Contraceptives - intrauterine devices and the role of men

[RogerS]

Hi everyone,

I created this topic about the intrauterine device, because I'm not sure if it's ethical to use it and I'm curious about hearing your opinions on this topic.

With the oral contraceptive pill, pregnancy is primarily prevented by preventing ovulation and by thickening the cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to reach the egg.

With the intrauterine device there seems to be some uncertainty on how it works. A number of mechanisms are mentioned, but no one seems to know which is the most important one. Possibly, the intrauterine device is so safe because an egg can't implant after it's been fertilized.

Even without contraceptives, a fertilized egg would be able to implant in only about 50% of the cases. Even so, I don't like the idea that, possibly, an important part of the mechanism occurs after fertilization, after some form of life has already been created.

However, what goes into her body is not the choice of the man. He can give his opinion, but ultimately the women will decide if she wants to use such a device.

Therefore, I have 2 questions:

• Do you think it's wrong for women to use an intrauterine device?
• Do you think it's wrong, as a man, to be intimate with a woman that uses an intrauterine device (assuming that people are married)?

 

[KitKatMatt]

• Do you think it's wrong for women to use an intrauterine device?

• Do you think it's wrong, as a man, to be intimate with a woman that uses an intrauterine device (assuming that people are married)?

No, and no.

I see it as just another contraceptive.

 

[jayem]

The prohibition on contraceptives is a religious legalism. Like celibacy in the priesthood; Muslims, Mormons, and Baptists forbidding alcohol; and married Amish men growing beards. Most all religions have them.

 

[Cearbhall]

• Do you think it's wrong for women to use an intrauterine device?
• Do you think it's wrong, as a man, to be intimate with a woman that uses an intrauterine device (assuming that people are married)?

No and no.

 

[Paulos23]

No and No.

Edit: Welcome to the forums! Be aware that you will get non-Christian members answering your thread here in this part of the forums.

 

[RogerS]

Thanks for your opinions everyone. Can you state why you think there's nothing wrong with it?

No and No.

Edit: Welcome to the forums! Be aware that you will get non-Christian members answering your thread here in this part of the forums.

I'm interested in hearing both opinions. I suppose both Christians and non-Christians will be active in this forum, right?

 

[Paulos23]

Thanks for your opinions everyone. Can you state why you think there's nothing wrong with it?

It is contraception. It works. I don't see the problem with it. Even if an egg is fertilized, I don't see a problem with it being removed by this method since she is not ready yet.

I am all for better contraception for women, and this is just about as close as put it in and forget it as you can get.

As for having a relationship with woman that has one, that is up to you. But I don't have a problem with it.

I'm interested in hearing both opinions. I suppose both Christians and non-Christians will be active in this forum, right?

In the Discussion and Debate section yes. There are sub-forums where we are not allowed to post.[/QUOTE]

 

[jayem]

Worldwide, IUDs are the most commonly used contraceptives. Copper and hormonal IUDs are very effective, safe, and convenient. Though there is a removal rate of 10% in the first year, and 50% within 5 years. Which is a somewhat higher discontinuance rate than with oral contraceptives.

http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/3/197.long

What's really needed are better contraceptive options for men. Despite all our advances in medical technolgy, we still only have condoms and vasectomy. One is inconvenient and prone to failure if not used properly. The other is not easily and reliably reversible.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

@ jayem There is also coitus interruptus, which is very effective.

Very great questions! I love this topic. IUDs are pushed really hard by the gynecological medical community because they are cheap, low maintenance, and effective at preventing pregnancy (the most effective birth control I believe). So, keep in mind there IS REAL motivation for the medical community to not give you the full scoop on how they work because they are simply biased. We all understand bias!

The copper IUD is mechanical only and can be left in for 10 years. But it solely works on the basis of disrupting the fertilized ovum from implanting, meaning that the woman could have an abortion every month.

The Mirena IUD is hormonal (progestin) and mechanical. It can be left in for 5 years (i think) and it works via three main mechanisms. It is hard to find this information out but I have read that each mechanism can be attributed 33% responsibility for working, meaning it works by all methods. Women often quit cycling with it, so if that happens, they simply are not ovulating, so the method then is that of anovulation (1 of the 3). One third of the time, the progestin hormones in the IUD thicken the cervical mucus and make the environment inhospitable to sperm so they cannot make it to the egg. And the final third of the time, the disruption of the uterine environment by the presence and action of the IUD cause an abortion.

So, while the Mirena is less likely to result in abortion, it is still a very real likelihood. Also, the woman has to deal with the effects of additional hormones in her body daily, which is no small experience .

The combined oral contraceptive pill works by tricking the body into thinking the woman is already pregnant. Sound fun? lol. But seriously, she then does not ovulate, which means her body is not aborting a fertilized ovum. Her hormones are still being affected on the ratio of 3 out of 4 weeks (she stops a week to have her period). However, the progestin-only pill works much like the mirena, just without the mechanical action. It still renders the uterine environment inhospitable and while most women just will not ovulate, if they do, the egg will not be able to implant well, if at all. They are more likely to get pregnant than with combined pills.

Really, if you are into using pharmaceuticals and don't have a religious or moral reason for not using them, combined OCA's are the best form of female birth control since they do not cause an abortion.

There is no good birth control because God's main job is Life; to create and to take life. He does not like us interfering unnaturally in that process, imo.

~~~~~~~~

I think it is very .......awesome that you are becoming so involved and informed in this information. Pretty hot. She is a blessed woman!

 

[patricius79]

Hi everyone,

I created this topic about the intrauterine device, because I'm not sure if it's ethical to use it and I'm curious about hearing your opinions on this topic.

With the oral contraceptive pill, pregnancy is primarily prevented by preventing ovulation and by thickening the cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to reach the egg.

With the intrauterine device there seems to be some uncertainty on how it works. A number of mechanisms are mentioned, but no one seems to know which is the most important one. Possibly, the intrauterine device is so safe because an egg can't implant after it's been fertilized.

Even without contraceptives, a fertilized egg would be able to implant in only about 50% of the cases. Even so, I don't like the idea that, possibly, an important part of the mechanism occurs after fertilization, after some form of life has already been created.

However, what goes into her body is not the choice of the man. He can give his opinion, but ultimately the women will decide if she wants to use such a device.

Therefore, I have 2 questions:

• Do you think it's wrong for women to use an intrauterine device?
• Do you think it's wrong, as a man, to be intimate with a woman that uses an intrauterine device (assuming that people are married)?

Yes, and I don't know. Using contraceptives is always wrong, even if they are not potentially abortifacient, but I don't know if it's wrong for a man who opposes contraception to have sex with his wife who refuses to stop using contraceptives.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

No to both questions. Though the idea that something was out there that could possibly move and then injure her would be a concern.

But what if we put the sore on the other foot? Male birth control is just 2-3 years away (complete animal testing) in the form of vasagel or a pill I'm not familiar with. Vasagel basically clogs part of the plumbing.

Would there be an issue with such methods in your opinion?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Oh, I so hate the thought of male birth control...

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

What's really needed are better contraceptive options for men. Despite all our advances in medical technolgy, we still only have condoms and vasectomy. One is inconvenient and prone to failure if not used properly. The other is not easily and reliably reversible.

I really agree with that. I think un wanted pregnancy by men would be a lot lower.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Oh, I so hate the thought of male birth control...

Why? So woman cant trap men anymore.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Women should not trap men.

I just do not believe in unnatural, body-altering birth control.

And it's a turn-off.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Women should not trap men.

I just do not believe in unnatural, body-altering birth control.

And it's a turn-off.

Then tell that to your boyfriend or husband, if you haven't. I just hope they find a good male birth control soon. I have no issue with birth control at all.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Then tell that to your boyfriend or husband, if you haven't. I just hope they find a good male birth control soon. I have no issue with birth control at all.

He knows.

 

[RogerS]

No to both questions. Though the idea that something was out there that could possibly move and then injure her would be a concern.

But what if we put the sore on the other foot? Male birth control is just 2-3 years away (complete animal testing) in the form of vasagel or a pill I'm not familiar with. Vasagel basically clogs part of the plumbing.

Would there be an issue with such methods in your opinion?

No, on the contrary. I think it would be great to have a method that prevents sperm from being inserted into the vagina at all, what seems to be the goal of the Vasagel. It could give both genders control over contraceptives. At this moment, the safest option that men can choose are condoms, which are not that safe on the long term...

 

[Meowzltov]

With the oral contraceptive pill, pregnancy is primarily prevented by preventing ovulation and by thickening the cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to reach the egg.

That may be the primary purpose, but it fails an awful lot, which is why there is a backup arrangement. The prevention of conception is caused by estrogen in the pill. But virtually all pills contain progesterone. This is an abortifacient for after conception has taken place: it aggravates the lining of the uterus so that the embryo cannot implant.

 

[Meowzltov]

Possibly, the intrauterine device is so safe because an egg can't implant after it's been fertilized.

That is indeed how an IUD works. (I'm not so sure if I'd say an IUD was safe.) I have real problems with deliberately conceiving and then killing embryos. There are other ways to space your children apart.