Does all contraceptive pills cause Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter robin_hood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

robin_hood

Guest
During the week my wife needed to see the nurse at our local medical centre, the nurse who is new turned out to be Muslim. The nurse noticed my wifes pro life badge and mentioned that she too was pro life and that she does not refer patients for abortions or hand out contraceptive pills that abort. But she said that she hands out the pills that only stop ovulation but dont cause abortions, I personally thaught that all the contraceptive pills had the ability to cause abortions but I am no medical expert.
Any medical experts out there who can help:confused:
 
robin_hood said:
During the week my wife needed to see the nurse at our local medical centre, the nurse who is new turned out to be Muslim. The nurse noticed my wifes pro life badge and mentioned that she too was pro life and that she does not refer patients for abortions or hand out contraceptive pills that abort. But she said that she hands out the pills that only stop ovulation but dont cause abortions, I personally thaught that all the contraceptive pills had the ability to cause abortions but I am no medical expert.
Any medical experts out there who can help:confused:
Click to expand...
caveat: I do not claim to be a medical expert, but I have studied it a little bit

There are two types of hormonal contraceptives in use: One of the methods uses a combination of estrogen and progestogen (two hormones involved with the reproductive cycle). The other one uses progestogen only. They can both be administered in varying ways, one of which is an oral contraceptive. (Other ways include patches, implants, as a component of an IUD, or injections…but the mechanism works essentially the same)

There are basically three mechanisms that either of these types of contraceptive use:

The first mechanism inhibits the development of follicles within the ovary that then produce the eggs. This is the primary mechanism upon which they depend. No eggs…no pregnancy.

The second mechanism changes the viscosity of the cervical mucous, thus making it more difficult for sperm to leave the vagina and enter the uterus and fallopian tubes. If the sperm doesn’t get to the released egg…no pregnancy.

The third mechanism is to atrophy the endometrium, making it far less likely for a blastocyst (an early stage baby) to implant.

Now, here’s the little trick used by the medical community:
  • An abortion is the early termination of a pregnancy, right?
  • Well, “big pharma” has worked to get pregnancy officially defined as from the point of implantation, not from the point of fertilization.
Therefore, using terminology acknowledged by the medical community, birth control pills do not technically cause abortions. However, using the terms of life, one of the mechanisms that birth control uses is that it can. We pro-lifers believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization.

So there are two questions for your wife to ask?
  • Can this birth control method prevent implantation of a blastocyst? (If the answer is yes…then as a pro-lifer, her answer should be no, thank you)
  • If they hedge on the answer to the first one, the next question to ask is: do the effects of this birth control include a thinning and atrophying of the endometrium? If the answer is yes, then consider that an atrophied endometrium will not allow an egg to implant.
The best thing to do is to look into Natural Family Planning. Done right, it is as effective if not more effective than any artificial method. If you insist upon using some type of artificial contraception, I would suggest that you avoid any type of hormonal-based contraception. The long term side effects are not all that good. You also do take a chance that a baby, in the earliest stages of development, will be killed. A small chance, but it does exist.

Again, I do not claim to be a medical expert. The above is the result of self-study on the subject
 
markomalley said:
caveat: I do not claim to be a medical expert, but I have studied it a little bit

There are two types of hormonal contraceptives in use: One of the methods uses a combination of estrogen and progestogen (two hormones involved with the reproductive cycle). The other one uses progestogen only. They can both be administered in varying ways, one of which is an oral contraceptive. (Other ways include patches, implants, as a component of an IUD, or injections…but the mechanism works essentially the same)

There are basically three mechanisms that either of these types of contraceptive use:

The first mechanism inhibits the development of follicles within the ovary that then produce the eggs. This is the primary mechanism upon which they depend. No eggs…no pregnancy.

The second mechanism changes the viscosity of the cervical mucous, thus making it more difficult for sperm to leave the vagina and enter the uterus and fallopian tubes. If the sperm doesn’t get to the released egg…no pregnancy.

The third mechanism is to atrophy the endometrium, making it far less likely for a blastocyst (an early stage baby) to implant.

Now, here’s the little trick used by the medical community:
  • An abortion is the early termination of a pregnancy, right?
  • Well, “big pharma” has worked to get pregnancy officially defined as from the point of implantation, not from the point of fertilization.
Therefore, using terminology acknowledged by the medical community, birth control pills do not technically cause abortions. However, using the terms of life, one of the mechanisms that birth control uses is that it can. We pro-lifers believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization.

So there are two questions for your wife to ask?
  • Can this birth control method prevent implantation of a blastocyst? (If the answer is yes…then as a pro-lifer, her answer should be no, thank you)
  • If they hedge on the answer to the first one, the next question to ask is: do the effects of this birth control include a thinning and atrophying of the endometrium? If the answer is yes, then consider that an atrophied endometrium will not allow an egg to implant.
The best thing to do is to look into Natural Family Planning. Done right, it is as effective if not more effective than any artificial method. If you insist upon using some type of artificial contraception, I would suggest that you avoid any type of hormonal-based contraception. The long term side effects are not all that good. You also do take a chance that a baby, in the earliest stages of development, will be killed. A small chance, but it does exist.

Again, I do not claim to be a medical expert. The above is the result of self-study on the subject
Click to expand...
I’m no expert either but those three mechanisms of action of hormonal contraceptives are written in my obstetrics and gynecology textbooks. The third one precisely describes a hormonally induced abortion.
 
robin_hood said:
During the week my wife needed to see the nurse at our local medical centre, the nurse who is new turned out to be Muslim. The nurse noticed my wifes pro life badge and mentioned that she too was pro life and that she does not refer patients for abortions or hand out contraceptive pills that abort. But she said that she hands out the pills that only stop ovulation but dont cause abortions, I personally thaught that all the contraceptive pills had the ability to cause abortions but I am no medical expert.
Any medical experts out there who can help:confused:
Click to expand...
If you take the pills correctly it will nearly always prevent ovulation. If my some miracle you ovulate, the mucus of the vagina is thickened making is nearly impossible for the sperm to make it to the ovum. If all of this fails (You have a better chance of winning the lotto at this point) the uterine lining is thinned so a fertilized egg more than likely won’t implant. However, by this point, the fertilized egg is still more likely to implant than not to. This is why there are so many birth control pill babies. By the time you ovulate, and if the sperm makes it though, you are VERY likely to get pregnant. About as much as if you weren’t on the pill.

The function of the pill says that the egg shouldn’t really implant, but if there is a fertilized egg in the uterus, it usually does implant, and there is no real evedence in the medical community to prove that it causes an abortion. It’s put on the labels as precautionary to say this COULD happen. Just like you COULD get struck by lightning while scuba diving in jello pudding.

My doctor told me that if I wished to not even take a chance, I have to take my pill at the EXACT same time every day. If I did this my chances are so low, it would be a miracle for it to happen. He said though, that if i did ovulate, and I had sex, I would get pregnant. This is just how it works, and why 3-6 women out of 100 on it get pregnant each year.

Now, every ABC pill does this to some degree or another. So really it’s up to you. I dn’t reccomend the pill for contraception at all (not that i reccomend contracepting in the least. NFP is the healthiest way to go by far) the pill was originally designed to ease the pain, and treat women who suffer dibilitating periods, and that is how it needs to be used. To use it for anything other than that is abuse of medication IMHO.

Point of interest: I’m taking the pill for medical treatment. Perfectly allowable by JPII.
 
Here’s my reasoning:

The woman’s monthly cycle is based on her body preparing the uterous for conception and implantation. When that doesn’t occur, all the extra tissue prepared for potential implantation is discharged (thus the bleeding).

The pill suppresses the preparation of the uterous (which is why you can indefinately eliminate a period by skipping the placebo pills).

Given that the body naturally thickens the uterous to enhance implantation and given that the pill prevents this, it logically follows that the pill increases the chance that a breakthrough ovulation won’t implant.

In fairness, nobody REALLY knows how often this happens. You could only learn that via experiments and thank God that hasn’t happened.
 
I’d be a little weary about this doctor too. One should not take anything to prevent pregnancy.
 
robin_hood said:
During the week my wife needed to see the nurse at our local medical centre, the nurse who is new turned out to be Muslim. The nurse noticed my wifes pro life badge and mentioned that she too was pro life and that she does not refer patients for abortions or hand out contraceptive pills that abort. But she said that she hands out the pills that only stop ovulation but dont cause abortions, I personally thaught that all the contraceptive pills had the ability to cause abortions but I am no medical expert.
Any medical experts out there who can help:confused:
Click to expand...
I am a doctor of pharmacy, and yes, ALL hormonal forms of ‘birth control’ act as an abortifacient by rendering the endometrium incapable of sustaining life. This includes IUD’s, patches, rings, and pills.
 
Delphinus85 said:
Point of interest: I’m taking the pill for medical treatment. Perfectly allowable by JPII.
Click to expand...
Only if you aren’t having marital relations. It says nothing of abortifacients… only if treatment renders one incapable of having children… nothing is said of abortifacients which the pill is… abortifacient.
 
pill was originally designed to ease the pain, and treat women who suffer dibilitating periods,
Click to expand...
I’d like to see proof of this. Everything I’ve read shows they were going for a contraceptive pill.Margaret Sanger , the founder of Planned Parenthood even gave a grant toward it. That it might help some symptoms is a secondary effect.

Catholic NFP only doctors have repeatedly stated that the pill is not necessary to treat any problems. Other means are available.
 
Seatuck said:
I’d like to see proof of this. Everything I’ve read shows they were going for a contraceptive pill.Margaret Sanger , the founder of Planned Parenthood even gave a grant toward it. That it might help some symptoms is a secondary effect.

Catholic NFP only doctors have repeatedly stated that the pill is not necessary to treat any problems. Other means are available.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The development of combination hormonal contraceptives were with abortifacient means in mind. They were originally called ‘implantation inhibitors’ and were studied on rats who were given estrogen/progesterone combinations… then attempts at introducing fertilized eggs into their wombs were shown to be in vain due to them being flushed.

Sanger jumped on this as having application in humans on a broad scale.
 
aaronlgates said:
I am a doctor of pharmacy, and yes, ALL hormonal forms of ‘birth control’ act as an abortifacient by rendering the endometrium incapable of sustaining life. This includes IUD’s, patches, rings, and pills.
Click to expand...
Point taken, but if there was no ovulation, there is no abortion. IUDs act differently than hormonal medication, no?

(That’s not to say that any of these methods are acceptable, unless for another medical condition, or that you’re incorrect, just to clarify in response to the OP) 👍
 
IUDs act differently than hormonal medication, no?
Click to expand...
There are IUDs that contain hormones. Mirena is an example.
From the Mirena website:
**Mirena (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) is an estrogen-free intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) that delivers small amounts of hormone directly to the uterus. **There is no single explanation of how Mirena works. Mirena may:
  • Block sperm from reaching or fertilizing your egg
  • Make the lining of your uterus thin (this may also result in benefits like less menstrual bleeding over time)
  • Stop the release of your egg from your ovary (but this may not be the way it works in most cases)
    It is believed that all 3 of these actions may work together to prevent pregnancy.
Click to expand...
 
Lady_D_I said:
There are IUDs that contain hormones. Mirena is an example.
From the Mirena website:
Click to expand...
Roger.

Traditional IUD’s are made of copper and irritate the lining of the uterus causing flushing of the fertilized egg. Mirena acts as Lady D just mentioned… basically the same abortifacient results but perhaps not as often as with copper.
 
Newbie2 said:
Point taken, but if there was no ovulation, there is no abortion. IUDs act differently than hormonal medication, no?

(That’s not to say that any of these methods are acceptable, unless for another medical condition, or that you’re incorrect, just to clarify in response to the OP) 👍
Click to expand...
Right… while combination hormonal contraception was actually initially studied as abortifacient ‘implantation inhibitors’, the literature cites the primary mechanism of hormonal contraception to be the prevention of ovulation… secondly it thickens cervical mucus which inhibits sperm motility(they can’t reach the egg when and if it DOES get released)… and thirdly it renders the endometrium inhospitable to the fertilized egg in the event mechanism #'s 1 AND 2 fail.

Mechanism #1 and #2 fail fairly regularly, and it depends upon the product as to how often the abortifacient mechanism actually comes into play. It is still a fairly small percentage of the time… but not nearly as infrequent as some would like to say… while percentages are not always meaningful, between 5 and 30 percent of the time is often quoted… with the minipill(pop) upwards of 50% of the time.
 
Newbie2 said:
Point taken, but if there was no ovulation, there is no abortion. IUDs act differently than hormonal medication, no?

(That’s not to say that any of these methods are acceptable, unless for another medical condition, or that you’re incorrect, just to clarify in response to the OP) 👍
Click to expand...
You are correct, no ovulation equates to no abortion. Depending on the motives, inhibiting ovulation can also be a sin, but it is not the sin of abortion.

A good example of this would be Plan B as a post rape treatment. The principle effect of the drug is it suppresses a hormornal spike that, in turn, stops ovulation. Thus, it must be taken promptly and still has a fairly high ‘failure’ rate compared to most conventional forms of contraception.

By itself, this would be licid for rape treatment in Catholic hospitals. Rape is not viewed as free, natural, human sexual relations, but a sinful act of violence to which a woman has some right of self defense.

However, a noted side effect of Plan B is a slight thinning of the lining. There is no evidence from clinical testing that this causes spontaneous abortions or birth defects of any kind. However, even the maker acknowledges that the thinning itself might partially inhibit implanation. In secular medical terms, this is still not an abortion. But in Catholic terms, with human life beginning at fertilization, it is. So the drug is deemed potentially an abortificant.

Most Catholic hospitals were still willing to dispense the drug to rape victims, but only after an ovulation test. That is, they would allow ovulation to be inhibited, but did not want to risk impeding implanation in any way. The problem is that ovlulatuion tests are generally time consuming, greatingly reducing the chances of effective treatment. So, in order to meet the requirements of laws concerning the rights of victims, several Archdiocese have compromised. They will administer the drug in the case of rape after a negative pregnancy test.

In this case, the compromise was probably reasonable since the ‘abortive’ effect was not significant enough to show up in clincial data (hence purely theoretical). Had the effect been more than theory, I think that the Church would not have yielded.
 
SoCal,

Your post made me realize an interesting potential side effect of the practice of NFP. NFP practitioners will know if they have ovulated and can make informed decisions in the event of (God forbid) a rape. If her symptoms indicate that she has not ovulated yet she can defend herself against her rapist by supressing ovulation after the fact with the “Emergency Contraception” pill without moral issues. Little known fact.
 
manualman said:
SoCal,

Your post made me realize an interesting potential side effect of the practice of NFP. NFP practitioners will know if they have ovulated and can make informed decisions in the event of (God forbid) a rape. If her symptoms indicate that she has not ovulated yet she can defend herself against her rapist by supressing ovulation after the fact with the “Emergency Contraception” pill without moral issues. Little known fact.
Click to expand...
Actually, NFP works very much like Plan B, even potentiallly lowering the odds of implantation should fertilization occur. But it is a wholly natural process and has been deemed licit by the Church.
 
SoCalRC said:
Actually, NFP works very much like Plan B, even potentiallly lowering the odds of implantation should fertilization occur. But it is a wholly natural process and has been deemed licit by the Church.
Click to expand...
Say what???

:confused:

What does NFP (what activity) mean in your dictionary?

I think you need to explain the reasoning behind your statement.
 
On the original topic:

While there is evidence that hormonal birth control decreases uterine lining thickness, this phenomenon has never been definitively demonstrated necessary and sufficient to cause failed implantation.

If hormonal birth control were being introduced today, and its FDA application directly stated that it prevents implantation with current evidence, the FDA would unanimously deny its approval.

Consider a drug application that states Drug A does X, Y, and Z. The FDA must approve the drug based on the merits of all the data for each. The FDA would look at the data for causing failed implantation and simply laugh.

If Roe v Wade is overturned, you won’t see hormonal birth control being made illegal. Griswold vs Connecticuit is not able to be overturned based on the USSC makeup (7-2 as of now in favor) and neither will Eisenstadt vs Baird.

If there are Human Life Amendments in the states, then all drug companies have to do is revise their FDA application showing that there is no credible evidence that HBC prevents implantation. Thus, HBC will be fully covered under Griswold, and can never be made illegal.

Short of Constitutional Amendment that specifically addresses HBC, it can’t be made illegal because its primary purpose is contraception, and if at all, may increase the likelihood of failed implantation. Many other drugs can mess with implantation, but won’t be rendered illegal for their intended purpose. Side effects are just those; side effects.

That is just reality. More than 80% of the US supports contraception, and that number is not going to decrease.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top