I do not know whether it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching or from being fertilized period, that's why I asked.

The IUD is probably one that I am least "educated" on. Actually, I'm not really that educated on birth control because I never "used it". I am allergic to the birth control pill and almost gave myself a heart attack before I realized it was making me sick.....duh. I was such an idiot back then.

So I never really had a reason to educate myself on the subject until a pro-life discussion with a friend at another site sparked my curiosity. DEPO-PROVERA was the most shocking for me to learn about.

This is wickedness that will be avenged, by the Lord God Almighty, in His way and at His time. Our job is to get the truth out in the open.

One of my friends is an OB-GYN (mostly OB) and is pro-life and prefers to prescribe the new IUDs to women more so than the Pill....especially for women who are over 30 and smoke.

He believes that the hormone manipulation in the pill is not good for the long term.

I was just curious about the view on IUDs.

The simple truth is that we could have stopped abortion by electing pro-life politicians. We have the votes, if everyone who believed pro-life voted that way, to dominate the body politic, but we don't because too many "Christian" voters have regulated the issue of life to a subordinate position behind which candidate will put or leave the most money in their pocket (whether it be by handouts, tax cuts, more school money, or whatever).

This is true and in a much larger sense than you describe above. We all support a culture which values monetary gain and material sucess. To that end we are all complicit in abortion.

Morever, many people promote (and have promoted historically) a social dogma which does not hold both parties to procreation, repsponsible for the consequences of their actions. I cannot count the number of "Christins" I have met who do do not hold both parties to conception responsible and obligated to support/care for their offspring. In that, they are complicit in abortion.

Let he who casts the first stone ..... first consider his/her own complicity in word and deed in supporting a culture that values material gain over supporting life and upholding the concept of personal repsonsibility ... in large and small decisions and in beliefs that we hold.

"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." ___ A. Einstein

Morever, many people promote (and have promoted historically) a social dogma which does not hold both parties to procreation, repsponsible for the consequences of their actions. I cannot count the number of "Christins" I have met who do do not hold both parties to conception responsible and obligated to support/care for their offspring. In that, they are complicit in abortion.

I sympathize with what you are saying, but have you ever considered the practical effects on holding an unmarried father financially responsible for his offspring? By doing so, we remove many incentives for young people to marry at all.

The link is working well for me. The link you gave is an attempt to argue against the position of Dr DeCook, Dr. Joe McIlhaney and others.

The main question is:

""In the extensive literature we have reviewed, no writer has addressed this very significant question: In a menstrual cycle on the "pill" in which ovulation occurs, what is the histology of the endometrium six days after ovulation (the time of implantation)?""

The articles that support the claim that the combination pills act as abortifacients do not compare women on the pill who ovulate and those who do not. They compare women on the pill and women off the pill.

The driving force on the development of the uterine lining after ovulation is the corpus luteum, the remnants of the follicle that the oocyte developed in. If there is ovulation, the corpus luteum effects over come the effects of the low-dose combination pills. So, if there is ovulation, there is no 'hostile endometrium.' If there is no ovulation, there is no chance of fertilization, so no chance of abortion. Here are the portions of the article which deal with this specific question:

(The website is the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. There are 2 papers, with opposing arguments. Only one addresses the effects of the corpus luteum after ovulation. Please note the date of 1999, so this is not the article your reference is rebutting.)

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

Please also see:
Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive
Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications

Authored by four Christian ProLife Obstetrician-Gynecologists
April,1999

Introduction

Recently, there has been some controversy, and serious questions have been raised by sincere individuals who are concerned that hormone contraceptives may have an abortifacient mechanism of action. This paper will help to clarify the issue based on a through review of the available medical literature regarding the mechanism of action of hormone contraceptives. It has been compiled by Board Certified practicing Ob/Gyns, in consultation with Perinatologists and Reproductive Endocrinologists, each being a physician committed to honoring the sanctity of human life from conception. We affirm that as physicians answerable to our Creator and Redeemer, we are responsible to the best of our ability to help, and not intentionally harm, our fellow human creatures. As Christian physicians, we affirm that all life is created by God and that human life is initiated at conception. Fertilization, not implantation, marks the beginning of human life. Disruption of the fertilized egg represents abortion.

The issues of mechanism of action of commonly used hormone contraceptives has threatened to split the pro-life physician community. Review of information currently being disseminated reveals some powerful and well written rhetoric. However, the issue of mechanism of action of hormone contraceptives is not one which will be illuminated by rhetoric. The mechanism of action of any medicine will not change based on how we feel about it, or on who developed it, or on how eloquently it is defended or opposed. How a medication works is a scientific question.

The hormone contraceptives include four basic types: combination oral contraceptives (COCs), injectables (Depoprovera), progestin only pills (minipill, or POPs), and implants (Norplant). In this paper, they will, where convenient, be collectively referred to as the "pill." Most hormone contraceptives are noted to work by 3 methods of action:

1)Primarily, they inhibit ovulation by suppression of the pituitary/ovarian axis, mediated through suppression of gonadotrophin releasing hormone from the hypothalamus.

2)Secondarily, they inhibit transport of sperm through the cervix by thickening the cervical mucous.

3)They cause changes in the uterine lining (endometrium) which have historically been assumed to decrease the possibility of implantation, should fertilization occur. This presumption is commonly known as the "hostile endometrium" theory.

A thorough review of the medical literature uncovers ample data to support the first two methods of action, which are contraceptive actions. (Appropriate references will be found in the sections discussing each type of hormone contraceptive.) However, there is no direct evidence in the literature to support the third proposed method of action. This conclusion is shared by the respected Gynecologic Endocrinology textbook authors Yen and Jaffe. (1) Nevertheless, for the past nearly 40 years, most authors of "pill" related scientific literature have routinely repeated the assumption of a contra-implantation effect by this "pill" primed uterine lining. In light of this large body of literature, some prolife authors have expressed appropriate concerns that hormone contraceptive methods may include an abortifacient action by hindering implantation. These authors have cited data drawn from this scientific literature to support their claims. Closer scrutiny of the medical literature, however, reveals that the scientists are all simply agreeing that the "pill" produces a thinner, less glandular, less vascular lining. We also agree. However, in an ovulatory pill cycle, the estrogen and progesterone levels are, as discussed below, grossly increased for the seven days prior to implantation. The normal biologic response of endometrium to high levels of these hormones is growth of stroma, blood vessels, glands, and glandular secretions to help prepare the lining for implantation.

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. Not all the contraceptive agents are equally effective, or even equally appropriate, to be used by doctors and patients concerned with the sanctity of life and maternal welfare. The remainder of this paper is a presentation of the current scientific data which will allow doctors and patients who are committed to the sanctity of life from the time of conception to make decisions regarding the use of these agents that his or her conscience can be at peace with. We do not assume that everyone, given the same information, will arrive at a uniform decision. However, for the follower of Christ, discernment based on prayer and the evaluation of factual information in the light of Scripture is the basis of ethical decision making.

Normal physiology

It is helpful at this point to review the basic physiology of the normal ovulatory cycle. Specific endocrinologic details are best found in a text of gynecologic endocrinology. However, in general, after a young woman completes puberty, the levels of estrogen rise and fall twice during each normal menstrual cycle. The pituitary gland releases follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), which causes new, ovum-containing follicles (eggs) to develop in the ovaries during the first half (or follicular phase) of the menstrual cycle. The follicle steadily increases estrogen production, which reaches a peak about one day prior to ovulation. The surge of estrogen stimulates her pituitary gland to secrete another essential hormone, luteinizing hormone (LH), which in turn serves to trigger ovulation (egg release).

Ultrasound can be used to assess the growth and development of the ovarian follicle (cyst around the egg cell) and can indicate the degree of readiness for ovulation.(2) During an ovulatory cycle the usual cyst size varies from 20 to 28 mm. Non-ovulating follicles rarely exceed 14 mm in diameter. Ovulation is associated with complete emptying of the follicular contents in 1 to 45 minutes. After ovulation, the follicle which has released the egg becomes filled with another type of cell, a luteal cell. The luteal cells proliferate under the influence of pituitary luteinizing hormone, (LH), and secrete ever increasing quantities of both estrogen and progesterone.

The follicle (now a corpus luteum) most commonly appears as a smaller, irregular cyst which, if conception has NOT occurred, diminishes in size and ceases to function 2 weeks after ovulation. With subsequent decrease of luteal estrogen and progesterone, the uterine lining (endometrium) is then shed as the menstrual period. However, if conception HAS occurred, the embryo begins, by the time it implants, to secrete another chemical messenger, hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin), which acts like LH to rejuvenate and stimulate the corpus luteum to continue its function until the placenta takes over hormone production 2 months later. The corpus luteum produces, in the six days after ovulation, 10 to 20 times the levels of both estrogen and progesterone seen in a non-ovulatory "pill" cycle. (Preovulatory pill cycle has estradiol level of 25 pg/ml, preovulatory normal cycle has estradiol level of about 40 pg/ml.) During an ovulatory cycle, estradiol reaches a peak of 400 pg/ml during the day before ovulation-a ten to 16 fold increase-and peaks again at 275 pg/ml by day 6 after ovulation, which is the day of implantation. Progesterone values rise from a preovulatory 0.5 ng/ml to a peak of 10 ng/ml by implantation day-a twenty fold rise. (41,42) These high levels act on the lining in these seven days to prepare it for implantation and support of the arriving (via the fallopian tube) living embryo. Corpus luteum function continues until 8 to 10 weeks from ovulation, at which time (noted above) the placenta assumes the burden of producing these hormones to support the growing pregnancy.

In the extensive literature we have reviewed, no writer has addressed this very significant question: In a menstrual cycle on the "pill" in which ovulation occurs, what is the histology of the endometrium six days after ovulation (the time of implantation)? Certainly the hormone milieu and endometrial histology will be different from a menstrual cycle on the "pill" in which ovulation does not occur (i.e.,the typical atrophic, or "hostile," endometrium). The FSH-LH-estradiol surge the day before ovulation, and the resulting corpus luteum formation, with its ten to twentyfold estradiol and progesterone output, should produce significant changes in the endometrium. In a normal menstrual cycle, on the day of ovulation the uterine lining (proliferative endometrium) is not receptive to implantation. Seven days of follicle and corpus luteum hormone output transform it to "receptive." The same follicle and corpus luteum hormone output, when ovulation occurs in a "pill" cycle, should have a similar salutary effect on the pill-primed endometrium. It is highly probable that the so-called "hostile to implantation" endometrium-- heralded (without proof) from the beginning by the "pill" producing companies, echoed (without investigation) by 2 generations of scientific writers, and now adopted (as a scientific fact) by some sincere prolife advocates-- simply does not exist six days after ovulation in a pill cycle. What is currently known about the endometrial response to corpus luteum hormones suggests this conclusion. Research regarding endometrial histology on the sixth day after escape ovulation in "on pill" cycles would add useful information to the current discussion.""

and

""Additionally, as noted above, in an "on pill" escape ovulatory cycle, with the required FSH-LH surge, followed by post ovulatory corpus luteum estradiol and progesterone output, one would expect the endometrium to undergo the usual hormonally related changes favorable to implantation, as in any ovulatory cycle. (The endometrium is sufficiently responsive to physiologically balanced hormones that even the slightly increased estrogen balance in triphasics produces a histologic trend toward secretory pattern.)(40) To have a meaningful discussion regarding the mechanism of action of COCs, and to address the " potential abortifacient" question, a review of the pertinent medical literature is necessary. The following discussion is based on our review.""

and

""The perfect use failure rate most often quoted in the medical literature, including the standardized FDA product labeling of every combined oral contraceptive listed in the PDR is 0.1 pregnancies for every 100 women years (1300 cycles). Therefore, it can be concluded that at times, ALL of mechanisms of action of COCs fail.

Regarding spontaneous abortion rates with "pill" pregnancies.

Spontaneous abortions can be divided functionally into "clinical abortions," i.e., spontaneous loss after pregnancy has been clinically recognized (usually from about 6 menstrual weeks, which is 4 conceptional weeks), and "pre-clinical abortions," loss occurring before that time. Pre-clinical abortions can further be divided into "pre-implantation abortions, those occurring before the conceptus implants 6 days after fertilization, and those occurring after implantation, but before clinical recognition of the pregnancy. There has been no demonstrated effect of COC use on spontaneous clinical abortion rates. (78) The essential abortifacient argument brought against hormonal contraception is that it causes pre-clinical, more specifically, pre-implantation, abortion due to an inhospitable lining, the"hostile" endometrium." The improbability of this entity, based on known follicle and corpus luteum hormone output during an ovulatory cycle, and normal endometrial response to these hormones, has been discussed earlier in this paper.

To look at the controversy from another direction, do "pill" pregnancies have similar outcomes as non-pill pregnancies? Clinically, the answer is "yes." There is no data to indicate higher clinical spontaneous abortion rates or more problems in ongoing pregnancies. But is there increased loss evident with "pill" pregnancies? From the clinical side, the answer is "no." (78) From the pre-clinical, especially the pre-implantation perspective, the answer must be sought by evaluating indirect data, since there is no direct data regarding these loss rates available for users of COCs. Most studies evaluating efficacy of COCs only measure clinically evident pregnancies as an end point. There is scarce literature about ovulation rates on COCs, although more than 40 such studies were reviewed in preparing this paper. Of the COC studies that evaluated ovulation, fertilization and pregnancy rates are almost never evaluated. The reason for this should be obvious: if a patient in a COC study is told that she has ovulated, she will avoid exposure to sperm, thus preventing an unwanted pregnancy.

Concerning the outcome of "on pill" ovulations

The first requisite in evaluating this question is to establish a reliable unintended ovulation rate in perfect (compliant, i.e., no missed pills) COC users. In this pursuit, 25 studies were reviewed (several papers contained more than one study). (ref 59 through 76) These studies used a variety of common COCs, including triphasics, and were about evenly split between the newer very low dose pills(20 mcg estinyl estradiol), and the current standard low dose pills(30 to 35 mcg ethinyl estradiol). Eighteen studies including 3799 cycles showed zero ovulations. Seven studies including 2910 cycles showed 8 ovulations. (Ovulation was indicated by ultrasound and serum chemical markers.) Combining these gives a practical working number of 8 ovulations in 6709 cycles, which equals 15.5 ovulations in 13,000 cycles, (a figure used to simplify the arithmetic done below). This is not a scientific metanalysis. Rather, it is a pragmatic figure, using the referenced peer-reviewed data, that will help provide an informed perspective on the question of pre-implantation loss.

The next necessary information concerns the unintended pregnancy rate on compliant use of COCs. This is well established in the Hatcher table (8) at 0.1 pregnancy per 100 women years, which equals one pregnancy per 1,000 women years, or one pregnancy in 13,000 cycles by compliant pill takers. Thus we have, in l3,000 cycles, l5.5 ovulations (from the previous paragraph), and one pregnancy.

Finally, the cervical mucus factor must be considered. The marked change in cervical mucus under the influence of progestins is recognized as a substantial factor in contraceptive effectiveness of the "pill." As reviewed by McCann, (6) studies of cervical mucus changes on the POPs, which contains only half the dose of progestin found in the COCs, found the mid cycle mucus to be greatly reduced in volume, increased in viscosity and cell content, with altered molecular structure. (52, 53, 54) The effect is a mucus with low spinnbarkeit and poor ferning. This is found to result in little or no sperm penetration in 70-80% of cases. (53) Even in the rare cases when penetration does occur, sperm motility is reduced.(55, 54, 56, 57, 58) One study noted almost total absence of sperm in the uterine cavity of the progestin treated group, while sperm were present in the uterus of 18 of 19 controls. (55) COCs, with twice the progestin dose of POPs, would produce mucus with similar, if not greater sperm impedance. (Although COCs also contain an estrogen, ethinyl estradiol, they block follicle activity so well that the actual preovulatory serum estradiol levels on the "pill" are less than normal, i.e.,25 pg/ml vs the normal 40 pg/ml. This level will have negligible influence on improving cervical mucus.) In the normal cycle, the pre-ovulatory FSH surge will immediately produce an estradiol peak of 400 pg/ml, quickly resulting in production of the optimum fertility enhancing mucus. In an ovulatory "pill" cycle, this estradiol peak almost certainly will override, to some degree, the progestin induced sperm blocking effect on the cervical mucus. It is not known how quickly, or to what degree, this override might take place. Reproductive endocrinologists indicate that ovulation takes place within 12 to 24 hours after the LH-FSH surge with its accompanying estradiol peak, and that the newly released egg can only accept fertilization for about l2 hours before it becomes resistant. This leaves a window of about 24 to 36 hours for the transformation of the impenetrable cervical mucus to fertility-favorable mucus which would allow release and transport of sperm to the distal portion of the fallopian tube to fertilize the egg. (And this assumes that sufficient numbers of viable sperm are present in the cervical mucus at the time the mucus becomes favorable.) We know that the cervical mucus factor adds significantly to the contraceptive effectiveness of the pill--although to what extent in an ovulatory cycle can only be estimated, since there have been no specific studies done to give us numbers.

The available data referenced in this discussion has, then, yielded this information: 13,000 cycles of compliant COC use results in 15.5 ovulations, and one ongoing pregnancy. The basic question in the entire "pill" controversy is, "What happened to the other 14.5 eggs?" Were they the victim of an "inhospitable endometrium"(whose existence in an ovulatory cycle is very questionable), or can they be accounted for in other ways? Let us start with the 15.5 ovulations noted above. Available data indicate that 10 to 15% of our population is infertile.(41, p 809) Of the original 15.5 eggs, This leaves 13.5 eggs available for possible fertilization and ongoing pregnancy. One could simply take the 13.5 eggs available for fertilization, apply the normal human fecundity table of 25% per cycle (the fecundity table requires optimum conditions: normal fertility in the man and woman, and correct timing of coitus). (28) We would expect 3.3 pregnancies, IF the cervical mucus is favorable, the viable sperm are present, and the timing is right. Referencing the previous paragraph, cervical mucus factors block sperm 80 to 90% of the time in non-ovulatory studies. IF adequate numbers of viable sperm can get free and make it to the waiting egg within the 36 hour receptivity window just 33% of the time, one egg might be fertilized to become an ongoing pregnancy. We don’t know about the sperm and timing, and the cervical mucus is probably not optimum. If one of these 3.3 remaining eggs is fertilized and thrives, this equals the known ongoing pregnancy rate seen in compliant COC users: One per 1,000 woman years (13,000 cycles) of use. The fate of the l5.5 eggs can also be considered from other available data. Again, the 10 to l5% infertility rate leaves 13.5 eggs available for possible fertilization. Recent critically reviewed data indicates that from fertilization to 6 weeks, spontaneous pregnancy wastage is 73%. (26, 27) This leaves 3.5 eggs available for fertilization and ongoing pregnancy. As above, considering mucus, sperm, and timing factors, one egg might be fertilized to become an ongoing pregnancy. This again equals the known pregnancy rate on compliant COC usage: per 1,000 woman years (13,000 cycles) of use. This exercise in arithmetic is not meant to be a statistician’s scientific proof text. It is rather an overview of COC unintended ovulation rates and subsequent ongoing pregnancy rates using available peer-reviewed data to account for the eggs in question.

A recent study by specialists in reproductive technology found, with genetic sampling of morphologically normal embryos, that 24 of 50 had chromosomal abnormalities, and would likely not survive. (79) Gift procedures, introducing multiple viable eggs, along with good sperm, into the fallopian tube at the optimum time, with optimum endometrium, only yield a 30% success rate. 30% of failed fertilization is due to faulty sperm. There are evidently many naturally occurring reasons for preimplantation loss.

Considering the above information on ovulatory related hormone influences on the endometrium, "on pill" ovulation rates and pregnancy rates, the cervical mucus factor, and known data on human fecundity, fertility, and spontaneous loss rates, it can be appreciated that there is no need to postulate a pill-induced preimplantation abortion phenomenon to explain why 15.5 eggs produce one ongoing pregnancy. Known and natural causes can account for the numbers.

Concerning Ectopic Pregnancy and the "Pill"

If COCs are abortifacient in nature by causing the conception not to implant in the uterine cavity, then ectopic pregnancy rates should be at least equal to that in the normal population. One of the well-studied effects of progestins on the fallopian tube is to decrease motility and cilia action, which would inhibit a fertilized ovum from proceeding into the uterine cavity. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect an even higher ectopic pregnancy rate than the normal population (2% of all clinically recognized pregnancies). The literature, at this time, does not show an increased ectopic rate per pregnancy for COCs over non-users.

Any contraceptive method decreases the overall ectopic rate, simply by way of decreasing the number of pregnancies that occur at all. A rough estimate of the numbers involved can be calculated using generally accepted data and simple arithmetic: Using the table of Hatcher (8), and assuming "perfect" (correct, consistent) use for COCs, sympto-thermal method, and condoms, three matched groups of l00,000 women would experience l00 unintended pregnancies on COCs, 2,000 unintended pregnancies with sympto-thermal method, and 3,000 unintended pregnancies with condoms. Using the current figure of 2% ectopic ratio (9), these pregnant women would experience 2 ectopic pregnancies with COCs, 40 EP with sympto-thermal method, and 60 EP with condoms. Given the potential maternal mortality, morbidity, and damage to fertility with ectopic pregnancy, and the absence of any demonstrated increase in abortion due to COC endometrial effect, one might ask if it is ethical to withhold or discourage the option of COCs for the woman seeking contraceptive information. Certainly this pertinent information should be considered as part of adequate informed consent. ""

Again. And the courts will toss that ban. Again. And Again.

I don't know about that. The law may be written too cleverly. But we'll see.

In other words, we have passed laws HELPING teen girls kill their babies. How sad.

The practical effect of these laws, nearly everywhere they are tried, is to greatly reduce the total number of teen abortions. In Texas they dropped by 20% in one year. In other states with consent laws they dropped even more.

> The link is working well for me.

Works fine here now, too. Must have been a server glitch.

Will try to read and respond tomorrow. Thx.

p.

No, I'm not saying that all things called sin by the Bible are religious matters and cannot be legislated.

We may legislate against actions which cause the death or enslavement of others, or which deny individuals the use of their property.

Those actions against other the rights of other humans ("Do not murder," "Do not steal," ) are universal, and at least given lip service by all peoples and religions. We cannot force all citizens to become or to act like Christians except where the Christian action is to "do unto others."

However, in our society, we do not approve of practices legislated by the law of Moses such as slavery, polygamy, and stoning for crimes against God but not humans. I believe the reason that we have come to this position is directly due to Jesus Christ's influence which led His followers to consider all humans as equal in the eyes of God, leading to our consideration that our fellow humans may have the right to life, liberty, and property.

I don't believe that Christ intended for sinners to pay for their sins by fines, arrest and jail time or face the virtual guns of the government for sinning against God. Laws of humans are made by humans and can only legislate against infringement by humans of the rights given by God.

Depoprovera blocks ovulation very reliably.

http://www.aaplog.org/decook.htm
""Injectable DepoProvera (Depomedroxyprogesterone Acetate)

The injectable DepoProvera (DMPA) has only been FDA approved for use in the USA since l992. It has been used internationally since the 1960's. Although there is a relative paucity of American medical literature pertinent to the topic, there is considerable world experience with DMPA. The literature regarding this injectable suggests its effectiveness is based on extremely low ovulation rates.

The suppressive action of DMPA is at the hypothalamus or higher to prevent the hypothalamus from giving the signal to the pituitary to release gonadotropins.(22) Secretion of LH and FSH are maintained in the mid-follicular state. Because of this, the ovary does not develop a dominant follicle, so the egg does not mature. There is no LH surge, so there is no ovulation. Ovulation does not occur until serum MPA is at extremely low levels, often 7 to 9 months after injection.(20) By the time ovulation is able to occur, serum MPA is at such low levels (O.1 ng/ml) that it has little effect on the endometrium, and the ovary is producing normal preovulatory levels of estradiol. (17, 23 43, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,) Thus there is no evidence that DMPA produces even a theoretical risk of abortion by "hostile endometrium".

Several small pharmacokinetic studies utilizing progesterone levels as a major indicator of ovulation have shown a zero ovulation rate 3 months after IM injection of 150 mg of DMPA. (12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20) In the practical world, especially the third world, for various reasons the ovulation rate will not be zero (failure to shake the vial, out-dated or deteriorated meds, sub Q rather than IM injection, inadequate dose, biological patient variation all may enter the picture). However, pregnancy rates indicate DMPA is extremely effective. Five large international studies, including over 8,000 women,(21) were used to determine the "Pearl Index" figure of 0.3 pregnancies per hundred women years noted in the chart of "lowest expected pregnancy rates" found in the PDR. The chart is adapted from Hatcher, et al. (8).

There is no evidence that DMPA causes an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. As noted above, ovulation does not resume until serum progestin levels are extremely low. It is highly unlikely that such negligible progestin serum levels interfere with tubal or tubal cilia motility. In fact, pregnancy is so uncommon with DMPA, that statistics on ectopic pregnancy are difficult to find, and because of very small numbers, difficult to evaluate. The single study identifiable in the literature came from the Downstate Medical Center in New York from l970 to l974. The study looked at gross ectopic rate by reported method of contraception.This study calculated the the gross ectopic rate for DepoProvera of l.3%. However, because the total number of ectopics on DepoProvera was so small, and the total number of pregnancies with DepoProvera was also small, the difference between 1.3% and 1% for the baseline ectopic rate of a comparison group in was not statistically significant. Tatum (24), commenting on the study, notes, "Since pregnancy on depo-provera was so rare, there were not enough pregnancies to even get a statistically accurate rate." The significance of these studies is that they show no dramatic increase in ectopic pregnancies. Rather, if pregnancy does occur with DMPA, it is about as likely to be ectopic as a non-contracepted pregnancy. ""

"Thus there is no evidence that DMPA produces even a theoretical risk of abortion by 'hostile endometrium'." Because of the suspension of gonadotropin build up, DMPA does however sustain a less favorable endometrial environment because FS and FSH are suspended at less than optimal levels.

When the drug was being researched (decades ago, even before Searle came out with their first BC pill), the desire was to have a dual action. Since the supression of gonadotropins and beyond is so well obtained (the hypothalamus and greater manipulation is so effective), the secondary effect is highly unlikely to be occurring.

Well, we either value children created or we don't. Pick one. Are children born outside wedlock deserving of less parental obligation? It was this exact double standard which lead to illegal abortion, legal abortion, infanticide, child abandonment, etc. down through the ages. Unilateral responsiblity hasn't worked and hasn't helped kids. Time to try something new.

We either value new human life or we don't.

As far as incentives .... incentives can work many different ways. We could, as an incentive (rather a disinsentive) decide to stone to death unmarried people who have sex. Or just unmarried men who have sex ..... Why not? As long as we are being arbitrary, let's try something new for a change and see what happens.

IMO I don't see what's wrong with a eqalitatian standard of personal responsibility for everyone. It's fair, it's not hypocritical, and it says that we value children... that every child deserves by merit of simply being created .... the support and care of BOTH his parents, period.

Ping.

Italy baby-cash aims to boost births
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/995827/posts

There are two camps of scientists that are finding two very different results to "Depoprovera & risk of abortion by "hostile endometrium"."

hocndoc, Since it seems we have reached a stalemate on Depoprovera, I would like to ask your opinion regarding the typical birth control pills. Does your research find that they can cause chemical abortions? If yes, shouldn't people be made aware of this?

Besides the science and religion, the human nature factor indicates that as contraception became an integral part of culture, abortion became a necessity. Even the SCOTUS has said as much.

Contraception & abortion are inexorably linked. How can we expect a culture to reject abortion when that culture is addicted to abortion’s counterpart?

Which brings me, at least, back to the fundamental question: Why is the world so against Natural Family Planning? It is every bit as reliable as the best artificial contraceptives, it’s cheaper, it has no physical side effects, it never causes abortions, and historically it leads to stronger marriages and families. In fact, many Protestant groups have come out strong in favor of NFP.

Oh wait; the pharmaceutical companies don’t make any money from folks who use NFP…hmmmm.

From http://www.geocities.com/seapadre_1999/birthcontrol-vs-nfp.html

What is the Difference?

Father- My serious boyfriend is Catholic and I am Protestant. We are having a rough time speaking to the issue of using some form of Birth Control for the first 2 years or so of our marriage and then no type of Birth Control. My reason for desiring Birth Control is that we will both be Active Duty Military with him being gone for months at a time and me working 12-18 hour shifts. I feel it would be physically unhealthy for me to conceive and try to take care of a baby the way you are supposed to. I also feel it would be irresponsible for us not to use technology since he won't be around and that is not how families are to be. We want to do what is right but we are at an impasse. I can't see how NFP and other forms of Birth Control differ in the sense that they both are towards the same end -- try to NOT conceive and have a baby. Your intent is still the same. If you have any thoughts on this it would be much appreciated. Sincerely, Kelly A. **********

Dear Kelly,

Thanks for your email and your very important question. You and your boyfriend have some special challenges with your mixed religions and your both facing active military duty. My niece's husband is in the military and I know their times of separation are painful. They do have three beautiful children who seem to be doing pretty well. That's a great-uncle speaking, of course. :)

Your question (why use Natural Family Planning if it has the same intention as Birth Control) comes up often. Once I was giving a presentation together with a young physician and his wife. One of the participants asked, "Aren't natural and artificial methods just the same?"

The doctor replied, "If you really think so, why don't you try our method for five months?"

She thought, then said, "No, I couldn't do that. They are totally different."

On the panel was also a married couple who had used the Pill before switching to NFP. They mentioned these differences:

1. NFP (when used to avoid preganancy) involves some days of abstinence each menstrual cycle. While this first seems negative, they discovered a positive value. It became like a monthly renewal of engagement when they would express their affection by other means: holding hands, a hug, a walk together, a poem, a flower, etc. After that would come what was like a mini honeymoon. Thus NFP actually strengthened their affection.

2. It gave them greater confidence in each other. She knew that if he could exercise self-control during her fertile times, he was more likely to be able to do it when he was away from her. Also, when the wive is on the Pill, she is "available" to him at any time - but he also knows in the back of his mind that she is also potentially available to other men. Since the Pill was introduced in the 60's, infidelity has skyrocketed along with marital breakdown.

3. They are respecting the integrity of each others' bodies. Do you know any prescription - besides birth control - which is not aimed at helping the body to function normally? Birth control is not really medicine because it takes away a normal function of the body. The Pill, Depo Provera, Norplant, IUD, tubal ligation have one purpose - to render a young woman infertile.

4. Birth control can lead to what is called a "contraceptive mentality," that is, desiring such control that when a "failure" happens (only complete abstinence is 100% effective) the couple will more easily be tempted to abortion. A Guttmacher study showed that most of the women who obtained abortions were using birth control the previous month.

5. But even more serious, birth Control can involve not just preventing conception, but the destruction of tiny human lives. One of the mechanisms of chemical means is to weaken the endometrial lining of the uterus. If conception takes place the new human life cannot implant and thus dies and is expelled at the next menstruation. Birth control not only makes a couple more open to abortion, it is abortion. (The mechanisms I mentioned are no secret, altho doctors seldom explain them to their patients. For verification, check out the Planned Parenthood site's description of birth control methods.* See also: Blurring the Line)

6. Most important NFP does not destroy ones relationship with God. A Catholic who uses birth control is in an objective state of sin and is not eligible for communion until repenting and confessing the sin. To receive communion in that state does spiritual damage. (see I Cor 11:27ff) Up until very recently Protestants also considered birth control a serious sin. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism called it "worse than adultery or incest" (Commentary on Genesis 38:10).

Now I don't want to give the idea that people who use birth control are hopelessly condemned. All of us are sinners and constantly need Jesus' forgiveness and grace. If we sincerely confess our sins - whatever they are, even adultery or child abuse - Jesus will forgive them and help us make a new start. But it's better not to get into a pattern of sin - which I hope you and your boyfriend will resolve to do as you begin your marriage.

One final word. Jesus says, "Do not be afraid." Do not be afraid to talk to your fiance about such a delicate subject. Do not be afraid of your fertility - it is a great gift. Do not be afraid of children. They may not come at the time you think is right, but they will come at the moment God knows is best. To be a parent is incalculably greater than any career.

My prayers are with you and your fiance. God bless,

Fr. Phil Bloom

**********

*PP has this to say about the Pill: The "Pill" is the common name for oral contraception. There are two basic types– combination pills and progestin-only pills. Both are made of hormones like those made by a woman's ovaries. Combination pills contain both estrogen and progestin. Both kinds of pills require a medical evaluation and prescription.

Both pills can prevent pregnancy. But they work differently. Combination pills usually work by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). Progestin-only pills also can prevent ovulation. But they usually work by thickening the cervical mucus. This keeps sperm from joining with an egg. Combination pills also thicken cervical mucus. Both types of pill can also prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus.

What they call a "fertilized egg" is what you and I once were - a tiny human being complete with the genetic information it is taking the Human Genome Project over a decade to decipher. Different from its mom or dad, it already has a dynamic life of its own.

What Every Catholic Couple Should Know

Why Humanae Vitae Was Right An excellent book on the Birth Control Debate edited by Dr. Janet Smith.

Review of Why Humanae Vitae Was Right

A clear and concise Summary of Church Teaching on Contraception

Chemical Abortions (Interview with Dr. Thomas Hilgers, M.D.)

To plan or postpone pregnancy: Billings Method.

Cukierski Family Apostolate
"Not Your Mother's Birth Control"

The Moral Difference between NFP and Birth Control. (Response to letter from Ken Stuart.)

Natural Family Planning and Feminism

Natural Family Site

Mary Bloom Center for Natural Family Planning

Surviving as a Catholic Family (Archbishop Charles Chaput reflects on the difference between Birth Control and Natural Family Planning)

Germaine Greer on Birth Control

Home Page

My post # 87 covers oral contraceptives.

I'm convinced that women need more information on all forms of contraceptive methods.
People who are absolutely not willing to have a child should not have sex, because all methods of contraception fail.

I don't accept much of what the SCOTUS said in abortion rulings, do you?

I think one reason that NFP is not used more is that it's not well understood, people count it as the same as the old rhythm method (Moma says my sibs and I were all rhythm babies - I know better, because I was born about 255 days after the wedding.), or it's only taught in religious settings.

Then there are the men and women who won't cooperate in planned periodic abstinence.

More food for thought.

lifeissues.net:clear thinking about crucial issues

Search || Home » Search & Browse

Google

Browse Articles by Topic:

[ Abortion ] [ AIDS ] [ Bioethics ] [ Birth Control ] [ Death Penalty ] [ Euthanasia ] [ Family ] [ Homosexuality ] [ Life ] [ Natural Family Planning ] [ Organ Markets ] [ Population ] [ Post Abortion ]

Note: [‡] indicates an off-site article

Birth Control
122 articles

01. There's nothing wrong with you: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
02. Relationships need maturity: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
03. I don't know what to say: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
04. Am I abnormal?: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
05. Building Self-Respect: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
06. I wish I was like my friend: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
07. Freedom is Misunderstood: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
08. It isn't fair!: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
09. Sex and Love are not the same: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
10. Is it all right to kiss?: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
11. Is holding hands old-fashioned?: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
12. Mistake of becoming too exclusive: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
13. I just want to be good friends: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
14. Not ready to have steady boyfriend: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
15. Girlfriends and my studies: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
16. I would like to be friends with her.: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
17. Ten Years Older Than I: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
18. Is single dating okay?: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
19. I like my friend's girlfriend.: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
20. She doesn't want to see me anymore.: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
21. True marriage is total.: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
22. I like three and can't decide.: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
23. There marriage broke down after only two years.: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
24. I might get bored!: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
25. Single life might seem appealing!: Q/A on Human Sexuality for Teenagers
A Consumer's Guide to The Pill and Other Drugs
A Humanae Vitae Week In Los Angeles
A Prophecy Fulfilled
Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: Karen Malec
Abstinence Until Marriage: The Best Message For Teens
Advent: Creating a space of Chastity
An ever vigilant faith: homily
And the Word became Flesh (Jn 1:14): A Theological Reflection on the Human Body
Beware of false prophets! : homily
[‡] Bioethics in an Age of Emerging Biotechnology: A Christian Response to Human Embryo Experimentation
Birth Control Pills for Medical Reasons
Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill
Breast Cancer and Abortion: Other Questions
Breast Cancer and Early Oral Contraceptive Use
Casti Connubii: On Christian Marriage
Cervical cancer and use of hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review: The Lancet 2003 Vol 361 pp.1159- 67: A Brief Summary.
Contraception and Being a Person
Contraception and Catholic Sexual Ethics
Contraception and Catholic Teaching
Contraception and the Decline of the Family
Culpable and Inculpable Ignorance: Ron Rolheiser
Death and Dying Issues
Declaration on Procured Abortion: Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life: November 24, 2002
Does the Morning-After Pill Prevent Pregnancy, or Cause Abortion
Donum Vitae: The Gift of Life
Early Pregnancy Factor
Endgame: Reproductive Technology & The Death of Natural Procreation
Essential Background: Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Service: Revised Text of 1994 Text
[‡] Ethical Aspects of In-Vitro Fertilization
Evangelium Vitae: The Gospel of Life
Fides Et Ratio: On the Relationship Between Faith and Reason
Gaudium Et Spes : Pastoral Constitution On The Church In The Modern World
Giving Birth to God
God's wonderful plan for human life
How Do the Pill and Other Contraceptives Work?
Humanae Vitae
Humanae Vitae: A Challenge to Love
If I am morally bound to never use contraceptives, what am I to do?
In Vitro Fertilization
Jesus as bearer of division
John the Baptist's life-mission
Living in a moral diaspora: Oct. 20, 2002
Love Means Giving Oneself Away
Marriage Preparation and Cohabiting Couples: Family, Laity, Women and Youth
[‡] Mater S, Magistra No?
Medical Facts about Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Morning After Pill
Naturally Spacing Children: A Couple
Non-negotiable Right To Life
Obstetrics and Gynaecology in a multi-cultural society: the Catholic view
On Not Committing the Original Sin
On the Covenant of Love and Life
Overview: Breast Cancer and Abortion: Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill
Overview: Breast Cancer and the Pill: Breast Cancer and the Pill
Pastoral Guidelines on Cohabitation
[‡] Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities: A Campaign in Support of Life
Periodic Abstinence: Toward a Fuller Expression of Love
Persona Humana: Declaration On Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics
Pornography Offends Against The Divine Plan For The Body: Reflections from the US Catholic Bishops Statement on overcoming the exploitation of sex and violence in communications
Pre-Implantation Diagnosis: Embryo Screening
Prescribing Birth Control
Problems with the Quick Fix
[‡] Procreation, the Development of Peoples, and the Final Destiny of Humanity: by David M. McCarthy
Prostitution as Political Philosophy
[‡] Relation of Birth Control and Poverty
Rethinking Contraception
[‡] Sex in the City of God : A couple make the case for contraception-free marriage. And, no, they’re not Catholic
Sexual Morality: A Personal Imperative
Something to think about: Do we think that there is nothing we can do to end abortion?
Statement on the So–Called "Morning–After Pill"
Suffer the children: Nazardous conditions, sexually exploited
Teaching Chastity to Our Teens
Temptation is about choices
The Bible and Birth Control
The Challenge of Contraception
The Christian View of Sex: A Time for Apologetics, Not Apologies
[‡] The Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill : Abortifacient and Damaging to Women
The Comparative Potencies of Birth Control and Menopausal Hormonal Drug Use.
The Connection between Contraception and Abortion
The Continuing Importance of Humanae Vitae
The Diane Blood Case
The Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E) Abortion Procedure: Dec. 24, 2002
The Future of Obstetrics and Gynecology: The right to be trained and practice according to conscience
The human zygote is a "tiny being." not a "tiny thing."
The Immorality of Sterilization
The Impact of the Pill on Implantation Factors: New Research Findings
The Pill: How it works and fails.
The Pill And Breast Cancer: Your questions answered.
The Progestins and Breast Cancer
Undergirding Abstinence Within a Sexuality Education Program
What about "Sex Ed."?
Whether the "Morning-After Pill" Can Be Abortifacient
Why We Must Oppose Contraception: homily
World Ramifications of Oral Contraceptive Pill Use and Abortion Performed Early in a Woman's Reproductive Life
"Who's a Who? Are you?"

Ping for any suggestions you might wish to offer ...

Referring to post #73, Robert.

I'm on the board of trustees of our local Right to Life organization.

I used to serve on the BOD of a pro-life Pregnancy Center in Maryland, before abandoning that benighted state. I'll second your comments: our bread-and-butter was the $25 check. We thought a "big donation" was a few hundred or a grand from the local Knights of Columbus.

What is the Difference?

Browse Articles by Topic:

Birth Control 122 articles

Birth Control
122 articles