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?