Re: Editorial - Contraception war

[Guest guest]

This is not the traditional medical view.

It became such due to lobbying of ACOG, to alter the debate in the early ‘60s

about allowing hormonal contraception to be legalized in some states.

It is also not the view of all 49,000 ACOG

members (2,000 of whom have formed their own group within ACOG called the Amer

Assoc of ProLife OBGYNs. AAPLOG.). It is also not the CURRENT view of the

field of Embryology, as any text in Embryo would show.

, MD

Residency Director

VCU/Shenandoah Valley FPR

Front Royal, VA

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of Diane Royal

Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:26

AM

To: NFP Professionals List

Subject:

Editorial - Contraception war

Here is a link someone on another list sent out:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006605300339

Here is an excerpt:

Sometimes the arguments for restricting access to birth control are

framed as arguments against abortion. Those opposed to contraception say a

pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization, and, therefore, anything that

prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is an abortifacient,

including birth control pills and IUDs.

Of course, that's not what the American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says. Its 49,000 members define pregnancy as

beginning at the moment of implantation, the traditional medical view.

After all, even under ideal conditions, only half of all fertilized

eggs attach themselves to the uterine wall. The ones that don't aren't

considered dead souls. Also, a woman's body doesn't begin to nurture an egg

until itis implanted in the womb.

Is this really the " traditional medical view? "

Peace & blessings,

Diane

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your comments, .

I have another question. It seems that a distinction is being made

between when life begins and when pregnancy begins. I know that

traditionally, everyone believed that life begins at conception. But was

there ever a different line of thought as to when pregnancy begins? I

thought that ACOG changed the definition of when pregnancy begins so that

abortifacients could be called contraceptives.

Of course, we all know that these two

events – the beginning of life and the beginning of pregnancy – are

one and the same. But is the other side trying to make a distinction

here? I am unclear on that.

Thanks for any further light you can shed

on this subject.

Diane

From:

nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of ,

Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 10:20

AM

To:

nfpprofessionals

Subject: RE:

Editorial - Contraception war

This is not the traditional medical

view. It became such due to lobbying of ACOG, to alter the debate in the early

‘60s about allowing hormonal contraception to be legalized in some

states.

It is also not the view of all 49,000 ACOG

members (2,000 of whom have formed their own group within ACOG called the Amer

Assoc of ProLife OBGYNs. AAPLOG.). It is also not the CURRENT view of the

field of Embryology, as any text in Embryo would show.

, MD

Residency Director

VCU/Shenandoah Valley FPR

Front Royal, VA

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of Diane Royal

Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:26

AM

To: NFP Professionals List

Subject:

Editorial - Contraception war

Here is a link someone on another list sent out:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006605300339

Here is an excerpt:

Sometimes the arguments for restricting access to birth control are

framed as arguments against abortion. Those opposed to contraception say a

pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization, and, therefore, anything that

prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is an abortifacient,

including birth control pills and IUDs.

Of course, that's not what the American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says. Its 49,000 members define pregnancy as

beginning at the moment of implantation, the traditional medical view.

After all, even under ideal conditions, only half of all fertilized

eggs attach themselves to the uterine wall. The ones that don't aren't

considered dead souls. Also, a woman's body doesn't begin to nurture an egg

until itis implanted in the womb.

Is this really the " traditional medical view? "

Peace & blessings,

Diane

[Guest guest]

I think it would be fair to say that not all of the 2000 AAPLOG members

admit an abortifacient mechanism for hormonal birth control.

Consequently, they may not all respect a " pregnancy/life begins at

fertilization/conception " position. Perhaps an AAPLOG member would

comment on whether a survey has been accomplished.

May God bless you.

Steve Koob

One More Soul

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:20:19 -0400 " , "

writes:

> This is not the traditional medical view. It became such due to

> lobbying of ACOG, to alter the debate in the early '60s about

> allowing

> hormonal contraception to be legalized in some states.

>

> It is also not the view of all 49,000 ACOG members (2,000 of whom

> have

> formed their own group within ACOG called the Amer Assoc of ProLife

> OBGYNs. AAPLOG.). It is also not the CURRENT view of the field of

> Embryology, as any text in Embryo would show.

>

>

>

> , MD

>

> Residency Director

>

> VCU/Shenandoah Valley FPR

>

> Front Royal, VA

[Guest guest]

My understanding is that you are correct,

the definition changed for when PREGNANCY begins, to allow hormonal

contraceptives to avoid the abortifacient argument early on.

The “other side” is making a

distinction, though I’ve never heard anyone discuss it that way. That

is, there is no discussion at all about a pre-implantation embryo being alive

or not. Such discussion would point out the absurdities of their argument. (Since,

it’s not a live baby kitten or tomato…)

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of Diane Royal

Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 10:58

AM

To: nfpprofessionals

Subject: RE:

Editorial - Contraception war

Thank you for your comments, .

I have another question. It seems that a distinction is being made

between when life begins and when pregnancy begins. I know that

traditionally, everyone believed that life begins at conception. But was

there ever a different line of thought as to when pregnancy begins? I

thought that ACOG changed the definition of when pregnancy begins so that

abortifacients could be called contraceptives.

Of course, we all know that these two

events – the beginning of life and the beginning of pregnancy – are

one and the same. But is the other side trying to make a distinction

here? I am unclear on that.

Thanks for any further light you can shed

on this subject.

Diane

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of ,

Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 10:20

AM

To: nfpprofessionals

Subject: RE:

Editorial - Contraception war

This is not the traditional medical

view. It became such due to lobbying of ACOG, to alter the debate in the

early ‘60s about allowing hormonal contraception to be legalized in some

states.

It is also not the view of all 49,000 ACOG

members (2,000 of whom have formed their own group within ACOG called the Amer

Assoc of ProLife OBGYNs. AAPLOG.). It is also not the CURRENT view of the

field of Embryology, as any text in Embryo would show.

, MD

Residency Director

VCU/Shenandoah Valley FPR

Front Royal, VA

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of Diane Royal

Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:26

AM

To: NFP Professionals List

Subject:

Editorial - Contraception war

Here is a link someone on another list sent out:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006605300339

Here is an excerpt:

Sometimes the arguments for restricting access to birth control are

framed as arguments against abortion. Those opposed to contraception say a

pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization, and, therefore, anything that

prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is an abortifacient,

including birth control pills and IUDs.

Of course, that's not what the American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says. Its 49,000 members define pregnancy as

beginning at the moment of implantation, the traditional medical view.

After all, even under ideal conditions, only half of all fertilized

eggs attach themselves to the uterine wall. The ones that don't aren't

considered dead souls. Also, a woman's body doesn't begin to nurture an egg

until itis implanted in the womb.

Is this really the " traditional medical view? "

Peace & blessings,

Diane

[Guest guest]

I've been wondering about strategizing on this issue.

what has been discovered since the '60's about the embyo's effect on

the mother's body pre implantation?

Perhaps that could be worked into the discussion somehow. If people

were made to focus on the relationship that has begun at

fertilization, it seems that it could move the discussion into

territory more friendly to the new little one.

a Johannes

>

> My understanding is that you are correct, the definition changed

for

> when PREGNANCY begins, to allow hormonal contraceptives to avoid

the

> abortifacient argument early on.

>

> The " other side " is making a distinction, though I've never heard

anyone

> discuss it that way. That is, there is no discussion at all about

a

> pre-implantation embryo being alive or not. Such discussion would

point

> out the absurdities of their argument. (Since, it's not a live

baby

> kitten or tomato...)

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

> From: nfpprofessionals

> [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of Diane Royal

> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 10:58 AM

> To: nfpprofessionals

> Subject: RE: Editorial - Contraception war

>

>

>

> Thank you for your comments, . I have another question. It

seems

> that a distinction is being made between when life begins and when

> pregnancy begins. I know that traditionally, everyone believed

that

> life begins at conception. But was there ever a different line of

> thought as to when pregnancy begins? I thought that ACOG changed

the

> definition of when pregnancy begins so that abortifacients could be

> called contraceptives.

>

>

>

> Of course, we all know that these two events - the beginning of

life and

> the beginning of pregnancy - are one and the same. But is the

other

> side trying to make a distinction here? I am unclear on that.

>

>

>

> Thanks for any further light you can shed on this subject.

>

>

>

> Diane

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

> From: nfpprofessionals

> [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of ,

> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 10:20 AM

> To: nfpprofessionals

> Subject: RE: Editorial - Contraception war

>

>

>

> This is not the traditional medical view. It became such due to

> lobbying of ACOG, to alter the debate in the early '60s about

allowing

> hormonal contraception to be legalized in some states.

>

> It is also not the view of all 49,000 ACOG members (2,000 of whom

have

> formed their own group within ACOG called the Amer Assoc of ProLife

> OBGYNs. AAPLOG.). It is also not the CURRENT view of the field of

> Embryology, as any text in Embryo would show.

>

>

>

> , MD

>

> Residency Director

>

> VCU/Shenandoah Valley FPR

>

> Front Royal, VA

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

> From: nfpprofessionals

> [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of Diane Royal

> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:26 AM

> To: NFP Professionals List

> Subject: Editorial - Contraception war

>

>

>

> Here is a link someone on another list sent out:

>

>

>

> http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?

AID=2006605300339

>

>

>

> Here is an excerpt:

>

>

>

> Sometimes the arguments for restricting access to birth

control

> are framed as arguments against abortion. Those opposed to

contraception

> say a pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization, and,

therefore,

> anything that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the

uterus is

> an abortifacient, including birth control pills and IUDs.

>

>

>

> Of course, that's not what the American College of

Obstetricians

> and Gynecologists says. Its 49,000 members define pregnancy as

beginning

> at the moment of implantation, the traditional medical view.

>

>

>

> After all, even under ideal conditions, only half of all

> fertilized eggs attach themselves to the uterine wall. The ones

that

> don't aren't considered dead souls. Also, a woman's body doesn't

begin

> to nurture an egg until itis implanted in the womb.

>

>

>

> Is this really the " traditional medical view? "

>

>

>

> Peace & blessings,

>

>

>

> Diane

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Actually, Tietze -Population Council- proposed changing the definition in the 60's because the only IUD's in use at that time were purely abortifacient and Tietze knew that Catholic Latin America would never accept them.

Hanna Klaus, M.D.

Natural Family Planning Center of Wash. D.C. and Teen STAR Program

8514 Bradmoor Drive

Bethesda, MD 20817-3810

Tel. , ®

hannaklaus@..., hklaus@...

http://www.teenstarprogram.org

Editorial - Contraception war

Here is a link someone on another list sent out:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006605300339

Here is an excerpt:

Sometimes the arguments for restricting access to birth control are framed as arguments against abortion. Those opposed to contraception say a pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization, and, therefore, anything that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is an abortifacient, including birth control pills and IUDs.

Of course, that's not what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says. Its 49,000 members define pregnancy as beginning at the moment of implantation, the traditional medical view.

After all, even under ideal conditions, only half of all fertilized eggs attach themselves to the uterine wall. The ones that don't aren't considered dead souls. Also, a woman's body doesn't begin to nurture an egg until itis implanted in the womb.

Is this really the "traditional medical view?"

Peace & blessings,

Diane

[Guest guest]

Actually, Tietze -Population Council- proposed changing the definition in the 60's because the only IUD's in use at that time were purely abortifacient and Tietze knew that Catholic Latin America would never accept them.

Hanna Klaus, M.D.

Natural Family Planning Center of Wash. D.C. and Teen STAR Program

8514 Bradmoor Drive

Bethesda, MD 20817-3810

Tel. , ®

hannaklaus@..., hklaus@...

http://www.teenstarprogram.org

Editorial - Contraception war

Here is a link someone on another list sent out:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006605300339

Here is an excerpt:

Sometimes the arguments for restricting access to birth control are framed as arguments against abortion. Those opposed to contraception say a pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization, and, therefore, anything that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is an abortifacient, including birth control pills and IUDs.

Of course, that's not what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says. Its 49,000 members define pregnancy as beginning at the moment of implantation, the traditional medical view.

After all, even under ideal conditions, only half of all fertilized eggs attach themselves to the uterine wall. The ones that don't aren't considered dead souls. Also, a woman's body doesn't begin to nurture an egg until itis implanted in the womb.

Is this really the "traditional medical view?"

Peace & blessings,

Diane

[Guest guest]

In my letter to ACOG, when the committee on Technical Affairs floated the new definition, I wrote that the only time there is no maternal reaction prior to implantation is when IVF is used. in natural conception EPF and other hormonal signals go from the embryo to the mother, and her body responds. They agreed with me.

Hanna Klaus, M.D.

Natural Family Planning Center of Wash. D.C. and Teen STAR Program

8514 Bradmoor Drive

Bethesda, MD 20817-3810

Tel. , ®

hannaklaus@..., hklaus@...

http://www.teenstarprogram.org

Editorial - Contraception war> > > > Here is a link someone on another list sent out:> > > > http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006605300339> > > > Here is an excerpt:> > > > Sometimes the arguments for restricting access to birth control> are framed as arguments against abortion. Those opposed to contraception> say a pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization, and, therefore,> anything that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is> an abortifacient, including birth control pills and IUDs.> > > > Of course, that's not what the American College of Obstetricians> and Gynecologists says. Its 49,000 members define pregnancy as beginning> at the moment of implantation, the traditional medical view.> > > > After all, even under ideal conditions, only half of all> fertilized eggs attach themselves to the uterine wall. The ones that> don't aren't considered dead souls. Also, a woman's body doesn't begin> to nurture an egg until itis implanted in the womb. > > > > Is this really the "traditional medical view?"> > > > Peace & blessings,> > > > Diane> > > >