Among pregnant teens, for example, abortions fell by nearly 7.5 percent from 2006 to 2008.
Is this necessarily a good thing? I mean, if the overall abortion rate among teens went down, that might be good. But if it's specifically among pregnant teens, doesn't that mean that a higher percentage are just choosing to give birth? Unless the overall teen pregnancy rate is down, and that relates to how the abortion rate among teens is down. Need more information.
Please explain to me how BCPs = abortion. BCPs work by preventing ovulation, no ovulation means no egg to fertilize. So I'm failing to see how even people who believe that a fertilized egg is a person could argue that BCPs are equivalent to an abortion.
Since the Pill is not 100% effective, then ovulation must be happening some of the time. It is those times when the Pill acts as an abortifacient.
Please explain to me how BCPs = abortion. BCPs work by preventing ovulation, no ovulation means no egg to fertilize. So I'm failing to see how even people who believe that a fertilized egg is a person could argue that BCPs are equivalent to an abortion.
Since the Pill is not 100% effective, then ovulation must be happening some of the time. It is those times when the Pill acts as an abortifacient.
Isn't it those times when a woman ends up pregnant? Otherwise the pill would be 100% effective, but using 2 different mechanisms to prevent pregnancy.
Please explain to me how BCPs = abortion. BCPs work by preventing ovulation, no ovulation means no egg to fertilize. So I'm failing to see how even people who believe that a fertilized egg is a person could argue that BCPs are equivalent to an abortion.
Since the Pill is not 100% effective, then ovulation must be happening some of the time. It is those times when the Pill acts as an abortifacient.
But the pill is not aborting fertilized eggs. If the pill is ineffective and an egg manages to get fertilized, the woman gets pregnant.
Since the Pill is not 100% effective, then ovulation must be happening some of the time. It is those times when the Pill acts as an abortifacient.
Isn't it those times when a woman ends up pregnant? Otherwise the pill would be 100% effective, but using 2 different mechanisms to prevent pregnancy.
I see what you are saying. I think the key is that ovualtion can occur...sometimes that can result in pregnancy, other times the Pill prevents the fertilized egg from implanting. When the Pill prevents the implantation, it is considered an abortifacient (in my Catholic world anyway ;-)
ETA; I think...wrt Catholic teaching, ABC definitely is not my area of specialty.
Since the Pill is not 100% effective, then ovulation must be happening some of the time. It is those times when the Pill acts as an abortifacient.
But the pill is not aborting fertilized eggs. If the pill is ineffective and an egg manages to get fertilized, the woman gets pregnant.
It's my understnading that it can. It's rare, but it can happen. And I think that' s because the Pill also does something to the lining of the uterus...not just prevent ovulation (most of the time).
What in the... the thinned uterine lining is a side effect of not ovulating, not a separate pill effect in and of itself!
How the Pill works
The two hormones in the combined oral contraceptive pill, oestrogen and progestogen work on several levels to prevent pregnancy. Primarily, the Pill works by stopping ovulation (the release of an egg from the ovary). If an egg is not released then of course conception cannot take place. As a back-up, the Pill also makes the mucus released by the cervix thicker so the sperm cannot get through and thins the lining of the uterus so a fertilised egg has difficulty implanting.
I wonder if having access to affordable health care means that more women decide to stay pregnant even if they do end up with an unintended pregnancy. If prenatal care and delivery is more affordable and easier to access, women may not be as overwhelmed with the financial costs as they would have been had they been uninsured.
Edited because I am tired and apparently unable to type.
Post by PinkSquirrel on Aug 24, 2012 12:46:32 GMT -5
So should we all have hysterectomies since the majority of fertilized eggs never implant when birth control isn't in play? I mean you're own uterus is clearly responsible for more "abortions" than the pill since based on your own statements it is rare for a eggs to be fertilized while on the pill, but it's pretty common for them to be fertilized and not make it while not on the pill. If more fertilized eggs don't implant while not on the pill, then really, the pill is doing a better job of reducing the number of "abortions" than your own uterus.
Please explain to me how BCPs = abortion. BCPs work by preventing ovulation, no ovulation means no egg to fertilize. So I'm failing to see how even people who believe that a fertilized egg is a person could argue that BCPs are equivalent to an abortion.
The combination pill does 3 things (in order of effectiveness...):
- prevents ovulation - thins the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant - thickens cervical mucus, making it harder for the sperm to find the egg
FWIW, this is exactly what the morning after pill does, it's mostly just a bigger dose of BCPs that's effective immediately. That's why, if you've already ovulated, the morning after pill might still provide some protection against pregnancy by thinning the uterine lining. But it won't detach a fertilized egg that has already implanted.
So should we all have hysterectomies since the majority of fertilized eggs never implant when birth control isn't in play? I mean you're own uterus is clearly responsible for more "abortions" than the pill since based on your own statements it is rare for a eggs to be fertilized while on the pill, but it's pretty common for them to be fertilized and not make it while not on the pill. If more fertilized eggs don't implant while not on the pill, then really, the pill is doing a better job of reducing the number of "abortions" than your own uterus.
It's not your uterus doing it, it's God. That's why it's OK. It's OK if God does horrific things to people and kills babies - it's just not OK for people to do it.
So should we all have hysterectomies since the majority of fertilized eggs never implant when birth control isn't in play? I mean you're own uterus is clearly responsible for more "abortions" than the pill since based on your own statements it is rare for a eggs to be fertilized while on the pill, but it's pretty common for them to be fertilized and not make it while not on the pill. If more fertilized eggs don't implant while not on the pill, then really, the pill is doing a better job of reducing the number of "abortions" than your own uterus.
I'm sorry, but i'm not sure why you are even asking this question.
If you're asking about Catholic teaching then the difference is natural vs artificial, intentional vs unintentional.
Post by wrathofkuus on Aug 24, 2012 12:51:22 GMT -5
The amount of estrogen it takes to thin the endometrial lining is plenty to prevent ovulation. Plenty. The lack of fertile-quality cervical fluid is slightly less tied, but not as much as you'd think.
I really wish religions would have people who actually study biochemical pathways make decisions on their related doctrines.
Isn't it those times when a woman ends up pregnant? Otherwise the pill would be 100% effective, but using 2 different mechanisms to prevent pregnancy.
I see what you are saying. I think the key is that ovualtion can occur...sometimes that can result in pregnancy, other times the Pill prevents the fertilized egg from implanting. When the Pill prevents the implantation, it is considered an abortifacient (in my Catholic world anyway ;-)
ETA; I think...wrt Catholic teaching, ABC definitely is not my area of specialty.
IIRC, the Church is both against the fact that a fertilized egg might be expelled, AND against any type of man-made device coming between us and God's plan for children. That's why Catholic couples need to always be open to have children. It's also part of the reason for their proscription against IVF - the resulting baby is not made from the human and divine love of its parents if the embryo is lab-created. Plus the "extra" embryos.
If more fertilized eggs don't implant while not on the pill, then really, the pill is doing a better job of reducing the number of "abortions" than your own uterus.
Good point!
Also, good to know that the Church views my child as a zombie baby since he was lab created :/
So should we all have hysterectomies since the majority of fertilized eggs never implant when birth control isn't in play? I mean you're own uterus is clearly responsible for more "abortions" than the pill since based on your own statements it is rare for a eggs to be fertilized while on the pill, but it's pretty common for them to be fertilized and not make it while not on the pill. If more fertilized eggs don't implant while not on the pill, then really, the pill is doing a better job of reducing the number of "abortions" than your own uterus.
It's not your uterus doing it, it's God. That's why it's OK. It's OK if God does horrific things to people and kills babies - it's just not OK for people to do it.
Ah, this is the reason why it was asked...I'm not sure why there was that need wrt to my posts, but OK.
I see what you are saying. I think the key is that ovualtion can occur...sometimes that can result in pregnancy, other times the Pill prevents the fertilized egg from implanting. When the Pill prevents the implantation, it is considered an abortifacient (in my Catholic world anyway ;-)
ETA; I think...wrt Catholic teaching, ABC definitely is not my area of specialty.
IIRC, the Church is both against the fact that a fertilized egg might be expelled, AND against any type of man-made device coming between us and God's plan for children. That's why Catholic couples need to always be open to have children. It's also part of the reason for their proscription against IVF - the resulting baby is not made from the human and divine love of its parents if the embryo is lab-created. Plus the "extra" embryos.
Yes, you are right. I was just focusing on ABC here since that's what we're talking about...or so I thought.
If more fertilized eggs don't implant while not on the pill, then really, the pill is doing a better job of reducing the number of "abortions" than your own uterus.
Good point!
Also, good to know that the Church views my child as a zombie baby since he was lab created :/
The Church doesn't consider your child a zombie baby.
The amount of estrogen it takes to thin the endometrial lining is plenty to prevent ovulation. Plenty. The lack of fertile-quality cervical fluid is slightly less tied, but not as much as you'd think.
I really wish religions would have people who actually study biochemical pathways make decisions on their related doctrines.
I don't know how reliable it is, but it seems to me that they probably have a good handle on "biochemical pathways" and therefore, know how the Pill works.
Post by jessiespano on Aug 24, 2012 13:12:55 GMT -5
I really don't understand the birth control = abortion argument. Birth control is used to prevent pregnancy. By the logic of birth control = abortion then wouldn't pulling out or using natural family planning be considered the same thing? These methods are also used to prevent pregnancy.
I really don't understand the birth control = abortion argument. Birth control is used to prevent pregnancy. By the logic of birth control = abortion then wouldn't pulling out or using natural family planning be considered the same thing? These methods are also used to prevent pregnancy.
The amount of estrogen it takes to thin the endometrial lining is plenty to prevent ovulation. Plenty. The lack of fertile-quality cervical fluid is slightly less tied, but not as much as you'd think.
I really wish religions would have people who actually study biochemical pathways make decisions on their related doctrines.
I don't know how reliable it is, but it seems to me that they probably have a good handle on "biochemical pathways" and therefore, know how the Pill works.
No, I can tell that it's from a site geared toward people without science backgrounds. That's part of the problem. It's meant to be reassuring, but it's just kind of misleading. I don't know whether or not that's intentional.
I really don't understand the birth control = abortion argument. Birth control is used to prevent pregnancy. By the logic of birth control = abortion then wouldn't pulling out or using natural family planning be considered the same thing? These methods are also used to prevent pregnancy.
I don't know how reliable it is, but it seems to me that they probably have a good handle on "biochemical pathways" and therefore, know how the Pill works.
No, I can tell that it's from a site geared toward people without science backgrounds. That's part of the problem. It's meant to be reassuring, but it's just kind of misleading. I don't know whether or not that's intentional.
I think the definition of abortion isn't as clear cut as this. Sure, the health department has their definition, but every individual probably defines it differently. For some, using BCPs causes abortion. So increased access means more abortions. For others, the morning after pill causes abortions. So increased access means more abortions.
I don't think church has anything to do with this. My point was simply that whether or not you feel access to birth control decreases abortions is going to depend on how you view birth control.
I haven't read through this all, but, here goes.
The DEFINITION of abortion is a procedure or a medication that terminates a pregnancy.
A pregnancy DOES NOT START until a blastocyst implants.
Birth control pills DO NOT prevent implantation, ergo, birth control pills are not abortifacients.
Further, it's recently been discovered that even the morning after pill doesn't prevent implantation. Ergo, the morning after pill isn't an abortifacient.
TADA!
Not to be a bitch, but words have meanings, especially medical terms. It's best if we all use the correct definitions.