[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

Months? No... It all really depends when you start it... it's best to start at the beginning of a cycle... then most become effective that day...

Way off base here. A lot of pills take over a month to become effective.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

Is this true with all birth control pills? If so, what other birth control options are out there that don't have the slightest risk for a abortion taking place? If this is only the case with some pills, then what pills are out there, that do not have a abortion risk? Please respond ASAP.

Not to be a pain in the butt, but this is a risk in sex at all times. There is a risk that fertilized eggs will not implant. In fact, having sex except for the most fertile times of the month run this risk. Is it an abortion when it occurs based on natural hormones?

[leiarose]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Not to be a pain in the butt, but this is a risk in sex at all times. There is a risk that fertilized eggs will not implant. In fact, having sex except for the most fertile times of the month run this risk. Is it an abortion when it occurs based on natural hormones?

No, not in the sense that it was "caused" by another source. Fertile vs. not is not a good basis for calling "abortion" at all.

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It is true for all forms of the pill. I wasn't trying to alarm you , its just something few (if any) doctors mention and it seems few people realize.

No, I am glad you did alarm me. If I had known this I would have never allowed and definately wouldn't have encouraged her to take the pill. I am not going to play russian rollette with someone elses life. Thank you so much, mom, for sharing, and for not being scared to stand up for what you believe when you were a minority.

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Not to be a pain in the butt, but this is a risk in sex at all times. There is a risk that fertilized eggs will not implant. In fact, having sex except for the most fertile times of the month run this risk. Is it an abortion when it occurs based on natural hormones?

I am aware of this and also of the fact that fertilized eggs can implant in the wrong location and endanger your spouse, for instance implantation in the filopian tube (which deutches increase the risk of happening by 50% if I am not mistaken). The conviction I have with the pill, is that it's 3rd mechanism is specifically designed to cause the fertilized egg to not be able to implant and be rejected from the body (aborted).

Miscarriages happen all the time as well by natural means, but that by no means justifies people going to abortion clinics and getting abortions.

If they had a pill that simply had the first two preventive mechanisms to prevent pregnancy, I would love for my wife to take it. The fact that the pill is specifically designed to have the fertilized egg aborted, as a last resort to avoid pregnancy, makes it out of the question for me and my wife.

I am really honestly thinking of a vicectamy (spelling?) or something along those lines because the only safe contraceptions I have seen are things like the spunge contraception (high % of women still get pregnant) and condoms (very expensive and just pains in the rear to be honest).

I don't want to knowingly and actively take something which is specifically designed to abort a fertilized egg as it's last resort to prevent pregnancy.

Me and my wife really need to talk to a physician I guess.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by leiarose

No, not in the sense that it was "caused" by another source. Fertile vs. not is not a good basis for calling "abortion" at all.

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

I am aware of this and also of the fact that fertilized eggs can implant in the wrong location and endanger your spouse, for instance implantation in the filopian tube (which deutches increase the risk of happening by 50% if I am not mistaken). The conviction I have with the pill, is that it's 3rd mechanism is specifically designed to cause the fertilized egg to not be able to implant and be rejected from the body (aborted).

Miscarriages happen all the time as well by natural means, but that by no means justifies people going to abortion clinics and getting abortions.

If they had a pill that simply had the first two preventive mechanisms to prevent pregnancy, I would love for my wife to take it. The fact that the pill is specifically designed to have the fertilized egg aborted, as a last resort to avoid pregnancy, makes it out of the question for me and my wife.

I am really honestly thinking of a vicectamy (spelling?) or something along those lines because the only safe contraceptions I have seen are things like the spunge contraception (high % of women still get pregnant) and condoms (very expensive and just pains in the rear to be honest).

I don't want to knowingly and actively take something which is specifically designed to abort a fertilized egg as it's last resort to prevent pregnancy.

Me and my wife really need to talk to a physician I guess.

If thats the case, then how is a hostile environment in the uterus different when it is caused by chemical as opposed to natural means?

I bring this up because quite literally the argument cuts both ways. If, say, my wife had a hormone imbalance which was untreatable because brain scans couldn't diagnose why her pituitary was releasing chemicals to do this and several trips to various specialists had revealed no reasons why her body rejects getting pregnant because some of her hormone levels remain consistently in the realm of a pregnant womans...

What is the real difference? If its a matter of natural, versus unnatural we come to the issue of medicine as a whole. If it is a risk of spontaneous abortion as a single issue, then how then is it not sinful to have sex with a woman where the probability is high that she will miscarry? Its the exact same thing unfortunately, its just you don't get to choose.

I am not being cranky. This is just the situation I live in every day. But unfortunately, I find myself bound to the argument. Any argument against the pill, save the unnatural part, bars me from having sex with my wife. The unnatural part, dooms me to live a life without medicine of any kind, so in essence, its a real catch-22. Especially since I have to carry an epi pen in case someone with gloves throws me into anaphylactic shock.

I strongly reccomend talking to your physician, but having sex at a time of the month where your wife is unlikely to get pregnant, such as the rythymn method exploits the same natural functionality as the pill provides. It has no higher moral ground than the pill's 3rd function.

Currently, my wife is on birth control after the miscarriage. Quite honestly, we could not as a couple take that loss again so soon. (It takes quite a toll) Do I like this? No, not really. Would my desire be to be a dad? Yes.

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

If thats the case, then how is a hostile environment in the uterus different when it is caused by chemical as opposed to natural means?

I bring this up because quite literally the argument cuts both ways. If, say, my wife had a hormone imbalance which was untreatable because brain scans couldn't diagnose why her pituitary was releasing chemicals to do this and several trips to various specialists had revealed no reasons why her body rejects getting pregnant because some of her hormone levels remain consistently in the realm of a pregnant womans...

What is the real difference? If its a matter of natural, versus unnatural we come to the issue of medicine as a whole. If it is a risk of spontaneous abortion as a single issue, then how then is it not sinful to have sex with a woman where the probability is high that she will miscarry? Its the exact same thing unfortunately, its just you don't get to choose.

I am not being cranky. This is just the situation I live in every day. But unfortunately, I find myself bound to the argument. Any argument against the pill, save the unnatural part, bars me from having sex with my wife. The unnatural part, dooms me to live a life without medicine of any kind, so in essence, its a real catch-22. Especially since I have to carry an epi pen in case someone with gloves throws me into anaphylactic shock.

I strongly reccomend talking to your physician, but having sex at a time of the month where your wife is unlikely to get pregnant, such as the rythymn method exploits the same natural functionality as the pill provides. It has no higher moral ground than the pill's 3rd function.

Currently, my wife is on birth control after the miscarriage. Quite honestly, we could not as a couple take that loss again so soon. (It takes quite a toll) Do I like this? No, not really. Would my desire be to be a dad? Yes.

You have told me the situation with your wife once before, and it even came to mind while typing my post. I know your wife takes birth control for different reasons then most, and I don't think any less of you or her for ya'll making the decision ya'll made. I actually think it is the right choice in ya'lls case. The problem for me is not so much natural vs unnatural. For me, it is like I said, the pill is specifically designed to do this. It is one of it's designed mechanisms. It just doesn't settle right with me because it was designed to do that. I really don't know what me and my wife are going to do at this point, Bill. I really need God to guide me on this. I don't want to take someone elses life..

[Ax]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Way off base here. A lot of pills take over a month to become effective.

Did I say the Pill? No... Some forms of birth control do go into effect within hours if given in the first four days of the cycle... Well.. I say that, and it may not be true, because I read it on wikipedia.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

You have told me the situation with your wife once before, and it even came to mind while typing my post. I know your wife takes birth control for different reasons then most, and I don't think any less of you or her for ya'll making the decision ya'll made. I actually think it is the right choice in ya'lls case. The problem for me is not so much natural vs unnatural. For me, it is like I said, the pill is specifically designed to do this. It is one of it's designed mechanisms. It just doesn't settle right with me because it was designed to do that. I really don't know what me and my wife are going to do at this point, Bill. I really need God to guide me on this. I don't want to take someone elses life..

My point is... thats the same situation with my wife without birth control. Her body, while it isn't specifically engineered to do that by a company, it seems to be designed to do that. And unfortunately, I had to come to terms with the fact that that was a possibility, period. And unfortunately, whether we like to think so or no, we are designed in a way where that is a likelihood.

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

My point is... thats the same situation with my wife without birth control. Her body, while it isn't specifically engineered to do that by a company, it seems to be designed to do that. And unfortunately, I had to come to terms with the fact that that was a possibility, period. And unfortunately, whether we like to think so or no, we are designed in a way where that is a likelihood.

The thing is, Bill, you and your wife are taking action to try to prevent the loss of another babies life, by taking birth control, because of your wife's condition. I want to do the same thing basically. I want to do whatever I need to, to prevent the loss of my potential child's life.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

The thing is, Bill, you and your wife are taking action to try to prevent the loss of another babies life, by taking birth control, because of your wife's condition. I want to do the same thing basically. I want to do whatever I need to, to prevent the loss of my potential child's life.

My point is this. The same functionality as the third function of the pill occurs naturally fairly frequently. Eggs don't implant or reject after planning, and we go on with our daily lives without considering the ethics because we do not know.

In a sense, its an ethical issue that if taken logically to conclusion would bar sex at anytime ovulation was possible and conditions were not ideal for implantation. Do I believe aborting a baby is wrong? Yes. But the effect here is one that can't be regarded as unethical without making sex as a whole within marriage unethical.

My wife and I do plan on trying to have kids. (Granted we are watching certain technologies with piqued interest, but don't ask me to explain exactly what I mean, I only know the rough gyst of it whereas my wife is much more knowledgable) But the thing that I find intriguing here is that when we do not know about it, it is not an issue.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Sean

I find it odd that when considering this topic all that seems to matter to you is that children are a "blessing" from God. As you know far better than I, children are a huge responsibility and expensive. Simply because I get a blessing doesn't make me responsible or financially stable. Taken to its logical conclusion, a pregnant 13 year old shouldn't give up the child for adoption because they'd be giving away a blessing from God. They should keep it inspite of the fact that they are a child themself and literally unable to provide financially.

Children are a blessing from God, they are not a problem or a mistake or an inconvenience, etc. Of course the main thing that matters to me is what God tells us about children. Are we not to trust God that He will not bless us with more than we, with His help, can handle? A couple has 9 months to learn to be responsible. Being responsible is in great part a choice we make. As to financial stablility, you have no promise of tomorrow and in a day you can go from stable, to having nothing. I also know this far better than you, I would guess. I went from "stable/prepared" to barely paying the bills and having to accept groceries each week from a dear friend. Our car was totaled (the person who totaled it had no insurance and I didn't get a penny) and I was clueless as to how I could possibly afford to get another one, and God gave us a car through a friend (in fact, when that one was on its last legs, God even gave us another one) It was a very humbling experience and an amazing blessing. Not once in 6 1/2 years have we gone hungry, not once have I not paid a bill, not once has something broken that God has not provided a means to fix it, etc.. I am not saying that it's a good thing to not have the means to provide for your family, but I am saying that God has promised us He will provide and He does. Children really need suprisingly little to be happy and well cared for.

I don't see how it is the logical conclusion that a 13 should not give up her baby since children are blessings. The logical conclusion, as I see it, is that the baby is a blessing and the young lady is taking care to see that her baby is provided for. I can't answer as to how this will work for good for the young woman, but God tells us that all things work together for good for those who love Him. God adopted us, so apparently God thinks adoption is a good thing.

Yes, children are a huge responsibility and expensive. Yes, we should be concerned with earning a living, paying our bills, making responsible decisions, etc. I just don't see how trusting God makes us less responsilbe than trusting ourselves.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

My point is this. The same functionality as the third function of the pill occurs naturally fairly frequently. Eggs don't implant or reject after planning, and we go on with our daily lives without considering the ethics because we do not know.

In a sense, its an ethical issue that if taken logically to conclusion would bar sex at anytime ovulation was possible and conditions were not ideal for implantation. Do I believe aborting a baby is wrong? Yes. But the effect here is one that can't be regarded as unethical without making sex as a whole within marriage unethical.

My wife and I do plan on trying to have kids. (Granted we are watching certain technologies with piqued interest, but don't ask me to explain exactly what I mean, I only know the rough gyst of it whereas my wife is much more knowledgable) But the thing that I find intriguing here is that when we do not know about it, it is not an issue.

With the first though it is God making the decision, not us. God has told us that sex within marriage is right, and not only right, but should not be denied to ones spouse.

I guess I just don't see how saying something occurs naturally means we can do it intentionally. That would mean abortion would be fine all the way through pregnancy, because women naturally lose babies at all times in a pregnancy. I don't see any conflict with regarding the pills effect of causing abortion as unethical and believing sex within marriage is ethical. God tells us sex within marriage is right and He also tells us murder is wrong.

I do understand your situation is extremely difficult and I don't have an answer. I just know that except for a very small minority of couples, the pill is only used to take the decision of when to have a child into ones own hands.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Sean's Wife

Doctors go to school for a very long time in order to amass knowledge on topics like these. There's word of mouth, personal experience, and matters of opinion, but those can easily be tainted and distorted. Definitely get feedback from people, but I would under no circumstances take what you heard on a forum as unadulterated truth.

Let me start off by saying that your faith and trust in God is admirable. I respect that you put God's timing over man's, I very much respect your firm stance and strong grasp on your beliefs, and don't in any way, shape, or form intend to tear you down as an individual.

What I don't understand, though, is why everything in this discussion (from both for and against) seems to be at an "extreme." For some reason, people that believe birth control is acceptable are categorized as uninformed people who think that women get pregnant every time they have sex. They also seem to be categorized as people who don't like children, don't like blessings from God, and are deceived into thinking that not using birth control would amount to an endless supply of children.


I am well aware that women don't get pregnant every time they have sex. Thank goodness for that. Let's just, for the moment, go with the theory that newlyweds have "relations" frequently. This would, obviously, increase the chances of pregnancy significantly, if one was not using some form of contraceptive. Though children are blessings, they're not always a welcome responsibility. Becoming parents doesn't automatically make you responsible, wise, discerning, and capable of being a suitable parent. Obviously, most of the strongest cases for this argument exist in relationships or situations that are not in accordance with Biblical standards...but it is a reasonable point that not everyone who becomes pregnant is ready for that 'blessing.'

Yes, doctors go to school for a long time, but how many believe that abortion is wrong? Doctors rarely tell patients everything, unless the patient goes out of their way to ask questions. I doubt more than a handful of doctors tell a woman that the pill can cause an abortion when they prescribe it.

I don't see how its extreme to say that the pill can cause an abortion so it should not be considered as an acceptable form of birth control. Its just accepting a fact of how the pill works and saying its wrong.

My response about women not getting pregnant every time was in reply to a post made by someone who apparently thought that not using birth control automatically means you would have a baby 9 months from the day you had sex and that you would have baby after baby if you did nothing to prevent it. That just isn't the case. You know this, but a lot of people apparently don't.

If children are unwelcome, then perhaps the couple should rethink marriage as God made children result from sex and He made sex to be a part of marriage. It seems God intended marriage to be a relationship that most often led to a family that included children.


Becoming married does not make you a good spouse, so should people not get married? Don't you learn in your marriage how to be a good spouse? If you waited to get married until you were sure you would be a good spouse would you ever get married? Obviously most of the strongest cases for the fact that marriage does not make you responsible, wise, discerning, or capable of being a good spouse, are all the divorces that occur. I'm only using this to show that everything we do that is new to us, we have to learn how to do it. We will make mistakes, we will have struggles, etc, but that doesn't mean we aren't able to do it. Or how about when a husband or wife gets cancer, or they lose their job, or they get in an accident and lose a limb or become paralyzed? Should people not get married because they aren't ready for these things? Rarely are we ready for life changing events. I know it sounds simple, but I honestly believe that God will not give us more than we can handle and that He knows better than us when to bless us and when not to.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No, I'm saying children are a blessing from God and should be thought of as such. I agree, any child God gives you is a blessing. I just find it odd that people deliberately attempt to stop God from blessing them.

Since we agree that the pleasure in sex is a seperate thing from the reproductive function then I don't see how using BC is necessarily an attempt to stymie God. Especially since, as I said, there are all sorts of avenues for sexual expression. Unless you're considering ______l intercourse to be sacrosanct and for the express purpose of reproduction.