I posted the following in Sam's "Excellent articles and arguments on the abortion issue", but didn't get any responses... so thought I would try a new thread (in case no one is checking that one).

**********************

Just wondering....

It is my understanding that all types of Birth Control Pills (The Pill), except possibly one, work by having the uterine wall reject a FERTILIZED egg. If one believes that Life starts at conception, then doesn't one have to take the stand that The Pill causes abortion? There is not much difference between the use of The Pill and the new drug RU-486 (except intent, I suppose). The church is a Very vocal voice against abortion... but remains quite silent about the use of The Pill. Thoughts?

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001

Answers

I agree with Link.

When my wife was on the pill....she used a type that gave the body the impression that she was already pregnant....therefore....no egg was ever released.

That pill was "estrogen" based. During pregnancy, a women's estrogen level increases...thereby shutting off egg production. The pill produced just enough of an extra estrogen level to fool the body into thinking it was pregnant.

This explains, in fact, why some women still become pregnant....i.e., the body didn't buy it.

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

Here's a question to ponder....when does conception fully occur??

Is it at the union of sperm and egg??

Or....is the process of conception complete after the attachment to the uterine wall??

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2001

Think about that Link.....followed all the way through....than the Catholic Church position on birth control is the correct one since.....each egg and each sperm is a "potential" human being.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2001

And yet....others define the process of conception as not complete until the egg is implanted in the uterine wall.

Here is my line of reasoning Robin (or should I say the RCC line of reasoning)....if the simple union of sperm and egg is conception....then every single egg....and every single sperm un- united represent a potential human person.....therefore....all forms of birth control are wrong. God should be given complete supervision over the process of conception.

Personally....I am not convinced that the simple union of sperm and egg is conception. At least not to the point of beginning a campaign against birth control pills.

It has always been my understanding that the process of conception was only completed once the embryo attaches itself to the uterine wall and begins the process of nutrituion.

This, in fact, forms my objections to the RU-486 pill which destroys the uterine lining after the fertiled egg has attached.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

"To me, once a sexual union has taken place and a portion of the man is joined with a portion of the woman... something new and living has come about. Seems so simple.... "

Robin.....the key two words in this paragraph from your last post are...."TO ME."

Every time a single sperm is produced by a testicle....that's "something new and living." That doesn't fly.

The process of conception (the key word there being "process").....is not complete until implantation takes place.

Bringing up partial birth abortion is not only a straw man...but it doesn't even fit. We are talking 9 months after implantation.

Implantation is the point in which the process of nutrition begins and the umbilical cord is attached....thus completing the process of conception.

I would venture to say....that is Biology 101.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

In fact Robin....you are wrong about the tactics of Pro-abortionists.

They have for a long time conceded that life begins at conception.

Their most "up to date" tactic is to define "personhood"...(i.e., at what point does life become a "person."). (I will post the name of a book later on that discusses this. It's on my shelf...I can remember the name but not the author.)

To the pro-abortionist personhood is not assigned until the child is "viable."

So the point of debate is no longer conception....the point of debate is "viability."

You are sitting here wanting to argue about a point....that pro- abortionists no longer even argue about. In fact, they agree with you.

"Viability" and "personhood"......is the point of debate.

The simple fact is Robin....the vast majority of women use an estrogen based BC pill that stops ovulation. When ovulation does happen....they get pregnant....which is why there are a good number of "pill babies" running around.

For the record.....I am against any form of contraception that does not allow the process of conception to conclude (i.e., attachment to the uterine wall). (However, don't know if I have enough ammo to preach against it.)

There are questions raised regardless of what position a person takes. Like one wise person told me...."It depends on what set of questions you can live with."

It seems to me....the only "questionless" position....is the RCC position on BC....namely....none.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2001

Robin....

If people find it frustrating talking to me...it's only because I challenge their preconcevied ideas and I don't give in easily to their flimsy arguments. (Funny....Lee Saffold, just to name one....has never had a problem talking to me. But then again....Lee is usually so well informed....I don't often have much to challenge.)

You came to the forum "in the guise" of asking a question.....hopefully for the purpose of exploring....and yet....you really did not have that purpose at all. You simply wanted to dictate. You had your mind made up. So don't be so upset if people don't jump in lock step with you.

Fine...state that from the beginning....rather than "wanting to know what everyone thinks."

I tried to share with you some of the various views that enter into any discussion of such a topic, including the RCC's view of birth control and their problem with it.

It must be nice to have all the ethical dilemas of life worked out so neatly. I teach college ethics.....I wish I had all the answers the way you seem to have them down so nicely.

I plan on talking to a Dr. that attends our church very soon and get the facts from him as to what is "mostly being prescribed today." (Sorry...but the RTL organization....which I have supported in the past....tends to "hyperbolize" for the sake of their campaign.)

My wife was on the pill for about 10 years. It was clearly estrogen based designed to prevent ovulation....which it did quite well. That is a fact which you cannot deny. Which by the way....is why some women take the pill....not just to avoid pregnancy...but to ease the monthly pain of ovulation.

I do not want to delegitimize your concern. If pills are being prescribed today that do little to stop the union of sperm and egg....and only create an environment that in essense....aborts the fetus.....then I think it's time to reconsider the use OF THAT PARTICULAR FORM OF PILL....but not the pill in general.

And for the record.....whether one thinks conception is a punctiliar fact as you do....or a process as I do....really does not make a difference. If I'm deer hunting and see movement in the bush....I assume it is another human being and do not shoot. The fertized human egg needs to be protected.....until the process of conception is completed. In other words...it needs to be given the benefit of the doubt. I really don't understand why you have problem with that.

I guess that is why I'm frustrated at your approach to the subject.....rather than come on with an "inquiring mind"....you seem ready to condemn all women who use the pill....as abortionists.....and every preacher who won't preach against them as liberal.

Medical science and the related ethical issues are a complex discussion indeed. The main reason being that medical science usually runs 10-15 years ahead of the ethical discussions. For instance.....I believe there was a very brief thread one time about the fact that the human geno has now been mapped out. What are the ethical ramifications of that?? How should the church react?? The fact is...if history teaches us anything....is that is will be about 15 years before the church and other ethics people have it worked out to some degree. By then......there will be a whole new set of medical advances.

I say all this again Robin to point out.....the discussion might have been better served if you came on here with a view of exploration and discussion as opposed to dictating.

Now...as to your qeustion about the soul....my "deer hunting" illustration again applies. We have no idea from Scripture at what point in the womb the soul is imparted. But again....the benefit of the doubt falls to the child....and the new life must be protected.

I really hope a RCC official peruses this web site and sees this discussion. They might have some qeustions for us concerning the use of BC at all. Their basis.....God alone should oversee conception.

You see Robin...it all depends on what questions you can live with.

If you got it all worked out...you're a better person than most....and I'd be happy to have you as a guest lecturer in my college classroom.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2001

BTW....the name of the book I talked about earlier is...."Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus" by Paul B. Fowler. The ISBN # is....0-88070-173-0.

Though the book was published in the late 80's....it still describes the modern day tactics and language of pro-abortion people. The book also describes the difficulty of getting the modern day church to do much of anything.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2001

"Forget about help from... preachers. "

Robin....whether you meant it to or not....this little sentence spoke volumes about you.

At least it helped me to understand some things I have been pondering about you for about two years now.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

"I was expressing disappointment in the seeming lack of concern from Men of God... when so many others are taking a stand."

Robin.....kind of like when we preachers wonder about the seeming lack of concern FOR SO MANY THINGS....from the pew??

What a luxury it must be to only have one societal ill to focus on.

Interesting....you knew what I was talking about. Reminds of the line from Shakespeare.."Me thinks thou dost protest too much."

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Fighting it?? Hardly!!

I told you what my problem was...and it had to do more with your attitude which by your own admission you stated you could see how it might be misread.

Sorry Robin....myself...as well as many preachers do not jump on bandwagons. Been burned once or twice.

When I'm absolutely convinced of the evidence....then I'll make my decision one way or the other.

You obviously have had more time to consider this....we haven't.

Just for the record....a preacher friend of mine has been following this thread....and he himself is contemplating and researching.

So again....don't be upset when we don't jump on immediately with you....especially when you have the benefit of having pondered this for a while.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Oh....one more thing for the record.....the IUD has been in use now for at least 24 years. I have always pushed couples away from that in pre-marital counseling. It basically works by "scraping" the lining of the uterus....which in essence....aborts the child. Most Christian people are not comfortable with that form of BC.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

I'm not sure on this, but I think it might be the case that the fact that fertilized eggs cannot implant if someone is on the pill is one of the ffects of taking the pill, but I don't think that is the only way it prevents pregnancy. The details are a bit fuzzy in my mind. The issue you spoke of, along with the fact that my wife doesn't want to gain weight, is a reason that we have chosen not ot use the pill.

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

It is correct that the 'combination' Pill is estrogen-based and tries to stop ovulation... but, as you indicated, it doesn't always work (an egg release happens about 2-10% of the time)... that is why it also has progesterone... which to quote one information source: Helps "make the uterus a hostile environment for an embryo by causing a thinning of the uterine lining." In other words, the Fertilized Egg (The Baby) cannot live (of course, that 'fails' sometimes too... and the result is a Baby). There is also a variety of the Pill (called the Mini-Pill) that is soley progesterone- based... it only works by causing the lining to reject an already- fertilized egg and does not even attempt to stop ovulation.

I believe that many women with strong convictions about abortion are using The Pill in some form... without understanding how they work. Shouldn't the church speak out?

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

Robin,

You're right about it not always working correctly, as I have to fine sons as evidence of that - Thank God!

There is 1 drug that pretty much stops ovulation, and that is depo-pravera. It is extremely strong though & is rarely used except as a treatment for uterine problems. (It is also the same drug used to chemically sterilize/castrate men)

You're right in the fact that the church needs to look closer at this method. Not only are preachers now supposed to learn math in school, but now we need to become Biologists as well in order to deal with issues like this and genetic engineering in the not too far future.

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

Mark,

My information is that even with Depo-Provera (which is progestin- based, not estrogen-based), 30% of the women still ovulate. Depo-Provera has many bad side-effects....

You are sure enough right about Genetic Engineering....

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

Here is a site with much information concerning Birth Control. I have not read the entire site, so cannot vouch for everything on it... but the information seems accurate and it seems to be written from a 'Christian' prespective.

www.epigee.org/guide/index.html

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

Please help me understand the thought process by which life is assumed to begin at conception. I'm not looking for a fight. I'm genuinely curious.

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

It's quite simple really. When the egg and sperm unite, the resulting ovum begins to grow and develop. Growth and development are the definitions of life, according to biology. It takes in nourishment, it expels waste. It is most definitely alive.

But what kind of life is it? The resulting ovum also contains the entire dna sequence for a human being. It is no different than a baby at 1 week, one month or one year of age. It is still dependent on its mother for survival, it is still growing, developing, and it is 100% human by the dna code within it. It doesn't matter whether it looks like a human or a multicellular blob. It is a human in its earliest stages of development, but still very much human, and according to biology, very much alive. And taking the life of a living human is murder.

"Viability" is a red herring. If you remove a one-month old fetus (baby) from its mother's womb, and lay it on a table without it's mother's support system, it will die. If you lay a newborn baby on a table without its mother's (or someone's) attention, it will also die. "Viability" is an invalid biological test for determining if something is "life" or not.

Thirdly is the Biblical argument. Less convincing to non-Christians, of course, but to Christians an important argument. Zechariah 12:1 says that God "forms the spirit of man within him." Psalm 139:13 says that God "knits" us together in our mother's womb, speaking as if we were very much human within that womb. Protections are in place in the Law for the unborn, as if they were human. And in one instance, a baby (John the Baptist) reacts with a human emotion (joy) from within his mother's womb (Luke 1:44), showing that within his mother's womb, the baby was indeed human life.

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

John (and Chris)

Don't forget about Samson's mother too. She was told that Samson was to keep the Nazarite vow all his life. A part of that vow was abstaining from any type of grape product. His mother had to abstain while pregnant with Samson - the implication being that, as far as purification was concerned, he was alive while in the womb.

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

My memory was fuzzy on the details. Most people think of the pill a soemthing that keeps them from ovulating, and may not realize that if an egg does slip through, that the pill causes an abortion by not allowing the egg to implant.

I ahve a question. Are there pills without progesterone, which do not cause the uteral lining to thin and do not make the uterus a hotile environment if an egg does slip by.

Here in Indonesia, they import this divice from Spain which list a little round white plastic simple microscope. The wife takes some saliva or a certain other fluid and puts it on the microscope. There are two pictures drawn onthe microscope. One is the structure of the flid if she is ovulating. The other is the fluid if she is not ovulating. My wife and I have never figured out how to read it though. The little device cost about $15 or $20 here, but prices tend to be cheaper here. I would imagine there would be at least a 14 hour period where the device would nto be useful- the 24 hours before ovulation occurs. The males reproductive cells can live for a while waiting around for oculation. You are more likley to have a girl if that happens, I hear. Male reproductive cells with the Y chromosome are faster swimmers, but the ones with the X chromosomes (sp) hang around longer.

I've been living in Indonesia for a while. The culture is rubbing off on me. Married people seem to be more open about talking about things like birth control.

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

Link,

You have said, "Most people think of the pill a soemthing that keeps them from ovulating, and may not realize that if an egg does slip through, that the pill causes an abortion by not allowing the egg to implant. " That is exactly right! (And almost All of the Pills do go beyond just trying to stop ovulation....)

I believe there is a Pill that does try to just stop ovulation (as I alluded to in my initial message)... but I couldn't find information on it. I don't think it is highly prescribed at all.

As far as examining body fluid to determine ovulation... I'm not sure... but I would be careful of relying on this! :-)

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

I think the completion of the union of sperm and egg is considered conception. It is tat that point when there are the genes of a new person.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2001

Danny,

I'm sorry, but I can't follow your reasoning on that one....

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2001

Danny,

I don't get it. 'Conception' as I understand it, is _defined_ as the sperm uniting with the egg.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

Link, you have said, "I don't get it. 'Conception' as I understand it, is _defined_ as the sperm uniting with the egg. I believe that was the traditional definition... until the Pro-Choicers, the FDA, and Drug Companies changed it to fit their agenda.

To me, once a sexual union has taken place and a portion of the man is joined with a portion of the woman... something new and living has come about. Seems so simple....

If we can 'pick' other points in the process for life to 'begin', then why not, "life begins when the 'thing' takes its first breath of oxygen"?? Partial birth abortion is NO problem under that definition... and, of course, this IS the reasoning of many.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

Danny,

Just wanted to share this quote:

"Since its incorporation in 1973, NRLC has been a strong defender of the lives of unborn children from the moment of fertilization.

For many years the term "conception" has been a more commonly used term for "fertilization" (the union of the sperm cell and the egg cell) and the two words have been used interchangeably. Webster's 1991 Random House College Dictionary defines "conception" as " fertilization, the formation of a zygote from the union of sperm and egg."

Recently pro-abortionists have instigated a widespread attempt to redefine the common word "conception" so that it no longer means the same as "fertilization." National Right to Life has resisted this dangerous re-definition which could confuse many Americans about when human life really begins. "

It is just not the case that the word 'conception' has historically refered to a process that "is not complete until implantation takes place."

Bringing up partial term abortion was not a straw-man... it is the logical progression when one begins to pick stages of development to define the beginning of life. I think, perhaps, you are using 'Fuzzy Biology'....

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

Some more info:

WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?

* In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question before us here: When does human life begin? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

* "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

* Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

******

Notice 1) 'fertilization' and 'conception' are used interchangably and, 2) conception is referred to as a moment... not a process.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

Danny.... you are the most frustrating person to discuss something with... and not because you are necessarily skilled at discussion and not because you have great facts.... But, just because you 'run around in circles'.... avoiding any information presented in support of a postion which you do not hold... and bringing up new 'angles' to misdirect the discussion. .....Just a little personal observation from this discussion and from 'watching' many others.... take it under consideration or leave it... and I'm sure you'll leave it. :-)

First, you have said, "The simple fact is Robin....the vast majority of women use an estrogen based BC pill that stops ovulation. When ovulation does happen....they get pregnant....which is why there are a good number of "pill babies" running around." That is only HALF TRUE.... The most-prescribed pill is a COMBINATION PILL... it has progesterone SO THAT IF ovulation occurs the uterine lining is incompatible with life... abortion is meant to occur. Now, that sometimes fails also and a baby results... BUT, other times abortion occurs!! ALSO, many women are on what is called the Mini-Pill (it is only progesterone-based)... it doesn't even try to stop ovulation. If this sounds familar... it should as I posted it above... and it is the simple fact.

Second, you were the one arguing that conception is a 'process'... implying that life does not begin at fertilization (remember your bogus Biology 101 lesson?).... Now, you are reversing that and arguing that I am arguing against a position that does not exist... but one which you, only a moment before, took!! I provided quotes from medical doctors indicating that 1) conception is fertilization and 2) conception is NOT a process. You must have missed that.

If you believe that life begins at conception (which now you say even pro-abortionists do) and if conception is the moment of fertilization (as medical doctors support), then how can you not take a stand against a Pill which is designed to Kill that which is Life?

Thirdly, you seem to think that it is me alone that puts forth this position, yet much of the information I have provided comes directly from the Right To Life organization. I really believe that they, as a whole, have a better understanding of Biology 101 and the effect of The Pill... than you do.

The fact is, Danny, many woman are taking a pill which is designed to kill that which is life... and they are unaware of it. I guess all one would have to 'preach' is "Thou shalt not murder"... but it would be nice to get the information out about how murder is occuring.

A question for everyone: Does 'life', to a Christian, imply having a 'soul'? In other words, if life begins at fertilization, does that imply to one that believes in the existence of a soul... that a new soul has begun? I believe the answer is Yes.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2001

I would like to re-iterate why I started this thread. IF one believes that Life begins at fertilization (it does) and IF a Pill that is prescribed today has the purpose of extinguishing that Life (there is)... then wouldn't it be good for that information to be common knowledge?

I think that the church would be a good ally in getting this information out because the church takes a strong stand against abortion... and that the church should take an active role in getting this information out. However, after this conversation with Danny (and with the silence of others... at least since Danny spoke), I have concluded that my efforts are much better spent with the local Right To Life organization and with the local Crisis Pregnancy Center. Forget about help from... preachers.

It comes down to this: decide what you believe concerning when Life starts and get the facts concerning the Pill... then decide if it would be a good thing that women have this information and if you are going to help them get it.

Thanks.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2001

Robin,

If you will hold on for a little longer, I may be able to come up with a few cents worth…or actually a friend's two cents worth. Since you started this thread I have been wanting to talk to a friend of mine who is a Lt. Colonel in the U. S. Army who is a nurse. She has been away since your initial post so I have not had the opportunity. I should be seeing her tomorrow (Wednesday) night at Bible study.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Danny,

Glad to hear that you have been pondering me for 2 years.... must be slow going around there.... :-)

I like preachers... it is an amazing calling and an amazing responsibility. I don't believe that I meant it with a broader application than to the subject at hand. I was expressing disappointment in the seeming lack of concern from Men of God... when so many others are taking a stand.

Ponder away....

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

D. Lee,

I would love to hear from you....

Another source for infomation concerning how 'The Pill' works is the 'Net....

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Danny,

Me thinks thou dost ponder a bit too much.... I am perceptive enough to see how you might have taken what I said... doesn't mean that is what I meant.

"What a luxury it must be to only have one societal ill to focus on. " Where does this remark even come from? How do you know what various 'ills of society' I am concerned with or focusing on? Sort of sounds like you are whining a bit.... Besides, the issue under discussion is a part of the Abortion ill which, I think even you would admit, merits discussion time.

Again, I would have thought the church would be a good place to get out the information about the abortion effects of the Pill because the church has already taken a good, vocal stand against abortion and has an audience of people who care. I still don't understand why you are 'fighting' this... I am guessing it is because you just don't have the facts about the actions of the Pill....

If the Pill causes abortion (even if a small percentage of the time).... wouldn't you take a stand against its use?

In all the information that I have found... the Pills discussed always contain progesterone. Part of its purpose is abortion by making the lining 'hostile' to implantation... basically, denying nutrition to something that is Life until it is Dead.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Here is some information from one Web Site... perhaps it says things better than I have been able to:

***** Many "contraceptives" do not always prevent conception -- conception meaning the joining of an egg and sperm into a new life. Preventing ovulation (the release of an egg from the ovaries) is only one of several mechanisms employed by the chemicals most commonly used for birth control, estrogen and progestin. One or both of these two hormones are found in many birth control products. Although estrogen prevents ovulation much of the time, it also inhibits the implantation of a new baby if fertilization has taken place (1). Implantation is necessary for the child to begin receiving nourishment from the mother. Progestin may inhibit ovulation, and in some women thickens cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to reach the egg (2). But, progestin also alters the environment of the womb, inhibiting implantation in many women (3). If a baby cannot implant into the lining of the womb (endometrium), he or she will be expelled from the uterus, i.e. aborted.

Combination Oral Contraceptive, or "The Pill" -- contains both estrogen and progestin. According to the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR), the primary mechanism of The Pill is inhibition of ovulation, as well as changes in cervical mucus and changes in the endometrium "which reduce the likelihood of implantation (4)."

Progestin-Only Pills, or "The Mini-Pill" -- contains only progestin. According to the PDR, the primary mechanism is unknown, but progestin- only pills are known to alter the cervial mucus and effect "the endometrium, interfering with implantation, and, in some patients, suppress[ing] ovulation (5)."

Norplant -- contains only progestin and is implanted for five-years. While using Norpant, women have been found to ovulate frequently (11- 73% of the time), especially after the first year of use (6). As with all progestin-only methods, changes in the endometrium which inhibit implantation are one of the ways that Norplant acts as birth control (7).

Depo-Provera, or "The Shot" -- is also a progestin which is injected directly into a woman once every three months. Again, the lining of the womb is changed by the progestin (8).

The Morning-After Pill -- is administered ideally within 12 hours of unprotected intercourse. It is really just a large dosage of combination oral birth control pills. Unless taken before ovulation, it blocks implantation (9).

The Intrauterine Device, or "IUD" -- is a T-shaped device placed in the uterus which is medicated with a progestin, copper, or silver. Although the exact mechanism of this device is not well understood, the combination of chemical and device are believed to affect the sperm, egg, and endometrium. (10) ***** (Bold emphasis mine)

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Dear Mr.Cornell

I have been following this thread since its beginning and have some experience in the field that might be helpful in your understanding of the function of the pill

the pill does not cause any form af abortion it merely prevents ovulation by making the female body think that it is pregnant (at the endocrine level of things that is)

the IUD prevents the fertilized egg from implantion in the uterine lining

RU-486 (and I just love the name (( are you for 86ing this pregnancy)) LOL does cause the endometrial lining of the uterus to slough away wheather or not there is implantion or not.

now when contemplating the very EMOTIONALLY motivated concept that abortion goes against Gods teaching . i think that one is required to prove when Gods considers life begins as well as what God considers life to be defined as.

about the only place that i have found talking about when life begins as well as what life is is Gen 2:7

in Christian Love

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Dan,

You state, "the pill does not cause any form af abortion it merely prevents ovulation by making the female body think that it is pregnant (at the endocrine level of things that is) " Well.... that is true IF you are only looking at a pill with JUST estrogen. Of which, I'm not aware of any. WITH the estrogen-based Pill, ovulation still occurs a percentage of the time.... that leads us to why..... The 'Combination Pill' has progesterin and the 'Mini Pill' is JUST progesterin. The purpose of progesterin is to make the lining hostile to implantation (sort of like a hormonal IUD). Abortion does occur from the Pill. Does this sound familiar? It should... it is about the 4th time I have written it in this thread.... :-)

As far as when Life begins... That is why I started this whole thread with an IF... IF one believes Life begins at fertilization (my mistake in using the term 'conception' which allows for manipulation), then how the Pill works is important.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

A little more information perhaps worded better than what I have said:

*****

What about the standard contraceptive pill?

There are over 30 "contraceptive" pills on the market, each differing a little from the others. They "prevent" pregnancy through three separate functions.

1. They thicken the mucous plug at the cervix. If this is the primary effect, then it truly is contraceptive because it prevents sperm from entering.

2. They prevent release of the ovum. If this is the primary effect, then the function is "temporary" sterilization.

3. They render the lining of the womb hostile to the implantation of the tiny new human at one week of life. This effect is abortifacient.

The earlier high-estrogen pills largely prevented ovulation. The newer low-estrogen pills allow "break-through" ovulation in up to 20% or more of the months used. Such a released ovum is fertilized 10% or more of the time. Most of these tiny new lives which result, do not survive. The reason is that at one week of life this tiny new boy or girl cannot implant in the womb lining (see number 3 above) and dies. These are micro-abortions.

The pill, then, can have a contraceptive or temporary sterilization effect (by far the most common), or it can be an abortifacient. illke, "The Physiologic Function of Certain Birth Control Measures," National RTL News, Mar. 9, 1981

You mean the effect is to abort?

Yes! "The morphological changes observed in the endometrium of oral contraceptive users have functional significance and provide evidence that reduced endometrial receptivity does indeed contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of OCs." In other words, because the endometrial lining is not receptive to the human being, who must implant in order to continue living, the human being will die. Somkuti, et al., "The Effect of Oral Contraceptive Pills on Markers of Endometrial Receptivity," Fertility and Sterility, Vol. 65, #3, 3/96, p. 488 (Bold emphasis mine) *****

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

i applaud how you have done your homework on the ways in which the pill work and how you have linked them to the idea of abortion and when one might BELIEVE when life begins and construes the actions of differnt types of (the pill) to the abortion issues.

i will go ahead and give some more of my idea as to what i have learned to date as to Gods examples of what life is and when it begins

as stated in Gen 2:7 when God breathed into adams nostrils the breath of life he became a living soul..

wel it seems logically (to me) that the idea of life or living begins when the physical and the spiritual parts of man becme one.

the illustration that is given in the Genesis account tells us that adam was physically whole but until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life he was but half alive or rather had no soul and that humans having a soul is what differentiates us from the animals. anyway that is simplistically what i have learned.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Dan,

Are you sure that the "soul" is what differs us from "animals?"

compare Numbers 31:28; Leviticus 24: 18; Revelation 16:3

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

Creel i think that after reading the interesting verses you left for me to read i will say that being LIVING souls is One of the things that differentiates us from the animals that we were put over in Christian Love

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001