Question about BC methods... Fundies?

[FemaleScientist]

In light of Michelle's recent pregnancy news and the Personhood Law, I'm curious what a fundie or fundie-lite's take is on using BC and which methods are acceptable. I can understand where some believe that human life begins at conception, although I don't agree with that view, but that isn't the point of the topic. I'm just curious which methods of BC are acceptable to you. I can understand not using pills, shots, or IUDs. But what about condoms? Pulling out (although I'm sure this one isn't fail-safe by any means)? Any method that helps prevent any type of conception. Are even these methods going against God's Will? Or do most fundies wait to do the deed when they feel like having kids? :? I'm just curious.

[liltwinstar]

I think YLCF did a thing about NFP...they used to link to a site called "for the married ladies" or similar, and I think it was there.

Anyway, I know "hormonal" bc is out, so maybe condoms would be ok? But I'm not sure.

[Beeks]

Maybe the copper iud since it doesn't use hormones? It does raise the chance of miscarriage if you do get pregnant though, so maybe not.

[VeraAnne]

Copper iud can prevent implantation.

[aubrietta]

We had a girl living with us for a month before her wedding. Fundie-medium. Skirts only, not a SAHD, but totally into the submissive stuff. She asked me about BC, and expressed strong dislike for the pill because it "caused abortions". I tried in vain to explain to her this was not the case, and discussed non-hormonal methods (although I'm not a Dr or nurse, I've done a fair bit of counselling in my line of work re: BC, so I know my stuff) and initially she seemed quite sold on cycle charting along with a diaphragm - until I mentioned "spermicide" and then she told me she felt it was "really wrong to kill the sperm like that". I didn't even know what to say. The next day she told me they had decided to use condoms. I looked at her and said "do you think you are somehow saving the sperm's lives by using condoms?" She told me she did.

I realized at that point she was bat-shit crazy and there was no point in telling her anything.

[sandee]

Copper iud can prevent implantation.

yep- I've always thought IUDs (especially copper IUDs) were seen as the birth control method that equated with abortion for these folks.

I'm guessing exclusive breastfeeding would be the only acceptable birth control method for many fundies.

[Guest Anonymous]

Can someone explain to me why some fundies believe that the pill causes abortion? I don't get it.

[sandee]

Can someone explain to me why some fundies believe that the pill causes abortion? I don't get it.

because they may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus

[itsthatonegirl]

Our chosen method is withdrawal. Were it to fail, we would be okay with that. Condoms would be fine too, we just don't like em. ; )

When we are done with kids for sure, vasectomy is what we'll go with.

[Guest Anonymous]

Thanks Sandee.

[VeraAnne]

The pill can prevent implantation of the recently conceived child by changing the lining of the uterus. There is no way to know how frequently this happens, but it is more common with progesterone only pills than combination pills.

[godlytomatosoup]

This is where I'm frustrated with some pro-lifers' rhetoric. If they want to argue that all contraception of any form is wrong because sex should only be within a marriage and done for procreation only, then they should argue that. And if they're arguing that, then I don't want to hear any arguments like "abortions cause cancer" or "the pill causes abortions" to which (if they were true, which they're not) the obvious answer would be "well, what about condoms, then?"

I feel the same way about pro-choicers who fall over themselves to try to prove that a fetus is not a person. I don't think a fetus qualifies as a person either, but it doesn't matter. Person or not, there is no other situation in medical ethics in which you would force one human being to provide life support for another, risking their own life in the process, against their will. You can't even legally force one person to donate bone marrow to another, and that's much less invasive than pregnancy.

[VeraAnne]

The issue with condoms is less about abortion than it is about faithfulness to God. The two get intertwined because nearlt everyone against condoms is also against abortion, but one can certainly be ok with non abortive birth control and be 100% prolife.

[Guest Anonymous]

The pill can prevent implantation of the recently conceived child by changing the lining of the uterus. There is no way to know how frequently this happens, but it is more common with progesterone only pills than combination pills.

That's not really the case. The actual situation is that studies have not been done that prove that the pill *never* works by preventing implantation, but there is little reason to believe that it does.

Don't take it from me though, if you'd rather hear it from a doctor. With bonus info about the morning after pill!

The info about birth control pills and other methods of contraception containing progesterone leading to thinning of the uterine lining is true. That's the information that, back in the early days of hormonal contraception, caused medical experts to speculate that this thin uterine lining might make it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant and that that might be one of the ways in which they prevent pregnancy. That information has since been pretty well debunked. For example, women who conceive while taking the pill should have a higher rate of miscarriage than women who conceive while not on hormonal contraception. They don't. There's also the fact that women at risk for early miscarriage who are treated with progesterone are less likely to miscarry again. Also, if a woman has enough ovarian function to ovulate while on the pill, her ovary will contain a corpus luteum which produces enough progesterone to maintain normal pregnancy until the placenta develops and takes over. So, even if she's on the pill, if she's pregnant, she's got normal amounts of pregnancy hormones coming from the usual places which should override the pill's effects.In other words, it was a theory that is now essentially disproven. Alas, the FDA has very strict rule about labelling and getting them to remove it would cost a fortune and, since the pill manufacturers don't see a lot of people refusing to use their products because if it, they're not going to invest the millions needed to do the study and present the case.

Many people also think the 'morning after' pill causes abortions, it does not. Once again, there's that theoretical risk because a woman who takes it will have bleeding a few days later due to withdrawal. Some take this to mean she will be 'washing out' a fertilized egg. The only problem is that the fertilized egg doesn't even get to the uterus for a week. Anytime a woman is exposed to a high dose of estrogen or progesterone, whether from contraception, menopausal replacement hormones, or even natural ovulation; she will bleed when those hormones are gone. But, here's the thing: we do not conceive immediately after having sex, sperm are tiny and they've got a long way to go to get to the egg. We know from infertility research that a woman is most likely to conceive if she has sex a couple of days before she ovulates. Why? Because sperm can live about 3 days in a woman's reproductive tract while the egg is only viable for about 18 hours. It takes the 'average' sperm 3 days to get to the egg and fertilize it, which happens in the fallopian tubes, BTW. Therefore, if a woman waits until she's already ovulated to have sex, her egg is probably going to be non-viable by the time the sperm gets to it 3 days later. Therefore, a morning after pill works by delaying ovulation in a woman who has had unprotected intercourse as long as she takes it before she ovulates. It causes her ovary to hold onto the egg for a couple of days longer, so that the sperm will be gone by the time it gets to the tube and which also probably causes the egg to be not as easily fertilized as it has 'cooked too long' so to speak. There is also an empiric reason why we know that the 'morning after' pill doesn't prevent implantation. Aside from the fact that women get pregnant even after taking it, the pregnancy rate for the morning after pill is higher than the pregnancy rate for the regular pill. If the withdrawal bleeding caused by the morning after pill was so effective at preventing implantation, it should have a lower pregnancy rate that the regular pill or at least be as good. It isn't.

ETA: More information, specifically about the lower dose pills.

It doesn't contradict it, actually. It is true that the rate of breakthrough ovulation is higher with low dose pills; but it is also true that the pregnancy rate is higher with them, too. As a matter of fact, the increased chance of pregnancy with low dose pills correlates pretty well with the increased risk of ovulation. Once again, if the pill prevented implantation as a means of preventing pregnancy, then it shouldn't matter if a woman ovulates or not; the rate of pregnancy should be the same (there's plenty of data that, despite increased rates of ovulation, low dose pills thin the uterine lining just a much as higher dose pills). Is there a remote possibility that the pill is an abortifacient in that it prevents fertilized eggs from implanting? Yes, but studies involving tens of thousands of women over millions of cycles haven't been able to demonstrate it.

Aside from the research, there's also the logical approach. If in fact, the pill prevented implantation due to thinning of the uterine lining, then that thin lining should also present problems in pregnancy for those embryos that do manage to implant. Presuming that the thin uterine lining prevents implantation in some cases, what about the embryos that manage to take hold?

Shouldn't this hostile environment lead to placental malfunctions? Wouldn't it be logical to expect that the risk for miscarriage of a documented pregnancy might be higher since the uterus was not optimally ready for pregnancy? There's no evidence that women who conceive on the pill miscarry more often than those who don't, even women who end up taking the pill for months after conception. Shouldn't the poor quality of the endometrium perhaps interfere with placental function and therefore place a woman at risk for preterm delivery or placental abruption or fetal growth restriction or some other sign that the pregnancy was affected by the thin lining? Decades of research have failed to find any increase risk of miscarriage or any other pregnancy complications in women who conceive on the pill. Their rates of complication are no different than anyone else.

BTW, I presume everyone here already knows that many, if not most, fertilized eggs fail to implant in humans, even if the woman is not taking the pill when she conceives. At least a third and possibly more than half of all fertilized eggs are lost prior to the period being missed, ie, fail to implant. Therefore, any research (or religious group) that claims the pill prevents implantation has to prove that it does so more often than the baseline rate. If the pill 'causes' failure to implant in a third of instances, then it isn't causing it at all.

[GeoBQn]

I want to know what the Duggars would do if one of their daughters got diagnosed with a condition like PCOS or endometriosis where the standard medical treatment is the birth control pill. My guess is that they would make their daughters pray the cramps away and disregard the long-term health risks of not treating these conditions.

[uber frau]

And for the record, DocSharon is a prolife, practicing Catholic, IIRC.

I'm on a (fairly conservative, officially 'pro-life') Christian parenting forum where there's a range of views between no contraception ever to woman who've chosen to terminate pgcys. Most ppl fall somewhere around NFP with backup barrier methods for fertile days and accept permanent sterilisation when a couple feels their family is complete. There seems to be a fairly even split on whether or progesterone based contraceptives are acceptable.

[chaotic life]

When we were fundie, we only used NFP and/or ecological breastfeeding, even though I did NOT believe in the abortifacient effect. As we left, I went with an IUD, started with a Mirena and had to switch to copper because it dried up my milk. Ultimately, when that failed we went with sterilization. By that time, we were aware of my clotting disorder and the fact that I cannot use hormonal options because of the clotting disorder. I no longer had ANY qualms abaout using them, but I wanted something permenant and am medically unable to use them now.

[maybeizfundie]

Totally depends on the group/church.

Vast majority of fundie-lite people I know loooooove their birth control. For real. Some have issues with hormonal or IUD stuff, but not many and it's certainly not a matter of church doctrine. I love our church, but man alive, in this area we don't fit. When I had my third child, who was my third son, I got bucketloads of sympathy because *obviously* we only had the third kid to try for a girl but failed in that endeavor, and *obviously* we'd be stopping and I'd be devoid of girl babies forever. :?

Among the people I know who are politically, socially, and theologically conservative, *many* of them view the Duggars as strange, at best. Some of the bigger ministries like Focus on the Family (Dobson) and Family Life have interviewed them and been gracious and positive toward them, but their official position on bc is limited to an opposition to forms that might have an abortifacient function (defined by them as inhibiting implantation after conception occurs), but whether the Pill is included in that prohibition is up for debate and therefore a matter of personal conviction to them. When I was a teen, I got ahold of some books on courtship and marriage published by a conservative Mennonite publisher, and NFP/contraception was listed as an important discussion point, with the general idea that there may be times when it is wiser to delay having another child, or to stop altogether.

With the more hardcore fundies, it still depends. The Pearl's for instance, are overall pro-large family, but put "submission to husband" waaaaay over having more babies (ie: if your husband doesn't want babies, too bad for you), and I know I have seen NFP mentioned in a positive light by them, and I think I remember them promoting "neem oil" as some kind of natural male contraceptive. Their followers range from full-on QF to pretty much anything is OK except abortion. People who are deeply involved in the pro-life movement may have issues with anything that could potentially interfere with implantation.

[browngrl]

When we were fundie, we only used NFP and/or ecological breastfeeding, even though I did NOT believe in the abortifacient effect. As we left, I went with an IUD, started with a Mirena and had to switch to copper because it dried up my milk. Ultimately, when that failed we went with sterilization. By that time, we were aware of my clotting disorder and the fact that I cannot use hormonal options because of the clotting disorder. I no longer had ANY qualms abaout using them, but I wanted something permenant and am medically unable to use them now.

What is ecological breast feeding?

[Boltingmadonna]

It'sthatonegirl, I'm puzzled that you use withdrawal when that's the ONE method of birth control specifically mentioned and condemned in the Bible. Not trying to talk you out of it--it just seems like an inconsistency. To me, withdrawal seems like the worst possible method, because instead of focusing on each other and forgetting about everything else to just enjoy the moment, you'd have to keep thinking about far you can go before your husband has an oopsy. How do you ever have an orgasm under those circumstances? Or do you ever have an orgasm? For a lot of fundies, how the woman feels about sex seems to be basically irrelevant. She's there to serve her husband. How do you feel about that?

I realize these are nosy questions, and of course you are under no obligation to answer them. However, it always pisses me off when people are intrusive enough to try to take away other women's birth control--which I take VERY personally--but too coy to answer questions about their own personal lives. Not saying you've done that, because you haven't, yet. But it used to make me really mad when I was a Catholic and people would burble on and on about the wonders of NFP--but when I'd ask them, "So, how often do you actually have sex while using this method?" they'd get all pissy with me and clam up, claiming THAT was none of my business, even though telling me what to do with my sex life apparently was their business.

[Daenerys]

I want to know what the Duggars would do if one of their daughters got diagnosed with a condition like PCOS or endometriosis where the standard medical treatment is the birth control pill. My guess is that they would make their daughters pray the cramps away and disregard the long-term health risks of not treating these conditions.

I'm not sure, as a virgin daughter would not be killing any potential babies, just preventing periods. Though I expect she would have to come off it to get married.

[Beeks]

yep- I've always thought IUDs (especially copper IUDs) were seen as the birth control method that equated with abortion for these folks.

I'm guessing exclusive breastfeeding would be the only acceptable birth control method for many fundies.

Really. When I got my IUD the doc explained that it prevents the sperm from uniting with the egg, not that it prevents implantation. The IUD copper somehow confuses or kills the sperm. On the very off chance you do ovulate and it does get fertilized, yeah, the womb is not a great environment for implantation with the copper iud there, so I guess in that way it MIGHT prevent implantation, but that is not really the goal. The goal is preventing sperm from reaching egg.

[MonkeyMomma]

< snip >

until I mentioned "spermicide" and then she told me she felt it was "really wrong to kill the sperm like that". I didn't even know what to say. The next day she told me they had decided to use condoms. I looked at her and said "do you think you are somehow saving the sperm's lives by using condoms?" She told me she did.

I realized at that point she was bat-shit crazy and there was no point in telling her anything.

:lol:

That's incredible.

OK, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[FlorenceHamilton]

We had a girl living with us for a month before her wedding. Fundie-medium. Skirts only, not a SAHD, but totally into the submissive stuff. She asked me about BC, and expressed strong dislike for the pill because it "caused abortions". I tried in vain to explain to her this was not the case, and discussed non-hormonal methods (although I'm not a Dr or nurse, I've done a fair bit of counselling in my line of work re: BC, so I know my stuff) and initially she seemed quite sold on cycle charting along with a diaphragm - until I mentioned "spermicide" and then she told me she felt it was "really wrong to kill the sperm like that". I didn't even know what to say. The next day she told me they had decided to use condoms. I looked at her and said "do you think you are somehow saving the sperm's lives by using condoms?" She told me she did.

I realized at that point she was bat-shit crazy and there was no point in telling her anything.

This is genuinely, tragically funny. Every sperm is sacred, you know.

[Boltingmadonna]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "ecological breastfeeding" basically means you have your baby with you all day, and nurse whenever the baby is fussy or hungry, rather than trying to set up a schedule. You co-sleep so you can nurse at night. And you nurse exclusively for the first six months--i.e. no additional food, just breast milk. I did this with four children--and they nursed a LOT!--and the longest I ever went before my period came back was SIX WEEKS. It may help other people space their babies, but it's not universally effective. It didn't work for me, at all. I think it's a really nice way to nourish your children and bond with them, if you have the ability to be home that much, but as BC it's not reliable.

I suspect people think it'll work because nursing moms in non-industrial cultures seem to space pregnancies. But there are two other factors I think might be working there: one, there are often various rules about not having sex for a certain space after birth, especially if the man has other wives he can go to instead. And two, in other cultures, nursing often puts a stress on the mother's system that we don't have here, where food is so abundant.