. As such one could argue it is more immoral than abortion - because it is probably more common. Either way it is humanity trying to define truth rather than accepting God’s plan.
M
mark_a
Guest
bump
K
kage_ar
Guest
All I can say is that the big pharma companies have the best legal counsel on this planet. If they were giving out false information in the perscribing information, there would be ginormous lawsuits.From the article:
Keep in mind this article is written and cosigned by Pro-life Doctors.
With all respect to the doctors, I trust the guy who makes the pills to tell me what it does.
M
mark_a
Guest
Which is really the heart of my question: why do these doctors contradict so many other sources? Check the quotes from the article on post #22, especially the last one which contradicts all the others.With all respect to the doctors,
I just do not get it.
J
Jermosh
Guest
Does the pill cause a Abortion, no. Does it cause an abortion, yes. There is a huge difference between the 2, one is the on demand intently killing of a human life, the other is a unknown chemically induced miscarriage.
If the “Pill” did in-fact cause Abortion, then the Church would not allow its therapeutic use, along with a whole host of other medicines and health decisions.
If the “Pill” did in-fact cause Abortion, then the Church would not allow its therapeutic use, along with a whole host of other medicines and health decisions.
M
mark_a
Guest
Could you clarify?Does the pill cause a Abortion, no. Does it cause an abortion, yes.
Do you have a source for this that I could read?If the “Pill” did in-fact cause Abortion, then the Church would not allow its therapeutic use,
Thanks.
J
Jermosh
Guest
Abortion is a social term that means abortion on demand, meaning you willingly know that there is a human life and you want it terminated, where as abortion is a medical term that describes a miscarriage due to enviromental issues. Its about Intent, you cannot use the Pill to cause an Abortion unless you took tests to show conception. So yes in that case it could cause a Abortion, but this would only ever happen in the case of rape to be honest since its got to be within days.Could you clarify?
Do you have a source for this that I could read?
Thanks.
As for theraputic use:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=444955&highlight=birth+control+pill
This is a good overview.
K
kage_ar
Guest
Get on the phone and talk to the pharma company, ask them who has it right - do they know their product or do some doctors, who do not every work for them, know better.Which is really the heart of my question: why do these doctors contradict so many other sources? Check the quotes from the article on post #22, especially the last one which contradicts all the others.
I just do not get it.
M
mark_a
Guest
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I must assume you didn’t check my link in the first post.Abortion is a social term that means abortion on demand, meaning you willingly know that there is a human life and you want it terminated, where as abortion is a medical term that describes a miscarriage due to enviromental issues. Its about Intent, you cannot use the Pill to cause an Abortion unless you took tests to show conception. So yes in that case it could cause a Abortion, but this would only ever happen in the case of rape to be honest since its got to be within days.
As for theraputic use:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=444955&highlight=birth+control+pill
This is a good overview.
M
mark_a
Guest
I need to clarify. Why is this pro-life group contradicting other pro-life groups.Get on the phone and talk to the pharma company, ask them who has it right - do they know their product or do some doctors, who do not every work for them, know better.
To me it seems they are saying that since no one has proven otherwise, oral contraceptives do not stop implantation.
J
Jermosh
Guest
I did, I think he makes some valid points.Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I must assume you didn’t check my link in the first post.
M
mark_a
Guest
Do you see their own contradictions?I did, I think he makes some valid points.
C
chain
Guest
I think several issues are involved in this discussion. First, and perhaps most importantly is new-speak. What is conception, pregnancy and abortion?
Traditionally conception occurs when the egg is fertilized, but lately there has been a movement to change the definition of pregnancy from conception to implantation. Since the common definition of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy - when pregnancy starts is key to determining if an abortion happened.
Traditionally conception occurs when the egg is fertilized, but lately there has been a movement to change the definition of pregnancy from conception to implantation. Since the common definition of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy - when pregnancy starts is key to determining if an abortion happened.
Likewise we get back to the question. If birth control prevents implantation, it prevents pregnancy - no pregnancy/no abortion. There is no doubt that the pill changes the thickness of the uterine lining (every woman who has been on the pill notices the difference in her period). It is highly suspected that this makes implantation more difficult. That said, as long as you can play with definitions the company can avoid using the “A” word, but instead cite their high effectiveness %.
While we are at this - why don’t we discuss the increased rates of breast cancer. They don’t like talking about that either.
M
mark_a
Guest
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.I think several issues are involved in this discussion. First, and perhaps most importantly is new-speak. What is conception, pregnancy and abortion?
Traditionally conception occurs when the egg is fertilized, but lately there has been a movement to change the definition of pregnancy from conception to implantation. Since the common definition of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy - when pregnancy starts is key to determining if an abortion happened.
Likewise we get back to the question. If birth control prevents implantation, it prevents pregnancy - no pregnancy/no abortion. There is no doubt that the pill changes the thickness of the uterine lining (every woman who has been on the pill notices the difference in her period). It is highly suspected that this makes implantation more difficult. That said, as long as you can play with definitions the company can avoid using the “A” word, but instead cite their high effectiveness %.
In the article, it is clear that the author holds the belief that life begins at conception and even agrees with the very points you make above.
My concern, though, is that this group of pro-life doctors directly contradicts the pro-life medical establishment with the same lack of evidence they claim the pro-life medical establishment has.
Great idea. Please feel free to start the discussion on this thread. I am very interested.While we are at this - why don’t we discuss the increased rates of breast cancer. They don’t like talking about that either.
J
Jermosh
Guest
Yes, its a classic “Chicken or Egg” thing. The only point of it is that the Church does prohibet ABCs for their abortive properties, but for the artificial lack of unity and reproduction.Do you see their own contradictions?
C
chain
Guest
I am confused by the last post. I believe the Church’s position is that sexual intercourse must be within a marriage, unitive and open to life. As such, artificial contraception (be it the pill, or a barrier method, or other), non-unitive sexual acts are prohibited (such as and coitus interruptus and masturbation) and any pre/extra-marital acts are all grave and serious sins.
M
mark_a
Guest
Could you clarify the above for me??Yes, its a classic “Chicken or Egg” thing. The only point of it is that the Church does prohibet ABCs for their abortive properties, but for the artificial lack of unity and reproduction.
Thanks.
J
Jermosh
Guest
Yes that is correct, the point is the Church does not prohibit the “pill” based on its abortive possibilities, othewise their would be a total prohibition on theraputic use and a whole host of other drugs and actions.I am confused by the last post. I believe the Church’s position is that sexual intercourse must be within a marriage, unitive and open to life. As such, artificial contraception (be it the pill, or a barrier method, or other), non-unitive sexual acts are prohibited (such as and coitus interruptus and masturbation) and any pre/extra-marital acts are all grave and serious sins.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.