New VIDEO Animation: Pill = Potential Embryonic Abortion

[Texas_Roofer]

Let’s look at what Dr. Chris Kahlenborn wrote in “How Do the Pill & Other Contraceptives Work?”

Does OCP use cause changes in the lining of the uterus that could be detrimental to the newly conceived child’s ability to implant himself or herself?
It would appear so. Because we know that use of the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) allows ovulation and conception to occur at times, if OCP use causes unfavorable changes in the endometrium it would make it difficult for the unborn child to implant, and would support the conclusion that it acts as an abortifacient

lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_03howpillworks1.html#b2

Why did he say “it appears” and “if”? is he incorrect or does he lack proof?

I have no problem with using the adjective “potential” abortifacient. It benefits no one to lay a **heavy burden of guilt **on anyone who has been using any method of contraception.

What would they be guilty of?

(By the way, why the exclusive focus of some in this forum on only one?) Nevertheless, many good people are horrified once they realize they may have lost an untold number of children in this manner. .

Which good people do you refer to? We are learning these losses are common and occur in most if not all women participating in God’s marriage plan.

Such testimonies can be read at the Priests for Life.org website.

Given their **genuine pain and grief **and bearing in mind how many of us have been or are still in the same boat we do have a responsibility to be very careful in our speech. In time the gentleness the Holy Spirit leads all to truth. Eventually, even the most smug and self-sufficient person will come to see how deeply flawed, sinful and weak he is. So fine, “potential abortifacient” still delivers the message.

Which message is that? Is it women participating in God’s marriage plan lose fertilized eggs?

It is difficult for the embryo to attach itself to the endometrium not impossible. These children are proof that oral contraceptives do not act as many think they do in preventing ovulation. If a woman can ovulate she can conceive. Unfortunately, regardless of whether or not the child successfully implants - in less than an optimal environment- he/she is still at a high risk of being aborted. So the question becomes moot. Once the parents have a contraceptive mindset, they are only **one step away from surgical abortion **as the final weapon in the birth control arsenal. Contrary to what many believe, it’s not the teenagers who are having most of the abortions it is women who have already have had one or two children.

Failed contraception = more abortions.

Are you aware of the Pontiff’s writings he states it is okay for married Catholics to avoid pregnancy, so would they not be in your grouping?

PLAL correctly stated:
Even Planned Parenthood **believes **Hormonal Birth Control causes Chemical Abortions

The following is more detailed than the link PLAL provided to American Life League.

lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_03howpillworks2.html#b34

Why use the word “believe” is it because there is no proof? BTW are they a credible source you would recommend?

 

[Rosalinda]

Texas Roofer has asked:[sign]Is it women participating in God’s marriage plan lose fertilized eggs?
[/sign]

Women acting according to God’s will as revealed in Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church only lose unfertilized eggs not children. Perhaps this will help:

…, note O’Rahilly’s statement that the use of terms such as “ovum” and “egg”–which would include the term “fertilized egg”–is scientifically incorrect, has no objective correlate in reality, and is therefore very misleading–especially in these present discussions. Thus these terms themselves would qualify as “scientific” myths. The commonly used term, “fertilized egg,” is especially very misleading, since there is really no longer an egg (or oocyte) once fertilization has begun. **What is being called a “fertilized egg” is not an egg of any sort; it is a human being. **

When Do Human Beings (normally) Begin? “scientific” myths and scientific facts by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D.
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html

 

[Rosalinda]

Texas Roofer asked:[sign]Are you aware of the Pontiff’s writings he states it is okay for married Catholics to avoid pregnancy, so would they not be in your grouping?
[/sign]

Yes, I have both read and understood. Maybe it’s time to lay your cards on the table and give proof where any pope has ever approved the use artificial birth control?

A line taken out of context is a pretext.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer has asked:[sign]Is it women participating in God’s marriage plan lose fertilized eggs?
[/sign]

Women acting according to God’s will as revealed in Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church only lose unfertilized eggs not children. Perhaps this will help:

When Do Human Beings (normally) Begin? “scientific” myths and scientific facts by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D.
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html

Another blatant attempt to mislead? Change names all you want, the fact is implantation is far from perfect, and occurs equally or close to equally in women on and off the pill.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer asked:[sign]Are you aware of the Pontiff’s writings he states it is okay for married Catholics to avoid pregnancy, so would they not be in your grouping?
[/sign]

Yes, I have both read and understood. Maybe it’s time to lay your cards on the table and give proof where any pope has ever approved the use artificial birth control?

A line taken out of context is a pretext.

I would like to keep the table reserved for data on the abortifacient affect of the common pill. I never claimed the Pope made such a statement, that is the point of the thread, to speak accurately

 

[Rosalinda]

Sorry Texas. You made a statement: you support it. Either retract it or “accurately” restate your point. Apostolic exhortations are on the table. You put them there.

Did you not say?
[sign]Are you aware of the Pontiff’s writings he states it is okay for married Catholics to avoid pregnancy, so would they not be in your grouping?
[/sign]

I was speaking of Catholics who use artificial contraception to avoid conceiving a child.

Pope John Paul II "On the Christian Family in the Modern World" Familiaris Consortio paragraph #32:

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves and their married partner by altering its value of “total” self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life, but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2FAMIL.HTM

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Sorry Texas. You made a statement: you support it. Either retract it or “accurately” restate your point. Apostolic exhortations are on the table. You put them there.

Did you not say?
[sign]Are you aware of the Pontiff’s writings he states it is okay for married Catholics to avoid pregnancy, so would they not be in your grouping?
[/sign]

Rosalinda let me actually quote this for you from the Vatican website " It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children" (section 16) Humanae Vitae Encyclical of Pope Paul VI On the Regualtion of Birth July 25, 1968vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

The Pontiff is referring to both couples practicing Church teaching and those not practicing.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Let me attempt to explain something of significance, now understand this is not a teaching at all it is an exercise, hopefully to get a few to evaluate the importance of accuracy in these types of statements. Let us look at 3,000,000 independent married “acts” as in 3,000,000 married people having one “act” each with 1/3 of the couples (1,000,000) having been actively and correctly taking the pill for 6 months. One 1/3 will be acting blindly in regard to conception and the last 1/3 will be practicing NFP correctly. Now let’s assume 50% of the NFP couple are trying to conceive (500,000) and 50% are trying not to conceive (500,000). We can use 3 days in 24 days for the fertile period. Yet we must guess at the implantation rate, some say 25% is a reasonable number but I suggest we use 75% even though is appears a ridiculously high number which we are using to bolster claims against the pill? Similarly the break through ovulation rate must be estimated, most data suggest 2-5% so let’s use 5% again to bolster claims against the pill, and same for success and failure rate in NFP, is 50% an acceptable success rate? Now some list high failure rates for NFP like 20-25% but let’s use 10% again to bolster claims against the pill. Is this a bias enough assumption set? Now lets watch the numbers play out:

Groups Pill Users_______No Plan___ NFP Couples
Acts_________1,000,000______1,000,000__________1,000,000
Conceptions______6,250_______125,000____________300,000
Implants_________4,688________93,750____________225,000
Non implants_____1,563________31,250_____________75,000

So if you count non implants as abortions look who aborted the most. Please notice that if every conception was lost by the pill user there would be fewer losses than any other group. BTW just fyi the couple trying not to conceive using NFP contributed 12,500 to the non implants column which again is larger than pill users. Using this model designed to be bias against pill users one can still state in mass averages Pill users have less abortions than any other group!!!.

In closing remember this is an exercise not a teaching. The objective is look at different views of a single subject. Real world data always varys.

 

[fix]

So if you count non implants as abortions look who aborted the most. Please notice that if every conception was lost by the pill user there would be fewer losses than any other group. BTW just fyi the couple trying not to conceive using NFP contributed 12,500 to the non implants column which again is larger than pill users. Using this model designed to be bias against pill users one can still state in mass averages Pill users have less abortions than any other group!!!.

Your numbers leave out a critical factor. The means and intent. And you fail to distinguish between what is an act of nature and what is an act faciltated by a bad means.

 

[Rosalinda]

Thank you Texas Roofer for finally putting your cards on the table. For the sake of accuracy, let’s put the line from Humanae Vitae back into its proper context carefully reading what PPVI actually wrote. Again this is from section 16.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.

Yes, Texas Roofer, the pope was speaking to both groups: encouraging natural family planning and reprobating all artificial means of birth control.

 

[Rosalinda]

Most of the (name removed by moderator)ut has focused on only one line of indirect evidence which points to the likelihood of oral contraceptives causing abortions of young embryonic children. The control study was done in France. This article, “Abortion and the Pill” was written by Dr. John B. Shea.

The significance of the ratio of ectopic (tubal) pregnancies to intra-uterine pregnancies in women using OCs: If it were true that the only actions of the pill were impairment of ovulation and alteration of the cervical mucus, then OCs should reduce the rate of tubal pregnancies to the same extent as they reduce the rate of intra-uterine pregnancies. But all of the published data used by Larimore and Stanford, in their article published in the Archives of Family Medicine, and other authors, indicate that significantly more ectopic pregnancies, relative to intra-uterine pregnancies, occur in women who use OCs

Therefore, these pills pose a significant risk to the health and life of the mother to say nothing of the child. At a minimum, any responsible physician should inform his patients of this risk.

lifeissues.net/writers/she/she_05abortionandpill.html#b17

 

[Rosalinda]

Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraception & Their Relationship to Informed Consent
published by the Archives of Family Medicine; written by Dr. Walter L. Larimore and Dr. Joseph B. Stanford. A must read for anyone still struggling with the issue. Yes, the evidence is all indirect but they have provided a “Quality of Evidence” table to grade the value of all available evidence.

Their conclusion summarizes well the debate.

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. Physicians should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization. Since it would be difficult to predict which patients might object to being given an OC if they were aware of possible postfertilization effects, mentioning the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs to all patients and providing detailed information about the evidence to those who request it is necessary for adequate informed consent.

archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126?ijkey=83c024b5b94fd072b4edeed3770d5c0e90a539df