Does all contraceptive pills cause Abortion

[seekerz]

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.

Actually, hormonal birth control may render the endometrium hostile to implantation. How often the pill acts as an abortificent is anybody’s guess, but the mere existence of “pill babies” (conceived despite daily pill use) suggests that this effect is not always at play in everyone.

Just thought I’d throw this out there, since some women do use the pill for medical reasons and that is, to my knowledge, perfectly licit.

As to the comment about Catholic NFP doctors asserting that the pill is not needed for medical conditions, doctors can and do disagree among themselves. Those who for whatever reason do not have access to Catholic NFP doctors should not distress themselves but seek moral guidance from a priest.

 

[Jeanne_dArc]

The pill does cause abortions, it does by starving the 1-2 week old child. The pill causes the uterine glands (that produce uterine milk for the newly developing baby) to stop producing nutrients, thus the baby starves and dies.

The early versions of the pill stopped ovulation, however the modern versions of the pill only slightly suppresses ovulation, this allowing for common break through ovulations. So as a second measure the modern day pill causes the uterine glands to stop producing uterine milk. (Uterine milk is the term for nutrients produced in the uterine glands in the womb, that support the developing baby.)

 

[manualman]

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.

That is just reality. More than 80% of the US supports contraception, and that number is not going to decrease.

Item 1. True. Noone has ever done controlled studies to determine how often the pill actually results in fertilization, but failure to implant. The only ways I can think of to study this are ghastly indeed. How would YOU go about it?

Item 2: Who gave you a crystal ball for the future? On the contrary, if we catholics live our faith joyfully and hold our lamps high the culture of life will win out on the culture of death, regardless of how bad it looks just now. Things have looked bad for the faithful before and yet God continues to manage to pull off miracles. I tend to think rather more than 80% currently support it. No matter, morality is not a popularity contest.

 

[manualman]

Say what???



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

I think you need to explain the reasoning behind your statement.

Yes, I am curious too. NFP functions by identifying the time when ovulation occurs and refraining from intercourse during the period of the sperm lifetime BEFORE ovulation and the egg lifetime afterwards. I wonder what changes three days after peak? Is the egg no longer viable at that point or is it the uterine wall? What do you know SoCal and where did you hear it?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Would you document some of this? How about:
The actually cases of abortions due to pills ?

Second concerning babies born to mothers who were on the pill, those babies prove the above remarks to be …

And if you have any real knowledge at those levels tell us something important - The rate of failed implantations in women practicing normal relations?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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

I am not a medical expert however I will tell you the truth

Part 1) The Nurse meant she would not distribute pills designed to flush out the female system whether containing a fertilized egg or not

Part 2) No method has been developed to prove whether the pill causes abortions or not. This is because failed implantation is common. Thus the problem did the unknown number of failed implantation increase?

Part 3) As a Muslim she is not under Catholic binds

FYI – When PPVI wrote on this subject this whole issue was irrelevant! He wrote the purposes of relations were disordered by artificial birth control. That is what “open to life” means occurring in a Natural method. That is the same reason a condom is disallowed, because it disorders the relations.

In summary whether you believe the data from thinning linings indicates an inevitable link must exist between pills and some abortions to date you cannot prove it. As she is not under Catholic teachings at best your only option is tu layout the data on thinning and the proposed link of thinning to implantation problems. Thus the conclusion that some failed implantation must be resulting from pill use. However prepare yourself for problems: 1)Be prepared to explain why natural failed implantations are not abortions ( or are morally neutral) while explaining why some of these are abortions and sin. 2) Consider the argument that 50% of all fertilization fail to implantation; Would women on ABC have 45% fewer failed implantations (or abortions) than women not practicing ABC?

Hope that helps to understand the issue

 

[Listener]

I am no medical expert, but like the previous poster, I have read in a medical book that a large percentage of fertilized eggs never attach to the woman’s uterus. This is true when a woman is not practicing any form of birth control.

I get a little upset when people look at women on the pill and imagine that they are commiting the sin of abortion practically every month.

It seems to me that the pill normally works by suppressing ovulation. It also works by changing mucous so the sperm can’t make it to the egg if the woman does ovulate. The third and final possibility is that the fertilized egg could possibly fail to attach. I get the impression that this might happen 5% of the time. No one knows for sure.

So if a woman who is not practicing any birth control loses a high percentage of her fertilized eggs, who is to say that if she loses one while she is on the pill that it wouldn’t have happened anyway if she wasn’t on the pill? The other problem is that no one ever knows that this actually is or is not happening in real life. I know of someone who actually got pregnant while she was on the pill. And no, she didn’t lose the baby.

If women who are practicing NFP know exactly when they are ovulating, why on earth wouldn’t they notice that they were ovulating while they were on the pill? Even women who are breast feeding and haven’t had a period for months can be aware that they are ovulating.

Now don’t get me wrong. If the primary way that the pill worked was to always discard a fertilized egg, I would think it would be a serious moral problem.

I just don’t know of any real scientific evidence that this is the case.

 

[Lady_D_I]

I get a little upset when people look at women on the pill and imagine that they are commiting the sin of abortion practically every month.

I find this frustrating too. No one has presented a piece of evidence (primary resource) showing how often breakthrough ovulations occur, yet I have read claims breakthrough ovulations and early abortions frequently occur. This statement is contrary to the evidence I have reviewed. With that said, how often this occurs or does not occur is irrelevant. It is a potential aboritfacient. If the pill prevents the implantation of one viable human being, isn’t it an abortifacient?

So if a woman who is not practicing any birth control loses a high percentage of her fertilized eggs, who is to say that if she loses one while she is on the pill that it wouldn’t have happened anyway if she wasn’t on the pill? The other problem is that no one ever knows that this actually is or is not happening in real life. I know of someone who actually got pregnant while she was on the pill

But, what if she loses a viable human being as a result of the pill? What if that “fertilized egg” would have implanted?
We may never know if this happens or not. “Pill babies” are not evidence the pill is not a potential aboritfacient any more than pill babies prove the pill is not preventing ovulation,etc. It is simply evidence the pill is not 100% effective regardless of the number of mechanisms of gonadotropin inhibition. I am not implying this is your point, but this is a point some use to prove the pill is not an abortifacient.

If women who are practicing NFP know exactly when they are ovulating, why on earth wouldn’t they notice that they were ovulating while they were on the pill?

The exogenous hormones alter the signs of fertility. For example, the temp. pattern.

Side note: My uterus is not a toilet. It does not flush!

 

[Lady_D_I]

**
with the minipill(pop) upwards of 50% of the time.

Texas Roofer, I missed your question when I read this earlier.

Minipills or POPs are progetin only pills. They are not as effective as COCs in suppressing ovulation, which I’ve read COCs are 99+% effecitve in preventing ovulation (perfect use).

From WebMd:

ORTHO MICRONOR® progestin-only oral contraceptives prevent conception by suppressing ovulation in approximately half of users, thickening the cervical mucus to inhibit sperm penetration, lowering the midcycle LH and FSH peaks, slowing the movement of the ovum through the fallopian tubes, and altering the endometrium.

HTH!
**

 

[Lady_D_I]

**Texas Roofer, I missed your question when I read this earlier. **

Minipills or POPs are progetin only pills. They are not as effective as COCs in suppressing ovulation, which I’ve read COCs are 99+% effecitve in preventing ovulation (perfect use).

From WebMd:
Regular use of the “mini-pill” prevents the release of an egg (ovulation) in about half of the women who use it.

ORTHO MICRONOR® progestin-only oral contraceptives prevent conception by suppressing ovulation in approximately half of users, thickening the cervical mucus to inhibit sperm penetration, lowering the midcycle LH and FSH peaks, slowing the movement of the ovum through the fallopian tubes, and altering the endometrium.

HTH!

 

[Lady_D_I]

Texas Roofer, I missed your question when I read this earlier.

Minipills or POPs are progestin-only pills. They are not as effective as COCs in suppressing ovulation, which I’ve read COCs are 99+% effective in preventing ovulation (perfect use).

From WebMd:
Regular use of the “mini-pill” prevents the release of an egg (ovulation) in about half of the women who use it.

ORTHO MICRONOR® progestin-only oral contraceptives prevent conception by suppressing ovulation in approximately half of users, thickening the cervical mucus to inhibit sperm penetration, lowering the midcycle LH and FSH peaks, slowing the movement of the ovum through the fallopian tubes, and altering the endometrium.

HTH!

 

[hasikelee]

I find the argument that since no empirical, large, funded by the government study has been done to prove that COCs cause abortion, therefore the argument against COCs is lessened.

This is chemistry and biology, folks. It’s a very simple matter of understanding the anatomy and the physiology of the human reproductive system, and then learning about the various chemicals that are specifically, synthetically engineered with a declared purpose in mind.

If the endometrial lining of the uterus is tightened and certain glandular functions are supressed, along with a lower dose of synthetic hormones resulting in breakthrough ovulation…what is going to happen?

 

[Lady_D_I]

If the endometrial lining of the uterus is tightened and certain glandular functions are supressed, along with a lower dose of synthetic hormones resulting in breakthrough ovulation…what is going to happen?

But what happens in ovulatory pill cycles when endogenous hormones aren’t suppressed? It is a valid question. This article presents the question better than I. I do find it difficult to believe the pill has never prevented implantation of a viable person.

With that said, “abortifacient action is possible, could be probable, can’t be proven our denied” (quote from Power Point: Emergency Contraception (Morning After Pill)). I conclude we err on the side of life. Just my humble opinon.

 

[hasikelee]

But what happens in ovulatory pill cycles when endogenous hormones aren’t suppressed? It is a valid question. This article presents the question better than I. I do find it difficult to believe the pill has never prevented implantation of a viable person.

With that said, “abortifacient action is possible, could be probable, can’t be proven our denied” (quote from Power Point: Emergency Contraception (Morning After Pill)). I conclude we err on the side of life. Just my humble opinon.

Certainly, I would love nothing more than to have a big ole study done on this. This whole topic has interested me since my early teens and the more info, the better.

Unfortunately, it appears that our scientific technology is not yet up to par for such detailed research without ethical abuse.

On the specific efficacies of COCs, it still remains a question to me why those who decry endometrial changes as non-abortive in nature also ignore the very makers of COCs, who admit to creating them for the specific purpose of “preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.” (*along with the purpose of ovulation and spermicide.)

Some companies also refer to the new human as a “hatched egg.”

Let us also not forget Planned Parenthood and Alan Guttmacher making statements on estimated abortions due to contraceptive use.

I also cringe when those who disagree with COC abortions go to the next argument by saying many unproven, unknown little humans are unable to implant even with normally ovulating women. The assumption being since it naturally happens, COCs can’t be that bad. Well, tons of people die in accidental car collisions, but deliberately running someone over is not the same thing. Nor is drunk driving, or claiming to be ignorant.

I stand with women on this issue, as they have a right to know what is happening to their bodies and children. I hope they can put aside their defenses and research this issue with an open mind.

 

[kell0618]

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.

Boy, I could have really used your help on a very anti-Catholic forum where the administrator said herself that this is not the case. She is a Psych Nurse and I think you could pin her down on some of her ‘points’. She is a Christian Fundamentalist and even has the gall to say that breastfeeding is just as abortificient as ABC. That if you detest ABC, you should abhor breastfeeding as well. Please contact me via my message inbox if you think you are able to lend a hand.

Peace be with you,

Kelly

 

[Lady_D_I]

On the specific efficacies of COCs, it still remains a question to me why those who decry endometrial changes as non-abortive in nature also ignore the very makers of COCs, who admit to creating them for the specific purpose of “preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.” (*along with the purpose of ovulation and spermicide.)

I have no idea. It is a mystery.

I also cringe when those who disagree with COC abortions go to the next argument by saying many unproven, unknown little humans are unable to implant even with normally ovulating women.

Me to. I’m not sure what the point is. Can we use the same logic for abortion? I mean if 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage (a term I dislike but for simplicity I’ll use)… There is a difference between natural pregnancy loss and elective abortion.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Boy, I could have really used your help on a very anti-Catholic forum where the administrator said herself that this is not the case. She is a Psych Nurse and I think you could pin her down on some of her ‘points’. She is a Christian Fundamentalist and even has the gall to say that breastfeeding is just as abortificient as ABC. That if you detest ABC, you should abhor breastfeeding as well. Please contact me via my message inbox if you think you are able to lend a hand.

Peace be with you,

Kelly

I’m only a nurse practitioner who prescribed contraceptives for 7 years, but I can tell you the pill is at the very least a potential abortifacient. Perhaps she has evidence to support her claim.

 

[kell0618]

I’m only a nurse practitioner who prescribed contraceptives for 7 years, but I can tell you the pill is at the very least a potential abortifacient. Perhaps she has evidence to support her claim.

She has ‘evidence’ and it has been well refuted by other scientists on pro-life websites. She cleaves to her ‘evidence’ because if she didn’t her Evangelical Fundamentalist world would begin to crumble. I have given up the site for Lent (need a break from all of the anti-Catholicism) but will be happy to cite her sources for you after Easter.

Peace

 

[kell0618]

She has ‘evidence’ and it has been well refuted by other scientists on pro-life websites. She cleaves to her ‘evidence’ because if she didn’t her Evangelical Fundamentalist world would begin to crumble. I have given up the site for Lent (need a break from all of the anti-Catholicism) but will be happy to cite her sources for you after Easter.

Peace

I found the study the woman on the other site used. Here is a pro-life article which refers to the study. I would love to have a couple of people who are well-versed in medical terminology take this topic on.

Rhythm Method Killing Embryos

Peace