A
allhers
Guest
I know what the Cathechism says too.
Apparently you weren’t aware that ALL has been around since 1979 and you yourself can contact them.
www.all.org
- Status
Apparently you weren’t aware that ALL has been around since 1979 and you yourself can contact them.
www.all.org
A
allhers
Guest
While I’m waiting for your sources Texas Roofer, here is some more for you to read from American Life League. (ALL)
all.org/article.php?id=10126
No one there is bearing any false witness!
all.org/article.php?id=10126
No one there is bearing any false witness!
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Your asking me to document your sources for you?
L
Lady_D_I
Guest
Texas Roofer has not posted anything against Catholic teaching.
He brought up an excellent point about contraception & Catholic teaching in reply #20 when he asked “can I add that to catholics in communion with the church the issue is moot?”
He is correct there is no direct evidence the pill is an abortifacient… NONE. This article, signed by well-known NFP-only doctors including Dr. Hilgers, explains the lack of direct evidence:
He brought up an excellent point about contraception & Catholic teaching in reply #20 when he asked “can I add that to catholics in communion with the church the issue is moot?”
He is correct there is no direct evidence the pill is an abortifacient… NONE. This article, signed by well-known NFP-only doctors including Dr. Hilgers, explains the lack of direct evidence:
I agree with Texas Roofer it is wrong to sensationalize the facts… either way. That said, he and I disagree on the significance of the indirect evidence, but I respect his conclusions and hope he respects mine.
A
allhers
Guest
Clearly here, in this post, I asked you for your sources. All you are doing now is answering my question with a question, and, I might add, a silly one at that.
A
allhers
Guest
From this site, which someone else on here posted, (did you really read it??)
"The authors are obviously not familiar with Randy Alcorn’s booklet, DOES THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL CAUSE ABORTIONS? Randy Alcorn is a Christian minister and researcher who set out to prove that the BCP’s are NOT abortifacient. (Reference on page 2) On pages 29-30 he recalls a conversation with a representative of **Ortho-McNeil **. "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.
aaplog.org/collition.htm
Then I posted what was said on ALL’s website (American Life League)
Now look at this:
The Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive
Is it an abortifacient and contraceptive?
Believe it-the answer is yes
all.org/article.php?id=10193
So what it appears to me is this, clearly two different opinions are being drawn from the same article, and ALL is making it clear that the birth control pill is an abortifacient. They are also making it clear, as I posted earlier to hasikelee’s question that Ortho-McNeil can be sued. (As I referenced in post #117)
It seems to me that if you were a faithful Catholic who did know the Cathechism that you would realize that ALL (American Life League) is faithful and clearly knows what they are talking about in spite of what others think.
"The authors are obviously not familiar with Randy Alcorn’s booklet, DOES THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL CAUSE ABORTIONS? Randy Alcorn is a Christian minister and researcher who set out to prove that the BCP’s are NOT abortifacient. (Reference on page 2) On pages 29-30 he recalls a conversation with a representative of **Ortho-McNeil **. "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.
aaplog.org/collition.htm
Then I posted what was said on ALL’s website (American Life League)
Now look at this:
The Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive
Is it an abortifacient and contraceptive?
Believe it-the answer is yes
all.org/article.php?id=10193
So what it appears to me is this, clearly two different opinions are being drawn from the same article, and ALL is making it clear that the birth control pill is an abortifacient. They are also making it clear, as I posted earlier to hasikelee’s question that Ortho-McNeil can be sued. (As I referenced in post #117)
It seems to me that if you were a faithful Catholic who did know the Cathechism that you would realize that ALL (American Life League) is faithful and clearly knows what they are talking about in spite of what others think.
L
Lady_D_I
Guest
Yes, I posted it and read it. I have an above average understanding of the clinical pharmacology. I am addressing the question of direct evidence… proof the pill is an abortifacient. Please note I am talking about DIRECT EVIDENCE versus indirect. Texas Roofer is correct… there is NO direct evidence which is acknowledged by the article I posted. There is indirect evidence, which Texas Roofer has reached his conclusions regarding the significance of it. How is he posting against the Church’s teachings?
ALL states
ALL states
*]It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first two actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the tiny baby boy or girl will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
There is no direct evidence the pill has ever acted as an abortifacient, so it would be more accurate to state the baby MAY die. The pill is a potential or probable abortifacient but it isn’t a fact. However, I assume we agree we should err on the side of life.
BTW, what happens in OVULATORY pill cycles? The changes in the endometrium are documented when gonadotropins are suppressed. When gonadotropins are suppressed ovulation is inhibited, CM thickens, etc. What happens in those ovulatory cycles? If ovulation is not inhibited and the CM is fertile, what about the endometrium? It is a valid question.
Is this comment necessary? What does the Catechism have to do with ALL?
As a devout Catholic, does it matter if the pill is an abortifacient or not? Contraception is intrinsically evil. I submit to the authority of the Church not ALL.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Again you posted an opinion and cited an opinion peice, no data, none. You may believe as you chose however you can not post data to directly support this theory, nor document an abortion of this type. All can not do that, None can not do that. Dr. Colliton can not do that.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
sure
The authors, Randy Alcorn, or the writer of the article provided no direct evidence, nor could any of these people document a single occurrence, not one case, not a single case
actually if you read carefully you will see doctors do not sign statements which state the pill is abortifacient. Read it they sign to statements as “indicate” or “believe” they systematically avoid signing a direct statement. They know the difference so they will not sign the direct statements
A
allhers
Guest
With all due respect Lady D I, I was asking Texas Roofer if he had read this article…(have you?)
This is an excerpt taken from it:
There is an unarguable logic connecting the contraceptive act and the abortive act. They are both anti-life.(3) To fully articulate this proposition, the contraceptive action is anti-the-formation of a new life. One does not pop a pill, slip on a condom, take a shot in the buttocks, etc. in preparation for a game of Chinese Checkers. The only logical reason for these actions is to prevent the formation of a new life while positing voluntary coital acts. One might employ condoms in the illusory hope of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), but thus is Russian roulette revisited with twice the risk of dying if AIDS is the object of one’s concern. The greatest witness to the logic of this truth is Planned Parenthood (PP). PP has progressed from being the Western world’s number one promoter and provider of contraception to being the number one provider and promoter of induced abortion.
In addition, simple logic demands that those who respect the sanctity of human life from fertilization until natural death should also respect those actions which give rise to that life. They were designed by the same Creator who infuses the soul into each and every new conceptus. As 1 Samuel 2:6 informs us; “The Lord puts to death and gives life.” Now to address the question, “Are BCP’s abortifacient?” First, it is important to realize that there exists a large cohort of physicians currently leading our profession in the big lie. These doctors are writing and speaking across the whole nation, selling the idea that the BCP, the IUD, the “morning after pills,” so-called “emergency contraception,” are not abortifacient. Dr. Daniel Mishell, writing in response to a question from a pregnancy aid center about the possible abortifacient nature of Depo-Provera, replied that there was no way. That agent, he stated, blocks ovulation 100% of the time. This agent is probably the most effective contraceptive available today, prevention of pregnancy ranging from 99.5 to 99.7%. When taken as advised every 3 months, approximately 50% of users cease menstruating. This indicates that they are not ovulating and are thus at no risk for pregnancy. The other half bleed irregularly and at times heavily. The question that must be answered is: How is this remarkable success rate achieved?
…and following…
all.org/article.php?id=10193
So what you are both telling me is that this information, (which ties into both articles, is incorrect?) Is that your position or are you just saying that hey, thats correct but we don’t have any PROOF that its correct because Doctors won’t document it.
This is an excerpt taken from it:
There is an unarguable logic connecting the contraceptive act and the abortive act. They are both anti-life.(3) To fully articulate this proposition, the contraceptive action is anti-the-formation of a new life. One does not pop a pill, slip on a condom, take a shot in the buttocks, etc. in preparation for a game of Chinese Checkers. The only logical reason for these actions is to prevent the formation of a new life while positing voluntary coital acts. One might employ condoms in the illusory hope of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), but thus is Russian roulette revisited with twice the risk of dying if AIDS is the object of one’s concern. The greatest witness to the logic of this truth is Planned Parenthood (PP). PP has progressed from being the Western world’s number one promoter and provider of contraception to being the number one provider and promoter of induced abortion.
In addition, simple logic demands that those who respect the sanctity of human life from fertilization until natural death should also respect those actions which give rise to that life. They were designed by the same Creator who infuses the soul into each and every new conceptus. As 1 Samuel 2:6 informs us; “The Lord puts to death and gives life.” Now to address the question, “Are BCP’s abortifacient?” First, it is important to realize that there exists a large cohort of physicians currently leading our profession in the big lie. These doctors are writing and speaking across the whole nation, selling the idea that the BCP, the IUD, the “morning after pills,” so-called “emergency contraception,” are not abortifacient. Dr. Daniel Mishell, writing in response to a question from a pregnancy aid center about the possible abortifacient nature of Depo-Provera, replied that there was no way. That agent, he stated, blocks ovulation 100% of the time. This agent is probably the most effective contraceptive available today, prevention of pregnancy ranging from 99.5 to 99.7%. When taken as advised every 3 months, approximately 50% of users cease menstruating. This indicates that they are not ovulating and are thus at no risk for pregnancy. The other half bleed irregularly and at times heavily. The question that must be answered is: How is this remarkable success rate achieved?
…and following…
all.org/article.php?id=10193
So what you are both telling me is that this information, (which ties into both articles, is incorrect?) Is that your position or are you just saying that hey, thats correct but we don’t have any PROOF that its correct because Doctors won’t document it.
L
Lady_D_I
Guest
Noted.
First, Depo is a progestin only contraceptive. Obviously, ovulation is not inhibited 100% of the time if pregnancies occur. I don’t understand the point about the bleeding.
Allhers, there is no direct evidence to document. You read the article which explains why there is no directn evidence to document. It does not exist. The evidence suggesting the pill is an abortifacient is indirect evidence. Some do not find it convincing. Some do. The bottom line, the pill is not a known abortifacient.
What if in those ovulatory pill cycles the endometrium is receptive?
A
allhers
Guest
…continue to read
all.org/article.php?id=10193
The other half bleed irregularly and at times heavily. The question that must be answered is: How is this remarkable success rate achieved? The .5 to .3% failure rate represent pregnancies. If pregnancies occur, obviously ovulation is occurring. Might not all three mechanisms of action traditionally reported for hormonal contraceptives (and noted by Dr. Mishell when, writing contemporaneously and more candidly, for medical students and physicians) come into play ?(4) Others have researched thus issue and concluded that all hormonal contraceptives have an abortifacient potential.(5)(6) Neither of these resources has anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church. In defense of medical experts stating that the IUD, the morning-after pill, etc., are not abortifacient, they may be relying on the circa 1970 redefinition of pregnancy declaring that it begins with implantation. This is an organized no-brainer. The woman has unprotected intercourse at her peak fertility time and conceives a tiny baby boy or girl traveling down her fallopian tube toward her womb, and they say she is not pregnant. Such an inane proposition could only fly in a culture of death milieu.
all.org/article.php?id=10193
The other half bleed irregularly and at times heavily. The question that must be answered is: How is this remarkable success rate achieved? The .5 to .3% failure rate represent pregnancies. If pregnancies occur, obviously ovulation is occurring. Might not all three mechanisms of action traditionally reported for hormonal contraceptives (and noted by Dr. Mishell when, writing contemporaneously and more candidly, for medical students and physicians) come into play ?(4) Others have researched thus issue and concluded that all hormonal contraceptives have an abortifacient potential.(5)(6) Neither of these resources has anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church. In defense of medical experts stating that the IUD, the morning-after pill, etc., are not abortifacient, they may be relying on the circa 1970 redefinition of pregnancy declaring that it begins with implantation. This is an organized no-brainer. The woman has unprotected intercourse at her peak fertility time and conceives a tiny baby boy or girl traveling down her fallopian tube toward her womb, and they say she is not pregnant. Such an inane proposition could only fly in a culture of death milieu.
L
Lady_D_I
Guest
I read this. It isn’t evidence. IF 50% of women experience ovulation, maybe the CM prevents pregnancy. You should see the cervix and CM of Depo patients. NFP providers are aware of the effects of hormonal contraception on the cervical crypts (documented by Dr. Odeblad).
Don’t misunderstand. I believe life begins when sperm and egg unite. I am pro-life. I submit to the teachings of the Church.
L
Lady_D_I
Guest
Let me add this for clarification.
IMHO, hormonal contraceptives and IUDs are at the very least potential abortifacients based on the indirect evidence. I would need direct evidence proving these contraceptives aren’t potential abortifacients to change my opinion.
IMHO, hormonal contraceptives and IUDs are at the very least potential abortifacients based on the indirect evidence. I would need direct evidence proving these contraceptives aren’t potential abortifacients to change my opinion.
A
allhers
Guest
What about #4 above? Where it says this…Others have researched thus issue and concluded that all hormonal contraceptives have an abortifacient potential.
I am sure that during their research that they would know and understand. It just seems to me that too many people are relying on misunderstandings and mis-representations than the obvious.
It also seems, as Judie Brown points out on ALL that far too many people don’t even look at the fact that when the sperm and egg meet, that is life, you do seem to see that however, but does Texas Roofer agree also?
L
Lady_D_I
Guest
Well, as a clinician I don’t rely on the conclusions of others. I prefer primary resources… the actual research. The evidence is indirect and just not convincing for some. Here is an example.
I agree people misunderstand,etc. However, I am specifically addressing whether or not the pill prevents implantation of a pregnancy and the scientific evidence. If the pill prevents implantation, it is an abortifacient. The question is: does the evidence “prove” it prevents implantation?
H
hasikelee
Guest
I don’t want to come across as too weird…but I’m glad this research hasn’t been concluded yet. I hope it’s still available because this would totally be a keeper for me when I need to do my research projects.
L
Lady_D_I
Guest
Not weird to me… but umm… I am not exactly normal.
A
allhers
Guest
This may be of interest to you also hasikelee:
…from this site also,
all.org/article.php?id=10193
…Now preparing to conclude, the undersigned wish to express their gratitude to Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., a young internist from Kettering, Ohio. Dr. Kahlenborn took a sabbatical to write a book entitled Understanding the Link Between Abortion, Breast Cancer and the pill (in press). One of his references clearly indicates that even the pro-abortionists recognize that the pill is abortifacient.(17) The New York Times carried a transcript of the oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. The following dialogue between Frank Susman, lawyer for the Missouri abortion clinics and Justice Scalia is recorded:
The rest can be read at the above site, it has many signatures at the end of it that may also be of help to you in your research.
all.org/article.php?id=10193
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Hi allhers
I hope this helps
the information is not correct
The opinion they provide in this section is in disagreement with the Catholic Church teaching because the Church allows married relations without pregnancy occurring. For this opinion to be correct the Church would have to be in error on the “unitive” aspect of marriage
I looked at the number of abortions listed on EWTN ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC065.HTM and compared it to the numbers from National Right to Life nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html they post a 20 year period from 1973-1992 which show PP involved in 7% of abortions, with the high year being 1992 of 10.7%. So who does the other 93%? …
I am telling you the objective is to mislead, mislead you, mislead others, mislead everybody. That is why the bold statements are not signed and the parsed statements are signed. That is why you do not see the plaintiffs winning millions from BCP mfg. In summary just hold an open mind until they place their data on the top.
and thus the problem how can there be pregnancies if the lining won’t allow implantation?
interesting but problematic as many believe most fertilized eggs do the same regardless if any birth control was used. Meaning many believe failure to implant is the norm, not the result of ABC. Just as they can not prove this, the other side can not prove any change in implantation rates occurred.
“potential” again the statement must be water down to receive signatures
I believe the Church teaches we do not know when life begins and should error toward protection from conception. I agree with this understanding. It might be worth some research on whether some Church leaders taught differently, particularly St Aquinas many believe in a philosophy that infuse of the soul occurs later. I am sticking with the Church and profess no knowledge on when the soul is infuse. (reference newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock93.htm )
I hope this helps
- Status