Abortifacient Contraceptives? edited with additional information

What follows is from a letter I wrote recently:

I have spent a good deal of time going over scientific evidence and opinions from all possible outlooks. I am considering writing a research paper for school on the abortive properties of contraceptives, but I am beginning to see that while sufficient evidence exists to support the belief that oral contraceptives (as well as the "shot" and other hormone suppressive contraceptives) can cause post-fertilization abortion, there are actually enough studies to be found that any work I did might be redundant. These studies are not particularly easy to find, however, and certainly aren't inflencing mainstream practices, sadly.

In general medical definition, which is then passed onto the patient as truth, life is not present (and therefore termination at this point is not seen as abortion) at fertilization, but only after the fertilized egg implants in the uterus and matures enough to be considered "clinical pregnancy". However, from scientific studies as early as the 1800s, the fertilized egg was recognized as a living organism at the single-celled stage of life. Modern vernacular tells women (I have heard it myself from doctors) that pregnancy is not present until the aforementioned "clinical pregnancy" exists.

As a Christian, and even before, I have always believed that life begins at conception. It is my perception that this is the stance of the Orthodox Church as well. If I am correct, then I assume a priest might want to inform his parishioners of what their doctor and media in general will not tell them. Even if a person was Christian and pro-choice (this is impossible, but I am sure it is a viewpoint a few might hold) I think they'd agree that if women have a right to an abortion then they have a right to know when their actions cause an abortion as well. They should be informed of these very real findings about abortifacients.

Here is one article that covers it all, and objectively-with scientific studies considered. It covers what Joe told you about our findings in the manufacturer labeling as well...the thing is that in the patient insert the ovulation suppressant action of the contraceptive is stressed, and the abortifacient properties are either not shown at all, or very slightly observed in a way that keeps the uninformed woman from drawing any conclusions. The percentage of pregnancy listed is also skewed, because often what is listed is only the clinical use findings (based again on the idea that "clinical pregnancy" is the only concern), therefore without any variation by patient or observing more typical use. Think of this: even if most often quoted 1% of 100,000 women conceived while taking the pill, that results in 1,000 terminations of life. The percentages, however, are often out of 100 women, which increases the abortion rate.

It's nice to know that organizations such as Prolife OBGYNS exist. Their own view on contraceptives can be seen here, and two further evidentiary articles are linked.

This, from the APPLOG site, is especially interesting:


"At the same midwinter meeting a draft document entitled BIRTH CONTROL PILLS: CONTRACEPTIVE OR "ABORTIFACIENT? was circulated. While this was advertised as not a project of AAPLOG, eight of the signers were or are members of the board of directors. Near the beginning of their document, the authors state; “We begin with the recognition that within the Christian community there is a point of view which holds that artificial birth control per se is wrong. We would consider this a personal matter of conscience and belief, and this paper is not intended to argue for or against this issue.” While admiring the Christian philosophy of the authors, there is another truth to be considered. There is an unarguable logic connecting the contraceptive act and the abortive act. They are both anti-life. To fully articulate this proposition, the contraceptive action is anti-the-formation of a new life. One does not pop a pill, slip on a condom, take a shot in the buttocks, etc. in preparation for a game of Chinese Checkers. The only logical reason for these actions is to prevent the formation of a new life while positing voluntary coital acts. One might employ condoms in the illusory hope of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), but this is Russian roulette revisited with twice the risk of dying if AIDS is the object of one’s concern. The greatest witness to the logic of this truth is Planned Parenthood (PP). PP has progressed from being the Western world’s number one promoter and provider of contraception to being the number one provider and promoter of induced abortion."

Read the rest here, where the "big lie" is adressed. A must read.