Is there deffinitive proof the pill or any form of ABC is an abortifacient?


#1

Hi there-
I was on another post about NFP and I thought it might be good to begin a post about this topic. I am in NO WAY trying to get a fight begun here or anything - I just thought it would be a good topic. I know this is a Catholic forum, but I would prefer (if you don’t mind) that proof in the form of “because I heard a priest or bishop or someone say it is” to not be used as “proof” as I believe that goes more towards hearsay.

God Bless
Rye


#2

The closest thing I have found to "proof" that the pill is an abortifacient has been an argument that goes something like this: (gotten from various articles)
in one year the rate of ovulation for women using the pill has been around 26-27 per 100 - yet the rate of pregnancy is closer to 3.6 (basically 4) per 100 of those women using the pill for a year.
Since there is such a large discrepancy between the amount of ovulations and the amount of pregnancies (those found) we have to ask what has happened to cause so few pregnancies - the answer seems to surmized that although fertilization may have occured, something has caused some of these pregnancies not to implant in the womb - so some come to the opinion that the difference in numbers has to be the pill stopping these fertilizations from becoming implanted embryos and therefore the pill must have kept the fertilized egg from implanting - implying an abortifacient quality. (quality meaning ability - not saying there is a positive to that)-

This has been what I have been told and read about in different articles, but one of the reasons I wanted to begin this is because I have yet to see definitive proof. This argument in no way puts forward any scientific proof - only assumptions.

I really would like to hear anyone else's "proof" - especially scientific proof proving that a fertilized egg has been "aborted".

God Bless
Rye


#3

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

accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2005/021690lbl.pdf

From the insert of one of the Pill Brands


#4

[quote="Mary_Gail_36, post:3, topic:253415"]
accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2005/021690lbl.pdf

From the insert of one of the Pill Brands

[/quote]

Thank you for putting that up - but note it doesn't say it deffinately does, it just says it may increase the liklihood. I have asked two GYN's on this and they have both said it is possible but that they have never seen proof of it.

God Bless
Rye


#5

You can read in any pill insert that it changes the endometrial lining to make implantation unlikely. Therefore, the newly fertilized egg- now a new human made in the image and likeness of God- is aborted.


#6

[quote="ryecroft, post:4, topic:253415"]
Thank you for putting that up - but note it doesn't say it deffinately does, it just says it may increase the liklihood. I have asked two GYN's on this and they have both said it is possible but that they have never seen proof of it.

God Bless
Rye

[/quote]

"may be possible" - are you willing to gamble the life of your unborn child on that? And they would never see evidence of this. Eggs are typical reaching implantation stage around day six after fertilization. The tiny new human would be flushed away and no one would be the wiser.


#7

Hi ryecroft,

Here is Randy Alcorn's article on the subject:

epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/17/short-condensation-does-birth-control-pill-cause-a/

In short, that the pill is an abortion agent is not speculation based on a comparison of ovulation and pregnancy rates for women on the pill. It is an established fact. As kristacecilia said, we know with certainty that the pill weakens the endometrial lining, and that that weakening kills some embryos. The pill is unquestionably an abortion again.


#8

I wonder myself if this has been proven. You have to take into consideration the fact that about 50 per cent of fertilized eggs fail to implant (when women are not on the pill). I also read somewhere that the pill suppresses ovulation around 95 per cent of the time. If a woman on the pill had a fertilized egg that failed to implant, she probably wouldn’t know the difference. If she could somehow tell that this had happened, she wouldn’t know whether or not the same thing would have happened if she had NOT been on the pill.

If you don’t have any knowledge that something has happened, how can you be guilty of that? It’s almost like saying that there is a slim chance that my toddler will die in a car accident if I take her for a ride in the car, therefore I should never take my toddler for a ride in a car. However, if your toddler died in a car accident, at least you would know that it happened!


#9

This is not something that there is likely to be any definitive medical study of - there will be no study that aims to measure with certainty whether or how often this occurs. It would be highly unethical, not to mention highly invasive and possibly out of the reach of any current technology to detect. Also there is no money to be made in such a study. The pills are already on the market with FDA approval. The drug companies would not want to fund any research that might make their drugs less appealing to people. This is also not the type of study that would get public funding. Even from the point of view of the church or any pro-life group interested in answering this basic question - there would be no ethical way to conduct this study.


#10

Think about this, bear with me with this random analogy, if you had an open window with your child playing in front of it with a safety net outside, and you knew your child could fall out the window onto the safety net, would you purposefully make holes in the net to make it malfunction, since there is no proof they will fall out?


#11

This is a GREAT page that discusses this issue:

ccli.org/contraception/mdexplains.php

I encourage you to READ the entire thing… it’s long, so I won’t quote… but there are specific studies noted that have shown:

  1. That the pill DOES cause the endometrial layer to be thinner.
  2. That thinner endometrial layers do in fact decrease the chances of implantation (studies mostly done for in-vitro fertilization).

HTH!


#12

Listener--

It is established medical fact that the pill thins the endometrial layer, and that this thinning causes some embryos to fail to implant and die which would otherwise implant and survive. In other words, there is no question that the pill kills children.

If a woman on the pill had a fertilized egg that failed to implant, she probably wouldn't know the difference.

Correct. A woman using the pill could kill her own child and never know it. That's one of the more terrifying things I've heard in my life.

If she could somehow tell that this had happened, she wouldn't know whether or not the same thing would have happened if she had NOT been on the pill.

If you don't have any knowledge that something has happened, how can you be guilty of that? It's almost like saying that there is a slim chance that my toddler will die in a car accident if I take her for a ride in the car, therefore I should never take my toddler for a ride in a car. However, if your toddler died in a car accident, at least you would know that it happened!

Rather, it is like there is a 20 ft. pit outside of your house, and you know that every once in a while a child gets pushed into it. You decide to put spikes at the bottom of the pit. But because you don't actually know when a child gets pushed in, and you know a child might miss the spikes, and you know children sometimes die even without the spikes, you aren't guilty of murder, right? Of course not right. The same goes for the pill.


#13

The IUD also works as an abortifacient:
ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CCLIUD.TXT
physiciansforlife.org/content/view/182/36/

And as an aside, Ryecroft, could you please choose dark colored fonts to write in, those light lavendar colors are VERY hard to read!!! Please!!!:o


#14

Rye -
I beg you!

Stop using that illegible pale-violet font.
Have mercy on us!!!

As for your question, the answers can even be googled.
Enter “abortifacient contraception.”


#15

[quote="Listener, post:8, topic:253415"]
I wonder myself if this has been proven. You have to take into consideration the fact that about 50 per cent of fertilized eggs fail to implant (when women are not on the pill). I also read somewhere that the pill suppresses ovulation around 95 per cent of the time. If a woman on the pill had a fertilized egg that failed to implant, she probably wouldn't know the difference. If she could somehow tell that this had happened, she wouldn't know whether or not the same thing would have happened if she had NOT been on the pill.

If you don't have any knowledge that something has happened, how can you be guilty of that? It's almost like saying that there is a slim chance that my toddler will die in a car accident if I take her for a ride in the car, therefore I should never take my toddler for a ride in a car. However, if your toddler died in a car accident, at least you would know that it happened!

[/quote]

But by taking the pill, you are changing the lining on purpose so that it has less of a chance to implant. So even if you ovulate while on the pill and the embryo implants, aren't you somewhat culpable for trying to make implantation fail?

It's kind of like shooting a gun at someone, and having it miss, and saying you've done nothing wrong because you failed to hit your target.


#16

It depends on the type and strength of the pill you are taking. Some only thin the lining, and others actually have enough hormone in them to actually stop ovulation. I have a cousins with HORRIBLE ovarian cycsts, and they actually used the pill to stop her ovulating for a time to allow the cycsts to go down enough for her to be taken off the pill and get pregnant. It really depends on each person and the type of pill.

That being said long term use of hormones in this manner is not safe and has been pinked to a number of cancers. I'm LCMS, and have no issue with barrier birth control, but I would never advocate using the pill for anything other than treating a medical problem.


#17

It depends on the type and strength of the pill you are taking. Some only thin the lining, and others actually have enough hormone in them to actually stop ovulation.

I don't think this is correct. Virtually all oral contraceptives both suppress ovulation (most of the time) and thin the endometrial lining. I'm confident there is no pill that suppress ovulation with 100% effectiveness, and Randy Alcorn confirms in the link I posted below that virtually all oral contraceptives on the market thin the endometrial lining.


#18

I apologize about the font - it’s not showing up on my computer for some reason - everything is just showing up black…
God Bless Rye


#19

I appreciate all the feedback - and everything I’ve read has said “likely” or “could” or uses other words that cause someone to have to try to come to an assumption. Perhaps I should have entitled this “honesty about abortifacient possibilities with regards to the pill” and I understand that many of you out there want to go with this assumption if for no other reason than to be on the side of caution and I respect that. I guess (and I mean no sarcasm or offense here) -that I wish (not unlike the NFP post that I started this seperate thread because of)- that I wish if people were going to give “facts” that they would give them factually - instead of saying the pill IS an abortifacient - I wish people would follow what even the manufacturer of the pill has done and say ""the pill “may” or “could” cause a fertilized egg not to implant in a woman therefore we believe it to be an abortifacient…"
No one seems to mention that this possible “breakthrough ovulation” (which would be required for this to even be a possibility) isn’t a possibility with all types of the pill.
One of the reasons I’m so nit picky about this is because I have seen what pro choice has done as far as skewing the semantics (for want of a nice way to put it) - I feel like as Catholics we are held to a higher expectation of honesty -
And with this situation, I have seen so many articles and people talking about the pill being an abortifacient and making it sound like every month a woman is taking “the pill” she’s causing an abortion -
I am not criticizing anyone’s choice to be on the pill or use NFP or an IUD or do nothing and allow pregnancies as they arrive - whatever someone does is between them, their spouse or (in some cases significant other) and God.

God Bless
Rye


#20

[quote="ryecroft, post:19, topic:253415"]
I appreciate all the feedback - and everything I've read has said "likely" or "could" or uses other words that cause someone to have to try to come to an assumption. Perhaps I should have entitled this "honesty about abortifacient possibilities with regards to the pill" and I understand that many of you out there want to go with this assumption if for no other reason than to be on the side of caution and I respect that. I guess (and I mean no sarcasm or offense here) -that I wish (not unlike the NFP post that I started this seperate thread because of)- that I wish if people were going to give "facts" that they would give them factually - instead of saying the pill IS an abortifacient - I wish people would follow what even the manufacturer of the pill has done and say ""the pill "may" or "could" cause a fertilized egg not to implant in a woman therefore we believe it to be an abortifacient..."
No one seems to mention that this possible "breakthrough ovulation" (which would be required for this to even be a possibility) isn't a possibility with all types of the pill.
One of the reasons I'm so nit picky about this is because I have seen what pro choice has done as far as skewing the semantics (for want of a nice way to put it) - I feel like as Catholics we are held to a higher expectation of honesty -
And with this situation, I have seen so many articles and people talking about the pill being an abortifacient and making it sound like every month a woman is taking "the pill" she's causing an abortion -
I am not criticizing anyone's choice to be on the pill or use NFP or an IUD or do nothing and allow pregnancies as they arrive - whatever someone does is between them, their spouse or (in some cases significant other) and God.

God Bless
Rye

[/quote]

If you know anything about statistics, then you know that this has to happen at least occasionally. We can't tell you how often or if it will for a fact happen to a specific person (just like we can't tell someone that they will 100% get pregnant) there is however a statistical probability that it will happen to some people some of the time. As it is true that the Pill does not always prevent ovulation (see Pill failures, ie pregnancies) and it has also been medically proven that the pill thins the lining of the uterus and this thinning decreases the likelihood that an embryo will implant. Thus if you add up the probabilities of ovulation on the pill as well as fertilization, and chance of maintaining the pregnancies, the statistics would show that babies/embryos will die because of the changes the pill brings to the uterus.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.