Doctors who say "artificial contraception methods are not abortifacient"

[Ma.Eugenia]

I watched part of the big debate on the RH bill (Reproductive Health bill) on television.

The RH bill is a controversial bill that is dividing my country’s citizens to pro-RH and anti-RH bill. The bill seeks to make available artificial contraception and “reproductive health” education (using public funds) to the public.

During the debate, I was surprised to hear a medical doctor declare, “Artificial contraception methods are not abortifacients.” The Medical Association in my country, while initially took the Catholic anti-RH stance eventually also came out in support of the bill. They say it will solve some health and sanitation issues.

I am assuming that how these artificial methods work in a woman’s body is part of their medical education.

Being in a majority Catholic country, I am assuming our medical association are made up mostly of Catholic doctors. I am wondering how some Catholic doctors cannot seem to see the connection of abortion and artificial contraception. What do you see to be the root cause of doctors not seeing this connection?

 

[Corki]

In the US this was done by changing the definition of pregnancy. Instead of considering a woman as pregnant when she conceived, they switched the terminology and now consider a woman as pregnant only after successful implantation. Since many oral contraceptives and IUDs have the effect of preventing implantation of a new embryo, this is abotifacient but under the new definition, it doesn’t end pregnancy.

The question I have always asked is what exactly is a woman in those days between conception and implantation. She’s not pregnant according to the new definition but she’s not un-pregnant either.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

In the US this was done by changing the definition of pregnancy. Instead of considering a woman as pregnant when she conceived, they switched the terminology and now consider a woman as pregnant only after successful implantation. Since many oral contraceptives and IUDs have the effect of preventing implantation of a new embryo, this is abotifacient but under the new definition, it doesn’t end pregnancy.

The question I have always asked is what exactly is a woman in those days between conception and implantation. She’s not pregnant according to the new definition but she’s not un-pregnant either.

Yeah…I think it all boil down to the question of when does life begin. I really think this question should be answered first with definition before thinking about sanitation and health issues.

Sure we want to have a clean country and we want health issues to be addressed. …but certainly not at the expense of a life.

We really need to have articulate Catholic doctors who can support the Catholic position, which I think, is strongly supported by science like Embryology… I mean, where else does the a new individual’s DNA (different from mother and father) get created anyway? .if not at conception?

 

[Corki]

Yeah…I think it all boil down to the question of when does life begin. I really think this question should be answered first with definition before thinking about sanitation and health issues.

Sure we want to have a clean country and we want health issues to be addressed. …but certainly not at the expense of a life.

We really need to have articulate Catholic doctors who can support the Catholic position, which I think, is strongly supported by science like Embryology… I mean, where else does the a new individual’s DNA (different from mother and father) get created anyway? .if not at conception?

Luckily, they can’t argue about when life begins. It’s pretty simple biology and they have even filmed the joining of the DNA. That’s why they had to try to switch the argument to when *pregnancy *begins.

 

[bellasbane]

In the US this was done by changing the definition of pregnancy. Instead of considering a woman as pregnant when she conceived, they switched the terminology and now consider a woman as pregnant only after successful implantation. Since many oral contraceptives and IUDs have the effect of preventing implantation of a new embryo, this is abotifacient but under the new definition, it doesn’t end pregnancy.

A unique human life is certainly created at conception. However, I would say that doesn’t mean a woman is pregnant - what about IVF babies? They are “conceived” and then sometimes frozen for years. I know a couple with two kids who were born three years apart, but who were “conceived” at the same time. It is very strange.

The question I have always asked is what exactly is a woman in those days between conception and implantation. She’s not pregnant according to the new definition but she’s not un-pregnant either.

The strangeness goes even further. What about a situation where a fertilized egg implants, but there is no embryo because there is some defect in that part of the DNA. This is not all that uncommon. According to this article, after conception:

The fertilized egg rapidly divides to form the blastocyst, a hollow ball of cells with an inner cell mass and outer layer. The inner cell mass gives rise to the embryo, which develops into a fetus about eight weeks after conception, when the major organs of the future baby become recognizable. The outer layer of the blastocyst becomes the so-called trophoblast. The trophoblast cells invade the lining of the uterus and thereby begin implantation.

Within a few weeks of making its home in the uterus, the trophoblast further transforms into the fetal part of the placenta, the conduit for the passage of nutrients and oxygen from mother to fetus. (Some of the mother’s cells form a second part of the mature placenta.)

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_4_116/ai_n19187208/?tag=mantle_skin;content)

I know several women who were “pregnant” and went in for their 9 week appointment all eager to see their baby’s heartbeat, only to discover there was no baby! The placenta had formed and all the symptoms of pregnancy were evident and chugging along, but the embryonic sack was empty. The “inner cell mass” never organized into anything. So, was she pregnant at that point or not? I would say yes, but not “with child”.

It is all very weird.

 

[LaFleurDeLis]

In the US this was done by changing the definition of pregnancy. Instead of considering a woman as pregnant when she conceived, they switched the terminology and now consider a woman as pregnant only after successful implantation. Since many oral contraceptives and IUDs have the effect of preventing implantation of a new embryo, this is abotifacient but under the new definition, it doesn’t end pregnancy.

**The question I have always asked is what exactly is a woman in those days between conception and implantation. She’s not pregnant according to the new definition but she’s not un-pregnant either. **

Kinda makes me wonder what the doctors thoughts on a woman drinking who was in that position. If she’s not pregnant, then she certainly wouldn’t be harming the baby. If she is, then they’re going against the very definition that they changed.

 

[Warrior1979]

During the debate, I was surprised to hear a medical doctor declare, “Artificial contraception methods are not abortifacients.”

I don’t know the context this was stated in. The problem with a single statement like this is that it is all encompassing. Some methods aren’t abortifacients, and some are.

Being in a majority Catholic country, I am assuming our medical association are made up mostly of Catholic doctors. I am wondering how some Catholic doctors cannot seem to see the connection of abortion and artificial contraception. What do you see to be the root cause of doctors not seeing this connection?

The cause is likely opposing sides not using a common set of definitions. As a simple example, some fertilized eggs don’t implant naturally. You could have 10,000 fertilized eggs a month not implant, and none are considered abortions. Now if you regulate the body using natural hormones, and one egg doesn’t implant in a person’s life, it’s considered an abortion. Physically, there is no difference, yet theologically there is. Different groups don’t see eye to eye on such things, hence the confusion and non-agreement.

 

[Bluegoat]

There is good medical reason to put pregnancy at implantation, not conception. The difficulty is people equate the two, but they shouldn’t. Conception occurs when the sperm meets egg; pregnancy is when it implants and the woman’s hormones and body start to react with the normal processes of pregnancy.

It is not uncommon for there to be all kinds of difficulties with this process, and woman often concieve and never become pregnant.

I think that if one defines terms carefully, this could be ironed out in discussions of the nature of hormonal birth control and IUDs so everyone was on the same page. There is no need for it to cause confusion.

 

[razredge]

They are not since NFP causes more miscarriages than the Pill does (since you do not ovulate while on the Pill)

 

[Corki]

The cause is likely opposing sides not using a common set of definitions. As a simple example, some fertilized eggs don’t implant naturally. You could have 10,000 fertilized eggs a month not implant, and none are considered abortions. Now if you regulate the body using natural hormones, and one egg doesn’t implant in a person’s life, it’s considered an abortion. Physically, there is no difference, yet theologically there is. Different groups don’t see eye to eye on such things, hence the confusion and non-agreement.

Up until about 20 years ago, there would have been no confustion. A fertilized egg that did not implant was called a spontaneous abortion. This is the terminology used in my college biology classes back in the 70s. The theological definition has remained unchanged.

Contraception = conta conception

Even the dictionary definition is based on conception, not on implantation

the intentional prevention of **conception **by artificial or natural means

If the drug does not prevent conception but does prevent implantation, something else has happened (spontaneous abortion) but it’s not truly contraception.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

I don’t know the context this was stated in. The problem with a single statement like this is that it is all encompassing. Some methods aren’t abortifacients, and some are.

Yes, I agree that not all artificial methods are abortifacients at the outset. Example is the condom. But…it can lead to it.

The problem with condoms, is that it does not prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STD)and the same time it gives people the false sense of security that they will not get pregnant when they use it.

Condom is not 100 percent effective to prevent pregnancy…the false sense of security leads to-----> less inhibition and more promiscuity that leads to ----> more use of condom ----> that leads to more chance of faiulure------>more unwanted pregnancy or STD or both.

Add that with a contraceptive mindset that they will try to inculcate through educating the young children (which I believe is part of the provisions of this bill) that having a lot of children is not good thing, that it will make life difficult for the woman and family.
Honestly, I believe that this education of young children has already begun because I saw first hand the the kind of assignment the my then 9 year old niece had when she was in grade 3 (I wrote about it in a previous post), really smacks population control!

With all these going on, the promotion of condom as well as abortifacient drugs and devices like the IUD, promotion of “safe” and “protected” sex which in my opinion, trvializes sex as nothing but a free-time sport (God’s role is removed in the relationship) added to a contraceptive mentality that is the result of education of young children to believe that big families are a bad thing (devaluing life as a burden to be avoided) …all this will lead us to accept abortion as a next logical step (for pro-choice) because their methods have been know to fail and not in small amount.

I believe this process of moving from pro-contraception to pro-abortion happened in other countries before (and they are now reaping the consequence of too low birth rates)…will eventually happen in my country if the RH bill is passed.

I am hoping that pro-life Catholic doctors will have the courage to come out and become very visible in this debate for the defense of life in my country.

---

Our Lady of Guadalupe, I bring my country inside your Immaculate Heart and to the Sacred Heart of your Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Please protect my people, including those not yet born from this RH bill. Please open the hearts and minds of our politicians so that they will understand the truth and beauty of the Catholic position in this controversial issue dividing my nation. I believe that you love your children and will always protect us because you once told St. Juan Diego,

“Listen and let it penetrate your heart…do not be troubled or weighed down with grief. Do not fear any illness or vexation, anxiety or pain. Am I not here who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of my mantle? In the crossing of my arms? Is there anything else you need?”

with this in mind, I put all my worries for my country and my people in your hands, Mama Mary.

 

[lrac]

Firstly ‘Life never Began’ it always “existed” in essesence what it means is that life doesn begin at conception but rather is ‘transmitted’ from parents to offspring and during this transmission the soul is infused. therefore it makes no difference if contraception is an abortifiecent or not because this way or that your preventing life and trying to control life which was not the plan of God in the First place

 

[Listener]

I have a lot of trouble with the idea that the pill is causes abortions. If a woman is not practicing any kind of birth control, it would be possible for her to get pregnant every month and lose the pregnancy before it implants. I read in a medical book that this happens maybe 50% of the time when the egg is fertilized. Women who don’t practice any kind of birth control (including NFP) could be having one of these “spontaneous abortions” every other month. She probably wouldn’t know the difference.

When a woman is on the pill, my understanding is that the pill works by suppressing ovulation. Then, maybe there is a 5% chance that “breakthrough ovulation” will occur. If it does, she might have a baby nine months later. We have all heard of women who got pregnant while on the pill. Then again, the fertilized egg might go out with her next period just like it can do when she’s not practicing any form of birth control.

Can the doctors prove that this is happening (whether a woman is on the pill or not)?

If this is a terrible sin, then where is full knowledge and full consent?

 

[Rence]

I watched part of the big debate on the RH bill (Reproductive Health bill) on television.

The RH bill is a controversial bill that is dividing my country’s citizens to pro-RH and anti-RH bill. The bill seeks to make available artificial contraception and “reproductive health” education (using public funds) to the public.

During the debate, I was surprised to hear a medical doctor declare, “Artificial contraception methods are not abortifacients.” The Medical Association in my country, while initially took the Catholic anti-RH stance eventually also came out in support of the bill. They say it will solve some health and sanitation issues.

I am assuming that how these artificial methods work in a woman’s body is part of their medical education.

Being in a majority Catholic country, I am assuming our medical association are made up mostly of Catholic doctors. I am wondering how some Catholic doctors cannot seem to see the connection of abortion and artificial contraception. What do you see to be the root cause of doctors not seeing this connection?

A woman is not ‘diagnosed’ as being pregnant until she can test positively for pregnancy, which is determined when hCG can be found in a blood or urine test. hCG shows up in the blood when implantation occurs, which is about 7 days after conception. Since a woman cannot be determined to be pregnant until then, she is not considered by the medical field to be pregnant until then. Therefore, since a woman is not considered pregnant until then, preventing implantation is not considered an ‘abortion’ to many people, since she was never pregnant to begin with.

Also, listener is correct about medical articles saying that over half of conceptions never make it to implantation naturally.

Though the Church teaches that pregnancy officially begins with conception, many people don’t believe pregnancy starts until implantation. And one can’t be called ‘pregnant’ until then.

 

[jaaraf]

They are not since NFP causes more miscarriages than the Pill does (since you do not ovulate while on the Pill)

This scientific study disproves your statement regarding miscarriages due to NFP: ajog.org/article/0002-9378(95)90498-0/abstract

All hormonal contraceptives, including the pill, injectables, implantables as well as IUD’s embedded with a hormonal contraceptive have three mechanisms of actions, (You can read this in any OB-GYNE textbook):

1. prevents ovulation
2. thickens cervical mucus (thereby impeding transport of sperm)
3. thins out the endometrial lining (making it inhospitable for implantation of a blastocyst, which is, in human embryology textbooks is cited to happen at day 51/2 to 6 of new human life, fertilization being the start of day one-> start of human life counted from this point).
   This third mechanism of action is early chemical abortion.
   Initially, scientists discovered that there were only 2 mechanisms of actions of hormonal contraceptives, so by the 1st two mechanisms, no conception has taken place yet, so there is no abortion taking place. This is probably what most laypersons are aware of. However, scientists soon discovered the third mechanism of action, which is tantamount to early chemical abortion.
   At any given time, one does not know which of these three recognized mechanisms of actions are at work, and there are pregnancies known to occur in women who take the pill without fail, so all three mechanisms of action can fail as well.
   If you’re all wondering, I’m a licensed medical doctor in my country, pro-life, and following the right bioethical standards as taught to me in my medical school (by a pro-life bioethics faculty member). .I have never dispensed contraceptives nor have ever inserted an IUD, nor do I assist in bilateral tubal ligations or vasectomies while training to be a general practitioner.
   Please check this blog (I am one of the many contributors) for more anti-rh views and arguments from Filipinos. filipinosforlife.com

 

[jaaraf]

the RH bill timeline on the site above is useful… also states when the OB-GYNE’s in the US decided to change their definition of when a pregnancy begins… makes pill use more palatable to the general public who are still opposed to abortions.

 

[Sullibe]

They are not since NFP causes more miscarriages than the Pill does (since you do not ovulate while on the Pill)

NFP doesn’t cause miscarriages. It may be that more miscarriages happen with NFP than with the Pill (because you’re not supposed to ovulate while on the Pill), but that is an act of nature, not a response to medication.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

This scientific study disproves your statement regarding miscarriages due to NFP: ajog.org/article/0002-9378(95)90498-0/abstract

All hormonal contraceptives, including the pill, injectables, implantables as well as IUD’s embedded with a hormonal contraceptive have three mechanisms of actions, (You can read this in any OB-GYNE textbook):

1. prevents ovulation
2. thickens cervical mucus (thereby impeding transport of sperm)
3. thins out the endometrial lining (making it inhospitable for implantation of a blastocyst, which is, in human embryology textbooks is cited to happen at day 51/2 to 6 of new human life, fertilization being the start of day one-> start of human life counted from this point).
   This third mechanism of action is early chemical abortion.
   Initially, scientists discovered that there were only 2 mechanisms of actions of hormonal contraceptives, so by the 1st two mechanisms, no conception has taken place yet, so there is no abortion taking place. This is probably what most laypersons are aware of. However, scientists soon discovered the third mechanism of action, which is tantamount to early chemical abortion.
   At any given time, one does not know which of these three recognized mechanisms of actions are at work, and there are pregnancies known to occur in women who take the pill without fail, so all three mechanisms of action can fail as well.
   If you’re all wondering, I’m a licensed medical doctor in my country, pro-life, and following the right bioethical standards as taught to me in my medical school (by a pro-life bioethics faculty member). .I have never dispensed contraceptives nor have ever inserted an IUD, nor do I assist in bilateral tubal ligations or vasectomies while training to be a general practitioner.
   Please check this blog (I am one of the many contributors) for more anti-rh views and arguments from Filipinos. filipinosforlife.com

Thank God for doctors like you. May your kind fluorish and multiply. We really need doctors like you who have the courage to speak up against RH bill.

 

[Warrior1979]

Thank God for doctors like you. May your kind fluorish and multiply. We really need doctors like you who have the courage to speak up against RH bill.

Keep in mind that the study does indicate that the rate of non-optimally timed conceptions results in a higher abortion rate than optimally timed conceptions. It just so happens that those with prior pregnancy loss have a higher rate.

The problem with examining such things in detail means that knowledge is increased. If the study is indeed true, it follows that acceptance of NFP means acceptance of the possibility of abortion when practicing NFP.

 

[seeking_light]

I have to sympathise, here in england succesive goverments have pushed the age of sex education younger and younger (and im not talking about educating morals im talking about “this is how you do it boys and girls”) and then sought to combat tenage pregnancy by not only offering condoms free regardless of age but now girls as young as 12 are able to be perscribed the pill without parents being informed despite the legal age of consent being 16

if the state is concerned with pregnancy rates maby it should concentrate on educating people about responsable attitudes towards sex rather promoting “safe sex”