prolife and take/will take BC. OP updated.
3836 postsposted 6th Oct
Just wondering how many PROLIFERS take BC... what method do you use.. what method will you use.. is it a barrier method or a pill, and injection, and so on and so forth..
Did you know that many many many BC methods could possibly cause chemical abortions?
How do you feel about that..
ask any questions you might have.
If you have any.
ETA the following.. please please please read if you claim to be prolife..
The Physician's Desk Reference (PDR)
The Physician's Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. The PDR, as it's often called, lists and explains the effects, benefits, and risks of every medical product that can be legally prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in the PDR.
As you read the following, keep in mind that the term "implantation," by definition, always involves an already conceived human being. Therefore, any agent which serves to prevent implantation functions as an abortifacient.
This is the PDR's product information for Ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill:
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. [6]
The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause "changes in...the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." [7]
Notice that these changes in the endometrium, and their reduction in the likelihood of implantation, are not stated by the manufacturer as speculative or theoretical effects, but as actual ones. They consider this such a well-established fact that it requires no statement of qualification.
Similarly, as I document in my book, Syntex and Wyeth, the other two major pill-manufacturers, say essentially the same thing about their oral contraceptives. (I also relate in the book the results of my phone calls to each of these manufacturers to discuss this issue.)
The inserts packaged with birth control pills are condensed versions of longer research papers detailing the Pill's effects, mechanisms, and risks. Near the end, the insert typically says something like the following, which is taken directly from the Desogen pill insert:
If you want more information about birth control pills, ask your doctor, clinic or pharmacist. They have a more technical leaflet called the Professional Labeling, which you may wish to read. The Professional Labeling is also published in a book entitled Physician's Desk Reference, available in many bookstores and public libraries.
Of the half dozen birth control pill package inserts I've read, only one included the information about the Pill's abortive mechanism. This was a package insert dated July 12, 1994, found in the oral contraceptive Demulen, manufactured by Searle. Yet this abortive mechanism was referred to in all cases in the FDA-required manufacturer's Professional Labeling, as documented in The Physician's Desk Reference.
In summary, according to multiple references throughout The Physician's Desk Reference, which articulate the research findings of all the birth control pill manufacturers, there are not one but three mechanisms of birth control pills:
1. inhibiting ovulation (the primary mechanism),
2. thickening the cervical mucus, thereby making it more difficult for sperm to travel to the egg, and
3. thinning and shriveling the lining of the uterus to the point that it is unable or less able to facilitate the implantation of the newly fertilized egg.
The first two mechanisms are contraceptive. The third is abortive.
When a woman taking the Pill discovers she is pregnant (according to The Physician's Desk Reference's efficacy rate tables, this is 3 percent of pill-takers each year), it means that all three of these mechanisms have failed. The third mechanism sometimes fails in its role as backup, just as the first and second mechanisms sometimes fail. Each and every time the third mechanism succeeds, however, it causes an abortion.
[6] Physicians' Desk Reference (Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics, 199 .
[7] The PDR, 1995, page 1782.
Arguments Against the Pill Causing Abortion
I have received a number of letters from readers, one of them a physician, who say something like this: "My sister got pregnant while taking the Pill. This is proof that you are wrong in saying that the Pill causes abortions-obviously it couldn't have, since she had her baby!"
Without a doubt, the Pill's effects on the endometrium do not always make implantation impossible. I have never heard anyone claim that they do. To be an abortifacient does not require that something always cause an abortion, only that it sometimes does.
Whether it's RU-486, Norplant, Depo-Provera, the morning after pill, the Mini-pill, or the Pill, there is no chemical that always causes an abortion. There are only those that do so never, sometimes, often, and usually.
Children who play on the freeway, climb on the roof, or are left alone by swimming pools don't always die, but this does not prove these practices are safe and never result in fatalities. We would immediately see this inconsistency of anyone who argued in favor of leaving children alone by swimming pools because they know of cases where this has been done without harm to the children. The point that the Pill doesn't always prevent implantation is certainly true, but has no bearing on the question of whether it sometimes prevents implantation, which the data clearly suggests.
People also often argue, "The blastocyst is perfectly capable of implanting in various 'hostile' sites, e.g., the fallopian tube, the ovary, the peritoneum."
Their point is that the child sometimes implants in the wrong place. This is undeniably true. But again, the only relevant question is whether the Pill sometimes hinders the child's ability to implant in the right place.
Imagine a farmer who has two places where he might plant seed. One is rich, brown soil that has been tilled, fertilized, and watered. The other is on hard, thin, dry, and rocky soil. If the farmer wants as much seed as possible to take hold and grow, where will he plant the seed? The answer is obvious––on the fertile ground.
Now, you could say to the farmer that his preference for the rich, tilled, moist soil is based on theoretical assumptions because he has probably never seen a scientific study that proves this soil is more hospitable to seed than the thin, hard, dry soil. Likely, such a study has never been done. In other words, there is no absolute proof.
But the farmer would likely reply, based on years of observation, "I know good soil when I see it. Sure, I've seen some plants grow in the hard, thin soil too, but the chances of survival are much less there than in the good soil. Call it theoretical if you want to, but we all know it's true!"
Some newly conceived children manage to survive temporarily in hostile places. But this in no way changes the obvious fact that many more children will survive in a richer, thicker, more hospitable endometrium than in a thinner, more inhospitable one.
(In other publications and in a much more detailed fashion, we have discussed these and other lines of evidence, with hundreds of citations of many scientific studies, as well as researchers and experts in numerous fields. We encourage interested readers to look more deeply into these studies and arguments. [30] )
Despite this evidence, some prolife physicians state that the likelihood of the Pill having an abortifacient effect is "infinitesimally low, or nonexistent." [31] Though I would very much like to believe this, the scientific evidence does not permit me to do so.
Dr. Walt Larimore has told me that whenever he has presented this evidence to audiences of secular physicians, there has been little or no resistance to it. But when he has presented it to Christian physicians there has been substantial resistance. Since secular physicians do not care whether the Pill prevents implantation, they tend to be objective in interpreting the evidence. After all, they have little or nothing at stake either way. Christian physicians, however, very much do not want to believe the Pill causes early abortions. Therefore, I believe, they tend to resist the evidence. This is certainly understandable. Nonetheless, we should not permit what we want to believe to distract us from what the evidence indicates we should believe.
I have mentioned my own vested interests in the Pill that at first made me resist the evidence suggesting it could cause abortions. Dr. Larimore came to this issue with even greater vested interests in believing the best about the birth control pill, having prescribed it for years. When he researched it intensively over an eighteen-month period, in what he described to me as a "gut wrenching" process that involved sleepless nights, he came to the conclusion that in good conscience he could no longer prescribe hormonal contraceptives, including the Pill, the Minipill, Depo-Provera, and Norplant.
[30] . Alcorn, "Does The Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?"; Larimore WL, Stanford JB. "Postfertilization Effects Of Oral Contraceptives And Their Relation To Informed Consent." Larimore WL. "The Growing Debate about the Abortifacient Effect of the Birth Control Pill and the Principle of the Double Effect." Ethics and Medicine: in review.
[31] DeCook JL, McIlhaney J, et al. Hormonal Contraceptives: Are they Abortifacients? (Sparta, MI: Frontlines Publishing, 199 .
quoteDid you know that many many many BC methods could possibly cause chemical abortions?
How do you feel about that..
ask any questions you might have.
If you have any.
ETA the following.. please please please read if you claim to be prolife..
The Physician's Desk Reference (PDR)
The Physician's Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. The PDR, as it's often called, lists and explains the effects, benefits, and risks of every medical product that can be legally prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in the PDR.
As you read the following, keep in mind that the term "implantation," by definition, always involves an already conceived human being. Therefore, any agent which serves to prevent implantation functions as an abortifacient.
This is the PDR's product information for Ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill:
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. [6]
The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause "changes in...the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." [7]
Notice that these changes in the endometrium, and their reduction in the likelihood of implantation, are not stated by the manufacturer as speculative or theoretical effects, but as actual ones. They consider this such a well-established fact that it requires no statement of qualification.
Similarly, as I document in my book, Syntex and Wyeth, the other two major pill-manufacturers, say essentially the same thing about their oral contraceptives. (I also relate in the book the results of my phone calls to each of these manufacturers to discuss this issue.)
The inserts packaged with birth control pills are condensed versions of longer research papers detailing the Pill's effects, mechanisms, and risks. Near the end, the insert typically says something like the following, which is taken directly from the Desogen pill insert:
If you want more information about birth control pills, ask your doctor, clinic or pharmacist. They have a more technical leaflet called the Professional Labeling, which you may wish to read. The Professional Labeling is also published in a book entitled Physician's Desk Reference, available in many bookstores and public libraries.
Of the half dozen birth control pill package inserts I've read, only one included the information about the Pill's abortive mechanism. This was a package insert dated July 12, 1994, found in the oral contraceptive Demulen, manufactured by Searle. Yet this abortive mechanism was referred to in all cases in the FDA-required manufacturer's Professional Labeling, as documented in The Physician's Desk Reference.
In summary, according to multiple references throughout The Physician's Desk Reference, which articulate the research findings of all the birth control pill manufacturers, there are not one but three mechanisms of birth control pills:
1. inhibiting ovulation (the primary mechanism),
2. thickening the cervical mucus, thereby making it more difficult for sperm to travel to the egg, and
3. thinning and shriveling the lining of the uterus to the point that it is unable or less able to facilitate the implantation of the newly fertilized egg.
The first two mechanisms are contraceptive. The third is abortive.
When a woman taking the Pill discovers she is pregnant (according to The Physician's Desk Reference's efficacy rate tables, this is 3 percent of pill-takers each year), it means that all three of these mechanisms have failed. The third mechanism sometimes fails in its role as backup, just as the first and second mechanisms sometimes fail. Each and every time the third mechanism succeeds, however, it causes an abortion.
[6] Physicians' Desk Reference (Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics, 199 .
[7] The PDR, 1995, page 1782.
Arguments Against the Pill Causing Abortion
I have received a number of letters from readers, one of them a physician, who say something like this: "My sister got pregnant while taking the Pill. This is proof that you are wrong in saying that the Pill causes abortions-obviously it couldn't have, since she had her baby!"
Without a doubt, the Pill's effects on the endometrium do not always make implantation impossible. I have never heard anyone claim that they do. To be an abortifacient does not require that something always cause an abortion, only that it sometimes does.
Whether it's RU-486, Norplant, Depo-Provera, the morning after pill, the Mini-pill, or the Pill, there is no chemical that always causes an abortion. There are only those that do so never, sometimes, often, and usually.
Children who play on the freeway, climb on the roof, or are left alone by swimming pools don't always die, but this does not prove these practices are safe and never result in fatalities. We would immediately see this inconsistency of anyone who argued in favor of leaving children alone by swimming pools because they know of cases where this has been done without harm to the children. The point that the Pill doesn't always prevent implantation is certainly true, but has no bearing on the question of whether it sometimes prevents implantation, which the data clearly suggests.
People also often argue, "The blastocyst is perfectly capable of implanting in various 'hostile' sites, e.g., the fallopian tube, the ovary, the peritoneum."
Their point is that the child sometimes implants in the wrong place. This is undeniably true. But again, the only relevant question is whether the Pill sometimes hinders the child's ability to implant in the right place.
Imagine a farmer who has two places where he might plant seed. One is rich, brown soil that has been tilled, fertilized, and watered. The other is on hard, thin, dry, and rocky soil. If the farmer wants as much seed as possible to take hold and grow, where will he plant the seed? The answer is obvious––on the fertile ground.
Now, you could say to the farmer that his preference for the rich, tilled, moist soil is based on theoretical assumptions because he has probably never seen a scientific study that proves this soil is more hospitable to seed than the thin, hard, dry soil. Likely, such a study has never been done. In other words, there is no absolute proof.
But the farmer would likely reply, based on years of observation, "I know good soil when I see it. Sure, I've seen some plants grow in the hard, thin soil too, but the chances of survival are much less there than in the good soil. Call it theoretical if you want to, but we all know it's true!"
Some newly conceived children manage to survive temporarily in hostile places. But this in no way changes the obvious fact that many more children will survive in a richer, thicker, more hospitable endometrium than in a thinner, more inhospitable one.
(In other publications and in a much more detailed fashion, we have discussed these and other lines of evidence, with hundreds of citations of many scientific studies, as well as researchers and experts in numerous fields. We encourage interested readers to look more deeply into these studies and arguments. [30] )
Despite this evidence, some prolife physicians state that the likelihood of the Pill having an abortifacient effect is "infinitesimally low, or nonexistent." [31] Though I would very much like to believe this, the scientific evidence does not permit me to do so.
Dr. Walt Larimore has told me that whenever he has presented this evidence to audiences of secular physicians, there has been little or no resistance to it. But when he has presented it to Christian physicians there has been substantial resistance. Since secular physicians do not care whether the Pill prevents implantation, they tend to be objective in interpreting the evidence. After all, they have little or nothing at stake either way. Christian physicians, however, very much do not want to believe the Pill causes early abortions. Therefore, I believe, they tend to resist the evidence. This is certainly understandable. Nonetheless, we should not permit what we want to believe to distract us from what the evidence indicates we should believe.
I have mentioned my own vested interests in the Pill that at first made me resist the evidence suggesting it could cause abortions. Dr. Larimore came to this issue with even greater vested interests in believing the best about the birth control pill, having prescribed it for years. When he researched it intensively over an eighteen-month period, in what he described to me as a "gut wrenching" process that involved sleepless nights, he came to the conclusion that in good conscience he could no longer prescribe hormonal contraceptives, including the Pill, the Minipill, Depo-Provera, and Norplant.
[30] . Alcorn, "Does The Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?"; Larimore WL, Stanford JB. "Postfertilization Effects Of Oral Contraceptives And Their Relation To Informed Consent." Larimore WL. "The Growing Debate about the Abortifacient Effect of the Birth Control Pill and the Principle of the Double Effect." Ethics and Medicine: in review.
[31] DeCook JL, McIlhaney J, et al. Hormonal Contraceptives: Are they Abortifacients? (Sparta, MI: Frontlines Publishing, 199 .
I have 1 child & live in Buffalo Grove, Illinois
10013 postsposted 6th Oct
Quoting .mary.:“ Just wondering how many PROLIFERS take BC... what method do you use.. what method will you use.. is it ... [snip!] ... could possibly cause chemical abortions? How do you feel about that.. ask any questions you might have. If you have any.”Birth control will not cause a miscarriage....
I'm due January 23rd, have 1 child & live in Indiana
posted 6th Oct
Quoting Kelli Jo (AB-):“ Birth control will not cause a miscarriage....”
why do you think that?
I have 1 child & live in Buffalo Grove, Illinois
posted 6th Oct
I've always used the good ole pill. I've heard of the morning after pill which to me is a mini-abortion.I tried the rythm method which is why I'm pregnant right now at age 42. I guess I didn't do it right. Oh well, it happens to be the biggest blessing of my life.
I'm not sure what kind of birth control to use after this. I really want my husband to get fixed because it's easier for him but not sure I can get him to do that. I've heard of Essure but don't know anything about it. What do you think about that?
quoteI'm not sure what kind of birth control to use after this. I really want my husband to get fixed because it's easier for him but not sure I can get him to do that. I've heard of Essure but don't know anything about it. What do you think about that?
I'm due April 7th, have 3 kids & live in San Antonio, Texas
posted 6th Oct
Quoting Kelli Jo (AB-):“ Birth control will not cause a miscarriage....”
and yes not ALL BC causes MCs... but a lot..
I have 1 child & live in Buffalo Grove, Illinois
2789 postsposted 6th Oct
I am prolife and I have used condoms, pills, and the iud
quoteI'm due December 4th (a boy), have 2 kids & live in Connecticut
3339 postsposted 6th Oct
Quoting Kelli Jo (AB-):“ Birth control will not cause a miscarriage....”
Aren't some froms of birth control abortive.. which causes miscarriages?
I have 2 kids & live in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
posted 6th Oct
Quoting .mary.:“ why do you think that?”
Birth control is used to prevent pregnancy. In the event that it fails and you do become pregnant it will not cause a miscarriage. Plan B is a form of emergency contraceptive that prevents implantation, its a preventative measure.
I'm due January 23rd, have 1 child & live in Indiana
1126 postsposted 6th Oct
Quoting .mary.:“ and yes not ALL BC causes MCs... but a loHow do you know BC causes MC's, never heard of that one
I have 3 kids & live in Kansas City, Missouri
posted 6th Oct
Wait, didn't you post something like this awhile ago about how BC is the same thing as abortions? Maybe I am wrong but I thought it was you
quoteI'm due December 4th (a boy), have 2 kids & live in Connecticut
posted 6th Oct
Quoting Lisa !Lisa!:“ I've always used the good ole pill. I've heard of the morning after pill which to me is a mini-abortion.I ... [snip!] ... him but not sure I can get him to do that. I've heard of Essure but don't know anything about it. What do you think about that?”
Did you know the morning after pill is just BC time 10?
it has the same ingredients just at way higher dosages..
and what ive quickly read essure is more a barrier method.. and therefore wont cause unwanted unknown chemical abortions.. but im going to read up more..
I have 1 child & live in Buffalo Grove, Illinois
posted 6th Oct
Quoting KristenCT:“ Wait, didn't you post something like this awhile ago about how BC is the same thing as abortions? Maybe I am wrong but I thought it was you”
i did, it was similar..
I have 1 child & live in Buffalo Grove, Illinois
2595 postsposted 6th Oct
I my opinion, just so long as your birth control prevents the sperm from reaching the egg... whether its because of a barrier, or a hormonal ovulation inhibitor, I'm fine with it!
If you prevent conception, there is no conflict with being pro-life. In my opinion, abortion is when the mother knowingly ends the life of her child, for whatever reason. Spontaneous abortions occur all the time before the first missed period, before most women even know they are pregnant, even when you aren't using birth control. So I think its kind of splitting hairs to say that birth control which may or may not allow a chemical pregnancy to happen without your knowledge, is "abortion".
In my mind, when the woman knows she is expecting and then decides to end her baby's life.... That is abortion and its wrong, no matter what stage of development that baby is in.
Personally speaking, I tried the pill and HATED the side effects, and have only used barrier methods since!
ETA: The kinds of "BC" I would not use because of this issue would be things like the morning after pill, which effectively allows the embryo to die because it cannot properly implant, and the IUD's without hormones because you can effectively have a fertilized egg every month but it also dies because it cannot implant. That kind of disturbs me.
quoteIf you prevent conception, there is no conflict with being pro-life. In my opinion, abortion is when the mother knowingly ends the life of her child, for whatever reason. Spontaneous abortions occur all the time before the first missed period, before most women even know they are pregnant, even when you aren't using birth control. So I think its kind of splitting hairs to say that birth control which may or may not allow a chemical pregnancy to happen without your knowledge, is "abortion".
In my mind, when the woman knows she is expecting and then decides to end her baby's life.... That is abortion and its wrong, no matter what stage of development that baby is in.
Personally speaking, I tried the pill and HATED the side effects, and have only used barrier methods since!
ETA: The kinds of "BC" I would not use because of this issue would be things like the morning after pill, which effectively allows the embryo to die because it cannot properly implant, and the IUD's without hormones because you can effectively have a fertilized egg every month but it also dies because it cannot implant. That kind of disturbs me.
I have 2 kids & live in Alaska
4301 postsposted 6th Oct
I'm pro - life and take no form of BC at all.
quoteI'm due June 28th, have 1 child & live in Hazleton, Pennsylvania
posted 6th Oct
Quoting .mary.:“ i did, it was similar..”
Ya that's what I thought, Personally I think its kind of an ole school thinking or Catholicism , I think that BC is necessary if not for BC there would be a lot more abortions and I wouldn't want to see that.
I'm due December 4th (a boy), have 2 kids & live in Connecticut
Naaaaaaaay postedCourtney Brooke1 min ago
Lost in Sin City postedMaking onesies with sayings...1 min ago
~Brenda~ postedDevelopment question3 min ago
Piglet & Tigger's MOM postedsleeping4 min ago
Sneaker Head postedhow to entertain a 16 month old4 min ago
Ladee+Grant postedWTF man...6 min ago
If Looks Could Kill, postedI finally get to meet someone from Gaga !8 min ago
roaming_charges postedAlexander's first day at the park8 min ago
thai's mommy postedanybody...20 min ago
jamils_mommy postedCan't stop crying...20 min ago