Weird Birth Control Question

[nodito]

bfleks,

Please know that as a Protestant you are most welcome on these boards. I think sometimes people are curious as to what prompts non-Catholics to post here, but I’ve never liked how that sometimes degenerates into something that sounds kind of accusatory (i.e., “Why are you here?”)

Funny - the WHO research (circa 2005) you are referring to states that the pills tested were abnormally higher doses than typically prescribed and that the pill actually protects against ovarian cancer.

You probably believe vaccines cause autism too, don’t you?

The WHO study that previous posters is referring to is this one which lists estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives as a group 1 carcinogenic. It does mention, as you point out, that these same pills offer a protective effect against cancer of the ovaries and the cervix. This is the same protective effect that is provided by pregnancy, because the less frequently a woman ovulates the lower her chance of developing ovarian cancer. This doesn’t change the fact that these chemicals are, in fact, carcinogenic.

I don’t dispute that the pill “works” in the sense that it stops the functioning of the reproductive system. I don’t doubt that it has undergone rigorous testing and that it is used by many to manipulate the the reproductive cycle. And there are certainly other medications that have known risks that we take anyway because the potential benefits outweigh these risks. I suspect that this is how many OB/GYNs view hormonal birth control. However, because Catholics have to consider the moral repercussions of our medical decisions, we can’t just rely on the standard advice dispensed by doctors who have little incentive to do other than prescribe the pill.

You mentioned a couple of times that you can’t find any evidence in scripture that would prohibit the use of oral contraceptives. This isn’t really the thread to delve into the why-nots of contraception, but if you’re sincerely interested in learning the Catholic position, you might consider reading this article by Janet Smith about natural law.

God bless.

 

[bfelks]

That was insulting, and rotten to say.

The pill CAUSES breast cancer.

Possibly leads to a 1 in 6 chance of breast cancer instead of the typical 1 in 7 chance ( that’s a 2% increase). But most doctors disagree on the evidence provided by the study. The actual statistical probability stands against your unsubstantiated claim here.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Actually it isn’t. The pill is killing people. It is a group 1 carcinogen. Everyone is drinking the proverbial kool-aid that it is some kind of miracle drug when it causes cancer, can be abortive, and that it actually WORKS. (Which is doesn’t by the way).

It is NOT a medicine. It shuts down a working (or struggling to work) reproductive system in the body. This should be blaring trumpets that this works the OPPOSITE of helping.

Immoral is one thing, but you’re going to have a tough time convincing me that nearly every doctor in the world is involved in this grand conspiracy.

The pill works. The pill is safe.

It is wrong to prevent life using ABC.

Both true.

 

[agapewolf]

Possibly leads to a 1 in 6 chance of breast cancer instead of the typical 1 in 7 chance ( that’s a 2% increase). But most doctors disagree on the evidence provided by the study. The actual statistical probability stands against your unsubstantiated claim here.

Actually, nope.

The results were actually severely limited to women over 50 that took it…on purpose. Not the normal 18-24 who never had children…who it is a huge risk for.

Read “Fatherless”.

 

[agapewolf]

Immoral is one thing, but you’re going to have a tough time convincing me that nearly every doctor in the world is involved in this grand conspiracy.

The pill works. The pill is safe.

.

Absolutely NOT true.

I can give you a long list of docs who will disagree with you. And I didn’t say it was a conspiracy among the docs, so no need to “roll your eyes”.

The pill does not work. There are so many pregnancies from break through ovulations. There are 7 chemical abortions from the pill for every 1 surgical abortion.

 

[bfelks]

Actually, nope.

The results were actually severely limited to women over 50 that took it…on purpose. Not the normal 18-24 who never had children…who it is a huge risk for.

Read “Fatherless”.

Believe what you want. Show where an article agreeing with all the claims you have made has been published by respectable physicians or the AMA or AOA.

I’ll stick with the scientific community on this one, not some fringe group who believes things written by celebrities.

 

[agapewolf]

Believe what you want. Show where an article agreeing with all the claims you have made has been published by respectable physicians or the AMA or AOA.

I’ll stick with the scientific community on this one, not some fringe group who believes things written by celebrities.

I told you, its in fatherless. and its not written by a “celebrity”. The snarky response isn’t necessary.

www.omsoul. is a LONG LIST of respectable physicians.

The “scientific community” that you are holding so dear to also changed the meaning of “pregnancy” to after implantation rather than fertilization.

 

[bfelks]

I told you, its in fatherless. and its not written by a “celebrity”. The snarky response isn’t necessary.

www.omsoul. is a LONG LIST of respectable physicians.

The “scientific community” that you are holding so dear to also changed the meaning of “pregnancy” to after implantation rather than fertilization.

The book wasn’t written by anyone with experience in pharmacology, a doctor (of any kind), or anyone I’d accept medical advice from. The website isn’t scientifically oriented by any means. “Resources” are available but not look to contain scientific data.

I tend to not take advice from people with hidden agendas, such is the case with the two you listed.

 

[agapewolf]

The book wasn’t written by anyone with experience in pharmacology, a doctor (of any kind), or anyone I’d accept medical advice from. The website isn’t scientifically oriented by any means. “Resources” are available but not look to contain scientific data.

I tend to not take advice from people with hidden agendas, such is the case with the two you listed.

Wow…you are really showing ignorance. The book doesn’t need to be written by a doctor…he doesn’t give medical advice in it. It’s so far from what you are even thinking its a bit humorous actually

Hidden agendas…huh. Wow. there is no “hidden” agenda in either. It’s full out exposure and facts.

the book has a long and detailed list of resources. which DO have scientific data.

 

[twoangels]

Ok, so I have a question.

My FH and I are planning to start trying to have kids as soon as we’re married (we’d like one or two before we’re 30).

My mom was telling me that you can use the pill to time your period.

So, here’s the thing. Would it be a sin if I took the pill before the wedding, when I am not having any sexual intercourse, then stopped 2 weeks before the wedding so that I’d get my period over with and be fertile on my honeymoon? I’m afraid to ask my OB, because he’s been trying to just push me onto the pill for years now (i can’t switch, he’s the only one in 30 miles who takes my insurance), so i figured I’d find out whether or not this use was a sin, before I even posited the question to him.

Thoughts?

You wouldn’t be having periods while on the pill. You’ll bleed when the hormone levels allow for some shedding of the uterine lining, but its not true menstruation. Getting off the pill can be tricky in regards to fertility. Its not like being on the pill is an easy thing on your body.

The stress of wedding planning will likely effect your cycle and will likely do crazy things to your cycle so that there will be no guarentee about where you’ll be in your cycle till possibly even the day before your wedding. Certainly I had no idea what my body was going to do that day as it had gone crazy.

I’d just encourage you to learn NFP and to take advantage of the first fertile days you have after you’re married.

 

[bfelks]

Wow…you are really showing ignorance. The book doesn’t need to be written by a doctor…he doesn’t give medical advice in it. It’s so far from what you are even thinking its a bit humorous actually

Hidden agendas…huh. Wow. there is no “hidden” agenda in either. It’s full out exposure and facts.

the book has a long and detailed list of resources. which DO have scientific data.

Everything has an agenda and one would be naive to think otherwise. Based on these sources you have listed, I have yet to find a perspective that is complete with current studies and tests and backed by a medical association. With that said, we’re are free to think what we will. Some people choose to think that medications cause illnesses and harmful effects when the vast majority of the medical community believes otherwise (see autism/vaccine hoax). Doctors and pharmacologists alike wouldn’t be on the pill themselves if the information provided is 100% accurate. Thanks, but I’ll stick with the experts on this one.

 

[agapewolf]

Everything has an agenda and one would be naive to think otherwise. Based on these sources you have listed, I have yet to find a perspective that is complete with current studies and tests and backed by a medical association. With that said, we’re are free to think what we will. Some people choose to think that medications cause illnesses and harmful effects when the vast majority of the medical community believes otherwise (see autism/vaccine hoax). Doctors and pharmacologists alike wouldn’t be on the pill themselves if the information provided is 100% accurate. Thanks, but I’ll stick with the experts on this one.

How would you know if you haven’t read it? You don’t. You are throwing things out there as if you’ve actually read the material and you haven’t.

I listed “experts”. If you’re so confident in your position, then it could stand up to any argument, rather than hiding from people that have information that could knock your arguments down.

 

[bfelks]

How would you know if you haven’t read it? You don’t. You are throwing things out there as if you’ve actually read the material and you haven’t.

I listed “experts”. If you’re so confident in your position, then it could stand up to any argument, rather than hiding from people that have information that could knock your arguments down.

The books premise speaks for itself. It was written by a novelist who has no medical background. My position is backed by the American Medical Association and the American Osteopathic Association. It’s not my position, it’s the educated position.

 

[agapewolf]

The books premise speaks for itself. It was written by a novelist who has no medical background. My position is backed by the American Medical Association and the American Osteopathic Association. It’s not my position, it’s the educated position.

and his resources HAVE medical background. But you wouldn’t know that because you won’t read it. What are you afraid of? You would be surprised. Again. if your points are so tight, then they can stand up to any argument given.

 

[bfelks]

and his resources HAVE medical background. But you wouldn’t know that because you won’t read it. What are you afraid of? You would be surprised. Again. if your points are so tight, then they can stand up to any argument given.

I’ve read his website, several book reviews, etc. It is a fiction novel.

I don’t see any argument proposed by you either that needs refuting.

 

[Em_in_FL]

The best part of this thread is that through all the bickering I haven’t noticed ONE link to actual informative studies…

Here’s a start… it doesn’t show a ton of information, but it does shed some light…

cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

 

[bfelks]

The best part of this thread is that through all the bickering I haven’t noticed ONE link to actual informative studies…

Here’s a start… it doesn’t show a ton of information, but it does shed some light…

cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

I agree. Links would be helpful like the one posted earlier to the WHO research (can’t remember who posted right off). A basic search returns information like this:

webmd.com/breast-cancer/guide/pill-breast-cancer-risk

A more advanced search will include articles such as this that can be more beneficial if read in depth:

jama.ama-assn.org/content/284/14/1791.full.pdf+html

A good synopsis of the the article is also included and one major point to note is that it relates to women who took an oral contraceptive prior to 1975 (a 1st generation OC).

 

[agapewolf]

renewamerica.com/columns/giroux/120214

No you haven’t read the actual book and the resources IN the book. Those are the arguments, but you won’t read them.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Actually most obgyns are extremely ignorant to the basics of the female cycle. They don’t know when a woman ovulates, how to date pregnancy accurately, or even that there are basic observations that can alert to conditions.

This is very true. It’s very rare that an OB/GYN is trained in the NFP sciences.

OP, if you are having confusing cycles and your OB/GYN simply wants to whitewash these problems and cover them up with the pill, then consider finding a different doctor. Preferably an NFP-only doctor. If you cannot find one available in your area, consider going to a specialist (like a Reproductive Endocrinologist) who may be able to more-thoroughly get to the ROOT of the PROBLEM, rather than simply covering up the symptoms with the pill.

Prayers for you!