Morning After Pill? Sin? Abortion? Contraception?

[nahkoe]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Am I reading you right, OP??? ... you are against all, if not most, oral contraceptives because they all can potentially end human life? Pre and post?

Or even a regular/standard pill taken unwittingly after or right before a contraception-less encounter?

This view is held by many hard-line conservatives who do not allow oral contraceptives at all ... like the RC.

It's also a view held by women who are otherwise pro-choice, but personally choose not to use hormones that may terminate a pregnancy.

There's actually very little in the way of birth control that *prevents* pregnancy, and a lot that prevents and terminates, or just terminates. Education is key if terminating matters to you.

[ILG]

Somehow, the BC pill has slipped into the church almost unopposed. Like I said, I was on it for three years and NEVER knew about the possibility that the pill may prevent a fertilized egg from implantation. I studied up on all my options and never read this anywhere. Of course, this was about 20 years ago. Do I now have children in heaven? It makes no sense for Christians to oppose emergency contraception and support the BC pill. None. They both do the same thing.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by ILG

Somehow, the BC pill has slipped into the church almost unopposed. Like I said, I was on it for three years and NEVER knew about the possibility that the pill may prevent a fertilized egg from implantation. I studied up on all my options and never read this anywhere. Of course, this was about 20 years ago. Do I now have children in heaven? It makes no sense for Christians to oppose emergency contraception and support the BC pill. None. They both do the same thing.

Absolutely agree. Common sense has been expressed here.

If one is going to use the playing God argument and that is a abortifacient ... both the BC and the EC would have to be opposed to remain consistent

.... intensity of the drug or time taken would be irrelevant as both can have the same "potential" effect.

I have not heard a preacher in Pentecost make a stand against standard oral contraceptives based on the argument being presented by OP Carl.

If one accepts that a fraud has been perpetrated on the Church for the lase 60 plus years ... then conservatively 1/3 to 1/2 of Apostolic women who have used it ... or will use it at least once in their lives .... may have unwittingly/knowingly commited "murder".

Most women, including Apstolics, who ask for oral contraceptives from their doctors take the the pill as a contraceptive (contra meaning against ... ception ... dealing w/ conception).

The most common questions before taking it would probably be ...

How effective is it in preventing a pregnancy?
Will it make me fat?
Does it give me acne?
Does it affect my mood?

I'd imagine very few ask: Can this feasibly terminate a pregnancy?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I'd imagine very few ask: Can this feasibly terminate a pregnancy?

I doubt it if many even know to ask the question. I remember doing some studying when I was making choices. I don't remember seeing this written anywhere. And when Christians take it regularly and it's not preached against, one would automatically assume that it does not cause abortion. Where are the voices on this? Of course, there are not many options for contraception that get away from this. I am not an expert and do not know all the choices especially nowadays, but condoms and the rhythm method are two choices and are not liked by many. But they do not cause a fertilized egg to be expelled.

[TheRationalist]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I have not heard a preacher in Pentecost make a stand against standard oral contraceptives based on the argument being presented by OP Carl.

If one accepts that a fraud has been perpetrated on the Church for the last 60 plus years ... then conservatively 1/3 to 1/2 of Apostolic women who have used it ... or will use it have unwittingly/knowingly may have commited "murder".

Most women, including Apstolics, who ask for oral contraceptives from their doctors take the the pill as a contraceptive (contra meaning against ... ception ... dealing w/ conception).

The most common questions before taking it would probably be ...

How effective is it in preventing a pregnancy?
Will it make me fat?
Does it give me acne?
Does it affect my mood?

I'd imagine very few ask: Can this feasibly terminate a pregnancy?

Mr Alicea,

Since I am not totally certain what an Aposotlic is, (and perusing several posts here seems to indicate there is not a consensus) I would not presume to address your statement from that worldview.

However, through personal experience I had a very well educated colleague, as a matter of fact an attorney and head of the local Christian Lawyers Association, who literally had a nervous breakdown when it was explained to her how "the pill" she was ingesting worked.

If life begins an conception as many "pro-lifers" believe then it is possible they have by their own definition caused abortions.

And therefore by THEIR definition murdered.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by TheRationalist

Mr Alicea,

Since I am not totally certain what an Aposotlic is, (and perusing several posts here seems to indicate there is not a consensus) I would not presume to address your statement from that worldview.

However, through personal experience I had a very well educated colleague, as a matter of fact an attorney and head of the local Christian Lawyers Association, who literally had a nervous breakdown when it was explained to her how "the pill" she was ingesting worked.

If life begins an conception as many "pro-lifers" believe then it is possible they have by their own definition caused abortions.

And therefore by THEIR definition murdered.

Rationally ... if the variables we are presenting are "true" and applied consistently then ... yes.

I don't agree w/ the premises some have presented.

Truth should be applicable in all contexts, IMO

Sorry about your colleage.

[nahkoe]

Originally Posted by ILG

I doubt it if many even know to ask the question. I remember doing some studying when I was making choices. I don't remember seeing this written anywhere. And when Christians take it regularly and it's not preached against, one would automatically assume that it does not cause abortion. Where are the voices on this? Of course, there are not many options for contraception that get away from this. I am not an expert and do not know all the choices especially nowadays, but condoms and the rhythm method are two choices and are not liked by many. But they do not cause a fertilized egg to be expelled.

Barrier methods and natural family planning (or the rhythm method if y'all REALLY want a baby...lol...NFP and rhythm method are different, very much so) are the only methods of contraception that prevent fertilization without preventing implantation if fertilization happens.

Anything hormonal; birth control pills, the path, shots, and IUDs; all types, prevent implantation (although the hormonal birth control also prevent fertilization).

[SDG]

It is important to note not all doctors - including pro-life doctors believe oral contraceptives are abortifacients.

------------------
From Carm.org http://www.christiandiscussionforums...ad.php?t=97008
----------------

Here is a paper on the topic, signed by OB/GYN prolife doctors and professors, this was their first paper and the shortest from the PROLIFE physicians group. “ All signators are specialists in obstetrics and gynecology, and a number have sub-specialty recognition and/or are on the faculty of teaching hospitals or Universities. [/b]This information may be distributed freely to Crisis Pregnancy Centers or other individuals or groups who may have an interest in the subject matter.”


"Prolife Ob/Gyn's January 1998 Statement

"Birth Control Pills: Contraceptive or Abortifacient?

Currently the claim that hormonal contraceptives [birth control pills, implants (norplant), injectables (depoprovera)] include an abortifacient mechanism of action is being widely disseminated in the pro-life community. This theory is emerging with the assumed status of "scientific fact," and is causing significant confusion among both lay and medical pro-life people. With this confusion in the ranks comes a significant weakening of both our credibility with the general public and our effectiveness against the tide of elective abortion.

This paper is meant to provide some clarifying information on the issue based on current knowledge and experience regarding the mechanism of action of hormonal contraceptives. It has been compiled in consultation with, and by cooperative effort of, several practicing obstetrician-gynecologists, perinatologists, and reproductive endocrinologists (all among the undersigned), each being a physician committed to the sanctity of human life from conception.

We begin with the recognition that within the Christian community there is a point of view which holds that artificial birth control per se is wrong. We would consider this a personal matter of conscience and belief, and this paper is not intended to argue for or against this issue.

In this discussion we accept the time honored definition that conception occurs when a sperm penetrates an egg. Disruption of the fertilized egg after this point represents abortion. We consider fertilization, not implantation, to be the beginning of human life.

Most literature dealing with hormonal contraception ascribes a three-fold action to these agents. l) inhibition of ovulation, 2) inhibition of sperm transport, and 3) production of a "hostile endometrium," which presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby if the first two mechanisms fail. The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third proposed mechanism, IF it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient. (Note: the developing baby at the time of implantation is called a "blastocyst," and will be referred to as such in this paper. " Endometrium " is the lining of the uterus into which the blastocyst implants.)

The entire "abortifacient" presumption, therefore, depends on "hostile endometrium" actually being hostile to the blastocyst, resulting in the loss of blastocysts that would otherwise prosper and grow. Since there are no scientific studies demonstrating the validity of this presumption, abortifacient proponents appeal to the writings of scientists and clinicians involved in the production or study of these contraceptive products. Nearly all of these sources freely use the term "hostile endometrium" to describe the changes which occur in the uterine lining when these medications are used. And most make the presumption that these changes contribute to birth control effectiveness. On the surface, this would seem to be nearly incontrovertible evidence that the "pill" is, at least occasionally, an abortifacient.. However, we again emphasize that there are no scientific studies that we are aware of which substantiate this presumption.

Let us examine this "abortifacient presumption" by asking several questions:

l) What is meant by the term "hostile endometrium?" Where did it come from?

Is it actually "hostile?" The term "hostile endometrium" originated as a descriptive term for the less vascular, less glandular, thinner lining of the uterus produced by these hormones. The early pill literature from the late l950's established the descriptive term. Over time, the descriptive term "hostile endometrium" progressed to be an unchallenged assumption, then to be quasi-scientific fact, and now, for some in the pro-life community, to be a proof text. And all with no demonstrated scientific validation.

All pill manufacturers list this "hostile endometrium" presumption in their drug literature, implying it is a safeguard against pill failure. (Each company's literature says essentially the same thing as they comply with FDA labeling requirements) Understandably, their literature has a marketing agenda. However, to our knowledge, not one company will offer data to validate the "hostile endometrium " presumption. It should be noted that intertwining histologic fact (changes in endometrium) with presumptive action (makes the endometium hostile) leads to a conclusion compatible with pill marketing strategies, but not necessarily compatible with truth.

The fact that scientific authors in general all use the term "hostile endometrium" to refer to pill induced changes to the lining of the uterus adds nothing to establish the validity of the presumption that these changes cause loss of blastocysts. They are simply using long established descriptive terminology standard in the literature


2) Does the blastocyst require a "friendly endometrium" to thrive, or even to survive?

The nature of the blastocyst is important to this discussion. There is much we do not understand about the role of the blastocyst in implantation. But we do know it has an invasive nature, with the demonstrated ability to invade, find a blood supply, and successfully implant on various kinds of tissue, whether "hostile," or even entirely "foreign" to it's usual environment.-decidualized (thinned) endometrium, tubal epithelium (lining), ovarian epithelium (covering), cervical epithelium (lining) , even peritoneum (abdominal lining cells).

The presumption that implantation of a blastocyst is thwarted by "hostile endometrium" is contradicted by the "pill pregnancies" we as physicians see. Pill company literature estimates 3 to 5 pregnancies per l00 women per year for pill users. Many of these women take the "pill" an additional month or two before finding out they are pregnant. These pregnancies generally progress with no more difficulty than non-pill pregnancies. To our knowledge, there are no studies showing that the spontaneous abortion rate in these cases is any greater than in pregnancies with a "friendly endometrium."

The blastocyst regularly and successfully implants on tubal ciliated epithelium (commonly referred to as tubal, or ectopic, pregnancies) Approximately 1% of pregnancies in the USA are tubal pregnancies. The tubal epithelium is a tissue with an entirely different function and structure than the endometrium. Unlike endometrium, it has no glands with secretions, no rich vascular stroma Yet these pregnancies implant and generally thrive until interrupted by treatment or rupture of the fallopian tube due to size constraints."

[SDG]

PART TWO:

"3) Is there actual clinical evidence of early miscarriage in pill users?

The typical clinical picture of spontaneous abortion (heavy bleeding, severe cramping, passage of tissue is rarely, if ever, seen by most practicing physicians dealing with pill pregnancies, and is not substantiated in any literature we are acquainted with. The "hostile endometrium is abortifacient" proponents theorize that the losses are pre-implantation, and thus would have no tell-tale clinical or laboratory findings. However, since the actual rate of demonstrable ovulation for women on the pill roughly approximates the pregnancy rate for women on the pill, this type loss would seem extremely unlikely

4) What is the conception rate for women on hormone contraception?

It is impossible to say. Ovulation suppression rates vary from about 95% with the combined 35 mcg estrogen pill to about 50% with the minipill or norplant in place 3-4 years. Cervical mucus factors enter in. Most pill literature estimates 3 to 5% pregnancies per year for combined OCs, less for depoprovera, more for norplant, and minipills.

One may get an idea of the frequency of conception on hormonal contraceptives by considering the ectopic (tubal) pregnancy rates. The ectopic rate in the USA is about 1% of all pregnancies. Since an ectopic pregnancy involves a preimplantation blastocyst, both the "on pill conception" and normal "non pill conception" ectopic rate should be the same- about l% (unaffected by whether the endometrium is "hostile" or "friendly.") Ectopic pregnancies in women on hormonal contraception (except for the minipill) are practically unreported. This would suggest conception on these agents is quite rare. If there are millions of "on-pill conceptions" yearly, producing millions of abortions, (as some "BC pill is abortifacient" groups allege), we would expect to see a huge increase in ectopics in women on hormonal birth control. We don't. Rather, as noted above, this is a rare occurrence.

5) Is it possible that hormonal contraceptives may be responsible for the loss of blastocysts in some instances? In Medicine, anything is possible. Does the known medical information suggest that "on-pill" conceptions have a higher rate of blastocyst loss than normal "non-pill conceptions?" We believe the answer is "No." *******************************

There are l,200,000 medical and surgical abortions of unborn babies that take place every year in the United States. The "hormonal contraception is abortifacient" theory is not established scientific fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error. How happy the abortionists must be to find us training our guns on a presumption, causing division/confusion among pro-life forces, and taking some of the heat off the abortion industry. Ought we not rather be spending our energies to eliminate the convenience destruction of the innocent unborn?

In Summary:
l. We know of no existing scientific studies that validate the "hostile endometrium is abortifacient" theory.
2. There is regular successful implantation of the invasive blastocyst on surfaces a great deal more "hostile" than "hostile endometrium" (e.g., fallopian tube lining). "Hostile endometrium" is not a demonstrated clinical reality.
3. The almost total absence of reporting of ectopic pregnancies associated with hormonal contraception would indicate the rarity of actual conception by patients using these modalities. (Minipill and norplant apparently are less effective in preventing pregnancies and ectopics).
4. Many factors play a part in how a family plans and spaces their children. It is not the purpose of this paper to promote nor to oppose hormonal contraception. However, if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient.
5) This paper is not meant to be the "final word" on this issue. If scientific study should validate that a hormonal contraceptive agent is partly abortifacient in its action, we would oppose that agent just as we oppose elective medical and surgical abortions.

We must constantly examine valid data as it becomes available in our effort to discern what is abortifacient vs what is appropriate birth control to be used or prescribed by those who hold to the sanctity of human life from the time of conception.

Co-signators (alphabetically) All signators are specialists in obstetrics and gynecology, and a number have sub-specialty recognition and/or are on the faculty of teaching hospitals or Universities. This information may be distributed freely to Crisis Pregnancy Centers or other individuals or groups who may have an interest in the subject matter.

Watson A. Bowes,Jr,MD,Professor,Maternal-Fetal Medicine,Chapel Hill, N.C.
Matthew J. Bulfin, MD, general OB-GYN, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Byron Calhoun, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Tacoma, Washington
Steve Calvin,MD,Asst. Prof Maternal-Fetal Medicine,Minneapolis, Minnesota
Denis Cavanagh, MD, Professor, Gynecologic Oncology, Tampa, Florida
Curtis Cook, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Asst Clin. Prof, Grand Rapid, Mi.
Susan A. Crockett, MD, Assistant Clinical Professor, San Antonio, Texas
Steven Cruikshank, MD, Professor OB-GYN, Dayton, Ohio
Joseph L. DeCook, MD, general OB-GYN, Holland, Michigan
Bill Dodds,MD,Reproductive Endocrinology, Asso.Clin. Prof,Grand Rapids,Mi R.
Don Gambrell, Jr., MD, Clinical Professor, Augusta, Georgia
David Hager, MD, Professor/Consultant OB-GYN, Lexington, Kentucky
Donna Harrison, MD, general OB-GYN, Berrien Springs, Michigan
Camilla Hersh, MD, Clinical Professor OB-GYN, Vienna, Virginia
Antony Paul Levitino, MD, .Asso. Prof,.OB-GYN, Rensselaer, New York
Joe McIlhaney, MD, Obstetrician-Gynecologist, Austin, TX
Gwendolyn Patterson-Hobbs, MD, OB-GYN Clinical Associate, Vienna, VA
William Stalter, MD, Associate Clinical Professor OB-GYN, Dayton, Ohio
Roy Stringfellow, MD, general OB-GYN, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Robert L. Weeldreyer, MD, general OB-GYN, Holland, Michigan "
__________________

[Carpenter]

So Dan, which consistency (based on your comments) are you going to follow with you new little wifey there?

It is easy to hold a position in abstract and something totally different in holding yourself and working through your own lofty standard. It ends up being disconnected or dishonest.

Hmmm, that kind of sounds like the equus asinus side of the political ticket...