Home - List All Discussions

Does the Pill Kill?

This thread is a pill.

by: sheri

Whether or not the birth control pill causes abortions is a very important question especialy for prolifers who believe life begins at fertilization.
I would like to try to convince people here that the BC pill has side effects that far out weigh it's worth.
I would like to do that with out involving any reference to religion. We should be able to win this hands down on a purely rational level. I think everyone agrees anyway that God wants all His children protected and cared for, so solving this arguement will dictate what God thinks of the pill.
Lets leave barrier methods out and references to the pills "health" benifits, we can pick that up some other time.

reply from: IYAOYAS

Although I am not Catholic, I subscribe to the Catholic view of the pill --- and birth control. My view would be the minority view among Prots due to ignoranace of the facts - and just plain selfishness.

reply from: KaylieBee

Lol. What side effects are those?
Certainly not enough to make me stop that thing.
EDIT: In fact, I challenge the TC to convince me that the pill is evil and bad over the next 48 hours, after which time all my placebos will be gone and I shall start a new pack.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The primary purpose and proven use of the pill is to prevent ovulation. It has NOT be proven to stop implantation; it has only been SPECULATED that this "could" occur. There is no proof at all that this happens beyond the fact that it's one of the things you can't prove "doesn't" happen, just like you can't prove UFO's don't exist. What we DO know is how often it prevents ovulation, which is its primary purpose. Since that number is around 80-99% depending on your source, that's a LOT of saved babies.
Conversely, using NFP or having totally unprotected, unplanned sex, does not prevent ovulation. That means every month, a potential baby dies. Every month, an egg is released if nothing is done to prevent it. Because of this, (and this is proven), eggs do become fertilized... and fail to implant, 100% naturally. More babies fail to implant and die due to "natural" sex than due to hormonal birth control such as the pill. Other forms that are safe include Mirena IUD, Depo, Implanon, and the Morning After Pill (which is not RU487 by the way, the two are chemically totally different).
The MAP is simply a high dose or birth control (estrogen and/or progesterone) to halt ovulation and allow time for sperm to die. If a woman has already ovulated, the MAP does absolutely nothing. Hormonal birth control is very carefully designed to either Prevent Ovulation, OR if that fails, to Do No Harm. The people who designed birth control didn't want to kill the unborn; they wanted to prevent pregnancy. They didn't want to end pregnancy, they wanted to keep it from happening at all.
The only form of birth control that could cause death at a similar level to NFP or unprotected sex is the copper coil IUD, and that's only because not much is understood about how exactly it works. Research indicates that the copper in the IUD creates a hostile environment in the uterus for sperm, but the copper IUD does not prevent ovulation at all, so it is very possible that eggs can become fertilized using this IUD. However, its effectiveness indicates that if the egg is fertilized, then it must be dying in the uterus and unable to implant because of the hostile environment.
As for health benefits/harms of hormonal birth control, that is up to the woman to decide. Some women just plain cannot use hormones, and that's ok. They certainly shouldn't be forced to use the hormones. However, you're much more likely to hear about the minority of cases where the woman has a bad experience than the majority of cases where the women have great experiences. Women's lives have been changed because of birth control! Women with endometriosis who have had debilitating periods since puberty began find relief from pain and extremely heavy and unpredictable periods on birth control. I myself used to have painful periods, but when I took birth control the pain was gone. I used to depend on pamprin to make the pain "bearable", or face certain vomiting from agony. On birth control, I don't even need pamprin at all! I was so happy; it was like I'd been given a second life. I didn't fear my period every month; I knew when it was going to come, too. I used to have very long, unpredictable cycles of anywhere from 31-40 days long. A regular 28 day cycle was a godsend. Many women experience such happiness on birth control. And that's not even mentioning the main benefit: Protection from pregnancy!!
The side effects of birth control are well known and documented. No, hormonal birth control does not make you infertile. It does not cause breast cancer. It can increase the risk of blood clots IF you smoke, but you shouldn't be smoking in the first place so it's a good reason to quit! The most common side effects are extremely mild and are, not surprisingly, nearly identical to the symptoms of early pregnancy. If you think the pregnancy symptoms are "worth the benefit", why aren't the same side effects worth the benefit of preventing pregnancy? The early symptoms last only 1-3 months (just like real pregnancy) and often only last a few weeks. The most complained about symptom is nausea. This subsides on its own within 3 months or can be fixed by changing when the woman takes the pill, morning vs evening.

reply from: Banned Member

The primary purpose and proven use of the pill is to prevent ovulation. The primary purpose of the pill is stop children from being conceived.
Since that number is around 80-99% depending on your source, that's a LOT of saved babies. These are babies that are not caoceived, rather the being killed by pro-abortion advocates.
Conversely, using NFP or having totally unprotected, unplanned sex, does not prevent ovulation. We wouldn't want you ovulating would we? You might get pregnant.
That means every month, a potential baby dies. Potential babies do not die, only real babies die. When a fertilized egg does not implant, it's death is not caused by an abortion.
The people who designed birth control didn't want to kill the unborn; they wanted to prevent pregnancy. No, they wanted to cut in the abortion industries business.
And that's not even mentioning the main benefit: Protection from pregnancy!! Do you hear that women, you need to be protected from pregnancy! It's a benefit not to conceive.
Many women experience such happiness on birth control. All the sex you want without the possibility of pregnancy. That's happiness?
Women's lives have been changed because of birth control! Yes. They don't become mothers.

reply from: KaylieBee

You realize birth control has existed as long as sex, right? It just wasn't as effective.
What's wrong with not wanting children?
I would say so.

reply from: sheri

Are we all in agreement that break through ovulation happens? There is a 3% risk of pregnancy with proper use of the pill and I know of many women who have conceived on the pill so i think the only question is whether or not an abortion can happen after fertilization.
The pills back up mechanism is to thin the lining of the uterus, there are studies that prove that a newly conceived child has a very hard time implanting in the wall of the uterus when it is thus thinned out and sometimes it is impossible, thus an abortion happens. I think any woman who has been on the pill will tell you one of the "benefits" of the pill is a lighter menstrual flow, so is it not obvious that the pill causes abortions?

reply from: sheri

The 'rythum method" is so old school i had to check the date of that article twice to see if it was dated 1956 instead of 2006, however i believe his main arguement sort of backs up mine and that is that a less fertile womb is less excepting of new life. However using modern forms of NFP you wouldn't be having sex untill at least three days after ovulation has occured so there is no chance of fertilization happening, as the egg has a 24 hour life span.
I have to question the integrity of the prof. Dr. patrick Boven, he must be aware of the differences in NFP and the ancient Rythum method, it makes me wonder if you can really trust his whole assessment.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Rhythem Method and NFP are NOT the same thing.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You realize birth control has existed as long as sex, right? It just wasn't as effective.
I thought someone on here decreed that we were referring to modern hormonal birth control? The creators of modern contraceptives did not do so with the intention of killing babies; they did so with the intent of preventing pregnancy from even happening.
I would say so.
So would I!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

When you say "conceived", do you refer to implantation or fertilization? Please use those two terms, as people confuse "conceive" with both terms. Birth control's main purpose is to prevent fertilization VIA stopping ovulation. Look at any birth control pack and that's what it says, ask any sane doctor and that's what they say.
What? They're not created, thus, they don't die. Would you actually rather see a dead baby as opposed to a saved egg?
You don't honestly expect every act of sex to result in a child do you? You do realise that birth control saves lives by protecting a mother's egg supply? Instead of killing half a baby every month, she saves them.
An egg dies. What is the egg? Half a baby; a potential child, a potential person. It's not a potential frog, or chicken.
I think you are insane... Absolutely off your rocker.... is everything except the Catholic church a conspiracy to you!?
When you don't want to conceive, it certainly IS a benefit, 100%!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Of course break through ovulation can happen; that's how women become pregnant while on the pill. If the pill caused failure of implantation, then it would prevent pregnancy even if ovulation failed. That's how the copper IUD works. But clearly, the pill does not do this, because women become pregnant while on it! I think that's plenty of proof that failure to implant is nearly impossible. I again repeat that if ovulation DOES occur, then nothing bad happens to the egg. Thickened cervical mucous may prevent the introduction of sperm and that can also prevent pregnancy, but IF sperm does fertilize the egg, it will have as good a chance of implanting as a natural baby does. That's because birth control is made to Do No Harm if fertilization happens.
Do you consider it an abortion if implantation has not happened? I personally don't, because "abortion" ends a PREGNANCY. Pregnancy does not start until implantation. Thus, even IF birth control is OCCASIONALLY causing the death of fertilized eggs, it is NOT abortifacient.
So no, it's not obvious the pill causes abortions. In fact, it is clear to me that it does NOT cause abortions.

reply from: Banned Member

The primary purpose and proven use of the pill is to prevent ovulation. The primary purpose of the pill is stop women from having babies!
Since that number is around 80-99% depending on your source, that's a LOT of saved babies. The only thing these babies are being saved from is getting the chance to live or maybe possibly killed by an abortionist.
Conversely, using NFP or having totally unprotected, unplanned sex, does not prevent ovulation. We wouldn't want you ovulating would we? You might get pregnant. How horrid!
That means every month, a potential baby dies. Potential babies do not die, only real babies die, as exactly what happens when a woman has an abortion! When a fertilized egg does not implant, it's death is not caused by an abortion.
The people who designed birth control didn't want to kill the unborn; they wanted to prevent pregnancy. Birth control is a business just like abortion is a business and you seem to be a walking ad for both businesses.
And that's not even mentioning the main benefit: Protection from pregnancy!! Do you hear that women? You need to be protected from pregnancy! It's a benefit not to conceive. Those 14 inch tall toothless little monsters can be very frightening!
Many women experience such happiness on birth control. All the sex you want without the possibility of pregnancy. That's happiness? Gratification and happiness are not the same things.
Women's lives have been changed because of birth control! Yes. They don't become mothers or they at least have fewer children.

reply from: sheri

Life begins at fertilization. Every thing after that is a growing process. We should hash this out before we can say the pill causes abortions.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So, you have a bunch of dead eggs in your abdomen? A husband ejaculates dead sperm that can still somehow swim (zombie sperm!) into a woman's uterus, and somehow, the dead egg plus the dead sperm magically makes a living baby??? WOW!!! Where did you learn biology?
The egg is alive. The sperm is alive. Thus, "life" exists before fertilization. YOUR individual unique existence BEGAN at fertilization, but your two halves were both alive before they met.
Life began long before you or I were created by the joining of a living sperm and living egg.

reply from: sander

You know, spitwad, if you could ever stop thinking of YOURSELF, even for a moment, you might learn that replacement birth rates are going to jump up and bite you and those like you, in the arse one day. HA-HA
While you people are basking in little or no re-production, those who don't choose your selfish lifestyle, in the mean time, are having children. One day the conservative, prolife, profamily population will out-number and out-vote your lifestyle. America will return to her roots of pro-life whether you like it or not. Your stupid love of self will catch up....(he-he)

reply from: Banned Member

Your childless legacy dies with you, is buried in the ground and is forgotten forever by everyone.
Goodbye!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

By doing what? By preventing ovulation. The doctors who made the pill did not say "let's create a pill that stops women from having babies". They said "what's the stage of a woman's cycle that is possible to control to prevent her from getting pregnant? Ovulation!" Do you KNOW how birth control pills work? Let me tell you.
Hormonal birth control is a dose of hormones, often estrogen and/or progesterone, that are in such a dose as to trick the woman's body into thinking it is already pregnant. That's why early side-effects of starting the pill are so close to pregnancy symptoms. Once the body thinks it is pregnant, it does not ovulate, since women do not ovulate when they are pregnant. Thus, the pill prevents pregnancy by making the body think it is already pregnant, thus making it stop ovulation.
Isn't it brilliant? Prevent pregnancy by making the body think it is already pregnant! This addresses the main issue of the mature female body: it wants to get pregnant. By making it think it is already pregnant, it stops trying to get pregnant.
That's also why the pill Does No Harm to an egg that does happen to ovulate and is fertilized. Pregnancy hormones can't harm a pregnancy.
Uh, duh. That's a good thing, wouldn't you agree? I'd rather keep my eggs nice and safe inside of my ovaries than fertilize them and rip them to shreds once they're babies... wouldn't you!?
Uh, yeah. It would be. Cause I don't wanna have a kid right now. See, what you don't understand is that it's not JUST the pregnancy itself that is the problem. It's the child. Some women do not want a child, cannot afford a child, etc etc, and many women think they'd be unable to adopt it after carrying it for nine months, but know they couldn't give it a good life. So they abort. What those women need is more prenatal help for learning to deal with adoption.
Birth control pills are better called "contraceptives". They are inadvertently controlling birth by controlling "conception". Their primary purpose is to prevent ovulation, thus preventing fertilization and implantation, thus preventing a pregnancy, and thus preventing the birth of an unwanted child.
That's why I do all I can to prevent pregnancy, because I'm trying to prevent the existence of a child. IF (god forbid) it happened, then I'd have someone else to live for and I'd give birth and adopt it. I don't want a kid right now. I want to prevent the pregnancy so I don't HAVE to give my child away. I don't want to. I want to keep a child, but right now I neither want one or am capable of keeping one. I want all of my pregnancies to be WANTED.
That's my goal, that's why I'm pro-contraception.
An egg is a potential baby. An egg is alive. If it fails to be fertilized, then it dies. What part of that do you not understand? The egg is not a potential lizard. It is a potential human - a potential baby. It is exactly HALF of a potential person-to-be.
When a fertilized egg fails to implant, what do you call it? Miscarriage is a natural abortion. Any dictionary will tell you that. Abortion and miscarriage only happen after pregnancy has been established. Failing to implant is neither an abortion nor a miscarriage, no matter WHAT the cause of that failure is.
Conspiiiiiiracy theeeoooorist, la la la la la
I'm sorry that it's YOUR burning desire in life to spew life from your loins repeatedly ed nauseum, but for many women pregnancy is neither beautiful nor pleasant. So please, sit down. Yes, pregnancy can be very frightening, even lethal. Women die when they are pregnant. How is that not scary? I'm not saying that's a reason to abort, but it is certainly a reason to prevent pregnancy! Pregnancy is not an easy-pasy experience; the body goes through extreme changes and most women are permanently scarred or marred from the experience. These bodily changes are out of a woman's control when she's pregnant, so it's certainly very, very scary.
You are a callous person to not understand these things. Open your eyes. Put yourself in the shoes of a woman who is terrified of pregnancy.
I was happy. I still am happy. I will be happy ten years from now that I had sex and didn't have to worry!!! Wheeee!!! By the way, you quoted me out of context. I believe the paragraph preceding my comment about happiness was the paragraph on the good physical benefits ASIDE from preventing pregnancy. Are you just conveniently ignoring that because it flies in the face of your conspiracy theories and accusations? Who's afraid of the truth? It's you!!
Thank god!! Motherhood is not the end-all-be-all of female existence. You honestly think that a woman's sole "true" goal in life should be to get knocked up as many times as physically possible before she dies a withered, droopy old husk? Because that's what I'm gathering here...
Women used to have shorter life-spans than men because they often died in childbirth and because childbirth was so taxing on the body. It's not healthy to be pregnant year after year. It's a choice, I suppose, and if YOU want to be the next Mrs. Duggar, go for it.

reply from: sheri

Ok, we can say "our individuel human existence" begins at fertilization or we can say "life" begins at fertilization.
You really cant say life begins at ovulation because if the egg goes unfertilized it will remain only an egg and die in 24 hours. Like the sperm, if they could live forever they would never become anything other them what they are, unless the two are joined then things start happening fast. That moment when the egg and sperm join is the start, the beginning.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Uh......... I'm pro-life AND pro-contraception. So..... yeah. You're incorrect.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Your childless legacy dies with you, is buried in the ground and is forgotten forever by everyone.
Goodbye!
The breeding masses of the underclass are democratic. LOL!

reply from: sheri

liberal Cheerio, do you admit the pill can cause an early abortion?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, you can't, because they're two totally different things. LIIIIIFEE!!! -began millions of years ago. Your body, your unique DNA make up, became whole when the egg met the sperm. But both of these things were alive before they met. So life didn't begin at fertilization. It was there before.
If you want to think of it from a scientific viewpoint, life began billions of years ago in the ocean. Religiously, life began when God brought Adam and Eve to life. Either way, that happened a lot longer ago than your fertilization.
I didn't. And I don't think life begins at ovulation. The egg is alive before it is released from the ovary. The egg is alive when it is formed, in the female embryo, when she is in the womb. And the cells that FORM the ovums are alive, so your life actually began before that... because the cells that form the eggs separated from the original zygote that grew from the original egg fertilized by another sperm, and on and on backwards into history. Life is one continuous line bridging from our ancestors, whether you think they were Adam and Eve or single-celled organisms in the ocean billions of years ago!!! One uncut, continuous line connects YOU and these original forms of life.
It's amazing.
It is the beginning of a unique body forming, but not of LIFE.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, because I do not feel that abortion can happen until after implantation.
COULD hormonal birth control POSSIBLY cause a fertilized egg to fail implantation? Yes, it technically could. But this is unproven and if it does happen, it is rare.

reply from: Banned Member

LiberalChiRo
I was going to respond with some rather long exposition on birth control and the immorality of it all. I might have talked about the joys and virtues of having children and their intrincis worth. But then to my mind it seemed all a wasted demonstration of what I know and what you do not know. You are a young woman with a strong sex drive and weak sense of morality. That is enough to say to suffice. Your drivel is a waste of your time and infinitely worse, a waste of my time.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If I had a weak sense of morality I'd be pro-choice, wouldn't I?
"You're an old hag who only wishes she were as young and nubile as I. You're just jealous, and your drivel is a waste of my time."
See, I can play too. I had to throw in a different insult there than "immoral" and relate it to your age. But I'm NOT actually going to say that to you. I'm just showing you what I COULD say. You'll probably say it's the same exact thing, but that's child's play. "I could call you a doody-head but I won't!" Whatever, right?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Yup, and caffeine, vitamin C, stress, cleaning the catbox and waterskiiing CAN cause zygote demise.
Do you have a point?
My point is that the chances and supposed possibilities of hormonal birth control causing a failure of implantation is irrelevant. Which is your point too, from what I can tell. "Chillax, dude".

reply from: sheri

How often it happens, we may never know for certain , i cant imagine the gov. caring enough to do a study on this however there have been studies that suggest it can happen up to 50% of the time. i dont think quantity is as important a question as seeing the possibilty of killing one of your children through your actions.

reply from: Banned Member

I am a 35 year old celibate male that is waiting for marriage. Who I marry will not be an object for use nor the instrument of my personal needs. I neither envy you nor think that any of this is games. You have said nothing that reveals a genuine respect for the unborn human person any more than you have shown that you have any respect for the sanctity of marriage or sex in the marriage. 4000 human beings die a die from abortion and you are bragging about sex and nubility. I hope that you consider the 4000 wombs that have their contents out ripped every day out while you brag about your youth and vigor that you stifle with pills and potions, killing off the chances for children that God has given you.

reply from: sheri

If eating carrots during pregnancy were proven to cause an early abortion I would not eat them. I know of certain herbs that I avoid if I think i may be pregnant and my husband does clean the litter box.
I would think anyone who agrees life begins at fertilization would do what ever they could to avoid hurting their children, even if it meant a serious life changing event like quitting the pill.

reply from: sheri

Cheerio, are you saying that an ectoptic pregnancy is not a baby at all? That because it is not implanted in the womb at all it has no claims to personhood? Life (or should we call it the individuals process) does start at conception, you called me out earlier for not knowing basic biolagy (you would have been more accurate picking on my english.) now i extend to you the same insult, the process does start at fertilization, so much has happened in the life of the new little person i cant imagine you deneying the facts if you just ponder it further.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What if carrots could prevent implantation? What if you weren't necessarily trying to prevent or become pregnant? What if, regardless of anything in your life you were doing in relation to reproduction, carrots COULD cause you to have a uterus that would not let babies implant? Would you stop eating carrots forever? Just in case?
Listen, you need to stop worrying about the possibility of the pill causing a fertilized egg to not implant because there's no PROOF. Do you worry every day about being bitten by a shark or hit by lightning? No. Well, maybe you do if you're a worry-wart.
I believe life begins long before fertilization and I think anyone who doesn't is being fooled. You think you have dead eggs in your body and I think that's silly. I don't know how else you can possibly imagine life begins at fertilization unless the pieces are dead before hand.
For some women, stopping the pill would be life changing. It would be debilitating.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Yup, and caffeine, vitamin C, stress, cleaning the catbox and waterskiiing CAN cause zygote demise.
Do you have a point?
My point is that the chances and supposed possibilities of hormonal birth control causing a failure of implantation is irrelevant. Which is your point too, from what I can tell. "Chillax, dude".<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Forgive me, I misunderstood...
I think you assumed that since I'm a pro-lifer I'm automatically anti-birth control. Nah. I was pro-choice just a month ago.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What on earth is wrong with a strong sex drive?
It's probably a sin or something. Lust is a sin, isn't it? Pretty sure it was meant to dissuade people from cheating on their spouses though. Then again I've head the lust sin so distorted that it becomes "masturbation is a sin waaag!"

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hell, bc pills for my period pain! Oh man, sweet relief.

reply from: carolemarie

If the pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, why do women get pregnant while taking the pill? !!
I think that the new bc pills are great. Only 4 periods a year! That is great!
Plus the pill allows you to plan your family, space births and postpone childbearing till you are ready. It is a benefit to mankind.

reply from: sheri

Women get pregnant while taking the pill because breakthrough ovulation happens, which means the pills primary function (suppression of ovulation) has failed, that means the pills back mechanism (thinning the uterine wall) can work to keep the baby from implanting.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I made that point on page one I think It seems totally counterintuitive huh!?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I know, birth control is amazing...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And how many women get pregnant on the pill? Not many. WHY do women get pregnant on the pill? In almost ALL cases, it is due to human error in the schedule. When taken properly, hormonal birth control is 99% effective. Depo has no real room for human error, and the rates of pregnancy on Depo are lower than the rates of pregnancy on the pill, which PROVES that it is the human, not the pill, that is causing accidental pregnancies and further proves that birth control is NOT abortifacient!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Aw, the link isn't active any more.

reply from: sheri

In the Davis's Drug guide I looked up a couple of the more popular BC pills and they all had the action of preventing implantation. I havent found one yet that didnt have that as a possiblity.
you can argue that life does not begin untill implantation ( or untill your 21 for all i care), you can argue that the number is so small it doesnt matter ( though many people refuse to play fast and loose with their childrens lives) but you can not argue that it does not work to prevent implantation.
I am sorry for anyone to whom this information comes as a shock, i know this is life altering stuff, like X said it would be very hard for some people to do without their pill, i will pray that anyone who reads this has the courage to act as God would have them do.

reply from: carolemarie

Since I got pregnant on the pill, my daughter is an advertisement for the fact that preventing implantation method doesn't work.
Breakthrough ovulation occured, and the other two "mechanisms" didn't work.
My conclusion is that if God wants you to be pregnant, He will open the womb.
I have heard of women who got pregnant even though they had their tubes tied.
So I think the fuss about birth control is without foundation, and there is very little proof that this preventing implantation actually happens....it is all wild speculation..
everything has a statictistal chance of happening.....

reply from: 4given

What forms of BC are not abortifacient? (in chemical form) I have a friend that only conceived because BC regulated her cycle. Another has Scleroderma, one has depression and anxiety disorders. I would not ever judge them for taking contraceptives. What other options outside of NFP are available to them?

reply from: sheri

I know people who were going into PP to get an abortion that were on depo at the time of conception. I believe the majorty of women who conceive while on a BC device would have an abortion, stats testify to that. We Know breakthrough ovulation happens and we know that a new baby has a hard time implanting in a thinner uterine wall so why cant you just admit the pill can cause abortions.

reply from: lycan

I've often wondered whether this backup mechanism does occur, because the baby has been known to implant in some very strange environments (ectopic pregnancies). I read the IUD works this way because it actually inflames the womb lining. That may just be the older IUDs, but I could be wrong.

reply from: sheri

Why dont you guys go to polycarp.org and read about the post fertilization affect of the pill, that will explain it far better then I.
My question for 4G is were your friends having sex while enjoying the "health" benefits of the pill? If they were you can bet they could have had an abortion during their time on the pill. Are they Prolife? Im not saying condemn them with it but certainly dont keep them in the dark.
Cm you know from personal experience that breakthrough ovulation happens, (sounds like a bumper sticker) There is proof that a new little person can not implant in an emaciated uterus. There are studies that have shown that. The studies were done to help women with in vitro pregnancies. Please read up on this it is very important.

reply from: sheri

X, what new studies show the IUD to prevent fertilization? Maybe the levnorgestrel, but certainly not the copper things, I dont see how that is possible. I would like to see the study.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The Mirena prevents ovulation which would in turn prevent fertilization.
The copper coil is supposed to kill the sperm, which would also prevent fertilization.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Of course some women get pregnant on depo. Sometimes they get their re-fill shot a few weeks too late. Sometimes they have breakthrough ovulation. But it's rare.
Sometimes people get struck by lightening. Don't see me freaking out about it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

NONE of them are proven as abortifacient in chemichal form. I am glad your friends are benefiting from birth control. I have also heard of other women using bc to regulate their cycles so they can conceive.

reply from: sheri

X,The baby is worth what ever you have to sacrafice in order to have him/her.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Good post Carol Wild speculation is all it is.

reply from: sheri

Cheerio, that is simply not true, we KNOW breakthrough ovulation happens, and we KNOW a child has a harder time implanting in a thinner uterine lining, of course it is possible for a child to implant in a hostile enviroment, the question is does a thinner uterine wall work at times to prevent implantation and the answer is yes, now prolifers SHOULD care about that.
Or at least err on the side of cation.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm going to have to say that I don't consider scarring, sagging, or taking a break from your job as justifiable excuses for killing a baby Even when I was pro-choice I considered those pretty poor excuses to abort.
But preventing pregnancy altogether to prevent these things? Of course that's acceptable!! That's WAY better!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

To a certain extent.
If, say, I knew by giving birth I could never dance again, I would think twice about having children.
But would you abort one?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

OH NO I MIGHT BE BITTEN BY A SHARK I'M NEVER GOING INTO THE OCEAN AGAIN!!! Even in regions where sharks aren't common cause, you know... you never know!!!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm going to have to say that I don't consider scarring, sagging, or taking a break from your job as justifiable excuses for killing a baby Even when I was pro-choice I considered those pretty poor excuses to abort.
But preventing pregnancy altogether to prevent these things? Of course that's acceptable!! That's WAY better!!
Yes thats what I mean sorry, for me personally only the latter is acceptable.
^^ oki doki then!

reply from: carolemarie

Scarring like in a c-section? They can do bikini incisions that are small and don't show.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Goodnight all! You are done with my carousing for the night. Till I see thee tomorrow!!

reply from: sheri

cheerio my deario, sleep well.
In the morning i hope you consider this, while i would take the risk of swimming in the ocean and hope the odd ball shark does not get me, I would never go in swimming if there was a shark warning out, the risk would be too high, or if i saw a fin in the water I would not dive in hoping it was flipper. I would look at all the evidence and weigh my risk of bodily harm and act on that.
That is all I want you to do, after you come to grips with the fact that " the individuals own life experience process for a single life time" starts at fertilization.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol.
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/internetstooserious.jpg

There IS no "warning", only a fabricated lie put out by the catholic church to scare young girls away from the one thing aside from "christ approved abstinence" that will prevent pregnancy. It's a conspiracy theory and you've bought into it. I'm sorry. I've been fooled too.
Can't figure out how to make that a picture and not just a link. My normal code savvy has been defeated by BBCode. And fatigue.

reply from: carolemarie

Sheri:
I know lots of prolifers feel that the pill is wrong, but I just don't see it. If you don't believe in God, then the pill may prevent pregnancy and thus you avoid abortion. If you use the pill + something else, it is very unlikely that two methods will fail.
I am married, and I certainly don't want more kids. I am happy with the size of my family. I do not want to be pregnant, but if my bc failed, obviously I wouldn't have an abortion. But now I don't have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy. Some people want all the children they can have. And I say great for you, and support you totally on that. Some of us don't want lots of children. And that is okay too. We are all different in what we are suited to do.
The pill has a 98% effective rate. The other two percent were babies that were conceived and that implanted while the mom was on the pill....

reply from: 4given

NONE of them are proven as abortifacient in chemichal form. I am glad your friends are benefiting from birth control. I have also heard of other women using bc to regulate their cycles so they can conceive.
I am not "glad" that they would feel the need to rely on an unnatural means in order to feel safe or normal even. I would, as they likely do, appreciate another solution. I appreciate science and the physicians that desire to help the injured, ill and impaired. Far better would be a proven natural remedy. Where are the herbalists on this board? I can speak from my experience with herbs, and none of it was to prevent God's given life. Something beyond chemical BC?

reply from: Carifairy

Sheri- The Copper IUD is a potent spermicide. There were studies done, which included uterus and fallopian tube flushings, to see if any eggs actually were fertilized. I will find the study ASAP.
Copper ions are released into the uterus, NOTHING is inflamed, and the copper kills sperm. IF you get pregnant, you get pregnant, it does not physically do anything to cause an already implanted egg to suddenly come loose.
ALSO, I found this study from a source.. They cite a study for breakthrough ovulation..
http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/pill.html

I picked this one because it is recognized by some pro lifers.
OBVIOUSLY not the 50% you stated..
How frequent is breakthrough ovulation in a woman taking a low-estrogen contraceptive pill? Well, let's take a high estimate - 20%. Probably lower than that. How frequently does pregnancy occur when there is an egg or an ovum waiting? Probably not much more than two or three times out of the twenty.
So if we use a high figure, a 20% breakthrough ovulation, that would mean a two or three percent fertilization rate. But, as a matter of fact, pregnancy occurs only about 1% or less of the time, so, in the other 1 or 2%, fertilization does occur, implantation cannot occur, and the little embryonic baby dies.
The bottom line, then, for the commonly used contraceptive pill is this: In 97 or 98% of the time, the effect is one of preventing pregnancy. But, in perhaps two or more percent of the time, the effect is abortifacient. There is no way in the normal clinical practice of obstetrics of knowing which is happening, or when.
I saw a study that stated 2-10%
THIS one states 10%
r. Bogomir M. Kuhar, a doctor of pharmacy and director of Pharmacists for Life International, cited numerous studies by experts and pharmaceutical companies in his paper Infant Homicides Through Contraception. Dr. Kuhar concluded that the average rate of breakthrough ovulation due to a number of factors is between two percent and 10 percent per cycle
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/6794

SO NOW we have to think about HOW many successful pregnancies out of these 10% actually occur. I see many women who had 'pill babies', they did not miscarry.

reply from: 4given

To a certain extent.
If, say, I knew by giving birth I could never dance again, I would think twice about having children.
Well I am tempted to talk about your pole dancing, but I will step back and try to see it (you) differently. I did ballet. There are many programs available to pregnant moms who actually have never done any dance. Why would birthing a child make dancing impossible? Pole, modern, ballet or not- The women I know grew increasingly interested in dance after they birthed children. And I agree that nothing is quite as valuable as that precious life. Point is, being pregnant, typically does not separate one from their hobbies or interests. For me it renewed my enthusiasm over what I enjoyed.

reply from: sander

Hey Xen, what are you doing here?
You keep saying you're going to find something constructive to do....do you pole dance and lie?
I have an idea....read two books a day, that way you can impress, oh I don't know....who cares, just keep your word and scram.

reply from: KaylieBee

What kind of dancing do you do, xenatiger?
I really wish I could get into dancing. My boyfriend would love it, and it's great exercise.

reply from: 4given

My apologies. That was rude. And no, I was not trying to anger you.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Belly dancing isn't lewd... I've seen it before; it's great! I've tried it before in college when an instructor came to my dorm. Shakira was supposedly raised by nuns who taught her how to belly dance!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Go for it!!! Lol. I know guy who could be classified as impossibly gay; he was so funny! Love that guy.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Life must be extremely difficult when you have to stay inside your one-story house, away from all plumbing and electricity, with your children huddled beside you, never leaving the house for your entire life so that YOU and your CHILDREN will be safe.
No driving, no computers, no use of forks, knives, etc., no scissors, no bathtub, no toys, no cooking, no washer or dryer, no pets, no furniture - all of them have the potential to kill someone.
This argument about the Pill is hilariously out of touch with reality.

reply from: yoda

To answer the thread question, yes it does, sometimes.
If that is an acceptable "risk" to achieve the goal of preventing pregnancy, then the occasional death of your own child is an acceptable price to you to pay for the convenience of "birth control".
It's all about values and priorities.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, because I do not feel that abortion can happen until after implantation.
COULD hormonal birth control POSSIBLY cause a fertilized egg to fail implantation? Yes, it technically could. But this is unproven and if it does happen, it is rare.
This is just another semantic dodge. It is true that technically, killing the newly conceived human individual is not considered an "abortion" so long as it is killed before it implants, but that is only because, technically, pregnancy does not begin until implantation. The life of every human individual, however, begins before pregnancy, at conception. It is just as dead whether it is killed before or after implantation. In my view, it is wrong to kill a human being. What term applies to killing it is determined by it's stage of development, and the fact that it is not correctly identified as an "abortion" after birth or prior to implantation does not mean it is acceptable to kill it at either of these stages, does it?
Do you agree that a human being exists prior to implantation, from conception?
Yes. But a pregnancy does not. Abortion cannot happen until pregnancy begins. Thus, no form of birth control is abortifacient.
Pregnancy and conception are not the same event. To my knowledge, "conception" means fertilization. Pregnancy, conversely, does not begin until implantation. I suggest not using the word "conception" at all because it is very confusing.

reply from: nancyu

What if carrots could prevent implantation? What if you weren't necessarily trying to prevent or become pregnant? What if, regardless of anything in your life you were doing in relation to reproduction, carrots COULD cause you to have a uterus that would not let babies implant? Would you stop eating carrots forever? Just in case?
Listen, you need to stop worrying about the possibility of the pill causing a fertilized egg to not implant because there's no PROOF. Do you worry every day about being bitten by a shark or hit by lightning? No. Well, maybe you do if you're a worry-wart.
I believe life begins long before fertilization and I think anyone who doesn't is being fooled. You think you have dead eggs in your body and I think that's silly. I don't know how else you can possibly imagine life begins at fertilization unless the pieces are dead before hand.
For some women, stopping the pill would be life changing. It would be debilitating.
You're arguing grammar here. A new individual human life begins at fertilization.

reply from: nancyu

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Yup, and caffeine, vitamin C, stress, cleaning the catbox and waterskiiing CAN cause zygote demise.
Do you have a point?
My point is that the chances and supposed possibilities of hormonal birth control causing a failure of implantation is irrelevant. Which is your point too, from what I can tell. "Chillax, dude".<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Forgive me, I misunderstood...
I think you assumed that since I'm a pro-lifer I'm automatically anti-birth control. Nah. I was pro-choice just a month ago.
I hate to break the news to you, but you still are pro choice.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's ridiculous... The Bush bull*****. How crazy!!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Yup, and caffeine, vitamin C, stress, cleaning the catbox and waterskiiing CAN cause zygote demise.
Do you have a point?
My point is that the chances and supposed possibilities of hormonal birth control causing a failure of implantation is irrelevant. Which is your point too, from what I can tell. "Chillax, dude".<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Forgive me, I misunderstood...
I think you assumed that since I'm a pro-lifer I'm automatically anti-birth control. Nah. I was pro-choice just a month ago.
I hate to break the news to you, but you still are pro choice.
Prove it.

reply from: Banned Member

Such obvious glee rather than indignation is indicative of your sincere views.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's not glee. It's repetition in the hopes that saying the truth over and over will drill it into his head. Being in denial of legal abortion means that as a pro-lifer, they have nothing to do. If abortion isn't legal, then people aren't having abortions right!? Because isn't that the goal of making abortion illegal? "If we make abortion illegal, abortions will stop (reduce)." So if abortion already IS illegal, well then no abortions must be happening. Job complete!!!
Do you see how silly that is? That's why we must face the truth: Abortion is legal.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's not semantics. I'm not implying it is "ok" or "evil", I am simply saying it is not an abortion.
So you are anti-hormonal-birth control then? Because it COULD possibly prevent implantation! If you think it is equally wrong then you must be anti-hormonal-birth-control.

reply from: Jameberlin

The techical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion, by that school of thought, there are natural and unnatural abortions.
It's considered early miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) if an implanted blastocyst comes away from the uterine wall, this happens if the tissue in on the uterine wall has inadequate nutrients to sustain the blastocyst. This can be caused by any number of things, including having a sythetic hormone in your blood stream... They say women who are on birth control and conceive are at a much greater risk of miscarriage because their bodies have not had the time to create a decent environment due to synthetic hormones.
IUDs make the uterus into a "hostile environment" causing the blastocyst to not be able to implant, this is espcially true with copper coil IUDs (which are no longer used in USA to the best of my knowledge). Mirena (the other IUD) releases a hormone called evonorgestrel (progestin), which comes fully equipped with all the lovely side effects of Norplant (no longer available in US) and regular copper coil IUDs, including uterine perforation, ectopic pregnancy, intrauterine pregancy (i know someone who got pregnant on it) in which case birth defects are a possibility, vaginosis, sepsis (infection that can be fatal), abnormal pap smear, back pain, headaches, constant runny nose, depression, decreased libido..... the list goes on, really. This is, of course, not to mention those who this form of birth control is marketed to who are breast feeding, one study in Mexico discovered that babies breast fed on milk with progestin in it had decreased levels of TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone) which results in hypo-thyroidism, which isn't pretty.
My question is this, morality of birth control aside, why would you put that crap into your body unless you had to? Especially today, when we are all supposedly so eco-friendly, are we willing to put ourselves through this gauntlet just so we can have worry free sex?
*Note* I'm not talking about women who need to have their hormones regulated, although my Pegan pro-choice sister who is vehemently anti-anything synthetic, SWEARS her PMD and debilitating cramps are relieved with some herbal teas instead of artificial birth control.

reply from: Jameberlin

perhaps more pertinent, why are we women so willing to put ourselves through this crap, while men sit on their butts and do virtually nothing? Well, i'm off topic. Feminism RULES.

reply from: Carifairy

Jameberlin-
Copper IUD's are very common in the US, and are available. "Paragard" is the name.
Copper kills sperm. The IUD releases copper ions into the uterus, when sperm come into contact with copper their heads explode.

reply from: Jameberlin

oh? This wasn't the information given to me by my doctor, but he's only human, so he could be wrong.
Thank you for correcting my misinformation regarding how the copper coil IUD works. I still don't think i'd want any metal sitting in my uterus though, personally.
At least the side effects and the way Mirena works is correct.

reply from: Carifairy

This is what studies have shown.
Copper is a potent spermicide. Simply having an object in the uterus prevents pregnancy, as there are non hormonal non metal IUD's as well.
The Lippes Loop was a non metal/non hormonal IUD.
The IUD does not 'irritate' the uterine lining, but Copper ions can prevent implantation by making a inhospitable environment.
I will find the study... They did a study that involved uterine flushings. They did not find any fertilized eggs during the flushings, which further supports the 'main' action as spermicidal.
I love the IUD

reply from: Carifairy

http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Network/v16_2/nt1623.htm

This is a study that mentions some info about what I mentioned above.

reply from: sheri

I know im taking a risk when ever i put my kids in the car, however i try never to put them needlessly in harms way. Therefore i put them in a car seat, dont let them sit up front etc. I dont take NEEDLESS risk and never intentionaly put them in harms way.
Useing the pill is like letting your kid sit up front without a seat belt. You are taking an unnessasary risk, It is unnessasary because there is an harmless alternative (NFP), it is a risk because we know the pill can cause abortions.
How often it happens shouldnt matter to a prolifer that it can harm the baby is reason enough to avoid it, that we have a safe alternative should make doing the right thing a no brainer.

reply from: sheri

Careless fey, you shouldnt love anything that has the potential to kill another human being. That is quintessentialy evil.

reply from: faithman

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: Jameberlin

wow, very informative thank you
I do have a question though, how is the environment within the uterus rendered inhospitable without altering or irritating the uterine lining?
Do you know the statistics of the cases in which an IUD failed both as a spermicide and at preventing implantation? I know a couple, personally, who had an IUD in place when the woman became pregnant, they had to have it removed and still managed to have a healthy baby girl (she's 7 now, i think).
Just in case i ever come across as being a brat, i'm not trying to be, i honestly would love to know what you think about these things, and if you have any information to offer me, my moral view on birth control is in flux, but i'm leaning toward not putting anything synthetic into my body unless i absolutely have to.

reply from: Carifairy

It's all good.
I will explain by using some 'history'. Ancient nomadic peoples that lived in the desert would place stones in their camels uterus to prevent pregnancy. There times of intense travel, and pregnancy would not allow them to use the camels for travel.
Simply having the object inside of the uterus prevents pregnancy because IUD itself is a barrier and impedes movement of the egg.
I know of a woman who gave birth to a baby holding an IUD. She had the IUD which stopped periods, and she found out that she was pregnant at 19 weeks.
She was not a thin woman, so it was easily seen to me why she would not suspect pregnancy.

reply from: sheri

J, the good news is you dont have to put any synthetic hormone in your body in order to get very effective results with family planning. you can go to NFPandmore.org to start to learn Natural Family Planning, its free and there is no time like the present to learn.

reply from: Carifairy

I fully support NFP and FAM(FAM allows for barriers during fertile times).
I am more than happy to teach it to women, and to advocate for it's use.
I am not going to tell women WHAT to use though, and act like I know what is best for them.
It is best to arm women with all options, and let her decide what birth control she feels is best for herself and her situation.

reply from: futureshock

This is not a "back-up mechanism", it is a direct result of a menstrual cycle without ovulation.
The only time a woman's uterus is "thinned out" while on the pill is when she DOES NOT OVULATE. If break through ovulation happens, the uterus thickens, so if an egg got fertilized it would implant.
No, it is not obvious that the pill causes abortions, because it doesn't. The menstrual flow is lighter because there is no ovulation. Ovulation is necessary for the uterine lining to thicken.

reply from: sheri

FS, i am not aware of any studies that show that ovulation means a ticker uterine lining, I would be very interested in seeing that , it is hard to find research on this subject. I doubt the one should effect the other however i dont see how it should work that way.

reply from: Carifairy

Galen could also most likely explain it as well.. I believe she does have a background in health care...
The combined pill does not directly 'cause' the uterine lining to thin slightly.. The lack of ovulation is what causes the uterine lining to thin. It does not build up during inovulatory cycles. Similarly to many women with PCOS, who may only ovulate 3-4 times a year, and then only have a period 3-4 times a year. When they do not ovulate their period will not come.
Some women will have spotting in between periods while on the pill, but it is not a sign of ovulation, it is because of the artificial hormones effects on the uterus. I am just using PCOS as an example of how inovulation causes a thinner uterine lining.
The only reason why a woman has a period on the pill is because it is a withdrawal bleed, from lack of hormones. This is why the flow is so light, it is not a natural 'period'.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hormonal birth control didn't harm me at all. Right now I'm waiting for my body to return to normal after taking Depo last October. I only took one dose but I was well aware of how long it takes for the body to readjust afterwards. I've already had some fairly normal periods since then, and I'm just in a dry stage right now for whatever reason. I still get cramps once a month but I haven't had an actual period since May now. I did spot once. I know it's likely I won't be regular until October again, and I'm so thin that my periods were never heavy or long in the first place. BUT I KNEW ALL THIS would happen. I can't understand women who use Depo and then worry when their period doesn't come back right away. It's one of the side effects and it's well known. Good thing I'm not trying to conceive!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It is semantics. I object to killing innocent human beings. It doesn't matter whether that killing is technically an "abortion" or not. I do not advocate prohibition of BC based on the possibility that it might inadvertently cause a newly conceived human being to fail to implant and die because I accept the fact that this would be rare, unintentional, and could be considered "the greater of two evils" since I believe prohibiting BC would result in a higher rate of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore a higher abortion rate.
I simply object to the implied deception in asserting that BC can never cause "abortion" because the woman is technically not pregnant until after implantation. I do not assert that this was your intention, I merely pointed out the fact that this argument is utilized by "pro-choicers" as a dishonest semantic ploy.
Actually Carifairy and Futureshock have given you solid proof bc doesn't cause abortions. Maybe you should listen to them.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No studies!? That's how your body WORKS!!!! Ovulation makes your uterine lining thicken!!!!!!
"The corpus luteum is the solid body formed in the ovaries after the egg has been released into the fallopian tube which continues to grow and divide for a while. After ovulation, the residual follicle transforms into the corpus luteum under the support of the pituitary hormones. This corpus luteum will produce progesterone in addition to estrogens for approximately the next 2 weeks. Progesterone plays a vital role in converting the proliferative endometrium into a secretory lining receptive for implantation and supportive of the early pregnancy."
In other words, after ovulation, the corpus luteum forms. The corpus luteum produces progesterone. Progesterone matures the lining of the endometrium and makes it able to support the life of a baby.
If you do not ovulate, you cannot become pregnant. If you do not ovulate, the lining does not thicken. The lining is not thick because no egg is coming to live in it. You cannot have a thin lining AND ovulate; your body does not work like that. You MUST ovulate to thicken the lining. IF you ovulate the lining WILL thicken and it WILL be able to support a baby.
Hormonal birth control is not abortifacient. Period (lol pun).
[source]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cycle

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Read what I just posted. Weep if you wish. Of course the lining changes! It changes because you don't ovulate!! There couldn't possibly BE a fertilized egg if the lining is thin. And DUH all hormonal birth control does the same thing. What moron doesn't know that? They use different amounts of hormones, but the end goal is to prevent ovulation, which causes all of the other changes that occur.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Wait, do I accept that a human exists before implantation? You're the one who keeps ignoring me saying yes! You're also the one denying that half of you existed before fertilization!!!
Also, your quote says "MAY" , "POSSIBILITY", etc and they probably put it in just to shut up people like you. Aliens MAY have made the crop circles. Nessie the Loch Ness Monster MAY exist.
I have already SHOWN you that bc pills change the lining of the uterus... but it's NOT "to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting". The change occurs because there is not ovulation, so there is no fertilization, and there is no failure to implant.
And no, it's still not an abortion. Even when ANY woman fails to implant (on or off bc) it is not a miscarriage or abortion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's not an issue unless breakthrough ovulation occurs though, is it? If an egg is fertilized, obviously ovulation has occurred, yet hormonal BC still causes thinning of the uterine lining, thus hindering implantation!
NO IT DOESN'T. If ovulation HAPPENS, the lining THICKENS. Period. That's how it works.

reply from: Carifairy

IUD's and birth control *might* prevent implantation, which is correct. It is considered a very rare event. That is correct.
It is also correct that a fertilized egg may not even turn into a zygote, it could become a 'molar pregnancy' or blighted ovum.
Fertilization doe snot guarantee anything, which is why I do not place value at all on a fertilized egg.

reply from: sheri

CP, it is wrong to put your children in harms way deliberatly and unnecessarly. We know the pill can cause the death of a new little person, it doesnt matter to me how often it COULD happen knowing that the possiblity is there is enough to make me ask "is there a better way?" a safer way to get the good of lovemaking without the worry of an unlooked for pregnancy. There is a better way, one that does no harm to mother or child.
If numbers would sway you though why not go to polycarp.org and read the ideas he has there for how often an abortion could happen.

reply from: sheri

Cheerio, you are all wet! I think you have misinterpreted that piece of info you printed. Estogen during the preovulation part of your cycle causes your endometrium to build in anticipation of the possible baby coming, after ovulation the corpus luteum makes progesterone, which MAINTAINS the lining of the uterus, then if a baby is present he will let the yellow body know to continue with the secretion of progesterone, if there is no baby (or one no longer present )then a full surge of estrogen will start your mensus anew.
I think you would benefit from learning NFP i think it would help you understand your body more fully.
Did you know the pill also depleats the endometrium of its sugar supply? that is makes it less nutritous for the new life?

reply from: lukesmom

Jeeze, I thought you were a little tougher than that...shrug.

reply from: Carifairy

Sheri-
DID you know that ALL plan B is is a high dose of progesterone?
It is tricking the body into believing that it already ovulated.... Which is why plan b does not prevent implantation as once thought.

reply from: sheri

What if ovulation has already happened? Plan B is every bit as potentialy harmful to new life as any other BC, more so.

reply from: futureshock

You don't need a study, just a biology textbook.
">http://www.justmommies.com/art...corpus-luteum.shtml[/q

reply from: futureshock

It's not an issue unless breakthrough ovulation occurs though, is it? If an egg is fertilized, obviously ovulation has occurred, yet hormonal BC still causes thinning of the uterine lining, thus hindering implantation!
Prove it.
Here is how that lie got started:

reply from: futureshock

LOL! Many more "abortions" happen in women who are not on any birth control!
9 fertilized eggs/embryos die on average for every successful birth. Most happen before a woman misses her period, so it goes unnoticed. Some are miscarriages in the traditional sense, i.e. embryos that were implanted miscarrying.

reply from: sheri

My Dr has told me that a miscarriage can happen as often as 1 in 3 times.
Your quote from "mommy's.com" would have been more accurate if it had said the progesterone "keeps" the endometium built up. I suppose i could find a statement somewhere to back me up, im so lazy.
I thought you had another point...

reply from: sheri

Ok, the post fertilization effect of the pill, polycarp.org does have studies to back up the abotifatient properties of the pill. It goes into many different studies that go way beyond one drs oppinion.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.polycarp.org/index.htm
http://www.abortionfacts.com/contraceptives/contraceptives.asp
http://www.bcpinstitute.org/steroid_brochure.htm

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Wrong.
If ovulation has already happened, neither birth control nor Plan B will do anything. If you have ovulated, you uterine lining will thicken. If the baby fails to implant then it's just a natural occurance and NOT the fault of the bc or plan b.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Did you miss the part about the corpus luteum darling? It MATURES (words directly from the article) the lining, making it capable of sustaining life. Without it, the lining would not mature and would not be likely to sustain life, though it MIGHT.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's also why pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation. Isn't the statistic something around MOST fertilized eggs failing to implant, even in "natural" couples?

reply from: sheri

I do get your point CP, look at it this way, yes you should allow your child to swim the health benefits out weigh the risks, however if you have the choice of letting your child swim in a pool full of sharks or a pool with a life guard, which would you choose?
i dont want my kids to grow up being reclusive so i take them out in the car, but i drive the uplander not the saturn. It reduces the possiblity of causing harm to one of my kids.
so if you see my point on this your arguement should now be, " but every one CANT use NFP" or "the pill only causes an abortion one out of 1000 times" or (and this is the one my $ is on) youll go with "you believe that because your catholic and im not so i dont!" surprise me-please.

reply from: sheri

Cheerio, if Plan B "doesnt do anything" post ovulation then how does it get such good results? is it possible that everyone who takes it is in the preovulatory stage?
I can understand why a prolifer would fight this truth tooth and toenail, but i am puzzeled why the proaborts care, you just came over from the dark side can you shed some light on this?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Actually yes, it IS possible that most women are in a pre-ovulatory stage OR in a stage where they're already past fertility.
Pro-choicers care because they know there are pro-lifers who hate birth control, but pro-choice knows that the best offense is a good defense. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. A little pill to prevent ovulation is much better than an abortion or an unwanted child.
I repeat that being pro-choice is NOT being pro-abortion. Many pro-choicers wish there was no need for abortion and that unwanted pregnancies never happened. Yeah there are some freaks, and they are loud but few. MOST pro-choicers would love it if abortion became completely unnecessary.
Then again pro-choicers also believe sex is a right, as do I. So while abstinence is a choice, it is not the ONLY choice.

reply from: sheri

Here is a better comparison.
there is a big bridge that trains use to cross the Sugar river, you have the option of walking across the bridge or walking down an enbankment.
Its alot easier and quicker to use the bridge, however it is much more dangerous, the train could come or you could fall to your death.
Walking down is more time intensive and requires some sacrifice but you spend more time with your spouse (whom you should always have with you on the walk) and you dont blame him for putting you in harms way.
Now it hppens that one of your kids could just show up at any time, and be following you as you go, do you continue to cross the bridge or do you go down the safer way?
Maybe crossing the bridge would not be so wrong if you were only putting yourself in harms way, but with the possibility of a kid following you along it would be wrong.
Or if you werent walking with your spouse, but some other guy, maybe you would rather the child not make it all the way across the bridge, but that is wrong to put someone elses life in danger because you "need " to cross the bridge.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Sorry I added more to my post, maybe I clarified myself?

reply from: sheri

Fs, mentioned earlier that most women who have abortions were not using any BC at the time of conception, i will get the stats but i think it was allen gutmachier that stated at least 50% were using a form of BC at the time they conceived.

reply from: Carifairy

Sheri- ALL PLan B is, is a dose of progesterone. IF progesterone thickens the uterine lining, how would you explain PLAN B as an abortion?
PLAN B simply stops ovulation, if you take it too late, it does nothing. You are basically out of luck..
Sheri- PLAN B does not actually get such good results.. I will find a study

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The train is proven to come. The pill is NOT proven to prevent implantation. This is not a better comparison.
Is walking down dangerous too? It must be (pregnancy has risks). There's mud down in the ditch, and possible lethal diseases, though these are rare and balanced in risk to the possibility of a train coming along off-schedule, which is also rare.
I'd personally know when the train came (since they have schedules just like the human body) and I wouldn't cross the bridge when trains were due to come. The bridge is also a LOT OF FUN to cross and gives a beautiful view of the sunset that you just don't get down in the ditch. I feel a wonderful connection with my mate when we walk across the bridge together.
You can hear the train coming (your body gives signals as you approach fertility) so there is time to get out of the way and not cross the bridge (abstain) if you see the train coming.
That doesn't even make any sense.

reply from: sheri

No plan B is a "huge amount of hormone" as my pharmasist put it. It causes abortion in the same way the pill does. only with greater efficacy because of the greater amount.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I. Am. Going. To. Go. Bang. My. Head. On. The. Wall.

reply from: sheri

Actually Cheerio,
sugar river - sex
the bridge - the pill
the embankment - NFP
I apolagize for not stating that in a better way, i wanted to make it very clear and only muddied the water.
Now the pill has been proven to thin the lining of the uterus and we know it is harder for new life to implant in such an enviroment. the only thing in question is how often and is the benefit worth the risk.
we know the pill thins the uterine lining because it can be measured with ultrasound and practicle experience.
We know a thinner lining is a bad place for a baby to implant because of studies done by reserchers looking to get better results for their in vitro clients.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You are forgetting WHY the pill thins the lining. You are only interpreting it in the wrong way and not listening to all the facts. I'm sorry. You only want to hear what you believe. If the lining is thin it is because there was no ovulation. The pill does not thin the lining in any other way. HOW do you explain the thinning if NOT because of the lack of ovulation? You can't. It's the lack of ovulation that makes the lining thin.

reply from: sheri

Good. Maybe. That. Will. Knock. Some. Sense. Into. Your. Thick skull.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yours, I hope. Nothing you say in this thread makes sense.

reply from: yoda

You can repeat it until you are blue in the face, and still be WRONG!
pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html

pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813
pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion

reply from: nancyu

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1634/36/

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Those of us who are NOT Catholic, and therefore NOT forbidden to use birth control other than NFP, are well aware of the risks involved. However, we feel that it is in our best interests to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies rather than to have unwanted children, or worse yet, face the choice of whether of not to have an abortion.
Nearly every woman I know has used the pill or other "chemical" birth control method and none of them has had health issues or fertility problems.
As a matter of fact, when I decided it was time to have a child, I stopped taking the pill and got pregant 2 weeks later. If I was that fertile, it's a good thing that I used the pill - otherwise I would have had quite a few children!

reply from: yoda

Is that what the dictionary definitions say? Are the words "FAVOUR" or "PREFER" in any of those definitions?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"pro-choice (pr?-chois')
adj. Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term. "
(American Heritage Dictionary)

reply from: yoda

Right... nothing in there about "favoring" or "prefering" abortion...
And that matches the dictionary definition of "proabortion", btw.....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You can repeat it until you are blue in the face, and still be WRONG!
And you could bother to read the rest of that post you quoted, oh King-Of-Out-Of-Context-Quoting.

reply from: nancyu

I suppose you think it is terrible to have alot of children? It's a good thing my mother didn't take the pill or I (the youngest of 9) wouldn't be here. (I know some here who think that would have been a good thing) Living in a big family was great. There was no such thing as boredom in our house. My mother said it was easier with more children. The older ones helped out with us younger ones. I remember her saying "there is always room for one more" No one seems to have that attitude anymore. More seem to think of children as an unfortunate inconvenience unless circumstances are perfect. I think that's pretty sad.

reply from: sheri

We always had a good time growing up too. I am the 2nd in a line of 10, however my parents recognized that having a large family is not possible for everyone so they also taught NFP for 30 years. I think the pill contributes to an anti family society, It is not good in so many different ways.

reply from: nancyu

I agree with you sheri. Though I doubt the pill can be outlawed, I would like to see a society that wasn't so in need of controlling every aspect of life--including when and which children are allowed to be born.

reply from: carolemarie

I suppose you think it is terrible to have alot of children? It's a good thing my mother didn't take the pill or I (the youngest of 9) wouldn't be here. (I know some here who think that would have been a good thing) Living in a big family was great. There was no such thing as boredom in our house. My mother said it was easier with more children. The older ones helped out with us younger ones. I remember her saying "there is always room for one more" No one seems to have that attitude anymore. More seem to think of children as an unfortunate inconvenience unless circumstances are perfect. I think that's pretty sad.
Did you have a big family as well?

reply from: Jameberlin

I suppose you think it is terrible to have alot of children? It's a good thing my mother didn't take the pill or I (the youngest of 9) wouldn't be here. (I know some here who think that would have been a good thing) Living in a big family was great. There was no such thing as boredom in our house. My mother said it was easier with more children. The older ones helped out with us younger ones. I remember her saying "there is always room for one more" No one seems to have that attitude anymore. More seem to think of children as an unfortunate inconvenience unless circumstances are perfect. I think that's pretty sad.
I think people should have as many children as they are able to care for, love is not a finite resource, and children continue our culture and way of life. Large families are often stigmatized, and that is sad... I have known many large families who were so much happier than smaller ones. I agree with you, that it is terrible when children are viewed as a stain on society. Those that claim children make people unhappy are full of it, it's society that teaches us to be unhappy if we have responsibilities to anything. I, personally, am a better and happier person since becoming a mother.

reply from: yoda

Been there, done that, you're still wrong and the dictionary is still right.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

If a couple chooses to have a big family, that's their CHOICE. I CHOSE to have two children (good thing, as we could barely afford them) and I really would not have wanted 8 or 10 C-sections. Actually, women who are limited to C-sections are not supposed to have very many of them - I recall that doctors recommend no more then three. The major surgery is quite hard on the body, and the anesthesia can be dangerous.
If you have the means to raise a large brood, go for it. My father was from a large (very poor) family and my mom is an only child. They CHOSE to have 3 children and it worked out quite well.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics