Abortion and Politics

[pearson]

That seems to be a stretch.  I don't think that very many people would agree with that.  Abortifacient seems to be a buzz word and should probably not be used in discourse.

Which discourse?  Medical discourse and poltiical discourse are often incongruent.  While "abortifacient" might be used as an epithet to manipulate political discourse (as are terms like "choice" and "hate" and "racism"), it is the correct term in medical discourse when referring to the effect of IUDs on the zygote.

Tom Pearson

[peter_speckhard]

However one terms it and whatever the legal distinctions, there can be no question that we're a society that increasingly organizes itself around the assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

[Norman Teigen]

That seems like a stretch.   

[Charles_Austin]

 Peter writes:
...assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

I comment:
So it is only baby-making orgasms that have value? Don't know where you are going or what is at stake here, for the physical act to which you refer is a - in terms of material "value" - a rather low-priced commodity.
Society seems to "organize itself" around the assumption that getting money for oneself and spending it on oneself is the "highest humanly achievable" good. I find that a greater threat than the presence of a natural God-given physical act of pleasure and relationship.

[resident episcopalian]

Current research in reproductive medicine does not support the claim that the IUD is an abortifacient at all.  Studies done in the last 20 years demonstrate that its primary effect is to change the lining of the cervix and make it difficult for sperm to travel to the egg.  The IUD actually works much earlier in the reproductive process than was thought in the 1970s.  The IUD does not prevent implantation of a zygote, as evidenced by the fact that 1 in 100 IUD users does, in fact, get pregnant.

The idea that the IUD is an abortifacient has long been discredited.  Pro life professionals like yourself will make a better case for abstinence and against teen promiscuity (and abortion) when you are better informed about current medical research on the effects of contraception.

Perhaps the 1970s misconception that the IUD worked to prevent implantation was due to the very high number of fertilized eggs which naturally do not implant.  Depending upon which research you read, the number of fertilized eggs which fail to implant (in non contraceptive users) is between 48 and 80 percent.

[Team Hesse]

Peter writes:
...assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

I comment:
So it is only baby-making orgasms that have value? Don't know where you are going or what is at stake here, for the physical act to which you refer is a - in terms of material "value" - a rather low-priced commodity.
Society seems to "organize itself" around the assumption that getting money for oneself and spending it on oneself is the "highest humanly achievable" good. I find that a greater threat than the presence of a natural God-given physical act of pleasure and relationship.

These two topics are "intimately" related. A number of people are choosing to be childless precisely so they have more money to spend on themselves. I have very little comprehension of the value of that kind of purposefulness.

Lou

[pearson]

Current research in reproductive medicine does not support the claim that the IUD is an abortifacient at all.  Studies done in the last 20 years demonstrate that its primary effect is to change the lining of the cervix and make it difficult for sperm to travel to the egg. 

Yes, that's one way in which IUDs function, particularly when hormonal IUDs are involved.  Copper IUDs, which are far more common than hormonal IUDs, work to prevent implantation of the zygote when fertilization has taken place.

Tom Pearson

[Steverem]

I am not a scientist.  I defer to others who know more about science and biology than I do.

And yet you keep posting . . .

[resident episcopalian]

Tom,
Copper IUDs differ in function from hormonal IUDs but particularly inhibit sperm by creating a toxic environment for them, rather than by preventing implantation. 

Since copper IUDs are longer lasting and cheaper than hormonal they are indeed in wider use in the U.S.

This brief article references several studies done within the past twenty five years which confirm the copper IUD's effect on sperm:

http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/6read/6issues/6network/v20-1/nt2013.html

If you oppose contraception (for teens or anyone), you can certainly make a strong case against it. 
Calling IUDs abortifacients (when they are not) is not necessary.

[Matt Hummel]

Current research in reproductive medicine does not support the claim that the IUD is an abortifacient at all.  Studies done in the last 20 years demonstrate that its primary effect is to change the lining of the cervix and make it difficult for sperm to travel to the egg.  The IUD actually works much earlier in the reproductive process than was thought in the 1970s.  The IUD does not prevent implantation of a zygote, as evidenced by the fact that 1 in 100 IUD users does, in fact, get pregnant.

The idea that the IUD is an abortifacient has long been discredited.  Pro life professionals like yourself will make a better case for abstinence and against teen promiscuity (and abortion) when you are better informed about current medical research on the effects of contraception.

Perhaps the 1970s misconception that the IUD worked to prevent implantation was due to the very high number of fertilized eggs which naturally do not implant.  Depending upon which research you read, the number of fertilized eggs which fail to implant (in non contraceptive users) is between 48 and 80 percent.

The same chemical/physiological reactions that make the uterine wall and cervix hostile to sperm  traveling up make it hostile to zygotes coming down.  An IUD may not have its primary purpose or function the disruption of implantation, but it does nonetheless therefore it is, as I stated a de facto abortifacient.

Just as the Pill, which was not developed to disrupt implantation, has been shown to do so. 

So my question is- given the fact that  some people claim education & ready access to contraception would decrease abortions, does the fact that some contraceptives actually cause abortions cause some people to rethink, at least with regards to some forms of contraception?

[resident episcopalian]

Matt,
I have not found anything published since the 1970s to support your continued claim that the IUD prevents implantation. 
Implantation is a pretty miraculous event anyway, as I mentioned before, so it is pretty hard to claim that the IUD is having a discernible anti-implantation effect when it so efficiently prevents fertilization to begin with.

For whatever it's worth, I studied the abortifacient charge very carefully before rethinking my earlier rejection of the IUD.

[Matt Hummel]

Matt,
For whatever it's worth, I studied the abortifacient charge very carefully before rethinking my earlier rejection of the IUD.

So the answer to my underlying question is "Yes- whether or not a contraceptive is an abortifacientwould affect my thoughts on its use."  Correct?

[resident episcopalian]

Yes Matt, if I there had been good scientific evidence to believe the IUD was abortifacient, we would have selected another method.

My underlying question for you might be, do you suppose it is right to continue telling women that an IUD  is an abortifacient even when the research shows otherwise?

[Matt Hummel]

Yes Matt, if I there had been good scientific evidence to believe the IUD was abortifacient, we would have selected another method.

My underlying question for you might be, do you suppose it is right to continue telling women that an IUD  is an abortifacient even when the research shows otherwise?

A fair question- if shown unequivocally that this is the case, then yes.  The Pro-Life cause's greatest asset that is denied to folks like Planned Parenthood and the the other supporters of the Abortion-Industrial Complex  is the truth.

Now- can you tell me that an IUD does not, in any way shape or form prevent implantation, or simply that in the majority of times it prevents fertilization?

[resident episcopalian]

Matt,

That criteria is pretty stringent.  I cannot even make a conclusive case that my morning multi-vitamin pill does not, in any way shape or form, ever prevent implantation but I am not going to torture myself over the possibility that it might since current scientific evidence does not suggest that it is at all likely.