MarginOfError Posted December 29, 2011 Report Posted December 29, 2011 IUDs…the worst choice. | Abby JohnsonSo when exactly does birth control become abortion? Quote
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Report Posted December 29, 2011 IUDs…the worst choice. | Abby JohnsonSo when exactly does birth control become abortion?When the birth control is applied after conception. That is - the birth control kills a fertilized egg. Quote
applepansy Posted December 29, 2011 Report Posted December 29, 2011 [quote=MarginOfError;644733So when exactly does birth control become abortion?in my opinion... When it destroys life. IUDs destroy life. I didn't read the article. I've known what IUDs do for 30+ years. IUDs are also not the safest option for women. My husband's aunt had to have surgery to remove one from her uterine wall. I could go on with more stories. Let's just say IUDs are not a smart option just because of the risks to the woman. Quote
Suzie Posted December 29, 2011 Report Posted December 29, 2011 I think her point is the use of IUDs on pregnant women. According to her as a worker in Planned Parenthood, they would insert one in order to cause an abortion without anyone noticing. I do not consider IUDs a form of abortion. The whole story is very odd if you ask me... Quote
Jennarator Posted December 29, 2011 Report Posted December 29, 2011 I remember years ago, when I had a sex ed class in school, like 8th grade, they told us how bad IUDs could be. They told us babies have been born with them grown into the skin of the baby. I would never, ever consider one of those. Quote
Shelly200 Posted December 29, 2011 Report Posted December 29, 2011 Most all forms of BC today have a component that is an abortifacient. If someone wants to use birth control that is in no way an abortifacient, then probably condoms would be the best and most easily accessible bet. ... But I'm Catholic, so can't use BC anyway. So as a non-BC user, I'd recommend NFP. Quote
MarginOfError Posted December 29, 2011 Author Report Posted December 29, 2011 I think her point is the use of IUDs on pregnant women. According to her as a worker in Planned Parenthood, they would insert one in order to cause an abortion without anyone noticing. I do not consider IUDs a form of abortion.The whole story is very odd if you ask me...Just about everything Abby Johnson rights is very odd. Quote
MarginOfError Posted December 29, 2011 Author Report Posted December 29, 2011 When the birth control is applied after conception. That is - the birth control kills a fertilized egg.in my opinion... When it destroys life. IUDs destroy life. I didn't read the article. I've known what IUDs do for 30+ years. IUDs are also not the safest option for women. My husband's aunt had to have surgery to remove one from her uterine wall. I could go on with more stories. Let's just say IUDs are not a smart option just because of the risks to the woman.That works if you believe that life begins at conception. For those of us who don't hold that belief, it isn't so clear cut. Quote
MarginOfError Posted December 29, 2011 Author Report Posted December 29, 2011 in my opinion... When it destroys life. IUDs destroy life. I didn't read the article. I've known what IUDs do for 30+ years. IUDs are also not the safest option for women. My husband's aunt had to have surgery to remove one from her uterine wall. I could go on with more stories. Let's just say IUDs are not a smart option just because of the risks to the woman.30+ years ago, IUD's had a design flaw that made them far more dangerous than the current versions. The overwhelming majority of gynecologists in my institution prefer IUDs to oral contraceptives specifically because of reduced risk of side effects. Quote
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Report Posted December 29, 2011 (edited) That works if you believe that life begins at conception. For those of us who don't hold that belief, it isn't so clear cut.We're talking about an article written by Abby Johnson. She's a Catholic convert.Anyway, *dictionary definition of abortion is intentional removal of a fertilized egg. Whether that is wrong or right was not the point of the question - as I saw it. Catholics hold that ALL abortion is wrong. Of course, when the life of the mother is in danger, the death of the fetus is not abortive (not intentional) but consequence of life-saving procedure. LDS hold that not all abortion is wrong. But, whether it is wrong or right, it is still abortion. The dictionary doesn't delve into when embryos gain spirits.*as opposed to miscarriage. Edited December 29, 2011 by anatess Quote
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Report Posted December 29, 2011 I have one. I love it. It has some hormone built into it so that it also has a component of preventing fertilization altogether. If it happens to fail (though it's more reliable that getting your tubes tied), and you discover a pregnancy early enough, it can be removed and the pregnancy will be saved. My doctor is Catholic and we talked about it at length. Medically and morally, it's his favorite BC method. I prayed and felt good about it. The only concern I had is that it can potentially perforate the uterus and cause problems, but it seems like that has a lot to do with the competence of the doctor inserting it. However, I probably wouldn't have risked it for that reason if I wasn't done having kids (the risk being scar tissue if that happened, and therefore risk to other pregnancies). Quote
MarginOfError Posted December 29, 2011 Author Report Posted December 29, 2011 We're talking about an article written by Abby Johnson. She's a Catholic convert.Anyway, *dictionary definition of abortion is intentional removal of a fertilized egg. Whether that is wrong or right was not the point of the question - as I saw it. Catholics hold that ALL abortion is wrong. Of course, when the life of the mother is in danger, the death of the fetus is not abortive (not intentional) but consequence of life-saving procedure. LDS hold that not all abortion is wrong. But, whether it is wrong or right, it is still abortion. The dictionary doesn't delve into when embryos gain spirits.*as opposed to miscarriage.(side note: the medical term for miscarriage is 'spontaneous abortion.' That doesn't really fit your dictionary definition. But then, your dictionary definition is dependent on the choice of dictionary. Other dictionaries (like Merriam-Webster) don't include the term 'intentional.')And now we get into the reasons why articles like Johnson's bother me. If we work on the technical definition of abortion, then yes, an IUD could be very well described as abortifacient. The question is whether or not such an abortion is morally wrong. Specifically, is it morally wrong to ensure these abortions through the use of a device that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting? But abortion is a politically charged term that in the colloquial usage, doesn't match perfectly with the technical definition. I suspect there are a great deal of people who, like me, don't consider a chemically assisted failed implantation to be the same thing as an abortion in the political sense. In this case, is it the responsibility of the reader or the author to clarify what their meaning of the term is?Now, if I were to translate the original question into the language parameters you have defined, it would read, "When is abortion morally acceptable vs morally tolerable vs morally defunct?*"*I think it was a lot less confusing a question under the political usages. Quote
applepansy Posted December 29, 2011 Report Posted December 29, 2011 Originally Posted by applepansy in my opinion... When it destroys life. IUDs destroy life.That works if you believe that life begins at conception. For those of us who don't hold that belief, it isn't so clear cut.30+ years ago, IUD's had a design flaw that made them far more dangerous than the current versions. The overwhelming majority of gynecologists in my institution prefer IUDs to oral contraceptives specifically because of reduced risk of side effects.I've kept up on the research. I still wouldn't recommend one.And I said "In my opinion" Quote
confuzzled Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 I'll add my 2 cents... I have assisted w/ numerous IUD insertions both the Mirena (which has the hormone) and the Copper T which does not. Because these are placed in women who are NOT pregnant I have no issues with assisting. IF they were ever placed w/ the knowledge that the pt was infact pregnant I would not assist the physician. Just my 2 cents... Confuzzled Quote
Backroads Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 Hmm... and I have always been under the impression that contemporary IUDs are quite safe and that a bad brand decades ago gave a bad rap. I like the idea of them... Quote
Jennarator Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 OK, so my story is old, I didn't know there was a big change in them. But I can't wrap my head around the idea of some foreign object in my uterus. Maybe they are safe, but I couldn't do it. Gives me the heebejeebies. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.