Is the Pill an abortifacient or not?

[Holly3278]

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.

Well, how would they prove such a thing?

 

[rwoehmke]

It has been an interesting debate, but let’s get to where “the rubber meets the road” so to speak. The use of any of the pills or depo, or whatever are not licitly used to control births. The teaching church sez so, so whether the pill causes abortions or not should be kind of an academic question for a faithful Catholic. Not? .

 

[newbetx]

Well, how would they prove such a thing?

Well, it would be extremely difficult. Not impossible, but all these things are still statistics.

If we are to hang our hat on the abortion argument against contraception then it lives or dies (no pun intended) on what others choose as a definition of life. We loose the argument because they can change the rules. As a matter of fact, that is what they do today. Change the rules to suit them.

To answer the question posted. The intent of the pill is to provide multiple levels of protection against pregnancy. Prevention of attachment is one. However, there seems to be no documented proof that this is true. So while some would LOVE to be able to say yes, they lack sufficient data to prove it is an abortifacient. TR’s argument is correct.

However, one can say that the manufacturer’s intent (based on their own documentation) is to provide this function as part of the use of the medication. I think TR would agree with this statement.

 

[Holly3278]

Well, it would be extremely difficult. Not impossible, but all these things are still statistics.

If we are to hang our hat on the abortion argument against contraception then it lives or dies (no pun intended) on what others choose as a definition of life. We loose the argument because they can change the rules. As a matter of fact, that is what they do today. Change the rules to suit them.

To answer the question posted. The intent of the pill is to provide multiple levels of protection against pregnancy. Prevention of attachment is one. However, there seems to be no documented proof that this is true. So while some would LOVE to be able to say yes, they lack sufficient data to prove it is an abortifacient. TR’s argument is correct.

However, one can say that the manufacturer’s intent (based on their own documentation) is to provide this function as part of the use of the medication. I think TR would agree with this statement.

Interesting. I had no idea that they could actually prove that!

 

[BlueRubies]

Oral contraceptives suppress ovulation…which means if effective there will be no egg for the sperm to meet with and fertilize. They also have other effects to reduce the chances of getting pregnant, like altering cervical mucus and the environment of the endometrial lining. However, no contraceptive on it’s own is 100% effective. If a woman took the pill while pregnant, it is very likely that the baby would be aborted.

Sorry, but this is not accurate. Lots of women who get pregnant while on the pill keep taking it not knowing they are pregnant (since it is normal to skip periods sometimes while on the pill and the pill instrucations even instruct to keep taking the pills as the likelihood of pregnancy is low). Taking the pill while pregnant will not abort a baby. Nor should it damage the baby. This is a common thing. But at the same time, it’s not like she should stay on it AFTER she finds out she’s pregnant.

The pill does both - it prevents ovulation, however it does not always do it’s job correctly (hence it not being 100% effective) and the woman can ovulate anyway. If there is conception, then the pill can go on to make it unlikely the fertalized egg will attach to the woman’s uterine lining and this fertalized egg would then be flushed out during her menstrual cycle - thus it CAN be an abortifacient. In a case such as this, the pill acts similar to a UID.

So, the answer to your question is it is both - it prevents ovulation and if that fails, it can act as an abortifacient.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well, how would they prove such a thing?

It is a good question and no good answer exists today at least publicly. i suspect many medical researches may know more on this subject, however maybe their data would be difficult to defend*? or maybe they know all results are inconclusive*. It seems incomprehensible to me that research in today US medical environment are still pointing to studies 10-30 years old.

• these are called epidemiology studies. These studies usually are expressed as statistical probabilities. To date we have not so much as a reasonable set of these probabilities whether the study would produce a number near zero or near 90% is speculation. Additionally as mentioned earlier good studies of this type would surely identify many other items/practices which also increase these losses. So the studies may teach us more than we wish to learn.

It has been an interesting debate, but let’s get to where “the rubber meets the road” so to speak. The use of any of the pills or depo, or whatever are not licitly used to control births. The teaching church sez so, so whether the pill causes abortions or not should be kind of an academic question for a faithful Catholic. Not? .

I agree 100%

Sorry, but this is not accurate. Lots of women who get pregnant while on the pill keep taking it not knowing they are pregnant (since it is normal to skip periods sometimes while on the pill and the pill instrucations even instruct to keep taking the pills as the likelihood of pregnancy is low). Taking the pill while pregnant will not abort a baby. Nor should it damage the baby. This is a common thing. But at the same time, it’s not like she should stay on it AFTER she finds out she’s pregnant.

The pill does both - it prevents ovulation, however it does not always do it’s job correctly (hence it not being 100% effective) and the woman can ovulate anyway. If there is conception, then the pill can go on to make it unlikely the fertalized egg will attach to the woman’s uterine lining and this fertalized egg would then be flushed out during her menstrual cycle - thus it CAN be an abortifacient. In a case such as this, the pill acts similar to a UID.

So, the answer to your question is it is both - it prevents ovulation and if that fails, it can act as an abortifacient.

that is a theory to date no data exist to show thus theory to be true.

 

[BlueRubies]

It is a good question and no good answer exists today at least publicly. i suspect many medical researches may know more on this subject, however maybe their data would be difficult to defend*? or maybe they know all results are inconclusive*. It seems incomprehensible to me that research in today US medical environment are still pointing to studies 10-30 years old.

• these are called epidemiology studies. These studies usually are expressed as statistical probabilities. To date we have not so much as a reasonable set of these probabilities whether the study would produce a number near zero or near 90% is speculation. Additionally as mentioned earlier good studies of this type would surely identify many other items/practices which also increase these losses. So the studies may teach us more than we wish to learn.
  
  I agree 100%

that is a theory to date no data exist to show thus theory to be true.

Well IMHO, the OP is asking advice on what to tell his child. I would think he should tell that it can be an abortifacient. It may not be “proof”, but the following is good enough proof for me. And why would a Catholic parent leave out the possibility of the pill being an abortifacient just because someone can’t say 100% that it’s correct? Why would a catholic take the chance and say well we don’t know it’s an abortifacient so we’ll pretend it’s not when the evidence says otherwise:

aaplog.org/collition.htm

"On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil’s product information department. (Ortho-McNeil is one of the largest Pill Manufacturers.) I took detailed notes.

"Hill was unguarded, helpful and straightforward. He never asked me about my religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He did not couch his language to give me an answer I wanted to hear. …

"I asked him, ‘Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?’ He said ‘yes’. I asked, ‘What happens then?’ He said, ‘The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn’t work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, it won’t implant and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium.’ (Emphasis in the original)

"I then asked Hill if he was certain the pill made implantation less likely. ‘Oh yes,’ he replied. I said, ‘ So you don’t think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?’ He said the following, which I draw directly from my extensive notes of our conversation.

“Oh, no, it’s not theoretical. It’s observable. We know what an endometrium looks like when it’s rich and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When the woman is taking the Pill, you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance - as seen with the naked eye - and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do so.” (Emphasis in the original)"

 

[newbetx]

Does the Pill cause abortion when a baby is conceived by not allowing it to implant, or does it not allow to conception to occur at all? I really need to be able to tell my son the truth about the Pill (which his girlfriend is on) but I am not really sure of the answer myself. Thanks so much! Deo Gratias, Kathy

Questions in reverse order:
1) Does the pill not allow conception to occur at all?
2) If conception does occur, does the pill prevent implantation?

Well IMHO, the OP is asking advice on what to tell his child. I would think he should tell that it can be an abortifacient. It may not be “proof”, but the following is good enough proof for me. And why would a Catholic parent leave out the possibility of the pill being an abortifacient just because someone can’t say 100% that it’s correct? Why would a catholic take the chance and say well we don’t know it’s an abortifacient so we’ll pretend it’s not when the evidence says otherwise:

aaplog.org/collition.htm

"On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil’s product information department. (Ortho-McNeil is one of the largest Pill Manufacturers.) I took detailed notes.

"Hill was unguarded, helpful and straightforward. He never asked me about my religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He did not couch his language to give me an answer I wanted to hear. …

"I asked him, ‘Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?’ He said ‘yes’. I asked, ‘What happens then?’ He said, ‘The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn’t work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, it won’t implant and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium.’ (Emphasis in the original)

"I then asked Hill if he was certain the pill made implantation less likely. ‘Oh yes,’ he replied. I said, ‘ So you don’t think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?’ He said the following, which I draw directly from my extensive notes of our conversation.

“Oh, no, it’s not theoretical. It’s observable. We know what an endometrium looks like when it’s rich and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When the woman is taking the Pill, you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance - as seen with the naked eye - and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do so." (Emphasis in the original)”

I think the truth is what is important here, too.
Really, we are in agreement to a point.

To answer the question posted. The intent of the pill is to provide multiple levels of protection against pregnancy. Prevention of attachment is one. However, there seems to be no documented proof that this is true. So while some would LOVE to be able to say yes, they lack sufficient data to prove it is an abortifacient.

However, one can say that the manufacturer’s intent (based on their own documentation) is to provide this function as part of the use of the medication.

Questions in reverse order:
1) Does the pill not allow conception to occur at all?

Most of the time, no conception. Sometimes there is conception.

2) If conception does occur, does the pill prevent implantation?

The intent of the pill is to make the womans body hostile to implantation. Most of the time, this probably works, too. But not always. An artificial mechanism that purposely prevents implantation is considered, by many, to be an abortion.

I will add one more thing. These “kids” need to understand the true meaning of sex and reading about TOB will go a long way to getting a better picture of the relationship. Too often, it is not understood that there are other important consequences and responsibilities to sex OTHER than becoming pregnant or getting a disease. I know I was pretty clueless at that age. Although, I’m sure I wouldn’t have believed it.

 

[hasikelee]

Is she on the revised hormonal replacement therapy known as Yaz?

After Yasmine had so many side effects, the company had to rejuvenate its image and came out with Yaz. Yaz does not suppress ovulation at the rate of other birth control methods. This was done to decrease the likelihood of undesirable side effects.

In fact, some women are finding out that they regularly ovulate while using Yaz, and are not even experiencing breakthrough ovualation.

Yaz is toeing the line of being a BC pill, as opposed to being called an abortifacent.

For more information on this new COC, research the company’s website and literature.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well IMHO, the OP is asking advice on what to tell his child. I would think he should tell that it can be an abortifacient. It may not be “proof”, but the following is good enough proof for me. And why would a Catholic parent leave out the possibility of the pill being an abortifacient just because someone can’t say 100% that it’s correct? Why would a catholic take the chance and say well we don’t know it’s an abortifacient so we’ll pretend it’s not when the evidence says otherwise:

aaplog.org/collition.htm

"On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil’s product information department. (Ortho-McNeil is one of the largest Pill Manufacturers.) I took detailed notes.

"Hill was unguarded, helpful and straightforward. He never asked me about my religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He did not couch his language to give me an answer I wanted to hear. …

"I asked him, ‘Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?’ He said ‘yes’. I asked, ‘What happens then?’ He said, ‘The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn’t work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, it won’t implant and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium.’ (Emphasis in the original)

"I then asked Hill if he was certain the pill made implantation less likely. ‘Oh yes,’ he replied. I said, ‘ So you don’t think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?’ He said the following, which I draw directly from my extensive notes of our conversation.

“Oh, no, it’s not theoretical. It’s observable. We know what an endometrium looks like when it’s rich and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When the woman is taking the Pill, you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance - as seen with the naked eye - and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do so.” (Emphasis in the original)"

Some where in your post there is a false statement. But to address your concern the OP is not confined to honesty, nor would they need any premission from me to say or believe anything. The people who write many of these articles simply attempt and intend to mislead, jion them if you dsire. Note I never claimed the pill was not abortificient the fact is that is a theory, just an unproven theory.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

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

You already know it, but here you are:

womenshealth.about.com: The lining of the uterus is also affected in a way that prevents fertilized eggs from implanting into the wall of the uterus.

ccli.org: The progestin component of the combination pill and the progestin-only minipill cause the inner lining of the uterus to become thin and shriveled, unable to support implantation of the embryo.

clevelandclinic.org: Some forms of the Pill stop the body from releasing an egg from the ovary. Others work by making the lining of the womb too thick or too thin to accept the fertilized egg.

tiscali.co.uk:The hormones also protect you against pregnancy by: …making the lining of your womb thinner - so that it’s less ‘receptive’ to an egg.

pfli.org: Third, all formulations of the pill cause changes to the lining of the womb (properly known as the endometrium)…this change also means that the womb is not in the right stage of development to allow a fertilized egg to attach properly…

So, it’s not in dispute that the pill creates an inhospitable environment for an embryo. It’s also not in dispute that the pill is not 100 percent effective in preventing conception, so it stands to reason that there have been and will continue to be instances of the pill failing to prevent a conception and then causing the embryo’s death.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the absence of a documented case of such is not proof that the pill is an abortifacient – especially when we know what it does and what it cannot do unfailingly.

and If it doesn’t?

You can enlarge and embolden all the “ifs” you want; that is not an argument.

Your position is completely untenable. You are claiming something that you can’t back up, and offering the lack of a demonstrable result as proof that you are right – despite the fact that the result isn’t necessary for the condition to exist.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Some where in your post there is a false statement. But to address your concern the OP is not confined to honesty, nor would they need any premission from me to say or believe anything. The people who write many of these articles simply attempt and intend to mislead, jion them if you dsire. Note I never claimed the pill was not abortificient the fact is that is a theory, just an unproven theory.

You’re going to accuse people of dishonesty without proof?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You already know it, but here you are:

So, it’s not in dispute that the pill creates an inhospitable environment for an embryo. It’s also not in dispute that the pill is not 100 percent effective in preventing conception, so it stands to reason that there have been and will continue to be instances of the pill failing to prevent a conception and then causing the embryo’s death.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the absence of a documented case of such is not proof that the pill is an abortifacient – especially when we know what it does and what it cannot do unfailingly.

You can enlarge and embolden all the “ifs” you want; that is not an argument.

Your position is completely untenable. You are claiming something that you can’t back up, and offering the lack of a demonstrable result as proof that you are right – despite the fact that the result isn’t necessary for the condition to exist.

Peace,
Dante

You’re going to accuse people of dishonesty without proof?

Peace,
Dante

We all have proof the are commonly refered to as “pill babies”. Additionally many of the very articles cited in this thread admit pregnancies occur, they state this and they state it can not happen in the same article. We have opinions, there is a difference between opinions and proof.

 

[Em_in_FL]

We all have proof the are commonly refered to as “pill babies”. Additionally many of the very articles cited in this thread admit pregnancies occur, they state this and they state it can not happen in the same article. We have opinions, there is a difference between opinions and proof.

I think we all understand the concept of a doubting Thomas…
But even science can draw logical conclusions from data without having to SEE actual PROOF…

Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
I don’t understand the constant need to defend something like the pill when there is more than enough evidence of it being problematic… morally & health-wise.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

We all have proof the are commonly refered to as “pill babies”. Additionally many of the very articles cited in this thread admit pregnancies occur, they state this and they state it can not happen in the same article. We have opinions, there is a difference between opinions and proof.

Please demonstrate an instance of an article “admitting it can occur” and then “stating it cannot happen”.

You are still avoiding the issue: that the pill can kill embryos is not disputable; it’s held up as one of its “failsafes”. You’re making unfounded assertions (read: your opinion) that fly in the face of facts that I and others have presented.

That is the definition of an “untenable position”.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Please demonstrate an instance of an article “admitting it can occur” and then “stating it cannot happen”.

You are still avoiding the issue: that the pill can kill embryos is not disputable; it’s held up as one of its “failsafes”. You’re making unfounded assertions (read: your opinion) that fly in the face of facts that I and others have presented.

That is the definition of an “untenable position”.

Peace,
Dante

"I asked him, ‘Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?’ He said ‘yes’. I asked, ‘What happens then?’ He said, ‘The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn’t work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, **it won’t implant **and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium.’

“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.*

aaplog.org/collition.htm

Both of these statements can not be true, either it won’t implant and thus no pill babies, or pregnancy but you can not have 3-5% pregnancies with zero implants.

More importantly the 3-5% pregnancy maybe an INCREASE. Yes it still possible the Pill INCREASES implantation rates of fertilized eggs!

 

[BlueRubies]

"I asked him, ‘Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?’ He said ‘yes’. I asked, ‘What happens then?’ He said, ‘The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn’t work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, **it won’t implant ***and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium.’

“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.

aaplog.org/collition.htm

Both of these statements can not be true, either it won’t implant and thus no pill babies, or pregnancy but you can not have 3-5% pregnancies with zero implants.

More importantly the 3-5% pregnancy maybe an INCREASE. Yes it still possible the Pill INCREASES implantation rates of fertilized eggs!

He said that it would be harder for an embryo to attatch - not impossible. Of course there is still pregnancy, but many embros would be flushed out and not able to attach. Actually, if a woman takes the pill correctly, she has a much less chance of becoming pregnant, but many women do not - they miss a pill here and there, which causes them to ovulate and possibly even make the uterus more receptive to an embryo. Therefore, the argument should go more like this…

You have to throw out the 3-5% because many of those women get pregnant for not taking the bc correctly. the pill is 99% effective (WHEN USED CORRECTLY), so therefore each year, there should be 1 pregnancy per 100 women on the pill. as also cited in that article, there is a breakthrough ovulation rate of 27% (this also would be less when the pill it taken correctly and thus would decrease that 5.4% even more).

I do not see where you are getting this 3% pregnancy rate as an increase? John Hopkins says that 20% of embryos are able to attach in the first place. So, 20% of 27% ovualtions means that there is a 5.4% chance of becoming pregnant when taking the pill NOT correctly . From what I have read 3% is more likely than 5% (and 1% is what it should be) - either way, both figures are lower than the figure for 20% of breakthrough ovulations (the 5.4). So, therefore, the pill does decrease the chance of attachment anywhere from .4 to 4.4%

imc.jhmi.edu/JHI/English/Patients/HNFY_Apr04.asp
aaplog.org/collition.htm
.asp

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am going to assume you are sincere, I say this because there are so many problems in this post. Not trying to nitpick but to explain some of the bigger issues:

He said that it would be harder for an embryo to attatch - not impossible.

what is written is won’t implant, which is incorrect. The bigger issue is to make these types of false statements first, then later back down to factual statements. The intent is clear and that intenet is to mislead

Of course there is still pregnancy, but many embros would be flushed out and not able to attach. Actually, if a woman takes the pill correctly, she has a much less chance of becoming pregnant, but many women do not - they miss a pill here and there, which causes them to ovulate and possibly even make the uterus more receptive to an embryo. Therefore, the argument should go more like this…

You have to throw out the 3-5% because many of those women get pregnant for not taking the bc correctly. the pill is 99% effective (WHEN USED CORRECTLY), so therefore each year, there should be 1 pregnancy per 100 women on the pill.

of course improper dosage is always an issue however there are roughly 130 menstrual cycles in a decade so at 1% failure rate that is 1.3 pregnancies per girl.

as also cited in that article, there is a breakthrough ovulation rate of 27% (this also would be less when the pill it taken correctly and thus would decrease that 5.4% even more).

at 27% that would be 35 eggs in each decade, which is 7 eggs at your 5.4%

I do not see where you are getting this 3% pregnancy rate as an increase?

in your earlier sentence your numbers indicate 7-35 ovulations, the fertilization of these ovulations is completely unknown except for documented pregnancies

John Hopkins says that 20% of embryos are able to attach in the first place. So, 20% of 27% ovualtions means that there is a 5.4% chance of becoming pregnant when taking the pill NOT correctly . From what I have read 3% is more likely than 5% (and 1% is what it should be) - either way, both figures are lower than the figure for 20% of breakthrough ovulations (the 5.4). So, therefore, the pill does decrease the chance of attachment anywhere from .4 to 4.4%

no, because the ovulation produced on the pill are not 100% fertilized so if we use an educated guess ( 3 days/28day) x 90% fertilization rate divided by your 20% from jh that equals 1.9% which is lower than the stated actual rate. How do we raise the number up to 3-5%??? Well one way is to assume the pill aids implantation! Other ways are to assume the fertilization window is larger, or actual ovulation rates are off, etc, etc

imc.jhmi.edu/JHI/English/Patients/HNFY_Apr04.asp
aaplog.org/collition.htm
.asp

This is in no means a comprehensive list, the object is simple to look at some math. I would ask you to consider some common sense concerning the JH article. Consider why JH wants to do the research. Understand if JH believes the actual failed rate to be 80% and pill babies are real then the need is to define the fail rate on the pill and compare that to the 80% number.

 

[BlueRubies]

I am going to assume you are sincere, I say this because there are so many problems in this post. Not trying to nitpick but to explain some of the bigger issues:

what is written is won’t implant, which is incorrect. The bigger issue is to make these types of false statements first, then later back down to factual statements. The intent is clear and that intenet is to mislead of course improper dosage is always an issue however there are roughly 130 menstrual cycles in a decade so at 1% failure rate that is 1.3 pregnancies per girl. at 27% that would be 35 eggs in each decade, which is 7 eggs at your 5.4% in your earlier sentence your numbers indicate 7-35 ovulations, the fertilization of these ovulations is completely unknown except for documented pregnancies no, because the ovulation produced on the pill are not 100% fertilized so if we use an educated guess ( 3 days/28day) x 90% fertilization rate divided by your 20% from jh that equals 1.9% which is lower than the stated actual rate. How do we raise the number up to 3-5%??? Well one way is to assume the pill aids implantation! Other ways are to assume the fertilization window is larger, or actual ovulation rates are off, etc, etc
This is in no means a comprehensive list, the object is simple to look at some math. I would ask you to consider some common sense concerning the JH article. Consider why JH wants to do the research. Understand if JH believes the actual failed rate to be 80% and pill babies are real then the need is to define the fail rate on the pill and compare that to the 80% number.

of course I am serious. Coming up with figures with a simple calculation regarding this subect is not going to cut it - it’s flawed somewhere (as I am sure I had some flaw in mine too and I should have never mentioned it )

IMO, there is no way the pill aids in making a embryo attach - and unless you have proof (links to john hopkins or mayo clinic for example), from medical researchers that shows the pill increases the risk of an embryo attaching to a woman’s uterus, I will never believe it Is there anyone else on here that believes the pill aids in a woman getting pregnant in that way? I am just asking b/c I am curious if there are.

I think the phrase “it won’t implant” is being taken too literally - I think he means in a generalized term - from how I read it, he’s not saying it will never ever implant ever. He’s speaking about the mechanism that is stops the egg from implanting (most of the time). Doctors know about this than me, and they get that 27% breakthrough rate from somewhere. There have been studies involving ultrasounds to detrmine this percentage.

JMO

 

[DanteAlighieri]

"I asked him, ‘Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?’ He said ‘yes’. I asked, ‘What happens then?’ He said, ‘The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn’t work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, **it won’t implant ***and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium.’

“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.

aaplog.org/collition.htm

Both of these statements can not be true, either it won’t implant and thus no pill babies, or pregnancy but you can not have 3-5% pregnancies with zero implants.

More importantly the 3-5% pregnancy maybe an INCREASE. Yes it still possible the Pill INCREASES implantation rates of fertilized eggs!

Successful implantation is beside the point! We’re talking about whether the pill can kill embryos – and the cite you gave is further evidence that it does.

Please note: a pregnancy begins when a new life is created – i.e., at conception. If the embryo never implants, it’s false to say that the mother was not pregnant.

So, as I’ve been saying, the notion that the pill is not abortifacient is untenable.