I thought it was time for another "rant." Most of my posts lately have been about Moses. I thought something a little political or controversial should spice it up (besides, I haven't loaded all 300+ Christmas pictures onto my computer yet, so a Christmas post will have to wait).
I was directed to a great new new video on youtube today; you can see it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE. Basically, it explains how "the pill" acts as an abortifacient (I am talking about daily contraception here, not emergency contraception (EC)-- although EC acts as an abortifacient as well). Since I am frequently asked my stance on birth control, I thought it an appropriate issue to address here.
I do slightly disagree with one thing in the video; the pharmaceutical companies make no effort to hide the fact that the daily pill can cause abortions. In the drug labels and/or manufacturers' websites, the third mechanism of action listed (besides preventing ovulation and thickening cervical mucus) is to prevent a fertilized egg (i.e., conception has occured) from attaching to the uterine wall. Thus, the first reason I am against "the pill" is because it can act as an abortifacient.
Second, the pill can cause disastrous medical effects. Even the World Health Organization-- which can hardly be described as a "conservative" organization-- has recognized the pill as a carcinogenic. So, the second reason I am against "the pill" is because it is harmful to women's health.
Third, the history of the pill is so entirely distasteful that it should have the entire nation up in arms over its origin. Margaret Sanger ("champion" of birth control and founder of Planned Parenthood) saw the pill as a means to control (or, in reality, destroy) minority populations. Ms. Sanger was undoubtedly a racist. Oh-- and Ms. Sanger also advocated for selective breeding, sterilization, and euthanasia. You know, to remove the "genetically unfit" from society. I wonder why Planned Parenthood doesn't advertise from that angle???
So there you have it in a nutshell. "The pill" is morally problematic, medically unsafe, and historically unethical. Since we will be called to account for the decisions we make, we've decided this is a no-brainer in the Smith Household.
3 comments:
So is an abortifacient a standard part of all forms of chemical birth control? And does the strength/efficacy of such a mechanism vary from, say the pill to the ring to a monthly injection, etc.?
Honestly, I can't remember all of the specifics. We researched most of this before we were married (although not adequately enough).
What I do know is that the pill is the least likely to result in abortion than other forms (the ring and the patch work very similarly, although the patch is much more dangerous for women's health-- more blood clots, strokes, etc. reported to the FDA). Each has three mechanisms of action: preventing ovulation; thickening cervical mucus; and preventing implantation (ie, abortion). In other words, as the "least of the evils," it still has abortifacient effects.
I also know that the shot is less effacacious and more likely to result in an aborted pregnancy.
And as the video mentioned, prior forms of the pill(with higher levels of hormones) did not have the same abortifacient risk.
Mailee, I linked to this post on my blog (http://dontdrinkthekingswine.blogspot.com/). Your post, along with some other information I learned about during Blackstone, is raising a lot of questions in my mind. Whenever you get a moment, can you stop by my blog and dive into the discussion in the comments following the post on the pill?
Thanks much!
Post a Comment