Question about BC methods... Fundies?

[Boltingmadonna]

VeraAnne, thanks for replying so clearly. So, given the average rate of fertilization with eggs that never implant, and estimating 30 years of fertility, which seems reasonable, you have 100-150 "children" awaiting you that you never knew you had. Maybe in heaven, maybe in hell! That just sounds crazy to me. It's certainly not in the Bible! Doesn't the Bible say "when you were in the womb I knew you"? To be in the womb, an egg has to have implanted. It's not in the womb if it's floating around in your Fallopian tube. Ha! Proof-testing is lulz, no?

Anyway, it's ok with me if you want to make up and believe crazy stuff, but it's not ok if you want to impose your opinion on others. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. And the facts are as Brainsample has brilliantly summarized them.

[VeraAnne]

The quote is actually "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."

[Paisy]

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%.

The process of implantation is so complex that is a lot about it that is still unknown. What is known and from what I understand, the outer layer of the endometrium actually acts as a barrier to implantation during a woman's cycle, with exception to the window of a few days (dictated by hormones) that it changes allowing an embryo to penetrate it and begin the implantation process. I can only guess that perhaps it is the absence of this barrier that allows an embryo to implant outside of the uterus. What really blows my mind though, is how can it be possible for an embryo to not only implant, but form a placenta without having access to a rich endometrium? There have even been cases where the embryo that implanted outside the uterus in the abdominal cavity has gone on to term. That I do not understand.

[Brainsample]

The process of implantation is so complex that is a lot about it that is still unknown. What is known and from what I understand, the outer layer of the endometrium actually acts as a barrier to implantation during a woman's cycle, with exception to the window of a few days (dictated by hormones) that it changes allowing an embryo to penetrate it and begin the implantation process. I can only guess that perhaps it is the absence of this barrier that allows an embryo to implant outside of the uterus. What really blows my mind though, is how can it be possible for an embryo to not only implant, but form a placenta without having access to a rich endometrium? There have even been cases where the embryo that implanted outside the uterus in the abdominal cavity has gone on to term. That I do not understand.

There are localized chemical changes produced by the fertilized ovum which cause it to attach to tissue other than a rich, inviting endometrium. If it can attach in a fallopian tube, on the outside of the uterus, on the bowel, etc,, it can attach to the more ideal endometrium, however diminished. I think that it's rather miraculous that pregnancy occurs, and I think that if these folks truly believed that God opened the womb as He sometimes does with women who are taking OCs, then he can do it regardless of how inviting the woman's endometrium happens to be. Can a person really be that powerful to stop an all sovereign God?

Randy Alcorn's arguments are too simplistic, but so many have just accepted what he has said and have made it a driving force in religion, politics, and daily life.

[Brainsample]

VeraAnne, thanks for replying so clearly. So, given the average rate of fertilization with eggs that never implant, and estimating 30 years of fertility, which seems reasonable, you have 100-150 "children" awaiting you that you never knew you had. .

Actually, it would be a lesser number which is why I guestimated that after 21 years of marriage I could have an hypothetical 50 to 100 non-pregnancy babies with time off for pregnancies in there. ;)

A woman at peak fertility has 4-5 per year, but the number starts dropping precipitously after age 30 which is reflected in the percentages of actual fertility stats. I don't know if anyone has even studied women over 40 and complied that data.

[Boltingmadonna]

Good point, Brainsample. Also, one can't assume that a woman is having sex all through her potentially fertile period. I was posting from out of town late at night and neglected the finer points! However, imagining even 50 "babies" that in reality never got beyond the blastocyst stage still seems quite weird enough to me.

But, as I said, it's okay with me for people to imagine weird things, as long as they don't want to make their imaginings the basis of laws that are binding on other people.

VeraAnne: so, the precise quote is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" . . . and, but, so, therefore? It still doesn't say "a fertilized egg is really a baby and is totally just as important as a fully formed human woman." Nope, doesn't say that. I know you have interpreted it to mean that, but other people have different interpretations. Here is an interesting discussion:

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/bible.shtml

This interepreter has a different take on it:

This passage is specific to one, very special person—Jeremiah the prophet, whom God has called to provide miraculous powers and authority to the world. Since we are not all destined to be divine prophets, this verse cannot be construed as applying to any fetus except the unborn Jeremiah. Again, anti-choicers are being dishonest by pulling this verse totally out of its context.

That's the beauty of basing your ideas about life on an ancient text that contains ambiguities and statements that no longer fit the context of the modern world. There are many different interpretations. You are welcome to argue about them all you like, but I did not see an angel come down and anoint any one interpreter as the true mouthpiece of God. The Pope probably has better cred in this area than you, but I doubt you would let the Pope tell you how to read your Bible. So why should I accept your version as incontrovertible truth?

[Brainsample]

I just want to clarify for lukers here that I'm attempting to be realistic concerning the rates of fertility...

I also want to state clearly that I am pro-life. I used to be the volunteer coordinator for a local Birthright before we moved. I understand that I qualifiy as fundie-lite here, and I do believe that God is sovereign, especially when it comes to pregnancy. I do believe that God opens and closes the womb. I think that if God wants you to be pregnant, you're going to be pregnant, and you have to honor your body as God's gift, a precious commodity with which He entrusts you. It requires proper care and honor. A person should be very sober and serious about these matters. As the word's theological overtones indicate, everything that a person does, in some sense, is an act of worship. The virtue of the act tends to speak to what is being worshiped and the motive behind it.

So I am not here arguing pro-choice. I'm here to argue what we know about the science of what happens as well as the religious aspects of it. I do not believe that they are incompatible.

Paul wrote to the Church at Rome to explain that if a person's conscience gave them leave to eat meat that had been used in a pagan ritual as a sacrifice they were free to do so. He also said that it was that it was wrong for others who had problems of conscience with eating this meat to scorn and judge those who had liberty to eat that meat.

This isn't an analogy for this issue, but it does offer us a guiding principle. There is much we do not know about these matters, but there is also much propaganda and people have political and religious agendas, and some use the issue of contraception as a personal agenda, making money off the selling of their opinions and services and books concerning these topics.

But there is enough information on both sides of this issue that is open to interpretation, and I think that in that spirit, Christians should lean to the side of liberty and stay out of the marriage bed of other people. Christians should be a whole lot less worried about what other people are doing. Talk about these things, but in a pluralistic society, you cannot be paternalistic about these matters. And Jesus said that whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and that He judges the heart of intent. He's going to know whether you had kids because you wanted them or because you thought that you had to have them. Not everyone who takes an oral contraceptive (which I did for 3 months for a health issue about 20 years ago and have not ever used since) is shaking their fist at God, telling Him to keep His hands off of their life. And God is the only one who can judge that.