Is the Pill an abortifacient or not?

[Lady_D_I]

Well it would appear others mislead them.

Btw if you want documentation look at papers signed or issued by MD’s or professional with years of research in the medical field they will clearly acknowledge the facts as mentioned. Notice the comments you read which claim the pill is a known abortifacient do not contain the signatures of such people, in fact most are either issued anonymously or sight the other guy(the author refuses to accept responsibility for the statement)

I have to agree… it is misleading to state the pill is a known abortifacient or to state it acts as an abortifacient frequently or similar statements.

That said (and before any assumptions are made), I believe the pill is a potential or possible abortifiacient and women should be informed. Even James Trussell supports women being given the facts about gonadotropin suppression for informed consent.

 

[Lady_D_I]

There is plenty of literature suggesting the abortifacient mechanism by thinning the endometrial lining exists - but no there is no definitive proof through human study. However, I do find it interesting that one of the treatments for infertility via IVF is to use Viagra to thicken the lining to make it more hospitable for implantation:
ivf-infertility.com/help/news.php
“The reason beyond the use of Viagra was to increase the blood flow to the uterus and to improve both the pattern and thickness of the endometrium.”

This is true… fertility depends on good eggs, good mucus, good endometrium and good sperm (of course it isn’t that simple but these are important according to my infertility team). However, the evidence showing the endometrial changes is in anovulatory cycles. If gonadotropins aren’t suppressed and ovualtion occurs, what happens to the the CM? Endometrium? What happens to the endometrium in ovulatory cycles? It is a good question. I’d like to see some research.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Ugg, I tried the link and get nothing. Please tell me progesterone and progestin aren’t being used interchangeable.

I assume you are asking the makers of the video?

Well, many of the pills list the suppression of ovulation and the thickeing of CM on the patient info but don’t mention the changes in the endometrium. Here are two popular pills, you can answer this yourself:

Yaz is an example:
YAZ, a combination pill, contains two types of hormones, an estrogen and a progestin. Combination pills are the type of birth control pills most commonly prescribed by healthcare professionals. They work in two ways:

• The body is “tricked” into thinking it is pregnant. This prevents the release of an egg (ovulation). Without an egg to be fertilized, you can’t become pregnant.
• The cervical mucus is thickened, making it hard for sperm to travel toward the egg and fertilize it, in case an egg is released.
  From Ortho Tryclen
  when you take ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN, which contains 2 types of hormones (norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol), it inhibits this process from occurring and, as a result, no egg is released. It also thickens the cervical mucus, making it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus. So it’s easy for you to prevent pregnancy.

http://www.orthotricyclen.com/images_global/spacer.gif

so does that mean there is a problem answering the question with “Yes”?

No more true than saying ovulation is impossible or fertile mucus is impossible (pill babies prove the pill failed to suppress gonadotropins which is how it acts).

again does this mean we should not answer “Yes”

Maybe there is evidence to support this statement. How a woman responds to skipped pills, etc. varies.

maybe but that would be a thin maybe remember the claimed science which would require the blood supply to be extremely highly responsive

No one knows this and yes these statements make me .

I would like to see a balanced, accurate, factual presentation rather than sensationalization of points. This applies to contraception supporters.

There are many good papers on the subject. The facts are really quite simple. There is statistical reason to believe some increase may occur in loss of fertilized eggs, however to what extent they may happen is not known. Additionally there are other consideration to include whether these losses are actually abortions. The fact is normal relations produce more of these loss than women on pills possible 100:1 so defining one of the 101 losses as abortion and the other 100 as nature is at best a slippery slope. Many things affect the lining and thus one would open pandora’s box. For example heavy excersie is likely to have a simpler affect so is atheltics for woman likely to become immoral? Freak if you want to however the facts are once the desire of christains to claim the abortive affect is removed there is little left. That little is a statistical theory which has some thin supporting evidence.

 

[Lady_D_I]

I assume you are asking the makers of the video?

I was just conversing. If someone knows the answer, please share.

so does that mean there is a problem answering the question with “Yes”?

Do you believe the manufacturer explained gonadotropin suppression and the changes the endometrial lining?

again does this mean we should not answer “Yes”

You can answer yes, but I answer no. Implantation does occur on the pill.

maybe but that would be a thin maybe remember the claimed science which would require the blood supply to be extremely highly responsive

Huh? You lost me with “maybe but that would be a thin maybe”. The individual woman, where she is in the pill pack, etc. would be factors. I’m not sure I agree with a general statement.

There are many good papers on the subject. The facts are really quite simple. There is statistical reason to believe some increase may occur in loss of fertilized eggs, however to what extent they may happen is not known. Additionally there are other consideration to include whether these losses are actually abortions. The fact is normal relations produce more of these loss than women on pills possible 100:1 so defining one of the 101 losses as abortion and the other 100 as nature is at best a slippery slope. Many things affect the lining and thus one would open pandora’s box. For example heavy excersie is likely to have a simpler affect so is atheltics for woman likely to become immoral? Freak if you want to however the facts are once the desire of christains to claim the abortive affect is removed there is little left. That little is a statistical theory which has some thin supporting evidence.

I know. I read research. Women should be given the information to decide. Factual information. IMO, your presentation of some of the “facts” is just as misleading as those who state the pill is a known abortifacient.

Why would I freak out? I am not disagreeing (except in my professional opinion the evidence is not thin). I’m not attacking you Texas Roofer and am not sure why you think I would freak out.

 

[Lady_D_I]

maybe but that would be a thin maybe remember the claimed science which would require the blood supply to be extremely highly responsive

Oh, I reread it… the missing puncuation led to my confusion… which I am known to do. Sorry.

As I said in my previous post, there are factors to consider.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Many things affect the lining and thus one would open pandora’s box. For example heavy excersie is likely to have a simpler affect so is atheltics for woman likely to become immoral?

I went back are reread this entire paragraph. Are you referring to exercise induced amenorrhea?

 

[rwoehmke]

Well, duh! Why does plan B work?

Early pills, back in the mid 20th Century (circa 1955) had a high dosage of hormones that actually prevented ovulation. Turned out that the high dosage caused health problems (strokes, blood clots. etc. particularly in women that smoked) so the dosage was tapered off to some level that seemed to prevent pregnancy in most cases with an acceptable level of side effects. They no longer prevented ovulation so draw your own conclusions. If that egg got fertilized it found itself in a hostile environment.

Seems like people have actually forgotten all that info which as I recall was pretty well known at the time. I think like political information, it got spun.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Why does plan B work?

It primarily works by preventing ovulation. BTW, Plan B is progesin only.

They no longer prevented ovulation so draw your own conclusions.

Do you mean the pills currently available? If so, could you provide research to support this? It is contrary to the research I’ve read.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi Lady D I

I want to apologize to you from your initial post, I misunderstood your position. Then I was writing while you were writing so when your second post appeared I had already said too much. Again I am sorry.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Hi Lady D I

I want to apologize to you from your initial post, I misunderstood your position. Then I was writing while you were writing so when your second post appeared I had already said too much. Again I am sorry.

Thank you Texas Roofer!

 

[rwoehmke]

It primarily works by preventing ovulation. BTW, Plan B is progesin only.
Then why do the Catholic Bishops of Wisconsin approve it’s use only if it can be shown that the victim has not just ovulated.

Do you mean the pills currently available? If so, could you provide research to support this? It is contrary to the research I’ve read.

Yes, I mean some of the pills currently available. I can no longer cite you the old studies because I no longer have access to tjhe Chemical Literature. I was a research chemist in those early years when Carl Djarassi invented one of the earliest pills and followed the reports of woman who were being adversely affected by the relatively high doses.

I maintained a high interest in the matter when Paul VI had a special committee looking into whether the pill could be squared with Catholic teaching. It was after all not an artificial barrier like condoms and diaphragms. Dopa and sponges, and coils etc. had not yet come into common use. We all know where the coils ended up.

If you don’t believe that a pill that denies implantation to a fertilized ovum, a baby by any other name, is an abortifaceint, there is still the fine print on the package insert for the “pills”. Many druggists toss them before you see it, and you would be almost totally unaware of the possible side effects it warns against. Even the television ads for some of the hormonal contraceptives include a list of possible side effects. Drug companies have become very shy about not warning folks.

I knew those side effects and I loved my wife enough to say no way are we going that route. I am also aware that there are more than a few young women today who have no problem with contraception, but who wouldn’t be caught dead with those “pills” in their bodies. But then, what do I know?

 

[Lady_D_I]

Yes, I mean some of the pills currently available. I can no longer cite you the old studies because I no longer have access to tjhe Chemical Literature. I was a research chemist in those early years when Carl Djarassi invented one of the earliest pills and followed the reports of woman who were being adversely affected by the relatively high doses.

I maintained a high interest in the matter when Paul VI had a special committee looking into whether the pill could be squared with Catholic teaching. It was after all not an artificial barrier like condoms and diaphragms. Dopa and sponges, and coils etc. had not yet come into common use. We all know where the coils ended up.

If you don’t believe that a pill that denies implantation to a fertilized ovum, a baby by any other name, is an abortifaceint, there is still the fine print on the package insert for the “pills”. Many druggists toss them before you see it, and you would be almost totally unaware of the possible side effects it warns against. Even the television ads for some of the hormonal contraceptives include a list of possible side effects. Drug companies have become very shy about not warning folks.

I knew those side effects and I loved my wife enough to say no way are we going that route. I am also aware that there are more than a few young women today who have no problem with contraception, but who wouldn’t be caught dead with those “pills” in their bodies. But then, what do I know?

I would like a reference stating current COC do not suppess ovulation. This is contradicts the medical literature I’ve reviewed; therefore, it is misleading and inaccurate to state the pills “no longer prevent ovulation” and imply they act only as an abortifacient.

I am familiar with the prescribing information from the days I prescribed contraceptives. In fact, I’ve quoted the prescribing information multiple times on these forums (see my reply #24 in this thread). I’ll restate women should be given accurate information.

Before any accusations or assumptions…
I find fault with statements such as the pill is a known abortifacient, acts as an abortifacient frequently,etc., but I do agree it is a potential abortifaceint. I do believe women should be informed of this potential. As a Catholic, I err on the side of life.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

not how but “WHY” Which argument? The pill has never, ever, ever, been documented to cause a single abortion, not one, not ever. Maybe this is a confusing statement? However it is a true statement. Wisdom involves separating desire from reality it does not matter what my desires are, the reality is not one, not one single documented abortion.

or did you mean “Why do many Catholics believe the pill is a known abortifacient?” Well it would appear others mislead them.

Btw if you want documentation look at papers signed or issued by MD’s or professional with years of research in the medical field they will clearly acknowledge the facts as mentioned. Notice the comments you read which claim the pill is a known abortifacient do not contain the signatures of such people, in fact most are either issued anonymously or sight the other guy(the author refuses to accept responsibility for the statement)

hope that helps

Perhaps you misunderstood the point I was making by asking that question.

The fact that there are no documented cases of the pill aborting a pregnancy is not evidence that it doesn’t do so. I’m no doctor, but I can’t imagine how one would be able to tell if it were the pill that caused a miscarriage or not.

On the other hand, we do know how the pill works. We also know that, like all artificial contraception, it is not foolproof, and therefore does not always prevent ovulation. Given this knowledge, it stands to reason that the pill might abort pregnancies by creating a hostile uterine environment.

If this is true, it is an abortifacient – period. That it has not been demonstrated as such is irrelevant; the simple fact that it might do so because of its physiological effects is enough to label it as such.

To put it another way:

If one knows that drug X can cause side effects A, B, and C, and one also knows that any one of those side effects – let alone all of them – could cause Z to happen, it stands to reason that drug X can cause Z, even if one cannot draw a direct connection.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Perhaps you misunderstood the point I was making by asking that question.

The fact that there are no documented cases of the pill aborting a pregnancy is not evidence that it doesn’t do so. I’m no doctor, but I can’t imagine how one would be able to tell if it were the pill that caused a miscarriage or not.

On the other hand, we do know how the pill works. We also know that, like all artificial contraception, it is not foolproof, and therefore does not always prevent ovulation. Given this knowledge, it stands to reason that the pill might abort pregnancies by creating a hostile uterine environment.

If this is true, it is an abortifacient – period. That it has not been demonstrated as such is irrelevant; the simple fact that it might do so because of its physiological effects is enough to label it as such.

To put it another way:

If one knows that drug X can cause side effects A, B, and C, and one also knows that any one of those side effects – let alone all of them – could cause Z to happen, it stands to reason that drug X can cause Z, even if one cannot draw a direct connection.

Peace,
Dante

That is false logic which is simply a rationalization. Evidence does not come from the word “might”. Additionally the “hostile” would seem rather out of place. Just because people repeat these statements does not change the facts. The facts are after millions, and millions of uses not a single documented case.

 

[newbetx]

Thanks to all of you who have passed along your wisdom and education, as well as your faith!! My son is 24, as is his girlfriend, and believe me, he has been taught the beauty and sacredness of married sex. However I suppose that it is very hard for the two of them, as it is, I suspect, for many of our young Catholics, to not succumb to the cultural messages and media bull**** that is fed to them on a daily basis. I know that he feels that he is a good Catholic,(and he truly is) : he loves the Mass, he reads the bible, prays for those in need, etc. And I know that my son is in a monogamous relationship, and I believe that this is his first and only partner. However, I had to tell him in no uncertain terms that his soul, his girlfriend’s soul, and my soul, if I am quiet, is in jeopardy, not to mention the fact that I could have grandchildren aborted that I never even got to love. I don’t have time to pussyfoot around, and I am not willing to let that happen if I can help it. That’s what a mother does for her children, however unpopular she may become…SOOO… I will forward the (name removed by moderator)ut you all have given me to him, and I believe that it will help him to make a more holy decision. Deo Gratias!! Kathy

And here’s a great book for both of them.
**Real Love: Answers to Your Questions on Dating, Marriage and the Real Meaning of Sex (Paperback)
**by Mary Beth Bonacci

BTW. You are braver than I am about talking about this stuff with my teenage boys… If you could somehow PM me some of that strength.

 

[newbetx]

That is false logic which is simply a rationalization. Evidence does not come from the word “might”. Additionally the “hostile” would seem rather out of place. Just because people repeat these statements does not change the facts. The facts are after millions, and millions of uses not a single documented case.

Whoa! Whoa! I think we’ve acheived violent agreement.

TR is right in what he says. And what those on the other side are right in a way. But this discussion is the same as saying we know who is going to hell. We have no direct, scientific proof anyone has gone to hell. Stories would indicate that at least some do go to hell. and Faith tells us that based on other details, we may go to hell. But we can not guarantee everyone won’t go to heaven, somehow, either.

What can we say absolutely?
The pill’s primary mechanism is to prevent ovulation. It has additional characteristics that may make difficult the fertilization of the occational ovulation and should that fertilization take place, the pill is designed to attempt a third level of pregnancy prevention by thining the whatever it’s called.

No absolutes. TR is correct. It does not mean, however that these other methods DON’T cause the “washing away” of a potential child. it just means that we must take this as a matter of inference, not fact. “Statistics indicate blah, blah, blah, may be true.” There is that may word again. Now I don’t have near the experience of capability of reading with proper comprehension all those things that Lady D I and others posted, but " undeniable proof" is harder to come by than statistics can manage.

And I don’t think TR is supporting pill usage. It’s just that statements made to imply science fact, should indeed be factual and supported by scientific proof.

We can talk much of the INTENT of the pills’ chemical reactions, but it’s harder to find detailed evidence that it actually succeeds this way.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

That is false logic which is simply a rationalization. Evidence does not come from the word “might”. Additionally the “hostile” would seem rather out of place. Just because people repeat these statements does not change the facts. The facts are after millions, and millions of uses not a single documented case.

False logic? Please.

The pill creates an environment in which an embryo would be hard pressed to survive. The pill is also not 100 percent effective at preventing ovulation, so it is not 100 percent effective at preventing conception. If an embryo is conceived, and it dies as a result of the environment the pill created, then the pill is the cause of its death. How is that false logic?

And you still have not addressed the fact that the absence of a documented case is not proof of your position.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Holly3278]

Depends on when you believe pregnancy begins. If you believe pregnancy begins at conception then yes the pill can be abortifacient. If you believe pregnancy begins at implantation then no, the pill cannot be abortifacient.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

False logic? Please.

The pill creates an environment in which an embryo would be hard pressed to survive.

please instead of “hard pressed” just quote the actual data

The pill is also not 100 percent effective at preventing ovulation, so it is not 100 percent effective at preventing conception. If an embryo is conceived, and it dies as a result of the environment the pill created, then the pill is the cause of its death. How is that false logic?

And you still have not addressed the fact that the absence of a documented case is not proof of your position.

Peace,
Dante

and If it doesn’t?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Depends on when you believe pregnancy begins. If you believe pregnancy begins at conception then yes the pill can be abortifacient. If you believe pregnancy begins at implantation then no, the pill cannot be abortifacient.

there is more to it. The majority of conceptions are believed to be lost even when no pill is present. Thus the logic proposed is more abortions occur in nature than births. The problem with holding this proposed logic is that means abortion is the natural outcome of conception! In fact not a single lost conception has been proven to occur from the pill.