Is the Pill an abortifacient or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter marmee7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope this helps you, Texas Roofer, read further down in the article that you posted on EWTN, part of the problem seems to be you picking and choosing which parts you like and then trying to act as though they are all that is on there.
Read this:
Planned Parenthood’s International Activities.

As monstrous as it is, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is only one of the more than eighty affiliates of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), a multibillion dollar business whose avowed purpose is to spread abortion, birth control, and sterilization all over the earth.

I put that part in bold so you wouldn’t miss it.

IPPF fanatically battled the Mexico City Policy, which prohibited Federal funding for private organizations which “… perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” in foreign countries. IPPF refused to accept this policy and lost more than $17 million of Federal funding annually. It spent over $2 million from 1987 to 1989 on lobbying, litigation, and advertising to overturn the Mexico City Policy. In 1987 alone, this massive propaganda campaign included ten quarter-page advertisements in the New York Times and the Washington Post, 13 full- paged ads in magazines, and more than 900 subway and bus ads in Washington, DC.[6]

The Family Planning International Assistance Program (FPIA), operated by PPFA out of New York City, also rejected the Mexico City Policy and sued the Federal government in January of 1987 to overturn it. This effort failed, as described in Chapter 58, “Legislation on Abortion.” (This is all on there too.)

Sorry, Texas Roofer, but some of the other things you said just don’t wash.
 
allhers said:
I hope this helps you, Texas Roofer, read further down in the article that you posted on EWTN, part of the problem seems to be you picking and choosing which parts you like and then trying to act as though they are all that is on there.
Read this:
Planned Parenthood’s International Activities.

As monstrous as it is, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is only one of the more than eighty affiliates of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), a multibillion dollar business whose avowed purpose is to spread abortion, birth control, and sterilization all over the earth.

I put that part in bold so you wouldn’t miss it.

IPPF fanatically battled the Mexico City Policy, which prohibited Federal funding for private organizations which “… perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” in foreign countries. IPPF refused to accept this policy and lost more than $17 million of Federal funding annually. It spent over $2 million from 1987 to 1989 on lobbying, litigation, and advertising to overturn the Mexico City Policy. In 1987 alone, this massive propaganda campaign included ten quarter-page advertisements in the New York Times and the Washington Post, 13 full- paged ads in magazines, and more than 900 subway and bus ads in Washington, DC.[6]

The Family Planning International Assistance Program (FPIA), operated by PPFA out of New York City, also rejected the Mexico City Policy and sued the Federal government in January of 1987 to overturn it. This effort failed, as described in Chapter 58, “Legislation on Abortion.”

Sorry, but some of the other things you said just don’t wash.
Click to expand...
I can not follow you here, how did I error by not including " lobbying, litigation, and advertising" in implantation data? or do you believe this affects the number post on the website? I am not following you at all
 
DanteAlighieri said:
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?
Click to expand...
It really is correct logic since it is well known that the pill is an abortifacient.
 
Texas Roofer, re-read post 131 and following…pay special attention to this part please…
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.
I read all of the posts on here, and I answer SOME of your questions, you seem to disect some of what I write as though you are in a biology class. Do you even read what **you **ask?
Did you read this?
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
Now, if you don’t believe that the “pill” (Artificial Birth Control), acts as an abortifacient, then what is preventing the implantation that you speak of when you said this:
**how can there be pregnancies if the lining won’t allow implantation? **
Please Texas Roofer, READ THIS AGAIN and again until it sinks in, please:
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./
and all you seem to be saying is, she isn’t pregnant. Gee, so what is that life inside of her? If she isn’t pregnant then it isn’t a baby, right? Clearly she is pregnant and that life IS a baby!!
 
allhers said:
Texas Roofer, re-read post 131 and following…pay special attention to this part please…
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.
I read all of the posts on here, and I answer SOME of your questions, you seem to disect some of what I write as though you are in a biology class. Do you even read what **you **ask?
Did you read this?
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
Now, if you don’t believe that the “pill” (Artificial Birth Control), acts as an abortifacient, then what is preventing the implantation that you speak of when you said this:
**how can there be pregnancies if the lining won’t allow implantation? **
Please Texas Roofer, READ THIS AGAIN and again until it sinks in, please:
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./
and all you seem to be saying is, she isn’t pregnant. Gee, so what is that life inside of her? If she isn’t pregnant then it isn’t a baby, right? Clearly she is pregnant and that life IS a baby!!
Click to expand...
Code: 
    Hi allhers
I read the article long before this thread, I reviewed it again largely because you asked. If you look at your focus you see “they” it is not accidental “they” is an un-named group. This is typical of these articles. Additionally, if you look at the parsing in the article, you will see it exists in the 10 year old article. What I am doing is asking you to see the parsing which was always there. Big sensationalized statements from a Minister transitioned to parsed statements signed by doctors. In time you will realize the sensationalized statements are never signed by groups of doctors.

I clearly never made the statements being attributed to me in this post. I hope you realize when woman engages in relations with no ABC involved "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" nothing changes in that regard. Some implant and some do not - it appears nothing changes in that regard either. There is not a shred of evidence which shows a decrease in implantation rates among woman using std birth control pills and woman not using birth control pills. That is the problem since no proven difference is known, or documented in implantation rates why would one say the pill is abortificient?
 
Texas Roofer;3577767 said:
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" nothing changes in that regard. Some implant and some do not - it appears nothing changes in that regard either. There is not a shred of evidence which shows a decrease in implantation rates among woman using std birth control pills and woman not using birth control pills. That is the problem since no proven difference is known, or documented in implantation rates why would one say the pill is abortificient?

I’ve been following all of the posts. I’m a little confused. What are you debating here, the actual fact that the pill isn’t a abortifacient because there isn’t any evidence to back the fact?
🤷
Click to expand...
 
Primrose said:
I’ve been following all of the posts. I’m a little confused. What are you debating here, the actual fact that the pill isn’t a abortifacient because there isn’t any evidence to back the fact?
🤷
Click to expand...
Fair enough, there is no known fact on whether the pill is abortifacient or not. Thus the debate is concerning Catholics who claim it is known, or is a fact, or is accepted as such. To date no Catholic has provided direct evidence of such claims nor doctors, nor researchers, nor manufactures. As the catechism teachings do not allow for misleading, exaggerating, sensationalizing or falsify facts on this subject (or any other subject) Catholic should be in line with the catechism.

Hope that clears up the confusion
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Fair enough, there is no known fact on whether the pill is abortifacient or not.
Click to expand...
The undersigned believe that the facts …indicate the abortifacient nature of hormonal contraception. This is supported by the scientific work of the Alan Guttmacher Institute which can, in no way, be confused with a right-to-life organization. We also want to make it clear that we have no desire to cause confusion and division among pro-life forces. However, we do want to make it clear that we do desire that all women using the pill are truthfully and fully informed about all its modes of action.

Marie A. Anderson, M.D., FACOG
Tepeyac Family Center
Fairfax, VA 22033

Paddy Jim Baggot, M.D.
Geneticist, Perinatologist
Pope Paul VI Institute, Omaha, NE

Thomas L. Bodensteiner, M.D., FACOG
Beatrice, NE

John J. Brennan, M.D., FACOG
Associate Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Medical College of Wisconsin

John T. Bruchalski, M.D.
Diplomate, American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Medical Director, Tepeyac Family Center, Fairfax, VA

William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., FACOG
Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
George Washington University Medical Center

Lorna L. Cvetkovich, M.D., FACOG
Wichita, Kansas

Mary L. Davenport, M.D., FACOG
El Sobrante, CA

Charles H. Dahm, M.D., FACOG
St. Louis, MO.

Michael B. Dixon, M.D., FACOG, Dip. ABFP
St. Louis, MO.

Hans E Geisler, M.D., FACOG, FACS
Director of Division of Gynecologic Oncology
St. Vincent Hospital and Health Centers
Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Indiana University Medical Center

Kim Anthony Hardey, M.D.
Diplomate, American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Lafayette, LA 70503

David R. Harnisch, Sr., M.D., F.A.A.F.P., J.F.A.C.O.G.
Beavercreek, OH

John F. Heffron, M.D., FACOG
Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Creighton University School of Medicine

Steve Hickner, M.D., FACOG
Asst. Professor, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Michigan State School of Medicine

Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D.
Senior Medical Consultant, Pope Paul VI Institute
Associate Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Creighton University School of Medicine

William J. Hogan, M.D., FACOG
Rockville, MD

Helen T. Jackson, M.D., FACOG
Brookline, MA

James Linn, M.D.
Associate Clinical Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology
Medical College of Wisconsin

John C. Linn, M.D., FACOG
Milwaukee, WI

Julie Mickelson, M.D., Jr. FACOG
Board Member, AAPLOG

Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D.,FACOG
Perinatologist, New York, NY

James O’Connor, M.D.
Diplomate, ABOG
Manager, Ernst and Young Health Care Consulting

Konald A. Prem, M.D., FACOG
Professor Emeritus, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
University of Minnesota Medical School

Gary W. Smith, M.D., FACOG
Medical Director, Women’s Health at Robin Wood

Mark Stegman, M.D., FACOG
St. Louis, MO

Arthur J. Stehly, M.D., FACOG
Escondido, CA
 
Thank you bobzills, and this only shows that Texas Roofer didn’t read all of it, now or in the past, and it does show that many do believe so, have it documented and will continue to do so. Even now, people that are both Catholic and non-Catholics want this confusion that is being spread like a cancer to be cleared up. Even the birth control packing itself says that it acts as an abortifacient, or at least they use to, personally I haven’t read one in ages but they did use to and probably still do. Thankfully, I personally know no one that uses it and so don’t have the information on hand. I suppose I could ask a pharmisist next time I am at a drug store though. I will continue to do research on this and to speak up and correct those like Texas Roofer who do not know or understand the facts!
 
allhers said:
Thank you bobzills, and this only shows that Texas Roofer didn’t read all of it, now or in the past, and it does show that many do believe so, have it documented and will continue to do so. Even now, people that are both Catholic and non-Catholics want this confusion that is being spread like a cancer to be cleared up. Even the birth control packing itself says that it acts as an abortifacient, or at least they use to, personally I haven’t read one in ages but they did use to and probably still do. Thankfully, I personally know no one that uses it and so don’t have the information on hand. I suppose I could ask a pharmisist next time I am at a drug store though. I will continue to do research on this and to speak up and correct those like Texas Roofer who do not know or understand the facts!
Click to expand...
There are studies which show that the pill is abortifacient, and the statement supporting the abortifacient nature of the pill was found at:
aaplog.org/collition.htm
 
It is clear there is confusion regarding direct evidence versus indirect evidence though I’ve tried to explain it. Texas Roofer has asked repeatedly for direct evidence that demonstrates the pill is an abortifacient. Direct evidence IS NOT “Dr. _________ says so”:banghead: or this website says so. Does any one have a study that found evidence of miscarried babies related to the changes in the edometrium from pill use? This is direct evidence.

Based on the indirect evidence, some believe it is possible (not proven) the pill may prevent implantation. Not everyone finds the indirect evidence convincing.
Thus the debate is concerning Catholics who claim it is known, or is a fact, or is accepted as such. To date no Catholic has provided direct evidence of such claims nor doctors, nor researchers, nor manufactures
Click to expand...
👍 Exactly!!! It is not a known abortifacient without direct evidence.

Speaking of the evidence… Texas Roofer, in your opinion is it misleading to explain the mechanism of action and its potential implications? To describe it as a potential abortifacient?
Even the birth control packing itself says that it acts as an abortifacient, or at least they use to, personally I haven’t read one in ages but they did use to and probably still do.
Click to expand...
The prescribing information states it “reduces the likelihood of implantation”. I provided links to the prescribing information in this thread.

ETA: From reply #99
I checked the prescribing information of a few of the most popular COCs and “reduce the likelihood of implantation” is listed.
Click to expand...
Loestrin 24
Ortho Tricyclen Lo
Seasonale
Seasonique
Click to expand...
I can get the prescribing info for any pill.
 
Here is how I feel, (and believe.)
I am getting sick and tired of the go around, the “choice” of words carefully placed that pretend that babies aren’t being killed!

Quote:
“The culture of death is “devious, diabolical and deceiving.” The life of a preborn child in America has absolutely no value at all. The lives of countless women who have used chemicals and devices to avoid becoming mothers are of little concern as long as sexual gratification continues to trump chastity and the truth never reaches the front pages of the newspapers or the top of the news every night at six.”—Judie Brown

The rest of the article can be found at this site:
all.org
Do a search, read more, the “evidence” is right under all of our noses, but apparently too few want to see it.
 
Here is how I feel:
I am tired of people avoiding the question of direct evidence. Why can’t anyone else say, “there is no direct evidence, but the evidence we do have convinces me the pill is abortifacient”. What is wrong with just stating the facts (the info on the presribing info) with out sensationalizing? I understand your frustration. No one here has provided the information requested but continue to reference ALL, letters with no references, etc. and insist this is “evidence” to prove the pill is a “known abortifacient”.
allhers said:
Here is how I feel, (and believe.)
I am getting sick and tired of the go around, the “choice” of words carefully placed that pretend that babies aren’t being killed!

Quote:
“The culture of death is “devious, diabolical and deceiving.” The life of a preborn child in America has absolutely no value at all. The lives of countless women who have used chemicals and devices to avoid becoming mothers are of little concern as long as sexual gratification continues to trump chastity and the truth never reaches the front pages of the newspapers or the top of the news every night at six.”—Judie Brown

The rest of the article can be found at this site:
all.org
Do a search, read more, the “evidence” is right under all of our noses, but apparently too few want to see it.
Click to expand...
You are not referencing a study. This is a “so and so says it is”. I guess you do not understand what medical evidence is.

Can you summarize the evidence that convinces you? How do you know babies are being killed? I am asking for studies that include study desgin, results, limitations, etc.

You stated:
I will continue to do research on this and to speak up and correct those like Texas Roofer who do not know or understand the facts!
Click to expand...
I agree, so lets talk about the facts… the evidence (yep, I am a EBM clinician). My questions are for anyone who believes the pill is a known abortifacient.

When gonadotropins are suppressed, there are changes in the endometrium (endometrial atrophy, change in vascular function & structure, alteration in metalloproteinase content, etc). These changes have been observed and are well-documented. Based on the evidence you reviewed, what study or studies on endometrial receptivity convinced you the pill related changes prevent implantation? How do these changes demonstrate the pill is a “known abortifacient”? How do you know these changes have killed a baby? I am asking for studies that include study desgin, results, limitations, etc.

What about ovulatory pill cycles? Has anyone reviewed a study to answer this?
In a menstrual cycle on the “pill” in which ovulation occurs
Click to expand...
, what is the histology of the endometrium six days after ovulation (the time of implantation)? Certainly the hormone milieu and endometrial histology will be different from a menstrual cycle on the “pill” in which ovulation does not occur (i.e.,the typical atrophic, or “hostile,” endometrium). Source

Do you actually read the research and apply the information or do you base you conclusions on someone’s opinion?
 
Walter L. Larimore, MD & Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH acknowledge the lack of direct evidence and refer to the “hypothesized” abortifacient effect:
Although these changes are consistently seen in women taking OCs, there is currently no direct evidence to link these changes to preembryo or embryo loss in women taking OCs. However, this hypothesized postfertilization effect seems to be so well accepted that in many medical articles and textbooks it has been explicitly listed as the third mechanism of OCs (after suppressing ovulation and prefertilization effects).
Click to expand...
Now, can we stop the debate about whether or not there is direct evidence to prove the pill is a “known abortifacient”?

Just to review, they do not refer to a known abortifacient but state it is a hypothesized postfertilization effect. Then, they conclude
The available evidence supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking OCs, postfertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy.
Click to expand...
They never use the verbiage known abortifacient. They use the appropriate language. They do not sensationalize the facts. They support their conclusions with evidence (which BTW I agree with them and agree women should be educated for informed consent).

I apologize for my frustration.

Forgot my source.
 
PHYSICIANS’ PACKAGE INSERT
ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN® TABLETS
ORTHO-CYCLEN® TABLETS
(norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol)
Patients should be counseled that this product does not protect against HIV infection (AIDS)
and other sexually transmitted diseases.
DESCRIPTION
Each of the following products is a combination oral contraceptive containing the progestational
compound norgestimate and the estrogenic compound ethinyl estradiol.
ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN 21 Tablets and ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN 28 Tablets.

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
ORAL CONTRACEPTION
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the
primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include
changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus)
and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

This was taken from the FDA’s website. It is a PDF. It is the actual package insert included in Ortho Cyclen and Ortho Tricyclen. I was on Ortho Cylcen years ago before my conversion and I can assure you they are the same inserts. The primary action is to inhibit ovulation. It is very effective when taken properly- same time every day. I can not tell you how may times I forgot to take a pill, or was more than 12 hours late with one. I never even considered the repricussions until a friend pointed this out to me in the package insert.
Here is a link to the web address: fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/021690lbl.pdf
 
This was taken from the FDA’s website. It is a PDF. It is the actual package insert included in Ortho Cyclen and Ortho Tricyclen. I was on Ortho Cylcen years ago before my conversion and I can assure you they are the same inserts. The primary action is to inhibit ovulation. It is very effective when taken properly- same time every day. I can not tell you how may times I forgot to take a pill, or was more than 12 hours late with one. I never even considered the repricussions until a friend pointed this out to me in the package insert.
Here is a link to the web address: fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/021690lbl.pdf
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the prescribing information. I shared a few links in replies #99 & #152
I checked the prescribing information of a few of the most popular COCs and "reduce the likelihood
Click to expand...
of implantation" is listed.

Loestrin 24
Ortho Tricyclen Lo
Seasonale
Seasonique
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top