Generation Cedar

23 Responses

  1. I’ve heard this often but when i try to investigate it further the only sources that discuss it are religious organizations. I’ve never read anything about this in a serious or peer-reviewed medical publication. I wonder why that is?

  2. MANY years ago, before I was a Christian I got my birth control pills through Planned Parenthood…why? Because that is what all the women I knew did. I was NEVER told of any dangers in taking the pill. We conceived within 2-3 days of me stopping the pill. Our baby was full term and died 2 days after her birth due to many birth defects.

    I had a friend that was an OB nurse and she ‘suggested’ that the pill may have caused her problems, and that I’d never find a doctor to agree with that because it is too big of a money maker for doctors.

    So THAT may be why you cannot find information other than Christians.

    BTW, our family doctor will not prescribe birth control pills. :o)

  3. First of all, I don’t wonder why that is at all. Our culture doesn’t apologize about its underlying “death mentality”, especially when the acknowledgement would mean an inconvenience for ME, or losing a dollar somewhere. (Pharmaceuticals are BIG business.)

    Furthermore, there must be plenty of documented, REAL proof about the abortifacient properties of certain BC. More and more doctors are refusing to prescribe it.

  4. “there must be plenty of documented, REAL proof about the abortifacient properties of certain BC.”

    The way you use “must” in that sentence makes me think you’ve not seen the primary research either but i could just be over-analyzing your wording.

    I’m not saying I disagree with your stance on birth control. I’ve never used the pill although I do track my cycle-i dont know if that counts in this discussion.

    Maybe I spent too many years in academia but I like to see the primary info for myself. I like to see the methodology and statistics-call me a nerd. That way I can better understand what is going on without the “spin” and can better relate that info to others.

    “More and more doctors are refusing to prescribe it.”

    This is an argument from popularity. If arguments from popularity were persuasive, we would all be contracepting because contracepting is more popular than not contracepting.

  5. I also went on the pill as soon as I married because that’s just what everyone did, but after a few months of UNCONTROLLABLE crying ALL THE TIME, I knew it wasn’t gonna work for me. I never saw any of the other negative facts about it until much later. But I just wanted to say for those who do feel the need to attempt some spacing in their families, that the Fertility Awareness Method (FAM) worked great for me…it’s really similar to NFP. I just felt like it was better for me and my babies because it was a natural approach. And I also felt, and feel now, very strongly that God is so much bigger than me and if He wants to add a baby to my family He can easily do so in spite of any birth control methods. Just because I wouldn’t choose to get pregnant again right now doesn’t mean I wouldn’t joyfully accept a baby if it was in God’s plan for me. I’ve found all of the discussion the last couple of days very interesting:)

  6. Here’s one I just found–simple goole search…took about 30 seconds. I’ve read many, many, I just couldn’t document earlier that they were all “non-religious” in nature.

    http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm

    I don’t think this one has a religious bias…but I didn’t read the whole thing.

  7. And this quote, taken from a really great medical article found here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/6794

    “Pharmaceutical company statements, medical textbooks, doctors, scientists, and even the government show total agreement when it comes to the abortifacient nature of the backup mechanism. Dr. Leon Speroff, the nation’s premier contraceptive expert and advocate, in his paper A Clinical Guide for Contraception, says about BCPs, “The progestin in the combination pill produces an endometrium which is not receptive to ovum implantation, a decidualized bed with exhausted and atrophied glands.”

  8. Any site entitled Good Morals is not a medical research site and shows its bias immediately.

    Janet Smith is a Dr of Philosphy; she is not a scientist, a doctor, or reseacher. Her work focuses on humanae Vitae and she teaches at a catholic seminary.

    I would most certainly call that religious bias.

    The New American is publication of the John Birch Society, a political action group that is in no way involved in medical research.

    When I say primary research I mean that I’d like to read the paper written by the scientists/researchers who actually worked on this project.

    These resources do not provide primary info.

  9. Randy Alcorn (a Christian pastor) recommended the pill for 14yrs and his wife was on it for multiple years. He did not want it to be true that the pill causes abortions and ignored a few rumors for years.

    He finally wrote a book called “Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?” ($3 +10% S&H) where he goes directly to medical journals and the main pill manufacturers themselves and interveiws them about the effects of their product.

    He is NOT ‘pro-large family’ though he is ‘anti-abortion’ and it’s an interesting book to read. He also says he would love to retract the book some day and say “I was wrong! The pill is safe!” but after his research does not see it happening (though he would love to be proven wrong). In the meantime his book can be distributed in part or any other form if anyone wants the info and research in it.

    He had a scary point in one section. What if surgical abortions decrease, but chemical abortions soar? The pill is already firmly established in the Church – and while we abhor later abortions we are often ignorant of the earliest ones we are causing! So he asks if we are ‘consistantly pro-life or only selectively so?’

    Scary, deep thought.

    Ashley
    http://www.homesteadblogger.com/Jonash2004

  10. I used the pill for the few years of marriage. I had never heard anything about it and abortion. My husband even worked with two pregnancy support centers (anti-abortion) and we were told to use the pill. I really thought it was safe and prevented ovulation. After having severe pain, I went for an emergency appointment, to discover that I’d ovulated while on the pill (in my case, causing the pain.) The doctor advised me to “take two pills tonight so you won’t get pregnant.” That statement made me and my husband so sick that we investigated the pill. So two pills could prevent implantation? After reading the Randy Alcorn book, I couldn’t take it anymore. I felt too convicted.

    I am open to the children that God sends me now. It’s been a long journey to feel that way. I had a difficult pregnancy with my daughter, was unable to breastfeed, and we have used FAM to give my body some time to recover. I will probably use FAM again if I am unable to breastfeed the next baby. But I won’t be using the pill again.

  11. “…but at the the bottom are tons of resources that are not Christian perspectives.”

    You may want to investigate those resources more closely. 10 of them are from religious organizations/proponents. 1 of them is an all natural living website. None of the journal articles address this issue directly.

    I’m not debating whether these claims are true or false. I’d like to but I can’t. Why? Because I can’t find the info I need to do so and that, to me, is suspicious.

    Everyone go back up to Lisa’post, please. What does it say? That implantation often does not happen even in women who do not contracept.

    My point is, if this happens at such a high rate(click her links for the numbers) among non-pill takers how do we know the pill causes or makes it more likely in women who do take it. I don’t know because I can’t find the research to support this assertion.

  12. Well I certainly don’t know how you can claim that about the Physicians Desk Reference. How is that christian? Perhaps you need so much info, because you don’t want to believe it. I however, believe the evidence is very clear, especially by the way they describe it in the PDR.

  13. The PDR references changes it the lining of the uterus long known to occur among those who take the pill. It in no way addresses the issue of the rate or frequency of non-implantation in contraceptors vs non-contraceptors.

    Again, I’ll say: If this happens in non-pill users as such a high rate (per lisa’s post) and we have no clear evidence to suggest that the pill causes this at an even higher rate, I, cannot in good conscience go around saying I believe this to be true.

    I don’t think I require too much evidence. I simply want to know why I believe what I believe. Don’t you?

    If this (that the pill causes higher rates of non-implantation than would happen by natural means) is true I’ll shout it from the rooftops but until I know that it is I can’t do that. To me saying something I don’t know to be true reeks of bearing false witness.

  14. I’m wondering why the evidence from Christian doctors is not as valid as the evidence from non-Christian ones?

    Wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that evidence of the abortifcacient properties of BC by secular studies would be rare, and even hidden?

    They’ve been doing it with other topics as well. All the “missing” and hidden info regarding evolution; this is not a new problem, the Christian community and the secular community battling over the truth of science.

    I find it more suspicious that with all the evidence that HAS been written by various doctors, there are so few secular ones that are addressing it.

    I feel sure that one could go to the library and look up some of the medical documents cited in these links and find the source of the research…if one really wanted to know.

  15. Since Anonymous asked, I’ve done some more digging. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists published this article in 1999 (which was referenced in the article I posted above): http://www.aaplog.org/decook.htm, which concludes that proponents of the pill as an abortificient have not sufficiently studied the way oral contraceptives affect the endometrium lining — primarily because it is very difficult to identify significant test groups who are ovulating while using the pill.

    Regarding the failure of fertilized eggs to implant among non-pill users, it’s called “chemical pregnancy,” and there’s lots of general information on that. Just a few links:

    http://miscarriage.about.com/od/onetimemiscarriages/p/chemicalpreg.htm

    http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400375/What-is-a-Chemical-Pregnancy.html

    http://www.sharedjourney.com/chemandfert.html

    Presumably, the original article I linked to concluded that the rate of implantation failure is lower among pill users than non-pill users BECAUSE the pill does, most often, stop ovulation.

    Also, it is important to remember that not all pills work the same way — there are estrogen only pills, progestin only pills, combination estrogen/progestin pills. To state broadly that “the pill can cause abortions” is to make a sweeping generalization.

  16. A great book that covers the subject is “Evangelical Ethics,” by John Jefferson Davis. The last edition was written at the end of the eighties, and it is written from a Christian perspective, but it’s a great resource.

    Another book with a good section on birth control is “God, Marriage, and Family,” one of my favorites.

  17. I had heard this before but never in the light that it has been presented here. Thank you for this information. I was considering the pill but now I have changed my mind

  18. Great info!!!!

    I was a registered nurse for a few ears before I understood exactly how the pill works. I really thought that it prevented ovulation—after hearing differently I went straight to my OBGYN.
    (After stating several times that that new info was ridiculous!!!)

    He verified the truth about the pill– he stated that years ago the pill did prevent ovulation but had since changed.(Although he still had no problem with the pill and chuckled a little at my new conviction)

    He stated that there was really no difference in the pill and the morning after pill– stating that you could “morning after” yourself by doubling up on the birth control pill.
    Anyway.. that was enough verification for me to repent for my ignorance and change my direction.

    Another thing… just because someone has a conviction against birth control doesn’t automatically mean that you are trying to have a”huge” family (whatever that may be)— it simply means that we want God to decide what is best for us. Whether it be 1, 6, 10, or 18.

    Keep up the good work, Kelly!!!

    Shelly, Mama to 6 blessings

  19. I think anonymous #1 has a valid point. She is asking for valid proof. I would like to second her request. I need to see the primary source info.

    Kelly, you can’t just brush aside her honest inquiry by doing a quick Google search. This cheapens your argument and betrays a certain laziness of scholarship.

    Kelly, these things require substantive and gentle discussion backed up by honest, solid evidence.

    Your overly zealous rhetoric drowns out what might be a valid point: that BC pills are abortifacients. But until I can actually read true evidence, I’m not going to be convinced by some YouTube video.

  20. Elizabeth,

    Why is my lack of research “lazy and unscholarly”? Is the questioner not capable of his own research if mine are not valid enough? I’ve quote from medical documents, news documents, etc. and the evidence seems overwhelmingly substantial to me.

    If someone want more proof, they are welcome to research. That doesn’t mean I have to recant what I believe to be true!

  21. I’d like to point out that you don’t have to go far to find out if the pill is abortifacient or not. I’ve actually held a box of chemical contraceptive in my hand, taken out and read the sheet of medical indications for the drug, and found that RIGHT IN THE BOX they tell you exactly how the contraceptive is abortifacient.

    Since I no longer have the box, I’ll quote from the website for Yasmin:

    “Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of
    gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action
    is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in
    the cervical mucus (which increases the difficulty of sperm entry
    into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood
    of implantation).”

    This info can be found at the following link:
    http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/fhc/Yasmin_PI.pdf

    This is from the Mirena website:

    “The local mechanism by which continuously released levonorgestrel
    enhances contraceptive effectiveness of the IUS has not been
    conclusively demonstrated. Studies of MIRENA prototypes have
    suggested several mechanisms that prevent pregnancy: thickening
    of cervical mucus preventing passage of sperm into the
    uterus, inhibition of sperm capacitation or survival, and alteration of the endometrium.”

    That info can be found here:
    http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/Mirena_PI.pdf?C=&c=

    My point is that in order to find out if a chemical is abortifacient, it doesn’t take looking at an actual medical study. The manufacturers of the pill have done the medical studies, and by law, they have to disclose how their product works. Find the pill or injection’s website, go to the physican’s prescribing information, and look (usually) on the very first page of the document under “Clinical Pharmacology” and the information is right there.

    The only way you can really argue that chemical birth control isn’t abortifacient is if we have a differing view of what abortion is. If we do, we can definitely discuss that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *