Contraception in the Torah? [Archive]

View Full Version : Contraception in the Torah?

Dominus Fidelis

5th April 2004, 09:49 AM

Is contraception forbidden in the Torah?

Hix

5th April 2004, 10:10 AM

The Torah does not forbid it per se, however Jewish law holds that contraception is allowed for married couples alone. Sexual urges come from the yetzer ra, the evil inclination, so just like hunger and thirst they are not evil, however need to be controlled. Within marriage it is a mitzvah to love your spouse, so certain methods of contraception are allowed by Jewish law only in regards to certain circumstances.

Hope this helps
Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

Dominus Fidelis

5th April 2004, 11:22 AM

What was Onan killed for?

Hix

5th April 2004, 11:35 AM

Does that have anything to do with contraception? :scratch:

Maybe I should explain Jewish law on this a bit clearer, its sometimes known as "Kosher sex". Sex outside of marriage is forbidden, as is for a male to "spill his seed" outside of his wife. As I said before if done in the right way, sex can be a mitzvah, in fact, the Talmud says that sex is the wifes right and NOT the husband, which is why at Jewish weddings the groom signs a list promising not to withold from loving his wife etc. The only time when sex is not practised for the married couple is when the woman is in her menstrual period, this is commonly known as "the law of seperation" due to ritual impurity.
In terms of birth control it is permitted only in principle, so long as the couple is committed to eventually fulfilling the mitzvah to be fruitful and multiply (which, at a minimum, consists of having two children, one of each gender). The issue in birth control is not whether it is permitted, but what method is permitted, and under what circumstances.

These certain circumstances which I mentioned in my first responce are for such as pregnancy becomming a risk for the mother or her children. Even then some contraceptive types are not allowed, a condom is forbidden as it blocks the passage of the "seed" as are any things which destroy the "seed". However the pill can be accepted under certain circumstances. And as with all Jewish law, they can be cast aside if it is to save a life.

So my point is, that contraception is allowed in some circumstances but these are very rare.

Hope this clears it up a bit more
Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

Dominus Fidelis

5th April 2004, 11:40 AM

Onan withdrew and spilled his seed. Is that why he was killed?

So condoms are not ok, but the pill is ok? Did you know the pill can cause early abortions?

Also, who makes the rules for all MJs to follow?

Hix

5th April 2004, 11:48 AM

schwartmrs

5th April 2004, 12:08 PM

Onan was required by Torah to give children to his brother's widow, so that his brother's inheritance and "place" would not be lost. What Onan did was selfish...if the widow had no chidren, Onan would have been "firstborn"...but, if he gave the widow children, those children would inherit in the place of the firstborn, and Onan would have been second in line. The inheritance of the firstborn was much greater than the inheritance of the second born.

Onan commited several sins here. He was selfish, and greedy. He refused to live up to the responsibilities placed upon him by Torah. He sinned against his (deceased) brother by attempting to rob him of his inheritance. He sinned against Tamar by having sex with her under false pretenses. He sinned against Judah, because the tribe of Judah would have "lost a branch" if he had succeeded. And he insulted the greatness of God by thinking he could get away with it.

For which of these sins did he die? Or was it a "cumulative" thing. I have heard the Onan story used against contraception, and against masturbation (can I say that, here?)...but Onan's disobedience had more than one aspect...Onan sinned in multiple ways.

Just my perspective...

(ducking and hiding)

Shade

ShirChadash

5th April 2004, 12:14 PM

Also, who makes the rules for all MJs to follow?
LOL. G-d does, Defens, of course. But how individuals MJ's follow those "rules" is rather... as individuals accountable to G-d.

ShirChadash

5th April 2004, 12:16 PM

Plan 9

5th April 2004, 01:08 PM

I said the pill is ok in certain circumstances. As you said with Onan he spilled his seed and was punished, Jewish law takes this to mean that seed should not be spilled outside of sex with the wife, so masturbation is also strictly forbidden.

I didnt know about the early abortions thing, thats interesting. The classicaly Jewish view is that abortion is mandatory if the mothers life is in danger (you may note, Judaism is all about life ;)) otherwise it is not permitted, so Il have to ask about that one.

Oh and about "who makes the rules for MJs to follow". Id say G-d does.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~
I'm not sure I understand exactly what DoF means, but every doctor I've had has explained to me that oral birth control basicallly works like this:
it prevents the newly fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Most have also told me that oral contraception achieves this by making the woman's body believe that it's already pregnant. That's probably an over simplification for laypeople, but I have known a number of women who need to have their oral contreption changed because of side effects which do somewhat resemble early pregnancy.
I'd also like to add that oral contraceptives are sometimes prescribed for women who are having medical problems unrelated to the desire for contraception, so just because a woman takes them, no one should jump to the conclusion that she is sexually active or doesn't want children.
I hope this is helpful?

Hix, from what you've said so far, I would think that no one would wish to use a spermacide if contraception were to prove necessary. What do you think?

simchat_torah

5th April 2004, 01:14 PM

Plan 9

5th April 2004, 01:27 PM

That is quite correct Plan9. The pill certainly does not cause abortions. In fact, there is no egg in which to fertilize as the egg itself is released without fertilization... as the body believes it is already pregnant and releases the egg it has stored.
shalom,
yafet
As a matter of fact you are more correct than I, Yafet: the egg is never fertilized. A few women suffer from mood swings when taking oral contraceptives, weight gain, and some even even experience morning sickness, so that they have to have their prescription changed.

I was prescribed oral birth control during my pre-menopausal years, as a very mild form of hormonal replacement. Once I entirely ceased to have menstral periods, I was changed to daily hormonal replacement pill suitable for women who are truly menopausal.

The Thadman

5th April 2004, 04:59 PM

(which, at a minimum, consists of having two children, one of each gender)

Or was it just two, regardless of gender? Or two sons?

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman

5th April 2004, 05:03 PM

simchat_torah

5th April 2004, 05:10 PM

iitb

5th April 2004, 07:22 PM

/me thinks Yafet will end up with 6 daughters. :D

visionary

5th April 2004, 09:22 PM

God always said man's ways are foolishness.
A little off the subject but there is a text that says:

Leviticus 12:2
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. which I am to understand that she is not to have sex seven days after giving birth????

Leviticus 15:18
The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. which at this point I think means that ....maybe....you only have sex once a day????

Leviticus 15:19
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. At this point, I take this to mean ...no sex during period and about three days afterwards.??? If it is worse, she has some female problems...no sex until she gets that cleared up.

Leviticus 15:25
And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.

Leviticus 15:33
And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean.
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 15 In context: Leviticus 15:32-34) If the man is diseased and makes her sick then she is not to have sex with him

Leviticus 18:19
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. This is a message for the guys, God says "don't even think about it with her."

The Thadman

5th April 2004, 09:25 PM

Actually Thadman, it is halacha to have at minimum one of each (if possible). Hehe, while sometimes this is darn near impossible, it is merely to encourage the "be fruitful and multiply" aspect of G-d's commands.

*shrug*

I think its neato, but by no means is it a feasible goal in some cases.

I asked that question, because the Talmud states the differing opinions of several Rabbim. Some say one kid, others say two. As to the content of the two, some say one boy and one girl, others say two boys. :-)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Dominus Fidelis

6th April 2004, 12:14 AM

LOL. G-d does, Defens, of course. But how individuals MJ's follow those "rules" is rather... as individuals accountable to G-d.

If God makes the rules can you show me where in the Torah it says contraception in wrong?

Thanks

Dominus Fidelis

6th April 2004, 12:16 AM

Catholocism does not teach that the pill causes abortions, that is something unique to DoF's persepctive. Catholocism teaches the only purpose for the act of sexual intercourse is to produce offspring, thus any form of prevention is illegal.

shalom,
yafet

You are wrong on both counts, but I cant correct you here without "debating."

If you want to be corrected, come to OBOB and I can correct you.

PS

It is spelled Catholicism.

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 12:21 AM

*chuckle* well Defens, I believe Hix told you that Jewish Law states that contraception under certain circumstances is acceptable. I would imagine you should be asking him this question. Some people know Jewish Law (which, to the Orthodox includes Talmud and the determination of the Beit Din as I understand it) and ascribe to it. Others of us know little about Jewish Law, are not Orthodox, nor even Jewish (like me) though I intend to keep learning by the grace of YHVH Elohim Who gave Torah.

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 12:27 AM

1) I know how to spell Catholicism. You can read it spelled correctly a hunred times or more in my previous posts... it was a simple typo... but you knew that.

2) I am certainly not wrong, and for a quick lesson in Catholicism, here is an official statement at www.catholic.com (http://www.catholic.com/):

Birth Control

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use artificial birth control—contraception—to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Artificial birth control is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other methods of artificial contraception.

The Historic Christian Teaching

Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.

Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.

Nature

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation.

... sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
(emphasis mine)

As you can see, I was quite correct in my statements.

Shalom,
yafet

Dominus Fidelis

6th April 2004, 12:28 AM

As I said, I can't debate here, so please dont bait me. I believe that is called "trolling."

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 12:30 AM

No, this is defending my statement. I quoted source material to verify my claim. Trolling is deliberately bringing up a topic (actually, it is technically starting a thread) that is intended to rouse an emotional respose. I simply backed up my previous statement with an authentic reputable source.

I'm sorry if you feel your argument is now null and void as an authority has been quoted, but this certainly isn't trolling. Like I said, the website quoted is www.catholic.com (http://www.catholic.com/), obviously something which considers itself an authority on Catholicism.

thanks!
yafet

Dominus Fidelis

6th April 2004, 12:32 AM

Ok, to obey forum rules lets go to Formal Debates where you can defend your claim that Catholicism teaches that the ONLY purpose of sex is procreation.

After I prove you wrong we can tackle your other claim that the pill can't cause abortions since the egg can never be fertilized.

Catholocism teaches the only purpose for the act of sexual intercourse is to produce offspring,

(Emphasis added)

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 12:35 AM

No thanks, I don't have an interest in debating you formally.

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 12:35 AM

A Jewish response to Birth Control by Rabbi Cohen (who frequents this forum... or used to ;) )

BS"D

This use of birth control in Judaism isn't prohibited, but it also isn't looked favorably upon either. It all depends on the situation, I'll explain:

Situation #1:

Perhaps there is a couple who plan on having children, however at the present time they simply cannot afford it, or it would place too much of a burden upon the family as to cause strain or conflict between the husband and wife. In this instance Birth control is permitted.

Situation #2:

A couple has 2 girls and a son, and they want to delay or discontinue having any more children. Here birth control is also permitted.

Situation #3:

A single male that is promiscuous doesn't want the burden or responsibility of having to support a child caused by his promiscuousness so he decides to use a condom when he engages in the act of intercourse. Here the use of Birth Control AND the method are prohibited.

Situation #4:

Same situation, however instead of a male it is a female, and the method of birth control is the Contraceptive Pill, IUD, or other form of non semen destructive birth control, NOT to include a condom. The Halacha is that while the act of sexual intercourse before marriage is prohibited the method of birth control is acceptable.

Situation #5:

A couple with 1 child has decided that one is enough and they decide to have the wife's "tubes tied" to prevent and more children. Halachically, while the method of Birth control is permitted and acceptable the decision to enact it at this point is discouraged.

Situation #6:

A couple with 2 children decide that the want no more children so they arrange for the husband to have a vasectomy. While the timing of discontinuing child production may be allowable (with the consultation of a Local Rabbi), the method is forbidden.

Situation #7:

A couple who have mental handicaps, but none-the-less have fallen in love and are married wish not to take on the serious responsibility of raising children. Halachically, in the cases of mental health deficiencies the option is given to the couple to engage in birth control.

Ok, so now why?

Child birth control in Judaism is not prohibited as it is in other religions. The very first mitzvah (commandment) found in the Torah is the commandment to be fruitful and multiply (Bereshis 9:1). Rashi, (our greatest commentator) has suggested that a couple does not fulfill this commandment until they have successful replaced themselves by the production of 2 children (one of both sex), and have more than satisfactorily fulfilled it upon the successful birth of the 3rd child (again, provided both sexes are represented). To be sure, the more children the greater the fulfillment of this primary mitzvah, (which is why Chareidi families often have 6 - 9 children).

When birth control IS utilized, however, it must not violate the commandment of HaSh'chatas Zerah (destruction of the seed), taken from Bereshis (Gen.) 38:8-10, the story of Onan who performed coitus interruptus by spilling his seed on the ground so as not to impregnate his brother's wife - for which, Hashem killed him for this sin. Method's that destroy the seed or block the passage of the seed are not permitted in Judaism, thus condoms are not permitted while IUD's, The Pill, or other methods that do not destroy or prohibit the semen are allowed. So, as was illustrated in situation #6, vasectomies are always prohibited, (both in human males and animals in our care). There is, however an interesting ruling in Ingros Moshe that says in very extreme exceptional cases of health problems, a condom may be used. But this ruling is a very rare exception.

I hope this gives a bit of insight on birth control and Judaism.

All the best,
R.Cohen

shalom,
yafet

Dominus Fidelis

6th April 2004, 12:37 AM

Perhaps there is a couple who plan on having children, however at the present time they simply cannot afford it, or it would place too much of a burden upon the family as to cause strain or conflict between the husband and wife. In this instance Birth control is permitted.

Now that is something I personally find sensible.

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 12:42 AM

ahhhhh the handy-dandy users guide to understanding what constitutes "trolling"

Much more than this but here's a brief rundown...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

:sorry:

And I don't want to argue over this... but the birth control pill is actually quite well known to be likely abortifacient in nature, since conception may occur even despite the hoped-for suppression of ovulation and the hoped-for changes in cervical mucous that would inhibit sperm motility into the uterus and to the egg. It happens, nearly all OB/GYNs who are honest will admit so...

(taking my midwife-cap off now).

:wave:

Dominus Fidelis

6th April 2004, 12:44 AM

And I don't want to argue over this... but the birth control pill is actually quite well known to be likely abortifacient in nature, since conception may occur even despite the hoped-for suppression of ovulation and the hoped-for changes in cervical mucous that would inhibit sperm motility into the uterus and to the egg. It happens, nearly all OB/GYNs who are honest will admit so...

Thanks. Yafet, do you see her point?

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 12:53 AM

Actually, I disagree. I almost became an Obstetrician. It was something I was highly motivated to do for a number of years and had hoped to attend college as premed, but ended up deciding against it and going for my other passion... computers ;) I know, quite a difference, eh?

Well, I have a few family members who are actually Obstetricians and I can tell you from both personal study and from a relatively accurate doctorate testimonial that the Egg never reaches fertilization when a woman is on the pill. It simply doesn't happen.

To be more graphic... when the sperm reaches the area where the egg should be... it is gone, already flushed from the body. The body has been tricked into thinking that it is already pregnant and disposed of the egg. Thus, fertilization can never be reached.

Now, women who don't properly take the pill, or started in an incorrect portion of their cycle, can in fact still have an egg. This is what Zemirah is referring to. The only damage that is done at this stage is the extra hormones in the body aren't necessarily healthy for the new and growing baby, but it certainly won't drasitcally affect the baby during the first month or two. Now if the woman continued taking the pill after several months of pregnancy the body will not balance its hormonal level properly and proper development of the baby may be hindered, but it is not aborted by the body in any way, shape, or form. It can only lead to deficiencies or abnormal growth, etc. because of the imbalance of hormones. But the body certainly won't reject the fertilzed egg... it will remain, however unhealthy.

But, back to the original aspect of this portion of our discussion... there is no egg to be fertilized when the sperm reach their destiantion. The body has flushed the unfertilzed egg out thinking it was already pregnant.

So this idea of "abortion by pill" is actually medically impossible.

Shalom,
yafet

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 12:57 AM

Oh the many dreams of Yafet...

hehe... I wanted to be an Obstetrician when I started college, then after taking business classes (required for business IT systems) I fell in love with business law and considered being a lawyer... and of course there was the all ever-present desire to end up in some spiritual vocation (aka: rabbi, etc).

I guess I'm not Erwin and can't do it all. *shrug* I guess there can only be one Erwin.

I'm happy enough with where I ended up.. Project Management in the IT industry... its always something new and innovative. Not to mention my hunger for technology... yummy ;)

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 12:59 AM

Rewinding even farther back in the conversation, and chasing down yet another rabbit trail...

from Zemirah's link on trolls:
On the Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet), troll is a euphemism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism) for a person alleged to have posted messages that create controversy or provoke an angry response without adding content to the discussion, often intentionally, merely as a ludibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludibrium)
My intention was not to provoke controversy, but to make a statement... and my quote of www.catholic.com (http://www.catholic.com) certainly added content to the discussion at hand...

so no, not trolling.

shalom,
yafet

p.s. I just thought it was rather funny having seen an actual definition in writing... lol.

ILY

6th April 2004, 01:38 AM

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 01:41 AM

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Yaf. Since the newer pills are low-dose in Estrogenic compunds, ome OB/Gyns will admit that it is possible that ovulations isn't suppressed and eggs are indeed fertilized often and are ejected, which (at least to a Catholic) is indeed abortifacient action. I have studied midwifery for 15 years now, and know enough to say that it is possible, and more than possible. Most OB/gyns are not inclined to be very forthcoming with this information, but it's out there and the honest ones will lay it out and admit it is a possibility at least and even among those who faithfully, diligently take the pill on schedule. Anyway... I don't intend to argue as I said... (so why don't I shut up and move along???) :D

~z~

editing, hopefully, to be more clear.

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 01:41 AM

.

Not by me I should add. ;)

^_^

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 01:44 AM

Shalom all,
I have to say I know women who *said* they were on the pill, and got pregnant etc...I have no idea if they did it wrong or not, but I know a few who said they did it right but got pregnant anyway.

Not by me I should add. ;)

Getting pregnant on the pill is quite different from the body self aborting a fertilized egg. This (getting pregnant) can happen, and as I stated, nothing will cause self-abortion in the body once the egg is fertilized but a woman should cease the pill as soon as she discovers she is pregnant in order to allow the hormonal level to balance out.

-yafet

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 01:55 AM

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 01:59 AM

Since the exact manner of how the pill works is still a bit questionable, some OB/Gyns will admit that it is possible that eggs are indeed fertilized often and are ejected

Two quick points Zemmy:
1) The 'exact' science of the birth control pill is, for a lack of a better term, down to a science. Every hormonal change that is brought in a woman's body is highly documented and has been rigoriously studied in the medical field. An OBGYN who has made this claim to you simply is playing on the ignorance of us, the "people". There is ample information on this practice that has been taking place for literally tens of decades. Enough research to fill volumes upon volumes of documents. In other words, yes... doctors do know the 'exact manner' in which the pill works. There is no question.

2) Admitting "it is possible" is quite... and I mean drastically... different from saying, "this is documented and verified." In other words, they (those making this claim to you) have absolutely nothing to go on and are playing upon what I call the 'ignorance factor'.

I just keep seeing this appeal to "it is posible", etc... that I had to address it before it became another claim founded upon empty promises of scholastic research.
Rather than appealing to "it is possible", I'd rather appeal to, "this is documented and proven by science".

Just 2 things to think about.
-yafet

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 02:02 AM

now i'm off to bed... 4 real this time. ;)

Dominus Fidelis

6th April 2004, 04:31 AM

Plan 9

6th April 2004, 05:04 AM

simchat_torah-

With all due respect to your "dreams" of being a doctor, you are in fact, not a doctor.

A simple Google Search returned this as my first hit:

http://www.epm.org/articles/26doctor.html

I will let it speak for itself, or rather, I will let 26 of the doctors that signed it, instead of breaking forum rules by arguing, address the issue and the readers can make up their own minds.

Twenty-six doctors is not an impressive number.

If you want to convince me, go through the 2004 PDR, check every oral contraceptive for this side effect, and then post your results.

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 09:29 AM

lol... thousands of doctors.

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 09:30 AM

With all due respect to your "dreams" of being a doctor, you are in fact, not a doctor.

I never claimed such. I know you're simply flaming, but in response I'd like to say that while not a doctor, I have had medical training to a degree.

Hix

6th April 2004, 09:45 AM

As I said, I can't debate here, so please dont bait me. I believe that is called "trolling."

Funny you should mention baiting, as this thread started by you was for exactly that purpose.

Dominus Fidelis

6th April 2004, 09:48 AM

Funny you should mention baiting, as this thread started by you was for exactly that purpose.

It was? :scratch: I thought it was to work through a difficult teaching of my own church by getting another perspective.

Sephania

6th April 2004, 11:13 AM

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 11:18 AM

[/font]

An OBGYN who has made this claim to you simply is playing on the ignorance of us, the "people"
Yafet, I am anything but ignorant, especially as regards women's reproductive and obstetric health issues. Trust me. And no, I haven't heard this from only "an" OB/Gyn.

And that's all I'm gonna say.

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 11:19 AM

Gen 1:28 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=28&version=kjv)And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 9:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=9&verse=17&version=kjv)And God said unto Noah, This [is] the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that [is] upon the earth.
Gen 35:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=35&verse=11&version=kjv)And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
Here are the verses you referred to... Where is Contraception mentioned Zayit?

thanks,
yafet

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 11:24 AM

Shalom Zemmy,

Yafet, I am anything but ignorant, especially as regards women's reproductive and obstetric health issues.

No offense intended. I referred to "us the people" as being ignorant as we aren't doctors, haven't had the formal training, and have not conducted case studies OURSELVES and must rely upon the word of another. In this sense I implied "ignorance"... and not just to Ms. Zemmy ;) but to, "us the people."

I was merely encouraging you to actually look at case studies rather than relying upon the word of another, especially when they claim "it is possible".

Anywho, I've linked to two opposing views by Medical Doctors who explain it thoroughly from each perspective. I know you're a smart girl ;) so I respect the decision you have made. I only encourage everyone to actually study something out before 'blindly believing' so to speak. We are only 'blindly believing' because we ourselves have not conducted case examinations, etc. to verify any medical claims.

So what can we do? Read, be informed, and make an educated decision.

Again, no offense ma lady.
shalom,
yafet

Sephania

6th April 2004, 11:28 AM

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 11:33 AM

OMgosh Yaf, if you only knew. The same, unbelieving, atheistic OB/GYN's who concurred with the Christian OB/GYNs (non-Catholic BTW) that yes, it is a possibility that cannot yet be entirely ruled out... also concurred that I should have trotted myself off into Obstetrics Gyn while I was young enough to hope to practice long enough to pay off the extra loans LOL. And as for studies... again... if you only knew. But I have no intention of spending my morning ferreting out and documenting here the studies I have pigeonholed in my house on many things obstetric. I'm throwing my two cents in (okay, 42 cents in ;) ) here and there because, frankly, I have a very good amount of both experience and knowledge in this particular area. And again, I am anything but among the "ignorant" public on this one.

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 11:36 AM

HaShem did not go into the methods, or inventions of the future here for sure, but how can these commands be followed by employing any one of them?
Depends.... what would you consider fruitful? Must one necessarily have 15 kids in order to be qualified as 'fruitful'? According to Jewish halacha, being fruitful means producing at least one of each gender as offspring.

Also If I understood correctly, R.Cohen said that IUD's were acceptable as they do not destroy the sperm?
Yes. The destruction of the seed (specifically outside of the woman's body) is strictly forbidden in the Torah.

[quote]But I understand that the IUD's accutally destroy a newly fertilized egg by poisoning it, to me that is destruction of the sperm and egg, where two become one.[/qoute]
Actually, it is not poisoned, the egg is not destroyed, the egg does not reach fertilization, and nor do the sperm get destroyed.

When the pill is used, the body believes it is already pregnant. It then passes the egg out of the body (the egg itself is not affected, or "posioned"). This all happens before the sperm are able to fertilize the egg. This happens at the beginning of the cycle. The sperm are not allowed to reach the egg until the middle to latter part of the cycle, so the egg is actually gone when the time comes that the body opens up for the sperm to find passage. However, the sperm will find no egg as the body has already passed it along. As well, with this method, the sperm themselves are not destroyed.

Of course, this is speaking only to the idea of the "pill". The other methods, such as spermicide, condomns, etc... these cause the destruction of the sperm... which is strictly forbidden by Torah. So yes, in some cases, various types of birth control are not allowed halachically or by even a strict Torah interpretation.

But as far as the pill is concerned, halachically it is not forbidden.

shalom,
yafet

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 11:39 AM

that yes, it is a possibility that cannot yet be entirely ruled out...

Again, I point to the idea that it is a "possibility". A possibility that has never been observed. A possibility that has never been documented.

Above those things, this "possibility" is one that I believe is falsely created. See the opposing article I linked to. This particular medical doctor feels the possibility doesn't even exist. And he has good explanations... take a look and we can discuss them if you really wish to.

Otherwise, it still remans: A possibility that has never been observed and a possibility that has never been documented.

shalom,
yafet

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 01:37 PM

:wave:

to anyone wishing to avoid abortion whatsoever, a "possibility" is enough. Also, may I say that both pro-abortion and pro-life groups have both readily admitted that for every year a woman is on "the pill" she will have at least one spontaneous abortion. Pro-abortion groups actually admitted such before the Supreme Court in 1989, as records the NYTimes -... (cf: 157 Alderson Reporting Company. Transcripts of oral arguments before court on abortion case. New York Times. April 27, 1989: B12. )

But then again... I suppose it is likely mainly a phenomenon which will remain "unobserved".

editing out a slightly snarky comment :)

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 01:56 PM

to anyone wishing to avoid abortion whatsoever, a "possibility" is enough.
2 problems:
1) Anyone can claim anything is a possibility. Without actually observing it in a controlled setting, then you can claim anything is a possibility.
2) Medical Science has shown this isn't even possible anyway.

Also, may I say that both pro-abortion and pro-life groups have both readily admitted that for every year a woman is on "the pill" she will have at least one spontaneous abortion.
This is an absolutely radical claim Zemmy. I'm afraid you've been fed quite a line and took it hook, line and sinker.

But then again... I suppose unless a woman is to test her hCG every single cycle while using OCPs and show as very early pregnant and then proceed to have a menstrual period... :) yep, I guess unless that happens, it is likely mainly a phenomenon which will remain "unobserved".

There have actually been 30 year tests watching the hCG cycles and this has never occured. The test subjects numbered in the thousands, and these tests were done independantly (meaning more than one). According to the FDA, there has never been a recorded "abortion" due to the Birth Control Pills (that the pill is abortifacient) .... ever. This, of course, is ignoring the fact that it is impossible (not a possibility) anyway.

So, while some may claim it is 'possible', anyone can make this claim aobut anything. Problem is, it has never been observed, nor is it even possible to begin with. I supose that would be the real reason it has never been observed even once in dozens of decades with millions of women taking the pill. ;)

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 01:58 PM

You know what though? I'll let you make your claim. I'll let it stand as a "possibility". But realize, it is founded on... nothing. No science, no evidence, and not one recorded case (out of hundres of millions of subjects).

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 02:03 PM

Yup. Okay Yafet. If you say so. :)

Sephania

6th April 2004, 02:52 PM

An IUD (Intrauterine Device) works, it was thought, by acting as a foreign body. The lining of the uterus, the endometrium, is very sensitive to both hormonal stimuli and also to things occupying the uterus. The uterus itself usually has an increased tone (muscular contraction) which is part of its tendency to want to expel anything distending it, be it a baby, a period's blood clot, or an IUD. This is why many women with IUDs can have rougher periods than before they had one inserted.

The foreign body idea goes back to antiquity, including stories of rocks or fruit pits being inserted into the uteri of livestock to keep them from becoming pregnant. Into recent times, the only mechanism proposed for the IUD's contraceptive method was its creating a sterile inflammatory (and irritative) state within the uterus that interfered with the implantation of a fertilized egg. (Depending on one's definition of when life begins, this method would be considered an abortive - -not merely a contraceptive -- if one defined life as beginning at conception.)

Recently, more studies have suggested that the IUD does other things to prevent conception, namely, adversely affecting sperm transport before conception and altering the motility of the tubes, necessary for an egg (fertilized or not) to travel down toward the uterus. (Fertilization takes place in the tube.)

Also, IUDs today are made with copper, which is spermicidal, or with progesterone, which makes the cervical mucus more hostile and impenetrably thicker while making actual ovulation less likely.

I've purposely used vague phrases like, "the mechanism proposed," "would be considered...," and "studies have suggested..." because no one really knows for sure what the dominant action involved is. It seems it's not the exclusive abortive it once was thought to be, but if your definition of life is that of conception, you can't use an IUD if you are philosophically opposed to abortion. Also, the same applies even if your definition applies to implantation until the exact mechanism is understood without any doubts. Of course, if you are not philosophically opposed to pregnancy termination, the IUD is a very effective way to limit one's family.

_______________________________________

THE IUD: SOME FACTS FOR AN INFORMED CHOICE

The responsible choice

Married couples have many methods of birth regulation available today, and
they have the freedom to decide which one to use. Along with freedom of
choice, they also have the responsibility to learn critical information
before making the decision. If couples make no effort to discover the
consequences and effects of their decision, then they may be merely
deciding on who will make the choice for them.

THE IUD: WHAT IS IT?

The intrauterine device (IUD) is a foreign body basically made of a
relatively non-reactive plastic material (polyethylene) inserted into the
uterus of a woman for birth control purposes. Some of the more recent
devices have incorporated active chemicals such as progesterone or copper
which slowly release and react locally to contribute to birth control
efficiency.

HOW DOES THE IUD WORK?

The IUD does little or nothing to interfere with sperm migration or
fertilization (conception). It achieves its birth control effect primarily
by preventing the newly conceived human life from implanting in the uterine
lining (endometrium) and is thus an abortifacient.

WHAT IS AN ABORTIFACIENT?

An abortifacient is an agent which causes an abortion by interfering with
the development of the conceived child in the womb.[1] The U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare defined abortion as follows:

"All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote at any time
between the instant of fertilization and the completing of labor
constitute, in the strict sense procedures for inducing abortion."[2]

WHY IS THE IUD AN ABORTIFACIENT?

According the American Medical Association Committee on Human
Reproduction," the action of the IUDs would seem to be a simple local
phenomenon. That these devices prevent nidation of an already fertilized
ovum has been accepted as the most likely mechanism of the action."[3]
"Nidation" is another term for the implantation of the newly conceived
child in the lining of the uterus. This is the endometrium in which the
approximately one-week-old new life seeks to nest and which is the source
of nutrition for continued development.[4]

Dr. Robert Edwards, in a paper presented at the Family Planning Research
Conference at Exter, England, in 1971 said, "most scientists would now
accept that the effect (of the IUD) in most species, including man, is
exerted at implantation."[5] In an exhaustive survey of over four hundred
articles on the subject, Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers concluded, "in the light of
current, accepted medical definitions of contraception, abortifacient,
pregnancy, conception, and abortion, the conclusion is that the primary
action of the IUD must be classed as abortifacient."[6]

HOW DOES THE IUD PREVENT IMPLANTATION?

Dr. Hilgers noted several possible explanations for the IUD's birth control
effects including uterine contraction, chronic infection, and production of
antibodies which may literally destroy the new life when it enters the
uterus.[7]

DOES THE IUD HAVE OTHER ABORTIFACIENT EFFECTS?

Yes. "Subclinical pregnancy has been reported do occur in 12 to 44% of
cycles in women wearing intrauterine devices," reported a study by Dr.
Markku Seppala of the University General Hospital Helsinki.[8] The results of
eighteen studies of patients with IUDs found that when pregnancies occurred
with the IUD in place, 28.6% were spontaneously aborted and another 8.4%
were etopic or tubal pregnancies necessitating surgery. Therefore, in the
polite language of medicine, the IUD contributed to a "fetal wastage" rate
of 37% in these pregnancies.[9]

______________________________________
Right to LIFE

Not too much has been said or written to indicate that the sperm are incapacitated in their passage through the uterus, for if they were, fertilization could not occur. Most of the research done tells us the same thing. A substantial number of sperm do pass through the uterine cavity, proceed out to the ovary, and FERTILIZATION CAN AND DOES OCCUR.

What is quite plain is that, following fertilization, the process does not proceed to a normally implanted pregnancy. What are the mechanisms postulated as to why she does not "get pregnant"? Overwhelmingly, almost all medical studies have demonstrated various mechanisms that prevent implantation into the nutrient lining of the womb, due to the foreign body and inflammatory reaction caused by the IUD. The end result, however, in almost every case, when fertilization does occur (an occasional pregnancy is carried to full term and delivery with the IUD still in the uterus), IT IS FOLLOWED BY A PROCESS THAT ENDS IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE DEVELOPING NEW HUMAN IN THE UTERUS THROUGH HIS OR HER INABILITY TO IMPLANT. THIS CAN BE ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS AN ABORTION. CLEARLY, ALMOST ALL CURRENT EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE IUD'S MAJOR EFFECT IS TO ACT TO PREVENT IMPLANTATION.

The fact that it is described as a "contraceptive" agent is because of a change in the meaning of words by the Food and Drug Administration and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology a decade ago, when they redefined the word "conception" to mean implantation. Under these semantic gymnastics it is a "contraceptive," but everyone familiar with the function understands thoroughly that its action is that of an abortifacient.

http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl110003.htm

Life Issues, IUD http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=398554&pid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=iud

I myself was lead to have mine removed after reading the pharmaseutical pamphlet in my doctors waiting room that explained non implant of a FERTILIZED EGG.

To me that is life, maybe not to you, but in my heart I know it is.

Psalms 51:5 validates this.

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 03:58 PM

Zayit,

I agree with your assertation concerning IUD's. I was simply making a distinction between IUD's and the Pill ;)

Anyway, as far as abortion is concerned, I am strongly against it! Ever since a child I have been actively involved in various outreaches such as Operation Life. My mother is a counselor at Crisis Pregnancy Center. I have marched in numerous protests and have participated in open forum debates at College over the topic of Abortion. It is not something I tolerate....

just in case if there was any question what so ever concerning my position.

shalom,
yafet

Sephania

6th April 2004, 04:52 PM

Thank you for clarifying that, I was beginning to wonder. I myself had one "installed" in the early days before this was known. But as soon as I read the newest pamphlet in my Dr's office I quickly had an "un-install". I try to overcome the guilt I feel from this and just don't want anyone else to have that . :)

Plan 9

6th April 2004, 05:47 PM

It was? :scratch: I thought it was to work through a difficult teaching of my own church by getting another perspective.
DoF, on March 10th, you started a thread here on the Nicene Creed. On March 12th, you started this thread in Suggestions.
http://www.christianforums.com/t102269

If this is the result of your "working through a difficult teaching of your own church by getting another perspective", then your own actions are to blame for any mistrust now felt here for your motives. In light of your previous behavior, this explanation is bound to seem a bit on the disingenuous side.

Perhaps if you explained in what way is this teaching of your church a difficult one for you, your assertion would seem more creditable.
For example, are you married man whose wife's doctor is urging her not to become pregnant because doing so would endanger her life, so that you're trying to decide whether to disobey your church's teaching against the use of oral contraceptives?

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 07:21 PM

Just for kicks and giggles, I have included two websites below. One aligns itself with the idea that Birth Control Pills are Abortifacient, and the other article suggests that this conclusion is based on ignorance of medical science, etc.

I am posting both articles so that you, the reader, can make an informed decision. I am not attempting to persuade you in either way, I want you to hear a doctor (authority) from each side of the argument so you can decide for yourself:

=====================================

This article here (http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKPill.html)claims the birth control pill is Abortifacient.

This article here (http://www.spuc.org.uk/papers/Istheoralcontraceptiveabortifacient.pdf) asserts the above claim is based on ignorance of medical science.

=====================================

(the second article requires acrobat reader... fyi)

Now, you have the tools to make your own decision.

shalom,
yafet
Uh.. Yaf... one more thing... maybe I am nutso here, maybe it's just that I am coming down with this flu my children have been battling, so maybe my ability to reason and understand what I am reading is slightly hampered at this time... but... did you actually read the article you posted, saying that it refutes the idea of OCPs being abortifacient in nature... ? This one... Here:

http://www.spuc.org.uk/papers/Istheoralcontraceptiveabortifacient.pdf

the whole article? (read sections 2 and 4 carefully)

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 07:45 PM

oops, I linked the wrong article... no biggie. I'll find it soon enough....

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 07:52 PM

oops, I linked the wrong article... no biggie. I'll find it soon enough....Well I think the information in that article was quite timely and interesting...

Based on current knowledge, it is incorrect to deny the ability of the OCP to prevent implantation and to assume its function is solely to prevent ovulation: Wilks’ response is that Goodnough has used dated references which do not properly reflect current knowledge of the process of implantation. Wilks cites research demonstrating that motivated, healthy women who take contemporary formulations correctly (daily) do indeed have breakthrough ovulation which is not necessarily attributable to errors in use or reduced absorption. Recent studies also show a pill-induced thinning of the endometrium, such that it is too thin for
implantation to occur.

LOL I dunno what is going on with either my comp or CF lately but LOL.

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 07:56 PM

To be more graphic... when the sperm reaches the area where the egg should be... it is gone, already flushed from the body. The body has been tricked into thinking that it is already pregnant and disposed of the egg. Thus, fertilization can never be reached.

... But the body certainly won't reject the fertilzed egg... it will remain, however unhealthy.

But, back to the original aspect of this portion of our discussion... there is no egg to be fertilized when the sperm reach their destiantion. The body has flushed the unfertilzed egg out thinking it was already pregnant.

So this idea of "abortion by pill" is actually medically impossible.

Shalom,
yafet
No offense but I do have to say, I cannot see how anyone having a decent understanding of reproductive physiology can in good faith state ^such things.

Plan 9

6th April 2004, 08:15 PM

Is the Oral Contraceptive Pill an Abortifacient?
1 References
Goodnough J, “Redux: is the oral contraceptive pill an abortifacient?” Ethics &
Medicine 17 (2001): 37-51
and
Wilks J, “Response to Joel Goodnough MD, ‘Redux: is the oral contraceptive pill an
abortifacient?’” Ethics & Medicine 17:2 (2001): 103-115
2 Introduction
A recent edition of Ethics & Medicine contained a critique, by Dr Joel Goodnough, of
a book by Randy Alcorn
1
. Goodnough’s critique essentially seeks to rebut the claim
by Alcorn that the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) is indeed an abortifacient.
The following edition contains an article in response to this; John Wilks, a
pharmacologist, writes in defense of Alcorn’s position, countering Goodnough’s
arguments with scientific references and ethical discussion.
3 What the author said
Goodnough uses the following scientific arguments to suggest that embryo death
cannot be proven and is probably extremely rare.
• There is no proof that the OCP sometimes fails to prevent ovulation when
taken correctly: Goodnough criticizes Alcorn’s belief, based on studies of
ovarian function whilst using the OCP, that the OCP may fail to prevent ovulation
in 10-30% of cycles. He says that ovarian activity is not synonymous with
ovulation. The rate of pregnancy on the OCP is 0.1% per year (the observed rate
in the general population is 3%), and the difference according to Goodnough is
due to breakthrough ovulation after user error or decreased absorption during
illness or medication use. He believes it is wrong to assume that ovulation occurs
often, especially when the OCP is taken responsibly and correctly.
• Even if the OCP changes the endometrium, there is no evidence of embryo
death as a result: He also dismisses claims that the OCP causes abortifacient
changes in the endometrium as “speculative”. While Alcorn has quoted literature
showing a pill-induced hostile endometrium, no literature actually proves that
embryo death results. Goodnough then suggests (with no evidence) that the
thinner endometrium may be a result of suppressed ovarian hormones, such that
perhaps a “hostile endometrium may be absent in cases of ovulation when it
matters and present in cases of anovulation when it doesn’t”.
1
Alcorn R. Does the birth control pill cause abortions? Eternal Perspective Ministries, 1998, 2
nd
edn.
Page 2
I
S THE
O
RAL
C
ONTRACEPTIVE
P
ILL AN
A
BORTIFACIENT
?,
J
UNE
2003,
PAGE
2
OF
3,
WWW
.
SPUC
.
ORG
.
UK
2
Goodnough goes on to concede that a lack of evidence of embryo death doesn’t prove
that it never happens. He then discusses why, in his opinion, embryo death would be
of little consequence if it did happen.
• The OCP is not ‘abortifacient’ because it was not designed to kill embryos:
Goodnough defines an abortifacient as “anything used to cause or induce an
abortion” (Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary), suggesting that the OCP is
instead simply a contraceptive that has a potential for failure, resulting in the death
of an embryo. He says “it would be absurd to say that because the gun and the car
sometimes kill people, they are in essence agents of homicide”, and states that “by
design, by intent and by primary function, the OCP, when properly used, is in
essence a contraceptive”.
• Medical decisions rely on a ‘risk versus benefits’ approach: Since there is an
unknown degree of risk to the embryo, and since with every medication, treatment
and surgery there is an inherent risk of harm, he suggests that the OCP should be
assessed on a ‘risk versus benefits’ basis. According to his risk assessment, the
OCP, and any resulting embryo death, is preferable because “since the risk of
death on the OCP is less than the risk of death in pregnancy, the risk is tolerable”.
• Choosing birth control methods that do not endanger embryos is an overly
cautious decision, inconsistent with most other normal life decision: To the
argument that there are safe alternatives that do not and cannot cause abortions, he
suggests we should choose contraception in the same way that we make other
decisions in life. He says that “if our driving sometimes causes the death of
innocent human beings, the Christ-like thing to do, perhaps, would be to not drive
at all”, and claims we are not responsible for the death of an embryo we have
killed with the OCP. While he would not criticize someone for choosing to simply
not take the OCP, he would “wonder about someone’s consistency if they
advocated not using the OCP while at the same time driving to work, hunting,
taking estrogen after menopause, or engaging in any other activity with potential
risks, whether real or perceived”.
• The OCP meets the requirements for application of the Principle of Double
Effect: Goodnough says that “if the desired effect is prevention of conception by
prevention of ovulation, it is not accomplished by a bad effect and there are no
alternatives that are safer”.
4 Ethical evaluation
• Based on current knowledge, it is incorrect to deny the ability of the OCP to
prevent implantation and to assume its function is solely to prevent ovulation:
Wilks’ response is that Goodnough has used dated references which do not
properly reflect current knowledge of the process of implantation. Wilks cites
research demonstrating that motivated, healthy women who take contemporary
formulations correctly (daily) do indeed have breakthrough ovulation which is not
necessarily attributable to errors in use or reduced absorption. Recent studies also
show a pill-induced thinning of the endometrium, such that it is too thin for
implantation to occur.
Page 3
I
S THE
O
RAL
C
ONTRACEPTIVE
P
ILL AN
A
BORTIFACIENT
?,
J
UNE
2003,
PAGE
3
OF
3,
WWW
.
SPUC
.
ORG
.
UK
3
• The correct definition of an ‘abortifacient’ is anything that causes an
abortion, whether or not it was intended to do so: Goodnough’s definition of
‘abortifacient’ is tendentious. Standard medical dictionary definitions define
‘abortifacient’ more objectively, and without judgment on its intentionality
2
. In
any case, pharmaceutical companies state clearly that the prevention of
implantation is at the very least a back-up mechanism in their formulations of the
pill, while some newer ‘contraceptives’ are solely aimed at prevention of
implantation; for example the contraceptive vaccine
3
.
• A ‘risk versus benefits’ approach is utilitarian in nature, and does not take
into account all the options couples have for birth control: Goodnough
suggests that the decision to prescribe the OCP is all a matter of degree of risk. It
is a typical utilitarian response to legitimate the OCP on the basis that the desired
positive effects (pregnancy avoidance) allegedly outweigh negative outcomes
(such as the deaths of embryos). This perspective suggests that there are only two
alternatives for husband and wife; pregnancy or the pill. This is incorrect. There
are many other forms of birth control, many of which do not endanger the embryo.
• The OCP does not meet requirements for the Principle of Double Effect: The
deaths of embryonic human beings as a ‘side effect’ of the OCP are
disproportionate to the alleged goods achieved. In any case these bad ‘side
effects’ can be avoided and the goods achieved by using a natural birth regulation
method.
The title of Goodnough’s article uses the word “redux”, suggesting a link to the Latin
phrase reductio ad absurdum; a suggestion that he is ‘reducing to absurdity’ the
substance of Alcorn’s book. He attempts to use both scientific and philosophical
arguments to support prescription of the OCP, which are both refuted by Wilks.
However, regardless of any pretence of concern for the well-being of embryonic
human beings, Goodnough’s analysis reveals that in his opinion the embryo simply
does not signify.
2
For example, Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 27
th
Edition, WB Saunders 1988.
3
Pal R. “Absence of corpus luteum rescue by chorionic gonadotropin in women immunized with a
contraceptive vaccine”, Fertility and Sterility 76 (2): 332-336, 2001

Plan 9

6th April 2004, 08:19 PM

Pardon me for having to make separate posts, but my comp is malfunctioning.
Can anyone tell me if the above abstract is the entire contents of the .pdf document?

simchat_torah

6th April 2004, 08:24 PM

No offense but I do have to say, I cannot see how anyone having a decent understanding of reproductive physiology can in good faith state ^such things
When I say "by pill", I am referring to the pill used to regulate hormonal levels to prevent pregnancy... not the abortion pill, which is something entirely different (aka: the morning after pill)

visionary

6th April 2004, 08:51 PM

I am a doctor and I will tell you that when it comes to contraceptives, it is a personal decision that the doctor can not make and should not make for you.

This is something between you and the Lord that has to be worked out. Live by your convictions, and pray for the Lord to enlighten you on the subject for your own life. We are all accountable for our actions, and our relationship with the Lord on the issue. We can not know the heart and the mind or situation that would dictate the variety of answers. That is something the Lord will judge when He comes.

He promised you a clear conscience when you do right. Pray and do those things that you are inspired to do as right. If you are following the Lord and His leading, you may be rest assured that the Lord will be with you. By the Word of God and the inspiritation of the Holy Spirit, you will prayerful come to see what the Lord wants you to understand regarding this issue. Then you will experience the peace that passes all understanding.

Plan 9

6th April 2004, 08:57 PM

Well I think the information in that article was quite timely and interesting...

Based on current knowledge, it is incorrect to deny the ability of the OCP to prevent implantation and to assume its function is solely to prevent ovulation: Wilks’ response is that Goodnough has used dated references which do not properly reflect current knowledge of the process of implantation. Wilks cites research demonstrating that motivated, healthy women who take contemporary formulations correctly (daily) do indeed have breakthrough ovulation which is not necessarily attributable to errors in use or reduced absorption. Recent studies also show a pill-induced thinning of the endometrium, such that it is too thin for
implantation to occur.

LOL I dunno what is going on with either my comp or CF lately but LOL.
Is everyone in touch with the fact that this is an abstract of two articles, the first a review of a book on the subject, and the second a attempt to rebut the review of the book?
Abstracts attempt to summarize the content of articles, to give us an idea of what ground they cover, and are not the articles themselves.
If Goodnough has written a third article in response to the second, he will have made his best attempt to refute the charge in the above paragraph that he has based his article on out of date research, or else he will have to concede this, to the detriment of both his reputation, and that of the journal's iself.

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 09:21 PM

[/font]
When I say "by pill", I am referring to the pill used to regulate hormonal levels to prevent pregnancy... not the abortion pill, which is something entirely different (aka: the morning after pill)so am I, Yafet. The RU486 pill, or even the use of OCP (oral contraceptive pills) in heavier dose in order to be a "morning-after" therapy... is not what *I* am referring to either.

As regards the "Pill" -- the Oral Contraceptive Pill... and its typical use in daily form for usually 21 days, with a 7 subsequent days "off", or at least a 7-day placebo in order for the menstrual period to take place... those comments you made Yafet...

To be more graphic... when the sperm reaches the area where the egg should be... it is gone, already flushed from the body. The body has been tricked into thinking that it is already pregnant and disposed of the egg. Thus, fertilization can never be reached.

... But the body certainly won't reject the fertilzed egg... it will remain, however unhealthy.

But, back to the original aspect of this portion of our discussion... there is no egg to be fertilized when the sperm reach their destiantion. The body has flushed the unfertilzed egg out thinking it was already pregnant.

So this idea of "abortion by pill" is actually medically impossible.
are incorrect as far as I know, which is farther than you may realize.

And I do also have to say... the "exact science" of medicine is anything but.

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 09:24 PM

Is everyone in touch with the fact that this is an abstract of two articles, the first a review of a book on the subject, and the second a attempt to rebut the review of the book?
Abstracts attempt to summarize the content of articles, to give us an idea of what ground they cover, and are not the articles themselves.
If Goodnough has written a third article in response to the second, he will have made his best attempt to refute the charge in the above paragraph that he has based his article on out of date research, or else he will have to concede this, to the detriment of both his reputation, and that of the journal's iself.

Plan 9

6th April 2004, 09:31 PM

so am I, Yafet. The RU486 pill, or even the use of OCP (oral contraceptive pills) in heavier dose in order to be a "morning-after" therapy... is not what *I* am referring to either.

As regards the "Pill" -- the Oral Contraceptive Pill... and its typical use in daily form for usually 21 days, with a 7 subsequent days "off", or at least a 7-day placebo in order for the menstrual period to take place... those comments you made Yafet...

are incorrect as far as I know, which is farther than you may realize.

And I do also have to say... the "exact science" of medicine is anything but. Speaking for myself, taking the pill made such radical changes to my reproductive functioning that I find it nearly impossible to imagine conception taking place under those circumstances. Personally speaking only.

ShirChadash

6th April 2004, 09:47 PM

Plan 9

6th April 2004, 10:06 PM

When the pill first came out, the hormone doses were much much heavier. Nowadays however, the doses are very light comparatively, and while they do cause some side effects yet, the severity is much decreased compared to the original OCPs. However, the lighter dosage does leave more room for ovulation... I am speaking of the mini-pill. Because of my advqanced age, I have had the opportunity to take both.

anyway -- I am not discounting your personal experience by any means, though. But I'm just saying that even within the last few years, the pill has changed quite a bit, as I understand it. I agree, but my last brand should still on be the market; I was given them for the alieviation of pre-menopausal 'distress' (not mine: everybody elses' ;)), and was switched to activella fairly recently; within the last two years, I believe.
I don't want to to think that I'm discounting what you have to say, either; I mean, don't you hate it when someonce entirely unaffected by an eithical quandry, makes some heavy duty pronouncement that you're supposed to somehow live by, but that they will never have to? :rolleyes:
Talk about your cheap advice!
It's not my intent to convince anyone; I was just taking part in the discussion, and I may change my mind before it's over. :)

I'm going to ask my doctor her opinion, supposing I ever make it to her office again. :rolleyes:

ShirChadash

7th April 2004, 12:13 AM

And lest I be misunderstood... I realize that it was commonly taught a way back yonder that the pill worked by suppressing ovulation, and for much of the time it did (as well as changing the endometrial lining so as to render it thinner... which is why women on the pill generally have a marked decrese in the heaviness of periods and often, less menstrual cramping). However the newer, lighter doses of the Ethanyl Estradiol in the combination pill are known to prohibit ovulation less often than the original dosing. I have charts here showing that the orginal dosing of Ethanyl Estradiol was much, much higher than the amount used today in most combination pills.

Also the "mini-pill" doesn't typically contain any estrogenic compound (EE or Mestranol), which is the hormone which works to suppress ovulation... mini-pills are typically Progestin-only; this means that the mini-pill usually works by inhibiting sperm motility through the cervix and into the uterus, and also by changing the lining of the uterus, to make for an inhospitable environment for the fertilized egg should conception occur, which lessens the likelihood the egg will implant and thrive. And if it doesn't implant and thrive... what happens to it? It is ejected. Mini-pills usually do not suppress ovulation of the mature egg, although I have seen one major brand which is claiming the ability to suppress ovulation with the progestin-only pill.

again editing to, hopefully, be more clear.

Plan 9

7th April 2004, 01:01 AM

So condoms are not ok, but the pill is ok? Did you know the pill can cause early abortions?

It's this claim I'd really like to see elaborated on and verified to some degree.

ShirChadash

11th April 2004, 01:29 PM

http://www.w-cpc.org/sexuality/chemical.html

Think "oral contraceptives" prevent conception? Think again. Hormonal methods suppress ovulation much of the time, but scientists recognize that in many cases ovulation continues to occur.[1] Please read the rest of the article at the above link.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Another helpful link:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_cont.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I found a good site online showing the development of the combination pill formulations from 1960-onward (this one is only through 1999 I believe, but it should suffice). I have, in my hand, charts which verify the same basic information but I didn't want to go to the trouble of uploading them (but I will if anyone wants to see them).

It is very important to understand that the lower-doses of Ethanyl Estradiol (Mestranol was also commonly used, once upon a time) allow for ovulation of a mature ovum more often than their stronger counterparts of decades ago. There are a plethora of foods and medications that can and do interfere with and affect the absorption of the hormones as well; the differences in individual women and their own bodies, the lifestyle the individuals lead, the differences in exact formulations of each particular pill-brand ALL influence the rate and total absorbability of the very hormones being relied upon for ovulation-suppression and prevention of conception and pregnancy.

Food subtances alone -- just typical diet choices -- can have varying affects on the rate, timing and extent of absorption, peak levels, etc. And that's not to mention the many classes of drugs, prescription and non, that can affect the absorption of the hormones.

http://www.arhp.org/healthcareproviders/onlinepublications/clinicalproceedings/successfulloccp/mar99c.cfm?ID=188

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill.html

COMBINED ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES (The Pill)
Average Failure Rate: 3 - 8%

The process of ovulation is directed by hormones. Estrogen and progesterone are two hormones which direct many of the processes surrounding the menstrual cycle. Artificial analogues of these have proven an efficient form of birth control. To prevent pregnancy a woman takes a pill daily which contains both of these hormones. This is the combination pill, or simply "the pill."

The estrogen works by preventing an egg from being released from the ovaries most of the time. Both the estrogen and progesterone make the uterus a hostile environment for an embryo by causing a thinning of the uterine lining. As modern combination pills contain less estrogen than their predecessors, an egg will be released by the ovaries 2-10% of the time. If fertilization takes the embryo will be unable to implant in the uterus, resulting in the death of the embryo. Although some consider this risk minimal, the most reliable sources cite the interceptive (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2173060#box) effect as a major mechanism of action; in fact, large doses of this drug are used as a 'morning after pill' (see the Emergency Contraceptive Pills (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2173060#ecp) below).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another article of interest

http://www.christianity.com/CC/article/0,,PTID4211%7CCHID102755%7CCIID254679,00.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.abortiontv.com/hormonalmethods.htm

The Pill
Effectiveness: "Combination pill" has a failure rate of about 5%, and the "progestin-only" pill has a failure rate of approximately 10%.

NOTE: MAY BE AN ABORTIVE METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL as fertilization of an egg is still possible.

Overview

The Pill is a prescription method of birth control (a monthly series of pills taken on a daily basis) classified according to the synthetic hormones that they contain. Most contain a combination of two hormones, progestin and estrogen. The estrogen essentially stops the development of the egg in the ovary. The progestin changes the mucus in the cervix and helps prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. In addition, the lining of the uterus does not fully develop so there is less chance that a fertilized egg will become implanted. The "mini-pill" contains only one hormone, progestin. It prevents the development of the egg and changes the cervical mucus (which helps to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg). Use of the pill may be abortifacient. Modern combination pills contain less estrogen than their predecessors allowing eggs to be released by the ovaries up to 10% of the time. Therefore, there is a chance that a fertilized egg will reach the uterus (although it will not be able to implanted). -------------------------------------------------------------------------

And lest anyone think that the only people who will admit that pills can allow ovulation and fertilization...

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/YOU_AND_PILL.HTM#Basics

THE BASICS

"The Pill" is the common name for oral contraception. There are two basic types— combination pills and progestin-only pills. Both are made of hormones like those made by a woman's ovaries. Combination pills contain both estrogen and progestin. Both kinds of pills require a medical evaluation and prescription.

Both pills can prevent pregnancy. But they work differently. Combination pills usually work by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). Progestin-only pills also can prevent ovulation. But they usually work by thickening the cervical mucus. This keeps sperm from joining with an egg. Combination pills also thicken cervical mucus.Both types of pill can also prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus.

Taking the Pill daily maintains the level of hormone that is needed to prevent pregnancy.

EFFECTIVENESS

The Pill is one of the most effective reversible methods of birth control. Of 100 women who use the Pill, only eight will become pregnant during the first year of typical use.* Fewer than one out of 100 women will become pregnant with perfect use.** * "Typical use" refers to failure rates for use that is not consistent or always correct.
** "Perfect use" refers to failure rates for use that is consistent and always correct.
http://www.wyeth.com/content/ShowLabeling.asp?id=466
see "Mode of Action"

http://www.uspharmd.com/packageinsert/loestrinpi.pdf
see "Clinical Pharmacology"

http://www.berlex.com/html/products/pi/levlen_pi.pdf
same as above, see "Clinical Pharmacology"

If you look up every pill used today, you're going to find information stating that the pills work in either two or three ways, usually:

1) to suppress or inhibit ovulation (notice they never claim they are able to entirely eliminate ovulation of a mature ovum even with perfect, timely use, in every woman. They can't. They can no more prove that ovulation, fertilization, and then rejection of the fertilized egg never happens than can I prove that it does happen. However it is indeed a possibility and that is why they cannot claim 100% perfect prevention of ovulation in every woman who perfectly uses the pill. Even with perfect clinical use, there is a failure rate, isn't there. :| )

2) by inhibiting sperm motility through the cervix and into the uterus where it may fertilize an egg

3) by changing the lining of the uterus, making implantation of a fertilized egg unlikely. IF there were no chance of anyone conceiving while on the pill -- even under "perfect" clinical use -- there would be no need to mention the third function of the pill, which renders any failure of the previous two functions null and void

But the fact that they do mention it is what brings me to my next point: Please remember that conception is not pregnancy -- not according to the industry and not in the minds of many in the medical profession. As long as the fertilized egg does not IMPLANT, no pregnancy is said to occur, and so... as long as the uterus is made inhospitable to the fertilized egg and thus the body flushes it... then no pregnancy was said to occur and the pill makers can, according to semantics at least, claim to prevent pregnancy. The problem is that Pro-lifers usually consider the point of fertilization/conception to be the beginning of life. Thus the action of rendering the uterus inhospitable to the fertilized egg, should there BE one, so that it may not implant and lead to a viable pregnancy... is an abortifacient action part and parcel to all OCPs.

A few times in the above quotes I have set apart some key terms and phrases in bold orange type -- to show that while I have used the words "POSSIBLE" and "a Possibility", words which apparently misstate the facts according to S_T, the industry itself, medical professionals themselves and even Planned Parenthood regularly use terms like "can prevent", "usually", "often" and "typically". And there's a reason they use these terms... it's because abortifacient actions CAN and DO accompany Pill usage. Their use of these terms shows that there remains in fact "a possibility" and even a "likelihood", and it is not unreasonable to state so.

edit typos

ShirChadash

11th April 2004, 02:57 PM

I wanted to add... I am pro-life now. As a Catholic I was pro-choice. I am not anti-OCPs, however, based only or primarily on their abortifacient nature, but much moreso due to the fact that I don't believe in "fixing" anything that isn't broken, nor interfering with the way G-d created our bodies to work at the most healthful levels, and I am a big proponent of self-control -- fertility-awareness can work extremely well (and none of our six children were "ooops" babies BTW, not one. Fertility-awareness has worked perfectly for us for nearly 15 years with no remotely possible detrimental affects to me, my Dh or any "possible" pregnancies). Hormonal and surgical, etc., birth-control measures have been shown to have detrimental affects on the men and women who use them... and I am all pro-education. And that is why I participated in this thread... not for some militant anti-pill agenda I don't actually have.

editing yet again :rolleyes: removing quote.