Both Plan A and Plan B can = abortion
A study in the Feb. 23, 2007, issue of Fertility and Sterility, publicized only this week by NRFC, found that emergency contraceptives comprised of the steroid Levonorgestrel, like Plan B, can cause abortions. (The “delay” the study refers to is length of time following sex the morning-after pill is taken.)
Result(s): With disruption of ovulation alone, the potential effectiveness of levonorgestrel EC ranged from 49% (no delay) to 8% (72-hour delay). With complete inhibition of fertilization before the day of ovulation, the potential effectiveness of levonorgestrel EC ranged from 90% (no delay) to 16% (72-hour delay).
Conclusion(s): The gap between effectiveness of levonorgestrel EC estimated from clinical studies and what can be attributed to disruption of ovulation may be explained by overestimation of actual effectiveness and supplementary mechanisms of action, including postfertilization effects.
The information followed, coincidentally, the May 21 release of a video on YouTube on the historical and current modes of action of the birth control pill – the best explanation I’ve ever seen, and brief, too:
[Video hat tip: Andrew]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Once again, that the pharmacuetical companies are more interested in profits.
I started taking BC in my early twenties and continued to take it for several years. Had I been informed that it was an abortafacient I would have NEVER filled the prescription.
On another note:
At that time I was also told it would DECREASE my risk for breast cancer which was good news for me since my mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer around the same time was undergoing a mastectomy and chemotherapy treatments.
She thankfully continues to be a survivor. My maternal aunt is also a breast cancer survivor which puts me in the high risk category.
I recently came upon this study (see below)that now states that use of birth control prior to a first pregnancy increases the chances of breast cancer in women by 44%. WHY IS THIS NOT MAKING HEADLINES??
When menopausal women were instructed to quit taking HRTs a few years ago,the breast cancer rate declined by I believe 7%. This was considered a huge breakthrogh and made headlines all over the MSM.
I just donated money this week to the Susan G.Komen Breast Cancer Foundationin honor of a women who just passed away from cancer. I am golfing in a tournament next weekend to raise money for the same organization.
We are trying so hard to raise money to fund research when it seems that the what could be the biggest contributor to breast cancer is staring us all right in the face. I wonder what would happen to breast cancer rates if all women quick taking BC?
It seems that the ultimate price women pay for taking BC to prevent unwanted children is that we are increasing our chances of dying from breast cancer leaving our wanted children without a mother.
NewsTarget:
Young women who take oral contraceptive pills before they become pregnant with their first child run a significantly higher risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer, according to new international research.
Researchers from Altoona Hospital in Pennsylvania examined the results of 34 studies from around the world of young women who took oral contraceptives prior to becoming pregnant with their first child.
The researchers, led by Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, found that those young women experienced a 44 percent increased risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer, while women who took the pill for four years or longer prior to their first pregnancy ran an increased risk of 52 percent.
Kahlenborn’s study — published in the October issue of the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings — warns that most young women taking oral contraceptives seem to be unaware of the risks.
“As I studied the medical literature, I noticed that a trend appeared,” said Kahlenborn. “Namely, OC (oral contraceptive) use prior to first-term pregnancy seemed to consistently increase the risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer.
“Although the trend was apparent, pre-menopausal women have continued to hear that OCs are basically safe.”
Sorry, I wish this statment to have read:
In addition to causing unjustified embryonic abortion which the unborn pay the price for, it seems that the ultimate price women pay for taking BC to prevent unwanted children is that we are increasing our chances of dying from breast cancer leaving our wanted children without a mother.
Legally speaking, pregnancy does not occur until implantation. As a result, abortifacient is yet another missnomer, indicative of the orwellian rhetoric of the right wing nuts that place the sanctity of life above any sort of honesty.
I am in agreement though that people who believe life begins at conception, and that interupting it after conception is wrong, need to be more aware that some forms of BC may prevent the impantation of a fertilized egg. God forbid they read the small print that comes with their packet though…. I’m astounded by how many pro-lifers taking BC are ignorant of this. I like to explain to my students which types of BCs do this and how often it might occur, but they don’t seem to want to hear it, and many are taking BC to regulate menstrual cycle.
Regarding Sandy’s breast cancer alarmism….
The relative risk of BC related breast cancer ranges from 0.5 to 4.7 cases in 10,000 women… and mortality rates range around 13%. That’s 0.7 to 6.7 deaths among 100,000 women using BC. Pregnancy related mortality has been increasing, and the conservative rate (non-minorities and insured) are about 5.8 in 100,000.
Again, relatively speaking… you are about as likely to die from pregnancy as you are from taking BC pills.
Jill and Cameron:
Since I know virtually nothing about BC pills, I would like some facts from both sides of the issue so I can counsel my daughter who will eventually get married and I am sure will want to delay having children for awhile. She won’t want to take BC pills that kill embryos or subject her to a higher risk of breast cancer.
I want to factually be able to tell her (or direct her to scientific sources) about the cancer risks and which BC pills are abortifacients.
Can each of you enlighten me (us) on ths technical subject?
Cameron, are you aware that the ACOG changed the definition of conception in 1976? Prior to that, conception was even medically recognized as the union of the sperm and ovum. Since 1976, conception has been defined as implantation of the fertilized ovum (which occurs 5-7 days after fertilization). This allows BCs to be marketed as contraceptive and not abortifacient. It also coinsides with the pill manufacturers dropping the estrogen levels thus allowing the abortifacient property of the pill to occur. Is that coincidence? I’m not so sure about that. You may call it a right wing agenda, but to me, it sure looks like the ACOG and the pill manufacturers are putting one over on us. Let’s face it, BCs are a HUGE money maker. If the “right wing conservatives” caught wind of this, they’d loose a lot of money.
Seriously, I do believe it is the OBs responsibility to inform the patient of the methods of contraception used in the pill . Have you ever sat down to read all the details in a BC pamphlet? Yikes…talk about medical mumbo jumbo. However, responsibility also falls on the evangelical churches…they do nothing to inform their congregations that chemical abortion is a possibility with BCs. Pastors are counseling engaged couples to take the pill. They are not informed. That is a VERY sad state the church is in.
Hisman: I can offer you a good resource: “Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?” by Randy Alcorn. He’s a pastor, a Christian…but I think his research is very unbiased. He and his wife had used the pill, so he set out to prove that the pill was indeed safe. He concluded otherwise. You can get his book on his website: http://www.epm.org
There is a condensed version available at the site, but I highly recommend springing the $2 for a full copy. His site is full of great information.
Cameron, are you aware that the ACOG changed the definition of conception in 1976? Prior to that, conception was even medically recognized as the union of the sperm and ovum. Since 1976, conception has been defined as implantation of the fertilized ovum (which occurs 5-7 days after fertilization). This allows BCs to be marketed as contraceptive and not abortifacient. It also coinsides with the pill manufacturers dropping the estrogen levels thus allowing the abortifacient property of the pill to occur. Is that coincidence? I’m not so sure about that. You may call it a right wing agenda, but to me, it sure looks like the ACOG and the pill manufacturers are putting one over on us. Let’s face it, BCs are a HUGE money maker. If the “right wing conservatives” caught wind of this, they’d loose a lot of money.
Seriously, I do believe it is the OBs responsibility to inform the patient of the methods of contraception used in the pill . Have you ever sat down to read all the details in a BC pamphlet? Yikes…talk about medical mumbo jumbo. However, responsibility also falls on the evangelical churches…they do nothing to inform their congregations that chemical abortion is a possibility with BCs. Pastors are counseling engaged couples to take the pill. They are not informed. That is a VERY sad state the church is in.
Hisman: I can offer you a good resource: “Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?” by Randy Alcorn. He’s a pastor, a Christian…but I think his research is very unbiased. He and his wife had used the pill, so he set out to prove that the pill was indeed safe. He concluded otherwise. You can get his book on his website: http://www.epm.org
There is a condensed version available at the site, but I highly recommend springing the $2 for a full copy. His site is full of great information.
Cameron, are you aware that the ACOG changed the definition of conception in 1976? Prior to that, conception was even medically recognized as the union of the sperm and ovum. Since 1976, conception has been defined as implantation of the fertilized ovum (which occurs 5-7 days after fertilization). This allows BCs to be marketed as contraceptive and not abortifacient. It also coinsides with the pill manufacturers dropping the estrogen levels thus allowing the abortifacient property of the pill to occur. Is that coincidence? I’m not so sure about that. You may call it a right wing agenda, but to me, it sure looks like the ACOG and the pill manufacturers are putting one over on us. Let’s face it, BCs are a HUGE money maker. If the “right wing conservatives” caught wind of this, they’d loose a lot of money.
Seriously, I do believe it is the OBs responsibility to inform the patient of the methods of contraception used in the pill . Have you ever sat down to read all the details in a BC pamphlet? Yikes…talk about medical mumbo jumbo. However, responsibility also falls on the evangelical churches…they do nothing to inform their congregations that chemical abortion is a possibility with BCs. Pastors are counseling engaged couples to take the pill. They are not informed. That is a VERY sad state the church is in.
Hisman: I can offer you a good resource: “Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?” by Randy Alcorn. He’s a pastor, a Christian…but I think his research is very unbiased. He and his wife had used the pill, so he set out to prove that the pill was indeed safe. He concluded otherwise. You can get his book on his website: http://www.epm.org
There is a condensed version available at the site, but I highly recommend springing the $2 for a full copy. His site is full of great information.
Unless someone is still offering the estrogen only pills, all currently available forms of oral contraceptives may allow a fertilized egg to pass without implanting. The culprit, as seen in the video Jill provided, is progestogen. So the likelihood of non-implantation is going to increase with the relative dosage of progestogen, and is greatest with the “progestogen only” pill.
It is important to note it is estimated that about 1/4 to 1/2 of all fertilized eggs will natural pass through the uterus without implanting, implanting but later shed during course of regular uninterrupted menstrual cycle, and mostly due to bad timing. Additionally, breast-feeding may allow fertilized eggs to fail to implant.
Given that condoms occasionally break (broken several myself), and that fertilized eggs will fail to implant whether or not you
Have you ever sat down to read all the details in a BC pamphlet? I have. I’m on the pill for medical reasons not relating to my desire to not concieve: my options are to either be on the pill or to be on anti-depressents. Guess which I chose?
The pamphlet was not difficult to understand. I started on the pill when I was 18, and I understood it all. I don’t have a medical degree, am not particularly interested in medicine, and didn’t have to look up a single word. The doctor didn’t give me any additional information.
Also, what about the cervical cap, in terms of non-hormonal contraception? Many women who have given birth can’t use it, but I’ve heard good things about it for younger women. I wiki’d it, and while the failure rates are notably higher than condoms, it’d be a good thing to perhaps double up with?
And Hisman, if you believe life begins at conception (which I know you do), then ALL BCPs are abortifacient. Any hormonal form of birth control has the abortifacient property…pills, patches, rings…every one.
To truly be contraceptive, then union of the sperm and ovum must never occur. Barrier methods are the only thing my husband and I have found to be acceptable. We use that along with NFP. However, we are very open to any children God sends our way. Which is why we are expecting baby #5…lol!
And Hisman, if you believe life begins at conception (which I know you do), then ALL BCPs are abortifacient. Any hormonal form of birth control has the abortifacient property…pills, patches, rings…every one.
To truly be contraceptive, then union of the sperm and ovum must never occur. Barrier methods are the only thing my husband and I have found to be acceptable. We use that along with NFP. However, we are very open to any children God sends our way. Which is why we are expecting baby #5…lol!
And Hisman, if you believe life begins at conception (which I know you do), then ALL BCPs are abortifacient. Any hormonal form of birth control has the abortifacient property…pills, patches, rings…every one.
To truly be contraceptive, then union of the sperm and ovum must never occur. Barrier methods are the only thing my husband and I have found to be acceptable. We use that along with NFP. However, we are very open to any children God sends our way. Which is why we are expecting baby #5…lol!
The Mikolajczyk and Stanford doesn’t prove anything, except that the men can get published. Please read, “modeling,” “expected,” “estimate,” “virtual,” etc. Some of those quotations are the authors’ own. The men derived an equation and attempted to apply it to disprove actual experimental scientific findings involving daily or serial ultrasounds, blood and urine levels, and biopsies in ovulating women.
From the article:
“Simulations of EC
“Effectiveness
“We simulated random samples of 10,000 women presenting for EC for a single cycle each, and we calculated the number of “expected” pregnancies for each simulated cohort of women using both sets of the daily fecundity data. We assumed that women “presented” for EC treatment with equal
probability on days -10 to +5 around the day of ovulation (day 0).”
Congratulations, PB&J!
I’m with you pb&j!!!! :)
“Legally speaking, pregnancy does not occur until implantation. As a result, abortifacient is yet another missnomer, indicative of the orwellian rhetoric of the right wing nuts that place the sanctity of life above any sort of honesty.”
Cameron,
Legally speaking, abortion is legal and I don’t agree with that either. Thanks to the left wing nuts, our society has been lead to believe that babies in the womb are just blobs of tissue which is yet another missomer indicative of the left wing bumper sticker rhetoric.
“God forbid they read the small print that comes with their packet though…. I’m astounded by how many pro-lifers taking BC are ignorant of this.”
Ignorant me as a young 20 something for listening to my own doctor when I asked him to explain how BC works and he never happened to include the fact of the abortifacient aspect, but counseled me that it would help prevent breast cancer.
Ignorant me for seeking his medical advice so I could make an “informed decision”.
Ignorant me (one more time)for believing that he had covered all of the risk info disclosed in the information packet as he said he did so I wouldn’t have to take my time interpreting it.
“Regarding Sandy’s breast cancer alarmism….
“The relative risk of BC related breast cancer ranges from 0.5 to 4.7 cases in 10,000 women… and mortality rates range around 13%. That’s 0.7 to 6.7 deaths among 100,000 women using BC. Pregnancy related mortality has been increasing, and the conservative rate (non-minorities and insured) are about 5.8 in 100,000.”
Again, relatively speaking… you are about as likely to die from pregnancy as you are from taking BC pills.”
Also,
Cameron,
I don’t understand your statistics.
According to….
Lead author Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., from Altoona Hospital in Altoona, Penn., extracted data from 34 studies to come up with his findings. He told Ivanhoe 21 out of 23 retrospective studies suggested women who took oral birth control before having their first child have a 44-percent increased risk of developing breast cancer.
“What’s scary about is that no one has really heard about it until now, and it’s been in the literature for the last decade,” said Dr. Kahlenborn, who has also written about the link between abortion and oral contraceptives.
The estimated risk for breast cancer in the general population is about one in eight over a lifetime, according to the National Cancer Institute. A 44-percent increase of this risk would equal out to about one in five, but Dr. Kahlenborn says it’s too soon to judge whether the increased risk associated with oral contraceptives will last over a lifetime.
Cameron, I guess your statistics are suggesting that by comparison 1 out of 8 women die of pregnancy?????
Again,I am confused or I guess ignorant by your standards.
PB&J,
“Cameron, are you aware that the ACOG changed the definition of conception in 1976? Prior to that, conception was even medically recognized as the union of the sperm and ovum.”
Um… I wasn’t aware of that, but we’re talking about the application of the word abortifacient. As far as I know, nobody’s changed the definition of abortion and pregnancy, and preventing implantation after conception is not abortion. Is deciding against implantation of a fertilized IVF embryo abortion too? How about breast-feeding?
LifeEthics,
Great point… like the gender dig too. But…critisizing the evidence, or source of evidence, is not only as good as evidence as far as the anti-choice crowd is concerned, but better than the actual evidence.
Cameron,
“Um… I wasn’t aware of that, but we’re talking about the application of the word abortifacient. As far as I know, nobody’s changed the definition of abortion and pregnancy, and preventing implantation after conception is not abortion. Is deciding against implantation of a fertilized IVF embryo abortion too? How about breast-feeding?”
Actually, they *did* alter the definition of pregnancy. By changing when a pregnancy is medically recongnized as such, they changed the definition. To a prolifer, who believes that life begins when the sperm and ovum meet, preventing implantation is indeed a chemical abortion. You may not consider it as such, but to “us” it is. Life is life, no matter how small.
As for IVF…well, I think you know how we stand on that. And I’ve done the breastfeeding thing with you and the major difference between abortions from the natural hormones of breastfeeding and those related to taking the pill is intent. Intentionally taking a drug that has the possiblity to flush out a fertilized egg is very different from nourishing your child with breastmilk and your body acting as God designed it.
And Sandy: Bravo. I guess we weren’t as smart in our early 20s as these guys are…lol. Gee…we blindly trusted our physicians. Imagine that.
Cameron,
“Um… I wasn’t aware of that, but we’re talking about the application of the word abortifacient. As far as I know, nobody’s changed the definition of abortion and pregnancy, and preventing implantation after conception is not abortion. Is deciding against implantation of a fertilized IVF embryo abortion too? How about breast-feeding?”
Actually, they *did* alter the definition of pregnancy. By changing when a pregnancy is medically recongnized as such, they changed the definition. To a prolifer, who believes that life begins when the sperm and ovum meet, preventing implantation is indeed a chemical abortion. You may not consider it as such, but to “us” it is. Life is life, no matter how small.
As for IVF…well, I think you know how we stand on that. And I’ve done the breastfeeding thing with you and the major difference between abortions from the natural hormones of breastfeeding and those related to taking the pill is intent. Intentionally taking a drug that has the possiblity to flush out a fertilized egg is very different from nourishing your child with breastmilk and your body acting as God designed it.
And Sandy: Bravo. I guess we weren’t as smart in our early 20s as these guys are…lol. Gee…we blindly trusted our physicians. Imagine that.
Cameron,
“Um… I wasn’t aware of that, but we’re talking about the application of the word abortifacient. As far as I know, nobody’s changed the definition of abortion and pregnancy, and preventing implantation after conception is not abortion. Is deciding against implantation of a fertilized IVF embryo abortion too? How about breast-feeding?”
Actually, they *did* alter the definition of pregnancy. By changing when a pregnancy is medically recongnized as such, they changed the definition. To a prolifer, who believes that life begins when the sperm and ovum meet, preventing implantation is indeed a chemical abortion. You may not consider it as such, but to “us” it is. Life is life, no matter how small.
As for IVF…well, I think you know how we stand on that. And I’ve done the breastfeeding thing with you and the major difference between abortions from the natural hormones of breastfeeding and those related to taking the pill is intent. Intentionally taking a drug that has the possiblity to flush out a fertilized egg is very different from nourishing your child with breastmilk and your body acting as God designed it.
And Sandy: Bravo. I guess we weren’t as smart in our early 20s as these guys are…lol. Gee…we blindly trusted our physicians. Imagine that.
So, BC is a bad thing? I am on it for medical reasons. Got put on it at 14 for medical reasons. Is that bad now?
@Midnite: Of course it’s bad to be on BC for any reason. You are pretty much condemned to get breast cancer and you are killing pre-babies!
Midnite: Of course you aren’t “bad”.
If you were a prolifer, I’d tell you this: Taking BCPs puts you at risk for early abortions. If you need to be on it for medical reasons and you are having sex, use another form of BC.
But since you are a pro-choicer, I assume you have no qualms about it. Then I’m not going to argue with you. If you turn to the prolife side, then I would hope you would take issue with it.
Of course, I would rather that folks didn’t take them. But that argument won’t appeal to you.
I’ll tell you, I get more upset with prolifers who condemn abortions but herald the wonders of BCPs. They are simply being ignorant. Until the prolife side takes a stand on BCPs and the lies we are being told from pharmaceutical companies and the ACOG, then we are fighting a loosing battle with regards to abortion.
Midnite: Of course you aren’t “bad”.
If you were a prolifer, I’d tell you this: Taking BCPs puts you at risk for early abortions. If you need to be on it for medical reasons and you are having sex, use another form of BC.
But since you are a pro-choicer, I assume you have no qualms about it. Then I’m not going to argue with you. If you turn to the prolife side, then I would hope you would take issue with it.
Of course, I would rather that folks didn’t take them. But that argument won’t appeal to you.
I’ll tell you, I get more upset with prolifers who condemn abortions but herald the wonders of BCPs. They are simply being ignorant. Until the prolife side takes a stand on BCPs and the lies we are being told from pharmaceutical companies and the ACOG, then we are fighting a loosing battle with regards to abortion.
Midnite: Of course you aren’t “bad”.
If you were a prolifer, I’d tell you this: Taking BCPs puts you at risk for early abortions. If you need to be on it for medical reasons and you are having sex, use another form of BC.
But since you are a pro-choicer, I assume you have no qualms about it. Then I’m not going to argue with you. If you turn to the prolife side, then I would hope you would take issue with it.
Of course, I would rather that folks didn’t take them. But that argument won’t appeal to you.
I’ll tell you, I get more upset with prolifers who condemn abortions but herald the wonders of BCPs. They are simply being ignorant. Until the prolife side takes a stand on BCPs and the lies we are being told from pharmaceutical companies and the ACOG, then we are fighting a loosing battle with regards to abortion.
Dear confused Sandy,
“Thanks to the left wing nuts, our society has been lead to believe that babies in the womb are just blobs of tissue which is yet another missomer indicative of the left wing bumper sticker rhetoric.”
I agree that it is not just a blob of tissue, and I always call people on it when they attempt to belittle the nature of the fetus unfairly. However, unlike abortifacient, they are not pretending/disseminating “blob of tissue” as though it
PB&J
“Actually, they *did* alter the definition of pregnancy.”
Get your story straight! Is it conception or pregnancy? Acording to your original post, you said “conception.” Pregnancy is and has always been upon implantation. And changing the definition of conceptiont to coincide with pregnancy, does not change the definition of pregnancy, or abortion, by any stretch of the imagination.
“Intentionally taking a drug that has the possiblity to flush out a fertilized egg is very different from nourishing your child with breastmilk and your body acting as God designed it.”
I love this stuff.
So… if a woman breast feeds her kid until the kid is 5-10 years old??? How about if she just continues to pump her breasts after weaning the kid??? Is it unnatural for a woman to not want to be pregnant all the time? Is it OK to have sex with someone that
PB&J: Yes I am on it for medical reasons, but yes I am sexually active and yes we use another form of birth control (condom).
I have to have BC to control my periods and my ovarian cysts. It is physically too painful for me not to be on BC pills.
Hisman – sorry it’s late but I just wanted to tell you my experiences with BC. I began taking BC at 16 (while still a virgin) because I had been having VERY painful periods since I was ten and they would make it impossible for me to even walk, let alone attend school. As a result it seriously messed up my life. When I began taking Yasmin I still get bad cramps but I am able to stand and walk and concentrate in school. It has really been a lifesaver. A few months ago my gyno decided to put me on Yaz. It was awful and I would get sick to my stomach, very moody and headachs. I switched back to Yasmin and it was wonderful as usual. So I want to tell you if it doesn’t seem to work for your daughter she may just be taking the wrong pill.
About breast cancer, sunscreen has been proven to increase the risk of breast cancer because it contains estrogen. Deoderant has been rumored to cause breast cancer. You just have to weigh the risks and benefits. I can take an increased risk of cancer for the benefits I recieve from the pill.
Also regular cardio exercise can reduce your risk for many different cancers and breast cancer because it moves the estrogen faster through the breast.
Hope this helped : )
I know I use condoms too. I told my Mom and she was actually against it saying she thought BC was enough. But I just feel safer keeping sperm out of my body : )
I understand how some people can feel that the pill is an abortifacient, altho this is technically not true, and an estimated three in five fertilization events do not end in implantation. However, I think that, like the PBA, calling for an end to BC pills is an all-or-nothing approach that isnt going to get anywhere. Personally, I had rather women take a theoretical risk that cant even be measured and prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring than to have them stop taking the pill and start having more abortions. I know that ideally people should not have sex if they are not ready for pregnancy, but realistically, I think that striking contraceptives is a dangerous and radical notion that would only further set back the pro-life movement.
Cameron,
I didn’t make my point very well. (two kids at home today etc…)
Let me try this again:
You stated:
“Regarding Sandy’s breast cancer alarmism….
The relative risk of BC related breast cancer ranges from 0.5 to 4.7 cases in 10,000 women… and mortality rates range around 13%. That’s 0.7 to 6.7 deaths among 100,000 women using BC. Pregnancy related mortality has been increasing, and the conservative rate (non-minorities and insured) are about 5.8 in 100,000.
Again, relatively speaking… you are about as likely to die from pregnancy as you are from taking BC pills.”
I posted:
The estimated risk for breast cancer in the general population is about one in eight over a lifetime, according to the National Cancer Institute. A 44-percent increase of this risk would equal out to about one in five, but Dr. Kahlenborn says it’s too soon to judge whether the increased risk associated with oral contraceptives will last over a lifetime.
Cameron,
I realize 1 in 8 women are diagnosed with breast cancer and don’t die from it. I was headed in the direction trying to say that although you are comparing BC/breast cancer DEATHS to pregnancy DEATHS, the point is that rate of breast cancer DIAGNOSIS rises from 1 of 8 to 1 of 5 and that should be considered alarming.
Just because a woman doesn’t DIE from breast cancer does not excuse the statistics that show women who take BC prior to their first pregnancy increase their risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer by 44%.
Who wants to find out they have given themselves an increase of breast cancer by 44%?
Many times young women take BC and don’t yet have a history of their mothers or family members being diagnosed at the time they are taking BC.
I can’t find any statistics on how many women have taken birth control pill, patch, ring etc..
prior to their first pregnancy, which I assume must be very very high.
Do you have any numbers on this??
Also, where did you get your statistics?
I am not that worried about breast cancer. I am trying to deal with one cancer at a time, & considering I dont have that one, I am not gonna worry about it.
JASPER AGREES WITH ABORTION BOMBINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HisMan, 12:04p, said: “Since I know virtually nothing about BC pills, I would like some facts from both sides of the issue so I can counsel my daughter who will eventually get married and I am sure will want to delay having children for awhile.”
HisMan, re: your last statement, why?
The real problem with contraception is it takes God out of the marital bed and makes sex purely sensual.
Read your Bible with an eye toward the concept that God designed sex both for pleasure AND procreation. Clearly, there are numerous examples in the Bible of God orchestrating conception or barrenness. Do you believe this ability of His holds true universally? Do you believe Jeremiah 1:5?
Why would a couple not be open to what God considers a major blessing: children? It boils down to lack of trust (finances, etc.) or selfishness.
Before you pro-aborts misconstrue my words to say I think sex is solely for procreation, let me add this thought.
What is the highest physical feeling, sense of gratification? It must be orgasms. I think this must come closest to describing what heaven will feel like for us – a perpetual orgasm.
If this is true, then all this striving for illicit sexual gratification with all its fallout is ultimately a cheap response akong with consequences to a human hunger for God.
Cameron,
“Get your story straight! Is it conception or pregnancy? Acording to your original post, you said “conception.” Pregnancy is and has always been upon implantation. And changing the definition of conceptiont to coincide with pregnancy, does not change the definition of pregnancy, or abortion, by any stretch of the imagination.”
Now, you know that to us prolifers pregnancy and conception are one in the same. If my husband and I conceive a child, then I am pregnant from the moment the egg and sperm unite. I should know better then to use the terms interchangably with you;)
“So… if a woman breast feeds her kid until the kid is 5-10 years old??? How about if she just continues to pump her breasts after weaning the kid???”
The birth control properties of breastfeeding only truly work if you are exclusively nursing your baby. A 5-10 year old child is not going to nurse nearly enough to prevent your cycles from coming back. Neither would pumping your breasts as no breast pump is as efficient as a baby. And no, I would not nurse my child that long. But in other parts of the world, it is pretty common.
“Is it unnatural for a woman to not want to be pregnant all the time?”
Of course not!
“Is it OK to have sex with someone that
Cameron,
“Get your story straight! Is it conception or pregnancy? Acording to your original post, you said “conception.” Pregnancy is and has always been upon implantation. And changing the definition of conceptiont to coincide with pregnancy, does not change the definition of pregnancy, or abortion, by any stretch of the imagination.”
Now, you know that to us prolifers pregnancy and conception are one in the same. If my husband and I conceive a child, then I am pregnant from the moment the egg and sperm unite. I should know better then to use the terms interchangably with you;)
“So… if a woman breast feeds her kid until the kid is 5-10 years old??? How about if she just continues to pump her breasts after weaning the kid???”
The birth control properties of breastfeeding only truly work if you are exclusively nursing your baby. A 5-10 year old child is not going to nurse nearly enough to prevent your cycles from coming back. Neither would pumping your breasts as no breast pump is as efficient as a baby. And no, I would not nurse my child that long. But in other parts of the world, it is pretty common.
“Is it unnatural for a woman to not want to be pregnant all the time?”
Of course not!
“Is it OK to have sex with someone that
Cameron,
“Get your story straight! Is it conception or pregnancy? Acording to your original post, you said “conception.” Pregnancy is and has always been upon implantation. And changing the definition of conceptiont to coincide with pregnancy, does not change the definition of pregnancy, or abortion, by any stretch of the imagination.”
Now, you know that to us prolifers pregnancy and conception are one in the same. If my husband and I conceive a child, then I am pregnant from the moment the egg and sperm unite. I should know better then to use the terms interchangably with you;)
“So… if a woman breast feeds her kid until the kid is 5-10 years old??? How about if she just continues to pump her breasts after weaning the kid???”
The birth control properties of breastfeeding only truly work if you are exclusively nursing your baby. A 5-10 year old child is not going to nurse nearly enough to prevent your cycles from coming back. Neither would pumping your breasts as no breast pump is as efficient as a baby. And no, I would not nurse my child that long. But in other parts of the world, it is pretty common.
“Is it unnatural for a woman to not want to be pregnant all the time?”
Of course not!
“Is it OK to have sex with someone that
Midnite:
“I have to have BC to control my periods and my ovarian cysts. It is physically too painful for me not to be on BC pills.”
I’m sorry to hear that. Do you have PCOS? I’m just curious.
Midnite:
“I have to have BC to control my periods and my ovarian cysts. It is physically too painful for me not to be on BC pills.”
I’m sorry to hear that. Do you have PCOS? I’m just curious.
Midnite:
“I have to have BC to control my periods and my ovarian cysts. It is physically too painful for me not to be on BC pills.”
I’m sorry to hear that. Do you have PCOS? I’m just curious.
breastfeeding is not a good form of birth control!!! Even if you are 100% nursing.
Luv, yeah I know. That’s why #3 and #4 are only 13 months apart;)
Luv, yeah I know. That’s why #3 and #4 are only 13 months apart;)
Luv, yeah I know. That’s why #3 and #4 are only 13 months apart;)
PB &J I agree with your posts (about birth control and God’s plan) 100%.
ditto!
Thanks Bethany and Luv! And thanks for the congrats above on #5!
Thanks Bethany and Luv! And thanks for the congrats above on #5!
Thanks Bethany and Luv! And thanks for the congrats above on #5!
pb&j i had my fifth 4 months ago, lovin it!
PB&J:
PCOS? What is that?
Polycystic ovarian syndrome. Basically, you have very painful periods and lots of cysts on your ovaries. Do a Google on it. They usually treat the symptoms with BCPs. But I am no expert. I just have a friend who dealt with it.
Polycystic ovarian syndrome. Basically, you have very painful periods and lots of cysts on your ovaries. Do a Google on it. They usually treat the symptoms with BCPs. But I am no expert. I just have a friend who dealt with it.
Polycystic ovarian syndrome. Basically, you have very painful periods and lots of cysts on your ovaries. Do a Google on it. They usually treat the symptoms with BCPs. But I am no expert. I just have a friend who dealt with it.
I am just curious, if BC is against God’s will, why did he allow us to have the knowledge to create them?
Um, dont know. I do have a lot of cysts, and endometreosis, and cervical cancer. I have issues with my reproductive organs, but alas, what is a girl to do?
The same reason He allows us the knowledge to create abortificants like RU-486. Or the knowledge to do partial birth abortions. Just because we have knowledge to do something, doesn’t mean it’s right to do it.
proverbs 12:2 “2 A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.”
Midnite, I’m sorry to hear about those problems. My sister is going through a lot of problems….I don’t think she has cervical cancer but I do think she could have PCOS or endemetriosis, the way she describes the pain. She says it gets so bad some days she can’t get out of bed all day long, and it’s excruciating. I remember when mine were that bad…seems like after each child it got easier and easier, and now I barely feel pain at all on my time of the month. Don’t know if it just changes as you get older or if it had something to do with childbirth. I hope that things will get better for you, and soon!
By the way, it occured to me… I have a friend who had cervical cancer and it was completely removed, and she is fine now. Just wanted to let you know.
@Bethany: Why does he though? Why does he give us this knowledge even though He thinks it’s wrong? Doesn’t he want to protect us? He is a father-figure after all and I don’t know about your dads and what not, but I know my dad shielded me from many bad things for a long time (as did my mother…I didn’t even know where babies came from until middle school).
Bethany-
Mine were not like that when I was younger. It has gotten worse (more painful) as I have gotten earlier. It didnt bother me at all for the first two years or so. But I cant get out of bed for three days. I lay in the fetal position and cry. Which is why I only have mine three times a year. I could never go back to once a month, I wouldnt be able to function for three to four days out of the month, and I dont have the time or energy to deal with it anymore. I am having surgery in the Fall, having part of my cervix removed. I’ll have a 50/50 chance of radiation/chemo. This surgery will make it harder for me to get pregnant and if I do manage to, I’ll have an 85% chance of miscarrying my baby. I never really wanted children until the decision was taking away from me.
oops, gotten more painful as I have gotten older (brain is not functioning today for some reason or another)
I am so sorry, Midnite. :( :( :(
I will pray for you.
I dont thinking praying for an agnostic will help (at least it didnt the first time I had surgery for cervical cancer). But then again, you never know. Pray away if you feel the need.
@Bethany: Why does he though? Why does he give us this knowledge even though He thinks it’s wrong? Doesn’t he want to protect us? He is a father-figure after all and I don’t know about your dads and what not, but I know my dad shielded me from many bad things for a long time (as did my mother…I didn’t even know where babies came from until middle school).
Rae, God didn’t make robots… He gave us the choice to choose good or evil from the time Adam and Eve were created. Of course he wants us to be protected…however, he will not force us to do His will. He will encourage us, he will teach us, but He will not force you to do anything. Would you rather be a robot, who has no control over their life and has no ability to decide fo or would you rather be given the choice to do right or wrong, and be educated about your decisions? Isn’t that what you’ve been fighting for all along?
Btw, I was also like you, only I was even more sheltered than that, if you can believe it. I had a lot of catching up to do once I got married.
I dont thinking praying for an agnostic will help (at least it didnt the first time I had surgery for cervical cancer). But then again, you never know. Pray away if you feel the need.
Have a little faith…you will overcome this! (((hugs)))
@Bethany: I’m taking this out of the context of abortion (choices and what not…) and asking why God wanted us to have free will? Why does he only encourage us to do what he wants instead of making us?
@Bethany: I’m taking this out of the context of abortion (choices and what not…) and asking why God wanted us to have free will? Why does he only encourage us to do what he wants instead of making us?
Rae, this link below should explain better what I feel about this subject…they are very good questions, and I appreciate them…. I hope these answers will help you to see where I’m coming from on this:
http://www.carm.org/questions/suffering.htm
midnite, thank you so much for sharing your struggles! i’m sure it’s not easy and i will be praying for you also!
rae, i wish i could make my kids do everything i want them to and exactly the way i want them to. Fortunately, i can’t, it really wouldn’t be a lot of fun if i could. i think it’s a lot of the same thing.
@Luvmy5kids: My parents did make me do everything they wanted me to, and when I rebelled they medicated me to calm me down to be pliable and become what they wanted me to be. There was a reason I wasn’t grounded or punished between after I turned 14 and that reason was medication.
Though I do see your point.
I mean, my parents let me get away with little things every once and awhile, but the big things were a no-no (ie if I ever failed a class, let’s just say my arse would be toast). Why wouldn’t God be the same way? Let us get away with little things (though I’m not sure what God would consider “little things”) but keep us from doing bad things like murder, rape etc?
I don’t rae, my husband and i discussing it :)
i mean “i don’t know”
sorry
Rae:
Our parents are fallen:
We are fallen:
We cannot compare our parents’ judgement of us to God’s judgement of us. He loves us more than our parents ever could, however, He holds us to a standard of perfection which can be met only through the shed blood of Christ and our acceptance of His sacrifice of Himself on the cross.
One sin is enough to send us to hell for eternity. It’s because God is holy beyond our understanding and for Him to let one sin taint his character would cause the universe to implode, explode, whatever. That is why He threw satan out of heaven, who at one time was God’s most beautiful angel.
That’s why the price of our salvation was paid at the extremely high cost of the life of God’s own Son, Jesus Christ….for every single one of us and every single one of our sins, big and small.
It’s also why, if we reject the offer of salvation, God has no problem telling us to depart from Him forever.
This is not a fiary tale as some have suggested as the appearance, life, and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are well documented.
@HisMan: I’m sorry, but that doesn’t really answer my question. Why did God give us free will? Why does he give us the option to sin if he loves us so much?
Rae, my understanding is that God created humans because he was lonely and wanted someone to love Him. If He didnt give you the option to choose to do as He asks because you love Him and want to please Him, what would be the point in having created you? Forced love is very empty and unsatisfying, paling in comparison to a chosen and proven love. Thats why arranged marriages always lose out to true lovers in the movies. =)
I think I’ll just bury my head in the sand :)
Sandy,
Just give up the attempt at statistics… you clearly don’t have a capacity for it.
Do you really think people just started using BCP today, or is it that you think you know what percentage of the 1 in 8 took BCP?? The 44% are already among the 1 in 8 that will develop breast cancer “in their life time.” You must seperate from the 1 in 8 the number of breast cancer among non-BCP users, then calculate the rate for BCP users based on that number… NOT BY TREATING THE OVERALL NUMBER of 1 in 8 with 44%. This is why I used annual rates, and opposed to life-time totals. Also, assuming a majority of the 1 in 8 are BC users… 1 in 8 is probably pretty close to the rate for BC users.. and it’s probably something like 1 in 10 for non-BC users, if these findings are actually correct. I don’t know how else to explain this to you. In conclusion, your foolish version of statistics does not counter my comparison to pregnancy risk “rates”.
BTW… 20% of the breast cancer victims are premenapausal. Taking that into consideration, pregnancy related mortality rates are higher than premenapausal breast cancer mortality rates associated with BC.
Except for the 1 in 33 number, and rates of pregnancy-related mortality, I got all my numbers from the introduction of to the article YOU PROVIDED. Did you read it?
I would agree that nobody wants to get breast cancer, however I didn’t want to crunch any and every qualitative numbers for ever possible pregnancy and breast-cancer outcome… and since mortality is the primary concern with breast-cancer, I choose to stick with that. No doubt non-lethal breast-cancer is far more troubling though than non-lethal pregnancy complications.
Rae,
@Bethany: I’m taking this out of the context of abortion (choices and what not…) and asking why God wanted us to have free will? Why does he only encourage us to do what he wants instead of making us?
Because He LOVES us. Would you want a “relationship” with someone who always did exactly and only what you told them to do?
Would you marry someone who was with you because they didn’t have a choice? Would you be best friends with someone who was only there because they had to be?
The thing that makes a relationship a “relationship” is the fact that both parties come to the table willingly.
As a parent, one of the hardest things I have had to do is to let the older ones screw up! But I love them enough to realize that the lessons learned best are the lessons learned from experience. So I give them the freedom to take on my values or reject them. It won’t have any effect on my “love” for them, but it sure can affect our “relationship”. I just have to trust that one day they will see things the way they were brought up. (Actually, on the “BIG” issues, they do.) The best “gift” I can give them is their freedom. The best “gift” they can give me, is using their freedom to make “right” choices.
God loves you, and He loves you enough to allow you to “choose” to love Him back.
Aren’t you guys all about “choice”? I’d think you’d be all over this. Now if you had no choice, then I could understand you complaining…being forced into something and all that…but a pro Choicer complaining because they were given a “Choice” seems kind of ironic to me. No?
He gave Himself to us, and invites us to join Him. But it is only an invitation. Ultimately, where that relationship goes is up to you. Just as it is with any relationship.
mk
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp
I left this link in the topic above, but I figure it would mean more in this blog. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike would benefit from viewing this study. Also, it is rather more unbiased than most sources, as it comes from the American Cancer Society. Enjoy and ponder. :)
Cameron,
No. The statistics you provided were not a part of the article I posted.
Again, you can skew numbers however you want to make anything look how you want it to be perceived.
Since you are such a genious with numbers and statistics, maybe you can explain how “statistically speaking” how we have been told for the last 30 years that abortion is safer than childbirth which we now know is incorrect.
Death Rate by Abortion Is 2.95 Higher Than Death Rate by Childbirth (AJOG,3/2004)
@MK: It still doesn’t make sense to me, as to why if he loves us so much, he would give us the choice to sin. Sure, I’m glad we have free will and what not, but it still doesn’t make sense to me, and I doubt it ever will, which is probably why I’ll continue to be agnostic. :)
Rae,
If I told you that Jesus had written a new law that said from now on, every one will do exactly as I say and have no choice in the matter…would you actually have an easier time believing and accepting Him?
And while I’m thinking about it, do you believe in Him but reject Him or do you just not believe that He is real? Sort of like the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus? A myth?
Sandy
“No. The statistics you provided were not a part of the article I posted.”
Yes, and my daddy’s bigger than yours. I can’t help you if you can’t/won’t read it and simply resort to vacuous denials.
“Again, you can skew numbers however you want to make anything look how you want it to be perceived.”
Pretty straight forward. No skewing. Claiming your chances increase from 1 in 8 to 1 in 5 if you take BC is skewing. In fact, If I consider just the 20% premenapausal, I would be surprised if the overal chance of breast cancer, regardless of BC, is approaching that of pregnancy-related mortality.
“how we have been told for the last 30 years that abortion is safer than childbirth which we now know is incorrect.”
What’s the matter? Gotta change the topic? But wait… OMG… a source! Is this an actual effort on your part… contributing substance to an argument…
“Death Rate by Abortion Is 2.95 Higher Than Death Rate by Childbirth”
Who are you and what have you done with our Sandy?
Sounds like you are citing Gissler’s study in Finland. You are such a tool! This is why you should go the horses mouth (the actual research paper), rather than ignorantly parroting what you can cut and paste from you biased and dishonest web sites.
Gissler studied death in general, not death as a result of pregnancy or abortion. Generally, if you have kids, you are less likely to die accidentally and more likely to take care of yourself and seek medical attention when you need it. Had you actually read the study rather than being such a foolish tool, you would have noticed that women who’ve never been pregnant had a higher death rate than those who’d induced abortions (57 vs. 51 per 100,000 respectively)
@#$%ing WAKEUP!!!!!
Here… try these on for size…
Pregnancy related mortality
“12.9 per 100,000 births” Berg et al. Ob&Gy 2003
“7.6 per 100,000 births” Grimes 2006 AMJOBG
Abortion-related mortality
“overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100,000”
Bartlett et al. 2004 Ob&Gy 103:729-737
“less than one death per 100,000 abortions”
Strauss et al. CDC 2004
“0.567 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions”
Grimes 2006 AMJOBG
Just fricken think about what you’re saying for minute sandy… really think about it. Abortion… one doctor.. in and out. Pregnancy… surgical staff, numerous visits, lengthy stays… Just having a inkling of reality, what in hell makes you think abortion would be more dangerous than pregnancy?
Consult your magic eight ball… or whatever the hell you think is a legitimate resource and try not to waste peoples time with your ignorance.
Cam: “what in hell makes you think abortion would be more dangerous than pregnancy?”
for the fetus, yes I’d say pregancy is alot more dangerous, let’s abort!
@MK: No, that’s not what I’m thinking at all. I’m wondering why God gave us free will in the first place if he knew that we would sin and therefore hurt him. And I wonder, how could Jesus make a law like that? He’s not God, sure he’s God’s son (or an entity? The trinity confuses me so much, my atheist friends asked me a few days ago to explain the purpose of the Holy Spirit and I was like, ummm…it’s the essence of God? I am pretty sure that’s not correct, and I told them that…gah!) but not God and I thought only God made the rules. So to answer your question, if God made it so that we all had no choice but to believe in him, he could make it so by taking away our free will could he not?
As for the last thing, I’m definitely open to the idea there is a God, heck, I’d go as far as to consider myself a Diest, but I have issues with the Bible (I honestly don’t believe it is the Word of God) and if you haven’t noticed, I have major issues with religion in general. So I don’t necessarily reject God per se, I reject certain portrayals of God though, because they truly don’t make sense to me. Does this make sense? Probably not, I’m still working through it myself. But I suppose the fact that I may believe in God but not the Bible is just an excuse for me to sin without fear, but that is not the case. I do try to live a good life, I really do, I was raised Catholic and some of my morals are in fact derived from Christianity/Catholicism but yeah. :)
I’ve started to become mistrustful (is that a word?) of organized religions as well, basically out of bad experiences with religious leaders. I see too many people bending their idea of God to what fits how they view the world and other people. I know a lot of people who believe that the bible is straight from God’s mouth to the page, but I find it difficult to disregard the fact that it has been translated and re-translated and re-translated still over years and years.
what in hell makes you think abortion would be more dangerous than pregnancy?
Oh, I don’t know……documented cases of unsterile blood caked floors that have not been cleaned for weeks, unsanitized surgical tools left in the open,used bloddy rusted sugical tools left in out in the open, unlicensed quacks pretending to be doctors, women sent home with perforated uteri, vital signs not checked prior to the procedure, lacerated cervixs, infection due to baby remains left in the uterus.
RU486 deaths,
Cases of women deemed in an emergent situation at a clinic so let’s call 911 but ask them NOT to turn the lights or sirens on.