Newly wed contraception disagreement

[Debora123]

I did not miss what you said, and your (name removed by moderator)ut is greatly appreciated. My last post was in response to BlueHorizon and LoveJesus (although that probably would have been clearer if I had quoted them in it to make it more clear) in regards to their questions and statements. Please do not think I have not taken what everyone has said into careful consideration. Thank you again!

I will pray for you and your husband to reach some common ground on this issue so that yours can be a healthy and happy marriage.

God bless!

 

[PennyinCanada]

Start NFP yourself and as you see how it works over the months, you can share your confidence in the method.

Hi. I posted this in post #4. Please look into NFP yourself, learn, and you will gain in confidence that you can know when you ovulate, you can know when ovulation is delayed, you can know when the infertile time is. The condoms will eventually go away. Good luck.

 

[renee123]

Hi. I posted this in post #4. Please look into NFP yourself, learn, and you will gain in confidence that you can know when you ovulate, you can know when ovulation is delayed, you can know when the infertile time is. The condoms will eventually go away. Good luck.

I saw this and am going to take your advice. I plan to get enrolled at the start of the next session of classes my parish has for it. Thank you.

 

[thewanderer]

Read lifeisbeautiful’s post, especially the end of it, the bolded part, about using it for medical issues.Yes there is. That fertilized egg is a human being, therefore preventing implantation is murder. So what? What you’re saying is, “It might not implant, so it’s okay for me to prevent it.” Do you see the problem with that?Again, you are the one that is misinformed. I went to WebMD, a reputable source of medical information. They take no sides on life issues.

Every birth control drug I looked up contained a statement about how they work. Most said, and I quote, “and changes the lining of the uterus (womb) to prevent attachment of a fertilized egg. If a fertilized egg does not attach to the uterus, it passes out of the body.” Others said similar things. The key phrase is "prevent implantation, or “prevent attachment.”

I looked up Jolessa, Seasonique, Depo-Provera, Yasmin, Seasonale, Seasonique, Depo-Provera, Yasmin, and the emergency contraceptives using progestin, such as Plan B. Then I got tired.

I hope this convinces you. God bless you abundantly,

Just so it is clear, an abortion is the direct intended ending of an unborn child’s life. Taking a medication which may increase your chance of miscarriage is not at all the same as aborting your child. There are plenty of other activities which may slightly increase a person’s chance of miscarriage, however, that does not mean that such activities are forbidden. Taking medication for a legitimate condition which may have a side effect of increasing (slightly?) a woman’s chance of miscarriage is not prohibited by Church teaching. Many women are not ok with the added risk, and so choose not to use said medications, but it is not wrong to use them.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Just so it is clear, an abortion is the direct intended ending of an unborn child’s life. Taking a medication which may increase your chance of miscarriage is not at all the same as aborting your child. There are plenty of other activities which may slightly increase a person’s chance of miscarriage, however, that does not mean that such activities are forbidden. Taking medication for a legitimate condition which may have a side effect of increasing (slightly?) a woman’s chance of miscarriage is not prohibited by Church teaching. Many women are not ok with the added risk, and so choose not to use said medications, but it is not wrong to use them.

There must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect, and the evil effect is greater if the medication was designed to cause abortions (as a back up plan if ovulation happens) as opposed to a medication that was not designed to cause abortions, so the reason must be graver.
From the quote I included in a previous post off the Vatican’s site:

In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods,[43] it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.

 

[Debora123]

Just so it is clear, an abortion is the direct intended ending of an unborn child’s life. Taking a medication which may increase your chance of miscarriage is not at all the same as aborting your child. There are plenty of other activities which may slightly increase a person’s chance of miscarriage, however, that does not mean that such activities are forbidden. Taking medication for a legitimate condition which may have a side effect of increasing (slightly?) a woman’s chance of miscarriage is not prohibited by Church teaching. Many women are not ok with the added risk, and so choose not to use said medications, but it is not wrong to use them.

 

[Debora123]

For those of you saying it is not OK to take birth control pills for medical reasons, please see below from our apologists here on CAF:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756

and

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=174600&highlight=pill+medical+reasons

 

[thewanderer]

There must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect, and the evil effect is greater if the medication was designed to cause abortions (as a back up plan if ovulation happens) as opposed to a medication that was not designed to cause abortions, so the reason must be graver.
From the quote I included in a previous post off the Vatican’s site:

Of course there has to be a proportionately grave reason, I never said otherwise. All I did is point out that the ill-effect in question is not an almost certain abortion, but rather a slight increase in the risk for miscarriage. That is a vastly different evil-effect to be weighing ones reasons against. No matter how many times people throw around the term abortificient the fact is that the ill-effect in question is nothing other than a slight increase in the risk for miscarriage.

ETA: To be fair, I should say that I do not know what exactly the increased risk factor is, but from everything I have read/heard about it it is certainly not a large increased risk. Perhaps it is more than slight, but it is not large.

 

[JackieMom]

Of course there has to be a proportionately grave reason, I never said otherwise. All I did is point out that the ill-effect in question is not an almost certain abortion, but rather a slight increase in the risk for miscarriage. That is a vastly different evil-effect to be weighing ones reasons against. No matter how many times people throw around the term abortificient the fact is that the ill-effect in question is nothing other than a slight increase in the risk for miscarriage.

ETA: To be fair, I should say that I do not know what exactly the increased risk factor is, but from everything I have read/heard about it it is certainly not a large increased risk. Perhaps it is more than slight, but it is not large.

It is unknown if the risk exists at all. If it does, obviously it would be an exceedingly rare event since the following criteria would have to be met:
-The woman ovulated a healthy, mature egg despite proven ovulation-supressing therapy, and
-The woman had sex during her fertile window, and
-A healthy sperm met the egg and fertilized it, and
-The fertilized egg was in a position to implant, and
-The uterine lining was rendered too abnormal by the hormonal treatment to allow for implantation

That’s not to say that I don’t see where someone would not want to take that small amount of theoretical risk of losing an otherwise healthy blastocyst. I totally get making that call. But you are correct in that the odds of it happening, if it ever does, would be low. I say this not to defend the use of contraception or to be “a devil’s advocate” - but because we should not hyperbolize theoretical risks for women who are looking at this issue trying to figure out how to proceed with their medical care.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Of course there has to be a proportionately grave reason, I never said otherwise. All I did is point out that the ill-effect in question is not an almost certain abortion, but rather a slight increase in the risk for miscarriage. That is a vastly different evil-effect to be weighing ones reasons against. No matter how many times people throw around the term abortificient the fact is that the ill-effect in question is nothing other than a slight increase in the risk for miscarriage.

ETA: To be fair, I should say that I do not know what exactly the increased risk factor is, but from everything I have read/heard about it it is certainly not a large increased risk. Perhaps it is more than slight, but it is not large.

While I am with you in the fact that I do not know exactly are the odds of the pill causing an abortion (and if they could guarantee that there is no mechanism to cause one, that would be a totally different story), and while I understand why you are calling it a miscarriage (the mother is hopefully not willing an abortion), the truth of the matter is that if these manufacturer inserts and medical sites are correct, and there is a mechanism that is abortive that was designed to purposefully abort a fertilized egg, then it is an abortion as intended by the manufacturer and this is something a woman does need to take into account if they are taking a medication that was designed this way. There is a difference between a medication that is designed to abort, that has a property there for the sole purpose of aborting, one that we don’t know how often it will happen, and a medication that simply prevents pregnancy.

There is a sentence in Humanae Vitae that talks about how it can be morally licit to use a medication even if it there is an impediment to procreation, as long as this is no the reason the person is taking it and then it cites as it’s source two speeches from Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius XII in his speech to the Society of Hematology specifically talks about pills that suppress ovulation and thus cause the woman to be temporarily sterile, when he says it can be ok to use these. And then he mentions that the principle of double effect is what allows the woman to use this medication (and as we know the principle of double effect requires a proportionately grave reason to do so). He mentions that in his speech to the Italian Association of Urology he had already gone over how operations that would cause sterility, such as removal of ovaries, are ok if they are necessary as long as the sterility is not an end or a mean.

 

[thewanderer]

While I am with you in the fact that I do not know exactly are the odds of the pill causing an abortion (and if they could guarantee that there is no mechanism to cause one, that would be a totally different story), and while I understand why you are calling it a miscarriage (the mother is hopefully not willing an abortion), the truth of the matter is that if these manufacturer inserts and medical sites are correct, and there is a mechanism that is abortive that was designed to purposefully abort a fertilized egg, then it is an abortion as intended by the manufacturer and this is something a woman does need to take into account if they are taking a medication that was designed this way. There is a difference between a medication that is designed to abort, that has a property there for the sole purpose of aborting, one that we don’t know how often it will happen, and a medication that simply prevents pregnancy.

There is a sentence in Humanae Vitae that talks about how it can be morally licit to use a medication even if it there is an impediment to procreation, as long as this is no the reason the person is taking it and then it cites as it’s source two speeches from Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius XII in his speech to the Society of Hematology specifically talks about pills that suppress ovulation and thus cause the woman to be temporarily sterile, when he says it can be ok to use these. And then he mentions that the principle of double effect is what allows the woman to use this medication (and as we know the principle of double effect requires a proportionately grave reason to do so). He mentions that in his speech to the Italian Association of Urology he had already gone over how operations that would cause sterility, such as removal of ovaries, are ok if they are necessary as long as the sterility is not an end or a mean.

Again, you can call it abortion as much as you want, but in the case where a woman takes hormones as medication for a legitimate medical condition as the best/only solution with no intention for contraceptive purposes or any intention to cause a child to fail to implant then there is no abortion involved. In such a case it is merely a small increase in the risk for a miscarriage. It is not a guaranteed abortion, but a small increase in the risk of miscarriage. Every medicine that a person takes has increased risks of other unwanted, sometimes even deadly, side effects. The fact that the medicines come with a risk of such side effects does not mean that it can never be used. What it means is that you shouldn’t take them unless you have a legitimate reason to do so. So please stop using scare tactics to chase people away from hormonal treatment as a legitimate medical treatment by telling them they will cause abortions, but rather say it as it is, using such medications come with a small increase in the risk of miscarriage.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Again, you can call it abortion as much as you want, but in the case where a woman takes hormones as medication for a legitimate medical condition as the best/only solution with no intention for contraceptive purposes or any intention to cause a child to fail to implant then there is no abortion involved. In such a case it is merely a small increase in the risk for a miscarriage. It is not a guaranteed abortion, but a small increase in the risk of miscarriage. Every medicine that a person takes has increased risks of other unwanted, sometimes even deadly, side effects. The fact that the medicines come with a risk of such side effects does not mean that it can never be used. What it means is that you shouldn’t take them unless you have a legitimate reason to do so. So please stop using scare tactics to chase people away from hormonal treatment as a legitimate medical treatment by telling them they will cause abortions, but rather say it as it is, using such medications come with a small increase in the risk of miscarriage.

I’m not using scare tactics.

Would you say this is a scare tactic from the Pontifical Council for the Family in this Vademecum for confessors document on the Vatican’s web site (see last line)?

1. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:

when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47
when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).
14. Furthermore,** it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of cooperation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect**.4

I just wanted to point out there is a difference in gravity between medications that simply suppress ovulation and ones that can have an abortifacient effect (that have this effect built into them). We all know that eggs can get fertilized despite a woman being on the pill, so we can’t assume that the ovulation suppressing mechanism always works, so it is worthwhile to take into consideration whether or not there are other mechanisms can cause a newly fertilized egg that would otherwise implant (some eggs may not implant even without chemical impediments) to be expelled.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not using scare tactics.

Would you say this is a scare tactic from the Pontifical Council for the Family in this Vademecum for confessors document on the Vatican’s web site (see last line)?

I just wanted to point out there is a difference in gravity between medications that simply suppress ovulation and ones that can have an abortifacient effect (that have this effect built into them). We all know that eggs can get fertilized despite a woman being on the pill, so we can’t assume that the ovulation suppressing mechanism always works, so it is worthwhile to take into consideration whether or not there are other mechanisms can cause a newly fertilized egg that would otherwise implant (some eggs may not implant even without chemical impediments) to be expelled.

Yes, of course you need to take that into account. My only point is that that same “abortificiant” effect is the same thing as an increased risk for miscarriage. Despite the fact that the word ‘abortion’ is included in the word it is not at all of the same moral character as a deliberate abortion. Miscarriages are technically called “spontaneous abortions”. so that is why the word gets used here, but it often misleads people to worry more about the morality of using such a product than they would have if the word was never used because it is connected so strongly to deliberate abortions which are always and everywhere immoral and abhorrent. This is going around in circles and detracting from the OP’s question at this point, so this will be my last post, I’m just trying to point out that claiming that using the pill solely for medical reasons can cause abortions is just wrong and can scare people into unnecessarily avoiding medical treatment for their conditions. Call it what it is, an increased risk for miscarriage, not an abortion. (It also might be interesting to note that studies have also shown that exercise and caffeine can increase ones risk for miscarriage, this is not something special about the pill, there are all sorts of daily activities that increase ones risk for miscarriage. That doesn’t mean that one has to cut them all out altogether, that depends on the particular circumstances involved, each person needs to evaluate their own particular risk for miscarriage and reasons for performing an action and take all of that into account when making their decision. I just wanted to point out that this increased risk of miscarriage, or “abortificiant effect” is not limited to the pill, but extends to all sorts of regular everyday activities, so if you are going to campaign against it you can’t really just single out the pill, but should rather campaign against all of them equally.)

 

[JackieMom]

I’m not using scare tactics.

Would you say this is a scare tactic from the Pontifical Council for the Family in this Vademecum for confessors document on the Vatican’s web site (see last line)?

I just wanted to point out there is a difference in gravity between medications that simply suppress ovulation and ones that can have an abortifacient effect (that have this effect built into them). We all know that eggs can get fertilized despite a woman being on the pill, so we can’t assume that the ovulation suppressing mechanism always works, so it is worthwhile to take into consideration whether or not there are other mechanisms can cause a newly fertilized egg that would otherwise implant (some eggs may not implant even without chemical impediments) to be expelled.

There is a birth control pill called the mini pill, which contains progestin only. It does not work primarily by suppressing ovulation (like combination BCPs), but by thickening cervical mucus and thinning the lining of the uterus. Interestingly, the thinned lining of the uterus does not prevent pregnancy by making the uterus hostile to fertilized eggs, but by making the uterus hostile to sperm and thus preventing conception. As it is, the mini-pill is widely considered by OBGYNs to be poor birth control because so many women get pregnant while using it. The thinned uterine lining simply does not effectively prevent pregnancy with a high enough efficacy.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

They are designed to make changes in the endometrium to make it harder for the fertilized egg to implant…

This is not quite correct. People tend to look at medical issues as single cause/single effect. That isn’t the way the human body works.

Common BCPs are designed to suppress ovulation. If the ovaries is not ovulating, then then the uterus does not need to be favorable to implantation. Thus if an egg is released accidentally, there is a good chance it will not implant. Well, guess what? It doesn’t matter whether or not one is on BCPs in this case; an egg released accidentally by the female’s body at the wrong time of the cycle and subsequently fertilized also has a good chance of not implanting.

Not surprisingly, the non-implantation rates for a woman on BCPs and non-implantation rates for eggs released off-cycle for woman not on BCPs are strikingly similar (nominal less for the former). I actually got this information from a Catholic study; this was not the intent of the study, though the charted data explicitly showed this.

Given this information, the rate of non-implantation will not change when one is on BCPs.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

.
… Thus if an egg is released accidentally, there is a good chance it will not implant. Well, guess what? It doesn’t matter whether or not one is on BCPs in this case; an egg released accidentally by the female’s body at the wrong time of the cycle…

Wouldn’t the results of that study would be more relevant if it compared the non-implantation rate of women off BCP in general with that of women on BCP pill, instead of just taking into account the eggs that were anomalies (as in released at the wrong time) for women off BCP. I would want to know how the difference between it happening while on the pill and while off the pill as I would think that that most women off BCP in general would have less eggs released at abnormal times and more eggs released around the time they should in their cycle… Since the lining does change naturally throughout the cycle of a woman with a normal cycle, it does not surprise me at all that if the egg is released at the “wrong” time of the cycle and is fertilized, it doesn’t implant correctly… I thought that was what the combination BCP inserts were suggesting, they alter the lining so that it is always in that less optimal state. There are people that have differing opinions on how well this mechanism works, though. I do wish there were clearer studies on this. It is interesting, though, that there is research related to infertility that does suggest the lining does have an effect on the probability of a successful implantation. This is a big deal right now, though, with the HHS mandate issue going on, and both sides of the argument are out there.
Regarding the mini-pill, I agree, they are known to be weaker and thus are mostly only used on women that cannot use the other types (because they are nursing, because of certain conditions etc). I agree with the functionality you (Jackie) mentioned (last time I looked at the inserts for minipill medications they did not mention altering the endometrium to specifically reduce likelihood of implantation, like the other types of pills say they do in their inserts).

I think there are two issues at hand… are the inserts incorrect? The combination pills don’t really have that mechanism, or if they do, it doesn’t happen very often? That would be great if they did not have the mechanism or if it doesn’t happen at all even if they do have the mechanism, but at this point I have never seen conclusive evidence that it does not happen, so if I were to have a condition that may be treated with the combination BCP, I would consider this effect of the pill when considering the gravity since I know that A. The BC companies claim to have that mechanism in their product and B. I know that eggs can be fertilized while a woman is on the pill. I do think it is a good idea to look at the research at that moment of the mechanisms in the specific BCP that has been prescribed to have a clearer picture of what the effects of taking this medication could be. The fact that miscarriages happen does not lessen our responsibility in evaluating whether it is warranted to take a medication that can be abortifacient.
After evaluating the potential effects of the medication, then one can evaluate whether they are proportionately grave. Regardless of how common miscarriages are, **if **the medication can be abortificiant, if that is an effect that can be expected (and this would be based on the information available, based on the evaluation of the effects of the medication) then it is something to take into account in the gravity of the situation regardless of how nature commonly works, since there would be potential for a fertilized egg that would normally be able to survive naturally, to no be able to survive due to the medication. We do know that it is not totally uncommon for a woman on the pill to get pregnant, so we do know that eggs can be fertilized, what we don’t know is for every pregnancy that does take place, how many would have taken place if it weren’t for this mechanism.
Wanderer, I do think this does go with anything else… if x substance is designed in a way that it is aiming to cause a miscarriage, then yes, she should have a good reason to use that substance. There is a difference, though, between drinking one coke and taking a medication that can be abortifacient. I hope you agree there is a difference between something that may or may not have any effects on miscarriages (according to the March of dimes, it is not clear either way, but to be on the safe side a woman should limit her caffeine intake) and something that is labeled by the manufacturer that it includes a mechanism to lower the chances of implantation of a fertilized egg.
Interestingly, there are advocates out there that are suggesting that not even the morning after pill works to cause abortions (they are saying IUD’s don’t either). I must add that in the medical field, for many, pregnancy does not occur until implantation, so loss before that would not be an abortion/miscarriage, but there are some people out there right now with this HHS mandate thing going on that are saying that no BC out there works to inhibit implantation. I think this would be great news if it were true. I would love to see proof that the inserts and different medical information site out there are wrong, but I must admit that I am a bit skeptic since I am not sure if the timing suggests any other motivations.

Going back to the OP…
I know you already said you made your decision, so this debate may have been very tangential to your original post, but I do wish you and your husband well and I hope your NFP classes are fruitful! I pray that the Holy Spirit helps enlighten your husband who is trying to be stronger in his faith and may God bless you for seeking to do what is best.

 

[thewanderer]

Wanderer, I do think this does go with anything else… if x substance is designed in a way that it is aiming to cause a miscarriage, then yes, she should have a good reason to use that substance. There is a difference, though, between drinking one coke and taking a medication that can be abortifacient. I hope you agree there is a difference between something that may or may not have any effects on miscarriages (according to the March of dimes, it is not clear either way, but to be on the safe side a woman should limit her caffeine intake) and something that is labeled by the manufacturer that it includes a mechanism to lower the chances of implantation of a fertilized egg.

Ok, I know I said I wasn’t going to respond, but I really don’t understand why you are focusing on the way a product was designed (by the by, was the pill really designed to reduce the lining for the sake of preventing implantation, or is that just one of the side effects of the hormone itself? If so it can hardly be said that it was designed for the sake of having an extra safety catch to prevent a viable pregnancy) What matters is whether or not it increases ones risk of miscarriage, not the intentions of someone who first put that particular chemical combination together. So I must say that I disagree with you that the intentions of the manufacturer in their action of manufacturing a particular compound can affect the morality of the use of that compound by another person. The intents of the one action do not at all affect the morality of a separate action whose morality is rather determined solely by the intent, means, and circumstances of itself, not of other actions which happened at a different time by a different person.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I would want to know how the difference between it happening while on the pill and while off the pill as I would think that that most women off BCP in general would have less eggs released at abnormal times and more eggs released around the time they should in their cycle…

The pill is specifically designed to suppress ovulation, thus the number of non-implanted eggs should be less than occur naturally. From the limited data I’ve seen, including that from Catholic sources, that seems to be the case.

I thought that was what the combination BCP inserts were suggesting, they alter the lining so that it is always in that less optimal state.

These events occur in conjunction with each other. A drug could be used to further alter the body to create an unfriendly environment, and such drugs do exist (morning-after pills). These drugs are obviously not taken on a daily basis because they will do far more damage to the body than the pill ever will.

 

[Debora123]

Wanderer, I do think this does go with anything else… if x substance is designed in a way that it is aiming to cause a miscarriage, then yes, she should have a good reason to use that substance. There is a difference, though, between drinking one coke and taking a medication that can be abortifacient. I hope you agree there is a difference between something that may or may not have any effects on miscarriages (according to the March of dimes, it is not clear either way, but to be on the safe side a woman should limit her caffeine intake) and something that is labeled by the manufacturer that it includes a mechanism to lower the chances of implantation of a fertilized egg.

I think what wanderer is trying to say is that regardless of the intent of the manufacturer, the woman in our scenario would not be using the pill for those intentions. She would be using the pill for another reason altogether, and so the possibility of a conceived egg being unable to implant becomes a side effect and thus a “miscarriage” (or spontaneous abortion)… not an “abortion” as we know it.

It doesn’t matter what the initial intent of the drug is because that is not why this woman would be taking it… and that is why it would not be considered an abortion and would therefore be licit.

Any woman out there who takes the pill for legitimate health reasons need not feel guilty and need not feel as though she is having abortions.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Ok, I know I said I wasn’t going to respond, but I really don’t understand why you are focusing on the way a product was designed (by the by, was the pill really designed to reduce the lining for the sake of preventing implantation, or is that just one of the side effects of the hormone itself? If so it can hardly be said that it was designed for the sake of having an extra safety catch to prevent a viable pregnancy) What matters is whether or not it increases ones risk of miscarriage, not the intentions of someone who first put that particular chemical combination together. So I must say that I disagree with you that the intentions of the manufacturer in their action of manufacturing a particular compound can affect the morality of the use of that compound by another person. The intents of the one action do not at all affect the morality of a separate action whose morality is rather determined solely by the intent, means, and circumstances of itself, not of other actions which happened at a different time by a different person.

I get your point, and I agree, regardless of the intentions while creating the compound, the effects are what matter. I was trying to explain that the manufacturer is stating that the effect is there, and that it is supposed to work to avoid pregnancy, it is a mechanism that is part of their product. There is a difference between using a product that was designed to act in a certain way if fertilization occurs (and this is why I brought up intention, because I am guessing that if the manufacturers say something works that way, then my guess is that they intend and expect for it to work that way), vs using a product that was not designed to cause this effect. A snickers bar was not designed with the intention of causing miscarriages/abortions, so I really don’t have a reason to suspect that it will cause one, but if a product says that a secondary way it uses to meet its goal is to cause an abortion/miscarriage, then I do have more reason to consider the effects. That is where the intention is relevant.

Now, say we are talking about an herb that can cause a miscarriage if taken in high dosage. The herb is naturally grown, obviously God did not create it for us to try to use it to abort a baby, but it would still be something that we cannot consume and say it is ok for us to consume it if we are doing it for nutritional purposes and not with the direct intention of aborting our child. Let’s take another herb that does not have these properties (or at least there is no reason to believe it does). Then we can consume it. With the pill, if in the next years it can be shown that there is no loss of life because of mechanisms in the pill, then yes, the gravity lessens and women can take this into account. The problem is at this point in time there is no conclusive evidence that the inserts are wrong. There are theories left and right either way. The difference between the combination pill and the good herb is that there is no reason to believe that the good herb can cause a loss of life, while with the combination pill we know eggs can be fertilized despite the suppression of ovulation, and we know that manufacturers and other medical sources mention the mechanism lowering the chances for a fertilized egg to implant, so a pregnancy that could have survived could be terminated because of the pill. This is why these effects do need to be taken into consideration. Now, I think it would be wonderful if this never happens like some people suggest, and then it would be closer to the good herb (we would still need to take into consideration the fact that the pill causes temporary sterility, but that is not as grave as the possibility of it having an abortifacient effect).

Basically I disagree with the notion that if pill A just causes temporary infertility (contraceptive) and pill B causes temporary infertility AND can cause a miscarriage that they have equal gravity because miscarriages happen anyways. I just wanted to point out that when a medication includes a mechanism to cause abortions, even if the abortion is not intended, that effect has to be taken into account when deciding the gravity. The abortion/miscarriage is not intended, and neither is the sterility, but in order to include an effect in the evaluation it does not have to be intended, in fact, if an evil effect was intended then the person could not use the principle of double effect to justify doing it.