Believe life begins at conception? Don't use I.U.D. Mirena

While talking with our doctor this morning at my 2 month old son's second doctor visit to get vaccinated, the issue came up about contraceptives and which ones we would use. My wife told her and my son's doctor that her OB recommended the I.U.D. "Mirena".

Well my wife's doctor is a firm believer that life begins at conception and she told my wife if she holds to the same belief not to get the I.U.D. Mirena because it still allows conception to take place and to boil it down it's just another form of abortion. Of course none of the pamphlets given out by my wife's OB mentions anything about that, both my wife and my mother in law both went over the information provided in them.

So for those couples out there considering using this I.U.D., if you too believe life begins at conception and are staunchly against abortion, you might want to consider using birth control pills instead as they are 96% affective at preventing ovulation according to my wife's PCP. I'd also advise you to find another OB if your doctor knows your beliefs but chooses to keep you in the dark about such a serious matter.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Even women who are on the "Pill" aren't safe from the pro-life agenda!

Via RightwingWatch, it seems that talk show host Kevin Swanson has talked to “some doctors” who believe that if you take birth control, tiny little dead babies are simply hanging around, embedded into the lining of your womb.

Swanson: I’m beginning to get some evidence from certain doctors and certain scientists that have done research on women’s wombs after they’ve gone through the surgery, and they’ve compared the wombs of women who were on the birth control pill to those who were not on the birth control pill. And they have found that with women who are on the birth control pill, there are these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb. They’re just like dead babies. They’re on the inside of the womb. And these wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.

rhrealitycheck.org...

Don’t Forget about the “Baby Pesticides”

Black was already on the cutting edge of anti-choice zealotry, known for complaining about the lack of “morality” surrounding contraception, and told the Washington Times that he was “concerned that birth control is contributing to a low birth rate in the United States and called contraceptives ‘baby pesticides.’”

Contraceptives Are “Homicidal Drugs and Devices”

‘Do We Want to Make the Pill Illegal? Yes!’

Terry: Without a clear message of “This is what it means to be pro-life,” then we’re doomed.

Beacham: Nobody articulates our message better than Randall.

Terry: Do we want to make the pill illegal? Yes. Do we want to make the IUD illegal? Yes. The morning after pill? Yes. The patch? Yes. Anything that’s a human pesticide, they all have to be made illegal. A woman has to go to jail if she kills her baby.

Lonewolf,

If your wife is using contraception, of any kind, she is NOT pro-life, she is pro-choice.

reply to post by windword


Ah, I see. Then if I choose to engage with my husband during a time in my cycle when I am not fertile, I am pro-choice?

That's very convenient for you.

reply to post by windword


Dam straight!!

Contraception is "pro-choice". It doesn't always work, though.

The 'rhythm' method is more reliable, truly.

(Not that it matters to me now, though - thankfully I am past fertile phase!)

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

So for those couples out there considering using this I.U.D., if you too believe life begins at conception and are staunchly against abortion, you might want to consider using birth control pills instead as they are 96% affective at preventing ovulation according to my wife's PCP.

It doesn't matter whether it's 'the pill' (which tricks the hormones into thinking she is already pregnant), or an I.U.D. (which tricks the uterus into thinking it is already pregnant), NEITHER ONE 'conceives.' They are tools that alter a woman's hormones/physiology.....

reply to post by windword


Methinks the definition of pro-choice is being used rather broadly here.

Let me tell you something, my mom was pregnant 10 times and had used contraception, and she's a right-wing nut.....

I think that the choice any responsible person should make is this, should they make babies they can't afford to take care of? If you're not having sex, that's also a choice. Abstinence is most effective contraception, but contraception is the choice, not the concept of life at conception.

Then we hear from some people about "well, what about rape or incest". Those two actions removed the choice of participating willingly in sex. Rape and incest are not pro-choice. But Girls Gone Wild, is a choice of action, to be proactive in the choice of sex.

Pro-choice means that I willing choose to participate in an act that I know can end up with the result of pregnancy. Pro-life simply means that after I have engaged in that activity and the ensuing results are a life being formed, then I choose to have the baby. So contraception isn't about pro-choice in regard to life, it simply is the choice to actively participate.

Pro-life is pro-choice. It means that you are choosing to recognize the life of a human. Just because it isn't born yet, doesn't mean it's not a human. At the moment of conception, it already has been dictated to be a human being with DNA that proves it is a human being.

You women that had children, didn't you make a proactive choice in the act that got you pregnant in the first place? And didn't you make a choice to perceive that the baby you were pregnant with was actually a life you were going to give birth to?

Abstinence is the only reliable method of birth control. But it's a choice, therefore, pro-choice. Well. not having a uterus is not necessarily a choice, but still, I could still participate actively in the choice of doing the act, that would otherwise get me pregnant. So, the choice is not whether or not to perceive a life, but to make the choice to have sex.

And isn't that what the whole pro-choice issue is about anyway? To be able to choose to have sex without worrying about the consequences?

Outside of abstinence, there are no fail-safe methods of birth control other than a hysterectomy. And contrary to what people think, some of us right wing nuts have had to deal with girls who have had abortions. I've heard the same thing from every one of them, they had regrets over taking the life, but not with having sex. It is psychologically damaging to many. And if it is damaging to one person, isn't that enough?

Maybe lonewolf is making the choice to accept that it is a life? That still makes pro-life as pro-choice.

wildtimes
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

So for those couples out there considering using this I.U.D., if you too believe life begins at conception and are staunchly against abortion, you might want to consider using birth control pills instead as they are 96% affective at preventing ovulation according to my wife's PCP.

It doesn't matter whether it's 'the pill' (which tricks the hormones into thinking she is already pregnant), or an I.U.D. (which tricks the uterus into thinking it is already pregnant), NEITHER ONE 'conceives.' They are tools that alter a woman's hormones/physiology.....

edit on 10/29/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

And neither are fail-safe 100%.

You have probably heard all the stories yourself of women who used these contraceptive methods and still ended up pregnant. You know yourself, there is no 100% guarantee on these methods. I'm 45 years-old and have heard it all, as you have as well.

I know women who have gotten pregnant after tubal ligation. It happens.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Pro-choice means that I willing choose to participate in an act that I know can end up with the result of pregnancy. Pro-life simply means that after I have engaged in that activity and the ensuing results are a life being formed, then I choose to have the baby. So contraception isn't about pro-choice in regard to life, it simply is the choice to actively participate.

If this is what you believe, then you are Pro-Choice! Pro-choice means that you allow for others to make a choice, even if it's not the choice that you would make for yourself.

Pro-life means that you want to take that choice away from others, in favor of the rights of the unborn. In other words, pro-life means that the interest of a fertilized egg is more important than a woman's choice to not be pregnant.

The pro-life community's agenda is to outlaw abortion and contraception that are known as abortifacients, which are the methods used by most women in the US today.

www.abortionno.org...

The American Medical Association defines pregnancy as after the implantation of the embryo. The pro-life community has their own definition of when a woman is pregnant, at fertilization, claiming that contraception is the same as an abortion. The pro-life community seeks to outlaw such contraception, as well as abortion.

pro-life (pr-lf)
adj.
Advocating the legal protection of human embyos and fetuses, especially by favoring the outlawing of abortion on the ground that it is the taking of a human life.

The pro-life movement is anti-choice.

They're Coming For Your Birth Control!

reply to post by windword


Pro-choice also allows for others to make the choice to believe in pro-life, doesn't it?

You can't dismiss the choice for some people to believe in pro-life, because it is ultimately their choice, isn't it? And I think you miss the bigger picture when it comes to pro-choice, but I am of the view that if you are going to enact what gets you pregnant in the first place, then why not follow through with the consequences?

Unfortunately, the abstinence message is not even considered a choice in this culture, we live in a culture that says "just do it". And if the message is "just do it" kind of removes from them every choice. Abstinence is a choice that is viable.

But when it comes to women who have decided to "just do it", because they were told before that it was their responsibility, then kind of leaves the man out of the decision making process, and regardless of how much we say "it is their body and their right" then that's selfish because the woman has taken it upon herself to remove the decision from the man. Then sex simply becomes a purely physical act that has nothing to do with love or emotion. And how did we get from romantic love that involves two people, to just the decision of one person to avoid consequences?

If a woman gets pregnant by a man, he should as well face the consequences, but women are absolving men in this process. What if the man wants to become a father? Should that right be taken from him also? He is pro-choice, therefore he must be pro-life if he is choosing this, it's just that he can't get pregnant.

In a relationship based on two people, then how is it reduced to the choice of one person? That's a selfish thing to do. But it also just as selfish to make babies you don't intend on taking care of or can afford to take care of. Has parenthood become so singular that men are simply sperm donors now? They weren't just sperm donors during all the romance, that was a relationship.

Of course there are men who are actively choosing not to become fathers, but it's still a choice. But if he is in a relationship, then it is wrong to take her choice also. There are so many choices to make, but as men and women are wanting children, then they are pro-life in their pro-choice.

People are going to do what people do, regardless of any law they feel is imposed on them. The current abortions just took the woman out of the back alleys into clinics, for the same exact procedure. But now doctors use sterilized equipment, and in some cases the woman is rendered infertile because of it. Those are things that should be presented to women seeking abortions. But it also does not prepare a 14 year-old girl that is pregnant, she is not intellectually capable to understand what a life with a baby is, and neither is she prepared for the consequences of an abortion.

But by simply telling a young girl that it is her body and her choice, most often girls that young are pregnant because they did not understand either the ramifications of a sexual relationship. I'm not getting into the rape or incest issue here, I am referring to pregnancies of willful acts. And as she was told that it is her body and her choice, she wasn't told that it was also his body and his choice to partake in this act. The pro-choice I am advocating is recognizing there is a responsibility in sexual relationships. The choice is whether or not to have sex, because when it is sex, then it is two bodies, not just one.

If someone isn't ready for the consequences, then don't partake in the relationship. That's as simple as it gets. Sex leads to pregnancy, and two bodies are involved in the choice. So it is never just her body and her choice, it is both. Pro-life doesn't just mean protecting the unborn, it should also be about how to raise that child right and take care of it. Some children just shouldn't be born to their parents, but it had no choice to be born, except you. I recall that you chose your parents to give you life, so you were indeed pro-life as the former soul you believe you were.

So because it was your choice to be pro-life before your conception and that you chose your parents, didn't that kind of remove from them their choice when it came to giving you life? You are the one who said you were reincarnated and that you chose your parents, so you were pro-life yourself. You seemed to not have said "I will choose my parents, but I don't want my mother to have an abortion". If you believe that you were pro-choice, then you were pro-life, otherwise you could have chosen to remain out there somewhere in the universe.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Out of curiosity, do you think it's realistic to expect childfree-by-choice married couples (or life partners - people in committed, long-term, loving relationships who know they never want to be parents) to literally never have sex, or do you think they have no business even being in relationships in the first place? Not even "permanent" sterilization methods are 100% foolproof, although they are clearly the best choice in this situation...

opopanax
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Out of curiosity, do you think it's realistic to expect childfree-by-choice married couples (or life partners - people in committed, long-term, loving relationships who know they never want to be parents) to literally never have sex, or do you think they have no business even being in relationships in the first place? Not even "permanent" sterilization methods are 100% foolproof, although they are clearly the best choice in this situation...

I am of the opinion that if the methods are not fail safe, then have hysterectomies for the women. Then they can have all the sex they want without the worry.

If the only purpose for a uterus is to make a baby, then remove it if it is never going to be used for that.

Vasectomies sometimes don't work either. Soooo, get rid of the baby making machine. That's my solution.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Pro-choice also allows for others to make the choice to believe in pro-life, doesn't it?

You can't dismiss the choice for some people to believe in pro-life, because it is ultimately their choice, isn't it?

Yes. Pro-choice means that one allows others to choose what's right for them. If that means that they believe that a fertilized egg is holy, even though they don't want to be a parent, or even though they are aware that the child will be born horribly deformed with a lifetime of pain and suffering ahead of them, it's their choice to choose to have that child.

Pro-choice means even if one would never have an abortion, they would not try to bar someone else from having one.

So because it was your choice to be pro-life before your conception and that you chose your parents, didn't that kind of remove from them their choice when it came to giving you life? You are the one who said you were reincarnated and that you chose your parents, so you were pro-life yourself. You seemed to not have said "I will choose my parents, but I don't want my mother to have an abortion". If you believe that you were pro-choice, then you were pro-life, otherwise you could have chosen to remain out there somewhere in the universe.

That's not how reincarnation works, in my opinion. All parties are in agreement. If my mom didn't want me, I wouldn't have been born into that family. PERIOD!

It's the same for a young women who doesn't want a child. but finds herself pregnant. There was no agreement on a spiritual level, it's a forced and a unholy alliance and she has the right to evict that embryo/fetus.

But when it comes to women who have decided to "just do it", because they were told before that it was their responsibility, then kind of leaves the man out of the decision making process, and regardless of how much we say "it is their body and their right" then that's selfish because the woman has taken it upon herself to remove the decision from the man. Then sex simply becomes a purely physical act that has nothing to do with love or emotion. And how did we get from romantic love that involves two people, to just the decision of one person to avoid consequences?

I have been around the block a few times, married twice and have had many lovers, and I have yet to meet a man that wasn't happy to find out that I was taking responsibility and using birth control. If a couple wants a child, they need to discuss it and prepare for it.

Sex isn't just about procreation, marriage and romantic love anymore. Contraception has ushered in "free love", free from the worries of getting pregnant, free from the fear of being straddled in a relationship that wouldn't otherwise be. Women are free to express their sexuality without having to worry about motherhood.

reply to post by WarminIndy


That "baby maker" body part is an important part of a woman's anatomy and a hysterectomy is serious, risky and expensive surgery to undergo just because one doesn't want to be a parent.

There was a time when doctors didn't think much about removing a woman's uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, cervix and parts of the vagina, particularly if a woman had already produced children or was beyond childbearing age. Hysterectomies were standard treatments for everything from anxiety (known back then as hysteria) to abnormal bleeding.

We now know that making the decision to have a hysterectomy should never be taken lightly. It not only closes the door to childbirth, it has other potential repercussions, beyond the risks posed by any surgery - bleeding, infection, reactions to anesthesia and injury to nearby organs, nerves and tissue. A hysterectomy can also cause the vaginal dryness, mood swings and hot flashes of menopause if the ovaries are also removed; impact sexual pleasure, particularly uterine orgasm; produce bladder and intestinal changes; and provoke emotional distress and depression.
www.doctoroz.com...

Possible Hysterectomy Side Effects
Early menopause even if your ovaries are not removed
Hot flashes
Hair Loss
Dry skin
Night sweats
Weight gain
Severe pain
A loss of menstrual bleeding
A lack of fertility and inability to conceive or carry a child
Vaginal dryness
Mood swings
A loss of sexual pleasure
Painful sexual intercourse
Missed time from work
Damage to other organs caused by the surgery
Complications from anesthesia
Nausea
Infections
Constipation
Fatigue
Pelvic pain which is unknown in origin
Cardiovascular Diseases
Bone density loss
Height loss
Cervical cancer if a partial hysterectomy was performed and the cervix was left in place
Decrease hormone levels
Vaginal vault shortening
Vaginal prolapse
A psychological sense of loss and the feeling of not being a complete woman anymore

www.hysterectomyadvice.com...

A woman's body is HER BODY. Suggesting that she eliminate that body part simply because she doesn't want children is insensitive and barbaric!

Geez! Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water!

If God created sex for reproduction, then condoms abortion masturbation and birth control is evil.

It would be hypocritical to just be against abortion in this case if you actually believe thats why sex exist.

reply to post by windword


Hey, you're talking to a woman who did have a hysterectomy, for cancer.

I know the issues about hysterectomies but at the same time, you are also talking to a woman who could not have children prior to having a hysterectomy. I think I can see both perspectives from this vantage point.

You guys are arguing about whether or not it is her body, but as I was married, everything also became my husband's choice as well, it wasn't like I played the "it's my body" card on him. That would be unfair in a relationship.

But as life is holy, imagine yourself then as never having been able to have children. You have a daughter, right? So don't throw these things up to me. I am the one who sees women not able to have children, and those who can take it so casually, that if they don't want a baby, so what?

Why did you have your daughter in the first place? Wasn't there something about the expectation of bringing a life into the world that just made you feel a little bit happy? Tell me, how did you feel when you brought her home? Is that something then that can be taken casually?

So tell me again, what about the hysterectomy?

You know something funny, every time I talk with a parent and mention that I don't have children, they act like I'm stupid about children. I'm sorry I didn't get the experience, but can you see why I feel it should never be taken as casually as "it's her body"?

If it can be taken that easily, then how why do parents invest so much time, energy and money into taking care the infant is born healthy? Why do all of that from the moment you first find out you are pregnant? Is it because you really feel that it is a life within you?

I don't think you can approach it from my position. And from my vantage point, I do see that you did feel that your fetus was worth considering as a life. You placed an importance on its life, so therefore, it must be a life worth giving birth to. But hey, I'm just not a parent, what would I know? I can only imagine from what I see and hear from those who have had children.

There was something about being pregnant for you. Apparently you must have liked the idea of bringing a life into this world. But hey, what do I know about it?

So why not hysterectomies? They don't kill you, they prevent you from getting pregnant in the first place, and hey, isn't that what your pro-choice is about anyway?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


THe IUD does not allow conception. I have had one for 4 yrs. I can tell you what my doctor told me about how it works..it blocks the sperm from entering the fallopian tubes, therefore conception cannot take place. If conception would take place (it is only 99% effective) it would result in a tubal pregnancy or a rare normal pregnancy.

How do you figure the IUD is the same as abortion?? If that is the case, I have probably had about 800 abortions with this thing to date. I am not buying it.

IUD blocks implantation. It does not always prevent the sperm from meeting the egg (conception). It also works by making the uterine wall unsuitable for implantation. There are hormone IUDs (like Merina) and non-hormonal IUDs (like the copper IUDs).

Merina's website says this:

Mirena (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) prevents pregnancy, most likely in several ways:

• Thickens cervical mucus to prevent sperm from entering your uterus

• Inhibits sperm from reaching or fertilizing your egg

• Makes the lining of your uterus thin

source: www.mirena-us.com...

Mirena and other IUD makers tend to downplay the third bulletpoint - that it makes the lining of the uterus of your uterus thin... but that is, according to some, actually the primary way that IUDs work. They prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall by making the lining inhospitable.


This is from webMD talking about the two kind of IUDs:

Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow).

This article from the NY Times sums up how the IUDs work nicely:

Two types of IUDs are available in this country: one, called ParaGard, releases tiny amounts of copper; the other, called Mirena, releases localized amounts of a synthetic hormone, the progestin levonorgestrel. IUDs do not disrupt the menstrual cycle and, unlike the pill, they do not prevent ovulation; rather, they interfere with fertilization and implantation.

With ParaGard, which can remain in place for 10 to 12 years, copper stimulates production of fluid in the woman’s reproductive tract that kills sperm. Should an egg become fertilized, copper-induced changes in the uterus prevent implantation.

The hormonal IUD, which can last for five years, prevents pregnancy by thickening the cervical mucus, making it difficult for sperm to get to the fallopian tubes, where fertilization takes place. The hormone also impedes changes in the uterine lining that are needed for implantation of a fertilized egg.

source: well.blogs.nytimes.com...

There is tons of more info out there on how IUDs work... I won't keep quoting articles. But the point is this. If a woman believes that life begins at conception, the IUD isn't a good birth control choice for her. Ovulation and fertilization can still happen with IUD.

The pill is a bit more controversial in how it works. Pills mostly work by preventing ovulation, however there is a secondary "benefit" in that it also makes the uterus unsuitable for implantation... so that in the event (which is rare) that ovulation does occur, the odds of a successful implantation are very slim.

I wish more women understood how IUDs work. I think many of them wouldn't want to use it if they were told they truth about how they work. I'm glad you posted this, OP!

reply to post by arpgme


My reading of 1 Corinthians 7 is that God wants us to enjoy sex for the sake of sex, not just for reproduction. Sex is a profound (and, yes, very very fun) gift He has given us to connect deeply to each other within our marriage. That's how I understand it...

I actually don't personally know any Christians that believe sex is just for reproduction. I'm not sure what people of other faiths believe on this issue. If that were the case, then I guess women would have to give up sex after menopause?

arpgme
If God created sex for reproduction, then condoms abortion masturbation and birth control is evil.
It would be hypocritical to just be against abortion in this case if you actually believe thats why sex exist.

To the OP question, it is only when the soul enters the body that the child/body is viable. This happens at birth usually; (soul enters vehicle thus you have the cry of WHAT? at birth). It is very rare a soul/spirit will enter a body at conception because of the 'confinement factors' which are brutal and unforgiving and very few volunteer for this misery. As God controls and allows all of this, masterbation, pull out, rhythm methods, birthcontrol via estrogen devious Pfizer style birth control hormonal 'SWITCHEROOS', where is the foul? What was wrong with the Douche method used for centuries, a soda and vinegar based fertilized egg killing method? Just an egg wash.

k21968
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

THe IUD does not allow conception. I have had one for 4 yrs. I can tell you what my doctor told me about how it works..it blocks the sperm from entering the fallopian tubes, therefore conception cannot take place. If conception would take place (it is only 99% effective) it would result in a tubal pregnancy or a rare normal pregnancy.

How do you figure the IUD is the same as abortion?? If that is the case, I have probably had about 800 abortions with this thing to date. I am not buying it.

It's what my wife's primary care physician told her. If you don't accept that then believe whatever floats your boat. I'm not a doctor, I only know what I've been told.