Doctors who say "artificial contraception methods are not abortifacient"

[3DOCTORS]

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.

Key word is “spontaneous” as in natural, not induced. There is understandable semantic confusion occurring in many people’s minds due to the unfortunate fact that the word “abortion” is used for both the natural ones and the induced ones in the first trimester.

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?

Using the Pill for birth control is the sin; surrendering one’s fertility to God’s will and experiencing a natural loss is no sin. Hopefully in the future there might even be ways of preventing more of the natural losses. I’m not a doctor so I don’t know about what can be proven - though I’d think that with the use of NFP something might be detectable? Someone with more experience please chime in as to whether this is the case or not.

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.

This may account for a lot of the confusion in the minds of the general public if they believe implantation is the critical determinant of what’s considered an (induced, early) abortion.

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.

The Church teaches that human life begins with conception. And that human life is sacred.

 

[razredge]

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.

That’s my point - as Listener stated a far greater likelihood of miscarriages exist when using NFP as compared to the Pill, so the argument against contraception using abortion fails.

If each embryo really is a person and we really do care about them dying (intentional or not) we should use the Pill or even better condoms and other barrier methods.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

That’s my point - as Listener stated a far greater likelihood of miscarriages exist when using NFP as compared to the Pill, so the argument against contraception using abortion fails.

Regarding what you said here, I would like to point out what 3DOCTORS said (see below), which I agree with:

Key word is “spontaneous” as in natural, not induced.

Spontaneous abortion is unintentional and is of no fault of the mother. One cannot say the same if abortion is induced, especially when uterus is made inhospitable to implantation of newly created life. While pills and other artificial contraceptive methods have primary actions, they also have secondary actions, in case fertilization is not prevented.

For spontaneous abortion…a Catholic does not have to confess that to a priest…not the same if its induced.

If each embryo really is a person and we really do care about them dying (intentional or not) we should use the Pill or even better condoms and other barrier methods.

One of the problems with barrier methods is that it does not prevent STDs…example would be HPV which can be passed on through skin to skin contact which barrier methods cannot prevent. HPV is one of the main causes cervical cancer in women.

That is why I agree with what seeking light said here:

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

 

[3DOCTORS]

I don’t know if this is relevant at all or not, but I’ll throw it out there because it may be of some use to someone.

Before my hysterectomy, I suffered from heavy periods. In my search for a solution I was told about the books by Dr. John Lee. Basically Dr. Lee focuses on estrogen overload and proposes that women may need to supplement with natural progesterone to correct this. He identifies some of the causes of the estrogen overload as being environmental - petrochemicals and the like.

Young girls are coming into puberty early and I wonder how much of that is due to the food supply and chemicals in industrialized countries like the US.

How this fits with this thread - it came to my mind “What if the women practicing NFP were having more spontaneous early miscarriages due to environmental and dietary factors? What if such a thing is not normal - and could be correctable with proper diet and such?” It’s at least worth looking into.

Also a lot of the birth control pill hormones get into the water system and that affects many people and animals.

Just off the top of my head, all this, for whatever it’s worth. We’ve altered God’s world in many ways without knowing what the potential consequences might be. Again, I could be wrong on this but maybe NFP really isn’t the “cause” of some of those early-early miscarriages.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

I don’t know if this is relevant at all or not, but I’ll throw it out there because it may be of some use to someone.

Before my hysterectomy, I suffered from heavy periods. In my search for a solution I was told about the books by Dr. John Lee. Basically Dr. Lee focuses on estrogen overload and proposes that women may need to supplement with natural progesterone to correct this. He identifies some of the causes of the estrogen overload as being environmental - petrochemicals and the like.

Young girls are coming into puberty early and I wonder how much of that is due to the food supply and chemicals in industrialized countries like the US.

How this fits with this thread - it came to my mind “What if the women practicing NFP were having more spontaneous early miscarriages due to environmental and dietary factors? What if such a thing is not normal - and could be correctable with proper diet and such?” It’s at least worth looking into.

Also a lot of the birth control pill hormones get into the water system and that affects many people and animals.

Just off the top of my head, all this, for whatever it’s worth. We’ve altered God’s world in many ways without knowing what the potential consequences might be. Again, I could be wrong on this but maybe NFP really isn’t the “cause” of some of those early-early miscarriages.

No…I don’t think this is irrelevant. Many “innovative” products seem to come out of markets promoted by big companies at the outset…but much later on we get to find out that not only it may bad for the environment…it may also affect the health of people adversely.

To be honest I was one of those who joined bandwagon that believed so much in this antibacterial toothpaste…for one, I used it myself (for years!) because I liked the results I got when I used it…

I was prescribing it to my patients because I believed in it and felt assured that the product was a well studied and tested one.

Then much, much later, I found out that the antibacterial ingredient could negatively impact the health of people…affecting thyroid and estrrogen levels…and sometimes found in cord blood and may affect fetal growth… which can possibly lead to a miscarriages. I was aghast!

See article:

scribd.com/doc/50711593/Triclosan-What-the-Research-Shows-2008-2010

My personal opinion on this antibacterial ingredient is new and greatly affected by this article…however, I can’t say other doctors are wrong if they believe otherwise. They may have their reasons to comtinue believing in the product.

As for diet…yes…I agree…too much fat cells in the body affects estrogen levels too and I believe related to Polycystic ovarian syndrome. One more reason for us women to watch our weights, I suppose.

Anyway…I agree with you that it may not be NFP that causes those early miscarriages. We also have to look at other possible causes too.

 

[Newborn]

Even a group of Pro-Life physicians have concluded that The Pill is not, in fact, abortifacient.

The fact is, the “hostile endometrium” effect that might cause the zygote from a freak ovulation to not implant…is exactly the same in NFP.

In either case, the Pill or NFP, the primary mechanism is supposed to be that there is no ovulation (either because it is suppressed, or because it’s the wrong time of month). BUT, there is always a risk in either case that an egg will “slip through the cracks” spontaneously, and then face an endometrium unprepared for it and so not implant.

But the woman isn’t intending this in either case, and the risk of such a freak ovulation is so small that the Church doesn’t consider it morally relevant when practicing NFP, so why should it be any different on the Pill?

If a freak ovulation occurs during an infertile period (whether that period is natural or induced artificially), then there is always a risk the endometrium won’t be ready to receive it. But the Church doesn’t ban NFP (or sex during early pregnancy; freak ovulations can even still happen then too!) on this ground, so I don’t see why the Pill should be singled out for the “abortifacient” effect when it’s equally true for NFP.

I’m not saying I support The Pill, just that it seems to me unfounded to claim it is abortifacient just based on the risk of an unprepared endometrium for a freak ovulation that occurs during ANY infertile period, natural or artificial, when the primary intent in either case is to avoid ovulation altogether.

There is a good discussion of the question in the comments section of this post here:
renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2010/04/jumping-to-conclusions.html

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Even a group of Pro-Life physicians have concluded that The Pill is not, in fact, abortifacient.

I heard the some pro-choice politicians call themselves pro-life too. It made me cringe. The way I saw it…pro-life to them means “saving the women” from a life of hardship …

They fail to grasp and announce to the public that these pills may cause health problems in women … they are classified as carcinogenic, they increase the risk for heart attack, blood clots…etc…

Can you imagine if it gets promoted nationwide and users of these pills multiply…so will those who suffer from the health problems I mentioned will also multiply! I really, really wonder then, what the rush is to pass this RH bill because it being pro-women and pro-life is a farce.

Secondly, while the primary action is preventing ovulation…there is a secondary action that can occur if fertilization does occur…since the lining of the uterus is unprepared to accept the fertilized egg (new life) it will be expelled or killed. Let’s say if this occurs 1% of the time …it still matters! We are talking about life …and the loss of even one should matter to all of us.

I suggest that you buy a pill (I don’t sugget you use it though)…but read the manufacturer’s pamphlet that goes with it and you will be enlightened.

How can one be pro-life when the pro-choice people say they protect women but turn a blind eye on another human being who will be most affected…the unborn child? To be pro-life one has to protect BOTH the woman and the unborn child!

Knowing the health risk that are involved, I really question the good intentions this bill has for the women of my country.

A Miscarriage while a woman is using NFP is not the fault of the woman and is not intentional because it is something that happened naturally (perhaps there was something wrong with the embryo or fetus in the first place)…one does not have to go to a priest and confess it.

My opinion is that it is not the same if one knowingly takes medicine (birth control pill) that has the possibility of expelling the fertilized ovum and killing the unborn child. because it will be like playing russian roulette with the unborn baby’s life.

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Rence
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.

Yes, that’s a problem — for someone Catholic— the problem being that a non-Catholic doesn’t usually share the same view as the Catholic who is taught by the Church that pregnancy starts with conception. Most of the rest of the world believes pregnancy starts with implantation and it shows in the rates of contraceptive usage.

The Church teaches that human life begins with conception. And that human life is sacred.

Yes, that’s what I said: The Church teaches that pregnancy begins with conception.

 

[Newborn]

A Miscarriage while a woman is using NFP is not the fault of the woman and is not intentional because it is something that happened naturally (perhaps there was something wrong with the embryo or fetus in the first place)…one does not have to go to a priest and confess it.

No, miscarriages by this mechanism on NFP happen for the same reason as on the Pill: the woman (and man) have risked fertilizing a “freak ovulation” at a time when the endometrium won’t be prepared to receive it.

This is not an “extra” mechanism added to the Pill as a “failsafe”…it is simply the result of how the Pill suppresses ovulation in the first place: making the woman’s body think that it’s already pregnant, basically. Which, of course, will lead to both no ovulations (usually) but also no receptive endometrium, similar to a woman’s natural infertile period.

I will fully admit, as an orthodox pro-life anti-contraception Catholic myself…that the initial act of causing sterility, of artificially inducing a perpetual infertile period in the first place…is sinful.

But, once the Pill has been taken, the body is in the same state as NFP. No additional culpability can be attributed for the risk of miscarriage when there’s a freak ovulation. The culpability is no more than the fact that the endometrium ALSO won’t be ready when there is a freak ovulation during the natural infertile period on NFP.

If a risk is acceptable…it’s acceptable. It is not morally relevant, when it comes to taking the risk itself, whether you caused the situation leading to the risk or not, nor whether sin lead to the context in which the risk took place, if the act is taking place after-the-fact. Yes, taking the Pill in the first place is wrong, but once the infertility has been induced…the risk of a a freak-ovulation and non-receptive-endometrium is the same as when having sex during that phase of the cycle on NFP. If the risk is acceptable in a situation where this is natural, it is the same in a situation where it was caused artificially and sinfully.

For example, if a power-line is down on the road and a father is running from a bear…it may be an acceptable risk for him to throw his son over the other side of the downed line even though there is a small risk the son will land in the puddle and be electrocuted. Now, it would make NO moral difference, when it came to the risk of throwing the son, if the father had himself been the one who released the bear from its cage and knocked down the power line. It was definitely wrong for him to do either of those things in the first place, but after the fact, considering only the act itself…there is no more culpability attached to the risk of trying to save his son by throwing him over the downed line than there is if the father hadn’t been the one who downed it. After the fact, the situation is what it is and the risk must be considered only in-itself morally speaking.

This is basic moral theology: the culpability that may be involved in creating a risky situation in the first place…does not extend to the question of the culpability of actually taking a risk after-the-fact once the situation is already extant.

For example, driving under the influence of impairing drugs is equally sinful a risk whether you took those drugs recreationally (and sinfully) or whether you took them for a valid medical reason. The fact that you got impaired sinfully in one case and legitimately in the other…doesn’t affect the culpability of taking the risk ONCE the situation (of the impairment) is already in place.

The same goes for a freak ovulation and non-receptive endometrium on the Pill vs NFP. Yes, to create infertility artificially is wrong whereas to accept that which occurs naturally is okay. But once the infertility is there, the risk of freak ovulation and non-receptive endometrium is the same, and the culpability is the same.

If it weren’t, the Church wouldn’t allow people to take the Pill for valid medical reasons (wherein the infertility is just a side effect), or would require they abstain from sex while on it for those reasons. But they don’t. Yet, the risk is the same either way. But it’s obviously considered a low enough risk that it’s not considered morally relevant. But if that’s the case, then that remains true even if the situation was caused in a sinful manner. The culpability for a sin does not extend into all its unintended effects.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Don’t have time for a long answer right now but I think I understand what you’re getting at. I’m not sure if I agree. What I do think, though, is that it’s only been recently that we’ve known these things about NFP in such detail, correct?

And the Church does teach that we shouldn’t just look at NFP as “Catholic birth control” - so maybe we just need to re-examine our hearts.

Obviously for thousands of years these early-early miscarriages have happened without anyone’s noticing it. So it’s just the abundant way God created the natural world. I was an only child, so I think it’d be cool if I had some unknown siblings that I’ll meet in Heaven. And I just might - my parents even used the old “Rhythm” method, I was told.

Bottom line, I think we just all need to have an attitude adjustment to really cherish human life. Easier said than done in this culture, I know, but we can make a start. The first place would be to stop thinking what is the minimum we can “get away with” and start thinking “how can we be truly generous.”

 

[Listener]

Even a group of Pro-Life physicians have concluded that The Pill is not, in fact, abortifacient.

The fact is, the “hostile endometrium” effect that might cause the zygote from a freak ovulation to not implant…is exactly the same in NFP.

In either case, the Pill or NFP, the primary mechanism is supposed to be that there is no ovulation (either because it is suppressed, or because it’s the wrong time of month). BUT, there is always a risk in either case that an egg will “slip through the cracks” spontaneously, and then face an endometrium unprepared for it and so not implant.

But the woman isn’t intending this in either case, and the risk of such a freak ovulation is so small that the Church doesn’t consider it morally relevant when practicing NFP, so why should it be any different on the Pill?

If a freak ovulation occurs during an infertile period (whether that period is natural or induced artificially), then there is always a risk the endometrium won’t be ready to receive it. But the Church doesn’t ban NFP (or sex during early pregnancy; freak ovulations can even still happen then too!) on this ground, so I don’t see why the Pill should be singled out for the “abortifacient” effect when it’s equally true for NFP.

I’m not saying I support The Pill, just that it seems to me unfounded to claim it is abortifacient just based on the risk of an unprepared endometrium for a freak ovulation that occurs during ANY infertile period, natural or artificial, when the primary intent in either case is to avoid ovulation altogether.

There is a good discussion of the question in the comments section of this post here:
renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2010/04/jumping-to-conclusions.html

This quote explains my opinion really well. It’s almost as though we are prejudiced against the pill because it is sometimes used as a contraceptive. Have you ever read the instruction street that comes with other prescription drugs? A very large number of these instructions say, “Talk to your doctor about this drug is you are pregnant or likely to become pregnant.” I wouldn’t be surprised if there are dozens of drugs that would make it harder for implantation to occur.

I just feel that since there is no way a woman can know that this is happening, she can’t be guilty of any wrongdoing.

On the other hand, if it could be proven that a drug prevented implantation consistently every month, I think you would have a moral problem on your hands.

 

[samiam1611]

On the other hand, if it could be proven that a drug prevented implantation consistently every month, I think you would have a moral problem on your hands.

There is one, actually. It’s called ormeloxifene.

I don’t see what the problem is. Contragestives don’t seem like abortifacients to me. I don’t think an occasional egg and sperm meeting up but not finding a happy home is killing.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Even a group of Pro-Life physicians have concluded that The Pill is not, in fact, abortifacient.

I noticed that the article you mentioned above is dated January 1998.

When I was studying in school, a few years back, our research professor told us not to use articles for our research project dated beyond 10 years. The reason was that in science there are always new discoveries and a better understanding of issues year after year. Her instruction to us was to ensure that the research project we were to submit to her is still current and revelant to the day.

An example I can give is the fairly more recent news that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which is under the World Health Organization (WHO) had classified the contraceptive pills as highly carcinogenic last July 29, 2005. Please see article below.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1950/80/5080803

This, aside from increased risk for heart attack and stroke and other side effects of contraceptives and the bad effect of the hormones to our environment are some of the issues being tackled today.

Given all these fairly recent news, as a Catholic in healthcare, it makes it harder for me to extol the virtues of these drugs to others.

When I was still studying, I had to attend a lecture in a healthcare center on how to talk to women about the contraceptive methods. It made my skin crawl to hear the lecturer, who I believe, was a healthcare worker working for the local government there, lump up natural family planning and artificial family planning methods in the overly-simplified and all-encompassing statement. “these are all safe.”

It made me wonder if the women of the area were really given information for getting informed consent from them or edited ones geared to dispense more artificial contraceptives. To me, this may be a preview of the kind of lectures more of our women will be getting from “trained” healthcare professional if the RH bill is passed.

(see continuation next post)

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

(continuation)

Regarding what you said here too:

Even a group of Pro-Life physicians have concluded that The Pill is not, in fact, abortifacient.

Reading through the article, I did not get the sense that there was conclusion made. In fact, in the summary (#5), it said:

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.

…and also, it said here:

Is it possible that hormonal contraceptives may be responsible for the loss of blastocysts in some instances? In medicine, anything is possible.

To me, it means that the authors still acknowledge that the possibility still exists that these drugs may be abortifacient.

The priest in last Sunday’s mass I attended quoted an article which had been recently published in an official school newspaper of a big Catholic university (which also had a teaching medical hospital). He said in the homily that old contraceptive pills used to prevent just ovulation but not much now because of its many bad side effects. Nowadays, the more commonly prescribed pills are the combination of estrogen and progestin. These hormones may have 2 actions. One, it prevents ovulation. However, if ovulation and fertilization still does occur, it has a secondary action of not preparing the uterus for implantation, which in Catholic teaching is abortifacient.

Knowing about the actions of these hormones and how they affect our body, it is easy to understand the latter effect.

Also, it must be emphasized that right compliance, that is, correct usage of the drugs is needed for it to work. Still, even with best compliance, there is no guarantee that no fertilization and no abortion will happen.

Our bodies function best if it is in a state of homeostasis, that is a state of equilibrium. There is the right amount of these hormones normally in our bodies. If we take in extra hormones, we tip the balance and many bad side effects can occur as we are finding out.

Given this, I would like to ask why proponents of this bill want to classify these contraceptive pills as essential medicines…when pregnancy is not a disease and it is an insult to the word “medicine” as it can do the exact opposite for a woman who is functioning normally physiologically.

With regards to what you said here:

****In either case, the Pill or NFP, the primary mechanism is supposed to be that there is no ovulation (either because it is suppressed, or because it’s the wrong time of month). BUT, there is always a risk in either case that an egg will “slip through the cracks” spontaneously, and then face an endometrium unprepared for it and so not implant.

But the woman isn’t intending this in either case, and the risk of such a freak ovulation is so small that the Church doesn’t consider it morally relevant when practicing NFP, so why should it be any different on the Pill?****

My opinion is that in NFP, a woman who suffers a miscarriage if a “freak” ovulation and fertilization occurs is not culpable of sin because she did not do anything (take drugs like pills) to make her uterus in a state of unpreparedness. All of it is just part of her body’s natural process. Whereas, the woman who suffers a miscarriage after a “freak” ovulation while taking pills is culpable because she did take in something in — outside what is natural----hormones that tipped the homeostasis of her body to produce the effect of an unprepared womb for implantation. My opinion is that this is a sin, especially at this age, when information regarding the actions of these hormones in the body are widely available.

Also, I disagree with what samiam1611 said here:

I don’t see what the problem is. Contragestives don’t seem like abortifacients to me. I don’t think an occasional egg and sperm meeting up but not finding a happy home is killing.

In my opinion, it is not an issue of “occasional egg and sperm meeting up but not finding a happy home” because to Catholics a fertilized ovum is a life and is precious in the eyes of God and should be protected from very first moment of its existence.
Our constitution recognizes the preciousness of life at conception but some of our lawmakers, proponents of this bill seem to want to ignore this part of our Constitution.