Does the Pill Kill?
26 comments | Permalink
At the Life Training Institute Blog Rich Poupard (a very sharp pro-life advocate) has been posting on the issue.
Below are some of the links with excerpts:
The Dangers of Overstating our Case
There is a real controversy regarding this issue, and science does not have all of the answers. Let me state this plainly: anyone who believes they know absolutely that OCs cause endometrial changes that result in "chemical abortions" is simply wrong. They don't. I don't know for sure either. Cool web sites and T-shirts do nothing to change this fact. Pro-lifers who overstate this case are acting very irresponsibly.
What if breastfeeding kills?
By endorsing a campaign such as "The Pill Kills" and overstating the case for a post-fertilization effect of OCs, we leave ourselves vulnerable to being hypocritical regarding possible dangers to an embryo. There are many reasons to question the use of oral contraceptives, and we should inform women to the best of our ability so they can make an educated choice. However, overstating dangers helps no one.
Does a Thin Uterine Lining Support the "Pill as Baby Killer" Theory?
. . . if a thick, receptive uterine lining is necessary for implantation, and we can show that OCs thin the lining, it almost has to effect implantation. This is the predominant reasoning used by those who support the abortifacient theory. However, this only covers the issue very shallowly. In order to understand what it really occurring, we have to go deep. This can be complicated and confusing, but I will do my best to simplify it where I can.
Below are some of the links with excerpts:
The Dangers of Overstating our Case
There is a real controversy regarding this issue, and science does not have all of the answers. Let me state this plainly: anyone who believes they know absolutely that OCs cause endometrial changes that result in "chemical abortions" is simply wrong. They don't. I don't know for sure either. Cool web sites and T-shirts do nothing to change this fact. Pro-lifers who overstate this case are acting very irresponsibly.
What if breastfeeding kills?
By endorsing a campaign such as "The Pill Kills" and overstating the case for a post-fertilization effect of OCs, we leave ourselves vulnerable to being hypocritical regarding possible dangers to an embryo. There are many reasons to question the use of oral contraceptives, and we should inform women to the best of our ability so they can make an educated choice. However, overstating dangers helps no one.
Does a Thin Uterine Lining Support the "Pill as Baby Killer" Theory?
. . . if a thick, receptive uterine lining is necessary for implantation, and we can show that OCs thin the lining, it almost has to effect implantation. This is the predominant reasoning used by those who support the abortifacient theory. However, this only covers the issue very shallowly. In order to understand what it really occurring, we have to go deep. This can be complicated and confusing, but I will do my best to simplify it where I can.
posted by JT at Wednesday, July 02, 2008
26 Comments:
If I might add something...
This is for healthy women intending to conceive. 24.6% of detectable conceptions end without missed menstrel cycle and then another 7.9% later in recognizable miscarriage, the total being 32.5% for fetuses known to survive to day seven.
http://egginfo.info/chapters/ref-attrition.html
32.5% of fetuses known to survive to day seven.
60% lost after implantation
loss of an identical twin = 80%
Another factor: The endometrium is only viable for implantation naturally for a few days:
The length of the implantation window is controversial. The implantation period is usually assumed to coincide with cycle day 20-22 in a standardized cycle of 28 days (19). However, subsequent evaluation of data based on highly sensitive hCG measurements in ART cycles estimated that the window of implantation lasts for approximately 5 days and extends from postovulatory days 6 to10 (cycle day 20-24 of an idealized 28 day cycle) (20).
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?mf05002
And multiple ovulation has been shown in one study:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3927
8.8% of women ovulated twice. There are up to three waves of follicle development, apparently any can release.
So that first number doesn't account for potential eggs fertilized that have little chance of implantation because they are not in sync with the endometrium:
The process of implantation requires a reciprocal interaction between blastocyst and endometrium, culminating in a small window of opportunity during which implantation can occur.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17548368?ordinalpos=22&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Now:
Ovulation inhibition is very powerful in principle when no pills are forgotten. Some research using the techniques of "programmed forgetting" has indicated that inhibition is not complete in all users, especially when one or more pills are skipped....
And:
In other words, a much smaller proportion of embryos conceived under OCs would successfully be able to implant than would be true under conditions of no OC use. The "index of embryonic destruction" based on current knowledge of uncorrected Pearl indexes, can be estimated at 3 to 10 embryos destroyed for one or two pregnancies per 100 woman-years of use of combined OCs and 6 to 30 per 100 woman-years of use of low-dose progestins.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12288921?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
So: assume 30 embryos lost for 100 years of use with the pill. That results in 1 baby for 3 years of use: This is worst case given the numbers. Compare to normal: 32.5% for fetuses known to survive to day seven. Assuming only single ovulation, that means that NORMALLY in three months of having sex, two babies will be lost and one will survive to implant: And once it implants it has a 66% chance of survival.
That would mean that for 100 woman years of normal sex, around 800 babies will be lost naturally, versus 30 with the pill. Rhythm method may have no advantage over the pill in terms of lost babies in the event of multiple ovulation. That's my guess.
If 'chances of loss' are the criteria for action, then the pill is superior to even attempting to get pregnant. This will be much worse with women who have fertility problems, where certain endometrial conditions -- endometriosis apparently affects 7-10% of women.
The Billings folks (a rhythm method recommended by alcorn) said that multiple ovulation is impossible. Now, of course, I can see why they have motive to say this:
1) Their method IS successful.
2) If 8.8% of women are ovulating twice, and potentially the egg is fertilized but not implanted due to timing, the Billings approach falls under the same criticism as the pill.
3) They said multiple ovulation was "impossible" - which seems like a massive overstatement given the occurrence of non-identical twinning!
This will require more thought though...
Sorry, I'm posting from my earlier notes - noticed the link was dead:
http://egginfo.info/index.html?content=http%3A//egginfo.info/3Embryology/refAttrition.html
Nice to see some nuance on this issue.
It's good to hear this kind of unequivocal, evidence and fact based argument coming from a pro-life sources for a change. If anything Poupard is too kind to those pro-life advocates who damage the credibility of our position by arguing that "the pill kills." Calling such arguments irresponsible or overstatements is a mild description of what is in many cases purposeful misleading, willful deception, and/or outright lying (akin to abstinence advocates who willfully misrepresent and/or lie about the effectiveness of condoms and other artificial birth control methods). Again, such arguments damage the credibility of the pro-life position, not to mention our witness as Christians.
It also needs to be noted that pregnancy does not begin until the fertilized egg has implanted. If there is no implantation there is no pregnancy. And if there is no pregnancy there is no abortion. This seems to me to be a very simple principle. As others have pointed out a few times now, fertilized eggs fail to implant all the time, even under "normal" circumstances. These are not abortions. There is no credible medical or scientific authority that would refer to the event of a fertilized egg failing to implant as an 'abortion.' Failure to implant is something that happens even when the uterine lining has thickened.
I'm Catholic - I don't use any artificial contraception at all - so I have no interest in defending or promoting the use of oral contraceptives or other artificial birth control. But I do have an interest in Christians telling the truth and not using misleading or false arguments to make our case to the world.
Yes,the pill does kill. This is a proven fact. If you dont believe me, ask the pill manufacturers. They all state in their inserts that the pill works in 3 ways...1 to prevent ovoluation...2 to prevent passage...3 to prevent implantation. The third method here is the killing of a little baby. If the manufacturers admit that the pill works by stopping implantation, then why cant "christians" who are supposed to be led by the Holy Spirit recognize this? For further evidence, look in the Physicians Desk Reference, which also admits that the pill stops implantation.
For those out there who are trying to justify sin in this matter by pointing out that spontaneous miscarriages happen...the issue is not that miscarriages happen but the fact that 'human pesticide' is used to intentionally stop a pregnancy from occurring. God calls this murder, and His holy law forbids it
diabla,
Pregnancy does not start at implantation, it starts at conception. Only in modern times have people tried to claim that pregnancy starts at implantation, but there is no evidence for such a claim. The moment that conception happens a new human life forms with a unique DNA. This new human life immediately begins to grow and undergo cell division. The only thing that changes at implantation is location and nutrition being provided...this is not what starts human life.
Jim,
I am genuinely curious. . .no pretense. . .
From what you say. . then what of Mike's comments? Could you address them directly?
[[[[So: assume 30 embryos lost for 100 years of use with the pill. That results in 1 baby for 3 years of use: This is worst case given the numbers. Compare to normal: 32.5% for fetuses known to survive to day seven. Assuming only single ovulation, that means that NORMALLY in three months of having sex, two babies will be lost and one will survive to implant: And once it implants it has a 66% chance of survival.
That would mean that for 100 woman years of normal sex, around 800 babies will be lost naturally, versus 30 with the pill. Rhythm method may have no advantage over the pill in terms of lost babies in the event of multiple ovulation. That's my guess.
If 'chances of loss' are the criteria for action, then the pill is superior to even attempting to get pregnant. This will be much worse with women who have fertility problems, where certain endometrial conditions -- endometriosis apparently affects 7-10% of women.]]]
I think he's saying that the pill may improve the number of lost babies? (I am unlearned medically and may have misread this. . .sorry, Mike, if so)
Aaron
Mike's comment showed numbers that I had never seen before and that I assumed to be quite off based upon the numbers that I have previously seen. Going to the source that he posted, I immediately realized why his numbers were so skewed...egginfo.info is a secular sight trying to prove and justify humanist doctrine while attempting to disprove theology. Not a source that can be trusted, especially when it generally fails to provide its sources.
If you want to see some actual scientific documents than grab Randy Alcorn's book on the pill and he quotes and references extensively to actual scientific and pharmacological pieces.
Well,
Since it seems to be a "he said/she said" on this issue. I feel good about my wife and I's decision to go with NFP in our younger years.
It seems like the pill CAN but not often does become abortifacient. That word, CAN, is enough for us to stay away. But, that word should also keep us from judging others on the issue.
Aaron
Thanks. Very helpful.
Jim,
Did you bother to read Rich's articles?
Your statement that it is a proven fact that the pill kills is simply factually inaccurate.
Without going into details that Rich covers well enough and that are easily accessible if you are interested I will simply ask one question in regards to your comment. Since when do manufacturer claims constitute scientific evidence?
Jay,
I did read rich's post. He neglects important truth as has been pointed out in the comments section.
The manufacturer's claims are based upon the scientific research that they do in both development and testing. The manufacturer would certainly want to downplay the fact that these pills kill babies before they can implant, because they want a larger segment of the population to use their product. The fact that the manufacturer admits that these pills stop implantation is very strong evidence even if you dont have the time/knowledge to read the scientific documents that support this. The last thing that the pill manufacturers want is pro-lifers holding signs in front of their headquarters. Not that they need to fear because most church goers have totally bought into the world's lie that children are not a blessing, but a curse.
Furthermore, the morning after pill is universally recognized to be a pill that kills before implantation. The morning after pill and the birth control pill are essentially the same pill only in different dosages. The morning after pill, being used after conception, is unable to act as a contra-ceptive....it only works by thinning the lining to kill when implantation fails to occur. The birth control pill, being a mini morning after pill, also works by thinning the lining and we then know that this is a method of action.
While personally (my wife and I) forgoing the pill after 3 months of marriage based on these concerns, I have never felt clear and I struggle when seeking to counsel young couples. Straight talk helps. Emotional language like "human pesticide" clouds the issue and does not foster careful, truth-seeking consideration. Thank you for this post, Justin.
Justin,
Thanks so much for the link. I used Sex and the Supremacy of Christ last summer in my young married Sunday School class and just recently realized that you were the co-editor. Thanks for your great work.
Jim,
The only source that you cite is Alcorn, and ironically your claim is much stronger than his. Randy agrees with me that there is no direct evidence for a post-fertilization effect on an embryo from OCs. He is compelled by the indirect evidence. I don't believe he would make the claim that it has been "proven" that the pill causes abortions. That claim is a strong one, and anyone making such a statement should support it with evidence.
If you read my posts, I state that I am not compelled by the current evidence to believe that OCs act via a post-fertilization mechanism, and have shared my reasoning why. Good people disagree with me, and I freely state that I could be wrong. It is unfortunate that you believe that I work hard to justify sin and that I neglect evidence. I don't judge the hearts of those who disagree with me. I wonder why you believe you can accurately judge mine?
Justin,
Thanks so much for posting this. I have wrestled with this issue and am glad to see some discussion about it.
"Mike's comment showed numbers that I had never seen before and that I assumed to be quite off based upon the numbers that I have previously seen. Going to the source that he posted, I immediately realized why his numbers were so skewed...egginfo.info is a secular sight trying to prove and justify humanist doctrine while attempting to disprove theology. Not a source that can be trusted, especially when it generally fails to provide its sources.
If you want to see some actual scientific documents than grab Randy Alcorn's book on the pill and he quotes and references extensively to actual scientific and pharmacological pieces."
First:
The irony in your rather presumptuous statement is that I obtained the data on the Pill from the same sources (read: medical journals) that Alcorn does.
I would suggest that you actually do your homework. You would have noticed this.
I am granting Alcorn's assumption regarding the pill and giving some data to show that the rhythm method has no moral high ground over the pill.
My point is this: If the pill is wrong, then so is the rhythm method by the same criteria. If they make a shirt that says, "The pill kills" they had better make one that says "Rhythm method kills" to go with it.
Perhaps that means a re-evaluation of the idea of attempting to control reproduction AT ALL while having sex.
Second:
"Going to the source that he posted, I immediately realized why his numbers were so skewed...egginfo.info is a secular sight trying to prove and justify humanist doctrine while attempting to disprove theology. Not a source that can be trusted, especially when it generally fails to provide its sources."
Skewed? Do you have alternative attrition rate numbers? A journal to back them up? Who do you think produces scientific journals? Most are secular. Are they de-facto wrong for that reason? If this is your reasoning it is pretty weak.
You discount it because it is secular: So is the data Alcorn uses for the pill. I used the same data he did over there. The data on attrition rates is no less reliable than the data on the pill by your own criteria.
Or did you even draw the distinction between the pill data and attrition rates? The data on attrition rates has nothing to do with the pill.
You may not have noticed, but egginfo was a secondary source that used "actual scientific documents" like the ones Alcorn does for his data regarding the Pill.
See Here, here, and here for primary data.
Mike,
I would agree that there is no high moral ground to be found in the rhythm method. However, I would disagree with the reasons that you state. It sounds like you are trying to make the rhythm method out as the killer just as the pill is a killer. The reality is that our natural sinful state is the killer, not the rhythm method. The rhythm method is wrong simply because at its core it says that children are not a blessing, but are to be avoided (see psalm 127). Attempting to control reproduction at all is sinful, however the pill adds to this sin the sin of murder as it is actively causing the death of little children.
My criticism of egginfo was based upon the fact that it is a secondary document, not a scientific study; and this secondary document is run from a secular slant. Obviously, not all things secular are wrong, but when they are not objective, they hold little credibility. Egginfo is a sight that takes the primary documents and tries to interpret them to justify various humanist arguments...this is why I was insisting that it should be taken with a grain of salt.
serge,
i dont know your heart, i can only judge the fruits. The fruits that I see are trying to justify murder of little babies...this is very serious.
Jim said "Attempting to control reproduction at all is sinful,"
So...while you had me considering your thoughts for a while there, when you said that you tipped your hand a bit too far methinks. The Bible, while calling children a blessing (I have 6 so don't accuse me of anything untoward) says nothing whatever about controlling reproduction, pro or con.
Clearly your own little agenda is clouding your vision...
Good post Mike Jones.
Daryl,
The Bible says that children are a blessing. If we believe this, will we want to attain many such blessings or try to have as few as possible? There are many other Biblical arguments on this issue, but this is not a post on contraception, so I wont go there. This is a post about the pill which is an abortifacient. Even if you dont agree with me on the issue of contraception, I pray that you will speak out against the pill and other such abortifacients that kill little babies.
Jim,
You continue to make Rich's point in your attitude and inability to simply state the case you have. You could choose to examine the evidence and conclude that there exists a possibility that a third contraceptive mechanism exists with oral contraceptives that impedes implantation. You could then try to make the case that if such a thing does happen then the pill creates an artificially hostile environment for a living human being at a very early stage of development.
When a medical doctor like Rich, and a fellow Christian to boot, warns that it is not certain that such a thing ever happens and the evidence is at best inconclusive, you could respectfully disagree and enter into a dialogue. Jason Dulles did this very thing at LTI and it produced a productive and respectful comment thread.
Or you could question our Christianity accuse us of being humanist, trumpet scientific proof without actually supplying it, and restate your opinion that the pill "kills little babies."
I guess if you honestly believe the latter is the best way to handle this discussion then you and I just disagree.
Jay,
There is no "third contraceptive mechanism" with so called oral contraceptives. The whole point in this debate is that the third mechanism is not contraceptive at all...it is abortive. This is generally accepted as fact, and the only debate that is made by people who understand the issue is whether or not this is murder. There is a plethora of evidence to show that this 3rd mechanism in fact exists, and if you read through my previous comments, you can see my attempts to give the summary.
You insinuate that I should be impressed that Rich is a doctor and a professing Christian. I don't know Rich, so I don't know his heart...but there are many who profess Christ and are not of him, so a claim to Christ means little. Rich is a doctor, but he has stated that he is an oral surgeon...an oral surgeon gets little to no training in OB matters. Any knowledge that Rich has on this topic is simply from him studying, not because he has a degree. It is very unfair to trumpet a degree to aid in a claim. I am also a doctor, but also not an OB, so I consider this level of human distinction irrelevant, and therefore dont trumpet it to try to make people think that I know something. Like Rich, any knowledge that I have is from reading not degree status. So, no I will not respect somebody's sinful argument because they have a degree or profess Christ. When somebody is arguing to justify killing little babies, they need to be called to repent, not respected.
If you really care to see the truth in this issue, then look at the points I have made, and humbly challenge me where I have failed to make it clear. But dont start with presuppositions and ask me to fall behind them.
Interesting topic! Mike Jones, I loved your post!
Let me debunk some of Alcorn's research:
Most of the studies in Alcorn's research that evaluate the breakthrough ovulation rate on the pill are simply estimates. They are highly innaccurate ones (obtained unreliable methods, like temping) and the most accurate one (where ovulation is detected via ultrasound) was done back in 1984. No doubt the pill has changed over the past 24 years. He also never clearly makes a distinction in his research between breakthrough ovulation rates for perfect pill takers (same time everyday) and inperfect usage. He also never seems to distinguish between pill users who use the Progestin Only Pills versus the Combined Oral Contraceptives.
He never accurately finds good studies on the 2nd contraceptive effect of the pill, which is to make cervical mucus inhospitable to sperm. The only research he can find was a study done on rabbits which didn't prove it was very effective. Humans are not rabbits though and we cannot assume that because the pill didn't make cervical mucus inhospitable in rabbits that it will no doubt do the same in humans. This effect is never researched and there is no reliable evidence to state whether this is a good contraceptive method or not.
Thirdly, his study on the effect of the pill on the endometrium may show the lining of the uterus to be thinned. He fails to prove however that this mechanism is one of main usage and links instances of ectopic pregnancies to the "abortifacient" effect. He again never clearly distinguishes between the POP (progestin only pill) and the COC (combined Oral contraceptive). If you look at the Pro-Life OBs and Gynecologists statement on the pill http://www.aaplog.org/decook.htm, you will find that there is not a significant difference in ectopic pregnancies on Combined Oral Contraceptives and in those non-contraceptive users.
Also, Alcorn relies heavily on theoretical statistics like "well since this many women use the pill and it has this chance of being abortifacient, if you take the pill you are likely to have had at least one abortion directly result from the pill" (read the ending of the book). Every woman's chemistry reacts differently to the pill so it's ridiculous to assume that every woman who has taken the pill is bound to have had at least one abortion that she was not aware of.
It's no suprise that many people do not believe that it is scientific fact that the "pill kills babies". The research is sketchy at best and there is no evidence to prove that Combined Oral Contraceptives work as abortifacients in very many cases. I know people who have a problem with the pill. That is fine if they feel that way, but to state that the pill is a proven abortifacient is factually and scientifically innaccurate.
Christina,
I must respond to your criticisms of Alcorn's research. It seems that your criticisms come from looking for reasons to discount solid evidence, and this concerns me greatly.
Alcorn acknowledges that studies attempting to discern the rate of breakthrough ovulation are not without problems. The issue is not with the rate of breakthrough ovulation, but with the fact that it does sometimes occur....this is proved from the fact that women do get pregnant while taking the pill. It does not matter if the pill causes abortions once a month, one a year, or once a decade....the point is that it kills babies.
Research done in 1984 is only irrelevant if things have changed...the only thing that has changed is the decreasing hormone doses found in the modern pills which actually increases breakthrough ovulation.
Perfect pill users would have a decreased risk of abortion compared to users who miss doses. It is not feasible to study the difference because in order to know the difference, you would have to have the client come to the clinic everyday to take the dosage....imagine the cost and the hassle. All drug studies that are based upon regular consumption are done in this same way...are we going to throw out the studies on other drugs because we don't know how often the patient actually took the meds?
Alcorn does distinguish between progestin only pills (aka mini pills) and the combined pills. The research shows that both pills affect the uterine lining, but that the mini pills have less affect on inhibition of ovulation, therefore causing more abortion as a result of reliance on the abortive mechanism.
It is difficult to study the 2nd mechanism (inhospitable mucus) due to the invasiveness of the testing. This is why researchers use the animal model. While not perfect, researchers pick animals that have similar systems to humans to find an analogous affect. Flawed...but the best we ethically have. Ultimately, this 2nd mechanism is only relevant to a discussion on the rate of the pill being abortive, and not to a question of whether or not it is sometimes abortive. Like I said before, rate is not important, only the fact that the pill does sometimes kill babies.
We dont care if the abortive mechanism of the pill is "one of main usage"...all that matters is that abortions happen because of the pill.
Studies comparing COC to non pill users would not show an increase in ectopic pregnancy for a good reason...there are fewer fertilizations occurring during pill usage because mechanisms 1 and 2 are occurring. This leads to a decrease in the number of pregnancies occurring and therefore a decrease in the number of those pregnancies that may implant ectopically. So, if the pill is not producing a hostile endometrium, then we would expect the ectopic pregnancy rate to be lower in pill users than in non pill users. However, we find the ectopic pregnancy rate to be either higher or the same (depending on the type of pill used)...this shows evidence that something is causing babies to implant in the wrong place during pill usage...and the rest of the evidence points to this 'something' being the abortive mechanism of the pill.
Alcorn is not suggesting that because some estimates indicate an average of one abortion per year that every woman will have an abortion once per year. He is simply suggesting that because abortions do happen as a result of pill usage...it is immoral to use the pill.
I pray that you might repent of defending murder, and that many readers would repent of using the pill. I pray further for a return of Christians recognizing the blessing of children, and not looking for a way out of having God's blessings just because they dont fit with their desires.
Jim,
If I believed it was truly murder I wouldn't defend it. The research is not enough to prove your theory that the pill kills babies.
Yes, the dosage in pills has decreased, in terms of Estrogen. Yet, if you look at the birth control pill and read on the research the Estrogen was decreased because it was found to be effective without having to use so much. In the COCs, you see that Estrogen and Progestin work together to prevent ovulation mainly. There is a ratio of progestin to estrogen in any birth control pill, whether low dose or high dose. The ratio in most COCs are nearly identical and this is what makes the pill effective.
You also don't acknowledge, as Alcorn's research doesn't either, that breakthrough ovulation rates are significantly different between consistent pill takers and inconsistent pill takers or those who are taking interfering medication. I don't blame Alcorn for this because I believe the research should be done on it. There is insufficient research on breakthrough ovulation though in COCs. If you are going to really find what the true rate of breakthrough ovulation is you have to take into account factors which affect breakthrough ovulation. Inconsistent pill usage and interfering medications do affect breakthrough ovulation rates and to throw them out the window as if they don't is wrong.
Also, I have from personal experience met many women who got pregnant on the pill. When I ask them if they missed any pills or if they were taking any interfering medication, they always respond with a yes. This is where breakthrough ovulation occurs. Any pregnancy among consistent pill takers is very, very, very rare.
As far as POPs vs. COCs, POPs have a much higher chance of acting as abortifacients because they do not have estrogen and are far more likely to have breakthrough ovulation. Yes, I believe current research has shown that POPs actually have a chance of acting as abortifacients, even Focus on the Family has acknowledged this. COCs however do not have any real evidence of being abortifacients if taken correctly.
I do think Christians should pray about what kind of contraception to use, if they decide to use contraception at all. If Christians feel wrong using the pill that is ok. But to claim COCs are true abortifacients is to not be truthful according to all the research out there, not just Alcorn's.
The pill was found to be "effective" with decreased doses of estrogen because the progesterone does the dirty work.
The ratio of estrogen to progesterone is not nearly as important as the amounts of each, this is why the POP is effective as birth control.
It is not practical to do a study comparing consistent to inconsistent pill takers because it is so difficult to know if people are telling the truth about their usage. Even the most responsible person misses pills from time to time, so really it does not matter anyway...if the pill kills only with inconsistent usage, then anyone who misses a dose might be killing. Your logic here of defending those who use the pill consistently still fails because you still have the chance of murder with the missed dose.
Pregnancy with consistent pill takers is "very, very very rare" because consistent pill takers are "very, very very rare."
I continue to pray that you repent of your murder defending ways
Jim,
Having read your responses to other readers and it seems you have your mind made up. You continue to engage in inflammatory rhetoric. Even many posters here that don't personally believe in the pill fail to condemn those that simply find reason to doubt your opinions.
I know abortion is murder, if I were to know FOR SURE that the pill caused murder I would no longer write anything in defense of it. As far as I know, it does not cause murder and many pro-life OBs and Doctors are in agreement with this. And by murder I believe in the definition that life does begin at conception.
Your claims don't have any real backing, other than some of Alcorn's research, yet you ignore anything else that contradicts what you believe. It is ok that you don't agree with the pill, but don't judge fellow Christians who do as promoting murder. And I don't care how invasive or tedious or impractical it may be, a study would need to be done that effectively compared consistent pill usage to non-consistent pill usage in order to draw any conclusions on the issues. Everything else is just hypothesis and theory and until I can see some real numbers behind it, I will not say that the pill is a proven, factual abortifacient. Even Alcorn states his findings do not prove anything one way or another, they just lead him to certain conclusions based on what HE found.
I have an Master's degree in Statistics, so part of my "job" is to dissect research and critique it and find flaws which may make it inconclusive. As far as now, the studies on the pill have been inconclusive to proving your thesis.
And consistent pill takers are not as rare as you would believe. Have you ever met any? Even if you had they'd probably be afraid to tell you for fear that you'd condemn them as "murderers".
So if you have an opinion that's fine, but your opinion is an opinion it is not fact.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home