« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Pill Can Result in Abortion

By: roetenks (Diary)  |  January 6th, 2011 at 05:04 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Shocking news to people who consider themselves pro-life. Many politicians even run on the term ‘pro-life’ without realizing they might be killing their baby, and probably sending her/him down the commode. Are they negligent of reality, or do they want to use the term pro-life to ‘score’ some votes at the ballot box?

Even if married, does anyone (including your pastor), refer to themselves as pro-life but still use birth control, such as the Pill, Ella, Morning-After Pill, RU-486, etc…, to avoid a pregnancy?  Without knowing what these chemicals actually do, the proper information is necessary before being called “pro-life”.

Taking a birth control pill every day (or as often as possible), will cause the uterus to shed its lining and become inhospitable (incompatible for implantation) for the nurture of a fertilized embryo. In other words, if the fertilized embryo cannot attach to the uterus for continued growth, and it was purposely done, it’s been aborted. The usual place for an unwanted baby would likely be the toilet.

Usually a fertilized embryo will thrive, grow, and normally become an adult human—with a soul [Soul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]. Most Americans know a soul exists, but when?

Most Christian religions believe that a soul is infused in the baby, by the Creator at the time of fertilization. That’s when a baby gets all necessary chromosomes and DNA. This is the most logical time for a soul to be infused, for the baby will not start to grow into a healthy adult until this happens.

That’s why destroying the child after this point, is destroying a human being. Many people try to rationalize its destruction because it may have Down Syndrome, conceived by incest or rape, have some deformity, or may be considered too much trouble to raise.

The pill, or as Planned Parenthood calls it, the abortion pill, does many things. Among possibly stopping ovulation, it thins the inner lining of the uterus, forcing the expulsion of a fertilized embryo, or in their vernacular—a chemical abortion. Numerous methods of chemical abortion are available, with the newest being a chemical called Ella (ulipristal).

Talking Points on Ella – Concerned Women for America discusses the problems involved with this kind of chemical abortion. In Sale of the Abortion Drug Ella Surrounded by More Disinformation …,Anna Franzonello (Americans United for Life) described Ella, which causes abortions but is actually considered as emergency contraception (EC).

Franzonello explains: “In August 2010, the FDA approved the drug Ella. Like RU-486, Ella is a Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulator (SPRM). By blocking progesterone, an SPRM can either prevent a developing human embryo from implanting in the uterus, or it can kill an implanted embryo by starving it to death.”

The “right to life” is in the Declaration, but there is no right to have sex in any document. But with a chemical abortion, it’s easy to do, and you can’t hear any screams of pain from the abortion because it’s likely too small to see.

It’s interesting how an ectopic pregnancy is indeed known as a pregnancy, but the baby is just in an improper place for growth (fallopian tube). So many have the illogical idea that it must be implanted in the uterus to be a pregnancy.

Every time a “pill” is taken does not mean that a fertilized embryo is discarded due to a inhospitable uterus, and therefore aborted. It is possible no embryo was fertilized. But an abortion of a fertilized embryo is highly likely if the uterus has been purposely made inhospitable for the embryo to attach and grow. Most EC methods are done after the pregnancy, and involve the subsequent thinning of uterus lining and abortion of a very young baby.

Bottom line, the pill, and most any form of emergency contraception can result in an abortion.

Being told the facts, will give that person two options: 1) they can go about ‘business as usual’ using contraceptives and killing babies, or 2) realize what abortion actually is, and change habits (i.e.; use Natural Family Planning, NFP  with sex; have sex with no abortifacient; or have sex at will because your wife is no longer able to ovulate). 

One should remember the words of Blaise Pascal: “Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.”

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • runner12

    Are you speaking of the “morning after pill” in this diary or regular BCP’s?

    I recently became aware that there are some in the pro-life movement who are equating run-of-the-mill BCP’s with abortion. This concerns me quite a bit. While BCP’s are not for everyone and there certainly are side-effects, I would not equate them with abortion. Just because someone chooses to use BCP’s for birth control does not mean that they are any less pro-life.

    • aesthete

      Additionally, unless you plan on banning sex, your statement on the “right to sex” is both non-sequitur and extremely counterproductive: the pro-life issue has no more to do with the right to have sex than law and order matters have to do with gun control, and lumping both the arguments against right to sex and for the pro-life cause muddles the issue. Oppose a legal right to sex if you must (and I will agree that it’s not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution), but do so apart from the pro-life movement.

      • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

        aesthete,
        This is a topic I actually happen to know a great deal about.
        I think what we have here are some unfortunate choices of words, and sequences of thought.
        I believe what roetenks meant to say in paragraph ten is that there is no RIGHT to have sex WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES. In other words, you can choose to have sex, but if the natural consequence is a baby, you do NOT have the right to kill that new person.

    • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

      runner12,
      Yes, indeed, the common birth-control pill does have an abortifacient mechanism.

      If you will read the complete labeling information (actually, a multipage booklet) from the manufacturer describing the pharmacological mechanisms, you will find that the pill operates by THREE mechanisms. Most people only know about the first, which is preventing ovulation. However, “breakthrough” ovulation occurs in 2 to 10 percent of monthly cycles, meaning that an ovum IS released.

      The second mechanism is a thickening and transformation of the structure of the cervical mucus, a change that makes it harder for sperm cells to enter the uterus. Note: it does not make it impossible, just makes it harder, i.e., fewer get through.

      So, if breakthrough ovulation has occurred, fertilization is possible. And what happens to the new life conceived? Well, that is where the third pharmacological mechanism kicks in: alteration of the uterine lining so that it cannot support implantation of the embryo. The embryo is thus cut off from his or her source of nutrition, and dies. Once dead, he or she passes out of the body, without the woman ever even knowing she was pregnant.

      Talk about lack of informed consent, and keeping women in the dark! In fact, our medical schools mostly keep doctors themselves in the dark about this. Most doctors, either out of their own ignorance, or their desire that women “not trouble their pretty little heads about these things,” do NOT share this information with their patients.

      It is a travesty. I have known pro-life women who finally learned the truth about the pill, and were simply heart-broken to know that they may have unintentionally had very-early abortions. The least that doctors could do is give women the information, so that they could make their own moral choices.

      • Scope

        From reading WebMD, they claim that hormonal birth control methods do in fact have three layers. They claim that the “pill” has an effective rate of 99.99%. If there is breakthrough, and the egg does in fact enter the uterus from the ovaries, and then the sperm in fact does meet with that egg, yes it is in fact the beginning of a human being, weather it attaches to the uterine wall or not. The chances are very slim, but, yes the possibility does exist.

        My question to you, and the diarist, would be, what would you suggest married couples do? Should they only have sexual relations when they want a child? What alternative do you have to a very normal, God given, pleasure in life?

        • Uma Richie

          regarding this subject was _Taking Charge of Your Fertility_ by Toni Weschler. After I read it, I felt like I had been let down by my mother and high school sex-ed. The book is that simple.

          The book is not based on religion. The author takes no position on abortion. She clearly lays out the biology of the menstrual cycle. She clearly explains how to use biomeasure fertility awareness for avoiding pregnancy, for achieving pregnancy, and for being aware of one’s own health.

          A couple wishing to avoid pregnancy can then use biomeasure fertility awareness as a tool. For example, they can abstain during the fertile days. They can use barrier methods during fertile days. They can do other fun things on fertile days. I recommend you look at the “Trying to Avoid” forum on Weschler’s website http://www.tcoyf.com/forums/55.aspx to get a feel for all the different ways women have adapted biomeasures fertility awareness to fit their own beliefs, lifestyles, and pregnancy risk tolerance.

          This ain’t the old much-maligned rhythm method, and I believe that if digital thermometers had been invented before The Pill, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

        • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

          Have you really never heard of modern Natural Family Planning (NFP)? Its effectiveness in preventing pregnancy, when the method is used correctly, is HIGHER than the Pill’s!
          Also, the Pill is NOT as effective as they claim. And even if it were, they are counting as method failures ONLY pregnancies that DO progress past the point of implantation. Their figures do NOT account for the early abortions caused by breakthrough ovulation followed by death of the embryo due to inability to implant in the abnormal uterine lining.

          You say the chances are slim. Well, if breakthrough ovulation occurs in 2 to 10 percent of monthly cycles, and a woman is on the pill for however many years, who knows how many embryos she has conceived that would have lived had they been able to implant, but were unable to due to the pill’s alteration of the uterine lining? IS THE ABORTION OF EVEN ONE CHILD OK WITH YOU???

          Personally, I would be devastated to think I had possibly killed my own child without even knowing it!

          • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

            Here’s the best thing I’ve seen on the question of whether or not birth-control pills are abortifacient:
            http://28daysonthepill.com/

            And here are some links for more info on modern Natural Family Planning (which is NOT the outdated old rhythm method!)–NFP has been developed by doctors, tested with thousands and thousands of women, very effective, and is a really great lifestyle (speaking from experience here — wonderful for your marriage!)
            http://www.ccli.org/
            http://www.nfpworksblog.com/tag/naprotechnology/
            http://www.nfpandmore.org/

            And for a “big picture” look at the issue (i.e., not technical information about how to do NFP, but more a beautiful exposition of the philosophy behind it), there is a FABULOUS new book out:
            Sex au Naturel, by Patrick Coffin
            http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Naturel-What-Good-Marriage/dp/1931018588

            Also wonderful, a personal story by a beautiful young couple:
            Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception
            http://www.amazon.com/Open-Embrace-Protestant-Rethinks-Contraception/dp/0802839738/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294390975&sr=1-1

            I have one other favorite little book to give to people on this subject:
            Birth Control and Christian Discipleship
            http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Control-Christian-Discipleship-Kippley/dp/0926412108/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294391071&sr=1-1

            All three of these books I’ve cited are quite short, quick reads, and (I kid you not) FUN. However, all three of them were written by Christians — so even though they make their cases mostly from a natural-law and humanistic (in the old sense) perspective, if someone is hardcore anti-Christian, they might not like them.

            For a strictly secular perspective, with a ton of technical information, I’d recommend Taking Charge of Your Fertility, by Toni Weschler. It’s secular enough that even the authors of Our Bodies, Our Selves has endorsed it!
            http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Charge-Your-Fertility-Anniversary/dp/0060881909/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294391337&sr=1-1

            Just go to Amazon and do a book search for “Natural Family Planning.” You’ll be AMAZED at all the things that come up! FINALLY, awareness is spreading!

            NFP is simple enough that Mother Teresa taught it, and her Missionaries of Charity still teach it, to poor women in India. It is easy enough for anyone to learn. The Indian women love it. And it works!

      • runner12

        not do those things. But there are many pro-life people who do not view that as abortion in any way. I happen to be one of them. It is not that pro-life women are not informed, they just don’t see this in the same way that you do.

        There are many different forms of birth control pills. High dose and low dose. Each one works differently within the body depending on which hormones make up the pill and how much. Also, the primary mechanism IS to stop ovulation. The secondary mechanisms kick in when the first does not work. I have not read any credible studies on the percentages, but I would venture a guess that it is a very small percentage. Even when it does, I do not believe that equates abortion.

        As to doctors not informing their patients or not being informed themselves, I do not think that is necessarily fair. Yes, there are bad doctors out there. But I have always found my doctor very knowledgeable and most are willing to discuss with you the pros and cons of each and every form of birth control pill. Again they simply do not view this as abortion.

        (To be clear, I am not speaking of the RU-486 pill. That is abortion in pill form. I am speaking of the common BCP).

        • runner12

          from my point of view. They are a group of Pro-Life OBGYNs. There are some who see your side and others who see it from my point of view. It is a good discussion. I would add the link, but can’t figure out how to.

          • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

            Just in case someone misses what I posted above:
            The best thing I’ve seen on whether or not the Pill causes early abortions is this 45-minute documentary:
            http://28daysonthepill.com/
            Other resources also available at this website.

    • Uma Richie

      the status quo of keeping women in the dark is unethical, especially when more than 50% of the US population self-identifies as pro-life.

      My recommendations would include:
      1. At the FDA level: Required disclosure of the rate of breakthrough ovulation observed during clinical trials; identification of subpopulations at increased risk for breakthrough ovulation; pharmaceutical side effect warning labels indicating that the product may induce an abortion.
      2. At the state and national health service level: Require health clinics receiving public funding to explain the three mechanisms before dispensing BCPs.
      3. At the national association of Ob/Gyn level – Recommend ultrasound testing for breakthrough ovulation at a patient’s annual exam.

      In absence of data explaining the rate of breakthrough ovulation, I cannot estimate the percentage of unintentional abortions that these steps would prevent; however, I cannot imagine that anyone opposing them could claim the highground of being pro-woman.

      • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

        Because your comments are very well-thought-out!

        I agree with you that outlawing BCPs is unthinkable politically at this point in time. However, just making people AWARE that there even IS an issue here would be HUGE progress!

        As I said above, I have known pro-life women who were really depressed after they found out the truth about the pill, which they had been on earlier. It really grieved them to think that they had been so careless with young life, without even knowing it. And they were ANGRY that the doctor had never told them.

        It’s not like they could sue or anything — because the information IS there, in very fine print, in the manufacturer’s booklet — but who actually reads those in their entirety? Hardly anyone. And even if they did, how many of them are medically literate enough to understand what it says?

        No, the responsibility really does need to be with the doctors — which is why I love your suggestion no. 2.

        Unfortunately, from what I’ve read — and maybe you know more about this than I do — but I don’t think suggestion 3 is practicable, because there is no way to predict breakthrough ovulation IN ANY PARTICULAR CYCLE. What is someone going to do — go in EVERY MONTH for an ultrasound, at precisely the right time of the cycle? Absurd.
        Ditto with suggestion no. 1. The thing is, it’s unpredictable, so it’s all a matter of probabilities, and what’re you going to do — tell a woman, well, you MIGHT have breakthrough ovulation — or you MIGHT not — and if you do, you MIGHT conceive a baby, but the baby will die, but since you don’t for sure KNOW that you’ve conceived and aborted, just don’t worry about it?!

        Frankly, if a woman is really and truly pro-life, why would she want to risk even one abortion?

        NFP is available, it’s practicable, it’s effective, and couples who practice NFP have a divorce rate only 1 percent of the national average divorce rate!!! [http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193]
        Why on earth would anyone — especially someone pro-life — NOT want to do NFP?
        I can’t recommend it highly enough.

        Again, thanks so much for your thoughtful suggestions. As the Toni Weschler book demonstrates, even non-Christian “progressives” are getting in on the NFP act — so maybe we’re finally starting to get somewhere. I LOVE LOVE LOVE your second suggestion — I feel very, VERY strongly about informed consent. I hate it when doctors or any other “experts” or “authority figures” patronize us by not even bothering to give us the full information we deserve.

        • Uma Richie

          I spend a lot of time researching on PubMed.gov out of academic interest, and have used it when a relevant subject arises on RS. (Right now as I am typing, I am supposed to be working on a school project, so I feel a little guilty.)

          I do know that in BCP efficacy trials, ultrasounds are used to identify ovarian activity, endometrium thickness is measured somehow, and cervical fluid is evaluated. I believe that this information is not published because it is considered proprietary to the drug companies.

          I don’t think an ultrasound has to catch the exact moment of ovulation. An ovary that has been active may show signs of cysts, or in the case of full ovulation – a corpus luteum in the second half of the month. Because women on the pill have a very predictable cycle, they should be able to schedule an exam in advance for the most informative time of the month.

          Do you have any information that confirms that breakthrough ovulation occurs randomly? I have not seen a single study that would confirm or reject that assertion. I suspect that it is not random.

          I have noticed that there are some women on the TCOYF “Trying to Avoid” forum who are still charting while using chemical contraception. I wonder if breakthrough ovulation is detectable via a temperature shift, given all the extra hormones BCPs flood the body with.

          I’ve stopped using the word “natural” to describe fertility awareness. It immediately causes the listener to dismiss the method. I prefer “biomeasure” because the signs, particularly temp, EWCM, and cervical position are objective and measurable, and when recorded over time, provide an excellent data source.

          One unintended consequence that I think you should be aware of is that someone who is not pro-life could use fertility awareness as a birth control method in a very cold manner: If her chart shows sex on a fertile day and a triphasic temp shift seven days post ovulation, she could easily opt for a chemical abortion at that point.

          • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

            Thanks for all the information.

            And no, I hadn’t thought of that unintended consequence you describe. Well, there’s no getting around that, I suspect. That is why I love those three books I recommended in my post above so much: they introduce NFP, but rather than technical manuals, they speak to the heart. “Sex au Naturel” and “Open Embrace,” in particular, open the reader’s eyes to see such a beautiful vision of what I would call “authentic sex,” or “whole sex,”that you come away wondering why you would ever want anything else.

  • http://j.mp/onthereport soleynm

    The constitution doesn’t mention anything about acts of sex, and the 10th Amendment (which was read aloud today in the people’s House of Representatives) says that powers not given to Congress lie with the people. Thus, the people do have a right to engage in sexual relations and procreate. It is not an absolute right (eg. rape is not a right, molesting kids isn’t a right), but two consenting adults have that right.

    • eastbaylarry

      Surely sex must fall under this ‘right’?

    • Superheater

      That’s not what the 10th Amendment says.

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      As a result, many states had laws prohibiting (and still do) have laws prohibiting what “two consenting adults” can do. The obvious example is prostitution.

      Even without conditioning the provision of intimate favors on the exchange of value, states had a variety of laws limiting sexual behavior that no court found to be inconsistent with the Constitution.

      Some were offensive and utterly without public purpose, such as that prohibited mixed race marriages (so-called miscegenation) and others were generally enforced infrequently. Some even prohibited “unnatural acts” between married persons

      However, the view that the Constitution provided an absolute license for any sexual act was discovered in the Texas Sodomy case of a few years ago, when the fact that some acts were “customary” made them an absolute right. Personally, I can’t wait until somebody applies that logic to theft.

  • runner12

    I think that AAPLOG, which is a group of Pro-Life OBGYNs issued a great statement on this very topic.

    The reality is that there is no conclusive evidence on either position. It simply does not exist. Therefore, the “hostile environment” that is being debated is theory only. AAPLOG actually has two papers discussing each point of view, and suggests that each of their members follow their own conscience in the absence of any scientific data. This is a wise approach.

    There is also disagreement among people in the Pro-Life movement on whether the third mechanism (if it even exists) is akin to abortion. Again, there is plenty of room for disagreement on this topic.

    My problem begins when this theory becomes a part of the pro-life platform. Nathional Right to Life is one of the most respected and committed foes of abortion. I searched high and low on their site for any information or even discussion of common BCP’s as they relate to abortion. The only thing I found was a discussion and position on the RU-486 pill (which I think all pro-lifers would agree is an abortive pill). Why did they avoid this issue? It is because it is divisive and has the potential to detract us from our main objective which is to end abortion in this country. I am concerned by being overly focused on this issue, we play into the deceitful playbook of the pro-choice movement.

    I believe that we are so close to seeing Roe overturned. I do not want it to be derailed by a debate on what is nothing more than a theory at this point. It makes for a good discussion in bioethics within the pro-life movement, but think it would be counterproductive to add it to the national pro-life platform.