Is the Pill an abortifacient or not?

[Texas_Roofer]

opinions and facts are not the same, facts need no tenability

 

[DanteAlighieri]

opinions and facts are not the same, facts need no tenability

We’re going round in circles.

You’re right: facts are neither tenable nor untenable. The problem here is that your position is not a fact, and is actually refuted by the facts.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Texas_Roofer]

We’re going round in circles.

You’re right: facts are neither tenable nor untenable. The problem here is that your position is not a fact, and is actually refuted by the facts.

Peace,
Dante

My position is up holding the catholic teachings.

 

[KathleenElsie]

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.

blog.ancient-future.net/2006/01/20/where-does-your-church-stand-on-abortion/

A recent discussion on Pontifications has highlighted the Episcopal church’s radical pro-abortion stance. Believe it or not, most historical mainline Protestant denominations are officially pro-choice, and radically so, in that their views on abortion are even more progressive than the average American. Many of these denominations even have opposed a ban on partial-birth abortions. Former Episcopal church presiding-bishop Edmond Browning was one of the first people to publicly congratulate Bill Clinton when Clinton vetoed legislation banning partial-birth abortions. Take a look at what different churches believe about abortion, and see what your church believes. What follows is my summary of a link on The National Right to Life site.
Catholic: Strongly Opposes
Orthodox: Strongly Opposes
Lutheran- LCMS: Strongly Opposes
Southern Baptist: Strongly opposes
Lutheran-ELCA: Lukewarm, but officially opposes in most cases
Presbyterian (USA): Officially pro-choice
United Church of Christ: Radically pro-choice, supports legalization of partial-birth abortions
United Methodist: Pro-Choice, supports legalization of partial-birth abortions
Episcopal: Officially pro-choice, supports radical pro-choice organizations

 

[DanteAlighieri]

My position is up holding the catholic teachings.

With all due respect, that’s an evasion. You made claims to the effect that:

a. the pill is not abortifacient, because
b. the sources claiming that it is are specious, and
c. there is no direct evidence that it has ever aborted an embryo.

I (and others) have demonstrated that this position is untenable. Furthermore, claiming that the pill is or is not an abortifacient is neither upholding nor contradicting Catholic teaching – thus, your above statement is irrelevant.

I’m not here just to “win” an argument, but this one has been finished for a few posts now. Can’t you just concede the point?

Peace,
Dante

 

[newbetx]

My position is up holding the catholic teachings.

TR, I guess everyone here but me thinks because you are stating there is not actual proof of the pill doing the things it is designed to do, you must be pro-pill or something.

I’m not sure what we are going to accomplish by restating the facts over and over, either.

 

[Em_in_FL]

My position is up holding the catholic teachings.

Catholic teachings are against the use of artificial birth control.

The science behind whether or not the pill is “potentially” or “definitely” an abortifacient isn’t relative to church teachings… because using the birth control in the first place is not within moral teachings.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

With all due respect, that’s an evasion. You made claims to the effect that:

a. the pill is not abortifacient, because
b. the sources claiming that it is are specious, and
c. there is no direct evidence that it has ever aborted an embryo.

I (and others) have demonstrated that this position is untenable. Furthermore, claiming that the pill is or is not an abortifacient is neither upholding nor contradicting Catholic teaching – thus, your above statement is irrelevant.

I’m not here just to “win” an argument, but this one has been finished for a few posts now. Can’t you just concede the point?

Peace,
Dante

In typical fashion additional accusations are made (a & b) with again no substance. No such abortion has ever, ever, ever been documented - That is a fact. It might assist you to look up the word “untenable” which is irrelevant to facts (as you acknowledged earlier) It really does not matter what your opinion is, the fact is no documented abortions through the use of normal birth control. None, not one, not ever. Rather than posting an opinion simply post a documented abortion through the use of normal birth control pills. Post it, simply post one. Given the current argument your proposal is to dismiss all evidence (pill babies & statistics) without a single direct piece of evidence which backs the abortion theory. Theory that is all it is, it is an unproven theory.

Here is a hint the opinion pieces commonly posted cannot overcome self scrutiny. If they cannot survive self-scrutiny what chance to they have on independent scrutiny? Here is another hint, notice even doctors who support this theory are careful to what they sign, They will not sign simple statements which state the common birth control pills are abortifacients, if you do not believe this post a few examples, or ask a few doctors. It is clear they do not share your opinion of “untenable”

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Catholic teachings are against the use of artificial birth control.

The science behind whether or not the pill is “potentially” or “definitely” an abortifacient isn’t relative to church teachings… because using the birth control in the first place is not within moral teachings.

yes this has been discussed you are correct

 

[hasikelee]

So, can’t women sue these ABC companies for making false claims?

What if even the most effective BCpills, such as Yaz, results in pregnancy? If the baby has severe birth defects, can’t the woman sue?

I’m confused as to why these makers are allowed to say on their website and in their pamphlets that their pills “prevent a fertilized egg from attaching” if it’s not true.

That sounds like a big time lawsuit.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So, can’t women sue these ABC companies for making false claims?

sue yes, win maybe, the problem is neither side can prove the issue! The plaintiff will show the baby. The defense will rest on uterus lining changes. Odds are there will either be a settlement or a ruling that published fail rates covered the mfg’s liability. Additionally most medical studies find dosage errors from the patient are the leading cause of pregnancy on the pill. Meaning again the abortion issue remains unresolved

What if even the most effective BCpills, such as Yaz, results in pregnancy? If the baby has severe birth defects, can’t the woman sue?

sue yes, win maybe, the issue here is convincing the arbitrator the defect is from the pill

I’m confused as to why these makers are allowed to say on their website and in their pamphlets that their pills “prevent a fertilized egg from attaching” if it’s not true.

That sounds like a big time lawsuit.

Basic Marketing, remember the mfgs do not claim this as the primary mechanism of the pill. Additionally all parties acknowledge failure rates, so even if proven false through a large independent study the odds are they would only have to remove this “misleading information” This is a daily thing in the vitamin supplement industry.

 

[Lady_D_I]

I’m confused as to why these makers are allowed to say on their website and in their pamphlets that their pills “prevent a fertilized egg from attaching” if it’s not true.

The prescribing information states changes in the endometrium “reduces the likelihood of implantation” (Note: I haven’t reviewed the prescribing info of every pill ). The pharmaceutical companies suggest this is possible since the endometrium is a factor in fertility. It is my understanding the documented changes in the endometrium are when gonadotropins are suppressed, which is the action of the pill. It would be interesting to see what happens to the endometrium when gonadotropins are not suppressed. I have an idea based on the women I cared for in the family planning clinic as well as the post-pill Creighton Model charts I reviewed when teaching CrMS, which is why IMHO the pill is at least a potential abortifacient. Obviously, my opinion is not scientific evidence.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Catholic teachings are against the use of artificial birth control.

The science behind whether or not the pill is “potentially” or “definitely” an abortifacient isn’t relative to church teachings… because using the birth control in the first place is not within moral teachings.

This is true! Texas Roofer made a similar point earlier.

As far as the science, I believe we (Catholics) should give factual information and avoid sensationalizing information.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

In typical fashion additional accusations are made (a & b) with again no substance. No such abortion has ever, ever, ever been documented - That is a fact. It might assist you to look up the word “untenable” which is irrelevant to facts (as you acknowledged earlier) It really does not matter what your opinion is, the fact is no documented abortions through the use of normal birth control. None, not one, not ever. Rather than posting an opinion simply post a documented abortion through the use of normal birth control pills. Post it, simply post one. Given the current argument your proposal is to dismiss all evidence (pill babies & statistics) without a single direct piece of evidence which backs the abortion theory. Theory that is all it is, it is an unproven theory.

Here is a hint the opinion pieces commonly posted cannot overcome self scrutiny. If they cannot survive self-scrutiny what chance to they have on independent scrutiny? Here is another hint, notice even doctors who support this theory are careful to what they sign, They will not sign simple statements which state the common birth control pills are abortifacients, if you do not believe this post a few examples, or ask a few doctors. It is clear they do not share your opinion of “untenable”

Yep, I was right: we’re going round in circles.

I’ve already refuted this argument; I’m not going to waste any more time on it. Feel free to read my previous posts.

The lack of a documented case is proof of nothing, my friend. Besides, you’re the one making unsubstantiated claims.

Enjoy running around in circles. Ta, now.

Peace,
Dante

 

[BlueRubies]

Yep, I was right: we’re going round in circles.

I’ve already refuted this argument; I’m not going to waste any more time on it. Feel free to read my previous posts.

The lack of a documented case is proof of nothing, my friend. Besides, you’re the one making unsubstantiated claims.

Enjoy running around in circles. Ta, now.

Peace,
Dante

exactly Dante. Pro-lifers generally believe it makes it harder to attach as do the pro-choicers and even the pharmacists and scientists that work for the companies that make the pill agree that it changes the endrometrium and makes it harder to implant. So, who exactly is refuting this? A very small portion of the population. I don’t see any proof either that it aids in the attachment as was claimed above.

So true, we are just running around in circles on this one. :dts:

 

[hasikelee]

The prescribing information states changes in the endometrium “reduces the likelihood of implantation” (Note: I haven’t reviewed the prescribing info of every pill ). The pharmaceutical companies suggest this is possible since the endometrium is a factor in fertility. It is my understanding the documented changes in the endometrium are when gonadotropins are suppressed, which is the action of the pill. It would be interesting to see what happens to the endometrium when gonadotropins are not suppressed. I have an idea based on the women I cared for in the family planning clinic as well as the post-pill Creighton Model charts I reviewed when teaching CrMS, which is why IMHO the pill is at least a potential abortifacient. Obviously, my opinion is not scientific evidence.

Well, to use a specific example, the little insert in Yasmin says it “prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.”

What I am wondering aloud here, (anybody feel free to jump in) is why these pill companies would take the time to put that in there, since no scientific proof exists. (Excluding physiological assumption here.)

Is it a legal statement to protect them in the event that a scientist documents proof of an early-term abortion due to their pills?

It just seems to be asking for bad publicity to state this in their pamphlets, online, from doctors, etc. There still seems to be a majority of people who might condone birth control pills, but abhor abortion in some way.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well hasikelee
We can only guess however I would not rule out your guess. My guess is they want to assure potential customers of a feeling of success by claiming even fail safe backup mechanisms. I looked on the Yasmin website and found nothing of the claim. I would not be surprised if you found it. It would seem they and others are no longer making these statements. The thing is over and over they warn of pregnancy and state expected pregnancy rates. Which simply could not be true if the pill prevented fertilized eggs from implantation.

 

[hasikelee]

Well hasikelee
We can only guess however I would not rule out your guess. My guess is they want to assure potential customers of a feeling of success by claiming even fail safe backup mechanisms. I looked on the Yasmin website and found nothing of the claim. I would not be surprised if you found it. It would seem they and others are no longer making these statements. The thing is over and over they warn of pregnancy and state expected pregnancy rates. Which simply could not be true if the pill prevented fertilized eggs from implantation.

Ah, so in other words, by making this claim, they both build confidence in their product and protect themselves from a lawsuit.

Okay, this makes sense. It ties into your points on the hypothetical case of a baby being born and the woman attempting to sue. They could simply claim it was a failure rate.

And yet, I know from firsthand experience of talking to coworkers that they choose certain BCPs because of the COC/abortifacent advertisement.

On top of all those good things for them, if scientists are able to track the human pre-implantation and do document abortion due to the pills, they are covered with their statements.

They must have good chief counsels.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Well, to use a specific example, the little insert in Yasmin says it “prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.”

Are you fidning this on the patient info? I don’t see it there.
The prescribing information for Yasmin (and other COCs) states “reduce the likelihood of implantation”. They are not stating the pill WILL prevent implantation but these documented changes in the endometrium may prevent implantation based on what experts, such as REs, understand about the endometrium and fertility.

BTW, notice the Yasmin site does not mention the changes in the endometrium.

 

[Lady_D_I]

I checked the prescribing information of a few of the most popular COCs and “reduce the likelihood of implantation” is listed.

Loestrin 24
Ortho Tricyclen Lo
Seasonale
Seasonique

Based on the lectures, conferences, etc. I’ve attended, the changes in the endometrium are believed to reduce the likeliehood of implantation. Contraceptive Tech (family planning “bible”), Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology & Infertility, Managing Contraceptive Pill Patients, etc. discuss this in detail. These are credible and well-respected texts.