Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Birth Control and Micro Abortion "How does our birth control really accomplish the task?"

So we have learned that if one believes the fact that “life begins at conception” and that conception means when the egg and the sperm meet and begin to grow, then there is also an opportunity for pregnancy to happen -even though one has been using a birth control method other than abstinence.

We know that there are, what the medical field refers to as, “break through” fertilizations and that a pregnancy can and does happen in every form of “birth control”. The fertilized eggs that are able to attach and form a placenta are considered a viable pregnancy. But what about the other fertilized eggs, the other viable lives that are unable to attach? Those pregnancies are not counted because most women haven’t a clue they were pregnant. How does this happen? It happens because the way their birth controls are designed to work. It happens through abortion.

As in the post prior, I will high-light my own words in blue. All others will be from the articles listed at the end of the quote. I do take liberty at italics and bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This means that if there is a break through fertilization, which the experts and manufacturers tell will happen from time to time, that the back up plan for these BIRTH controls is to provide an in home abortion, however early.

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

“What of Progesterone-Only pills?
These fall into the same category as the Progesterone- Only implant, Norplant, and the Progesterone-Only injection, Depo Provera.”

So... “What about Norplant and Depo Provera?

On Norplant: “This is an implant under the skin of her forearm that lasts five years. In the first half of that time it’s effect is to almost always suppress ovulation. In the last half of that time, break-through ovulation is the rule. However, very few pregnancies survive. Clearly, this second half is commonly effective through micro-abortions and prevention of implantation.”

On DepoProvera: “As with Norplant, there is some variance from woman to woman, but in a far higher percent of cases Depo Provera suppresses ovulation. Break-through ovulation, however, does occur as attested to by full-term pregnancies recorded with women who were receiving this shot every three months.”

Both of these use a form of continuing dose of progesterone. Part of the time they prevent ovulation. Part of the time they allow ovulation and fertilization, but prevent implantation. Therefore, they function both as a contraceptive, at times, and as an abortifacient at times

And then we have the facts on how an IUD really works:

“The intrauterine device, commonly referred to as an IUD or coil (in Europe), is a small plastic or metal device that is inserted through the vagina and into the cavity of the uterus. The purpose of this is to "prevent" pregnancy.

Is an IUD a contraceptive or an abortive agent?

...Almost all scientific papers had agreed that its effect was to prevent the implantation of the tiny new human being into the nutrient lining of the uterus; an abortive action. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated in an official report that its effectiveness is "in direct proportion to the quantity and quality of the inflammatory reaction to various types of IUDs"...and states that there "is one common thread . . . " They all "interfere in some manner with the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterine cavity." Second Report on IUDs, Dec. 1978, U.S. Dept. of HEW, Food & Drug Administration Document 017-012-00276-5
A detailed report in a Planned Parenthood publication in 1989 claimed that a high percentage of its action was the prevention of fertilization. IUDs are ontraceptives, not Abortifacients: A Comment on Research and Belief, I. Sivin, Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 20, No. 6, Dec. ’89My question is: what about the opposite side of that equation? What about the low percent? Aren't those still considered abortions?

So this leaves us with another question. Which birth control methods work also as an abortifacient?

“Which methods do this? In varying degree, the methods that prevent implantation, and therefore kill a baby at one week of life, include the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, Depo Provera, Progesterone Only pills, low-dose contraceptive combination pills, and the morning-after pills.”

If we, as women, consider ourselves edcucated about our rights, our bodies, and our ability to make correct decisions for ourselves, should we not be more conserned, more proactive about how we are treating our bodies and how the chemicals, drugs, etc., react inside each of us? Or do we allow our medical communities to make those decisions for us? Would we allow our doctor to do major surgery without studying all the facts and if that surgery were indeed our only option?

How many of us did more than read the package instructions? Do we read the small print and question why the "side effects" are what they are? Many of us trust our doctors, friends, even our unknowing mothers and went blindly into this practice feeling assured we were safe. Trusted that our furture children would be safe. We are living in a world where we need to know for ourselves.

A few more quotes from my church leaders:

"Scripture declares that the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:11.) Abortion sheds that innocent blood. …It is the belief of those who are members of this Church that human life is so hallowed and precious that there is an accountability to God on the part of those who invoke the sacred fountains of life." Russell M. Nelson, “Reverence for Life,” Ensign, May 1985, 11

"President Spencer W. Kimball has recently said, “This is one of the most despicable of all sins—to destroy an unborn child to save one from embarrassment or to save one’s face or comfort.” (Ensign, Nov. 1974, p. 7.)

“For the unborn, only two possibilities are open: It can become a live human being or a dead unborn child. ….Dietrich Bonhoeffer, referring to the unborn babe in the mother’s womb, said, “The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being.” …Because she feels it, every mother knows there is sacred life in the body of her unborn babe. There is also life in the spirit, and some time before birth the body and the spirit are united. When they do come together, we have a human soul. For the Lord has said, “And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.” (D&C 88:15.)”

The destruction of such a treasure is so abhorrent that the First Presidency of the Church has clearly and repeatedly counseled the world—as did President Kimball this morning—against the taking of unborn life. I quote, “Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day. … Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant.”

Members are counseled neither “to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where” it is medically necessary, and, as the First Presidency has further counseled, “even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.” The First Presidency has advised that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness. (Ensign, March 1973, p. 64.) James E. Faust, “The Sanctity of Life,” Ensign, May 1975, 27

I urge all who may have dipped into the fountains of life to respect the divinity inherent in that life and to protect this sacred treasure and its transcending blessings. For the Savior of the world said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these … ye have done it unto me.” (Matt. 25:40.) James E. Faust, “The Sanctity of Life,” Ensign, May 1975, 27

Now, is there hope for those who have so sinned without full understanding, who now suffer heartbreak? Yes. So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And “as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” 13 Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant. 13. General Handbook of Instructions, 1983, p. 78. Russell M. Nelson, “Reverence for Life,” Ensign, May 1985, 11

My hope is that if any of us are in the practice of using these forms of birth control that we can study it out and make an informed decision on whether or not to continue, or choose an alternative method. I also have faith in what my church leaders have said; that if anyone feels they have "sinned without full understanding" they can and will be forgiven through the process of repentance.

add to sk*rt


Lisa M. said...

Oh Sm'ee.

Thank you so much for this article. I appreciate it more than you know. This is a subject that is quite near and dear to my heart and I sincerly hope that your point is made and reflection of personal choices is instigated.

Thank you for your brillant light...

s'mee said...

oooh Lisa, Thank *you*. I was thinking the first comments would be harsh. Instead I get support from you, like always. Thanks dear friend. This is such an important subject for me also. It breaks my heart to think of so many unknowingly participating in something they feel so strongly against.

Lisa M. said...

Sis, you can't argue with facts, even if you want too!


I was just chattering about you today. I am so glad to hear from you.


Jamie J said...

Wow, very eye opening. I never thought about BC that way. Luckily I'm no longer on it, but it makes me think twice about what my next choice will be.

s'mee said...

Thanks Jamie J! Glad to have you drop by. It is a little alarming when you think about it. Thanks again!

Rebecca said...

That's the first time I've heard someone lay it all out so clearly. Every time I had a baby (or babies) my doctor would pressure me to take some kind of contraception, but I always ended up reading the fine print in the box and throwing it away. I came so close to getting an IUD last time, but nobody could guarantee it wasn't abortive, and then my midwife finally told me that, indeed, it is. It took me years to understand that they were making a distinction between preventing implantation and killing embryos. Now we're resigned to using condoms only, which is hard because I'm allergic to latex and spermicide, so we have to pay a bundle for polypropylene. But it's worth it. Thanks for putting it out there so well.

chronicler said...

Way to go sis. Good job on the terms and definitions. Excellent read.

s'mee said...

Rebecca! (one of my favorite names, btw!) Welcome! Thanks for stopping by and for the great comments. I know I was amazed at how many health workers, dr.s, nurses, whomever, are eager to lead women blindly down this path. grrr!

I am not sure if you are aware of some other options. The word "midwife" clued me into the fact that you are #1 open minded, and #2 someone who is willing to learn something new. With that in mind I offer the following websites that instruct on natural methods. The percentages of unplanned pregnacy are just about the same as OTC BC, only using knowledge instead of chemicals.

Granted it's not for everyone, but it may be a more comfortable option rather than risking allergies to your current methods.

Thanks again and I hope to see you often!

s'mee said...

Thanks sis, although I did a lot of cut and paste for my info. I did not want anyone to assume I was altering fact or stretching, whatever, you know. So my best bet was to just let the experts talk for themselves!

thanks anyway, you're always so good to me!

Yolanda said...

This was a VERY interesting post. In my case, I fall into a unique category of sorts...Due to a chronic health condition, I have to basically "plan" to get pregnant or it could be life-threatening to me and/or the baby. Saying this...I can also only take certain kinds of BC due to my condition.(Kind of my own catch 22!) I'm just glad that the Lord knows the nature of my heart, and that I am trying to live righteously as best I can. If things were different, I would LOVE to have as many spirits in my home as possible...I think it's horrible how some people treat the ability to procreate, but at "appearances only," I would hate to be judged by them, when only I, my husband, and the Lord know my situation.
Once again, EXCELLENT post!

s'mee said...

Yolanda (a name in our house that *has* to be said in a very deep sultry voice...wierd but true. Every Yolanda we know - we just drive crazy, I guess you're next!)

Yolanda, ahem, Thanks so much for commenting! Wow, it is always amazing to me what certain folks have to do to have a little one. I admire you for your dedication, and willingness to share it with us.

I do know that the Lord understands all the intricasies of each of us. Everyone is indeed different in our situations, I am sure the Lord knows your heart.

I offer you the same (although perhaps you have already "been there, done that") web site info as I did Rebecca above. These are methods based upon each individual's body and much higher success than basil temps, etc.

The folks who teach these methods have had HUGE success in the far east and India where BC is considered a sin or worse. Go over, check it out and see if it can make your life easier.

In the mean time, you have my best wishes for safe pregnancies when they come; and a house full of as many little ones as wish.

Thanks, Yolanda, come back soon!

Rebecca said...

Thanks so much for the site recommendations! Actually we were using the mucus method before Jonah was born. It worked, as far as knowing when I was fertile. Problem is I think I might ovulate twice a month, and my brain does this funny thing when I AM ovulating-- it's like it goes into procreation overdrive, and suddenly I don't care that I'm ovulating. After the girls and Jonah, I still didn't feel like we were completely done having kids, but now I do, and I'm really reluctant to take any chances with my baby-brain. We use condoms even when I KNOW I'm not ovulating, just in case.

s'mee said...

Rebecca, I have to laugh! I totally understand. Way back in the day, my brother and his wife decided that the only sure way of preventing another *surprise* was to get seprarate apartments! They didn't like that idea much, so they PRAYED like crazy! lol

See you soon!

Mabel Maybe said...

Funny, I was of the IUD=abortion view until I was about 37. Now I don't see it that way.

s'mee said...

Mother of All! Welcome! Good to see you!

I am not surprised that you disagree with what I have put out there, or that anyone else would disagree. This is just what I found in *my* particular research. I am not as formally educated as some, more than others, and certainly not an MD.

You are more than welcome to give us other web sites or other sources of information. That was kind of my original point, I think most of us just trust what someone else says instead of searching for ourselves. Any input you add will just add to the information.

Again, nice to see you; and I look forward to what you have to say!