Question about BC methods... Fundies?

[Black Aliss]

The practice of withdrawal, or as my fundie mother and her friends would delicately put it, "leaving church before the benediction" is how I came to be. On the other hand, it had worked just fine for the previous 16 years.

[Kitten]

Coming in waaay late to this conversation, but that's never stopped me before... :D

Copper IUDs - had one nearly 30 years ago. Got pregnant after ~2 years - doctor told me they really "didn't understand" exactly how they worked, but the assumption (at that time) was that they cause inflammation of the uterine lining, preventing implantation. Since I was taking an anti-inflammatory drug all during that time, he thought it was amazing that I hadn't gotten pregnant earlier. Gee, would have been useful information 2 years earlier, doncha think?

Condoms - I always understood the fundie objection to condoms was that they were considered the functional equivalent of masturbation, and therefore bad. Because you were preventing the sperm from having any chance to get to the egg.

Diaphragms - someone mentioned using these might be "okay" in place of a condom because it's just another barrier, but IIRC, medical advice is to NEVER use a diaphragm without a spermicide, which would put it into the evil BC category. Also, since they provide a physical barrier, most fundies would consider them the equivalent of condoms (see above), even without the spermicide.

Nursing on demand - well, I did this, and without ever having a period between #1 and #2, had two babies 12 months apart. So much for that approach... :lol:

[Cassandra]

I have a fundie Catholic family member who recommends using a needle to poke holes in condoms to 'Give the sperm a fighting chance". :lol: :roll:

[Bella99]

Of course! They are people! eleventy!!!11!!

Then I guess I need to get to work on setting up the memorial service for the 9 embryos that failed to implant when we did IVF. What twerks me up is that if some of these people had their way, my wanted, loved, crazy smart kid would not exist because of some kind of bizzare fertilized ovum worship. Adoption can be wonderful, but it is not as simple as many would like to believe. Most agencies would not accept us because my husband was pushing 50. (Ironically enough, I've never felt like I "needed" to perpetuate my own DNA. We would have been thrilled to adopt but we were too old and too poor (health insurance helped pay for our IVF) to win the beauty contest.)

[Boltingmadonna]

Well, I see it'sthatonegirl has not been back to answer the question I asked earlier. I guess that's not too surprising.

I have another question for VeraAnne. Do you really, seriously believe that you have dozens if not hundreds of dead babies waiting for you in heaven? Remember, every single ovum that ever was fertilized and failed to implant, which according to science has got to be a lot, is a REAL LIVE BABY with a soul and a fully formed personality and everything. So, what did God do with all those babies he killed? Surely he wouldn't be so mean as to not let them develop fully into adults, in heaven.

One more thought: every pregnancy carried to term means that all the other possible eggs that could have been ovulated and fertilized never got to happen. So if you're worried about potential babies that didn't get to implant, your pregnancy made sure that at least nine others would never happen. Also, only one sperm can ever succeed, out of about 300 million per ejaculation. If you're worried about all the sperm having a fighting chance, weep bitterly for those 299 million little Spartans battling in vain! Woe, oh woe. And the more sex you have, the more little Spartans die!

[CanticleoftheTurning]

I have a fundie Catholic family member who recommends using a needle to poke holes in condoms to 'Give the sperm a fighting chance". :lol: :roll:

WOW :lol: That's amazing.

[FlorenceHamilton]

Since a human being must accept Jesus in order to go to heaven, does that mean all of the unimplanted fully human babies with short lifespans go directly to hell? That is so sad.

[CanticleoftheTurning]

Since a human being must accept Jesus in order to go to heaven, does that mean all of the unimplanted fully human babies with short lifespans go directly to hell? That is so sad.

Depends on the theology. Some people believe that one has to be "saved" as a child/adult to really go to heaven. But that brings up issues of children who die young (let alone the "unimplanted fully human babies").

Other theology is more open--even adults who live good lives yet don't believe in God can still go to heaven, and children certainly do go to heaven.

So, in the restrictive theological sense, then yes. All those unimplanted babies are going to hell. What a mindfuck for mothers who have miscarriages. Nice of that theology to add to the anguish. :evil:

[Boltingmadonna]

All those unimplanted babies are going to hell. What a mindfuck for mothers who have miscarriages. Nice of that theology to add to the anguish.

Exactly, CanticleOfTheTurning. That used to really bother me when I was a kid. I didn't ever want to get pregnant. Because I knew that if there came a time when saving my life would mean the baby might die, I would have no excuse to ask for help for myself. Because by so doing, I would be choosing to let my own baby go to Hell, and then I'd never see it again even after I died. And it would be all my fault for being so selfish as to want to live. Whereas, if the baby survived even long enough to take one breath, it could be baptized and could go to Heaven. My death would be insignificant compared to that. Theologically, it was very logical. But in human terms, it was, as you say, cruel.

[VeraAnne]

Yes, I do believe that the children I've lost to miscarriage are in heaven. All theologies that I'm aware of have a concept of an age of reason, before which a child is not hrld accountable to the decision of salvation. Children who die prenatally or as young children do not have the mental development to accept salvation, so they are covered under mercy.

[emmiedahl]

So, does every egg that is fertilized but not implanted go to heaven in your opinion? Because, for a woman not on bc, that is 4-5 eggs per year.

[VeraAnne]

Yes, I do.

[emmiedahl]

So if the bc pill actually cuts back on the number of fertilized eggs not implanting, that would be a good thing, right?

[StarrieEyedKat]

The practice of withdrawal, or as my fundie mother and her friends would delicately put it, "leaving church before the benediction" is how I came to be. On the other hand, it had worked just fine for the previous 16 years.

Me too! Yay for pull out babies!!

[Boogalou]

So, not to be a total bitch here, but under this kind of theology it is far kinder and merciful to let someone die young or in the womb so that they will automatically go to heaven instead of letting them grow up where they have a chance to reject Jesus and then suffer in hell for all eternity. By this logic, it's actually better for people to get an abortion, especially non-Christian women who are less likely to have a kid end up a Christian, so that they won't go to hell. Do you agree with this VeraAnne?

[Boogalou]

So, not to be a total bitch here, but under this kind of theology it is far kinder and merciful to let someone die young or in the womb so that they will automatically go to heaven instead of letting them grow up where they have a chance to reject Jesus and then suffer in hell for all eternity. By this logic, it's actually better for people to get an abortion, especially non-Christian women who are less likely to have a kid end up a Christian, so that they won't go to hell. Do you agree with this VeraAnne?

[Brainsample]

I haven't read all of the comments, so perhaps this group has been mentioned.

It's the pro-life arm of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and though pro-life, they are not necessarily against hormonal birth control. (I wonder if Doc Sharon is a member?)

You can visit their website and read their position papers on numerous subjects. They wrote the ectopic pregnancy position statement when I petitioned them for help when Doug Phillips cranked up the discussion of surgery for tubal pregnancy as murder last summer. I think that they turned around the statement in under a month, too. Not all Christians or even those who believe in the fundamentals of Christianity are nutballs.

aaplog.org/position-and-papers/

[CanticleoftheTurning]

I haven't read all of the comments, so perhaps this group has been mentioned.

It's the pro-life arm of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and though pro-life, they are not necessarily against hormonal birth control. (I wonder if Doc Sharon is a member?)

You can visit their website and read their position papers on numerous subjects. They wrote the ectopic pregnancy position statement when I petitioned them for help when Doug Phillips cranked up the discussion of surgery for tubal pregnancy as murder last summer. I think that they turned around the statement in under a month, too. Not all Christians or even those who believe in the fundamentals of Christianity are nutballs.

aaplog.org/position-and-papers/

Woot! Thanks for the link, Brainsample. I <3 you.

[VeraAnne]

Emmie, if it actually leads to fewer prenatal deaths, then sure. I would need to see the research though.

Boogaloo, that would presume that there is nothing to be gained through our time on Earth. Just because salvation is assured, that doesn't mean nothing of worth is lost by an early death.

[emmiedahl]

It's all been discussed on this thread, VeraAnne. If a woman is not on bc, she has 4-5 fertilized eggs per year *not* implant. A woman on hormonal bc might, depending on who you talk to, lose an occasional fertilized egg. Go get on your pills, girlfriend. It's the prolife thing to do apparently.

[VeraAnne]

Haha well getting on the pill would be the "die of a bloodclot" thing for me to do personally, but I understand the sentiment.

After we are done having kids, my husband is getting snipped. No worry of failed implantation and no th control or surgery for me. Wins all around.

[emmiedahl]

Yes, do not kill yourself for sure. My husband had a vasectomy and it was the best decision evah.

[VeraAnne]

No joke, there is a urologist down here named Richard Chopp. And yes, he goes by Dick.

[emmiedahl]

I have a friend in med school whose last name is Hack. I told her she MUST be a surgeon. There are no choices with a name like that.

[Brainsample]

It's all been discussed on this thread, VeraAnne. If a woman is not on bc, she has 4-5 fertilized eggs per year *not* implant. A woman on hormonal bc might, depending on who you talk to, lose an occasional fertilized egg. Go get on your pills, girlfriend. It's the prolife thing to do apparently.

Emmiedahl,

I was the one who introduced that on another thread recently. The regularly sexually active woman at peak fertility (prior to age 30) who is healthy and uses no contraception but does not get pregnant experiences about 4-5 "conceptions" (fertilized ovum) per year, something accepted as standard in the field of OB/GYN.

It is far more difficult for that fertilized ovum to implant than it is to actually have fertilization. Reading back over the thread, Florence Henderson and others have it right. That fertilized ovum is not a pregnancy. If you have a sustained pregnancy, this is entirely different, and for ethical purposes, it is assumed that life began at conception because the discussion then becomes a discussion of when it is ethically acceptable to end that pregnancy. The conservative ethical assumption is that life began when the egg was fertilized. That still does not make a fertilized egg a pregnancy. The pregnancy is key.

There is the discussion of hormonal birth control creating an inhospitable uterus, increased ferning of cervical mucus and a diminished endometrium, too. If this were truly the case, we would see a much higher incidence of ectopic pregnancy and tubal pregnancy in women who are on the pill and have breakthrough pregnancy or were on the pill and recently stopped. This is not the case. In effect, the arguments used to say that the pill is abortifacient actually could be used to argue that the pill does more to prevent fertilization of the ovum beyond just preventing ovulation. It depends on your desired endpoint and how you use those facts to build your case.

And if an inviting endrometrium were necessary for pregnancy, there would be NO incidence of ectopic pregnancy. There is no endometrium in the fallopian tube, yet ectopic pregnancies plant there all the time. If the arguments about the aborifacient potential of having a diminished endometrium were also correct, there would be no breakthrough pregnancies when using oral contraceptives, because they would be prevented. But they happen at a rate as high as 5 to 7%.

There have been some OC advocates (physicians) who have argued that because the numbers of released ovum are substantially reduced and thereby eliminating the numbers of fertilized but non-implanted eggs a woman would have, taking the pill is actually more pro-life in terms of "life begins at conception" arguments. Some pills, based on the advanced ultrasound uses in fertility studies, actually show that women experience only a breakthrough ovulation at a rate of 0-2 ovulations in a five year period. (Not all OCs are that effective, however.)

The ethical assumptions made about a sustained pregnancy are different than the medical facts about conception. But people get them mixed up.

And I think that if people have ethical concerns about whether or not a particular method is unethical, they should follow their conscience. It's this messed up business about declaring that people who do take every and all types of contraceptives are aborting their babies. And OCs are dangerous drugs that should be used cautiously and carefully, because they are far from benign. It think that if they were not tied to reproductive freedom, they would not be approved for use for contraception but only for treatment of medical conditions. There are too many cardiovascular complications.