IUD Pregnancies

Published

Reading the thread about withdrawal being safe (which I know it is not...have known too many people who have gotten pregnant using this method) got me to thinking about the people who say they have gotten pregnant with an IUD. I currently have the Paraguard (copper) IUD and I have heard of many people getting pregnant with this. I was told it is 99.4% effective (as effective as a tubal). I know that if it get embedded or starts to expel that a pregnancy can occur but I am talking about people who say the baby went ahead and implanted with the IUD sitting there in proper place. Have you guys seen this alot? It kind of freaks me out really. I guess if I get pregnant with an IUD sitting safely in place it is meant to be but I really have heard of this happening alot (or it seems like alot). I am talking about the Copper IUD specifically. I know it can happen with Mirena also.

Michelle

Specializes in Community, OB, Nursery.

In theory, the IUD is supposed to "trick" the uterus into thinking there's something in there already & not allow for implantation. (Along with the hormonal IUDs that change cervical mucus etc.) But as with all methods except abstinence, nothing is going to be 100% effective for everybody 100% of the time. But I know what you are saying, Michelle.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Arwen,

If the IUD was "tricking" your body into thinking you were pregnant or something was there would these be the cases where woman had no periods? I know that it is not uncommon for Mirena users to stop having periods but this isn't typical for Paraguard users (although it can happen in a very small percent). Just curious!

Michelle

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Cardiac.
Yes, the IUDs do interfere with implanatation. If they only worked by interfering with sperm motility and cervical mucus impairment, then people wouldn't be getting pregnant with them, now would they?

Not to get picky but if they interfered with implantation then people wouldn't be getting pregnant with them would they? Obviously the pregnancy has to implant for people to get a positive hpt. So would it be safe to say that if the sperm gets past all the other factors then that is where the IUD fails? Obviously we don't know for sure but if there are women getting pregnant with an IUD then the IUD isn't keeping the baby from implanting....just a thought.

Michelle

I said it interferes, not prevents. It's something that's in your uterus! It affects the endometrial lining, and if an embryo passes by, it may or may not be able to implant.

If you're ok with that, then you are ok with it.

But just because people don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Arwen,

I agree with you actually. If it is meant to be it will be....God is bigger than anything and if he wants you to conceive an IUD won't stop it.

As for the Mirena from what I have read it doesn't always stop Ovulation. I think a prior post said that. I have heard of people getting pregnant on the Mirena as well. I know that it has to do with absorption of hormones so my theory (which is just MY opinion) is that maybe they are not absorbing the full amount of hormones which could lead to an unexpected pregnancy? I know the failure rate is supposed to be much lower with the Mirena though. I just didn't go that route because it is hormonal.

This has been a very interesting discussion...I have enjoyed reading everyones opinions about it.

The Mirena is not meant to stop ovulation. Most women from what I hear do not have periods with the Mirena(including myself). I understood the Mirena to be more effective than even the BC pill.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
This is pretty harsh, don't ya think? I think birth control is a very personal choice and each type has it's pros/cons. do you have some research that shows that IUD's allow the conceptual process to begin?? I would be interested in seeing that, in particular for the copper IUD. In all of my research I have found and been told by more than one doctor that the process is pretty unknown, and that copper seem to interfere with the fertilization process, and it hasn't been proved to prevent implantation. I think if I were getting pregnant all the time I would be having heavier periods and if I were 3 weeks pregnant I would be starting to have symptoms (after 2 pregnancies I know very quickly that i am pregnant, getting very sick before the + test). I CAN absolutely imagine people getting IUD's. I have the Copper IUD also and love it, after having it for 5 years. I think that with any form of birth control you can say the conceptual process is being interupted.

No, I don't think it's harsh.

Birth control pills supresses ovulation, so the sperm and egg never meet up, because there is no egg...the conception process isn't "interrupted" because it was never started.

IUD's can allow the fertilization process to begin, and from the other posters, result in multiple miscarriages, full-term births, and how many other zygotes that formed and were either never implanted or implanted only to be detached.

That is Reproduction 101.

I'm pro-choice and pro-birth control.

However, to me, an IUD is too much like a continuous abortion, and that is my main objection to it. A miscarriage doesn't have to be eventful with cramping, bleeding, etc...if a zygote was formed...that's a pregnancy, and if it doesn't "take", that's a miscarriage...and you may or may not be aware that it even happened.

Just my .02

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I had been taught that the pill doesn't prevent fertilization all the time. They can interupt implantation of a fertilized egg, just like IUDs. It's the main reason one of my friends won't use them. My doctor said the same to me when I went in to get birth control.

http://www.contracept.info/postfertilization.php

What to Know about Hormonal Methods

Think "oral contraceptives" prevent conception? Think again. Hormonal methods suppress ovulation much of the time, but scientists recognize that in many cases ovulation continues to occur.1 Some women who use hormonal methods ovulate every single cycle. So how do hormonal methods prevent conception? That depends on how you define "conception." Although most people think of conception as the joining of egg and sperm to form new life, in many medical circles the word "conception" has an alternate meaning--the implantation of the embryo into the uterus.2 When fertilization is not prevented, hormonal birth control methods commonly cause the expulsion of an embryo prior to implantation by changing the lining of the uterus so that it will not accept an embryo and by changing the way the fertilized ovum travels down the fallopian tube.3 This action has been termed by some as 'interceptive,' as opposed to contraceptive or abortive.4 This is an important distinction, because any woman interested in preventing fertilization will want to avoid using these methods. Although there are legitimate medical uses for some of these drugs, clinicians tend not to explain the interceptive effects to their patients, some being unaware themselves. Pharmaceutical companies minimize this mechanism of hormonal methods to prevent women of conscience from rejecting their products, as had occurred with the IUD.5

http://www.contracept.info/pill.php

The estrogen works by preventing an egg from being released from the ovaries most of the time. Both the estrogen and progesterone make the uterus a hostile environment for an embryo by causing a thinning of the uterine lining. As modern combination pills contain less estrogen than their predecessors, an egg will be released by the ovaries 2-10% of the time. If fertilization takes the embryo will be unable to implant in the uterus, resulting in the death of the embryo. Although some consider this risk minimal, the most reliable sources cite the interceptive effect as a major mechanism of action; in fact, large doses of this drug are used as a 'morning after pill' (see the Emergency Contraceptive Pills section).

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Lots of stories about "birth control pill babies" too. One of our docs and my niece and her husband got little girls from that. ;)

There is no real fool proof plan . . except not having sex.

steph

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I agree with both of you....I'm not saying the pill is 100%...no method is...I was only presenting the argument of what they are designed to do,not so much as to what sometimes happens, and what can happen.. if they are working correctly, that is what pills do, supress ovulation.

Of course there are birth contol babies, even vasectomy babies. I even heard on Paul Harvy News and Comment one day that a woman's husband had a vasectomy and they went on to have a 7th child, so she had her tubes tied...and they celebrated their 17th wedding anniversary with get this....an 8th child which was a baby girl!

Goes to show...if it's meant to be, it's meant to be.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I think that the bottom line is that no one exactly knows how the IUD works. My doctor even said that. So to say that it interferes with implantation is a theory on how it works but noone knows for sure. Implantation can be interfered with in normal pregnancies. I have had that happen myself actually.

I don't have a problem with the theories of how it works or I wouldn't be using it.

The Mirena is supposed to be even more reliable than a tubal...someone was stating that it was more reliable than bc and I just thought I would throw that in there.

I do agree that if you are meant to have another child then it will happen...regardless of IUD, Vasectomy, or Tubal....you can only do so much!

Michelle

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I agree with both of you....I'm not saying the pill is 100%...no method is...I was only presenting the argument of what they are designed to do,not so much as to what sometimes happens, and what can happen.. if they are working correctly, that is what pills do, supress ovulation.

.

Unfortunately they may not suppress ovulation a lot of the time. I've seen it estimated at anywhere 2-30%. When you consider how many women use the pill, even 2% is a huge number. When you consider how few women actually take the pill as it instructed, it's probably a lot higher. If a woman really wants to ensure she will not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in her uterus, then she should be informed that the pill does this and there will be no way for her to know whether she wasn't ovulating that month or whether she was ovulating and the egg just didn't implant.

I use hormonal birth control myself. I'm not trying to say it's bad. I just think that women deserve to know the truth. If they consider methods that prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg to be abortifacients and abortifacients don't fit with their moral beliefs, then they should know the pill acts that way as well.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Cardiac.

So I just spoke with my Andrologist at my infertility center (has a masters degree in sperm), and she said that she did some research on the IUD.

She also confirmed that it's main way to prevent pregnancy is to prevent implantation. That the effects on cervical mucus and motiliy are minor.

The drs that say they "don't know" how it works are telling people that so that there is some illusion of it working in other ways. But, since when are we allowing things into our bodies were doctors don't know how they work??

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Cardiac.

Goes to show...if it's meant to be, it's meant to be.

I Sooooooo don't believe that!

We can use that same logic about all babies then? What about crack babies born to prostitues, or into abusive families where they are starved and beaten? Were they just simple 'meant to be'? Or what about babies who are late term abortions? Were they not meant to be?

I know it's OT, but I just don't buy the whole "if God wanted it to be it would be" line. It's crap.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion