<p>@ Biodomer- </p>
<p>To clarify, I did NOT say that implantation is the defined beginning of LIFE, only that it is the defined beginning of PREGNANCY. The mother and child are separate entities, therefore “life” refers to the physiologic status of the child, whereas “pregnancy” refers to the physiologic status of the mother. Before implantation, a woman’s physiology remains in a non-pregnant state. The term abortion (and therefore, abortifacient) applies to termination (natural or induced) of pregnancy only. While confusion related to this distinction may sometimes complicate legal and ethical discussions, this clarification can sometimes be a hugely important distinction in medical research and patient care. The physiological changes of pregnancy often impact medical treatment like pharmacologic choices and dosing. Additionally, the medical management of a miscarriage (which may involve a D&E, misoprostal, or follow-up psych support) is significantly different from the medical management of a zygote not implanting (nothing, since no one knows it even happened). It is a medical, not a moral, distinction. And to change up the meaning of a word depending on the context only serves to add to the confusion. I was simply trying to define some terms to make sure everyone was on the same page.</p>
<p>I know what the Church teaches and I also believe that life begins at conception, but I am a little unsure as to how I feel about the effects of OCPs on reducing the rate of implantation. At this point, I am inclined to accept their use. It brings up a lot of issues about how we are to respond when the certainty of our data is in question and what role unintended results play in the moral classification of actions when our intentions are good (but we perhaps know that there may be a negative result). This issue plays into a lot more than this debate and sometimes the Church is largely OK with it. We give painkillers to the dying even when it may hasten their death, we drive cars knowing there is a chance we will get into an accident and kill someone, we feed our kids unhealthy and/or chemical-filled food even though it may increase the chance of them developing cancer. We could theoretically live without any of these things (we could allow people to die in pain, go back to walking everywhere, or seek out more expensive but healthier food options). And many of us do try to mitigate these negative effects, but we often accept these small risks because of the benefits that analgesics, cars, convenient and cheap food, etc offer. And hormonal contraception is seen by many, myself included, to offer many benefits from a medical and social perspective, even if the chance exists that it may indirectly cause a zygote to not implant (and it is indirect because it is not the primary mechanism of action and it only reduces the chances of implantation and does not eliminate the possibility entirely- many drugs we administer for reasons completely unrelated to contraception also do this). And to my knowledge, the Church accepts the administeration of these same pills when they are used to treat another condition (such as uterine fibroids) even though in these circumstances the pill carries these same risks. Based on my reading of the Cathechism, it seems that the Church’s primary objection to OCPs (and all other forms of birth control including barrier methods, which lack these additional risks), is that they somehow corrupt the sexual union of man and wife.</p>
<p>And of course, my argument does nothing to change these other objections the Church has to the use of non-NFP contraception (which I find I can’t make myself agree with, no matter how hard I have tried in the past). And I know that this, and a few of my other views are inconsistent with what’s in the Catechism, but I’m really just trying to be philosophically consistent and follow my own reason and conscience. For a long time I have tried to get my conclusions on this matter to match what I read in the Catechism because I do consider myself a Catholic and believe in most of what the Church teaches, but I have yet to be able to do that.</p>
<p>Also, in regards to the increase in breast cancer risk, recent research has brought that into question as the risk is only increased for 10 years after stopping the pill and cancers after that are less advanced than those in the non-OCP cohort, suggesting that OCPs may hasten the growth and detection of existing breast cancers but may not increase the pathogenesis or long-term risk. But this does remain somewhat unclear, so you are right that it is another factor to consider when weighing the pros and cons.</p>