Morning after pill is an abortifacient

  • Thread starter Thread starter DailyBread
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DailyBread

Guest
I know this seems to be up for debate about whether or not the Morning After Pill is an abortifacient, but biochemical analysis coupled with IVF studies show it does have this effect and therefore cannot be morally used in the cases of rape.

trdd.org/ETHMEDE.PDF
 
The information contained in this article is not new. However, the study was not on the morning after pill. The study was on women taking the pill all through their cycle.

The MAP can delay ovulation if ovulation has not occurred. That is not an abortifacient effect.

If ovulation has occured it may have an effect on implantation, or it may not. The endometrium at the point of ovulation is already sufficiently developed. One shot of MAP isn’t going to make that go away.

I am not advocating the MAP. I think you are overstating your position based on this study, which isn’t even **about **the MAP.
 
The Plan B package insert (the manufacturer’s claims regarding the agent) says implicitly that it could alter the endometrium and impede implantation. That makes it an abortifacient and morally troubling.

However, current medical research suggests that it does not alter the endometrium http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/PIIS0010782407000807/abstract
This 2001 article, suggests the same thing with a highly technical review - http://bvs.insp.mx/temas/pildora/LarreaECinContraception2001v64p227.pdf

Therefore, apart from the manufacture’s claims, there is little research that supports the abortifacient claim, which is an important point of knowledge for a proper bioethical analysis. The research is somewhat impeded by defining pregnancy as implantation and not conception but neither source referenced above has the divergent definition as an issue as they discuss changes in the endometrium that could impede implantation and apparently found none.

My review of the situation at the moment is that it is not 100% clear but is certainly leaning towards a conclusion that the mode of action of Plan B in women is anti-ovulatory and not abortafacient, despite the manufacturer’s claim to the contrary. This would suggest that it could be useful in preventing conception in the case of rape and that could be a legitimate and morally licit defense for the rape survivor against an ongoing assault by the assailant’s semen which can live for several days in the genital track. Most moral theologians, would suggest that this is not a contraceptive act as rape is not a martial act but an act of violence.

Certainly, if conception occurs in this instance, an assault against the developing embryo is immoral and an act of abortion.
 
Benedictus said:
Do you have any evidence that the morning after pill is an abortifacient?
Click to expand...
See Danel Kane’s Post above. If it prevents implantation of a living human being to the surface of the womb, it is an Abortifacient.
 
T.A.Stobie_SFO said:
See Danel Kane’s Post above. If it prevents implantation of a living human being to the surface of the womb, it is an Abortifacient.
Click to expand...
Please re-read that post. It’s pretty clear that the poster is suggesting that the morning-after pill is probably not an abortifacient.
 
The evidence is clear that the morning after pill is a POTENTIAL abortifacient. Its primary means of operation may be suppression of ovulation. But the package insert IS clear that if ovulation occurs anyways, the drugs effects on the uterous lining may make implantation difficult or impossible.

The only way to dispute that the above is an abortifacient means is to try to redefine the beginning of pregnancy to implantation, instead of conception as some in the medical community are now attempting to do. But that’s mere propaganda maneuvering. Any drug that has the potential to directly or indirectly kill the child after CONCEPTION must be admitted to be at least potentially abortifacient.
 
manualman said:
The evidence is clear that the morning after pill is a POTENTIAL abortifacient.
Click to expand...
What evidence?

I’ll admit that (though unlikely) it’s a possibility, but one that apparently has no evidence to support it.
 
So you think the manufacturer put fine print lawyer language on their product when there was no reason to? Given their presumed desire to SELL these things, why would they do that?

The only reason that makes ANY sense is that they believe the product has a significant chance of behaving as an abortifacient and they are doing the old CYA.
 
manualman said:
So you think the manufacturer put fine print lawyer language on their product when there was no reason to? Given their presumed desire to SELL these things, why would they do that?
Click to expand...
The manufacturer’s claim has been addressed in this thread and in numerous other threads. A manufacturer’s claim is not evidence. I don’t know why they put it there. Several decades ago it was widely thought that the morning-after pill worked to prevent implantation. Even though recent research does not support this, I believe they just haven’t bothered to remove the claim.

We’ve discussed the morning-after pill many times in this forum. Everytime it comes up someone (such as myself) asks for peer-reviewed study that indicates some sort of post-fertilization effect (which seems fair since we’ve posted several studies reaching the opposite conclusion). I have yet to see anyone post a citation of such a study.

So, in conclusion, you have no evidence.
 
Keeping in mind that little people die if the MAP is abortifacient, the burden of providing conclusive evidence is upon those who hold MAP up as a true “contraceptive”.

And they have yet to deliver on that.

If they had, Planned Parenthood’s website would do more than cite studies that “imply” that MAP works only by preventing ovulation. And the manufacturer would change their label. It’s preposterous to think that this is simply old information that they haven’t gotten around to updating.

I don’t know why it is so difficult to settle this question conclusively from a scientific standpoint. But the fact that neither the manufacturers nor the retail marketers of Plan B can bring themselves to state definitively that implantation is not prevented by Plan B is important. There must be some difficulty in clinically proving this, or they would have done it by now.

The label on the product carries a lot more weight than stuff posted on the internet.

So, in conclusion, you may have some evidence. But it does not appear to be conclusive. Which means, at least for now, that the MAP is still, officially, “potentially abortifacient”.
 
urban-hermit said:
Keeping in mind that little people die if the MAP is abortifacient, the burden of providing conclusive evidence is upon those who hold MAP up as a true “contraceptive”.
Click to expand...
No, the burden of proof is always with the one making the positive claim. We can’t live our lives assuming X is true until proven otherwise. Trying to shift the burden of proof like you’re trying to do is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam–an appeal to ignorance. A lack of evidence against proposition X doesn’t make X true, nor does it mean we should assume or act like X is true.

It’s simply wrong to deny rape victims the morning-after pill based on the assumption that it’s an abortifacient despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
 
Rape victims often CAN be allowed the MAP pill once s simple blood test is done to see if the woman has ovulated recently. If not, go for it. (Since it would not be potentially an abortifacient AND would be doing NOTHING to sever the unitive from the procreative). I’m with you there.

But examine your logic. By your principles a cop chases a murder suspect, the suspect stops runnig right in front of a school and turns with a gun to shoot. The cop has time to take cover behind a car and is reasonably safe from the shot. But right behind the suspect is a school with a bank of windows. He can’t see inside because of the sun. The guy is shooting at him. Should he shoot back?

NO! He is in reasonable cover and there is potential to shoot kids. Better to wait for the guy to run again and change the line of fire. The kid potentially in the womb is no different than the kid potentially in the classroom. Just because there is no PROOF that kids are in the classroom now is no excuse.

Think through what you are asking for. How would/could such a study be done? Do you want some Frankenstein setting up experiments on women where they have sex right AFTER ovulation then giving them the MAP to compare pregnancy rates with a control group!?! Should we cut a bunch of women open right after they take a MAP and dissect their uteruses to see? You ask for evidence, but I suggest that the lack of it is due to the inability to morally conduct a study that could provide it.

The lawyer size print is on the package because the MAP and birth control pill BOTH operate in a manner that spoofs the woman’s body by mimicing her body’s natural “not pregnant” hormone regime. Almost by definition, that includes rapidly establishing uterine conditions impervious to implantation.
 
I came to this forum for this exact topic/discussion.

Question:
My friend and her hubby just had sex. Her body is giving her ovulating symptoms.
She’s scared and wants to take the MAP just incase conception occurs.

is this morally wrong?

i dont know what to tell her.
please help!!
 
paulah said:
I came to this forum for this exact topic/discussion.

Question:
My friend and her hubby just had sex. Her body is giving her ovulating symptoms.
She’s scared and wants to take the MAP just incase conception occurs.

is this morally wrong?

i dont know what to tell her.
please help!!
Click to expand...
Obviously she feels she can’t fall pregnant again. Is that for health reasons (ie she could end up sick if she falls pregnant) or other reasons?
 
This thread is about rape victims and has NOTHING to do with married sexuality. It would be morally wrong for your friend to use the MAP for the same reason that ALL contraception is morally wrong. Do a search if you need to know why that is.
 
“abortifacient” is a medical term, and medically speaking a pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation. medically speaking, emergency contraception is contraception.

i understand moral opposition to preventing implantation of a zygote (a fertilized egg having undergone several cell divisions – “fetus” and “embryo” are also medical terms that are wrong in this context).

it’d be nice if we had a non-medical term we could use to talk about this particular set of circumstances…

zygoticide?
🤷
 
emily47017 said:
it’d be nice if we had a non-medical term we could use to talk about this particular set of circumstances…

zygoticide?
🤷
Click to expand...
How about murder?

The Church teaches that life begins at conception, not at implantation. Any steps taken to prevent a fertilized egg – i.e., a human being – from implanting would kill that fertilized egg – i.e., a human being – and thus constitute abortion.

That the MAP prevents implantation contradicts the assertion that it is contraceptive, since the term contraceptive implies an action to prevent conception. The MAP also kills conceived human beings, and thus is “abortive” (I hope that word makes it through the “medical terminology” splitting of hairs).

It’s important to note that, even if the MAP were “merely” contraceptive, that would still make its use inherently wrong.

Peace,
Dante
 
I hope that word makes it through the “medical terminology” splitting of hairs
Click to expand...
my brother, it’s not about hairsplitting. it’s about everyone speaking the same language.

the title of the thread is “morning after pill is an abortifacient.” abortifacient is a big, official sounding word that’s being defined differently by two groups of people… how are we to talk to one another?

“conception” is also a big word, which in church terminology corresponds with medicine’s “fertilization”, whereas the ACOG solemnly intones, “Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst.” so when the church says “life begins at conception”, she should know that she’s not communicating well with the people she hopes to persuade.

“murder”, though: now we’re talkin’!

(i understand that just because EC is contraception doesn’t mean it’s any more palatable for catholics. i’m just addressing the statement made by the OP.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top