Protest the pill?

[blas87]

My stance..

Safe sex or no sex (unless you're married or in a long term relationship or trying to have babies). Birth Control is a blessing!

Anyone who wants to try to patronize me or chastize me for being on the shot is warranted a punch in the face. I do NOT want children. I regret saying this, but if I were to get pregnant, I'd probably get an abortion. I really DO NOT want kids. I make men wear condoms on top of my shot, because I want extra protection.

Wait for marriage? I think not. I'm an adult, and as long as I'm not hurting anyone or myself, what is the problem? If I'm playing it safe and responsible, what's the big deal? I'm not 12 for Pete's sake.

I had a doctor who came highly recommended refuse to do my Pap smear because she is Catholic and refuses to see patients who are on or are considering BC. I have nothing against Catholics, but I just found that very unprofessional.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Hooooo-boy...

1) These assholes can kiss my fat white nonsexual Pill-popping-because-of-screwy-periods ass and go straight to the Not Happy Place Where Things Are All Burny,

2) I would bet serious money any day that a good bunch of them are NOT necessarily ignorant about how the Pill works; I think they know damn well how it does and does not work - it's more that they want to spread ignorance on to the next generations so that their sick little agenda of oppressing women can be achieved that much easier (Ignorant population = less resistance). It's not about helping or saving anybody; never was and never will be. It's about who gets to control females. Hence, the lies and horror stories about BC (With abstinence as the Magical Holy Grail Cure to boot).

3) The lovely (not) little organization behind this is no angel: (Bolded parts my emphasis)

ALL helped to establish the "rescue movement", which utilizes aggressive tactics against abortion and related services (As in, birth control). These tactics, adopted and popularized by ALL, include sidewalk counseling, clinic blockades, and the offer of abortion alternatives to abortion-seeking patients (Note: "Offer" in this case very likely translates as "harassment/coersion," given the notoriety here; also, considering that an awful lot of the so-called "pregnancy crisis centers" are in fact set up and run by bona fide dominionists for the express purpose of obtaining new recruits, I'm inclined to distrust strongly any offers of so-called 'help' from such groups...especially since those offers DO come with certain strings attached!). ....ALL filed suit to challenge the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. (This act makes it illegal for such groups to engage in said harassment by literally blocking women from entering the buildings)

In the mid-1990s, the American Life League boycotted the Walt Disney Company over the film Priest, in which a Roman Catholic priest deals with a variety of issues including his own homosexuality. Subsequently, ALL charged that Disney had concealed subliminal sexual messages in a number of its animated films, including The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, and Aladdin. Disney denied the ALL's claims.

Guess all of us who grew up on a diet o' Disney are now thoroughly corrupted, eh?

[Sylvia727]

I had a doctor who came highly recommended refuse to do my Pap smear because she is Catholic and refuses to see patients who are on or are considering BC. I have nothing against Catholics, but I just found that very unprofessional.

Did she refuse to take you as a patient? Or did you get all the way into her exam room and into the paper towel they think is a modesty gown? I can see degrees of unprofessionalism in this story. If she runs a private practice and wants to manage it a certain way, eh, that's a little sucky but one moves on. If she sprung this little surprise on you in the exam room, that is far worse. "Now that I've accepted you as a patient, here's a list of the services I've decided to deny you." Basically, she needs to very upfront with prospective patients about what care she will and will not provide them, so that they can make an informed decision.

[blas87]

Sylvia, I had just gotten my own insurance and had to get a new doctor because my insurance didn't have a partnership with my old one.......she was the one I picked. So no, it wasn't a spur of the moment, there's a few of them there, but only 2 females, so I had to go with the other one.....I just think that if your religion or personal beliefs get in the way of your job that much, you need to get a different career.

[tropicsgoddess]

Why should birth control be illegal just because some religious zealots want it to be? Seriously, there is no "chemical abortion" with the pill, all it does is just keep the egg from releasing. Chemical abortion is using something like RU-486 or Methotrexate to terminate an early pregnancy as opposed to using a pill that will prevent a pregnancy. I firmly believe that it is the individual's choice to use contraceptives and/or engage in pre-marital sex and nobody else's.

[Sylvia727]

That's pretty bad, then.

I just think that if your religion or personal beliefs get in the way of your job that much, you need to get a different career.

Or make it very clear that is a religious practice. If she was doing this at a Catholic or pro-life clinic, then it wouldn't have been a problem. Her patients would have known what she was doing, and it wouldn't have interfered with their rights. For her to do this to you with no warning did interfere with your rights - she gave you the choice to compromise your position or to give up on the time, effort, and money you'd already invested in her.

[Ree]

[
For those who don't know, I have some health problems that would make it bad for me to get pregnant right now. I would be under a doctor's care from day 1 & complete bed rest. Not sure if pregnancy would equal suicide, but it might be close.

Are these health problems a temporary thing, and you are planning more children in the future?

If not, then why not opt for a tubal ligation, then?

Women can get pregnant on the pill, and it does cause the body to abort the fetus in the form of a miscarriage.

[AFPheonix]

Are these health problems a temporary thing, and you are planning more children in the future?

If not, then why not opt for a tubal ligation, then?

Women can get pregnant on the pill, and it does cause the body to abort the fetus in the form of a miscarriage.

From Wikipedia:

Combined oral contraceptive pills were developed to prevent ovulation by progestogenic and estrogenic suppression of gonadotropin release. Combined hormonal contraceptives, including COCPs, inhibit follicular development and prevent ovulation as their primary mechanism of action.[2][20][58][59][60]

Progestagen negative feedback decreases the pulse frequency of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) release by the hypothalamus, which decreases the release of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and greatly decreases the release of luteinizing hormone (LH) by the anterior pituitary. Decreased levels of FSH inhibit follicular development, preventing an increase in estradiol levels. Progestagen negative feedback and the lack of estrogen positive feedback on LH release prevent a mid-cycle LH surge. Inhibition of follicular development and the absence of a LH surge prevent ovulation.[2][20][58]

Estrogen was originally included in oral contraceptives for better cycle control (to stabilize the endometrium and thereby reduce the incidence of breakthrough bleeding), but was also found to inhibit follicular development and help prevent ovulation. Estrogen negative feedback on the anterior pituitary greatly decreases the release of FSH, which inhibits follicular development and helps prevent ovulation.[2][20][58]

A secondary mechanism of action of all progestagen-containing contraceptives is inhibition of sperm penetration through the cervix into the upper genital tract (uterus and fallopian tubes) by decreasing the amount of and increasing the viscosity of the cervical mucus.[60]

Other secondary mechanisms have been hypothesized. One example is endometrial effects that prevent implantation of an embryo in the uterus. Pro-life groups consider such a mechanism to be abortifacient, and the existence of postfertilization mechanisms is a controversial topic. Some scientists point out that the possibility of fertilization during COCP use is very small. From this, they conclude that endometrial changes are unlikely to play an important role, if any, in the observed effectiveness of COCPs.[60] Others make more complex arguments against the existence of these mechanisms.[61] And some scientists argue the existing data supports such mechanisms.[62] The controversy is currently unresolved.

So no, it's not proven that chemical birth control is an abortifacient at this point in the game. If it turns out that it does, it would be true in a vanishingly small portion of the population. It's PRIMARY method of preventing birth is by what has been said repeatedly in this thread: preventing gonadotropins from stimulating follicle maturation and ovum release through negative feedback on the pituitary gland.
Tubal ligation is a surgery with risks, and while birth control certainly has risks, they are less so than an invasive surgery. I would recommend that her husband get snipped before I'd recommend that she be cut open.

[Ree]

So no, it's not proven that chemical birth control is an abortifacient at this point in the game.

It hasn't actually been proven that is isn't an abortifacient, either, as evidenced by the use of the word, "unresolved" in the quote that you used.

Just because something only happens in such a small percentage of the population, that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, period. It simply means that the frequency is not enough to affect a study.

There are still some scientists, and not necessarily pro-life scientists, who claim it does cause the body to miscarry.

Since the risk of pregnancy while on the pill is 0.1 per 100, it can't be said with 100% certainty that pregnancy will not occur while on the pill, because it does occur in very rare instances.

If it does occur, that's a pretty small test group, so of course the miscarriage rate among that .1 per 100 women will be very small as well, but it is not saying with 100% certainty that miscarriage will not occur, or that the miscarriage was not the result of the pill.

And as for my tubal ligation suggestion, idrinkarum is the one whose health and life are at risk if she becomes pregnant, so, while having her husband get snipped is also a good suggestion, my thinking was that, since it's her extreme risk, what happens if, lord forbid, she should end up with a different partner down the road? It made more sense to me that she get her tubes tied.

[Zyanya]

There are still some scientists, and not necessarily pro-life scientists, who claim it does cause the body to miscarry.

There are still some scientists who believe in geo-centrism.

There are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many factors that can cause a woman to miscarry that if we were to ban all of them, we'd have to move to a different planet and become a different species.

If they want it banned, they must first show conclusive evidence that it does cause miscarriages. They cannot. Therefore they have no right to claim it should be banned. AND EVEN IF IT DID, they would have no right, because the health of the woman outweighs any risk to an unwanted non-sentient parasitic organism.

Forced-birthers are little different from rapists.

It made more sense to me that she get her tubes tied.

Okay. Sure. All she needs to do is find a doctor who won't tell her 'oh, but you'll change your mind' or 'we don't do that unless you are over 35 and already have two children'.

I've inquired with nine doctors now. Haven't found one yet.

You say that like it's so easy. There are women who have been trying for years to get a tubal and haven't found a doctor yet.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here(I usually do though )

I don't believe in protesting for the reasons they give however I do believe "the pill" is bad very very bad.

reasons:

a woman is only able to conceive for 72 hours out of a menstrual cycle-why are you pumping your body with excess hormones for the entire month?

The endocrine system is set up to function in a certain manner, when you add more hormones to the mix it can have severe repercussions later. this is one of the reasons it can take up to a year for a woman's cycle to regulate after gong off the pill-the body can indeed "forget" how to manufacture hormones when it hasn't had to for a long time.

the hormones from BC pills are excreted in urine ad not removed by sewage treatment plants-so they are going right back into the water table.

There have been studies done on fish that spawn in the water downstream from sewage treatment plants and the males of the species have functioning ovaries from the hormones in the water.


as far as taking them for medical reasons-

PCOS/endometriosis-caused by a hormone imbalance-why are they not tring to find out the cause ad treat that rather than just taking the cop out of treating the symptoms? To me that is bad medicine.

I had edometriosis-I say had because it has reversed itself almost completely thank to an OB/GYN that did his research into possible causes for it-he refused to put anyone on BC pills to "treat the symptoms"-he looked through research for the root cause, and treated that, and was doing his own research, which was highly unpopular due to the nature of what it was showing(going against what was considered normal/acceptable)

I do still take some herbal remedies for cramps and heavy bleeding-that is not due to endo, but to my body still trying to regulate itself after being on BC pills for over 10 years---and trust me they do more than bc pills ever did(going from 7-10 days of bleeding, changing tampons(super plus)every hour to 3-5 days very light bleeding(the first and last day I'm fine with a pantyliner)


Ayone notice girls are maturing quicker-hitting puberty much earlier-they say it's because of better nutrition-but no one ever looks into the possibility that it could be all the residual hormones in the water/environment-because that would be unpopular, and would hurt the profits of some large companies.


Most "medical studies" in the US are funded in whole or in part by the companies that stand to lose major profits if the study shows the product to be dangerous-plus the people doing the research are normally promised further grants from the company for other purposes.

Do you really think if they discovered that BC pills caused infertility they would release that study? Or would the pharmacuetical companies just make more money selling infertility drugs?

[kibbles]

Even if it is proven indefinitely that the pill does cause the body to abort or miscarry, it still doesn't give a group or anyone the right to prevent someone from putting what they want in their own body.

JMO of course.

[DesignFox]

Also, while most doctors say it takes a year for your body to be fertile again...it isn't necessarily true. A friend of mine went off the pill to prep her body so she could have a baby in a year....and got pregnant within a month or two.

So, don't go off that pill if you aren't sure you want that baby, because you may be in for a surprise.

[blas87]

I'd never consider the Pill anyway, I'm the result of what happens when you rely on the Pill as your only form of BC....and obviously, mum never miscarried with me.

I don't have any evidence or links to back it up, but my current doctor is actually a big fan of the Depo shot, and was telling me that women who stay on the shot for years have less chance of endometriosis. Unfortunately, a higher risk of osteoperosis.

Of course there are risks with the Pill, the Shot, etc etc....but that's why you find out which one is right for you, and don't protest it or try to ban it. There's risks with all kinds of meds and drugs.

[Zyanya]

a woman is only able to conceive for 72 hours out of a menstrual cycle-why are you pumping your body with excess hormones for the entire month?

If you are 28-day regular.

However, quite a few of us are on the pill precisely because our periods are NOT regular.

The endocrine system is set up to function in a certain manner, when you add more hormones to the mix it can have severe repercussions later. this is one of the reasons it can take up to a year for a woman's cycle to regulate after gong off the pill-the body can indeed "forget" how to manufacture hormones when it hasn't had to for a long time.

I threw up after taking the pill one morning. Got pregnant.

the hormones from BC pills are excreted in urine ad not removed by sewage treatment plants-so they are going right back into the water table.

There have been studies done on fish that spawn in the water downstream from sewage treatment plants and the males of the species have functioning ovaries from the hormones in the water.

Proof?

PCOS/endometriosis-caused by a hormone imbalance-why are they not tring to find out the cause ad treat that rather than just taking the cop out of treating the symptoms? To me that is bad medicine.

So you vote give them a hysterectomy? Awesome. Now convince the doctors that women should actually have a say in their reproductive health instead of being told that the cure for endometriosis is 'have a kid'.

I had edometriosis-I say had because it has reversed itself almost completely thank to an OB/GYN that did his research into possible causes for it-he refused to put anyone on BC pills to "treat the symptoms"-he looked through research for the root cause, and treated that, and was doing his own research, which was highly unpopular due to the nature of what it was showing(going against what was considered normal/acceptable)

You are lucky. Not that you had a good OB/GYN, plenty of us have those. You were lucky in that your root cause was treatable.

Ayone notice girls are maturing quicker-hitting puberty much earlier-they say it's because of better nutrition-but no one ever looks into the possibility that it could be all the residual hormones in the water/environment-because that would be unpopular, and would hurt the profits of some large companies.

You mean earlier than 200 years ago when women were getting pregnant/married at 12?