PDA

View Full Version : Birth Control Pill can be Abortifacient


Kristine
04-16-02, 10:04 PM
This was originally posted under the ' "What are you doing about abortion?" Poll', but I think this is going to take a thread of its own. The truth about the birth control pill is not very well known, even amongst well-meaning Christians who would otherwise oppose all methods of abortion. I hope this will be beneficial to you all.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Multimom
birth control when used monthly and according to the Doctor's instructions is NOT "abortifacient".... contraceptives prevent ovulation in the female body. (the prefix contra means to prevent or stop, and ceptive being the partial root and modification of the word conception)
....Since there is no ovulation, there is no chance for conception. Therefore since no conception took place there is nothing to "abort".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm glad you raised this common myth-conception about the birth control pill. Unlike what is commonly believed, the birth control pill does not merely act as a contraception.

In fact 'the pill', acts in three ways:
1. Prevents ovulation (most of the time)
2. Thickens cervical mucus to prevent penetration of sperm
3. Changes the lining of the uterus to make it inhospitable to a fertilized egg

There are two types of Birth Control Pills, one often called the 'mini pill' as it contains progestin only, and the other, most commonly used, known as the combination pill which contains a dosage of both progestin and estrogen. Combination pills act as described above, sometimes preventing ovulation, and other times preventing implantation; while the progestin only pill acts primarily by thickening cervical mucus (may prevent penetration of sperm) and by thinning the uterine lining.

What are the risks? Dr. John Billings estimates that between 2 and 10 per cent of a woman's cycles are still ovulatory even when she is taking the Pill. That means there is a chance she can still conceive a child; but because of the Pill's effect on the lining of the womb, the child will not be able to implant itself into the life-sustaining wall of the uterus. This newly formed human will thereby starve to death from lack of oxygen and nutrients, and be expelled from the mother's body. Although the risk seems relatively small, over time, the likelihood of an egg being fertilized while a woman is taking the pill is great. (1 cycle every year might be ovulatory, 1 every four years at best)

Ultimately, there really is no such thing as a "negligible" risk of aborting a baby. Any risk of ending a life that has already begun is too great. To say that because birth control pills usually act as contraception, that any abortions that result should be accepted as an unfortunate accident is a little like saying that it's alright to fire a gun randomly in the dark, as you usually won't hit anybody, and in the few cases when you do, it should be accepted as an unfortunate accident.

Why is the birth control pill touted as contraception, perhaps even by your doctor? Because that's its main purpose. (Also because of the confusion over political semantics where 'conception' is often said to be implantation, rather than fertilization - pfli link below) But if you do some research, you'll find plenty of medical sites and sources who do mention the pill's alternate function.

Consider the following list of pro-life, medical, and even pro-choice & pro-contraception sites for research purposes.

I pray this information will help you and your partner make a Godly and informed choice about the contraception you use. 'Contra' is to prevent conception. But if the birth control you use controls birth by possibly eliminating life after it is begun, it is not contraceptive but abortifacient.

God bless,
Kristine


http://www.lifesite.net/clc/abortio...tion_types.html

http://www.pfli.org/declaration.html

http://www.ohiolife.org/SearchEngine/details.asp?txtTitle=&txtCategory=abortion&txtAuthor=&txtPub_Date=&txtText=&txtKeywords=oral+contraceptive&Submit=Submit&id=10134

http://www.thepillonline.com/info.html

http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/birthcontrol_pill2.html

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/TEENISSUES/BCCHOICES/bcchoices.html#pill

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0663.html

http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/ba...umsex/3557.html

The above information, along with details of other abortifacient 'contraceptives' (Depo-Provera, Norplant, IUD, RU486) can also be found at http://ottawayouthforlife.org/Resources/pill.html

trixiepup
04-17-02, 03:36 PM
in addition to the pill, many different herbs can be used to cause abortions. so it's not just prescription medications that should have fingers pointed at them....lots of things can cause a spontaneous abortion/miscarriage/whatever.

selah
04-17-02, 06:57 PM
in addition to the pill, many different herbs can be used to cause abortions. so it's not just prescription medications that should have fingers pointed at them....lots of things can cause a spontaneous abortion/miscarriage/whatever.


Like what?

trixiepup
04-17-02, 08:20 PM
i would rather not post that information, because it might be going against the goals of this bb. however, if the mods wish for the info to be publically posted, i have no problem doing that.

i'm not trying to be difficult, please understand. i have no problem responding off board to your query.

selah
04-18-02, 01:10 AM
cool, could you email me at kipepeo@lycos.com? I'm really interested to hear about this. thanks :)

Ann
04-18-02, 02:20 AM
I am not a mod on this bd but I can pretty much assure you that it would be inappropriate to discuss any specific how to's for causing an abortion on ilj. I do not think Kathryn wants the info for that use (I hope I know her better than that) but other will also read any response.

Now from the point of view of someone who has had an interest in herbs since childhood, had training in herbal remedies and lives in an area of the mountains where many people think of herbs before they think of doctors I'd like to add a comment. The potential for mortality and morbidity is very great with herbal abortatives. Obviously the potential for death for the baby is almost 100% with any abortion but the herbals even if used exactly by an experienced natural medicine practitioner have a very high maternal mortality rate too. They also have potential to do long term systemic damage.

People often think well herbs are natural so I can use them without harm. Few things are further from the truth. Even Echinacea one of the most widely used herbal cold remedies can cause a serious reaction in people who are sensitive to it. Ma Huang is a common herbal diet product ingredient and I can't begin to count the number of times I have been told these products are harmless because they are all natural. Ma Huang (plant Ephedra) can cause high blood pressure stroke, heart attack, blood vessel rupture, blindness (if the ruptured vessels are in the eye) violent headaches and a dependency can develop which leads to problems in normal breathing when one stops taking it. I am not against herbs and natural med. Exactly the opposite. But one needs to know what one is doing. It is not something to play with. And as for something being good for one because it is all natural, Poison Ivy is all natural too but I don't recommend using it as a skin soother.

selah
04-18-02, 11:09 AM
woah, I have to admit that it never even crossed my mind that a list of those things might cause someone to stumble by trying it! :eek: I actually was under the impression trixiepup meant there were things the average person may be eating or exposed to in some other way and should be aware of. Sorry for the confusion!

Multimom
04-19-02, 01:13 PM
Just a heads up on my position. For those of you who know me "birth Control" isn't really a major topic in my house hold:D :D :D

But I am not sure regarding my position on the Pill issue. I KNOW for a fact that there are women who for what ever reason shouldn't put themselves at risk for pregnancy.

For example my college roommate had a severe congenital heart defect and was warned repeatedly by her physician that becoming pregnant could result in her having a massive heart attack. So while stating that the "pill" is abortive may hold some truth this could cause major guilt feelings in those women who have no other choice. And I don't think its ethical for us to stand by and tell her "you should just take the chance", because if she has a massive heart attack or strokes out during delivery, what have we accomplished? Now I don't support abortion at all in any way, I don't believe that abortion is an appropriate form of birthcontrol. I understand that the majority of abortions are performed on a 20 something white woman who just doesn't want a baby right now.

Now, let me say to those of you who don't know me. I have 6 children aged 14, 8, 7, 6, 3 and 15 months. And after having my last one right before I turned 40 I have no physical desire to become pregnant again and I have been advised by my physician that because my deliveries became progressivly earlier it is not wise for me to continue to have children. Mind you if I could I would have had a hen house full. But since I also have a huge risk for breast cancer (mother has had 2 different types) the pill is not an option for me, so hubby and I fall back on the "condom" option, prayerfully God will override the 25% failure rate of condoms and Canaan will be the last jewel in our crown.

trixiepup
04-19-02, 02:01 PM
multimom, how come you guys decided on condoms? why not surgical sterilization for either you or your husband? you don't have to answer if it's too personal or you don't want to...i'm just curious.

Multimom
04-19-02, 02:26 PM
No thats not too personal.

We just whimped out. Truth is I had scheduled a tubal after Canaan was born and when I got to the out patient surgical center, I was told that my OB/GYN was tied up at St. John's for a 1st time VBAC delivery and the lady was hooked up to pitocin.

Being an experienced VBAC mom and knowing the effect of pitocin, I knew that meant there was no way he would be able to make it to "tie the suckers shut". And I lost my nerve.

Hubby is just way to "personal" for the vasectomy. Just the thought makes him shiver. So actually it is sort of by default that we rely on the "laytex method".

Kristine
04-22-02, 09:39 PM
Multimom,

Thanks for your response. I respect you and your husband's decision to not have a tubal or a vasectomy (although from what I hear the latter is a very quick procedure that is no more invasive than a yearly medical exam) but I'm glad that you've wisely chosen a contraceptive method that is non-abortifacient.

But in the case of your college roomate for whom a pregnancy would be life-threatning. I would not agree that she "has no other choice" but to use the pill. If she desires to avoid pregnancy for life, there is no reason she should not consider permanent surgical sterilization.

Ultimately, no matter what the reason might be, if the unborn are human beings and a contraceptive method has a potential of being abortifacient; no one can be morally justified in using it.

Kristine

HeatherlyButterfly
04-22-02, 09:47 PM
i don't think we have any right to judge the decision of another in their form of contraceptives. we are to love reguardless of situation, decisions, etc.

selah
04-23-02, 12:29 AM
Ultimately, no matter what the reason might be, if the unborn are human beings and a contraceptive method has a potential of being abortifacient; no one can be morally justified in using it.


Hi Kristine, just a question. I'm using birth control pills at the moment for another condition that I have that causes my body not to cycle regularly (or sometimes, not at all for many months). If I weren't to take the pill, I would be at higher risk for several life-threatening conditions, the most severe being diabetes.

In a few months, I actually am going to try going off the pill to see if my body will cycle on it's own. However, if it doesn't, I will need to get back on the pill to treat my condition. Of course, in terms of accidental abortions this is not a problem at the moment; I am single and not sexually active. But by your line of reasoning, when I do get married, am I supposed to discontinue treatment of my condition?

Of course, my answer to that is that when the time comes, birth control methods and my condition will be things that I and my fiance will discuss prayerfully and make our decision then. But I'd like to hear your opinion in this "what if" instance.

Multimom
04-23-02, 12:34 AM
Thanks for your response. I respect you and your husband's decision to not have a tubal or a vasectomy(although from what I hear the latter is a very quick procedure that is no more invasive than a yearly medical exam)

Actually the scrotal sack is cut open and the variseces are severed and burned shut so it is more invasive, but also the horror story we got from some very close friends of ours clinched it for my hubby.

This dear friend of ours had it done and in about 6 days he was in the hospital in a coma with speticemia. He almost died from an "non-invasive' procedure.

Also the male medical exam doesn't include a prostate examination until they reach they age of 40 prior to that age the medical exam includes only external superficial structural exams. The medical exam for the under 40 man consists of blood pressure check, listening to the heart rhythm and a groin check for a hernia with height and weight checks. And if a thorough check involves drawing blood.

Kristine;
Because of the severity of her heart defect, they felt the tubal ligation to be too much of a stress on her already over stressed heart. They strongly encourage her to avoid any invasive procedure that was not a life threatening issue.

So her only option was birth control pills.

trixiepup
04-23-02, 03:34 AM
this seems to be a rather t***** topic, but i'm gonna post anyways.
i honestly don't understand what the big deal is about the birth control pills. yeah, they can cause a fertilized egg to not adhere to the uterine walls, etc. but life can cause the same problems. you can eat the wrong food, drink the wrong thing, exercise the wrong way, etc. it seems like the same situation to me, except one is called abortion, and the other is called miscarriage.

it is very presumptuous (imo) to condone or berate the choices other women make in birth control or health maintenance programs. i think it is far more important to take care of the people we have around us right now than it is to take care of a fertilized egg that isn't allowed to attach to a uternine wall. for me, i would rather attend to the needs of a person that needs my help and i can see as being alive as opposed to a multicelled organism that isn't really visible unless it's under a microscope or some magnification device.

just my thoughts.

Kristine
04-25-02, 01:08 AM
Butterfly4God said: i don't think we have any right to judge the decision of another in their form of contraceptives. we are to love reguardless of situation, decisions, etc.
The word judge, according to Webster’s dictionary means: ““to form an opinion about, through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises”

After weighing the evidence of the Pill’s abortifacient nature, one is perfectly right in forming the opinion that its use is immoral.

As to love, it is not loving to risk destroying the life of an innocent human being, no matter how small/undeveloped (s)he may currently be. Nor is it loving to stand back and let someone make this mistake without attempting to warn them of what their decision may do.


Kipepeo said If I weren't to take the pill, I would be at higher risk for several life-threatening conditions, the most severe being diabetes.
Your concerns, like that of Multimom’s roommate are 100% valid. And ultimately, you’re right. You and your future fiancé will have to decide before God whether your risk of a life altering disease is worth taking the risk of aborting one of your children.

I won’t tell you what you should or should not do, although I would suggest that if a woman must take the pill for medical reasons, in light of what she knows about the pill’s abortifacient nature, she would be wise to consider using a back-up barrier method to reduce the risk of fertilization even further. If the embryo is a human being (see post entitled ‘The acorn and the oak tree’ under abortion poll) then we are obliged to protect their lives as much as we seek to protect our own.

As to the comments of Multimom's friend's doctors They strongly encourage her to avoid any invasive procedure that was not a life threatening issue. So her only option was birth control pills
Not life threatning? I guess that depends whose life we're talking about.

Kristine

Kristine
04-25-02, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by trixiepup
i honestly don't understand what the big deal is about the birth control pills. yeah, they can cause a fertilized egg to not adhere to the uterine walls, etc. but life can cause the same problems. you can eat the wrong food, drink the wrong thing, exercise the wrong way, etc. it seems like the same situation to me, except one is called abortion, and the other is called miscarriage.

Some infants die accidently, or naturally, in their sleep. This doesn't mean we are justified to act neglectfully towards infants or to intentionally do something that may end their life. Likewise, the fact that some embryos die naturally, doesn't justify us knowingly doing something that may end their life (ie taking the pill).

Trixiepup you also said, i think it is far more important to take care of the people we have around us right now than it is to take care of a fertilized egg that isn't allowed to attach to a uternine wall. for me, i would rather attend to the needs of a person that needs my help and i can see as being alive as opposed to a multicelled organism that isn't really visible unless it's under a microscope or some magnification device.

I'd encourage you to read through the post entitled 'The Acorn and the Oak Tree (abortion poll thread). Your comments assume embryos are not people, not persons in need of our help, not alive, and in fact you're assuming they are not human because they are very small and merely a multicelled organism.

How do I know you're making this assumption? Because if you believed embryos were human beings, you would not be complacent about another couple's choice to engage in a series of actions that may cause their death. That is why lead paint was banned in most parts of the world, because we seek the protection of young children over the choices of a family or interior designer who prefers the glossy appearance that lead provides.

So what if the embryo is small? Since when does size have anything to do with the rights that people have and the amount of protection they should receive? Men are generally larger then women, does that make them more of a person then we are? Is it less tragic when a short person is killed then when a six-foot person is killed? Size is morally irrelevant.

As to the embryo being a multi-celled organism, I don't disagree. But that multi-celled organism has the inherent capacity to develop itself through all stages of human development. (S)he is in a stage of development that does not require more developped functions...
How does one's level of development affect one's status as a person? Are toddlers less people because they can't reproduce yet? Is it less tragic for an infant to die because s(he) has not yet acquired the function of walking? If one's level of development is irrelevant to the rest of us, why is the embryo's level of development relevant when it comes to his/her status as a person worthy of protection?

Again, for more detail on the nature of the embryo and its inherent capacity, please see The acorn post I referred to. I think you will discover the destruction of a 'fertilized egg' to be a much bigger deal then you'd originally thought.

Kristine

HeatherlyButterfly
04-25-02, 02:42 AM
i was going to reply.. but thought it best not to... i'm slightly angered and not thinking very christian things right now. dear Jesus give me understanding and love...

Breni Sue
04-25-02, 04:37 AM
I had a feeling that emotions might get out of control here, seeing how abortion is always a very touchy issue. Obviously both sides feel very passionately about this, and I respect that. However, I must ask that we all take a moment here to step back, choose our words carefully, and think before we speak. Remember, we are here to share our views, not argue about them. :)

Thanks guys!

Multimom
04-25-02, 09:48 AM
I understand that Kristine feels very strongly regarding her position on abortion and its various methods some more overt than others.

But realistically not every one will be swayed by the passion of others. If you are on the fence regarding this issue, I would encourage you to read as much as possible on both sides of the issue and formulate your own opinion.

We have come to realize through this thread, it is nearly impossible to dictate someone's position on "morality".

Kristine made her position known and she has a right to do that, others have added their 2 cents and that is acceptable too.

But "Christian Fellowship" is not a place of "debate". If there are those who wish to debate the finer issues of abortion, I would encourage you to go to Vinnie's website on the ezboard.

Mind you though if you choose to go to that forum to debate this issue, there are several athiests there and they will be "more than happy" to let their positions be known.

Kristine wanted to make a point and she made it. We wanted to state our positions and we did that so I think it is best to let this rest. If it gets any more heated I'm sure that Kyrie or I one will close it for a time.

selah
04-25-02, 11:33 AM
I'm in agreement with Multimom, which is why I chose not to respond to Kristine's post. My feelings and actions regarding birth control pills are and always will be a decision made prayerfully between me and God; so I really have no need to debate it at this point. Thanks all for providing your perspectives though.

And everyone--have a nice day :)

Kristine
04-25-02, 11:24 PM
I am confused as to where you all are getting this idea that debate or discussion is inherently evil. Truth is Truth, discussion can only sharpen people.

I understand why some of you are 'angry' right now. We live in a very post-modern world that embraces moral relativism and the idea that everyone should do what is right in their own eyes, and that it is wrong for anyone else to judge or to condemn anyone else's morality. This view has unfortunately permeated its way into many churches.

Aside from the obvious fact that moral relativism is self refuting (you can't say that someone is wrong to judge or to imposse their morals on another person, without making a moral judgment yourself. (You can't tell me I'm wrong for telling someone else they are wrong, without contracting your own statement) If it is true that 'truth is relative', then that statement most also be relative - it's a mentality that commits 'intellectual suicide, it doesn't work.

So evidently I've rubbed some people the wrong way. People have gotten angry. Big deal. I don't see this as a reason to shut a thread down - this whole idea that Christians must be gentle and mild and 'discuss' but not condemn falsehoods is completely unscriptural:

Look at the ministries of Paul and of Jesus, for example. Did they ruffle feathers? Did they get people angry? You bet!

If you think it's un-Christ-like to cause division or to argue or cause anger, you might want to re-read the gospels. In the book of Matthew alone, you'll find 24 seperate incidents where Jesus gets into arguments with people. And lest you think these were merely mild, theological exchanges; 18 of these situations became so heated that Jesus resorts to name calling. And while you're at it, read Luke 4, John 6, John 10 to see the division caused by Jesus. The truth divides, in Matthew 10 Jesus said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace."

And those who followed in Jesus footsteps, preaching the hard truth in love and pointing out the error of people's ways, were hated too. The apostle Paul's ministry was so confrontational that his listeners conspired to kill him in Damascus, they forced him to flee Jerusalem, they ran him out of Antioch, they threatened his life in Iconema, they stoned him and left him for dead in Lystra, they attacked and beat him in Macedonia, they stormed his residence with the intention to kill him in Thessalonica, the drove him from Beroa, they abused him in Corinth, assaulted him in Crispas, silenced him with threats of mob violence in Ephesus where he fled at the urging of fellow disciples, and incited two riots in which he was almost killed in Jerusalem.

People didn't like what Jesus and Paul had to say, but they didn't water it down, burry the truth, or smile and shrug at the error of their ways. I wonder if Jesus were to post here if he'd be told he needed to be more Christ-like, and have his thread shut down because it made people angry and uncomfortable. Truth is truth and I make no appology for speaking it.

As Chrisitans we cannot begin to espouse this idea that morality, truth, and right and wrong vary and depend on each person's individual perspective. We, of all people should know better because we believe that Jesus is "THE way, THE truth, and THE life."

And there is absolute truth when it comes to abortion and human lives too. Either I am wrong, and the unborn/embryos are not human beings, in which case I am happy to hear your evidence if you believe this position to be true. Or the evidence that I have provided is sound, and the unborn are human beings. In either case there is right and there is wrong, there is truth and there is falsehood.

There can be no middle line when it comes to a biological state of a human being. Either a toddler is a human being, or she isn't. A toddler's status doesn't change depending on whose home she is living in. It is no different for the unborn: either they are human beings, or they are not. This will not change depending on whose womb she is living in. The evidence in either case will always point to the Truth.

But let us not play games and dillude ourselves into thinking we can live in the grey on matters of life or death. If I am wrong about the embryos status, I will hear your evidence. But if I am right in the scientific evidence I have provided, the Truth will speak for itself and dictate our moral obligations, whether they make us feel angry or not.

God bless,
Kristine

selah
04-26-02, 12:07 AM
Kristine,

I'm assuming Multimom or Kyrie would have jumped in with this, but apparently I am getting there first. There is definitely a time and place for "debate" and for intellectually refining ourselves and one another. The administrators of these boards created an "open discussion and debate" board for that purpose, and the "christian fellowship" board was not a board that was ever intended to have debate. It was a board for members to lift one another up, ask questions, share viewpoints, and maybe even form relationships with one another.

Unfortunately, the "ODD" board did not work out, and the administrators had to take it off the net. Several of the regulars there created a new board here: http://pub5.ezboard.com/fzetoumenehoalethiafrm2. If you want to debate abortion issues, that is the place to do it. Debate has it's value, in the proper context (time and place). This specific board wasn't created to be the place for debate.

I think I got that right ... Multimom, Kyrie? How did I do? ;)

Kathryn

Breni Sue
04-26-02, 02:26 AM
You took the words right out of my mouth. ;)

Kristine - nobody is saying that debate and discussion are evil things. And I am certainly not here to try and tell you what you can and can't believe. I have no problem with folks wanting to share their differing views on stuff, or trying to educate people about issues they feel are important. People didn't like what Jesus and Paul had to say, but they didn't water it down, burry the truth, or smile and shrug at the error of their ways. I wonder if Jesus were to post here if he'd be told he needed to be more Christ-like, and have his thread shut down because it made people angry and uncomfortable. Truth is truth and I make no appology for speaking it.
Kristine, as kipepeo pointed out, there is a time and place for everything. Nobody is trying to keep you from spreading the truth. Afterall, is that not part of our jobs as Christians - to inform, to educate, to open them up to God's Word? I thought your original post was great. But obviously there are those who disagree with you and feel just as passionately as you do about this. I see nothing wrong with a friendly exchange of beliefs. But I feel this discussion has crossed that line, judging from some of the heated replies here. I don't wish for people to be made to feel angry or uncomfortable here, that is not the purpose of this forum. It is just what the title indicates - for fellowship. Arguing about what is/is not moral to the point where it causes conflict isn't going to change anyone's mind, and IMO isn't going to increase the fellowship here.As Chrisitans we cannot begin to espouse this idea that morality, truth, and right and wrong vary and depend on each person's individual perspective. We, of all people should know better because we believe that Jesus is "THE way, THE truth, and THE life."
I think everyone here agrees that the bible holds the Truth, Jesus is the only way to salvation, and that morality is not subjective. Nobody is disputing that. But tell me this - do you know of any 2 Christians who look at the bible the exact same way? The Word of God is a difficult thing for our limited minds to understand completely - even for the most gifted of scholars. If it were that easy, we would not have so many denominations like we do. I do believe though that we will all have total understanding once we enter the gates of heaven: 1Corithians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

I am opting to keep this open for the time being should anyone else care to add anything new to the discussion. However, if you would like to debate this in-depth, then I would encourage you to go to the link posted by Kipepeo. There a few of us here who participate over there, (Ilgwamh and Orpheus are the founders, and I moderate) and we would love to have someone with a conservative view to contribute.

Thanks!
~Kyrie :)

Multimom
04-26-02, 03:04 PM
Kip and Kyrie are absolutely 100% correct.

Ecclesiasties 3:1 says:To everything there is a season and a time for ever purpose under heaven:......

Then is lists a myriad of things for which there is a proper time and place.

"Fellowship" is not the proper place for debate. Stating your view and then some one stating their view is appropriate but the "debate tactic" of persuasion by refuting the position of another is not appropriate here.

As Kip stated the ODD board blew up in our faces more than once and therefore was removed from this forum. If you wish to debate the issue, follow her link.

Kyrie, no insult intended but be forewarned if you go to Vinnie's board be prepared to face strong and very thought out opposition for this issue.

Thanks guys,

Kristine
04-28-02, 12:30 AM
Ok evidently you no longer wish to discuss this, as seen in the convenient change of topic.

I've obviously struck some nerves here, and rather than deal with the source of the problem, you'd rather chop the arm of to control the 'bleeding'.

And so I'll let the matter drop. I've showed you medical facts and scientific facts about both the pill and the embryo. If you wish to ingnore these in light of a more comfortable neutral sounding position (which I've stated earlier is not possible on issues of life or death - as an embryos is either alive or dead, human or not) ; there isn't much I can do about that except to tell you the truth.

Even Jesus recommended wipping one's feet and moving on when listners refuse to hear the truth. So dust I will.

But just one closing thought in response to what Kyrie said do you know of any 2 Christians who look at the bible the exact same way? The Word of God is a difficult thing for our limited minds to understand completely - even for the most gifted of scholars. How many ways are there to interpret the words "thou shalt not kill"?


I pray for you all. May God give you the grace to accept His truth, even when it goes against the grain of modern thought and politically correct attitudes.

God bless,
Kristine

Breni Sue
04-28-02, 02:43 AM
I've obviously struck some nerves here, and rather than deal with the source of the problem, you'd rather chop the arm of to control the 'bleeding'. Allow me to repeat, Kristine - this is not a debate forum. Obviously you feel very strongly about this issue, and that's fine. Educating and sharing one's views are one thing, you've accomplished that. But the line of discussion I am seeing here borders on being confrontational and argumentive. And that may have been OK in ODD, but not here. If this is the type of discussion you are seeking, then Christian Fellowship may not be the forum for you.

I'm sorry if you feel that people are ignoring you here, but that is not the case. I do hope you will consider going to the boards mentioned in here earlier.

~Kyrie :)

selah
04-28-02, 03:11 PM
Kristine,

If you come to the new debate board I linked to earlier, I will discuss my position with you further. You wouldn't even have to retype it all, you could just copy and paste what you have written. I am not "copping out" or changing the subject. I'm choosing to refrain from debating here in repsect for the administrators, the moderators, and the other posters to this board--a board that wasn't created for debate.

God bless,
Kathryn

Multimom
04-28-02, 04:41 PM
Ok evidently you no longer wish to discuss this, as seen in the convenient change of topic.

I've obviously struck some nerves here, and rather than deal with the source of the problem, you'd rather chop the arm of to control the 'bleeding'.

First let me say that no one "conveniently changed the topic" we simply attempted to put a stop to what could have become a very explosive and ugly issue. This forum is "Christian Fellowship". My point is How many of you would want to go to church and find that no matter how much you needed your brothers and sisters in Christ all they had for you was an arguement. I don't know about you but I would find another fellowship to attend.

Kristine: I fear that you have lumped everyone who donesn't exactly share your views as pro-abortion and not pro-life. Just as there are varying degrees of faith so are there varying degrees of conviction.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your position and from what I observed, the majority of the women who responded are pretty much pro-life. The problem arose when the exchange of ideas became an adversarial discourse.

We would never in any way attempt to alter your position, because "having the faith of your own conviction". But to expect everyone to leap on that particular band wagon probably wasn't the mose likely prospect.

I would like to ask you this, regarding my college roommate.

1. She has a severe congenital heart defect.
2. Pregnancy would be life threatening to her. Possibly killing her and the unborn baby.
3. Surgery (tubal ligation) was not an acceptable indication in her case. (They don't feel that her heart could stand the stress of surgery (especially since tubal is elective)

So what is her alternative? Should she and her husband of 10 years abstain from sexual relations, should she risk her life and safety to a condom that has a 25% failure rate. Should she use the diaphragm which also has a high failure rate. The IUD fails and forces a fertilized egg to be expelled (this was not recommended because any alteration in her general health was life endangering.)

So her best chance for a healthy life was the birth control pill.

We are not proabortion, but we are also not anti-birth control

It wasn't that we disagreed with your position regarding abortion, but that we don't all think alike when it comes to birth control options. This sort of reminds me of the dragging the horse to the water, but you can't force him to drink.

I'm sorry if we offended you that wasn't our intention. Again if you wish to debate this issue, follow kipepos link to the "Seeking Truth" board. However once again if you decided to do this remember that there a many athiest who frequent that board and you will face hard opposition on that board from some of their members.

trixiepup
04-29-02, 07:09 PM
multimom,
i don't know if your friend heard of the natural family planning method, but that is another possibility. it's not the rhythm method, so commonly joked about, at least not from what i've read about it. it's pretty cool to see the signs of fertility, and to have some idea when you are ovulating. i think i'd be too scared to use it exclusively, but i think when used in conjunction with other barrier methods, it could be quite effective. the book _women's bodies, women's wisdom_ talks briefly about it (but it's good reading overall...i highly recommend it!).

my other comment...i think more birth control methods should be geared towards men...ones that aren't just barriers, like condoms. men should have the option of pills and shots and patches. it's unfortunate that the pharmeceutical industry just recycles the same hormone driven birth control in various forms for women. like a patch once a week is really that different from a daily pill or a monthly shot/pill. maybe someday, it'll happen.

selah
04-29-02, 07:23 PM
I thought I heard something about a male birth control pill. I don't remember if it was just being developed or was being tested (I don't think it's actually available) ... anyone know anything about this?

Kristine
04-29-02, 07:27 PM
First of all, I did try to go to the link that you posted earlier, but it wasn't active. It's possible that it was down temporarily, but if you could recheck that the link is correct that would help.

Multimom, as I mentioned earlier, your friend is in a unique situation. When two lives are at stake (the woman and potentially her unborn) it has always been believed (even before abortion was illegal) that it is better that one life be saved, then that two be lost. If in fact a full-term pregnancy would kill your friend (and hence the baby if she didn't survive long enough) then her situation with needing to take the pill is similar to that of a woman who must remove a tubal pregnancy.

As you mentioned, the condom, diaphragm etc all have failure rates, as does the pill (as we have seen). But if your friend must take the pill for medical reasons, it might be beneficial for her to back up that method with another barrier method. The chance of a fertilzed egg would be so greatly reduced as to be next to nil. A condom would have to break during a break-through ovulation, and sperm pass through the cervical mucus before it ever became a question of fertilization occcuring. Add to the condom use a spermicide and/or a diaphragm... well you do the math on the odds.

The point is, your friend has not exhausted all of her non-abortifacient contraceptive methods. If she still wishes to use the pill as one more life-saving back-up, I'm sure no one would fault her. But this is by no means a liscence for any of us to use the pill casually and needlessly. Let God and your conscience be your judge. Look at all the evidence at hand, the truth will tell you what is right.

Finally, I'm sorry to see there is no longer a forum for debate and discussion of divisive isssues. It's unfortunate if Christians must simply resort themselves to casual happy conversations about how nice it is to be Christians, and not be able to really delve into the greater issues of faith, doctrine, and truth.

I will continue to look for such a forum, but in the meantime, I hope you will consider revising your deffinition of what it means to be in Christian fellowship. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is not wrong to be 'confrontational' when it comes to the truth - unless you're willing to cast Jesus and Paul as being un-Christ-like.

Remember, real fellowship isn't just about unity; it's about being united in what is true.

John 4:23
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

Kristine

selah
04-29-02, 07:50 PM
oops, not sure what happened. Here it is again.

http://pub5.ezboard.com/bzetoumenehoalethia

I hope you join us there, I went to your webpage and read a portion of your writings on "Free Will," about which I have some questions to ask you :)

Kathryn

trixiepup
04-29-02, 09:26 PM
from what i read about the male birth control pill, it made guys grow breasts and it did something else...i'm thinking shrinking penis size; but i'm not quite sure. i think there may have also been a health reason too, but i think the breast thing alone would scare off guys from taking the pill.

selah
04-29-02, 09:46 PM
Interesting, Trixiepup. I think I might do a little online research to see what info. I can find about that.

Kristine, I've been thinking more about one of your comments and wanted to respond to it:

Finally, I'm sorry to see there is no longer a forum for debate and discussion of divisive isssues. It's unfortunate if Christians must simply resort themselves to casual happy conversations about how nice it is to be Christians, and not be able to really delve into the greater issues of faith, doctrine, and truth.

I, too, am sorry there is no longer a forum for debate here, but I think if you had been a part of the boards and seen how out of hand they got, or read the posts from the Administrators about why they could no longer put the time and energy into the ODD, you would understand why it is gone. If you're interested in why this happened, there was a long thread in the Help and Suggestion Board about why it was finally closed. (and as a side note, may be back again someday when the administrators are called and/or have the time and energy required to handle such a board).

However, I wanted to address the last line of your quote. I think we really can "delve into the greater issues of faith, doctrine and truth" on this board. We can share our feelings, offer to one another the knowledge and wisdom that the Lord has given us, and discuss serious topics. We can talk about issues all across the board--Political, Environmental, Biblical, you name it. It's just when it comes to a point where two people disagree and are both very strongly in their position, when the discussion becomes a debate, that is not appropriate for this board. A lot of learning and growth can take place when we share what we've learned with one another. This just isn't the place to assemble the intellectual artillery when someone disagrees. There are other places for that. I hope you understand.

Breni Sue
04-30-02, 04:26 AM
One of the reasons why ODD was closed:
http://www.iljboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6426

That wasn't the only one, but we've also had instances in the past where folks couldn't "behave" and discuss matters rationally. For some reason we just haven't been able to find a way to make a debate forum work on these boards. I hope that will change sometime in the future though. In the meantime, Christian Fellowship will remain debate-free. ;)

We now return you to our regularly scheduled thread! :)

pinkie
05-29-02, 10:15 PM
This is great! I'm so glad I found this thread! Why doesn't anybody tell you this information in Christian circles? Who would have known the pill isn't just contraceptive? Wow.

I have so many Christian friends who got married recently and are on the pill. This information should be made available in pre-marital counselling!

Thanks Kristine!

Multimom
05-30-02, 08:20 AM
But this is by no means a liscence for any of us to use the pill casually and needlessly. Let God and your conscience be your judge. Look at all the evidence at hand, the truth will tell you what is right.


Just a reminder, I personally do not use birthcontrol pills. #1 because I had horrible breakthrough bleeding while nursing. ( I had stopped bleeding after delivery. I went on the pill and within about 10 days started bleeding again and bled for 17 days straight.

#2. The risk for breast cancer in my case is much greater than normal. My mother has had 2 completely different forms of breast cancer so the 2nd was not a reoccurance. So my risk is much higher than that of the normal woman.

Ann
05-30-02, 01:19 PM
As a quick review of something that was said a while back different forms of birth control pills work differently, One needs to know exactly what the pill she is considering will and will not do. There are pills which prevent ovulation. If there is no egg released there can be no meeting of egg and spern to create life and therefore no abortion. Other pills and other types of birth control prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in the womb. This means that life was formed in these cases but not allowed to develop. Preventing conception whether by pill or by barrier or by surgical proceedure on the male or female reproductive tubes is not abortion.

Ann
05-30-02, 01:52 PM
Having survived 3 versions of the debate and discussion boards I have a lot of understanding of why we don't have one.

One problem was that while it is very possible to confront issues without insulting people and without being nasty there were a number of folks who never mastered that art. I have been called a few choice things on and off the bd as a result of the ODD type boards we had and I have seen instances where babies in Jesus were really trampled under foot by the athiests and other nonbelievers who were welcomed on those boards as well as times when "Christians" did their best to destroy people who held different doctrinal views from theirs on issues that were far from basic to the Christian faith. There are a whole lot of places on line where name calling, fighting, insults, and deliberately hurting people are welcome. This is not one of them. We do allow straight talk about very serious issues and serious discussions as well as fluff and nonsense as well as prayer, praise and encouragement. Concern, passion, correction, or diagreement can be expressed in a way that is still polite and kind, a way that directs someone to Christ. There is a big difference betwen "You hypocrite! No one who cares anything about God could ever say what you did" and "Your post tells how much you love Jesus. That makes me wonder if you have ever looked at (specific scripture) and how it fits with what you said." My personal style tends to be very direct and I sometimes have to write something out and go back and edit it or even keep it in word pad a day and go back with Holy Spirit pruning shears.

Personally I think the main problem with the ODD type boards was that there was no basic standard except that things be phrased politely. It was sort of like the time of Judges 17:6 & 21:25 "every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes". To me God and His word are our standard for life and without that absolute there can be no objective right and wrong and no way to identify truth. Therefore in my eyes at least many of the discussions did not glorify God or edify His people.

Kristine
05-30-02, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Ann
...different forms of birth control pills work differently...There are pills which prevent ovulation...Other pills and other types of birth control prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in the womb. This means that life was formed in these cases but not allowed to develop...

Ann, are you aware of a birth control pill that is estrogen only? To my knowledge such pills were no longer being made due to the increase of problems that such a strong, continuous dose of the female hormone caused in many women. If you know of one, I'd be interested in hearing more about it.

As I mentioned in the original posts on this matter, birth control pills are composed of two hormones that work to prevent pregnancy. Estrogen is the hormone that the body produces when one is pregnant or lactating, which tells the body not to produce any eggs. Unfortunately, prolonged exposure to estrogen has been found to cause such problems as increased risk of breast cancer etc.

Progestin is a hormone which acts primarily by thinning the lining of the uterus so that it is not thick enough for an embryo to implant (sometimes it does prevent ovulation too). In the event that the pill fails in its primary function to suppress ovulation and to prevent the penetration of sperm, progestin provides a 'safety net' by reducing the possibiliity of implantation.

Today most pills are 'combination pills' containing both estrogen and progestin, in various doses. Others, like Depo-Provera and Norplant, are progestin only. Estrogen only pills (unless you can show me otherwise) are no longer available.

The problem with combination pills is that you just never know when your pill is acting by preventing ovulation, and when breakthrough ovulation has occured thus preventing pregnancy by the pill's secondary means. If you return to my original post on this thread, you'll find links to medical sites that talk about how an estimated 2-10% of a woman's cycles on the pill may still be ovulatory (up to 40% on progestin only methods).

Of course, like you said, there is a difference between contraception (where sperm and egg are prevented from meeting and no conception occurs [contradicts conception] and preventing implantation of a newly formed life. Contraimplantive it is, but at that point, no longer contraceptive.

You may break the stats while on the pill and experience mostly prevention of ovulation. But unless your pill contains no progestin, you can't be guarenteed which function of the pill is working to prevent your pregnancy - is it worth taking the risk of possibly aborting a baby?

Only you can decide. I pray you will choose wisely.

Do your research. I provide a lot of sites in my first post and this one: http://www.epm.org/bcpill1.html is a detailed study on this matter. Whatever you do, please be honest with yourself and try not to let a personal bias or your desire for the pill to not be abortifacient to hinder you from seeking out the truth.

On the other hand, if anyone believes they have evidence that there are contraceptive pills that don't contain progestin and will not pose an abortifacient risk, I would certainly like to see it.

Kristine

Ann
05-31-02, 12:46 AM
I am told by OBGYN whom I believe to be reliable that there are still ovulation inhibitor only meds available. I will ask specific brand and generic info when I have opprtunity. It has never been a personal issue for me simply because I wanted a child or children but miscarried the only time I was pregnant so preventing pregnancy was exactly the opposite of my personal goal. Your point is well taken that a woman certainly can and should ask her obgyn (and also the pharmacist) exactly how any med prevents pregnancy and decide accordingly. I add the pharmacist because it is sometimes easier to get full info from them.


On a more personal note Kristine please pray we are hopefully abut to have one more little miracle running around in church. A young lady we have known and loved and prayed for for years (like since she was 11) has expressed an interest in coming. Her little one represents a major victory in prayer because she was told she could "never" carry to term and "had to" abort because of health issues resulting in part from abuse and neglect in childhood. The little one who could never be is just over a year old and very precious. I want so much for her mommie to really receive Jesus love and overcome her hurts. She knew to ask for prayer for her baby's life but has not yet fully recovered from her own hurts that stand between her and fully opening up to Jesus love. Her husband says he brought her back here because he believes this is where she will be healed physically and emotionally. Please pray for all 3 of them. Thanks.

Kristine
05-31-02, 03:12 AM
I will pray for her. It sounds like she's been through some hard times in her life. We share that much in common.

I'm glad she was able to have her child (if I understood your post correctly, the child she has now is the one that she was told she 'had' to abort). It's sad that so many doctors try to convince women that abortion is in their best interest. I wonder if that doctor even gave any thought to what the emotional burden of abortion might do to an already troubled woman? He should come down to the local Crisis Pregnancy Center and spend some time with some of the post-abortive women who come for counselling.

I've heard a lot of doctors do the same with many pregnant women over thirty 'your child could be mentally disabled'.

About the contraceptive pills, if you could find out more details, I would be very interested. If in fact there is still a healthy alternative to the abortifacient pills with progestin, that would be very good news. I'm not sure how they could work, other than with estrogen - and estrogen is known to trigger a whole host of problems (from migraines, to breast cancer etc).

Still, the info would be handy.

Thanks,
Kristine

PS. About gynos and pharmacists, be sure that you are both using the same definitions. Many health professionals now refer to pregnancy as starting at implantation. Some pill inserts don't even mention the third nature of the pills. It's important to ask him/her what the pills are made of, and exactly how each component acts to prevent pregnancy. Going to more than one source is not a bad idea either. For political reasons (that go along with the new definition of pregnancy), the fact that the pill can act as an abortifacient has not been a widely adevertised fact. (No doubt in part because a lot of those who oppose abortion would stop using the pill and start opposing it if they thought the pills were not just contraceptive)

Multimom
05-31-02, 10:06 AM
I'm sure there are doctors out there with that mentality, however having had 5 of my 6 after the age of 30 and the last one at 39, my doctor never made any such inuendo.

I did have another OB try to tell me that my last was a Down's Syndrom baby (because of my age)and his birth proved that OB wrong.

Canaan is just as healthy as any of the other 5.

Now I will say with any medication your best source of info is your pharmacist. Dr.'s learn about prescribing for a reason but they don't always understand the exact nature of how a drug works which is why you find a copy of the PDR in every medical office.

Kristine
05-31-02, 04:11 PM
Wow, multimom - 5 kids.... now I know where you got your name ;)

Good for you for having taken the doctor's word with a grain of salt on the last pregnancy. I'm always hearbroken by the stats on late-age abortions where the woman was told her baby would likely have Downs' and it turns out they aborted a perfectly healthy baby (or else like you they give birth and realize that had they aborted they would have been wrong). Even amnio testing isn't always exact.

In fact it makes a bit of sense to expect more potential for complications in later born children. Every time a woman ovulates, the body chooses from amongst the best ova and nurtures and prepares that one for release. As a woman ages, it only makes sense that most of the better ova would have already been released.... of course it's impossible to make a hard and fast rule and we've all seen again and again.

Anyhow, I am glad to see this discussion resurrected once again :) Thanks Pinkie.

Kristine

selah
05-31-02, 05:01 PM
Every time a woman ovulates, the body chooses from amongst the best ova and nurtures and prepares that one for release.

Can you explain more about this to me? I'm curious about how the body would "know" what the best ova are, and what makes one better than another?

Kristine
06-07-02, 12:43 AM
Kipepoe,

I'm not sure I can explain how or why the body does this. All I know is that I've heard this mentioned on various 'how the body works' science documentaries (including ones put out by the BBC and National Film Board.

I know, as I mentioned earlier that I've heard this fact mentioned repeatedly as one of the reasons why older women have increasingly greater risk of giving birth to deffective (ie Down's) children.

This is a good question though, I'll try to do some research to try to find the answer for your question. I imagine if you do a search on the internet for 'pregnancy over 30, ovaries' etc you might find something.

I'll post again if I find an answer.

Kristine

Avatarus
06-11-02, 12:02 PM
Part of the dangers of having kids as one gets older (for women anyways) is also related to the unique way that eggs are stored in the human body. A woman is born with all her eggs intact... and they are in a unique kind of stasis for all those years (if I remember my biology correctly). So even though the body tries to pick the best egg when ovulation occurs... if those eggs have been stored too long... they can slowly deteriorate. I will try to research some info on this for you...

Avatarus