Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

You Have Probably Had An Abortion Without Knowing It

I have just come across the most monumental disinformation on the so-called prolife website. I am posting this here, from http://www.Prolife.Com/birthcnt.Html.

People should know what kind of nutters they are associating themselves with, and the entirely of their position. And all those who are condemning women who have had abortions should now know that it is pot/kettle/black!!!

Please be aware that the language they are using is straight out of the how-to-write propaganda manual:

"more facts about the pill, iuds, depo-provera and norplant:

again, if you're reading about chemical abortions for the first time, this may surprise, or even shock you. Most americans are not aware that the pill and other chemical "contraceptives" cause millions of "non-surgical" abortions each year in the early weeks of pregnancy. If you are using the pill, depo-provera or norplant, you need to know the truth about how these products work.

Most women take these "contraceptives" because they don't want to have a baby. But how many women know they can have breakthrough ovulations and become pregnant while using these "contraceptives?" very few! And how many of these women know that if they become pregnant after a breakthrough ovulation, these "contraceptives" will almost always kill any son or daughter they've conceived?

Most people don't know the real facts about how "contraceptives" work. And because of this lack of knowledge, most women are not aware that they may be having breakthrough ovulations, and conceiving children that are killed very early in the pregnancy. Women using these "contraceptives" almost never perceive that they have become pregnant, or that chemicals have killed their tiny baby.

What is breakthrough ovulation?

While using the pill and other chemical "birth control" products, many women's ovaries continue to release eggs. This is called "breakthrough ovulation" and it occurs in millions of women each year. Once an egg has been released via ovulation, a woman can become pregnant.

You can still conceive a child . . .

How does the pill work?

The pill has three mechanisms of action which can easily be looked up in the physician's desk reference.

1) sometimes, the pill suppresses ovulation. When this happens, an egg is not released and conception cannot occur. (it's important to read on and find out about the high rates of breakthrough ovulation. When ovulation is not suppressed, pregnancy can occur.)

2) the pill also works to thicken the woman's cervical mucus which can "restrict" sperm from moving up the reproductive tract toward the egg.

3) one way the pill causes early abortions is that it interfers with the flexing motions and the cilia movement of the fallopian tubes. These changes slow the transportation of newly conceived child from the fallopian tubes to the womb. Unfortunately, many small babies starve to death in the fallopian tubes because chemicals caused changes that prevented them from reaching the womb in time to be nourished.

4) another way the pill causes early abortions: if your tiny baby survives the ride down the fallopian tube to your womb, the pill will almost always cause the endometrium (the lining of your uterus) to reject your child. Chemical reactions often cause the lining of your womb to become thin, shriveled and unable to support implantation of your newly conceived child.

This means that in almost every case, your new child will not be able to attach to the wall of your womb where he or she would normally live, grow and receive nourishment for 9 months. This means your tiny baby will starve to death and his or her remains will be passed along in your next bleeding cycle. (the "study of abortion deaths commission" estimates that this happens in women in america who use the pill approximately 1 to 4 million times each year.)

the chemicals that cause these early abortions are called abortifacients which is the medical term for any chemical agent that causes an abortion.

Depo-provera, norplant and iuds

depo-provera and norplant both use chemicals that work in very simlar ways on a woman's body and womb. Depo-provera and norplant are also considered chemical abortifacients.

Iuds or intra-uterine devices, are small plastic devices that are inserted into the womb. Some iuds contain copper or a time released hormone. It is believed that the iud causes a low grade inflammation in the lining of the womb. As a result, the lining of the womb is imperfect and the fertilized egg will not implant. (source: this paragraph on iuds is quoted directly from the calgary regional health authority's web site.)

because of the chemical effect an iud has on a woman's womb, tiny babies are aborted. Therefore, iuds are also considered abortifacients.

Breakthrough ovulation proved long ago . . .

Birth control advocates and manufacturers of the pill have known these facts for years. Have they done a very good job of informing women about how the pill really works? (please email us and let us know if you were aware of how the pill worked before you read this.)

when chemists devised the pill that debuted in 1960, they gave it a huge dose of a chemical that caused most women's ovaries to stop secreting eggs (i.E., to stop ovulation). The theory was "no egg, no pregnancy."

however, some women continued to release eggs and get pregnant while on the original pill. (studies have shown that an even higher percentage of women release eggs while using today's newer, re-formulated pills. More about today's pills in a moment.)

in her award winning study of women taking the earlier high dose pills, dutch gynecologist Dr. Nine van der vange showed "proof of ovulation based on ultrasound exams and hormonal indicators occurred in about 4.7% of the cycles studied." (source: sterns, Dr. David, "how the pill and the iud work: gambling with life," american life league, po box 1350, stafford, va 22555)

and the "textbook of contraceptive practice" states that, "among women who have been followed over a considerable number of cycles, breakthrough ovulations occur in 2 to 10 percent of cycles." (source: Dr. J. Peel & Dr. Malcolm potts, textbook of contraceptive practice, 1969, cambridge, cambridge university press)

please note that these references are to the lower breakthrough ovulation rates of the pills of the 1960's. The new pills of the 1990's work differently and have much higher breakthrough ovulation rates. This will be explained as you read on.

Why the big secret?

Why aren't most women aware that the pill causes early abortions? Let's look at the large pharmaceutical companies who advertise, market and sell the pill. They make huge profits from the pill -- and they'll continue to make mega-profits -- if women are convinced they're not getting pregnant and they keep buying and taking the pill everyday. But are they being honest with you? Have they clearly explained that their products cause millions of early chemical abortions each year?

The new pills: much higher rates of breakthrough ovulation . . .

The original pill of the 1960's had to be modified due to harmful side effects that women were experiencing because of the powerful chemicals. All versions of today's "combination pill" have a reduced hormonal content. When compared to the pills of the 1960's and 1970's, this reduces the chance of harmful side effects for women, but it also increases their chances of ovulating and conceiving a son or daughter.

Dr. Ronald chez, a scientist at the national institutes of health (nih), publicly stated that the new pills of today, with their lower estrogen dose, allow ovulation up to 50% of the time! (source: sterns, david, m.D., sterns, gina, r.N., b.S.N., yaksich, pamela, "gambling with life, how the i.U.D. And 'the pill' work" (www.Top.Net/vitalsigns).

With these newer pills, simply missing one tablet, or failing to take the pill at the same time each day increases the chances of breakthrough ovulation. Reactions with other drugs increases the chances of breakthrough ovulation, especially with caffeine and nicotine, or some prescription medicine (source: "abortifacient contraception: the pharmaceutical holocaust" by Dr. Rudolf ehmann, human life intl., 1993, p.15).

Makers of the new "mini-pill" claim it does not have the side effects of the combination pill. However, they don't tell you that scientific research shows the mini-pill does not stop ovulation at all in 67-81% of the women who use it, so the probability of conception is much higher. (source: tonti-fillippini, nicholas, linacre quarterly, 1995)


breakthrough ovulation estimates for other "birth control" methods:

1) norplant has breakthrough ovulation 50-65% of the time.

2) depo-provera has breakthrough ovulation 40-60% of the time.

3) the iud has breakthrough ovulation 100% of the time.

4) with over 17 million american women using the pill and other chemical abortifacients, it is estimated that breakthough ovulation and pregnany occurs so often . . . That between 7 to 12 million newly conceived children are killed by chemical abortions in the womb each year. And most of these women never even knew they were pregnant.

(sources for the four points listed under breakthrough ovulation estimates above are as follows: 1) hilgers, Dr. Thomas, "norplant" linacre quarterly, 1993, p.64-69. 2) "infant homicides through contraceptives," 1994 by the study of abortion deaths ad hoc commission - bardstown, ky. Ph: 502-348-3963. 3) ibid. 4) ibid.)

betrayed!

If you are taking these products to avoid pregnancy (and abortion), now you know that the makers and promoters of "birth control" products have betrayed you and your children. It has been proven many times that these products do not completely stop ovulation and conception. In fact, depending upon the product you're using, you could be at risk of ending the life of a newly conceived son or daughter every month by birth control's chemical abortions. "
Did you find this post helpful?
|

replied September 20th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
Oh good god. Okay, so now we should all just stop using contraceptives and breed like cattle.
People who say those sorts of things just really piss me off. Yes, some contraceptives can cause your body to flush out the fertilized egg. Yes, it is only a fertilized egg when it is flushed out. It does not "starve to death" eggs do not starve for goodness sakes.
And that is only some pills that do that. Others stop ovulation altogether.
In this way of thinking, every egg that a woman flushes out even when not on the pill is in a way "aborted" sure, it isn't fertilized, but who cares! It is our job as women to breed! When we don't we are sinning! Ah!

People are so freakin ignorant. Seriously though, I don't know which is worse. The men who think this way (as written in the above post) or the women who go along with it! Men cannot get pregnant and therefore, sure, why not bash women for not giving birth every ten months. But women! Come on now!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 21st, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
What gets me as well is all the references to "tiny babies" -- i.E. Two or four or eight cells. Like, if you looked at them through a powerful enough micoscope, there would be itsy-bitsy little babies there, gurgling. Instead of blobs with a closer resemblance to frog-spawn.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 21st, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
I went to a crisis pregnancy centre & the woman called me a murderer for taking the pill. I may not agree with abotions but I do agree with the pill-preventing pregnancy using the pill/patch/condoms/depo is a lot more sensible then leaving it to fate & having an abortion anyway.
I was called a murd erer & the counsellor told me that i've probably had hundreds of abortions because the fertilised egg may not be flushed out by the pill for 21 days & by that time the baby/foetus (trying to please both sides!!) has a heart beat. Of course I know that is absoute bs because the pill works by stopping an egg getting fertilised in the first place. I think it's terrible to mis-inform people in this way & use emotive language to play on people's consciences'
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 21st, 2004
These not contraceptives in full sense they called birth control but many countries they called contraceptives because they can prevent contraception.

Contraceptives prevents conception of human being only, the other prevents both conception of human being and birth of human being because it prevents implanting of child in womb.

These drugs (abortion efficiant) don’t always end in early abortion I must make clear point. Any one using these drugs may have had an abortion without knowing but there is no way of knowing. I recommend anyone not wishing to kill conceved child not use these drugs

“oh good god. Okay, so now we should all just stop using contraceptives and breed like cattle.”

there is drugs on market “contraceptives” that don’t kill the zygote there are creams and condoms etc the abortion drugs are not needed to stop conceiving. No one is asking you to bread like cats no one is making you do sex the post is trying to inform people, whatever the use of language biased or not the drugs can still cause early abortion.

They reference to the zygote or embryo as “tiny babies” is one of endearment not of scientific accuracy, however all terms pertaining to a human being is different levels of personal endearment. Baby, infant, child, adolesant, adult. It is the way in which the scientific language has been used to dehumanise the unborn that is offensive. Not the actual wording but the dehumanisation, just as the term “tiny babies” is not offensive it’s the re-humanising context involved. Of course the person or group who wrote this have some sort of endearment to the unborn otherwise they would not have written it. They could have used scientific language more maybe giving the post more credibility, however some readers would have missed the importance of the post due to preconceived ideas about the zygote, embryo and foetus due to the use of these words to dehumanise the unborn. I think they would have been better off calling them human beings since that is what they are scientifically and it is not dehumanising or overly endearing. There is nothing wrong with using the term baby but to those who have no feelings or concerns for the unborn will be less likely to accept the post loosing some of its potential.

The early unborn human being may not resemble a born baby or a born human being but do a man who has been serverally defeomed no arm no leg no skin no eyes or ears etc look like the rest of us? He is no less human than the rest of us.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 21st, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
Firstly, fertilisation precedes conception by some days.

But the main point of this is that the so-called pro-life brigade sees women purely as reproductive tools.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 21st, 2004
"pro-life brigade sees women purely as reproductive tools."

i think you are being very judgemental if you really believe it true especially since it not true even in the slightest.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 24th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
I said breed like cattle and last time I checked cattle were not cats.

Yes, I know that not all pills flush out the fertilized egg, I even said that in my post.

It still doesn't matter if the other ones do. For goodness sakes, the egg is going to be flushed out whether it is fertilized or not, and it is just that a fertilized egg. It is not a baby!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied October 13th, 2004
Experienced User
I agree that there is nothing wrong with birth control pills/shots/implants. However, I am offended that poopoopoo generalizes all pro-life people into one group, those who believe a woman's job is to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. I am pro-life, and I do not think that women should have to breed for men. I do believe, however, that once a pregnancy is viable (ie- the egg was fertilized, has implanted in the uterus, and has started producing hcg and the other pregnancy related hormones) is should not be ended, unless the circumstances are so extreme that there is no other possible alternative.

Daile
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied October 13th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
That is up to you to believe that, and we'll see what happens if you ever have an unwanted pregnancy.


But I never said all "prolife people are the same" -- I said this was on a "so-called prolife website" -- first, the website is prolife.Com, but secondly I use the term "prolife" in inverted commas, sincei regard them as "anti-abortionist" not prolife.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied October 15th, 2004
Experienced User
Actually, poopoopoo, this is the post I was refering to, and if you notice, there are no commas, inverted or otherwise (although I think you meant apostrophes anyway).

poopoopoo wrote:
but the main point of this is that the so-called pro-life brigade sees women purely as reproductive tools.


this was the sentence that bothered me, because you are generalizing the pro-life/anti-abortion/whatever you want to call them people.

Also, I will never have an unwanted pregnancy, because any pregnancy will be wanted by me. I have already had a situation in my life where I thought I would be having a baby before I really wanted one, but as soon as I thought I was pregnant I realized that having a baby wouldn't be so bad. I would never consider abortion as an option, no matter the circumstances. However, I will not condemn others who do so.

Daile
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied October 16th, 2004
I myself do not believe in taking birth control. Only type of birth control that's ok with me is condoms which me and my husband don't use. We are just careful, and don't do it the week of ovulation. This worked for us. I got pregnant, because we tried to get pregnant. But even if I had of got pregnant when we weren't trying, we still would of wanted it. No abortions here, I am against them. Smile
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied October 16th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
That's fine as long as it has worked for you and your husband.However,many women do become pregnant despite their best efforts not to.A woman should not be forced to continue with a pregnancy that she either does not want or cannot deal with.Yes ,sometimes adoption is an option,but not always.Not all women can be put into a neat little pile and be good parents or give their child good prenatal care.If a woman knows that she has drank heavily or abused drugs and will probably give birth to an addicted baby,she knows that hardly anyone would want that child.Would that child be better off in the state childcare system??Doubtful.Already too many kids there now that will not have permanent homes.It's easy to judge when you are not the one in that situation.Patty
|
Did you find this post helpful?