Help! Websited link to abortifacient nature of pill?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MariaG

Guest
đź‘‹

over here,
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=49568&page=2

there is a thread going on Orthodox allowing contraception.

Father Ambrose seems contest the fact that the pill can be an abortifacient. He says it is only a contraceptive. He has asked for information on this to prove it.

post #114
posted by Fr Abrose
Contraceptives in the form of medication which prevent ovulation are not abortifacients although one must be discerning.

If you dispute that then I would ask you, as you have asked of me, that you provide evidence.
Click to expand...
Contraceptives such as condoms are not abortificiants.

It is possible to avoid abortifacients. As well as condoms there are the anti-sperm agents, cervical caps, etc.
Click to expand...
He even defined in one post abortifacient and contraceptive, implying that a contraceptive by its nature only prevent conception.

Although the information informing him differently has been provided, it has not been provided as a medical link he can look at.

I know many of you have such information. Can someone(s) provide a link to a medical site that talks about the abortifacient nature of contraceptives?

Thank you,
Maria
 
First off, read the insert on any package of birth control pills – it’s there. Second –

aolsvc.health.webmd.aol.com/content/article/51/49847.htm?printing=true

here’s a WebMd article that mentions it (of course, it’s touting some other form, but it does talk about the hostile environment that bcps create so in the event a “rogue” egg does get released and then gasp fertilized, it is likely to be KILLED by the hostile environment; if you believe life begins at conception, then this is abortion, plain and simple. No doctor will dispute the pills change the chemistry of the uterine wall to a “hostile environment” – meaning – if you do ovulate and get pregnant, don’t worry, because that baby will never have a chance to implant into your uterine lining…we’ve made sure of that" – it’s very simple, even this mo-mo understands it…LOL!
 
I, too, suspect that the abortifacient nature of the pill may be overblown. The pill normally works by preventing ovulation. This may be true in a very tiny percentage of cases, but since a rather high percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage for women who are not taking the pill, I would like to see more proof that the pill repeatedly causes early abortions. I have known of women who got pregnant while on the pill and had perfectly healthy babies! At any rate, Humane Vitae approves of the pill for medical reasons, and Father Serpa on this “Ask an Apologist” forum has said that if this happens, it is not the fault of the woman who was on the pill for medical reasons. Sometimes I think that some of the people on this forum should spend more time praying and less time judging others.

If a fertilized egg doesn’t “take” (whether a woman is on or off the pill), she has absolutely no control over this and should not be accused of grave sin. The doctor may have even put her on the pill to “rest” her system so that she can become pregnant in the near future. If the pill acted as an abortifacient 95 percent of the time because women always ovulated when on it, then I think we would have a problem. I just don’t think that there is any proof whatever that this is the case. Drug manufacturers have to list all side effects, even if the side effect happens to less than 1% of the people taking the pill.

Please don’t take this to mean that the pill should be dispensed indiscriminately. However, I do think that when the only other choice is hysterectomy, the pill should be considered as a means to prevent serious medical problems.
 
Early in my marriage I took birth control pills.
I stopped when I read the material that comes with the prescription - the information is all in there.

The truth is …no one could ever be certain how the pregnancy is prevented.
When the pill works properly, ovulation should be suppressed.
Since we know some women have gotten pregnant on the pill (I know one) - then we know ovulation is not always suppressed.

Since the manufacturers willingly tell us there is a “back up” aspect of the pill which makes the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation - it is safe to bet that SOMETIMES an embryo MAY be aborted.
We cannot know how many or how often.

But why would we risk such a thing?
 
Laurarose – exactly – why oh why would you even accept a .05% chance of participating in the ending of a human life? There is no justifying the pill for other than strictly medical reasons – and personally, if you’re having sex, and therefore could possibly get pregnant, if it were me, (and it was just before our wedding) I would find some other way to treat…to me, horrible cramping was better than the possibility that existed, no matter how small.
 
40.png
Listener:
I, too, suspect that the abortifacient nature of the pill may be overblown. The pill normally works by preventing ovulation. This may be true in a very tiny percentage of cases, but since a rather high percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage for women who are not taking the pill, I would like to see more proof that the pill repeatedly causes early abortions. I have known of women who got pregnant while on the pill and had perfectly healthy babies! At any rate, Humane Vitae approves of the pill for medical reasons, and Father Serpa on this “Ask an Apologist” forum has said that if this happens, it is not the fault of the woman who was on the pill for medical reasons. Sometimes I think that some of the people on this forum should spend more time praying and less time judging others.

If a fertilized egg doesn’t “take” (whether a woman is on or off the pill), she has absolutely no control over this and should not be accused of grave sin. The doctor may have even put her on the pill to “rest” her system so that she can become pregnant in the near future. If the pill acted as an abortifacient 95 percent of the time because women always ovulated when on it, then I think we would have a problem. I just don’t think that there is any proof whatever that this is the case. Drug manufacturers have to list all side effects, even if the side effect happens to less than 1% of the people taking the pill.

Please don’t take this to mean that the pill should be dispensed indiscriminately. However, I do think that when the only other choice is hysterectomy, the pill should be considered as a means to prevent serious medical problems.
Click to expand...
Listener:

During early testing for the Pill, they tried both male and female versions. Very early on, a couple of the men exhibited some fairly minor symptoms which caused them and the researchers some concern. These MINOR CONCERNS caused the researchers to STOP TESTING the MALE contraceptive!

At the same time, a three of the women had quite major problems. They died from side effects of the FEMALE contraceptives. The reearchers adjusted the dosages of the FEMALE contraceptives and continued testing.

They were willing to take greater risks with the women then they were with the men, far greater risks.

And, remember, Scripture calls us to judge actions and consequences, and Humanae Vitae describes some of the consequences of the “contraceptive mentality”. If you look at the expressed atttitudes toward the LIVES of the FEMALE subjects in the experiment, you can pretty much see how that mentality would impact women.

Blessings and Peace, Michael

PS: Obviously, women who have consulted their priests and are following the Teachings of the Church should not be accused of sin in those areas.
 
I posted two important paragraphs from The American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on another thread. If you do not wish to read the entire site aaplog.org/collition.htm , please read this regarding the abortifacient nature of the pill:

The next question raised by the authors is; "Is there actual clinical evidence of early miscarriage in pill users? They note that the typical clinical picture of spontaneous abortion (heavy bleeding, severe cramping, passage of tissue) is rarely, if ever seen by practicing physicians caring for patients on the pill. They seem to overlook the facts that the abortions caused by the BCP occur when the baby is 5 to 14-16 days old and that the lining of the uterus is “less vascular, less glandular, thinner” than normal as they described it. From the clinical perspective, one would anticipate, just as in over 60% of ectopic pregnancies, a non-event. From the moral perspective, however, it is quite another story. What we are witnessing here is a tragic loss of God’s children, totally innocent and made in His image. It is well to also remember that, from the moral perspective, the numbers don’t matter. If one child is lost, the tragedy isn’t lessened. Following this, the authors ask; “What is the conception rate for women on hormone contraception?” They answer correctly that it is impossible to say. However, earlier in their paper they noted, quite accurately, that the medical literature documents an incidence of 3-5 pregnancies per 100 women per year for pill users. Dr. Don Gambrell, Jr., a renowned gynecological endocrinologist addressed this issue during the educational segment of this same meeting. He noted a 14% incidence of ovulation in women taking the 50 microgram BCP. This rate varies from pill to pill and patient to patient. Simple logic informs one that every fertilization occurring in women on the pill doesn’t result in a term “pill pregnancy” or a surgically induced abortion. But this is the precise thesis of those stating that the BCP is not abortifacient. Simple logic and deductive reasoning would suggest that many more than the clinically diagnosed pregnancies that occur are aborted because of the acyclic, unfavorable-for-implantation endometrium. If IVF practitioners relied on an endometrium that is “less vascular, less glandular, thinner” than that ideal for implantation, their success rate would approach zero today rather than the tens of thousands of babies born of that technology. More on this subject when viewing the mathematics of the issue.
 
And this:

Dr. Murphy Goodwin was asked to review this reasoning and math. He wrote (personal communication, 4/23/98): "It is possible that there are more than a million such losses per year but a reasonable calculation could also put the loss rate at one tenth of that number. He added: “1) I believe that it is most likely that the total number excess fetal losses (abortions) due to the combined pill is in the range of several hundred thousand, substantially less than the number of elective abortions annually and 2) the fact that this is not the intended effect of the pill in most cases and the effect in any one circumstance is unknowable makes the ethical issues much more complex than those surrounding elective abortion. The educational and political challenge of elective abortion is much more straightforward and is a necessary prerequisite of undertaking the more complex moral issue of the abortifacient effect of the pill.” These sound thoughts deserve the prayerful reflection of all right-to-lifers. Using a normal fecundity rate of 20% and other scientifically sound variables, Dr. Goodwin arrived at pill induced abortions totals between 104,100/year and 1,561,500/year. Curiously his high number is approximately half-way between our two calculations. His low number is not insignificant. We must also remember that with RU46 and methotrexate waiting in the wings or available today, chemical and hormonal killing of the preborn may one day make surgical abortion look pale in the shade. We should also recall that 10-15% represent conservative estimates of spontaneous early abortions in normally cycling females desirous of pregnancy and favored with a delicately balanced reproductive cycle designed by God. To state or feel that BCP consuming females experience a 0% rate of physician induced abortion (from the pill) is wishful thinking of the highest order.
 
Thank you Eden. I have added it to my favorites so I can easily find it again!

It was heartening to read that Doctors are finally starting to really get behind this and try to get the message out.
God Bless,

Maria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top