The Science of the Pill
by John Wilks

For many Christians, the Church’s prohibition against the use of the birth control pill is a stumbling block—a cause of spiritual distress and confusion. Why, argues a loving husband and wife, does the Church forbid such a medication? My wife is not well, my husband is unemployed. Surely, in needy circumstances, the pill is a morally acceptable option.

Experts in the fields of philosophy, sociology, and marriage have written many compassionate books on that topic. I am approaching this subject from a different perspective—the “science” of the pill.

The “pill” comes in two broad formats. The more popularly prescribed contains an artificial copy of the naturally occurring estrogen and progesterone present in every woman’s body. This version of the pill is known as the combined formulation. The less popular formulation contains only progesterone, and is known as the “mini-pill.” Both versions of the pill interfere with a woman’s reproductive system in a number of ways.

The 5-ways of the Pill

(1) The pill exerts an incomplete suppressant action on the process of natural ovulation. In fact, the pill regularly fails to prevent ovulation—even when women are taking the pill without omission. This is known as breakthrough or escape ovulation. At least three ultrasound studies have visually demonstrated ovulation release in motivated pill users. One of these proved that in a group of 100 women taking the pill for one year, 34 ovulations would occur.

(2) A second action of the pill is to change the nature of cervical mucous from a type that aids sperm movement toward a released ovum to a type which inhibits sperm mobility.

(3) The pill can detrimentally affect the natural movements of the Fallopian tube. This effect could impair the ability of the sperm and ovum to meet.

(4) The pill retards the proper monthly thickening of the lining of the womb, the endometrium. In vitro fertilization (IVF) experts acknowledge that when the endometrium is too thin, as with pill users, implantation of the fertilized egg will be unsuccessful.

(5) A fifth harmful action of the pill has more recently been discovered. IVF researchers have shown that the pill interferes with the hormonal communication which takes place between the newly created human embryo, and the cell lining of the endometrium. This process is known as cell-talk. The purpose of this cell-talk is to aid the process of implantation of the human embryo. The pill interferes with the chemicals involved in this process, thereby hindering implantation. The pill also interferes with very specific molecules called integrins. The purpose of integrins is to bind the human embryo to the surface of the endometrium while implantation is completed.

“Silent” Abortion?

Along with a proper understanding of the actions of the pill is a need for a correct understanding of the key terms used in this reproductive debate. The word “contraception” is correctly defined as a process or technique whose action is solely to prevent the unification of sperm and ovum. Condoms, spermicides, cervical diaphragms, and male or female sterilization are contraceptive practices because their only action is to attempt to prevent sperm and ovum from meeting.

Given that the pill also acts to prevent sperm and ovum unification by suppressing ovulation, thickening cervical mucous, and altering the movement of the Fallopian tube, why is it not classified as a contraceptive?

The answer to this important question is to be found in the secondary mechanisms associated with the pill: It makes the endometrium too thin for successful implantation, and also interferes with “cell-talk,” so vital to the process of implantation. It is for these two reasons that the pill is given the name of abortifacient, that is, a drug that causes an abortion.

Some have suggested that the pill causes a “silent abortion.” This seems an appropriate description. Why? Because a woman taking the pill is not aware that escape-ovulation has occurred, nor that fertilization has taken place, or that a new human person has failed to implant in her womb, and, consequently, has died and passed out of her body. While the lost human life was small, it was no less a human person than you or I.

Denying the Obvious

Yet, many seek to deny that the pill is an abortifacient. How? By changing the definition of when a pregnancy begins. Correctly presented by the worlds’ major embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human (6th ed., 1998), a pregnancy—and therefore a new human life—begins at the precise moment of unification of sperm and ovum. This is not a statement of faith; it is a statement of embryological fact.

Yet key pro-abortionists seek to change this correct definition of pregnancy by moving the commencement date of the pregnancy to the moment of implantation, an event that occurs some 5-6 days after fertilization. And why? Because by redefining when a pregnancy begins, they can redefine how drugs such as the pill (and also the “morning-after pill”) are classified.

According to this new but erroneous definition, the pill is only acting pre-pregnancy, that is, before implantation. By time-shifting the start date of the pregnancy from the time of sperm/ovum unification to a time after implantation, they can (falsely) claim that the pill and the morning-after pill are no more than contraceptives, like condoms. This ideological re-defining of human life to suit a political agenda defies science. Science confirms that unless you approve of abortion, you cannot approve of the pill. The only difference is that the mother doesn’t know “when” or at times “if” the abortion took place. Is that a risk you want to take, and the consequence you’re willing to face?

Click here to view past issues.