Do Birth Control Pills Cause Abortion?

I don't see anything that states anything contrary.

 

YES.

Life begins at conception/fertilization.


JohnV,

For someone to claim a definite “no” as you have is irresponsible and ill-informed. Perhaps you should take the time to educate yourself on the various types of birth control pills and their results. Clearly there are some that have an abortifacient capacity and others are not 100 % accurate on stopping fertilization. Therefore you cannot legitimately say “no”.

Although not surprising in this day and age; it is always disheartening when you see “Christians” who are in agreement with Planned Parenthood regarding at what point conception begins.

Focus on the Family

Christian Answers net

Pro-Life America

Q & A

Q. I have heard some people say the pill has an abortifacient capacity. What does this word mean, and is it really true anyway?
A. Before answering this question it is very important that we all have a correct understanding of the key biological terms related to pregnancy. The following definitions have been accept by major medical texts for decades.
'Conception' refers to the moment at which the sperm penetrates and fertilises the ovum to form a viable zygote. It does not refer to the process of implantation of the newly created human embryo, which is a separate event, occurring about 7-8 day’s after conception. A woman is pregnant because conception has occurred, not because implantation has occurred. This distinction is important.
At the precise and unique moment of conception, a woman is 'pregnant' with "a new individual ". This is an accurate and informed medical description. It is the same terminology used by Prof. John Dwyer, pre-eminent Australian AIDS expert and researcher, who has described the moment that the sperm enters the ovum as the creation of a "new and unique individual". Well known medical writer, Professor Derek Llewellyn-Jones, author of Everywoman, has also written that when the male genetic material from the sperm joins with the female genetic material in the ovum, " a new individual is formed".
To stop conception occurring, that is, to stop sperm and ovum joining, is contraception. Condoms, diaphragms, spermicides, vasectomy and tubal ligation are accurately described as methods of contraception. Obviously any drug or device used after conception has occurred cannot be termed a contraceptive.
The correct term to describe any interference with the pregnancy after conception has occurred is ‘abortifacient’. This is the precise biological description for any drug or device that acts to end a pregnancy once it has begun at conception.
You might be interested to know that many major medical dictionaries have definitions of ‘conception’, ‘pregnancy’ and ‘contraception’ that are the same as those listed above.
It is medically dishonest to break from these definitions. And yet, this is precisely what some scientists have recently started to do. They seek to define pregnancy as beginning with implantation, not fertilization. But as I mentioned ealier, implantation occurs 7-8 days after the new human person has come into existence. The pregnancy, and the new human person, are already many days old by the time implantation has occurred.
Therefore, what these scientists are trying to doing is get people to think that abortifacient drugs such as the pill are really just contraceptive drugs. Do you see the clever shift in definitions these scientists are trying to make? Redefine when a pregnancy and new human life begins, and you redefine the key characteristic of the drug – how it works!
Obviously many people object to abortifacient drugs because they can cause a loss of human life. Not so many people object to methods of contraception (condoms, diaphrams etc), because these methods prevent new human life being created. Hence, if scientists succeed in convincing people that human life begins after implantation, eventually most people will have no objection to the pill. They will have been tricked into believing that human life had not begun when the pill exerted its anti-implantation effect.
Q. So how do you prove that the pill acts as an abortifacient?
A. The answer to this question can be found by comparing the rate of break-through ovulation and the detected pregnancy rate. The ovulation rate has been reported to be about 27 ovulations in 100 women using the pill for one year. But the detected pregnancy rate is much lower at around 4 pregnancies per 100 women using the pill for one year.
As you can see, there is a big difference between the number of women who ovulation (27) and the number of detected pregnancies (4). What has happened within the woman’s body to reduce the high ovulation rate to such a low number of detected pregnancies? I suggest that one answer to this important question is that pregnancies have begun, because ovulation and fertilization have occurred, but some of these pregnancies are terminated because implantation cannot take place. The pill has damaged the lining of the womb, stopping implanation.

 

There's an assumption here that every time a woman ovulates, she should get pregnant barring interference. This isn't accurate. The odds of a woman getting pregnant with each ovulation are about 20%. If we took each ovulation as a single instance, that means there should be five or six pregnancies in this population. With the sample size four pregnancies is not much outside that.

It is possible that hormonal contraceptives might prevent implantation, but I think it's pretty rare, and certainly not the primary mechanism. IUD's, on the other had, do nothing to prevent ovulation and work solely by preventing implantation.

 

YES.

Life begins at conception/fertilization. </font>[/QUOTE]That wasn't the question. The question was whether birth control pills cause abortion. Since abortion is the terminating of a pregnancy, and since pregnancy is defined as an egg implanting itself, the answer to the OP queston is a concise "no". Birth Control pills do not interfere with an implanted egg.

I am well-educated on the topic. I guess you view a person "educated" only when they agree with you? Interesting.

Clearly, you lack the ability to read my posts. Not once did I disagree with the concept of life beginning at conception. The issue of when life begins was irrelevant to the OP question.

 

YES.

</font>[/QUOTE]That wasn't the question. The question was whether birth control pills cause abortion.</font>[/QUOTE]JohnV as you can see I stated the question and answered it.

Wrong. Read the above information/links posted to support medical information contrary to your “no”. Clearly your definition of when life begins is contrary to many in the Christian realm, but is in agreement with Planned Parenthood. Even with your Planned Parenthood view on when life begins the pill still contributes to abortion of life.

You are wrong on both parts, when life begins and does the pill cause abortion.

It would appear so...

JohnV

Your continual pattern of blatant contradictions on this board, lack of evidence to support your statements and refusal to understand and perhaps even read the numerous documentation provided for your benefit clearly revealing your inaccuracy is tiresome. Being all too familiar with your type of posting it seems appropriate to give correct information for the sake of others who maybe mislead by your comments and not waste time in dialogue with you. Too much bandwidth has been wasted on such threads.

 

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black...

Now you're posting falsehoods about me. Never once, be it in this thread or any other on the board, have I ever posted anything contrary to the concept that life begins at conception.

The issue of when life begins is not the question of the OP. The question is "do birth control pills cause abortion". The answer is "no".

 

Perhaps in your imaginary world, .

You should try reality sometime it might benefit you.

I find this type of posting by you to be a bit trollish whether it’s intentional, pride or attention-seeking, it’s just plain pitiable.

 

First some ad hoc belittling comments, and then some insults. Looks like hte standard Enochisms so far. I didn't expect anything less. At some point, I'll be called a "so called Christian", a liberal, and a list of other well-tossed verbages.

More of the pot calling the kettle black. And not a hint of acknowleging where his previous errors towards me were noted.

 

Actually that doesn't follow from the language. The original words used did not denote the fertilization of an egg--the people at that time had no word to describe this event. They knew nothing about eggs and sperm and zygotes. A better translation would be "become pregnant."

 

You're quite wrong. I insist that you retract that statement. I have not once in this post said anything of the sort.

I said very clearly: PREGNANCY begins at implantation. I in fact went out of my way to say I was not addressing the topic of when life begins.

First, scripture only uses the phrase once. Second, you're using the phrase out of scriptural context. THe phrase appears in Leviticus 12:2, which reads "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." The verse does not address when life begins. It addresses the qualifications for a woman being unclean.

Again, you're applying incorrect context. The Hebrew word hareh, translated in the KJV as "conceive", means "to become pregnant". It does not denote, nor does it address, the issue of whether life begins at the joining of the sperm and the egg. I'm quite surprised that you, being a pastor, are not aware of the context of the source text language.

Now, just so we're clear, I believe that human life begins at conception. However, my view is not based on scripture (since scripture is somewhat silent on the topic of exactly at what point life begins), it it based on my own personal reasoning.