Catholic2003:
If a woman not on the pill would have 3 or 4 spontaneous abortions (i.e., failures to implant), and by taking the pill that would be reduced to only 1 spontaneous abortion (i.e., failure to implant), it’s just not jumping out at me why the pill should be placed in the same class as an abortifacent like the IUD.
Comparing a medically related spontaneous abortion to a naturally occuring one is quite different. Knowlingly taking a hormonal agent that is designed to prevent conception is against our teachings regardless of a possible positive statistic.
The following - Published in Linacre Quarterly, November 1999, p.26-35
Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive by William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., FACOG
The author is Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at George Washington University Medical Center.
The signatories were distressed by the statement that “millions and millions” of preborn sisters and brothers have been and will be lost to these hormonal agents which obviously can be abortifacient. Let’s look at the math. Women on BCPs have 28-day cycles and thus have 13 cycles per year (365/28 = 13.3). According to
Facts in Brief from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (faxed 3/13/98), 10,410,000 U.S. women are current pill users, 26.9% of all methods. This is second only to sterilization used by 27.7% of contraceptors. This would appear to be another sign of their anti-life nature. Dr. Don Gambrell has informed us that there is a 14% breakthrough ovulation rate in females taking the 50 microgram pills (10,410,000 x 0.14 = 1,457,400 ovulations each cycle). 1,457,000 x 13 cycles per year = 18,946,200 possible exposures to pregnancy each year. The accepted rate for “pill pregnancies” is 3-5 per 100 women years. Noting the fact that there is a 60+% rate of spontaneous tubal abortions with an unfavorable implantation site in ectopic pregnancies, it is reasonable for us to calculate a rate of conceptions lost to early physician (BCP) induced abortion of intrauterine pregnancies in pill users as twice that of term “pill pregnancies”, given once again, an endometrium that is “less vascular, less glandular, thinner” than normal. Thus the possible abortion rate induced by BCPs is 18,946,200 « 0.06 = 1,136,772 or 18,946,200 « 0.1 = 1,894,620 per year. We are convinced that the reasoning with regard to the math on this issue is sound.
Dr. Murphy Goodwin was asked to review this reasoning and math. He wrote (personal communication, 4/23/98): “It is possible that there are more than a million such losses per year but a reasonable calculation could also put the loss rate at one tenth of that number.” He added: “1) I believe that it is most likely that the total number excess fetal losses (abortions) due to the combined pill is in the range of several hundred thousand, substantially less than the number of elective abortions annually and 2) the fact that this is not the intended effect of the pill in most cases and the effect in any one circumstance is unknowable makes the ethical issues much more complex than those surrounding elective abortion. The educational and political challenge of elective abortion is much more straightforward and is a necessary prerequisite of undertaking the more complex moral issue of the abortifacient effect of the pill.” These sound thoughts deserve the prayerful reflection of all right-to-lifers. Using a normal fecundity rate of 20% and other scientifically sound variables, Dr. Goodwin arrived at pill-induced abortions totals between 104,100 per year and 1,561,500 per year. Curiously his high number is approximately half-way between our two calculations. His low number is not insignificant. We must also remember that with RU-486 and methotrexate waiting in the in wings or available today, chemical and hormonal killing of the preborn may one day make surgical abortion look pale in the shade. We should also recall that 10-15% represent conservative estimates of spontaneous early abortions in normally cycling females desirous of pregnancy and favored with a delicately balanced reproductive cycle designed by God. To state or feel that BCP-consuming females experience a 0% rate of physician-induced abortion (from the pill) is wishful thinking of the highest order.
I can’t seem to understand the preoccupation with this issue. Making up hypothetical situations to justify using something against Church teaching is dangerous ground in my opinion. Unless you are in some of the hypothetical situations and this topic is relevent to you, then I can’t see being this adament about it. And if you are in this situation, an answer should not be sought through this forum. I tend to think that these subjects are best left up to people and their clergy on a private basis when these situations become relevent to them. Debating these kinds of personal issues becomes redundant. There’s always a *“but what if…” *to be added to any hypothetical situation and the bottome line is that ABC should be avoided because it offends our Lord. There are so many other treatments available for any condition in which the pill can be prescribed. By debating that ABC is perfectly fine for medicinal purposes, someone who gets it prescribed for acne will think it’s perfectly fine. It also opens the door to someone tricking themselves into thinking it is morally okay to use for such petty reasons, even if they desire the contraceptive effect. :tsktsk:
