Priest says morally licit to use the Pill to augment couple’s use of NFP

[astegallrnc]

Is fertility suppressed, because many NFP posters claim abortive rates which are not possible if fertility is suppressed, in fact some may need an increase in fertility to make their statements true.

No one can provide scientific evidence as explained here aaplog.org/collition.htm The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not. Attempting to prove that any mechanism causes the death of an innocent human individual is an assault on the fifth commandment.
I would not state that the pill is an abortifacient but a potential abortifacient. 1ke has provided accurate information and I can’t imagine what else could be stated.

 

[setter]

This maybe a very good question 1) Why is one attempting to monitor these signs? To control pregnancy, right. Well if that was working why is the patient in to see the doctor.

 

[hasikelee]

The answer looks rather obvious to me, however I’ll elaborate. NFP, among other things is based on knowing when you ovulate, so you can avoid that “fertile” time. If the menstrual cycle is regulated, then you have a much better idea when ovulation occurs.

Your logic makes sense but with more studying of human anatomy and the effects of oral contraceptives you will see that your statement above is false.

Oral contraceptives stop all four stages of menstruation. The only reason a woman has something that seems regulated is because 7 of the pills are blanks. Therefore she has a withdrawal bleed.

Natural family planning methods rely on the four stages of menstruation to specifically p(name removed by moderator)oint ovulation and avoid or achieve pregnancy.

A woman using the pill does not ovulate. She has anovulation-the lack of it. Therefore a woman cannot use NFP to identify anything because nothing is going on.

So your entire argument is well-thought out but entirely wrong.

Check out a textbook on anatomy or grab a highschool biology book off ebay for more information.

 

[fix]

Fix, your logic makes sense but with more studying of human anatomy and the effects of oral contraceptives you will see that your statement above is false.

Oral contraceptives stop all four stages of menstruation. The only reason a woman has something that seems regulated is because 7 of the pills are blanks. Therefore she has a withdrawal bleed.

Natural family planning methods rely on the four stages of menstruation to specifically p(name removed by moderator)oint ovulation and avoid or achieve pregnancy.

A woman using the pill does not ovulate. She has anovulation-the lack of it. Therefore a woman cannot use NFP to identify anything because nothing is going on.

So your entire argument is well-thought out but entirely wrong.

Check out a textbook on anatomy or grab a highschool biology book off ebay for more information.

I think you mean Mike???

 

[hasikelee]

I think you mean Mike???

lol, you’re right. I took the quote from your post, I think, but it should be to mike.

 

[fix]

lol, you’re right. I took the quote from your post, I think, but it should be to mike.

No prob.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I cannot believe people are this ignorant of the facts.

Which facts do you speak of ? can facts be contradictory or are we calling opinions -facts? Is that not the heart of the problem? Both sides accuse the other side of falsifying and yet the NFP side statements are not so far backed with data.

This is getting old.

The pill has three ways of working: it is supposed to inhibit ovulation, but because the level of hormones needed to do that is so high the original pills that were completely ovulatory suppressant were causing women to have all sorts of horrible side effects, strokes, etc. So, they changed the formulation of the pills in the late 70s, early 80s, to make them lower dose hormones. When they did that breakthrough ovulation became a consequence.

Can some data be provided that shows zero “break through ovulation” in early pill users, and zero ovulation in pregnant women, and “break through ovulation” in current pill users. 1ke I am not being obtuse, if the numbers between pill users and non pill users are the same, then the facts are the facts

So, to handle that new issue of ovulation occurring, they reformulated the pills to do two other things: change the cervical mucus to inhibit sperm transport and thin the endometrium so that any embryo that does get conceived cannot implant. When implantation of a new life fails-- that is an abortifacient effect, not a “contraceptive” effect. The pill does not always prevent conception.

Here again is the problem did the formulator actually develop the pill to do these things individually or is this in fact “known” or “believed” changes which occur in women who use the Pill. Again this statement can simply not be correct as no baby would ever be born to a mother on the Pill- the words in the statement are " cannot implant"

And, you can read this in the Doctor’s Prescribing Information on the pill websites, Yasmin for example. If you click on the Pysician Prescribing Information, read the Clinical Pharmacology section, which clearly states:
*
Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) 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 increases the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation).*

Interestingly, if you click the Patient Prescribing Information (what they hand out to the women) or read their website there is *no mention *of this abortifacient effect. They purposely HIDE it. In fact, when you read their website they tell women this:

*Combination pills contain an estrogen and a progestin and work in two ways:

The body is “tricked” into thinking it is pregnant. This prevents the release of an egg, or ovulation. Without an egg to be fertilized, a woman cannot become pregnant

The cervical mucus is thickened, making it difficult for sperm to travel toward the egg and fertilize it in case an egg is released *

This directly contradicts their own document that I posted above. Hmmm…

Actually, I am missing the direct contradiction however if they are misleading anybody that would be a wrong thing to do. Which is the whole problem on the threads misleading is wrong regardless of which side of an issue the person is on.

Yes, the pill manufacturers have an agenda, selling pills, so if you believe what is written on their website you are only fooling yourself.

If you continue to deny that the pill works in this way, then it is not out of simply lack of knowledge but out of willfullness. And, in that case, it is pointless to talk to you.

This is a really strong statement and rather inappropriate. Anyone looking for facts should not ignore experts in the specific field. This thread started with a poster trying to correct a Priest. Notice there is little church teaching being used to oppose the Priest statement. In the earlier post one is from a medical school and the other from an obstetrician and gynecologist. It is wrong to assume such people are ignorant of these matters. My few personal comments are concerning the inability of many of these statements to all accurate at one time.

I hope this helps, issues as the Priest comments or contraception are not personal assessments of people. They are personal decision which should be based on as much knowledge as is available.

 

[Karin]

The Pill: Abortifacient or Contraceptive

interesting reading…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

(QUOTE)Originally Posted by Texas Roofer -This maybe a very good question 1) Why is one attempting to monitor these signs? To control pregnancy, right. Well if that was working why is the patient in to see the doctor. - (Setter) -
Is not a qualifying question of medical necessity be “Is this a medical condition that would require medical treatment for a single and celibate woman?”

We have discussed this at length on other threads, it seems some want to change the answer here. I do not think this is a correct question because it rest on ones predisposed position so the actual question only uncovers that position.

Does this not beg the question: If the couple was not using NFP (instead ABC) or was wanting to conceive, would a “therapeutic method to change the bodies action” be needed.

I hear it is a common practice.

 

[fix]

This thread started with a poster trying to correct a Priest. Notice there is little church teaching being used to oppose the Priest statement.

More information is needed to clarify things. From my understanding in reading the OP it seems the priest was giving a wink and a nod to Church teaching in the matter.

It is as if he was finding a way to justify contraception by claiming some degree of irregular periods would be a good cover.

I may be wrong and I hope the OP can correct my misunderstanding?

 

[setter]

We have discussed this at length on other threads, it seems some want to change the answer here. I do not think this is a correct question because it rest on ones predisposed position so the actual question only uncovers that position.

What do you mean by “predisposed position”?

I hear it is a common practice.

Common practice does not necessarily equate with what is moral, ex., the statistics of Catholic who use ABC methods.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

More information is needed to clarify things. From my understanding in reading the OP it seems the priest was giving a wink and a nod to Church teaching in the matter.

It is as if he was finding a way to justify contraception by claiming some degree of irregular periods would be a good cover.

I may be wrong and I hope the OP can correct my misunderstanding?

That is not my understanding, of course I was not present either

What do you mean by “predisposed position”?

Common practice does not necessarily equate with what is moral, ex., the statistics of Catholic who use ABC methods.

“who use ABC” that would be a predisposed condition, do you know the couple were embracing while and egg rested in the correct location for conception? Since doctors do prescript pills for celibate girls for these same reasons it seems rather silly to imply these doctor are all in error. Why should a married women be denied the treatment she could recieve if celibate?( that beggs for a joke married vs celibate)

 

[setter]

More information is needed to clarify things. From my understanding in reading the OP it seems the priest was giving a wink and a nod to Church teaching in the matter.

It is as if he was finding a way to justify contraception by claiming some degree of irregular periods would be a good cover.

I may be wrong and I hope the OP can correct my misunderstanding?

This particular priest offered the Pill as a medical option in service of the NFP practicing couple to chemically “regulate”, i.e., chemically suppress, the irregular menstrual cycle under the umbrella of a ”medical condition” possibly in need of treatment. My question remains, if a couple was not practicing NFP, would this priest have suggested consulting with a doctor to see if the Pill for could treat an irregular menstrual cycle, in absence of apparent physical or emotional distress as a complication of an irregular menstrual cycle.

 

[1ke]

Which facts do you speak of ? can facts be contradictory or are we calling opinions -facts? Is that not the heart of the problem? Both sides accuse the other side of falsifying and yet the NFP side statements are not so far backed with data.

There have been numerous links, but I’ll post two more:

Data on the early pill and the newer, low hormone formulation:

fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00027.html

Post-fertilization effect of the pill:

polycarp.org/larimore_stanford.htm

ccli.org/contraception/mdexplains.php

Here again is the problem did the formulator actually develop the pill to do these things individually or is this in fact “known” or “believed” changes which occur in women who use the Pill.

Yes, they knew. It’s biology. Lowering the hormone content reduces the effectiveness of suppressing ovulation and must therefore be compensated for with the other two mechanisms.

Here’s a great chart on how various forms of pills work. Note: they refer to thinning the uterine lining as “preventing conception” but this is inaccurate, as conception occurs in the Fallopian Tubes.

palmbeachpost.com/health/content/shared-auto/womens/birth_control_pills/over.html

Actually, I am missing the direct contradiction however if they are misleading anybody that would be a wrong thing to do.

Let me try to spell it out for you:

The Physicians Prescribing Information clearly states the pill works three ways-- I quoted it right off the Yasmin pill website, the third being to thin the endometrium and inhibit implantation.

The same website tells consumers that the pill works in** two **ways and fails to mention the thinning of the endometrium and inhibiting of implantation.

That is a **direct **contradiction, and an attempt to **mislead **consumers.

 

[hasikelee]

The Physicians Prescribing Information clearly states the pill works three ways-- I quoted it right off the Yasmin pill website, the third being to thin the endometrium and inhibit implantation.

The same website tells consumers that the pill works in** two **ways and fails to mention the thinning of the endometrium and inhibiting of implantation.

That is a **direct **contradiction, and an attempt to **mislead **consumers.

Yup, yup. Always read that fine print. There are nurses who claim that the pill won’t stop menstruation. They will tell you point blank “you still have a period.”

Not everyone is educated and not everyone wants others to be educated.

 

[astegallrnc]

There are nurses who claim that the pill won’t stop menstruation.

Yes, they will also tell you the pill regulates your menstrual cycles. It is inaccurate to state the pill regulates menstrual cylces. Ovulation is a necessary event for a true menstrual cycles. It is a medical fact. The professors stressed this in my NP program because so many people believe women still have menstrual periods. Nope, it isn’t a true period. fwhc.org/qa/bc-whyperiod.htm (note this site is not pro-life)
Anovulatory bleeding is not a menstrual cycle. This thread may be evidence why the health care profession has chosen to simplify the information of how the pill regulates… don’t confuse anyone with facts.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

There have been numerous links, but I’ll post two more:

Data on the early pill and the newer, low hormone formulation:

fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00027.html

1ke, this article contradicts the Palm Beach article below? however in the original comments I do not see the zero fertilization which was discussed earlier

Post-fertilization effect of the pill:

polycarp.org/larimore_stanford.htm

quote-> "However, there are insufficient data to quantitate the relative contribution of postfertilization effects"

ccli.org/contraception/mdexplains.php

quote->"–one cannot state with absolute certainty when and how often BCPs cause early abortions".

Yes, they knew. It’s biology. Lowering the hormone content reduces the effectiveness of suppressing ovulation and must therefore be compensated for with the other two mechanisms.

So why to we not simply use the drugs which suppress ovulation?

Here’s a great chart on how various forms of pills work. Note: they refer to thinning the uterine lining as “preventing conception” but this is inaccurate, as conception occurs in the Fallopian Tubes.

palmbeachpost.com/health/content/shared-auto/womens/birth_control_pills/over.html

actually it is a good chart. Is it correct, no data as always. This chart claims a 90-95% non ovulation rate (COC’s) very important information I wonder where that number comes from , that is a very important number.

Let me try to spell it out for you:

The Physicians Prescribing Information clearly states the pill works three ways-- I quoted it right off the Yasmin pill website, the third being to thin the endometrium and inhibit implantation.

The same website tells consumers that the pill works in** two **ways and fails to mention the thinning of the endometrium and inhibiting of implantation.

That is a **direct **contradiction, and an attempt to **mislead **consumers.

actually it states "other alterations include changes" see if the drug increases ear wax that is another alteration, but it does not change conception. So to date no one has shown any data which shows the abortive affect exists. For those who are reading for facts there is reason to believe an abortific affects could exist however it may be tiny or possibly nonexistent.

 

[astegallrnc]

actually it states "other alterations include changes" see if the drug increases ear wax that is another alteration, but it does not change conception.

I think you are confusing mechanism of action and side effects.

Experts (pro-ABC experts) in reproductive health disagree with you regarding the changes in the endometrium.

So to date no one has shown any data which shows the abortive affect exists. For those who are reading for facts there is reason to believe an abortific affects could exist however it may be tiny or possibly nonexistent.

This is true but then again it could happen 99% of the time. There is no direct evidence and it is doubtful there will be aaplog.org/collition.htm The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not. Attempting to prove that any mechanism causes the death of an innocent human individual is an assault on the fifth commandment.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’ll assume you posted this with the best of intentions
other:

I think you are confusing mechanism of action and side effects.

Experts (pro-ABC experts) in reproductive health disagree with you regarding the changes in the endometrium.

Again an embellished statement which becomes factually incorrect. Should I rewrite it to make correct or explain why it is incorrect? Maybe both?

Rewrite : Some believe the thinning of the endometrium associated with use of COC birth control pills could decrease the implantation of a fertilized egg, though this decrease is not proven, some experts believe a decrease is inevitable.

The facts: No expert to date has provided any data to support a decrease in implantation as a result of the pill. In fact not all endometriums are the same to start with and in fact the loss of fertilized eggs is common in control groups.

I did not get confused at all, see the claim any doctor can determine with out data that this occurs is ridiculous. The doctor would be will advised for all legal, moral, and ethical reason to tell the truth which is the endometrium will thin and some experts believe this action reduces the implantation of eggs.

This is true but then again it could happen 99% of the time.

This is a flatly incorrect statement the author may have meant to claim the implantation of fertilized on a endometrium of a COC person could be found to be lower, however embellishing it too 99% is strictly an attempt to mislead. As mentioned early women with naturally thinner endometrium are not always 99% infertile, which would be require if we allow several qualifications to the author’s original statement.

There is no direct evidence and it is doubtful there will be aaplog.org/collition.htm The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not. Attempting to prove that any mechanism causes the death of an innocent human individual is an assault on the fifth commandment.

 

[astegallrnc]

I’ll assume you posted this with the best of intentions

Of course!

Again an embellished statement which becomes factually incorrect. Should I rewrite it to make correct or explain why it is incorrect? Maybe both?

Rewrite : Some believe the thinning of the endometrium associated with use of COC birth control pills could decrease the implantation of a fertilized egg, though this decrease is not proven, some experts believe a decrease is inevitable.

The facts: No expert to date has provided any data to support a decrease in implantation as a result of the pill. In fact not all endometriums are the same to start with and in fact the loss of fertilized eggs is common in control groups.

I did not get confused at all, see the claim any doctor can determine with out data that this occurs is ridiculous. The doctor would be will advised for all legal, moral, and ethical reason to tell the truth which is the endometrium will thin and some experts believe this action reduces the implantation of eggs.

This is entertaining.

It is clear that you do not understand mechanism of action versus side effects.