CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
25
No. Yes.
Debate Score:51
Arguments:57
Total Votes:55
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No. (21)
 
 Yes. (21)

Debate Creator

Sitar(3682) pic



Does hormonal contraception cause abortion?

No.

Side Score: 26
VS.

Yes.

Side Score: 25
3 points

Hormonal contraception is commonly referred to as birth control and most act on the endocrine system by the use of steroid hormones to suppress ovulation and thicken cervical mucus.

Their action is to prevent conception not to cause an abortion.

Side: No.
1 point

Thank you. I agree. You sound educated about this. .

Side: No.

Dk seems to be very educated about hormonal functioning and I guess only Vasectomy and Tubectomy are the two surgical methods for abortion,aren't they?

Side: No.
MKIced(2488) Clarified
1 point

Vasectomy and tubectomy are means to sterilize a person so they can no longer have kids- not abortion.

Side: No.
flewk(1192) Disputed
1 point

They prevent implantation, so if you consider destroying the zygote as abortion, then many chemical contraception cause abortions.

Side: Yes.

No. Hormonal birth control is not contraindicated by pregnancy; if an egg has been fertilized and has implanted, hormonal birth control, even at morning-after pill levels, is not a threat to the embryo's life.

Hormonal birth control functions by preventing ovulation. Some forms of it may somewhat decrease the likelihood of a fertilized egg implanted, but this reduction in likelihood (where present at all) is small, and not the goal of the drugs. Some might argue that this scenario could potentially be considered an abortion, but one would be pretty hard pressed to prove that a woman ovulated, the egg was fertilized, and the egg failed to implant specifically due to the action of the drug- especially considering the rate of successful implantation is far from 100% even without contraceptives having their effect.

Side: No.
1 point

Agreed. Working for thos doctors has taught you a lot. .

Side: No.
flewk(1192) Disputed
1 point

Hormonal birth control functions by preventing ovulation. Some forms of it may somewhat decrease the likelihood of a fertilized egg implanted, but this reduction in likelihood (where present at all) is small, and not the goal of the drugs.

The goal of a majority of chemical contraceptives is to reduce the uterine lining, not just prevent ovulation. Ovulation prevention is difficult to guarantee because estrogen and progesterone are signalers for the endocrine system; no direct control over ovulation. It is like trying to adjust your T3/T4 levels from your thyroid by medicating the hypothalamus or even the pituitary. This is why most chemical contraceptives cover their bases by focusing on two aspects of pregnancy, ovulation and implantation.

Side: Yes.
1 point

With respect, this debate is specifically referring to hormonal birth control, those which use the hormones that our own bodies produce to overregulate the cycle.

"Chemical contraceptives" is a much larger category of substances than that under discussion in this debate, and would include such things as ru486 (which doesn't use hormones at all and very much does cause abortions) and hybrid forms that include both hormones and other chemicals. "Hormonal contraception" refers specifically to contraceptive methods that use hormones exclusively.

But hormonal contraceptives do not have any of the affects that you assert. It's important to remember the scope of the debate; what you've done here is akin to arguing against someones claims regarding behavior patterns in sexually reproducing species by claiming no such behaviors can be observed in species who reproduce asexually.

Put more simply:

This debate is about hormonal contraceptives.

Hormonal contraceptives are a subset of chemical contraceptives.

Some chemical contraceptives cause the effects you note.

Hormonal contraceptives do not.

If you would care to provide an example of a hormonal contraceptive that has the effects you assert, we can discuss further. If your example is a non-hormonal contraceptive, or a hybrid contraceptive, however, it is not applicable to the scope of this discussion.

Side: No.

I agree, though I wouldn't say "far from" 100%; I believe the success rate of implantation is around 80%.

Side: No.
thousandin1(1932) Clarified
1 point

Look at the failure rate side of it though. Wouldn't you agree that a 20% failure rate is significantly higher than a 0% one?

Look at it from the perspective of a score on an exam. Isn't acing the exam significantly better than receiving a low B?

Side: No.
1 point

Hormonal contraception may cause abortions since they prevent fertilization which means death for the zygote. It depends on a lot of factors. They can even cause menopause/ovarian failure which both mean infertility.

Life in general can cause infertility. Something like 1 in 1000 women will be infertile by 30 years old.

Side: Yes.
Sitar(3682) Disputed
2 points

I disagree. Hormonal contraception works by preventing ovulation and conception.

Side: No.
1 point

Not all. Some prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Wouldn't that be abortion?

Side: Yes.
flewk(1192) Clarified
1 point

Well, it depends on when you consider the cells aborted. If you consider destroying anything after fertilization as abortion, then most generic chemical contraception cause abortions. A majority of them affect the uterine lining which ends up killing the zygote. Ovulation is not always prevented. Eggs get fertilized. The thin lining is the last line of defense.

If you are worried about killing the zygotes, then just take certain forms of progesterone only pills. Depending on the dosage cycle, some will not cause much thinning of the uterine lining, so normal menstruation will occur. That way if there is ovulation and fertilization, you won't feel bad about it.

Oh, first comment is wrong. Used fertilization instead of implantation.

Side: No.