Responding to the implications of "spontaneous abortion"--a challenging argument against "life at conception" in journal article: "The Scourge"

[QuasiCatholic]

The Church’s teaching was given by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. It is not at all dependent upon biology

But presumably the Holy Spirit has to somehow communicate to the people receiving the message. And they in turn have to pass it on to others. Which makes the issue of language sort of paramount.

So what I’m asking is, how could the early church leaders have been told by the Holy Spirit that life begins at conception when they didn’t even have any notion that conception was a thing?

I can see the Holy Spirit saying, “once you know you’re pregnant, you can’t have an abortion” or “All life must be respected.” But even if it had said “life begins at conception” that message would have been complete jibberish to them. Because the word “conception” didn’t mean anything. See what I’m saying?

So what were they using as the beginning point before modern science actually p(name removed by moderator)ointed the beginning point?

 

[THP]

May I ask the source of the studies for the 12-15% and the 22% numbers?

The reason I ask is that the only such study I have ever seen involved women who were coming off of hormonal birth control. Since hormonal birth control is widely known to induce fertility problems even after it is discontinued, that study could not truly be considered to be of healthy couples due to that defect.

That actually turned out to be the rate in the 22% study as well.

The 22% study:
Wilcox AJ, Weiberg CR, O’Connor JF, Baird DD, Schlatterer JP, Canfield RE, Armstrong EG, Nisula BC, Incidence of early loss of pregnancy, New Engl J Med 319:189, 1988.

One of the many 12-15% studies:
Goldstein SR, Embryonic death in early pregnancy: a new look at the first trimester, Obstet Gynecol 84:294, 1994.

I don’t have the specifics of the 22% study population but 95% of the ones who miscarried went on to have a viable pregnancy in the follow up time period so they weren’t infertile. Remember, those were couples planning/attempting conception so it is a good study population for the natural miscarriage rate.

Coming off the pill might, theoretically increase your chance of a miscarriage in the first month but certainly not after that. Long term use of the pill might reduce the frequency of ovulation initially and take longer to return to fertility but we are talking about miscarriages. Also, even women who had been long term users of the pill do have pregnancies at the same rate as the general population after 1 year.

 

[THP]

I think the thing that disturbs the OP is that the writer of the article used the phenomenon of spontaneous abortion to support his a priori conclusion that life begins at some later time.

Again I didn’t read the article but That is of course absurd. As we all know from high school biology, life can only come from other life, it does not spontaneously arise. I would argue that the individual sperm and ovulated egg are alive prior to conception, during conception, and after conception as a new life.

 

[Elizium23]

It doesn’t matter when biology found out what an ovum was or how conception occurred. Conception was an obvious concept by observing what happens between insemination and birth. Clearly “something” happens in the woman’s body to produce a human being. The Church did not need to know exactly when life began in order to declare that it must be protected at all times. The Church’s clear teaching has always remained abreast of physiological science and consistently condemned all manner of contraception and abortion.

The Holy Spirit inspires the Church in matters of faith and morals, not in science. The Holy Spirit did not need to “tell the Church” that life begins at conception. This is not a matter of faith. The matters of faith are that sex must be procreative and unitive, and that human life has dignity that must always be defended. The Church merely applies this to emerging science in every age and formulates her Tradition accordingly.

 

[SonCatcher]

But presumably the Holy Spirit has to somehow communicate to the people receiving the message. And they in turn have to pass it on to others. Which makes the issue of language sort of paramount.

So what I’m asking is, how could the early church leaders have been told by the Holy Spirit that life begins at conception when they didn’t even have any notion that conception was a thing?

I can see the Holy Spirit saying, “once you know you’re pregnant, you can’t have an abortion” or “All life must be respected.” But even if it had said “life begins at conception” that message would have been complete jibberish to them. Because the word “conception” didn’t mean anything. See what I’m saying?

So what were they using as the beginning point before modern science actually p(name removed by moderator)ointed the beginning point?

As Elizium23 wrote, it was obvious to the ancients the link between insemination and life. What they did not yet understand was what type of life it was, when. There was supposition that the new life might go through stages of being plant-like and/or animal-like (i.e. possibly not yet human). But even with those suppositions there was the universal understanding that what is conceived in a woman would eventually be born a human being in the image and likeness of God. This was enough for the Holy Spirit to give an instruction on, even if full biological understanding would lag by thousands of years.

 

[SonCatcher]

That actually turned out to be the rate in the 22% study as well.

The 22% study:
Wilcox AJ, Weiberg CR, O’Connor JF, Baird DD, Schlatterer JP, Canfield RE, Armstrong EG, Nisula BC, Incidence of early loss of pregnancy, New Engl J Med 319:189, 1988.

One of the many 12-15% studies:
Goldstein SR, Embryonic death in early pregnancy: a new look at the first trimester, Obstet Gynecol 84:294, 1994.

I don’t have the specifics of the 22% study population but 95% of the ones who miscarried went on to have a viable pregnancy in the follow up time period so they weren’t infertile. Remember, those were couples planning/attempting conception so it is a good study population for the natural miscarriage rate.

Coming off the pill might, theoretically increase your chance of a miscarriage in the first month but certainly not after that. Long term use of the pill might reduce the frequency of ovulation initially and take longer to return to fertility but we are talking about miscarriages. Also, even women who had been long term users of the pill do have pregnancies at the same rate as the general population after 1 year.

Actually, the experience of women transitioning from hormonal contraception to NFP (which actively monitors her fertility health) is that it can take several months for her cycles and, therefore, fertility to return to a normal, healthy state. Your “1 year” statistic demonstrates this.

The studies, however, do not seem to distinguish between women who have been off for 1 month and 1 year. Rather, they lump them all together with women who never used hormonal contraception.

 

[THP]

Actually, the experience of women transitioning from hormonal contraception to NFP (which actively monitors her fertility health) is that it can take several months for her cycles and, therefore, fertility to return to a normal, healthy state. Your “1 year” statistic demonstrates this.

The studies, however, do not seem to distinguish between women who have been off for 1 month and 1 year. Rather, they lump them all together with women who never used hormonal contraception.

You are confusing infertility due to anovulation with the miscarriage rate. Meaning, if they don’t ovulate they won’t get pregnant so they can’t have a miscarriage. Therefore it doesn’t really matter if they had been on the pill for 10 years. As far as I know there is no evidence for increased miscarriage in the first few weeks after coming off the pill so I don’t think it’s really that important of a confounder.

 

[Arandur]

Originally Posted by THP View Post
I didn’t read the article so maybe you can explain this. What is it disturbing? What is a natural miscarriage considered a “natural evil”? Is it even bad?

Sure, if we can increase pregnancy rates or stop tsunamis that would be good, but is the tsunami and miscarriage evil?

Natural evil is anything that happens naturally to harm a human being. It is an evil, it’s just not a moral evil. Moral evil is any evil inflicted upon someone by another person. Natural evil has no intention, no human actor, but still has an evil (harmful) effect. It’s all in moral philosophy and theology

Natural miscarriage, like disease, deformity, and death itself, is a natural evil. No person may be responsible for it, so it is not a moral evil. However, it is an evil effect on people. We generally try to reduce or eliminate evil effects, even natural ones. Though we may not be under a moral obligation to interfere with nature in this way, it is still generally recognized as a good thing to try to do, if possible.

I think the thing that disturbs the OP is that the writer of the article used the phenomenon of spontaneous abortion to support his a priori conclusion that life begins at some later time.

Not quite. Though the writer implies and probably uses his argument to try to justify some form of abortion or human misuse of embryos, he actually doesn’t even mention these. He focuses on the conclusion.

What is disturbing about the conclusion is that, if all of the author’s premises are accepted, and EVERY fertilized embryo that could potentially survive (i.e., was not a “blighted ovum” or too defective to even develop further and thus may not really be a fully-formed human) is a full human person (I would add, “with a soul”), then more than half of all humans are never even born.

I believe the author is wrong to insist that we are somehow responsible for or have a moral obligation to correct this, since he does not make a proper distinction between natural and moral evil, nor moral good vs. moral obligation. However, I think he would be correct in that attempting to save such people, if possible, could be a moral good (even if we’re not obligated to do so).

More importantly, the scale of the conclusion is in itself disturbing. That those humans who are born represent perhaps less than half of all humanity would change at least my own perception of humanity.

I think one of the other key distinctions here is that people of faith might also want to factor in the point of ensoulment. It would be less disturbing, for instance, to know that the 50% or so of embryos that never even implant were not yet infused with a human soul.

Note here that the Catholic Church actually doesn’t define the point of ensoulment; theologians and Doctors of the Church have held differing ideas here, and it is an open question. However, abortion and contraception, regardless of the point of ensoulment, are universally condemned. The Church’s primary arguments against meddling with embryos are focused on human dignity, sanctity, destiny, mystery, and respect for God than on what effect we might have on the natural life of an ensouled human. Aquinas (and others) agreed that while it may not technically be murder before the point of ensoulment (whenever that is), it is still a grave moral evil for reasons pertaining to those other factors.

So what I’m grappling with most is the idea of the the potential magnitude of life lost due to embryo loss. In other words, “is it true that more than half of humans are never even born?” (naturally–not even accounting for human choices–abortion)

As (JP2Admirer) an earlier poster put it: “The whole idea that spontaneous abortion occurs does seem to cheapen human life.”

Chipping away at that number is small consolation, unless that number becomes quite low. Even 25% of humans naturally never being born is a pretty big deal.

 

[BillP]

I think a lot of you guys are missing the point of the article here. The writer’s point was that because of the high rate of spontaneous abortion, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that “life begins at conception” without also believing that preventing or reducing spontaneous abortion should be a singularly important focus of scientific and medical research and resourcing.

The writer is correct. If one truly believed that “life begins at conception” then the conclusion about medical/research resourcing follows inexorably. There is simply no avoiding it without hypocrisy.

BTW, haggling over the percentage isn’t helpful because of the magnitude of the problem. The author chose to use a “middle of the road” estimate, with 63% of fertilized ovum not being born compared to a low figure of 45% and a high figure of 75%. This results in 220 million deaths a year. Even taking only half of the low estimate (22.5% of fertilized ovum dying before birth), still yields 78.5 million deaths per year, ten times annual Cancer deaths and 1.25 time the number of people killed in WWII, and co-incidentally, 3 times the number of abortions world-wide annually.

 

[SonCatcher]

You are confusing infertility due to anovulation with the miscarriage rate. Meaning, if they don’t ovulate they won’t get pregnant so they can’t have a miscarriage. Therefore it doesn’t really matter if they had been on the pill for 10 years. As far as I know there is no evidence for increased miscarriage in the first few weeks after coming off the pill so I don’t think it’s really that important of a confounder.

Not at all. I understand the difference, though there may be some anovulatory cycles after coming off hormonal contraception, the researchers did not do enough to separate those women who recently came off it from those who had been off for more than a year and those who never used it. Neither did they seem to pair the tests with LH tests to determine whether ovulation has actually occurred (this couple potentially indicate the incidence of nonimplantation).

There is far too little information to develop a reasonable formula.

 

[SonCatcher]

I think a lot of you guys are missing the point of the article here. The writer’s point was that because of the high rate of spontaneous abortion, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that “life begins at conception” without also believing that preventing or reducing spontaneous abortion should be a singularly important focus of scientific and medical research and resourcing.

The writer is correct. If one truly believed that “life begins at conception” then the conclusion about medical/research resourcing follows inexorably. There is simply no avoiding it without hypocrisy.

Actually, we do believe that everything reasonable should be done to prevent a spontaneous abortion. Mothers are given medications, ordered bed rest and even hospitalized for months when one seems imminent.

However, since spontaneous abortions do not involve a moral fault (due to the fact they are not induced), there is not a public outcry against them.

BTW, haggling over the percentage isn’t helpful because of the magnitude of the problem. The author chose to use a “middle of the road” estimate, with 63% of fertilized ovum not being born compared to a low figure of 45% and a high figure of 75%. This results in 220 million deaths a year. Even taking only half of the low estimate (22.5% of fertilized ovum dying before birth), still yields 78.5 million deaths per year, ten times annual Cancer deaths and 1.25 time the number of people killed in WWII, and co-incidentally, 3 times the number of abortions world-wide annually.

FTR, I’m not “haggling over percentage.” I am calling the researchers’ bluffs. They are mixing data of healthy women with fertility-deficient women and calling both groups “healthy”.

The author claims on the second page that half of embryos fail to implant without citing a source. The Wilcox study he cites in the paragraph only dealt with implanted embryos.

Wilcox studied women from the very day they ceased birth control for a maximum of 6 months. French et al only studued pregnancies that lasted at least 4 weeks. Boklage’s study is behind a paywall so it is difficult to scrutinize. I can’t find Hertig anywhere right now.

 

[SonCatcher]

Not at all. I understand the difference, though there may be some anovulatory cycles after coming off hormonal contraception, the researchers did not do enough to separate those women who recently came off it from those who had been off for more than a year and those who never used it. Neither did they seem to pair the tests with LH tests to determine whether ovulation has actually occurred (this couple potentially indicate the incidence of nonimplantation).

There is far too little information to develop a reasonable formula.

Correction. It seems Wilcox did use LH tests to confirm ovulation. That study could reveal a potential ratio of nonimplatations. However, since fertilization cannot be directly measured, that would only be a potential maximum, with the potential minimum at 0.

 

[JontheMaronite]

I think a lot of you guys are missing the point of the article here. The writer’s point was that because of the high rate of spontaneous abortion, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that “life begins at conception” without also believing that preventing or reducing spontaneous abortion should be a singularly important focus of scientific and medical research and resourcing.

The writer is correct. If one truly believed that “life begins at conception” then the conclusion about medical/research resourcing follows inexorably. There is simply no avoiding it without hypocrisy.

BTW, haggling over the percentage isn’t helpful because of the magnitude of the problem. The author chose to use a “middle of the road” estimate, with 63% of fertilized ovum not being born compared to a low figure of 45% and a high figure of 75%. This results in 220 million deaths a year. Even taking only half of the low estimate (22.5% of fertilized ovum dying before birth), still yields 78.5 million deaths per year, ten times annual Cancer deaths and 1.25 time the number of people killed in WWII, and co-incidentally, 3 times the number of abortions world-wide annually.

The writer is actually incorrect as some others here have noted, and his arguments miss some key points.

It is not “intellectually dishonest” to claim that “life begins at conception” without also believing that preventing or reducing spontaneous abortion should be a singularly important focus of scientific and medical research and resourcing. It’s not even hypocritical or inconsistent.

I have no doubt that the pro-life movement wants to see improved medical advances in saving human embryos and preventing miscarriages in their earliest stages. But they are primarily urging the position that we cannot cheapen the lives of, or purposefully kill those humans that are “less valuable” and more vulnerable. Both are on the horizon of a “pro-life culture”, yet one of the two is the more pressing issue that we are far more morally obligated to address.

The pro-life movement is primarily focused on building a culture of life, changing public policy, and providing health care for mothers, and also health care for babies outside of the womb. There is concern, in a more limited degree, for the healthcare of the babies inside the womb of course, limited by our own technology, and stifled by our blatant disregard for the dignity and personhood of embryos in our laws. We do already have efforts and medical steps and progress towards preventing miscarriages, performing surgery on the embryo in utero, etc. Not only is it foolish, but it is impractical to primarily focus on bettering, through personal and grassroots efforts to provide resources and fund medical research towards the healthcare of embryos, over our efforts to end the injustice of the blood-money industry of abortion that is set up in this country. The legal protections and cultural attitude that we bestow upon the child in the womb will naturally lend itself towards a growing concern regarding advances and improvement of their healthcare, but it won’t naturally happen the other way around.

It is setting aside resources to protect the health of embryos, while continuing and turning one’s back to the practices of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research that is utterly hypocritical. Natural deaths from disease or malfunctioning parts vs. sanctioned killing… One clearly takes precedence for pro-life activism. The improvement of embryo healthcare and prevention of miscarriages is on the horizon, but ending abortion is the much more pressing issue.

It’s a simple ethical situation really. If we have a choice of one or the other, do we try to fix prolong the life of someone who’s dying naturally, or prevent someone from murdering a perfectly healthy person? While we are concerned for and will address both in time, the second takes immediate precedence. The second (abortion) is not merely an issue or concern, it is a pressing injustice that must be addressed. The question raised by the article is a moral question, on which empirical data have no bearing. We can and will address both issues in proper time, so any claim or suggestion to the opposite effect would be false and unfair.

 

[THP]

Not at all. I understand the difference, though there may be some anovulatory cycles after coming off hormonal contraception, the researchers did not do enough to separate those women who recently came off it from those who had been off for more than a year and those who never used it. Neither did they seem to pair the tests with LH tests to determine whether ovulation has actually occurred (this couple potentially indicate the incidence of nonimplantation).

There is far too little information to develop a reasonable formula.

Again, that doesn’t matter. It doesnt matter if they didn’t ovulate. They were trying to figure out the proportion of CONCEPTIONS that end in miscarriage. They only count those who had a conception, not total number of cycles. Unless the study population had a higher proportion of women with recurrent miscarriage than the general population, it’s a valid study group.

 

[THP]

Correction. It seems Wilcox did use LH tests to confirm ovulation. That study could reveal a potential ratio of nonimplatations. However, since fertilization cannot be directly measured, that would only be a potential maximum, with the potential minimum at 0.

Not exactly. I can’t access the entire article because it is in the NEJM archive but I don’t think you are correct. They were not looking at LH surges to check for ovulation. They were using a new more sensitive HCG assay and because of the molecular similarities between LH and HCG they needed to be sure they were not detecting LH and calling it a conception. So that even if LH is present on the urine sample they could also detect HCG to a level of 0.01 ng/mL. They are justifying their results to other researchers who might wonder about that.

 

[THP]

Natural evil is anything that happens naturally to harm a human being. It is an evil, it’s just not a moral evil. Moral evil is any evil inflicted upon someone by another person. Natural evil has no intention, no human actor, but still has an evil (harmful) effect. It’s all in moral philosophy and theology

Natural miscarriage, like disease, deformity, and death itself, is a natural evil. No person may be responsible for it, so it is not a moral evil. However, it is an evil effect on people. We generally try to reduce or eliminate evil effects, even natural ones. Though we may not be under a moral obligation to interfere with nature in this way, it is still generally recognized as a good thing to try to do, if possible.

Not quite. Though the writer implies and probably uses his argument to try to justify some form of abortion or human misuse of embryos, he actually doesn’t even mention these. He focuses on the conclusion.

What is disturbing about the conclusion is that, if all of the author’s premises are accepted, and EVERY fertilized embryo that could potentially survive (i.e., was not a “blighted ovum” or too defective to even develop further and thus may not really be a fully-formed human) is a full human person (I would add, “with a soul”), then more than half of all humans are never even born.

I believe the author is wrong to insist that we are somehow responsible for or have a moral obligation to correct this, since he does not make a proper distinction between natural and moral evil, nor moral good vs. moral obligation. However, I think he would be correct in that attempting to save such people, if possible, could be a moral good (even if we’re not obligated to do so).

More importantly, the scale of the conclusion is in itself disturbing. That those humans who are born represent perhaps less than half of all humanity would change at least my own perception of humanity.

I think one of the other key distinctions here is that people of faith might also want to factor in the point of ensoulment. It would be less disturbing, for instance, to know that the 50% or so of embryos that never even implant were not yet infused with a human soul.

Note here that the Catholic Church actually doesn’t define the point of ensoulment; theologians and Doctors of the Church have held differing ideas here, and it is an open question. However, abortion and contraception, regardless of the point of ensoulment, are universally condemned. The Church’s primary arguments against meddling with embryos are focused on human dignity, sanctity, destiny, mystery, and respect for God than on what effect we might have on the natural life of an ensouled human. Aquinas (and others) agreed that while it may not technically be murder before the point of ensoulment (whenever that is), it is still a grave moral evil for reasons pertaining to those other factors.

So what I’m grappling with most is the idea of the the potential magnitude of life lost due to embryo loss. In other words, “is it true that more than half of humans are never even born?” (naturally–not even accounting for human choices–abortion)

As (JP2Admirer) an earlier poster put it: “The whole idea that spontaneous abortion occurs does seem to cheapen human life.”

Chipping away at that number is small consolation, unless that number becomes quite low. Even 25% of humans naturally never being born is a pretty big deal.

Great answer with an excellent explanation for someone who is not trained in moral theology.

 

[Jvrlns]

Natural evil is anything that happens naturally to harm a human being. It is an evil, it’s just not a moral evil. Moral evil is any evil inflicted upon someone by another person. Natural evil has no intention, no human actor, but still has an evil (harmful) effect. It’s all in moral philosophy and theology

Natural miscarriage, like disease, deformity, and death itself, is a natural evil. No person may be responsible for it, so it is not a moral evil. However, it is an evil effect on people. We generally try to reduce or eliminate evil effects, even natural ones. Though we may not be under a moral obligation to interfere with nature in this way, it is still generally recognized as a good thing to try to do, if possible.

Not quite. Though the writer implies and probably uses his argument to try to justify some form of abortion or human misuse of embryos, he actually doesn’t even mention these. He focuses on the conclusion.

What is disturbing about the conclusion is that, if all of the author’s premises are accepted, and EVERY fertilized embryo that could potentially survive (i.e., was not a “blighted ovum” or too defective to even develop further and thus may not really be a fully-formed human) is a full human person (I would add, “with a soul”), then more than half of all humans are never even born.

I believe the author is wrong to insist that we are somehow responsible for or have a moral obligation to correct this, since he does not make a proper distinction between natural and moral evil, nor moral good vs. moral obligation. However, I think he would be correct in that attempting to save such people, if possible, could be a moral good (even if we’re not obligated to do so).

More importantly, the scale of the conclusion is in itself disturbing. That those humans who are born represent perhaps less than half of all humanity would change at least my own perception of humanity.

I think one of the other key distinctions here is that people of faith might also want to factor in the point of ensoulment. It would be less disturbing, for instance, to know that the 50% or so of embryos that never even implant were not yet infused with a human soul.

Note here that the Catholic Church actually doesn’t define the point of ensoulment; theologians and Doctors of the Church have held differing ideas here, and it is an open question. However, abortion and contraception, regardless of the point of ensoulment, are universally condemned. The Church’s primary arguments against meddling with embryos are focused on human dignity, sanctity, destiny, mystery, and respect for God than on what effect we might have on the natural life of an ensouled human. Aquinas (and others) agreed that while it may not technically be murder before the point of ensoulment (whenever that is), it is still a grave moral evil for reasons pertaining to those other factors.

So what I’m grappling with most is the idea of the the potential magnitude of life lost due to embryo loss. In other words, “is it true that more than half of humans are never even born?” (naturally–not even accounting for human choices–abortion)

As (JP2Admirer) an earlier poster put it: “The whole idea that spontaneous abortion occurs does seem to cheapen human life.”

Chipping away at that number is small consolation, unless that number becomes quite low. Even 25% of humans naturally never being born is a pretty big deal.

But maybe these spontaneous abortions can’t be counted as human beings, I mean if they happen because of a severe genetic damage they might be, like a mole, not even human. Would God produce an ensoulment in a severely damaged ovum that can’t develope into anything resembling a human being? The Church says that life begins at conception but it doesn’t say that every single union of a spermatozoid and an egg is a conception.

 

[THP]

But maybe these spontaneous abortions can’t be counted as human beings, I mean if they happen because of a severe genetic damage they are, like a mole, not even human. Would God produce an ensoulment in a severely damaged cygote that can’t develope into anything resembling a human being?

The thing is, we just don’t know. We cannot know when this might happen or predict which zygotes are going to abort so to be on the safe side we have to assume that they all have the potential (at least in-vivo) to be human. You are asking an unanswerable question about why God would do something. Another question is whether God is involved at all in the process. Maybe its just natural selection making sure that genetically abnormal zygotes do not implant. Does God control or decide which sperm meets the egg or which follicle ends up being dominant that leads to ovulation? Are these biological processes that just happen and once it has occurred then God decides to intervene?

Maybe it should, but it just doesn’t bother me that 50% of humans are never born. It does not justify abortion to me.

 

[Jvrlns]

The thing is, we just don’t know. We cannot know when this might happen or predict which zygotes are going to abort so to be on the safe side we have to assume that they all have the potential (at least in-vivo) to be human. You are asking an unanswerable question about why God would do something. Another question is whether God is involved at all in the process. Maybe its just natural selection making sure that genetically abnormal zygotes do not implant. Does God control or decide which sperm meets the egg or which follicle ends up being dominant that leads to ovulation? Are these biological processes that just happen and once it has occurred then God decides to intervene?

Maybe it should, but it just doesn’t bother me that 50% of humans are never born. It does not justify abortion to me.

I’m sorry THP, I was editting my post as you answered, so I changed some things. I agree with you that we cannot in this life know the definite answer, I’m just saying that it’s possible most misscarriages are not even human and not that we should condone abortion. I think with the church that tampering with human reproduction be it abortion or anticonceptives isn’t a good thing.

 

[SonCatcher]

Again, that doesn’t matter. It doesnt matter if they didn’t ovulate. They were trying to figure out the proportion of CONCEPTIONS that end in miscarriage. They only count those who had a conception, not total number of cycles. Unless the study population had a higher proportion of women with recurrent miscarriage than the general population, it’s a valid study group.

What does matter, however, is what type of birth control they were coming off of and for how long (with Wilcox, this is known to be 1 day). It must be contrasted with subjects who never contracepted since the study may demonstrate more the lingering effects of contraception than the miscarriage rate for healthy women.