Abortion Debate Forum - From the Pro-Life forum (re: IUD)

Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum > From the Pro-Life forum (re: IUD) (Page 1)

Birth control is helpful in preventing pregnancy. Need to know more about birth control? Start here to learn more about popular methods of birth control....

Q: From the Pro-Life forum (re: IUD)

asked by: Moo on February 26th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Firstly I didn't want to respond there (being pro-choice) and would also like to respect the fact the OP mentioned she does not engage in debates (so this is a general topic on contraception rather than this specific post I guess) but I'm curious about pro-lifers views on IUDs and contraception?

The IUD is a typical method of birth control not advocated by pl given that it traditionally doesn't suppress ovulation, rather prevents a fertilised egg implanting alongside making an inhospitable environment for sperm to meet an egg.

No-one can know when they have an IUD whether or not there was fertilisation each month and I understand why this may be an ethical problem for some.

However, why is the IUD separate from other forms of birth control? The pill, the shot etc all primarily stop ovulation but also thin the lining of the womb in case an egg is released and fertilised. As with an IUD no-one can know whether the pill prevented a pregnancy by preventing implantation or by stopping ovuation so why are these forms acceptable (if they are) but the IUD is not?

Replies(23)

Becky

replied on February 26th, 2008

Especially eHealthy

i have no idea but I have the Mirena coil and it has never bothered me.

Reptar

replied on February 26th, 2008

Experienced User

If the pro-lifer (or anyone for that matter) is Christian, it does go against what's in the bible, but so do any forms of birth control. Then again, many people are pro-life without being religious.

I never understood the people who do follow a religion that is against abortion, birth control, and pre-marital sex but still choose to have the sex. Especially if they go around telling women who are pro-choice to keep their legs closed.

oopoopoop

replied on February 26th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Oh there's a significant nutcase element out there that insists that because one way the BCPs work is by stopping implantation, that they are causing "abortions". This is doubly the case with the morning-after pill, but has also been argued for the regular kind. That's the basis of all the pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptive pills and/or morning after pills.

yodavater

replied on February 27th, 2008

Active User, very eHealthy

Re: From the Pro-Life forum (re: IUD)

Moo wrote:

As with an IUD no-one can know whether the pill prevented a pregnancy by preventing implantation or by stopping ovuation so why are these forms acceptable (if they are) but the IUD is not?

That's a perfectly good question, and I can't imagine why any prolifer would take that position. I certainly don't. The only reason I can think of might be that the person taking that position is also taking some sort of BC pill, and doesn't want to admit the ethical ramifications.

Verizon-y

replied on February 28th, 2008

Extremely eHealthy

Here is a quote from a post of mine on another thread. It explains why Plan B Emergency Contraception does NOT cause embryos to not implant:

source

futureshock wrote:

Ingi wrote:

It can. What Plan B does, is it prevents ovulation. But it also makes your uterus a hostile environment if you have already ovulated. Since it is a massive dose of hormones, it can cause your period to be delayed.

It does not cause the uterus to be a hostile environment. It actually does the opposite. Plan B is the hormone progesterone , which is the same hormone fertility clinics give women to maintain the uterine lining for keeping a pregnancy.

Here is exactly how it works:

The ovary contains a supply of eggs. One egg each month begins to ripen and mature into a large structure called a follicle, regulated by a hormone from the pituitary called Follicle Stimulating Hormone, FSH. The follicle is going to produce estrogen, which is what causes the growth of the uterine lining. FSH is particularly important early in the cycle.

A second pituitary hormone, Luteinizing Hormone, (LH) assists in stimulating the mature follicle, and in particular, a rapid surge in LH is what triggers the follicle to pop, releasing the egg, in a process called ovulation. This is a key step, so remember this: a spike in LH levels triggers ovulation.

After ovulation, the egg goes on its way, and might be fertilized, leading to pregnancy. The follicle left behind isn't done yet, though; it becomes a structure called the corpus luteum, which continues to produce estrogen (necessary to maintain the uterine lining), and also gradually produces more and more progesterone. Progesterone helps maintain the uterine lining, (This is why women undergoing fertility treatment are sometimes given progesterone to help maintain the pregnancy}. but also suppresses LH production by the pituitary. It's a kind of timer. The corpus luteum is maintained by the levels of LH, but the corpus luteum also produces rising levels of progesterone, which shut off LH…and when too little LH is produced, the corpus luteum shuts down, no estrogen and progesterone are produced, the uterine lining is no longer maintained, and a woman finds a bloody mess in her panties.

The key thing to remember about this part, though, is that progesterone suppresses LH.

Put two pieces of the story together: a spike in LH levels triggers ovulation and progesterone suppresses LH. Hmmm. This suggests an idea. If you wanted to prevent ovulation, how would you do it?

(Consider this a test. Imagine that Jeopardy jingle playing right now.)

Time's up—I bet everyone came up with the right answer, though. Giving someone a large dose of progesterone would shut down LH production, so there would be no ovulation, so no egg would be released, and any sperm happening to be in the woman's reproductive tract would find nothing to fertilize.

You have just figured out what is called Plan B contraception. It is a form of birth control that tells the woman's ovaries to hold off on releasing any eggs for a short while. It's called emergency contraception, because it is used by a woman who has, for whatever reason (rape, a broken condom, misplaced enthusiasm, second thoughts, anything) had unwanted sperm in her reproductive tract, and she wants to make sure that this isn't the moment her ovaries happen to pop a follicle.

futureshock wrote:

How much more explicit could I possibly be? I just posted the exact biology of Plan B.

If biology doesn't work for you, how about pro-life websites?

Conclusion

Given the above, there is no evidence that shows that the endometrial changes produced by COCs contribute to failure of implantation of conceptions, nor is there evidence that COCs cause an increased per pregnancy ratio of ectopics.

There is no evidence that Plan B affects implantation.
# There is evidence that suggests that Plan B only prevents conception by either making cervical mucus hostile to sperm or preventing ovulation.

"'The post-fertilization effect was purely a speculation that became truth by repetition,' says Joe DeCook, MD, a retired OB/GYN and vice president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

futureshock wrote:

Ingi wrote:

Futureshock, please explain how it prevents an egg from attaching to the uterin lining. BECAUSE I'M FASCINATED TO KNOW!

It doesn't prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining.

Plan B is progesterone.
Progesterone helps maintain the uterine lining, (This is why women undergoing fertility treatment are sometimes given progesterone to help maintain the pregnancy}.
Progesterone stops ovulation because it suppresses LH production by the pituitary.

I can tell you where the mistaken notion started, and that was from looking at women on the pill. If there is no ovulation, there is no cascade of events leading to thickening of the uterine lining so implantation can take place. That's the "hostile environment". However, you can only have an insufficient uterine lining of there is no ovulation. The notion of ovulation occurring while a woman was on the pill, getting fertilized, and not implanting was based on the notion that women on the pill have an insuficient uterine lining. What was not taken onto consideration was the fact that if ovulation occurred while on the pill, the cascade of events leading to a thickening, sufficient for pregnancy uterine lining would also occur.

Otherwise, you'd never hear of a woman giving birth after getting pregnant while on the pill. If Plan B stopped fertilized eggs from implanting, it would work a lot longer than 5 days after sex, and it would work a lot better.