Is the Pill an abortifacient or not?

[Lady_D_I]

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.

Let me preface this by stating I have a caffeine withdrawal headache and kids crawling on me… I am sincere in asking.
I don’t understand how a pill pregnancy means it can’t be true the pill may prevent/reduce the likelihood of implantation? When the pill fails, all mechanisms fail but that doesn’t make the prescribing info clincial pharmacology false.

 

[KathleenElsie]

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.

It seems to me that a reduced likelihood of implantation is just a euphemism for induced early abortion. :banghead: If an egg is not fertilized then there would have been no chance of implantation. And correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t a fertilized egg life according to the Catholic Faith.

So each of these methods can produce early abortions.

 

[Primrose]

The pill works by thickening the mucus of the cervix which prevents sperm from entering the uterus. It sometimes stops ovulation but not always. So If a sperm got through into the uterus and then into the fallopian tubes conception could take place. The lining of the uterus would make it difficult for the embryo to implant (caused by the hormones in the pill)

Any birthcontrol with hormones work in this way (implanon, depo provera).

Primrose

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Pill pregnancies would prove many statements made concerning the inability to implant could not be true. The ability to implant clearly still exists. Additionally not a single increase or decrease in implant rates has been proven.

hope that helps

 

[Lady_D_I]

The pill works by thickening the mucus of the cervix which prevents sperm from entering the uterus. It sometimes stops ovulation but not always. So If a sperm got through into the uterus and then into the fallopian tubes conception could take place. The lining of the uterus would make it difficult for the embryo to implant (caused by the hormones in the pill)

Any birthcontrol with hormones work in this way (implanon, depo provera).

COCs work by gonadotropin suppression. The primary mechanism of gonadotropin suppression is inhibition of ovulation. According the medical literature, the pill inhibits ovulation 98-99% of the time (perfect use). A small study of 20 mcg pills found progesterone levels indicative of ovulation in 8.3% of women. So, the estimates of “escape ovulation” 2% (estimated on older pillls) - 8.3% (low dose pills). I realize other sources report higher breakthrough or escape ovulation rates but remember these are estimates. Other alterations include thickening of the CM and changes in the endometrium.

POPs (progestin only pills) rely on the thickening of the CM and changes in the endometrium to prevent conception. Ovualtion is inhibited in 50% of users.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Pill pregnancies would prove many statements made concerning the inability to implant could not be true. The ability to implant clearly still exists. Additionally not a single increase or decrease in implant rates has been proven.

hope that helps

I understand your point… or at least my interpretation.

Perhaps it is perspective when reading the clinical phamacology. I do have the benefit of clinical experience though, which has taught me there are few textbook cases and many individual responses. It may be easier for me to accept an ovulatory pill cycle with an altered endometium. It isn’t all or nothing.

Pill pregnancies also prove ovulation occurs on the pill but that doesn’t make the clinical pharmacology re: inhibition of ovulation false. KWIM? Same can be said about the CM. Pill pregnancies only prove the pill fails.

Ok, this is making my head hurt worse. I’ll exit this thread and leave it to the rest of you… unless anyone posts false info.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It seems to me that a reduced likelihood of implantation is just a euphemism for induced early abortion. :banghead: If an egg is not fertilized then there would have been no chance of implantation. And correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t a fertilized egg life according to the Catholic Faith.

So each of these methods can produce early abortions.

So how much was it reduced? from what rate to what rate?

 

[newbetx]

:twocents: =http://bestsmileys.com/oneofakind/1.gif

 

[Primrose]

I think it’s hard in todays society, I’m in the uk and the youth aren’t being taught abstinence. The sex education in the schools promote the pill, condoms etc, but no-one is teaching the kids to wait. It is one of the reasons why I’m attracted to the Catholic faith because no one is afraid to tell anyone what the rules of God are.

I think it’s a shame that in the UK the morning after pill is now available over the counter in the chemist!!! No one is telling them that it is abortion. I also think it is a shame that no one is realising (only my theory) that breast cancer rate has increased massively in the past 20 years since the birth control pill has been regularly used. I’m no expert but isn’t it more of a coincidence that some breast cancers are estrogen fed. So being on the pill could cause breast cancer which it does say in the small print of the side effects on the pill packet. The enemy has most certainly decieved. I know that there are arguements about now there’s more facilities to detect breast cancer but it is way too much of a coincidence for me.

I only became a christian 6 years ago, and have felt the Lord really bring me up on contraception. Now I promote non hormonal contraception. Sorry if this is a little off subject.

Primrose

 

[DanteAlighieri]

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.

Which is, of course, like saying that there must simply not have been a fire sprinkler system in the building, or else it could not possibly have burned down.

Do you not see the absurdity of your claim?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Sorry but I can not understand a relationship between fire sprinklers and birth rates.

Absurd would be to believe two unknown numbers can be accurately described while remaining unknown. As you know neither number how can you know which is higher, how much it is higher, why it is higher, etc?

 

[Lady_D_I]

There is a growing body of evidence regarding endometrial receptivity and implantation rates, but most of it is from ART (IVF). Implantation is a complex process involving adhesion molecules, cytokines, growth factors, lipids, hormones, etc. One article reports inadequate endometrial receptivity is responsible for approximately two-thirds of implantation failures.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Yes and we must remember that this research is done because of pregnancy problems, meaning implantation within this group is likely to be abnormal. Or said simplistically, that may be why they are in the research group. So these NON-Pill endometrial receptive issues prove receptivity rates are ***issues in nature ***making it difficult to know what if any affect birth control pills are having on the subject. And again placing a focus on the concept of whether implantation failures should be considered as abortions.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Yes and we must remember that this research is done because of pregnancy problems, meaning implantation within this group is likely to be abnormal. Or said simplistically, that may be why they are in the research group. So these NON-Pill endometrial receptive issues prove receptivity rates are ***issues in nature ***making it difficult to know what if any affect birth control pills are having on the subject. And again placing a focus on the concept of whether implantation failures should be considered as abortions.

Excellent point. Researchers are just now beginning to understand the role of the endometrium in reproduction. The article I mentioned above states “implantation failure remains an unsolved problem in reproductive medicine and is considered as a major cause of infertility in otherwise healthy women”. However, it is significant the pill causes changes which decrease endometrial receptivity and mimic what is observed in infertile women who are otherwise healthy.

<>

The changes in the endometrium are documented. These changes occur with use of COCs. These changes are associated with reduced implantation rates. In some women who dc the pill, it may take a few cycles for the endometrium to recover. I understand this is indirect evidence, but it is significant.

 

[Lady_D_I]

:twocents: =http://bestsmileys.com/oneofakind/1.gif

I think you have a point newbe and we aren’t learning much at this point.

 

[allhers]

Here is another helpful site that may help explain some of this.

One of the ways that these chemicals and devices work is to prevent the newly conceived human embryo from attaching to the lining of the uterus. You may hear the inaccurate term “fertilized egg” used to describe the living human embryo. But once fertilization has taken place, there is no more “egg.” A new tiny person has been formed and is traveling on his or her way down the fallopian tube to enter and attach to the womb. Once there, the baby receives nourishment, and the growth hormone progesterone needed for survival.

But, if the contraceptive device prevents the newly conceived child from attaching to the uterus (womb), what happens? Without nourishment and room to grow, the child cannot survive and he dies in the first 1-7 days of life.

This is what we call an early, chemical abortion.

Click on the blue link below and then click on the brown links to read more.

all.org/issues_birthcontrol.php

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Here is another helpful site that may help explain some of this.

One of the ways that these chemicals and devices work is to prevent the newly conceived human embryo from attaching to the lining of the uterus.

not a single documented case not one, not ever

You may hear the inaccurate term “fertilized egg” used to describe the living human embryo. But once fertilization has taken place, there is no more “egg.” A new tiny person has been formed and is traveling on his or her way down the fallopian tube to enter and attach to the womb. Once there, the baby receives nourishment, and the growth hormone progesterone needed for survival.

But, ***if ***the contraceptive device prevents the newly conceived child from attaching to the uterus (womb), what happens?

And “if” it does not what then?

Without nourishment and room to grow, the child cannot survive and he dies in the first 1-7 days of life.

This is what we call an early, chemical abortion.

Click on the blue link below and then click on the brown links to read more.

all.org/issues_birthcontrol.php

So who is we? Did you see “ALL” wrote the article?

 

[allhers]

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.

If you have suffered an injury that might be linked to hormonal birth control, you should contact an attorney. Your potential claim might expire with the passage of time, so be vigilant.

Perhaps more significantly, awareness is vitally important. Women and young girls simply do not understand the harm that these “liberating” drugs can do to their bodies. They do not comprehend their legal rights. To find out more about the risks of specific birth control products, consult brochures available from American Life League.

Spread the message that companies like Ortho McNeil and Planned Parenthood can be taken to court for harm to women from birth control drugs. Spread the message to help save lives.

The above is quoted from this web site:
all.org/article.php?id=11174

 

[allhers]

not a single documented case not one, not ever And “if” it does not what then? So who is we? Did you see “ALL” wrote the article?

They were taken from the ALL web site, that is why I gave my source, and what makes you think that you are supporting the Catholic Church’s position when clearly you aren’t. ALL does however.

By the way, what are your sources?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

They were taken from the ALL web site, that is why I gave my source, and what makes you think that you are supporting the Catholic Church’s position when clearly you aren’t. ALL does however.

By the way, what are your sources?

Well if ALL or NONE is speaking for you would you consider writting them and asking for the DATA which shows such abortions? Or would that be a waste of your time? By The Way the catechism is clear on both false witness, and misleading