Can Latex Allergy and Condom Usage Lead to Abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cause
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the potential implications of latex allergies in relation to condom use and pregnancy. It explores whether a latex allergy could cause an embryo to abort, with participants clarifying that an embryo cannot have an allergic reaction due to the lack of an immune system and protective barriers during early development. The conversation touches on the importance of recognizing latex allergies and the necessity of discussing contraceptive options, including alternatives like polyurethane or lambskin condoms, especially for those who may be allergic. Additionally, there are mentions of the HPV vaccine and the morning-after pill, with some participants expressing concerns about misconceptions surrounding these topics. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for accurate information regarding sexual health and the management of allergies in relation to contraceptive use.
Loren Booda
Messages
3,108
Reaction score
4
If an adult can be deathly allergic to latex, could a condom instigate an abortion? Also, since condoms are never purchased for underage users, neither will the morning after pill.

The vaccine for genital herpes assumes that females will eventually have sex! You might as well rule out that a girl's irregular vaginal bleeding could indicate cancer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you're deathly allergic to latex, why in the world would you use a condom? Nevermind in the vaginal area. Most girls plan on using that area more than a few times you know.

Yes, condoms are bought by underage users. As far as I know, there is no specific age.
 
You can get polyurethane condoms, or natural lambskin ones, if you have a latex allergy. The latter, however, are too porous to protect against STD's.
 
I was speaking "tongue in cheek." My point was, if an embryo were allergic to latex, it might be aborted due to the presence of such a condom. Other glib comments also refer to the controversy over the "morning after" pill.
 
If you take your tongue out of your cheek and put it back where it belongs, you don't need a condom. :rolleyes:
 
Loren Booda said:
I was speaking "tongue in cheek." My point was, if an embryo were allergic to latex, it might be aborted due to the presence of such a condom. Other glib comments also refer to the controversy over the "morning after" pill.
If your so (umm... how do I put this) Large that your member comes into contact with the embryo during intercourse then nevermind the effect of the condom. The poor baby won't survive the physical abuse :frown:
 
Danger said:
If you take your tongue out of your cheek and put it back where it belongs, you don't need a condom. :rolleyes:
:smile: :smile: :smile:

Truer words were never spoken

marlon
 
Thanks for the laughs, but seriously, could an embryo's allergy to latex condoms cause it to abort?
 
No. During pregnancy, the uterus is sealed by a mucous plug in the cervix.
 
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
No. During pregnancy, the uterus is sealed by a mucous plug in the cervix.
In addition, the fetus is enclosed within the fetal membranes, protecting it further from the external environment. Also, allergies are not something one is born with, but develop over time requiring repeated exposure and a developed immune system.

And, just to correct another issue in the original post, the vaccine available to protect girls/women from cervical cancer is not for genital herpes, but for Human Papilloma Virus (HPV).

In the future, Loren, please make it more clear what your question is and what is an attempt at sarcasm. It was not at all clear that your original post was not just some rambling, misinformed rant. I'm glad it was able to be clarified, but it's difficult to keep on topic when we aren't sure what the topic is from the original post.
 
  • #11
Thanks, Moonbear, mine was a poor attempt at comedy. I was so consumed with trying to make a joke (and ranting on sexual conservatives) that I misattributed the HPV, among other things. Buried beneath was a legitimate topic, though. I will try to refrain from inanity where sobriety should stand. I do appreciate your concern and will try to remember your caution. Thanks for the opportunity.
 
  • #12
What an odd thread :bugeye: :confused:
 
  • #13
In the early stages of embryonic development, neither mucous plug nor substantial fetal membranes yet exist. Allergens like latex that can cause anaphylactic shock or death later in life could be considered potentially abortifactant (acting upon either the embryo or uterus), especially during the first weeks of pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Loren Booda said:
In the early stages of embryonic development, neither mucous plug nor substantial fetal membranes yet exist. Allergens like latex that can cause anaphylactic shock or death later in life could be considered potentially abortifactant (acting upon either the embryo or uterus), especially during the first weeks of pregnancy.
An embryo can't have an anaphylatic shock, since it doesn't have an immune system. As moonbear already said.
 
  • #15
There are several reasons why an inseminated egg may not survive. Latex, allergic or not, is the least of it's worries as far as I know.





And I'm not sure how long I will be on but HEY EVERYBODY!
 
  • #16
Hi, Stats. Nice to see you (read you?) again.
 
  • #17
Allergens like latex that can cause anaphylactic shock or death later in life could be considered potentially abortifactant (acting upon either the embryo or uterus), especially during the first weeks of pregnancy.

As an example (perhaps this analogy I draw is reaching) if a chemical (e. g., a carcinogen) is liable to do severe genetic damage, it probably effects deleteriously other areas of the body (causes neurological damage, say). Eventually in this thread I have tried to present that the early embryo would especially be vulnerable to chemicals (like dangerous allergens) foreign to it, not that it even has the ability to go into shock.

Elements like copper used in IUDs are just poisonous enough to help prevent implantation. Could not latex, representing a chemical known to cause death in humans, reduce the viability of a blastocyst?
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Again, Loren, we've already explained to you why latex would not cause an allergic reaction in an embryo. Now, if you're talking about the mother having an anaphylactic reaction to latex, sure, such trauma could possibly cause her to abort, but if the mother is not allergic, there is absolutely NO chance an embryo would be affected in any way by latex, again, because an allergic reaction requires a functioning immune system, which is not there.

Teratogens act on the DNA, and have nothing to do with allergies.
 
  • #19
How might a couple discover the need for such precaution (regarding allergy to latex) in general? This fact should be included in the sex ed curriculum, along with the more common but less dire warning of not using Vaseline with said condoms. A frank discussion with one's doctor, upon learning of the allergy, should include caveats about all latex contraceptives, even if the patient is underaged but prone to be sexually active.
 
  • #20
Surely a latex allergy could be discovered long before the dreaded condom covered penis enters the vagina. I certainly agree that it should be mentioned when latex condoms are discussed, but not as some kind of "scared celibate" tactic.

Also, it's unclear to me whether Loren is trying to claim that Plan B is an abortifacent, and just what point she has about the HPV vaccine.
 
  • #21
Ahem, "he."

I think that Plan B is a necessary medication that would eventually prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions.

The HPV vaccine is one of the greatest treatments in the history of medicine, a virtual cure for cervical cancer. My main concern is that the religious righteous will restrict its needed application for pre-sexually active females, claiming (circularly) that would be an admission these girls would sometime later have sex.
 
  • #22
Thanks for the clarification. I think you need to improve your snark abilities or give it up. :cool:
 
  • #23
Loren Booda said:
How might a couple discover the need for such precaution (regarding allergy to latex) in general? This fact should be included in the sex ed curriculum, along with the more common but less dire warning of not using Vaseline with said condoms. A frank discussion with one's doctor, upon learning of the allergy, should include caveats about all latex contraceptives, even if the patient is underaged but prone to be sexually active.
Latex allergies generally become known sooner than that. The most common population with latex allergies are people working in healthcare and labs who wear latex gloves often. It usually shows up in milder form before it progresses to such a severe reaction as anaphylactic shock. If a member of a couple does have the misfortune to first discover a latex allergy through condom use, they will suffer a very uncomfortable rash for several days. Antihistamines would help, but a rash in such a location would likely prompt one to get to a physician fairly quickly anyway, and advice regarding other contraceptive choices would then be provided by a physician.
 
  • #24
Wow! I appreciate your thorough and objective response, Moonbear.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top