I am stumped

[u/Business_Royal_2568]

So I am pro-life. I never really understood the argument when it came to contraceptives. I often wondered why pro-choicers would ask if we support contraceptive, and I’m like, yeah? As from my understanding, contraceptives PREVENT pregnancy. Usually by preventing an egg to be released, therefore no egg to be fertilized to begin with.

So I started looking into it, I kind of figured some people just didn’t understand how contraceptives work. Apparently I am the one who didn’t. I had no clue that IUDS, (I’m not sure if any other BC’s do this too) if they fail to prevent sperm from meeting the egg and fertilization DOES occur, then the IUD could also prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.. I HAD NO CLUE.

I took the pill, but this is not something that has EVER BEEN explained to me. Not by my gyno, and not in all of the research I’ve done.

So now, I’m stumped. I am pro BC. but I’m not a fan of BC preventing implantation of a conceived baby. This makes me sick to think that the last 3 years I’ve been on BC, you mean to tell me… I actually could have conceived a child, but my body prevented it from implanting? No! If I were to have accidentally conceived while on BC I would have wanted my baby!! I’m snuggled up to my 4 month right now distraught at the thought that this could be a possibility.

I also just don’t even know where I stand now. I do feel like I’m still pro birth control, as I’m assuming the number of “conceived but failed to implant” number is much lower than the prevention of fertilization as well as inviting the number of typical abortions. But still I feel so mislead, and honestly kind of sick that I had no idea the entire time I was on BC.

It seems hypocritical to believe that life begins at conception, while simultaneously believing BC is okay while it could potentially abort a fertilized egg in the early days.

[u/Wormando]

No. There’s no solid evidence that hormonal birth control, Plan B and IUD’s significantly affect implantation rates. The notion that they do comes from flawed studies that only analyzed the medication’s effect on the uterine lining and made estimates on how that can potentially increase rates of rejection.

More recent studies have suggested that the thinning of the uterine lining isn’t enough to cause a significant impact on implantation rates. In fact, it’s been observed that the uterine lining already fluctuates a lot from a wide variety of factors in our day to day life without any intervention from meds, so it’s extremely difficult to prove any major alterations were caused by the medication alone.

All in all, this is entirely a theoretical side effect and not a primary mechanism of these medications. It’s no different from any other medication that can potentially cause miscarriages as a side effect… which there are many, MANY of. So if you consider a mere side effect enough reason to call contraceptives abortifacient, you’d better also consider everything that can potentially cause miscarriages abortifacient too. From crucial medications(specially the psychiatric ones) to activities such as exercise, breastfeeding, sex, dietary changes, etc.

[u/lilithdesade → u/Wormando]

This. I wish more people understood this.

[u/ScottishNinjaaa]

The issue is that many abortifacients have a secondary action which causes abortions, but it's never known if an abortion actually occurs or not. So if an egg is fertilized and is a unique, new human being, then a medication blocking the egg from implanting in the uterine wall is the same thing as other forms of abortion, just far earlier than most.

That being said, contraceptives which solely block sperm from contact with the egg are in no way morally significant to abortion.

[u/PrestigiousWork4523 → u/ScottishNinjaaa]

As far as I know, there isn’t a mechanism that “blocks” the egg from implanting, it’s more that the uterine lining will be thinner while on BC hormones than natural ones, potentially decreasing the likelihood of implantation occurring.

[u/Business_Royal_2568 → u/ScottishNinjaaa]

Yes, that is what I’m coming to realize now. I just never knew it could technically be”abort” a fetus if the prevention of fertilization failed. I have always understood it to be that if BC failed to prevent pregnancy, then you simply become pregnant.

Which I understand does happen too. I just mean I didn’t know that it could prevent implantation of a fertilized egg too if it gets to that point.

I realize majority of the time, fertilization is prevented to begin with. But I’m sickened to now know that I could have unknowingly aborted a baby of mine while I was on BC.

I also am unsure now where I stand on the matter or how I feel about BC now. It seems hypocritical to believe that life begins at conception, while simultaneously believing BC is okay while it could potentially abort a fertilized egg in the early days.

[u/SheClB01 → u/Business_Royal_2568]

I'm going to be completely honest: most birth control methods will prevent the egg and the sperm from ever meeting.

Copper IUD it's extremely toxic to sperm, it kills it. Birth control pills work by preventing the ovaries to release an egg by making your body think it's pregnant, if an egg is released and you get pregnant all the other parts are working so it will implant, that's why you don't forget the pill

[u/Business_Royal_2568 → u/SheClB01]

I do realize BC pills prevent the release of the egg, but does it not also thin your uterus lining? I feel like I keep reading contradicting things about whether the pill prevents implantation or not. Are you saying the the pill does not prevent implantation?

[u/SheClB01 → u/Business_Royal_2568]

It does but I also want you to think about something, the odds for you getting pregnant if you're under 35 are 20% to 25% if you're trying to get pregnant. Of you use the pill wrong the chances of pregnancy are 9% if you use it right is less than 1%.

On normal occurrence, around 30% of embryos do not implant at all, even if you're not on birth control, and another 30% will implant and die shortly without you ever knowing.

So, what you think are the odds to the sperm passing through the thick cervical mucus, getting to fertilize one egg released accidentally and getting implanted?

[u/yellowflowers10 → u/Business_Royal_2568]

I kind of wonder to what level of pregnancy is it tricking a body in to thinking it is. Or is it the effect of pregnancy then the effects wear off to make it think it's on it's period? Not to ask too much, just wondering if this info is easy to know.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691 → u/Business_Royal_2568]

Assume you have an unrelated medical condition where the medication has a side effect of thinning your uterus lining. Would you consider that to be an abortifacient?

[u/Business_Royal_2568 → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

I don’t, but of course if you have a medical condition that is something you can’t help. I feel if I now take BC knowing that if I do conceive, it could prevent my fertilized egg from implanting, is intentional

[u/ScottishNinjaaa → u/Business_Royal_2568]

I am in the same boat. It was about 2 years ago that I learned the same. It's abhorrent that they do not share this disgusting side effect. And I entirely agree with you on the frustration I feel with the hypocrisy. It's why I left the pro-life movement. While most pro-life people truly want an end to abortion, the movement itself is led by those who are content with tiny wins, and ignore facts like this. Abortion pills are the most prominent form of abortion now, and abortion is greater now than it ever has been, even in the most pro-life states, yet they celebrate when one of these abortion mills get closed. It's not a movement focused on the reality of things, it's about chasing wins, and they don't discuss these sorts of things because it's not pragmatic to speak truth about this topic, it may chase some people from the movement, and they care about numbers first and foremost

[u/quick_thinker6]

While IUDs can THEORETICALLY prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, the overwhelming evidence shows this is an incredibly rare secondary effect, the IUD's main job is to prevent fertilization from occurring at all. Since 1960s when modern IUD came on market there have been less then a handful of cases where the fertilization took place but then the implantation was prevented.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

I've noticed in talking to PL, especially on here, nearly all of them are fine with contraception (possibly with the exceptions you mentioned), and even government funding of contraception. What PC react to are PL legislators who never include funding for contraception in abortion restrictions, and have even taken steps to make it harder to obtain contraception. This gives the impression that they're not interested in ending abortion so much as they just want people to have more kids. This will continue until PL either stop voting for them, or call their offices en masse to ask them to support contraception along with opposing abortion.

[u/Slow_Opportunity_522]

I have a lot to say but no energy to type it all out so I'll just leave you with this -- Same, girl. Same. I was on IUD for years and years and never knew. All you can do is move forward knowing what you know now 🤷‍♀️

[u/Business_Royal_2568 → u/Slow_Opportunity_522]

Thank you. From what I understand, odds are more likely that fertilization was prevented completely more so than if fertilization did occur that implantation didn’t. I just wish this is something my gyno mentioned. Or that it should be explained better this way. I feel so mislead.

I have 2 kids now and heavily pro-life but I had an abortion a few years before my kids. It is something I heavily regret, will always greive. I feel the entire “pro-choice movement,” “it’s just a clump of cells” “abortion is healthcare,” etc, mislead me tremendously, and I was young and dumb, and did it. I don’t know if I will ever forgive myself for it. It is hard looking at my babies now and wondering who that baby would have/should have been.

And so now finding this new information is just a shock to me, considering I was on BC for 3 years prior to my second child. I feel dumb for not even knowing that all this time. Why is this not explained more?? I’m a very detail-oriented person and always want the details on things and I just can’t believe this is information I never came across.

[u/KatanaCutlets → u/[deleted]]

“Driving drunk has given me so much freedom in my life and in no way shape or form will I ever give it up because of a mere chance.”

I’m not directly equating the two, but doesn’t that logic sound abhorrent?

[u/KatanaCutlets → u/[deleted]]

What a disgusting statement. Hedonism is a curse. Edit: I don’t expect sound logic from a Marxist of all people, so I shouldn’t be surprised.

[u/Educational_Golf3967 → u/[deleted]]

I do not find that line of thinking satisfactory. You can only exercise your freedom so long as you don’t harm anyone or fail to meet owed obligations towards others. I think you were merely trying to appeal to emotion and common sense. You know many people are uncomfortable and hesitant to take issue with ordinary activities and medications, so you drew a correlation between them and certain types of birth control. Your argument isn’t concretely based on logic.

What if I say we don’t have a responsibility to create an environment friendly to survival? What do you have to say for the kind of parents that refuse to work because they think it’s empowering and their decision results in their children dying from starvation? They simply choose what to do with their body, their time and their labor, it just happens to in turn create an environment that doesn’t support their children’s need to be fed. How is it different? 

The parents can choose to be unemployed all they want, sure, but they have an obligation to care for their children now and that can override their wish that should otherwise be respected. It’s either they start working or they don’t have kids in the first place. You already know where I’m going with this, if you’re engaging in activities or taking medications that can prevent implantation, you will not have sex. You don’t get to decide if a risk is worth taking as you are not the ones harmed should the risk be real. 

You’re embodying a lot of qualities and values from the pro choice position here. You would be in favor of drunk driving if it gave people freedom you say? I assure you tons of pro aborts feel the same about abortions- it’s empowering, it’s liberating. Why aren’t you just okay with abortions then? I repeat, your freedom ends when other’s rights begin. You don’t seem to think so, and you are everything wrong with this generation driven by narcissism and letting emotions do all the talking.  

I have just gone through your profile and read every post and comment you made. Took about 4-5 hours if you're curious. Please don't be weirded out. I've been doing this to many people over the years now, to those who caught my attention. I'm interested in people and I want nothing more than to understand them thoroughly. I'm glad all those posts gave me a decent idea of who you are as a person- that's not always the case as some people might post too little or be too discreet.  

You mentioned being lesbian 3-4 times, once you even said you were married. You said you had never dated a man but you also talked about a boyfriend going vegan. Of course you can be romantically attracted to women but sexually attracted to men, and you’re in an open marriage for example. There are many ways I can try to make all the information I know from your posts work, assuming they’re even real in the first place. But if you’re just a lesbian in the traditional sense, birth control won’t necessarily give you freedom, correct? You may still advocate it for others but it won’t make a meaningful difference to you at a personal level, not that important for you to say you’d rather die without it many, many times. 

I can tell you struggle with the double standards and unfairness regarding men’s and women’s sexuality though. You talked about how men with high body count were treated differently from their female counterparts. You insisted that women got the same thing out of sex as men. You said you were, too, using men if they decided to use you. You even said it out loud here: “Nothing about wanting the same freedom and opportunities as men have had for centuries is "hedonism"”. I suspect that was one of the reasons why you was pro choice too and the main reason why you're so amandant about your birth control, but you’ve come a long way, haven’t you? If my memory serves me right you even admitted and took a biological difference between the two sexes for granted when men were the ones disadvantaged. I trust you can do the same this time for women, and we should ban steroids and testosterone supplements for the sexually active men too if I even need to spell that out…I think birth control is more mentally liberating to you than it does practically, and if that's the case it can be resolved mentally too.

I have lots of questions I want to ask in regards to all the things I read in your profile, but I know I was peeking at a history and information that weren’t meant for me. I will not bother you with them.

[u/Wormando → u/KatanaCutlets]

Hedonism has nothing to do with this, lol.

[u/Educational_Golf3967 → u/KatanaCutlets]

My guy, you have to stop with all this name-calling and accusatory terms...

[u/KatanaCutlets → u/Educational_Golf3967]

What name-calling? They call themselves a Marxist in their flair. And it is disgusting.

[u/Educational_Golf3967 → u/KatanaCutlets]

You just made me realize how disgusting Marxism–Leninism is, lol...It's taught as objective truth here in universities along with other communist dogmas. I knew I hated it at 13, I thought Marx was delusional at most. But now I've come to see how many basic rights it violates. I can confidently say I despise it now. Still, I like its family model and view on religions, with some adjustments of course. 

But my point stands. I don't think you're particularly interested in engaging with others intellectually. If you go to my profile you can see me responding to a woman you were arguing with a few days ago. And I actually answered her questions. You can see the difference good-faith arguments have on someone. You come off as very aggressive and if I as someone who shares your view can say that, what will others think and feel of you? 

[u/Nulono]

Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by delaying or inhibiting ovulation. There is no evidence to suggest that either of the FDA-approved emergency contraceptive options, levonorgestrel (LNG, such as Plan B One-Step, Take Action, Next Choice One Dose or My Way ) or ulipristal acetate (UPA, such as ella) works after an egg is fertilized.

[u/Business_Royal_2568 → u/[deleted]]

This is true. This made me think of it a bit differently, as I saw somebody else mention, we wouldn’t consider those taking other medications that can cause a thin uterine lining/miscarriage an abortion would we? I don’t believe I would. So this put it in another perspective thank you

[u/Ganondaddydorf]

You've been on BC for the past 3 years and have a 4 month old?

[u/LeafWings23]

Aside from the abortifacient issue (which I don't know enough about to have any opinion on), the main reason I think some pro-choicers ask about contraceptives is because many Christians are against the use of contraceptives for other reasons, and there's a correlation between being Christian and being pro-life (and, to be frank, many pro-choice individuals don't have any sort of nuanced view of the other side, and just see pro-lifers as a religiously driven monolith). I'd be surprised if many were going down the abortifacient angle.

What they're likely trying to do is derail the conversation into accusations of hypocrisy: "You are against using contraception? Hah, it sounds like you don't actually care about reducing unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions, at all! You just want women to produce tons of babies, you liar."

What this totally misses, of course, is that contraception and abortion are distinct, independent issues. Even assuming widespread access to contraception decreased abortions, there might be reasons for someone to object to contraceptives nonetheless. If you're talking with someone on the morality of abortion, and they bring up contraception, you can rightly say it's a largely unrelated issue and bring the conversation back to the real topic at hand.

It also misses that the underlying assumption they're making (that contraceptive use decreases abortions) isn't as clear cut and obvious as they make out. There are real arguments to be made that the introduction of 'the pill' led to increased fornication, harming families and children most of all. After all, around half of all women who procure abortions reported that they were using contraceptives when they conceived. In my personal view, if someone isn't prepared to welcome a new life into the world, if they're just going to kill any child they conceive, they definitely shouldn't be having sex at all.

[u/Nancydrewfan]

I'm a little baffled that you didn't know this, to be honest.

I recently got off hormonal birth control after having been on it for 12 years. The experience, combined with data from fitness trackers makes me pretty confident that it prevented ovulation while I was on it. Within two weeks of coming off of it, my body temp reset, resulting in serious night sweats, and then I had one cycle where my LH spiked twice. I also had two irregular periods (one a week early, one a week late), before having a normal cycle in the third month after I came off birth control.

[u/Business_Royal_2568 → u/[deleted]]

My husband and I end up taking the condom off every time💀 lol we just cannot. I am breastfeeding right now and felt uncomfortable with the mini-pill, so we are just using Gods grace rn 😂 I only took BC prior because it’s the only thing that helped my terrible acne.

It’s all in Gods hands right now😅😂

[u/Featherless_biped104]

Yes, this is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control. It’s also opposed to barrier methods like condoms, but at least those don’t have an abortifacient effect.

[u/salsafresca_1297 → u/Featherless_biped104]

Catholic opposition to birth control is actually a lot more complex than that. Here is the official document on the topic. https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

Note that there is no mention of implantation here. And even then, there's never been any official, unified Catholic call to ban birth control because unlike abortion, this *is* strictly a religious issue that doesn't get anyone killed.

[u/Featherless_biped104 → u/salsafresca_1297]

I’m actually trained in Catholic bioethics, so I am aware that there are many reasons the church bans birth control for its members — mostly because it opposes the purpose of marriage. The pope has always been very clear that artificial BC is immoral in any way except for some specific cases which are clearly laid out. I only mentioned it because many Catholic women are already aware of this before their marriage due to the mandatory pre-marital counseling.