THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION

Priests for Life, Canada ^ | Professor Janet E. Smith, PhD

[Dr. Octagon]

There's no such thing as a biological straitjacket.

[Dr. Octagon]

True. Griswold paved the way to Roe, Roe to Danforth, Danforth to Webster and Casey, and Casey to Carhart. Things either go one way, or the other.

[Dr. Octagon]

Regarding, "In today's legal climate she can kill his preborn child and he can't do a thing about it."

Welcome to the greatest source of glee there is for fatherhood-hating feminists.

Society will never be on the right track 'til this changes.

[st.smith]

I do comprehend the message. You think you have the right to decide whether my wife and I have a child.

Natural Family Planning is every bit as effective as contraceptives, they just require more effort.

You think that because my wife is on the pill our relationship lacks emotional commitment.

Nobody said that, I am sure you and your wife have a wonderful relationship. I would say that is however despite the use of contraceptives rather than because of it. The larger issue however is the societal effects of contraceptive use. I agree with the article that the disconnection of sex from its proper place which the reproduction and bonding between partners in a committed marriage has led to many ills of which abortion is just one.

And I think you need to wake up and join the modern world. We have medicines to control or at least alter every function of our body, I don't see you guys trying to outlaw antacid.

No, because regulation of indegestion has no serious implications. The more important a thing is the greater care it must be dealt with. Reproduction is among the most important things for humanity and to alter its proper function can have disastrous results. Keep a lookout for a continutation of the precipitous fall in population rates in the West. Nations like Italy are literally dissapearing because their citizens have lost the will to give life to new generations. Contraception leads to selfishness, it does not seek to be open to life in the natural manner God intended, rather it grabs this gift as something to be controlled for one's own purposes. The West will cease to exercise the influence it has previously held in the world largely because of this attitude. The implications are far greater than you and your wife or any other couple.

[Mary Bear]

"You can edit the To line to make a reply to All or to ping other people on to a thread, notice I added myself to the to line."

Thank you!

"As for the pill the aboritificant properties are grossly overblown from the old days. They never actually had anything in them that caused abortions, they had (emphasis on the past tense, almost none of the modern day ones have this and Dr.s will only prescribe the old style under very limited medical conditions) a hormone that caused the period. The modern ones don't...The only real danger most birth control pills is if the pregnancy goes undetected for too long. The active pills are high in some vitamin...that's very dangerous to fetuses in the 3rd and 4th months..."

Birth control pills fool the body into acting as if it's pregnant. Birth control pills, also called oral contraceptives (OCs), come in two forms: the combined OC, a combination of two synthetic hormones, estrogen and progestin; and, the minipill, which consists solely of progestin. Combined OCs are more commonly used, though both kinds are available through health care providers. The combination pill prevents ovulation by suppressing the natural hormones in the body that would stimulate the ovary to release an egg. By taking this estrogen throughout the month, you insure that no egg will be developed or released for that cycle. Progestin thickens the cervical mucus, hindering the movement of sperm. Progestin also prevents the uterus's lining from developing normally; so, if an egg were fertilized, implantation is unlikely.*

*That is a spontaneous abortion. The morning after pill does the same thing. The above is taken from HOW DO BIRTH CONTROL PILLS WORK? from Columbia University.

[dpwiener]

There's no such thing as a biological straitjacket.

Well I'll obviously agree there's no such thing as a literal biological straightjacket. Straightjackets are manufactured products with straps and buckles, not living organisms. But there can certainly be such a thing as a metaphorical biological straightjacket. I doubt that anyone was confused by my usage of the term.

And the metaphor remains accurate. Back before contraception, women were in most cases trapped and unable to escape the prospect of pregnancy after pregnancy, ending only when they died (often during childbirth) or reached menopause. Their options for avoiding pregancy were extremely limited: They could remain spinster virgins, or become nuns (which didn't always avoid pregnancy). But most women got married (voluntarily or involuntarily), and forced intercourse by a husband was not considered rape.

Now that straightjacket no longer constrains women. Married or unmarried, sex or no sex, they can choose if and when to have children. Other options have also expanded in modern society (they can't be forced to marry, it's become practical to support themselves without husbands, they can't be forced to have sex with their husbands), but the contraceptive option is the most important one (and arguably the cultural foundation of the others).

[WackyKat]

Darn it, and I just bought a case of glow-in-the-dark condoms. Too bad there's not a time machine to take you people back to the Middle Ages where you obviously long to be.

[sinkspur]

Contraception leads to selfishness,

If one were to use Natural Family Planning to prevent pregnancy in the same way one used contraception to prevent pregnancy, would that not lead to selfishness as well?

[st.smith]

If one were to use Natural Family Planning to prevent pregnancy in the same way one used contraception to prevent pregnancy, would that not lead to selfishness as well?

Yes it would- it would just be a different form of manipulation of the gift that God has given us. Either one would be wrong. However the distinction that can be made is that selfish manipulation of NFP is the avoidance of a natural act, whereas contraception is the commission of a unnatural act. Each and every act is intrinsically disordered.

[Proud2BAmerican]

But the choice crowd is afraid that once abortions are outlawed contraception won't be far behind.

---

I'm not entirely sure why the crowd would fear this. When abortion was illegal, as far as I know, contraception was legal. But then the majority of Protestantism departed from the teaching of Christianity on the evil of contraception, thereby leading to its soon-to-be widespread acceptance. The Catholic Church is the only Christian church to have remained firmly opposed to artificial contraception, so far as I know.

[Proud2BAmerican]

I believe the point about the pill being an abortificent is that it is *possible* for an egg to become fertilized and then aborted before it has a chance to implant in the womb due to the pill. I believe Mary Bear provided you with documentation concerning this aspect of the pill.

[discostu]

Mst states at one point or another have had contraception illegal. One of the half truths in this article is that contraception is new, it's not. In various forms or another contraception has been around for a very long time. Some herbals date back to the time of Christ, condoms made from sheep intestines have been around since somebody figured out sausage packing. But religion always said it was a no no, and various nations at various spots in history have made them illegal. And then of course there are articles like this, outlawing all forms of contraception is exactly what this woman is aiming for.

[Proud2BAmerican]

I confess that I didn't make it through the entire article, however I didn't know that she advocated outlawing contraception. Where did she say that? (I skimmed through it again but couldn't find which part of her article you're referring to.)

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Ever read Humanae Vitae??? It is bad enough that Catholics must defend the faith against the uninformed non-Catholic. It is pathetic that Catholics must defend the faith against "catholics" such as you. Your side is losing the battle for the Church. Your side is neither reproducing, nor fostering vocations. Who is going to give their life only to be an underpaid social worker preaching an empty easy gospel of dissent, confirming men and women in their mortal sinful lives? The liberal wing of Catholicism is dead.

Leaner perhaps, embittered at the loses inflicted by the liberal wreckovators, still we have won the battle. The ground is ours, orthodoxy is returning. Wonder how long till you see that?

[discostu]

And of course it's possible (and actually likely) that a fertilized egg won't adhere to the wall at all even without the pill. Again most of this stuff is working with old data when the pill was much stronger (I can't emphasis enough how much the pill has changed, the pill of the 60s was about many times stronger than it is today, the changes the pill made in the womans body back then actually had a good chance of permanently sterilizing a woman if she used it for more than a few years, now women are fertile while on the pill). Women get pregnant on the pill all the time now. As I said 3/5 of the womenin my age group that I know who've been pregnant were on the pill when it happened. What the pill does now is it sets 2 days a month when the woman is fertile, usually tuesday and wednesday of the brown pill week (sometimes monday and tuesday, tuesday is almost always a fertile day).

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Thank you for sharing your lucid and thought provoking analysis of Dr. Smith's article. May God Bless you abundantly.

[sinkspur]

It is pathetic that Catholics must defend the faith against "catholics" such as you.

It is pathetic that Catholics such as you feel like you own the Church.

You don't, doctor, and I'll put my devotion to the Church up against yours any damn day of the week!

Back off of your arrogance, buster.

I ask a simple question, and you get on your high horse.

Catholics, weekly-Mass going Catholics, use contraception. To the tune of 60-70%. You may not like that, but adult Catholics are making their own decisions.

Leaner perhaps, embittered at the loses inflicted by the liberal wreckovators, still we have won the battle. The ground is ours, orthodoxy is returning.

If you mean "Latin" is returning, you're a damned fool, and living in a dream world.

Who is going to give their life only to be an underpaid social worker preaching an empty easy gospel of dissent, confirming men and women in their mortal sinful lives?

Is this how you see priests today?

Your "preaching" at adult Christians with families who live their lives open to God is a prime example of why people of goodwill ignore you.

You do more harm than good.

Take the beam out of your own eye first, pal.

[discostu]

That's the entire point. That contraception bad, contraception leads to abortion, the only way to get rid of abortion is to get rid of contraception. Same stuff on every thread that comes up. There are two camps in prolife, I call them the reasonable and the crazies. There's the folks that want to get rid of abortion and while I don't agree I undestand; then there's the ones that think anything that prevents pregnancy is part of the problem. As soon as you see the word "abortificant (sometime abortificient)" the angle is clear. They're focusing on the pill now, but they don't want to stop there. Condoms will be the last one they gun for, just because it's the hardest one to really target but it's on the list.

[discostu]

Oh yeah "Natural Family Planning". I'm old enough to remember when they called that the rhythm method. Let me tell you about how effective that is. I have 2 aunts and 1 uncle more than was intended thanks to rhythm, and if it wasn't for the fact that wombs in my family aren't happy fun places (my grandmother had 11 pregnancies for 5 kids, my mom had 8 for just me) I'd have a few more than that. My younger brother-in-law is also a product of rhythm. Yeah, real effective.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Again most of this stuff is working with old data when the pill was much stronger (I can't emphasis enough how much the pill has changed, the pill of the 60s was about many times stronger than it is today, the changes the pill made in the womans body back then actually had a good chance of permanently sterilizing a woman if she used it for more than a few years, now women are fertile while on the pill)

Early pill dosages were so high they obliterated a woman's cycle, preventing ovulation completely. These doses also caused strokes, clots, MI's, etc, so subsequent dosages were decreased.

With decreasing doses, breakthrough ovulation increases, i.e., a woman releases an agg more often.

Yet the efficacy of the pill remains at 96-97%.

Why???

Because of postfertilization effects!!!

Postfertilization effects prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg by decreasing follopian tube motility and thinning the lining of the uterus, either preventing the fertilized egg from reaching the endometrium, or preventing its implantation once it does arrive.

Therefore, since an egg has been released, conception has occured, yet the fetus dies, this is an early chemical abortion!!!

Please, if you are going to try to sound like you understand the medicine by making such statements as you have about old dosages and side effects profiles, at least get your facts straight.

I recommend you start with this:

Postfertilization Effects [early chemical abortion effects] of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent, from the Vol. 9 No. 2, February 2000 Archives of Family Medicine, a journal of the American Medical Association.

One more thing...you must compare apples with apples.

The synthetic progesterone in the pill is thought to have caused many of the clotting problems of the early pills.

Todays pills have only one tenth the amount of synthetic progesterone. Yet this newer third generation synthetic prosterone is thirty times stronger than that of the early pill.

Therefore, even though the dose is only one tenth, the dosage of synthetic progesterone itself is three times stronger overall than the early pill.

So the abortifacient effect is three times stronger, not less than the early pill.

if you are going to comment on these things I suggest you study up on pharmacology. Womens' lives are at stake, and babies are being aborted in the earliest stages. This is too serious an issue to make false statements like yours (although I'm sure you are not purposely stating falsehoods.)