The Pill Can Cause Abortions

Actually, fertilized eggs do still fail to implant even in women who are not on oral contraceptives. It is believed that this occurs MORE frequently in women not using OCs than in women who do. You might find these articles published by the Association of Pro-Life Physicians informative:

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/calculations.htm

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm

MANY years ago, before I was a Christian I got my birth control pills through Planned Parenthood…why? Because that is what all the women I knew did. I was NEVER told of any dangers in taking the pill. We conceived within 2-3 days of me stopping the pill. Our baby was full term and died 2 days after her birth due to many birth defects.

I had a friend that was an OB nurse and she ‘suggested’ that the pill may have caused her problems, and that I’d never find a doctor to agree with that because it is too big of a money maker for doctors.

So THAT may be why you cannot find information other than Christians.

BTW, our family doctor will not prescribe birth control pills. :o)

“there must be plenty of documented, REAL proof about the abortifacient properties of certain BC.”

The way you use “must” in that sentence makes me think you’ve not seen the primary research either but i could just be over-analyzing your wording.

I’m not saying I disagree with your stance on birth control. I’ve never used the pill although I do track my cycle-i dont know if that counts in this discussion.

Maybe I spent too many years in academia but I like to see the primary info for myself. I like to see the methodology and statistics-call me a nerd. That way I can better understand what is going on without the “spin” and can better relate that info to others.

“More and more doctors are refusing to prescribe it.”

This is an argument from popularity. If arguments from popularity were persuasive, we would all be contracepting because contracepting is more popular than not contracepting.

Here’s one I just found–simple goole search…took about 30 seconds. I’ve read many, many, I just couldn’t document earlier that they were all “non-religious” in nature.

http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm

I don’t think this one has a religious bias…but I didn’t read the whole thing.

Any site entitled Good Morals is not a medical research site and shows its bias immediately.

Janet Smith is a Dr of Philosphy; she is not a scientist, a doctor, or reseacher. Her work focuses on humanae Vitae and she teaches at a catholic seminary.

I would most certainly call that religious bias.

The New American is publication of the John Birch Society, a political action group that is in no way involved in medical research.

When I say primary research I mean that I’d like to read the paper written by the scientists/researchers who actually worked on this project.

These resources do not provide primary info.

I used the pill for the few years of marriage. I had never heard anything about it and abortion. My husband even worked with two pregnancy support centers (anti-abortion) and we were told to use the pill. I really thought it was safe and prevented ovulation. After having severe pain, I went for an emergency appointment, to discover that I’d ovulated while on the pill (in my case, causing the pain.) The doctor advised me to “take two pills tonight so you won’t get pregnant.” That statement made me and my husband so sick that we investigated the pill. So two pills could prevent implantation? After reading the Randy Alcorn book, I couldn’t take it anymore. I felt too convicted.

I am open to the children that God sends me now. It’s been a long journey to feel that way. I had a difficult pregnancy with my daughter, was unable to breastfeed, and we have used FAM to give my body some time to recover. I will probably use FAM again if I am unable to breastfeed the next baby. But I won’t be using the pill again.

“…but at the the bottom are tons of resources that are not Christian perspectives.”

You may want to investigate those resources more closely. 10 of them are from religious organizations/proponents. 1 of them is an all natural living website. None of the journal articles address this issue directly.

I’m not debating whether these claims are true or false. I’d like to but I can’t. Why? Because I can’t find the info I need to do so and that, to me, is suspicious.

Everyone go back up to Lisa’post, please. What does it say? That implantation often does not happen even in women who do not contracept.

My point is, if this happens at such a high rate(click her links for the numbers) among non-pill takers how do we know the pill causes or makes it more likely in women who do take it. I don’t know because I can’t find the research to support this assertion.

The PDR references changes it the lining of the uterus long known to occur among those who take the pill. It in no way addresses the issue of the rate or frequency of non-implantation in contraceptors vs non-contraceptors.

Again, I’ll say: If this happens in non-pill users as such a high rate (per lisa’s post) and we have no clear evidence to suggest that the pill causes this at an even higher rate, I, cannot in good conscience go around saying I believe this to be true.

I don’t think I require too much evidence. I simply want to know why I believe what I believe. Don’t you?

If this (that the pill causes higher rates of non-implantation than would happen by natural means) is true I’ll shout it from the rooftops but until I know that it is I can’t do that. To me saying something I don’t know to be true reeks of bearing false witness.

Since Anonymous asked, I’ve done some more digging. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists published this article in 1999 (which was referenced in the article I posted above): http://www.aaplog.org/decook.htm, which concludes that proponents of the pill as an abortificient have not sufficiently studied the way oral contraceptives affect the endometrium lining — primarily because it is very difficult to identify significant test groups who are ovulating while using the pill.

Regarding the failure of fertilized eggs to implant among non-pill users, it’s called “chemical pregnancy,” and there’s lots of general information on that. Just a few links:

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/onetimemiscarriages/p/chemicalpreg.htm

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400375/What-is-a-Chemical-Pregnancy.html

http://www.sharedjourney.com/chemandfert.html

Presumably, the original article I linked to concluded that the rate of implantation failure is lower among pill users than non-pill users BECAUSE the pill does, most often, stop ovulation.

Also, it is important to remember that not all pills work the same way — there are estrogen only pills, progestin only pills, combination estrogen/progestin pills. To state broadly that “the pill can cause abortions” is to make a sweeping generalization.

I had heard this before but never in the light that it has been presented here. Thank you for this information. I was considering the pill but now I have changed my mind

I think anonymous #1 has a valid point. She is asking for valid proof. I would like to second her request. I need to see the primary source info.

Kelly, you can’t just brush aside her honest inquiry by doing a quick Google search. This cheapens your argument and betrays a certain laziness of scholarship.

Kelly, these things require substantive and gentle discussion backed up by honest, solid evidence.

Your overly zealous rhetoric drowns out what might be a valid point: that BC pills are abortifacients. But until I can actually read true evidence, I’m not going to be convinced by some YouTube video.

I’d like to point out that you don’t have to go far to find out if the pill is abortifacient or not. I’ve actually held a box of chemical contraceptive in my hand, taken out and read the sheet of medical indications for the drug, and found that RIGHT IN THE BOX they tell you exactly how the contraceptive is abortifacient.

Since I no longer have the box, I’ll quote from the website for Yasmin:

“Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of
gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action
is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in
the cervical mucus (which increases the difficulty of sperm entry
into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood
of implantation).”

This info can be found at the following link:
http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/fhc/Yasmin_PI.pdf

This is from the Mirena website:

“The local mechanism by which continuously released levonorgestrel
enhances contraceptive effectiveness of the IUS has not been
conclusively demonstrated. Studies of MIRENA prototypes have
suggested several mechanisms that prevent pregnancy: thickening
of cervical mucus preventing passage of sperm into the
uterus, inhibition of sperm capacitation or survival, and alteration of the endometrium.”

That info can be found here:
http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/Mirena_PI.pdf?C=&c=

My point is that in order to find out if a chemical is abortifacient, it doesn’t take looking at an actual medical study. The manufacturers of the pill have done the medical studies, and by law, they have to disclose how their product works. Find the pill or injection’s website, go to the physican’s prescribing information, and look (usually) on the very first page of the document under “Clinical Pharmacology” and the information is right there.

The only way you can really argue that chemical birth control isn’t abortifacient is if we have a differing view of what abortion is. If we do, we can definitely discuss that.