Hello everyone!
I am not sure about the fight going on at the moment but wanted to address Ann.
Ann, if you read my last post I did not speak in terms of absolutes and yes there are exceptions. I want to clarify a few things in this posting but am also including some very useful information in regards to the pill.
1) I stated the odds are lower in being able to get pregnant even if you were purposefully trying each month (15%-20%). Five to six months is the average and even up to one year is considered normal.
2) I said an egg will last up to 24 hours and sperm to 72 hours. Those are the generally accepted time frames. Yes, it can be longer but that it not typical.
“On average, we can expect sperm to survive just a day or two, and given more optimum conditions or luckier happenstance, a handful of days more.”
http://www.early-pregnancy-tests.com/sperm.html
3) I make those points for the following of course. Throw into the mix people who are attempting not to get pregnant by using the pill. First, the odds are already naturally low; Second, the pill is highly effective at stopping the release of an egg; Third, the pill is effective at blocking sperm from ever reaching the egg. Thus the odds are vey low and your situation is one of the rarer exceptions.
“Getting pregnant while on the pill, when used according to instructions, in ideal situations, is extremely rare….” estronaut.com
http://www.estronaut.com/a/pregnancy_symptoms_issues.htm
4) I however was clear in stating the pill is not foolproof and gave references. Anyhow, I am not arguing for or against the pill and at best it gives me reason to pause! I just think we need to be careful in possibly placing unfounded or unrealistic moral quandaries upon people?
5) In researching this subject I came across some articles written by the Association of ProLife Physicians
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm. They are Pro Life and believe life begins at conception
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/. There is great debate in regards to whether the pill actually acts as a “abortifacient” and their article gives the pro/con positions of each. However, the data which suggests oral contraceptives act as an abortifacient are based upon false premises as they note. It is based upon unfounded claims/touts by the drug manufacturers and research with in vitro fertilization, which isn’t a natural process. You can draw your own conclusion as to whether they are strictly referencing in vitro as the article is somewhat challenging and also states “medical literature”.
“The proponents of the “hostile endometrium theory” argue that OCs (oral contraceptive) are abortifacient based upon the third mechanism of action(thinning of uterus)….however, the medical literature comes to this conclusion from non-ovulatory pill cycles. It is assumed that this finding in non-ovulatory pill cycles would prevent implantation of the embryo conceived in an ovulatory pill cycle, but this presumption is false. If a woman on OCs ovulates and conceives, everything changes: through the HCG’s affect on the corpus luteum, and the corpus luteum’s release of high levels of estrogen and progesterone, the uterus is able to nourish its new guest very well.”
“There is indirect evidence that the OC produces a thinner, less glandular, less vascular lining, and there is direct evidence from the field of in vitro fertilization that a thinner, less glandular, less vascular lining is less likely to allow the attachment of the new human being when it enters the uterus. However, when a woman taking OCs does ovulate, the corpus luteum (the ovarian follicle turns into the corpus luteum after ovulation) produces ten to twenty times the levels of both estrogen and progesterone seen in a non-non-ovulatory pill cycle. This results in the growth of stroma, blood vessels, glands, and glandular secretions to help prepare the lining for implantation.”
They make the point that a moral stance could be taken in regards to the pill.
“Thus, of those 25 conceptions that result from breakthrough ovulations in women on OCs, 2 to 4 (10 – 20%) of them will survive, resulting in a total miscarriage rate that is around one-fifth of that of women who are not on OCs.”
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/calculations.htm
I have contacted them in regards to this specific point because I would like to know if the difference in percentages is based 1) strictly upon the beneficial effects from the natural hormones as found in the pill or 2) if they are saying women on the pill will also have fewer miscarriages simply because they are on the pill? The various articles and quotes above seem to strongly state the former. After all, the pill fools the body into thinking it is pregnant with these hormones and thus no egg is released. However, if an egg is released and fertilized then pill could act as a positive factor?
I think the pill is a good debate but I cannot bring myself to argue against it at this time. It should never be placed on equal terms as abortion. The entire read offers a lot of good information from both sides but I find myself agreeing with them at this time.
God Bless
