Some morbidity, and birth control.

Before I get into the meat of this post, I feel it necessary to write a disclaimer.  This post discusses death, pregnancy loss, and abortion.  I do not have personal experience of pregnancy or infant loss.  I am not in any way, shape, or form, trying to dismiss the pain and suffering of anyone who has experienced those types of tragedies and I sincerely apologize if anything I say comes across in an offensive manner.  If anything I say is offensive or way off base, please leave me a comment and I will try to correct myself.  I realize that these are sensitive topics, I am merely trying to make sense of things in my own mind. 

Did you see the AP article about the Arnold family?  I posted a link to Chad's blog, Come Too Far, in my last update.  Long story short, Chad Arnold has an incurable liver disease and his liver was failing.  Although he would have liked to wait for a cadaver liver transplant, a live-donor transplant became his best choice.  His brother, Ryan, volunteered to undergo testing to see if he was a compatible match, and found that he was.  They underwent the transplant surgery at the end of July, and a few days later Ryan passed away from complications of the surgery.  Chad is surviving with his brother's liver, and has started writing that blog to help him through the grief.  The entire family is devout Christians, and their faith throughout this ordeal has been inspirational.

In the entry that was posted yesterday, Chad and Ryan's mother wrote, "I have been blessed beyond measure. We have four children, along with their spouses, and twelve grandchildren who are a constant source of joy to us.  Notice I said we have four children. Yes, that’s right. Have.  Ryan is still our son."  That is a 100% true statement, and no one would ever argue with that.  Death does not erase a person's existence.  Just because he is no longer living on Earth does not mean that he never lived.  It doesn't matter if the person lived for 100 years, 100 days, 100 minutes, or 1 second; death does not erase life.

I have several acquaintances who have given birth a many as three months prematurely, and unfortunately some of their babies did not survive.  Those families do not forget about their children who passed away too soon.  If asked how many children they have, the parents answer always includes the baby who has passed away.  To me, this makes perfect sense; of course that baby should be included.  Just because she is no longer living doesn't mean she never did!

But what about when a woman has a miscarriage?  I know far too many women who have suffered one or more miscarriages.  Usually these are early in their pregnancies, before 10 weeks, but I know a few that have been much later than that, one at 12 and another at 16 weeks.  At what point does the pregnancy become a baby, and a member of the family?  The answer to the question doesn't really matter; whether it was a baby that died or a miscarriage, the loss still hurts.  I just wonder at what point in time does it change from losing the pregnancy to losing the baby.

There are many things that can happen which would end a life at various points in it's development.  A miscarriage or a medical abortion usually occurs while it is still in its embryonic stage.  If the fetus dies before it is born, it may be considered a miscarriage or a late pregnancy loss, and if it is delivered it is stillborn.  If the fetus is born alive before 37 weeks gestation, it becomes a premature baby.  If it is born healthy at full term, lives 100 years, and then dies, that would be considered a normal life.  But at some point in it's development, the cells stop being just a ball of cells and start being a human.  I firmly believe that life begins at conception.  I would say that at any time after fertilization, the egg/embryo/fetus is a living human.  I still don't know when the unborn baby stops being an embryo or a fetus and starts being an unborn baby, though.  I don't understand why a pregnancy that ends in miscarriage at 7 weeks is different from a pregnancy that ends with a premature baby born at 24 weeks.  I also don't understand why abortion is okay, but murder is not. 

But I digress.  I started thinking about all of this while I was looking at different options for birth control.  Because I define pregnancy as beginning at conception, I would consider anything that prohibits or prevents implantation to be an immoral choice for birth control.  The trouble I am having is that is seems that the medical community has redefined pregnancy to begin at implantation rather than conception.  Most of the literature accompanying all non-barrier forms of birth control states that [insert method here] is not an abortifacient, but is a contraceptive.  Every kind I can find lists alteration of the uterine lining as one of it's secondary modes of action.  This includes various forms of the pill, the Ortho Evra patch, the Nuva Ring, the Depo Provera shot, the Implanon implant, the Parguard IUD, and the Mirena IUD.  If it is altering the uterine lining to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, it is therefore acting as an abortifacient, no?  If it is, then it would be wrong to use that kind of birth control, right?  But what if altering the uterine lining is not the way any forms of birth control are supposed to prevent pregnancy, but more of a side effect that just happens to be a back-up should the primary method (either suppressing ovulation or otherwise preventing fertilization) fail?  Is that okay?  The more I read, the more I feel like I'm just going in circles and I can't figure out what's right and what's wrong anymore.