Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Abortifacient Oral Contraceptives
Show More
Loading...
Flag etsryan December 17, 2008 12:02 AM EST
http://www.epm.org/media-files/pdf/bcpill.pdf

I am in the process of perusing this myself and will post comments/excerpts.  Several medical professional endorsements are included.  First published in 1997, current version 2007
Flag etsryan December 17, 2008 1:14 AM EST
p.s.  The author invites feedback on the website and promises to correct any information proven false - especially if evidence is from primary sources - in future additions.
Flag Marysara722 December 17, 2008 1:21 AM EST

etsryan wrote:

http://www.epm.org/media-files/pdf/bcpill.pdf

I am in the process of perusing this myself and will post comments/excerpts. Several medical professional endorsements are included. First published in 1997, current version 2007



Randy Alcorn EtSue?

Really come on now, surely you can do better than that.

The dude is not even a medical expert.

Please, at least try to provide a non-bias something, anything from a legit
medical source-- but NOT a piece of diatribe by Alcorn.

:rolleyes:

Flag etsryan December 17, 2008 2:44 AM EST
so the endorsements from the medical pros who have reviewed his work mean nothing MS?

I don't know Randy A from a hill of beans.  I am reading this link for the first time myself believe it or not.

an eleven year old document that has been revised eight times is not professional or unbiased enough?  I believe many intelligent and capable people do not have PhD, M.D., OB/GYN or even B.S. or B.A. after their names.  Someone who takes the time to research and document and revise isn't a slouch to me.

Got some feedback about the people who have endorsed this work, MarySara?

Even if this evidence is factual and proves oral contraceptives are abortifacient - as the Roman Catholic church has insisted for years BTW, that doesn't mean that women won't be able to use them since they are legally available and if there is demand will probably continue to be.  Perhaps a non abortifacient oral contraceptive will be developed or a male pill...  not that i am endorsing those.
Flag becca97 December 17, 2008 4:23 AM EST
:rolleyes: i noticed a few of the 'endorsments' are from xtians .... not precicly 'unbiased' ---- and as i beleive BM asked you on another thread - are you seriously arguing AGAINST BC? If so HOW if at all do you feel this will help reduce 'direct abortions'?

bx
Flag etsryan December 17, 2008 5:02 AM EST
I and others have a problem with oral contraceptive actually being abortions themselves,  Newer technology may allow better research into how many implantation interferences are happening when using oc.  By claiming religious folks with bias cannot know scientific facts/truths, I feel you and others are discriminating/entertaining prejudice.  I would think you and others would like to know the truth about bc/oc and the abortifacient qualities and frequencies so even if you continue to use these products, it will be with accurate information rather than guesswork.  Also, if bc/oc is abortifacient and is proven to be, you and others can make up your mind/s if you wish to continue using bc/oc and have full info to go on...unless you/others prefer to stay/be ignorant?  I suppose smokers don't really like hearing about lung damage from tobacco and other smoked substances, but i believe they have a right to know since the info is pertinent to them/their health.  Whether or not they/you listen to what I and others are saying, trying to give evidence of/prove is another matter.  Are you listening?  Are you willing to listen/hear?  Can I tell you the whole story?  Do you think you can handle it/the Truth?  (I am asking myself this as well.)  Do you think some of it might break your heart/be upsetting?  Do I?  I think it might.  I am bracing myself as I get up the courage to face more of the facts that may be hidden - some intentionally...

by the way, the term xtians is somewhat offensive and possibly bigoted/against ROC?...to me.
Flag newsjunkie December 17, 2008 12:09 PM EST
I have addressed this topic on threads here in the past. I have found no scientific studies that can conclusively show that birth control pills, in and of themselves, prevent implantation. BCP makers try to make their users feel more confident about the efficacy of the hormonal contraception by citing research showing that the pills alter the endometrium (lining of the uterus). Other studies suggest that implantation is more difficult if the endometrial lining is thinner. But NO studies show that BCPs prevent implantation. The failure rate of BCPs argue against this effect. Women do get pregnant while on the pill, so obviously their embryos were able to implant.

Another problem with these claims is the 50-70% of embryos fail to implant in women who are NOT on BCPs. With such a high rate of implantation failure that is simply natural, it would be extremely difficult to ever show that BCPs cause failure to implant.

So I think that claims that BCPs are abortifacient are based on very shaky science.

This article, found on the website of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, goes into the claim that BCPs are abortifacient more extensively. They conclude

An extensive review of pertinent scientific writings indicates that there is no credible evidence to validate a mechanism of pre-implantation abortion as a part of the action of hormone contraceptives. On the contrary, the existing evidence indicates that "on pill" conceptions are handled by the reproductive system with the same results seen with "off pill" conceptions, with the exception of increased ectopic rates seen with POPs and Norplant.

Source: http://www.aaplog.org/decook.htm



Normally I wouldn't cite a source like the one above (which lists the authors as "four Christian ProLife Obstericians/Gynecologists"), but it does agree with other things I've read, I'm pressed for time, and etsryan is PL, so perhaps she will appreciate this view from PL physicians.

Flag mountain_man December 17, 2008 1:16 PM EST
[QUOTE=etsryan;962065]so the endorsements from the medical pros who have reviewed his work mean nothing MS?


They are meaningless.

I don't know Randy A from a hill of beans...


You should if you are going to use him as a source.

an eleven year old document that has been revised eight times is not professional or unbiased enough? ....


No, Have it published in a peer reviewed medical journal and then it will be professional and unbiased enough.

Even if this evidence is factual and proves oral contraceptives are abortifacient


So what if they are?

as the Roman Catholic church has insisted for years....[/QUOTE]
I could not care less what any church has to say about any issue. What others do is none of their business.

Flag mountain_man December 17, 2008 1:19 PM EST
[QUOTE=etsryan;962141]I and others have a problem with oral contraceptive actually being abortions themselves, ....


Fine. Then don't take them. What others do is none of your business.

by the way, the term xtians is somewhat offensive and possibly bigoted/against ROC?...to me.[/QUOTE]
You won't have any luck with that. "Xtians" has been in use for centuries. It's an abbreviation, and is in now way, by any reasonable person, considered to be insulting.

Flag RiverMoonlady December 17, 2008 1:44 PM EST
Randy Alcorn is a pastor, writer of Christian books and head of a ministry.  His degree is in Bible and he has no scientific training that would enable him to write knowledgeably about birth control pills or any other medical issues.
Flag Tmarie64 December 17, 2008 1:47 PM EST
[QUOTE=christiangal;962932]I can't fathom anyone that wants to see the number of abortions decline advocating against birth control.  You leave the woman with no other options at that point.  Women should have low-cost access to birth control if they want it.[/QUOTE]

Then you have never met a "can't think anything but what the church puts in my head" Catholic.
Flag becca97 December 17, 2008 2:19 PM EST
[QUOTE=etsryan;962141]I and others have a problem with oral contraceptive actually being abortions themselves,  Newer technology may allow better research into how many implantation interferences are happening when using oc.  By claiming religious folks with bias cannot know scientific facts/truths, I feel you and others are discriminating/entertaining prejudice.



No i am simply saying that ANY group who has an especial prejudice in a particular issue can NOT be taken as an endorsment without taking into account their biases ... imho if scientists who had no particular investment in the issue of abortion, birth control and so on where to explore, review and comment on this research it woudl have more ACADEMIC validity.

how many more times do i have say i am looking at this from an ACADEMIC pov NOT a prejudicial or discriminatory pov; and academically speaking ignoring heavily biased sources and/or endorsments is viewed as lazy research.

[QUOTE]I would think you and others would like to know the truth about bc/oc and the abortifacient qualities and frequencies so even if you continue to use these products, it will be with accurate information rather than guesswork.[/QUOTE] 

i do want accurate information HENCE a wish for sources and endorsments for sources that are NOT heavily biased in the abortions and BC issue.

[QUOTE]Also, if bc/oc is abortifacient and is proven to be, you and others can make up your mind/s if you wish to continue using bc/oc and have full info to go on...unless you/others prefer to stay/be ignorant? [/QUOTE]

It is precicly BECAUSE i do not wish to be ignorant tha ti apply RIGOROUS criticla analysis to sources and heavily biased sources are NOT reliable by any stretch of the imagination.

[QUOTE]I suppose smokers don't really like hearing about lung damage from tobacco and other smoked substances, but i believe they have a right to know since the info is pertinent to them/their health. [/QUOTE]

and source form ardent anti smoking orgs is heavily biased, sources from more neutral folks are more liekly ot be balanced and accurate.

[QUOTE]Whether or not they/you listen to what I and others are saying, trying to give evidence of/prove is another matter.  Are you listening?  Are you willing to listen/hear?  Can I tell you the whole story?  Do you think you can handle it/the Truth?  (I am asking myself this as well.)  Do you think some of it might break your heart/be upsetting?  Do I?  I think it might.  I am bracing myself as I get up the courage to face more of the facts that may be hidden - some intentionally...[/QUOTE]

heavily biased source are NOT the place to look if one GENUINLY seeks the 'truth' behind these complex social issues a) PEER REVIEWED journals are a good start, many are now published online, some even available for free via google scholar searches b) yes i'm listening, to both you and ot my experience all be it limited in comparison to someone like paula that tells me heavily biased sources are deeply unreliable and aught not be relied upon if one seeks 'truth' whatever 'truth' may be.

by the way, the term xtians is somewhat offensive and possibly bigoted/against ROC?...to me.[/QUOTE]

tell my priest/vicar friends that they use it themselves and in parish newsletters all of the time, indeed it was from them and other christian friends that i picked up the term in general usage. *shrug*

bx

Flag MysticWanderer December 17, 2008 2:59 PM EST
As a simpl;ification we will liimit the discussion to estrogen/progetstin or combination OCP's.  These p[ills is taken PROPERLY have a 99% effectiveness at preventing ovulation.  However if one pill is missed in the first or second week the effectivenss drops to abvout 95% and if two sequential pills are missed in the first 2 weeks it drops to about 90%.  Hence the r3commendation to use another form of BC.  If the very samll chance ovulation does occur then the back up plans kick in.  First under the OCP the cervical mucus is very thick to block sperm.
Second the tubal motility to convey the sperm to the egg and vice versa is inhibited.  Finally the lining of the utertus is thinned.
Flag Sailorlal79 December 17, 2008 8:48 PM EST
The Pill is one of the easiest, cheapest and effective forms of birth control available, while also providing those of us with menstrual disorders great relief. I think you're really splitting hards, ets, worrying about the tiny chance that the Pill may abort a fetus.  A bad fall could abort the fetus too- should we ban pregnant women from walking around?
Flag Sailorlal79 December 17, 2008 8:48 PM EST
The Pill is one of the easiest, cheapest and effective forms of birth control available, while also providing those of us with menstrual disorders great relief. I think you're really splitting hards, ets, worrying about the tiny chance that the Pill may abort a fetus.  A bad fall could abort the fetus too- should we ban pregnant women from walking around?
Flag DGMelby December 18, 2008 6:28 AM EST
[QUOTE=christiangal;962932]I can't fathom anyone that wants to see the number of abortions decline advocating against birth control.  You leave the woman with no other options at that point.  Women should have low-cost access to birth control if they want it.[/QUOTE]It is the pro-life movement's opposition to the BC pill that really convinces me that the movement' isn't about the preservation of life, but conservative Christian sexual morality.  Most of the other stunts by the pro-life movement makes me suspicious as it is, but that is the smoking gun.

Given the high rate of failure to implant in nature, and the fact that the BC pill isn't 100% effective even when used correctly, the pro-life movement's claim that the BC is an abortificant is absurd.
Flag DGMelby December 18, 2008 6:44 AM EST
Also, isn't calling any form of contraception that prevents implantation an abortifacient an oxymoron?

Abortifacients terminate a pregnancy.  Pregnancy begins with the implantation of the zygote in the uterine lining.
Flag DGMelby December 19, 2008 4:52 AM EST
Yes, I am aware that there are people who are pro-life and are moderates.  There are people who are pro-choice and are moderates as well.

But everything I've read from both movements indicates that it isn't the moderates that are leading both groups.  It's the extremists.  It may have been the Catholic Church that first decided to attack the birth control pill by calling it an abortifacient, but Evangelical leaders, and other leading conservative Protestants, were very quick to express their outrage over this form of "stealth abortion," and join the call to make it illegal.
Flag ltm315 December 19, 2008 10:02 PM EST
[QUOTE=Tmarie64;963052]Then you have never met a "can't think anything but what the church puts in my head" Catholic.[/QUOTE]

There are 'absolute' truths in the Catholic church. Those who deny this are denying the church itself and therefore put themselves 'outside' of the church.

There are many things a Catholic can disagree with the church on, however abortion is NOT one of them.

That's why I love the church so dearly!
Flag Marysara722 December 20, 2008 1:35 AM EST

ltm315 wrote:

There are 'absolute' truths in the Catholic church.




"There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths." - Friedrich Nietzsche

:cool:

Flag etsryan December 20, 2008 2:54 AM EST
[QUOTE=newsjunkie;962753] 50-70% of embryos fail to implant in women who are NOT on BCPs. [/QUOTE]

is this from CDC or where does this stat come from?  thanks nj
Flag etsryan December 20, 2008 3:01 AM EST
[QUOTE=mountain_man;962967]Fine. Then don't take them. What others do is none of your business.


You won't have any luck with that. "Xtians" has been in use for centuries. It's an abbreviation, and is in now way, by any reasonable person, considered to be insulting.[/QUOTE]

yes, it is considered insulting - even if some use it and are that.  like calling a black person the n word...unless you are one and sometimes even if you are, the word is generally considered a major insult.  trading the word Christ for an 'x' seems demeaning to me. 

Having concern about Truth and whether someone is lying to me and/or others 'is my business'.  I would like to know the truth about bc.  I am not sure all the info is really known or is being given.

I would appreciate your posts more if you stated your opinions as opinions instead of as 'facts'...for instance stating something "is meaningless" is a matter of opinion, but if you state it like this:  "it is meaningless" as if that statement applies to everyone/for everyone...i think it artificially ramps it up to 'gospel' status when what is said is debatable, a matter of opinion.  meaningless in your mind, meaningful to others?

even if some 'natural' early failed implantations/miscarriages occur, deliberately causing implantation to fail is an ethical issue to me and others.  Those who manufacture, distribute bc are also biased imhho. 

I believe the church researched the pill before coming out against it years ago.  I can understand the reasons why.  Some of us more natural/leave my hormones alone/my body is fine the way it is types also get why.
Flag mountain_man December 20, 2008 12:13 PM EST
[QUOTE=etsryan;968377]yes, it is considered insulting ....


Using xtian is not considered insulting by most reasonable people.

Having concern about Truth and whether someone is lying to me and/or others 'is my business'.  I would like to know the truth about bc.  I am not sure all the info is really known or is being given.


Based on what?

I would appreciate your posts more if you stated your opinions as opinions instead of as 'facts'...


Then you start doing that too.

even if some 'natural' early failed implantations/miscarriages occur, deliberately causing implantation to fail is an ethical issue to me and others.  Those who manufacture, distribute bc are also biased imhho. 


Good. Then do not take the pill if you feel that way. What others do is none of your business.

I believe the church researched the pill before coming out against it years ago.....[/QUOTE]
I do not care what any church or religion has to say about anything.

Flag Tmarie64 December 20, 2008 12:24 PM EST
[QUOTE=etsryan;968377]yes, it is considered insulting - even if some use it and are that.  like calling a black person the n word...unless you are one and sometimes even if you are, the word is generally considered a major insult.  trading the word Christ for an 'x' seems demeaning to me. 

Having concern about Truth and whether someone is lying to me and/or others 'is my business'.  I would like to know the truth about bc.  I am not sure all the info is really known or is being given.

I would appreciate your posts more if you stated your opinions as opinions instead of as 'facts'...for instance stating something "is meaningless" is a matter of opinion, but if you state it like this:  "it is meaningless" as if that statement applies to everyone/for everyone...i think it artificially ramps it up to 'gospel' status when what is said is debatable, a matter of opinion.  meaningless in your mind, meaningful to others?

even if some 'natural' early failed implantations/miscarriages occur, deliberately causing implantation to fail is an ethical issue to me and others.  Those who manufacture, distribute bc are also biased imhho. 

I believe the church researched the pill before coming out against it years ago.  I can understand the reasons why.  Some of us more natural/leave my hormones alone/my body is fine the way it is types also get why.[/QUOTE]
Why would using the Greek representation for Christ... X ... be insulting?  It's only insulting to those who are ignorant enough to believe that everyone speaks English when referring to Him.
They don't  Xmas, Xtian... both are perfectly acceptable.  And has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.
Flag Marysara722 December 20, 2008 1:47 PM EST

etsryan wrote:

is this from CDC or where does this stat come from? thanks nj



Not that I'm aware of where or what particular website (if any) that NJ got her
information from, but it is something that has been stated by those medical
professionals in the field of reproductive medicine.
For example, this is from "The President's Council on Bioethics" from ---
Thursday, January 16, 2003
Session 1: Early Embryonic Development: An Up-to-Date Account

John M. Opitz, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics, Human Genetics,
and Obstetrics/Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Utah.



". . . PROF. SANDEL: Thank you. I have two questions about the rate of natural embryo loss
in human beings. The first is what percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant
or are otherwise lost? And the second question is is it the case that all of these
lost embryos contain genetic defects that would have prevented their normal
development and birth?

DR. OPITZ: The answer to your first question is that it is enormous.
Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very
earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.

PROF. SANDEL: Sixty to 80 percent?

DR. OPITZ: Sixty to 80 percent. And one of the objective ways of establishing
the loss at least as of the moment of implantation, well, even earlier, let's say
as of five days because the blastocyst begins to make a chorionic gonadotrophin
and with extremely sensitive assay methods, you can detect the presence
of gonadotrophins, let me say, first around Day 7. . . ."

http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/ja … sion1.html

The above statements can be found at the above link if one scrolls down about
3/4s from the top of the page.

Okay so that's that on the percentage of natural fertilized blastoscysts/zygotes
that FAIL to implant.
Now about this "Xtian" thing. Let's get off the bandwagon over this since this
is not the board to discuss and/or debate that topic.

Thanks,
MSara
Bnet Community Host
************************

Flag ltm315 December 21, 2008 3:46 AM EST
[QUOTE=MarySara722;968309]"There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths." - Friedrich Nietzsche

:cool:[/QUOTE]

Interesting that you would quote a psychotic atheist?? He also said:
He was“the Anti-Christ,” and wrote a book by that title. So why would I put any intellectual integrity behind anything he said??
Flag Sailorlal79 December 21, 2008 4:05 PM EST

ltm315 wrote:

Interesting that you would quote a psychotic atheist?? He also said:
He was“the Anti-Christ,” and wrote a book by that title. So why would I put any intellectual integrity behind anything he said??



Well, you obviously are not an intellectual.

Flag ltm315 December 21, 2008 9:39 PM EST
[QUOTE=Sailorlal79;970846]Well, you obviously are not an intellectual.[/QUOTE]

Very nice... Ad hominem and right under the 'impartial' nose of the so called *impartial* ''''moderator''''
No one said you had to agree with other people's posts, but why are you responding at all if that's what you come up with?
Flag etsryan December 22, 2008 9:02 AM EST
[QUOTE=mountain_man;968852]Using xtian is not considered insulting by most reasonable people.


Based on what?


Then you start doing that too.


Good. Then do not take the pill if you feel that way. What others do is none of your business.


I do not care what any church or religion has to say about anything.[/QUOTE]

Do you care about truth MM?  Or do you only listen to what sufficiently PC folks have to say...

Do you think those who take the time to study something thoroughly might have a better idea about it?  Or those who have a hurry up approve this agenda and are making money from whatever it is?  Also, don't tell her/women that or she/they won't take them and we won't make as much $$$.
Flag etsryan December 22, 2008 9:11 AM EST
[QUOTE=Tmarie64;963052]Then you have never met a "can't think anything but what the church puts in my head" Catholic.[/QUOTE]

or rather a critical thinking spiritually mature or tries to be discerning Catholic who prefers not to fill her head/body/soul with garbage like lies/untruths/seductions/euphemisms/hormones/chemicals/contraptions that allow conceived kids to intentionally starve inside her womb... etc. etc. 

thanks, but no thanks.

kinda like legal drug pushing to me.  some people can and do say anything to get one over on a potential buyer/user  $$$  especially if it means more/easier/unlimited access to females sexually without having to pay child support/take responsibility 

i see the games going on and those who buy into this line of thinking...I don't agree and I feel sorry for some of the ways I see folks using each other these days.  self deception/being deceived and some don't even realize it imhho.
Flag etsryan December 22, 2008 9:16 AM EST
[QUOTE=MarySara722;968309]"There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths." - Friedrich Nietzsche

:cool:[/QUOTE]

Could the next quote be "There are no big liars"?

The world isn't round?

This boat won't sink? 

These buildings won't crumble...

There is no gravity...

There is no solar system...

There is no light...

There is no beliefnet

This is all a figment of someone's imagination...

There is no sound of silence...

There is no tree falling in the forest so it doesn't matter if anyone hears or not...

There is no river in Egypt...

There is no denial  (denying denial after de Nile...)

Oh, and 'you can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd'...didja know that?
Flag etsryan December 22, 2008 9:27 AM EST
BTW, since the thread topic is the article in the OP and bc/oc,

I thought I would mention that I read a great deal of the booklet that is linked to in the OP and found out that according to the medical experts interviewed/quoted one of the ways that oral contraceptives 'work' is to hurry the fertilized ovum/s on to the uterus before they are old enough/mature enough to implant...speeding them up so when they get to the uterus they aren't developed enough to hang on...  how sweet.  seems sinister to me...

(but whatever floats the 'free love' boat, eh?)
Flag mountain_man December 22, 2008 12:50 PM EST
[QUOTE=etsryan;971803]Do you care about truth MM?  Or do you only listen to what sufficiently PC folks have to say...


I do care about the truth.

The truth is that no reasonable person would find "X-tian" or any of it's derivations to be insulting. It is a  common abbreviation that is allowed to be used on this forum.

The truth is that forcing women to continue a pregnancy they do not want is an abomination that devalues women.

The truth is that a woman's reproductive status is a private matter and none of your business.

Do you think those who take the time to study something thoroughly might have a better idea about it? ...[/QUOTE]
Yes, but those that run the catholic religion did not study, they twisted reality to fit their agenda. What they, or any other religion, has to say is irrelevant. They are not the ones getting pregnant, and it is none of their business.

Flag mountain_man December 22, 2008 12:54 PM EST
[QUOTE=etsryan;971838]BTW, since the thread topic is the article in the OP and bc/oc,

I thought I would mention that I read a great deal of the booklet that is linked to in the OP and found out that according to the medical experts interviewed/quoted one of the ways that oral contraceptives 'work' is to hurry the fertilized ovum/s on to the uterus before they are old enough/mature enough to implant...speeding them up so when they get to the uterus they aren't developed enough to hang on...  how sweet.  seems sinister to me..[/QUOTE]
Why do you need to find something "sinister" in that? That's what happens to somewhere around 75% of all fertilized ovum's anyway. And if that prevents an abortion later on, you should be grateful.
Flag becca97 December 22, 2008 1:34 PM EST
[QUOTE=etsryan;971838]BTW, since the thread topic is the article in the OP and bc/oc,

I thought I would mention that I read a great deal of the booklet that is linked to in the OP and found out that according to the medical experts interviewed/quoted one of the ways that oral contraceptives 'work' is to hurry the fertilized ovum/s on to the uterus before they are old enough/mature enough to implant...speeding them up so when they get to the uterus they aren't developed enough to hang on...  how sweet.  seems sinister to me...



Why does it seem 'sinister' to you?

sin⋅is⋅ter  [sin-uh-ster]
–adjective
1.    threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble; ominous: a sinister remark.
2.    bad, evil, base, or wicked; fell: his sinister purposes.
3.    unfortunate; disastrous; unfavorable: a sinister accident.

(but whatever floats the 'free love' boat, eh?)[/QUOTE]

given married couples and common law couples use birth control regularly (as morried members here have attested to time immemorial) i'd have to ask you how you define 'free love'?

Flag newsjunkie December 22, 2008 10:37 PM EST
[QUOTE=etsryan;968372]is this from CDC or where does this stat come from?  thanks nj[/QUOTE]

etsryan, I have read, with amazement, numerous sources that say that a very high percentage of conceptions never result in implantation, and therefore, pregnancy. Here are a couple of examples of sources.

PROF. SANDEL: Thank you. I have two questions about the rate of natural embryo loss in human beings. The first is what percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost? And the second question is is it the case that all of these lost embryos contain genetic defects that would have prevented their normal development and birth?

DR. OPITZ: The answer to your first question is that it is enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.

PROF. SANDEL: Sixty to 80 percent?

DR. OPITZ: Sixty to 80 percent. And one of the objective ways of establishing the loss at least as of the moment of implantation, well, even earlier, let's say as of five days because the blastocyst begins to make a chorionic gonadotrophin and with extremely sensitive assay methods, you can detect the presence of gonadotrophins, let me say, first around Day 7. That's the beta of human chorionic gonadotrophin. And if you follow prospectively the cycles that has been done on quite a few occasions in the Permanente study in Hawaii and so on, a group of women, of nonfertility, who want to conceive and you detect the first sign of pregnancy there of human chorionic gonadotrophin, about 60 percent of those pregnancies are lost.

It is independently corroborated by the fact that the monozygotic twin conception rate at the very beginning is much, much higher than the birth rate and then if you follow with amniocentesis, the presence of the two sacs in about 80 percent of cases,the second sac disappears, one of the sacs disappears. Source: John M. Opitz, M.D.,
Professor of Pediatrics, Human Genetics, and Obstetrics/Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Utah. Testimony to the President's Council on Bioethics, Jan. 16, 2003



By analyzing carbohydrate molecules on the surface of the uterus during different times of the female cycle and by identifying a protein, called L-selectin, on the surface of the embryo, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, learned for the first time how the embryo sticks to the wall.

Susan J. Fisher said coatings on the uterus and on the surface of the embryo act like puzzle pieces that touch and quickly lock.

"One piece of the puzzle is a protein on the embryo and the other is a very specialized carbohydrate sugar structure," said Fisher.

The sugar molecule on the surface of the uterus is secreted for only a short time during a woman's monthly cycle and the embryo, with its L-selectin coating, must arrive at the uterus during this time.

"It has to take place in exact synchrony or you don't get pregnant," said Fisher, noting that failure to implant on the uterus is one of the most common causes of a failed conception.

"Only 50 to 60 percent of all conceptions advance beyond 20 weeks and of pregnancies that are lost, 75 percent represent a failure of implantation,"she said. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/ … 6830.shtml



BTW, etsryan, did you read the article from the Am. Assoc of Pro-life Ob/Gyns I posted earlier on this thread? What did you think of it?

Flag etsryan December 30, 2008 5:51 PM EST
[QUOTE=DGMelby;966407]Yes, I am aware that there are people who are pro-life and are moderates.  There are people who are pro-choice and are moderates as well.

But everything I've read from both movements indicates that it isn't the moderates that are leading both groups.  It's the extremists.  It may have been the Catholic Church that first decided to attack the birth control pill by calling it an abortifacient, but Evangelical leaders, and other leading conservative Protestants, were very quick to express their outrage over this form of "stealth abortion," and join the call to make it illegal.[/QUOTE]

the makers of the pill themselves acknowledge, but often downplay, the fact that a fertilized ovum/new human life may not implant due to changes in the uterine lining brought about by the pill.  The church is trying to speak the truth about something that many would like to deny.
Flag Tmarie64 December 30, 2008 5:58 PM EST
Nope... The church sees it as a form of adultery.  Practicing birth control is "not giving completely to your spouse", hence adultery.
Frankly, I don't CARE what the church thinks.  My daughter WILL get birth control, unless the pope wants to cough up some the cash that HE keeps pissing away on his private jet, huge limo, gold filled churches, millions of dollars of art and books, to support any grandkids that may come along.
Flag etsryan December 30, 2008 6:06 PM EST
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prol … rt_1.shtml

On July 2, 1997, I interviewed Karen Witt, who worked for Whitehall-Robins, sister company of Wyeth-Ayerst, from 1986 until August 1995. Both companies are divisions of American Home Products, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical corporations.

Mrs. Witt was a sales representative who called on doctors, providing them with product samples and medical information. She worked with many popular products, including Advil and Robitussin. When the parent company acquired Wyeth-Ayerst, sales representatives were instructed to start providing physicians with samples of birth control pills. As part of their training, they were taken through a new manual that included an "Oral Contraceptive Backgrounder."

The manual, a copy of which I have in front of me, states, "The combined pill is virtually 100% effective due to a combination of the following three factors." The third of these factors is "Suppressed Endometrium," explained in this way:

    The altered hormone patterns ensure that the endometrium fails to develop to the extent found in the normal cycle. Therefore, even if "escape ovulation" should occur, the endometrium is not in a favorable state for implantation.

When she saw this, Karen Witt realized for the first time that the Pill caused abortions. This violated her convictions. She was also concerned about something else, which she explained to me as follows:

    In company meetings information on the Pill was covered in a totally different way than other products. Our training had always been open and relaxed, and we went through detailed instruction on how every product works; we were expected to explain how they worked to physicians. But the approach to the birth control pills was completely different—the approach was, "don't worry about how they work, the point is they do; don't ask questions, just give out the samples."

Karen went to her boss to express her concern, first about the Pill causing abortions, and second about the directive not to communicate important medical information to the physicians she dealt with. As a direct result of expressing these concerns, she said, "I was labeled a troublemaker." Soon, she was fired from her job of nine and a half years.

During this process, Mrs. Witt became deeply concerned as she spoke with various company employees and observed what she considered to be an agreement to remain silent about the abortive effect of their Pills.

Karen Witt pointed out to me something I'd already discovered in my dealings with Wyeth-Ayerst. The consumer pamphlet they produce, Birth Control with the Pill, has a section entitled "How the Pill Works" which lists only the first two mechanisms, not the third. Though both their professional labeling and their salesperson training acknowledge the third way the Pill works, in the literature given to consumers, it is simply left out.

After numerous interactions with various people at Wyeth-Ayerst, Mrs. Witt became convinced this was a deliberate cover-up on the part of the company—a cover-up not only from the general public, including users of their products, but a cover-up from physicians and pharmacists.

Mrs. Witt said to me, "I am not at all quick to use the term 'conspiracy.' But I believe there is a definite conspiracy of silence on the part of the manufacturer about the abortive effects of the Pill."

Completely unrelated to my interaction with Mrs. Witt, I was contacted by another sales representative with a major Pill manufacturer. He talked to me on the condition that I would not identify him or his company. When I asked why, he said, "They play hard ball." His story was closely parallel to Mrs. Witt's except he is still employed by the company. He believes that if he were identified he would experience retaliation from his employer.

This man read a draft of Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? posted at our website (www.epm.org). He called to tell me, "What you're saying about the Pill is true, and my manufacturer knows it. Management takes pride in the fact that our pills excel at the 'prevention of nidation'—that exact phrase is routinely used in our product training sessions. They never use the word 'abortion,' but by preventing nidation [implantation], that's what the pills do."


instead of developing bc that makes implantation difficult, i think it would be good to have bc that only works if the first two methods - preventing ovulation or fertilization - would happen and if they do, that implantation would be guaranteed then.  This would be a more PL type of bc.  If the bc always allowed implantation if a fertilization occurred.  Also, different kinds of bc could be available depending on the users preference.  So can bc/oc be made to not alter the uterine lining?  so those who would prefer that any fertilized egg could implant every time?
Flag newsjunkie December 30, 2008 10:35 PM EST
I noted earlier that the BCP manufacturers note that the pill causes changes in the endometrium. They may well be the ones who came up with the hypothesis that that may make it more difficult for implantation to occur. The manufacturers point to this hypothesis to give their customers more confidence in the pill. Because they say it does not make an hypothesis a fact. They have no evidence to show that the pill actually works that way. And if it did, it probably does so extremely rarely -- otherwise, the pill would not have the failure rate it does.

I feel like a broken record at this point. Perhaps, etsryan, you'd rather hear it from a man of the cloth http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/med … acient.PDF
Flag Sailorlal79 December 31, 2008 12:03 AM EST
This is such a waste of time for PL people to be worrying about. Pregnancy doesn't even begin until implantation! The fact that a 4 cell zygote MAY fail to implant due to the birth control pill is so trivial compared to fetuses with heartbeats being aborted- why don't you concentrate on that?
Flag MysticWanderer December 31, 2008 4:05 PM EST
First ,let us note that there is NO research regarding endometril thickness and normal implantation.  There was in the past in Ob-Gyn infertility the concept of something called an"luteal phase defect" that is a problem in the development of the uterine lining associated with infertility and treated with progesterone.  Further research has pretty well destroyed this entire concept.  Secondly, the only rersearch actually linking endometrial thickness (and nothing else) to successful implantation has been based on in vitro fertilization.  In vitro fetilization also notes a pregnancy failure rate of up to 80% in "good conditions."  Thirdly note that the fertilized ovum can and does successfully inplant in both the fallopian tube and uterine cervix both of which are thinner and poorer than the worst atrophic endometrium. Also note that the precise wording of the entire PDA and other pharmaceutical company literature on OCP's is entirely conditional, meaning that they cannot be required to actually prove one word of it!  Thus they are able to present their product in the most reliable light to physicians and (hopefully) increase the use of their product (and their profits) with no actual commmercial liability.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook