Possibility of multiple forms of non-emergency contraception being abortifacient

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
Oxford dictionary in part defines contraception as:
The deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.
Click to expand...
oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/contraception

In the Hobby Lobby case, their lawsuit was not over 16 types of contraception but the types that were considered possibly abortifacient, but what if at least some non-emergency contraception may act abortifacient? Maybe they don’t know some of the other forms of contraception they will cover could be abortifacient, I think there is a possibility a lot of people do not know. Doesn’t this possibility regarding multiple types of contraception being possibly abortifacient need to be discussed more among pro-lifers in general?
“Most (virtually all) literature dealing with hormonal contraception ascribes a three-fold action to these agents. 1. inhibition of ovulation, 2. inhibition of sperm transport, and 3. production of a “hostile endometrium”, which presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby if the first two mechanisms fail. The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third proposed mechanism, IF it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient.” (editor’s addition) What is the precise language appearing in the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) with regard to these agents? “Ortho-Novum: …a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation.” “Norinyl: …alterations in …the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).”
Click to expand...
aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/birth-control-pill-abortifacient-and-contraceptive/

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform says:
Many forms of birth control can be classified as abortifacients since they do not always prevent fertilization and in some instances work to destroy the life of a developing child.
Click to expand...
abortionno.org/birth-control
 
_Abyssinia said:
Oxford dictionary in part defines contraception as:

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/contraception

In the Hobby Lobby case, their lawsuit was not over 16 types of contraception but the types that were considered possibly abortifacient, but what if at least some non-emergency contraception may act abortifacient? Maybe they don’t know some of the other forms of contraception they will cover could be abortifacient, I think there is a possibility a lot of people do not know. **Doesn’t this possibility regarding multiple types of contraception being possibly abortifacient need to be discussed more among pro-lifers in general? **

aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/birth-control-pill-abortifacient-and-contraceptive/

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform says:

abortionno.org/birth-control
Click to expand...
Absolutely it needs to be emphasized. I have had some pro-choice persons disbelieve me if I take my information from pro-life sources. What I do in that case is Google the prescribing information (the stuff that’s printed in tiny print on the package insert of medications or in the PDR) and find where it states that one of the means of acting is that the pill or device or method in question changes the lining of the uterus preventing implantation. It will be right there in print - worded in some way that conveys that idea. So then at least it can’t be denied. Of course, that’s just the beginning - I’ve had them then try to argue from different tactics, but at least they can’t act like I don’t know what I’m talking about.
 
The difference, as I see it is that routine birth control pills, might have an abortifacient side effect. But that effect is not directed at a particular pregnancy; it is an indirect act. Emergency contraception has as its main purpose to prevent or cut short the particular pregnancy. It is a direct act.

That is one of the reasons the Church teaches that it is sometimes permissible to take a “birth control” drug for purposes other than contraception. There is a slight possibility that a very early miscarriage could occur. But there are lots of drugs and medical procedures that have that as a possible risk. A woman who is sexually active is not expected to avoid **all possible risks **throughout all of the years she may become pregnant.
 
Corki said:
The difference, as I see it is that routine birth control pills, might have an abortifacient side effect. But that effect is not directed at a particular pregnancy; it is an indirect act. Emergency contraception has as its main purpose to prevent or cut short the particular pregnancy. It is a direct act.

That is one of the reasons the Church teaches that it is sometimes permissible to take a “birth control” drug for purposes other than contraception. There is a slight possibility that a very early miscarriage could occur. But there are lots of drugs and medical procedures that have that as a possible risk. A woman who is sexually active is not expected to avoid **all possible risks **throughout all of the years she may become pregnant.
Click to expand...
You refer to the principle of double effect, am I correct? In other words, if the woman has to take the Pill for period problems or something along those lines, and the intention is not birth control, then she is not culpable for the unintended consequence.

But I think the OP is referring more to the mindset of the argument that goes around that “Catholics are against abortion so why are they also against birth control?” Or Catholics who go against Church teaching and use BC anyway - which is not right - but if they knew they were really killing babies maybe they’d reconsider, or at least change types of BC, and if a pregnancy occurred carry it to term. It’s not the ideal, not by any means, but it would at least mean fewer babies dying.
 
3DOCTORS said:
Absolutely it needs to be emphasized. I have had some pro-choice persons disbelieve me if I take my information from pro-life sources. What I do in that case is Google the prescribing information (the stuff that’s printed in tiny print on the package insert of medications or in the PDR) and find where it states that one of the means of acting is that the pill or device or method in question changes the lining of the uterus preventing implantation. It will be right there in print - worded in some way that conveys that idea. So then at least it can’t be denied. Of course, that’s just the beginning - I’ve had them then try to argue from different tactics, but at least they can’t act like I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Click to expand...
I have people still reject the packet information and say that it can’t be abortive, because there is no pregnancy. :rolleyes: Their argument is that in order to abort there has to be a pregnancy, the medical establishment defines pregnancy after implantation.

This of course is a ridiculous argument. Since you are still killing an individual. I am always meet by stony silence when I point out that the medical establishment dates a pregnancy from one last menstrual period, before conception has even occurred. (They will sometimes date the gestational age of the baby, and that is from fertilization not implantation).
 
A woman who is not on the pill and not practicing any form of birth control will lose up to 50% of her fertilized eggs. I’m pretty sure that this is a scientific fact. I saw once on TV that when human eggs are fertilized in a dish, they can actually tell which fertilized eggs are defective and aren’t going to grow into a baby. I think this is because some eggs (and some sperm) have the wrong number of chromosomes or other defects.

So if a woman is on the pill for a medical reason, it seems to me that at least 90% of the time, she won’t get pregnant because she is not ovulating. If she did happen to have “breakthrough” ovulation, that fertilized egg would have just as much chance of not making it as any other fertilized egg.

Since the chances of getting pregnant while on the pill are very low, I just don’t see how it could be considered an early abortion if a fertilized egg didn’t make it. In the first place, it seems to me that a woman who ovulated while on the pill would see the signs and abstain if she didn’t want to get pregnant.

Some women have such serious problems that they will bleed to death if they don’t do something. I think it is tacky to lay a guilt trip on a woman who can’t help the fact that she is in poor health by making her think that she must be having an early abortion every month.
 
Listener said:
A woman who is not on the pill and not practicing any form of birth control will lose up to 50% of her fertilized eggs. I’m pretty sure that this is a scientific fact. I saw once on TV that when human eggs are fertilized in a dish, they can actually tell which fertilized eggs are defective and aren’t going to grow into a baby. I think this is because some eggs (and some sperm) have the wrong number of chromosomes or other defects.

So if a woman is on the pill for a medical reason, it seems to me that at least 90% of the time, she won’t get pregnant because she is not ovulating. If she did happen to have “breakthrough” ovulation, that fertilized egg would have just as much chance of not making it as any other fertilized egg.

Since the chances of getting pregnant while on the pill are very low, I just don’t see how it could be considered an early abortion if a fertilized egg didn’t make it. In the first place, it seems to me that a woman who ovulated while on the pill would see the signs and abstain if she didn’t want to get pregnant.

Some women have such serious problems that they will bleed to death if they don’t do something. I think it is tacky to lay a guilt trip on a woman who can’t help the fact that she is in poor health by making her think that she must be having an early abortion every month.
Click to expand...
Whether its an abortion or a miscarriage has nothing to do with the medical necessity of the medication and everything to do with the intent. Intentionally taking an action to end an unborn child’s life is abortion. If the woman intends and wants the embryos to fail to implant as a result of her use of hormonal contraception then the death of the child is an abortion, if she does not intend the death of the child then there is no abortion, but simply a miscarriage.
 
What about the use of condoms? It prevents pregnancy just like the rhythm method which is the only approved method by the Church but doesn’t cause abortions. Why does it fall under the “no no” category of the Church? I’ve read a few bible passages regarding moral sex but nobody wants pregnancy after every sexual act. Should there be a bit of leniency towards the use of condoms? :confused:
 
The FDA’s label on oral contraceptives state that they may interfere with multiple processes including ovulation and implantation, however this was placed on the label in the 1960’s. There is newer research indicating that the Combined oral contraceptives, although they do alter the endometrium, there is no evidence that implantation is affected.
The same cannot be said of Progestin only products. There has been talk of removing this from the labels… Plan B is currently trying to accomplish this…however with government red tape this could take a while.

Europe has already removed it from their labeling.

nytimes.com/2013/11/27/us/shift-on-birth-control-pill-may-affect-court-cases.html
 
Hockeygurl said:
The FDA’s label on oral contraceptives state that they may interfere with multiple processes including ovulation and implantation, however this was placed on the label in the 1960’s. There is newer research indicating that the Combined oral contraceptives, although they do alter the endometrium, there is no evidence that implantation is affected.
The same cannot be said of Progestin only products. There has been talk of removing this from the labels… Plan B is currently trying to accomplish this…however with government red tape this could take a while.

Europe has already removed it from their labeling.

nytimes.com/2013/11/27/us/shift-on-birth-control-pill-may-affect-court-cases.html
Click to expand...
Interesting logic: that changing the endometrium layer would not inhibit implantation. Since the purpose of the endometrium is to facilitate implantation. From wikipedia
During the menstrual cycle or estrous cycle, the endometrium grows to a thick, blood vessel-rich, glandular tissue layer. This represents an optimal environment for the implantation of a blastocyst upon its arrival in the uterus.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometrium. Making your endometrium “less than optimal” would seem to be intending to inhibit implantation and in fact cause some failed implantations.

However, I could see an argument for Plan B, because the drugs would not (potentially) have time to work on ones endometrium layer. Assuming one was not already on a pill, or didn’t take emergency contraceptives regularly, etc.
 
I have a nurse friend who was having fits on my facebook posts about abortifacient pills, and while I don’t have the studies handy, the bottom line I found by following her assertions, was that a Christian, prolife OBGYN group has done some looking and they believe that if a woman’s own hormones are strong enough to overcome the Pill and ovulate, then they are strong enough to overcome the Pill and thicken the uterine lining immediately post ovulation. The voices that insist that it’s not abortifacient because they have redefined pregnancy, are drowning out the moderate voices who truly believe the Pill is not abortifacient even with a pro-life stance on when life and pregnancy begin.

There is much research left to be done. I’m never in favor of contraception, but having been a Protestant on the Pill for years, I feel much better knowing that I probably wasn’t causing miscarriages that wouldn’t otherwise have happened.
 
Hockeygurl said:
logic would seem to direct a person in that direction, however that is not what the evidence is showing.

From AAPLOG (American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists)

Conclusion

Given the above, there is no evidence that shows that the endometrial changes produced by COCs contribute to failure of implantation of conceptions

aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/
Click to expand...
AAPLOG say in another article which cites the article I did and the article you have:
Included here are two papers, carefully researched and compiled by several members of the AAPLOG board (Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive and Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications). These papers come to different conclusions about the possible abortifacient effect of oral contraceptives, reflecting in a microcosm the controversy that has recently surrounded this issue in the larger pro-life community.
Click to expand...
aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/

Aside from the moral issues of the use of contraception, the fact that there is some debate about whether the oral contraceptive pill can act abortifacient is surely another reason to err on the side of caution and not use it.

There is also debate over other forms of contraception and whether they can act abortifacient as well.
 
Aside from the moral issues of the use of contraception, the fact that there is some debate about whether the oral contraceptive pill can act abortifacient is surely another reason to err on the side of caution and not use it.

Exactly. My pro-choice friends tend to say that it’s probably not abortifacient, so why all the fuss? Whereas my pro-life friends realize that the stakes are so high that it is not worth touching with a ten foot pole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top