Zygotes, and blastocysts, and chemical abortions. Oh, my!

[KostyaJMJ]

There is a lot of focus, and I believe rightly so, on CAF on the potential abortofacient properties of the pill.

The pharmacology of COCs is explained in the PDR’s 2006 edition (p. 2395):Combination oral contraceptives 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 increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium, which reduce the likelihood of implantation

hli.org/index.php/news/hli-commentary/105?task=view

The question I have is concerning telling people they are guilty of chemical abortions. Is what they are doing, morally speaking, an abortion? Or is it the side effect of an illicit use of drugs? Would a sexually active woman who indulges in meth, crack, or other illicit drugs (I am not sure, but I can’t imagine this is good for a potential baby) also be guilty of a chemical abortion? If a woman sins against the fifth commandment by damaging her body is she also committing a sin against her potential offspring?

I am also don’t want to limit the discussion to immoral activities. What responsibility does a woman have for maintaining a healthy endometrium lining and uterus? For example, a woman who fails to maintain a healthy lifestyle and indulges in tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol. Is there a difference in that the Church maintains that it is moral to consume alcohol, tobacco and caffeine but contraception is intrinsically disordered? Or what of women athletes who engage in potentially damaging activities: boxing, mma, football… ect.

Every sexually active woman of childbearing age is potentially guarding a life inside of her. What kind of risks are acceptable knowing they could conceivably lead to an indirect abortion?

 

[momor]

IMO you would have no right to accuse any woman using the pill of a chemical abortion. You have NO WAY of knowing if that had ever happened in her body. You can only inform that some scientists think this may take place.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Might I suggest if possible the approach of providing good literature that is readily available from many pro-life organizations about the Pill and IUD as a starting approach? This might be less confrontational (and thus less perceived as threatening or accusatory). I mean, yes, there is still the issue of how to get the brochures into the person’s hands, but the advantage is you have the information presented in print, with the supporting evidence, and the person can read it and think it over.

Also, though you are right in being concerned about the woman’s care of her overall health, it might be being too scrupulous (unless she is already pregnant) to get into too much with her about those other issues. We all have a responsibility to take care of our health, and there’s nothing wrong with expressing caring concern if someone’s doing something really unhealthy. But beyond that, they have to be a big girl and take responsibility for their own health; no one else can do that for them.

 

[manualman]

Well motive comes in to play, I’d say for starters.

I doubt anybody takes up smoking with the intent to reduce the chance of pregnancy. So while there may be some culpability for negligence there, it’s comparatively minor.

When someone takes the pill with the expectation that the pill will prevent conception, but also the knowledge that if conception DOES occur there is a “handy, dandy” backup effect of the drug that ALSO achieves the goal of “sex with no babies”, there may be additional culpability for that forseable outcome. But it probably depends on knowledge and intent, which is so notoriously hard to judge that only God gets to do it. As for me and my family, we’ll obey the Lord.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Well motive comes in to play, I’d say for starters.

I doubt anybody takes up smoking with the intent to reduce the chance of pregnancy. So while there may be some culpability for negligence there, it’s comparatively minor.

When someone takes the pill with the expectation that the pill will prevent conception, but also the knowledge that if conception DOES occur there is a “handy, dandy” backup effect of the drug that ALSO achieves the goal of “sex with no babies”, there may be additional culpability for that forseable outcome. But it probably depends on knowledge and intent, which is so notoriously hard to judge that only God gets to do it. As for me and my family, we’ll obey the Lord.

I doubt anyone starts using contraception with the intent of preventing implantation. They may not particularly care either way but the intent is only to contracept.

A couple who is sexually active and smokes also accepts the increased risk of a miscarriage.

They both result in the death of babies but one is considered an abortifacient and the other is not.

 

[Pug]

Any side-effect that causes harm to others as a result of a deliberately chosen, known sinful action is a fundamental violation of fairness. There is no justification for the side-effect, since the action itself was sinful to start. This could be valuable info, since some people do recognize this sort of principle. If they do, and you can show them that they are causing harm, they may gain sufficient motivation to stop the sinful activity because they care about the harm.

I don’t think it is useful in all situations, though. Sometimes it is simply better to try and convince someone to stop doing something based upon the factors that are currently motivating them. Otherwise they may ignore your advice completely.

Remember to consider the option of not offering advice/admonishment. We are not obligated to admonish in all situations.

 

[manualman]

I doubt anyone starts using contraception with the intent of preventing implantation. They may not particularly care either way but the intent is only to contracept.

A couple who is sexually active and smokes also accepts the increased risk of a miscarriage.

They both result in the death of babies but one is considered an abortifacient and the other is not.

Again, intent is the difference. The public at large is (IMO) not particularly interested in the distinction between prevention of ovulation and prevention of implantation. It’s the prevention of “having to be pregnant and have a baby” they are after. Thus, the pill example and smoking example are apples and oranges. In the one, the end they intentionally seek is met. In the other, the (remotely possible) outcome is negligent side effect.

Sorry, but they look pretty different from here. Please consider that the difference might just be rationalizing.