WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Christmas With the Presidents
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, December 25, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Amy Elizabeth Ermyntrude Annie
Amy Elizabeth Ermyntrude Annie
Went to the country to visit her Grannie;
Learnt to churn butter and learnt to make cheese,
Learnt to milk cows and take honey from bees;
Learnt to spice roseleaves and learnt to cure ham,
Learnt to make cider and black-currant jam.
When she came home she could not settle down,
Said there was nothing to do in the town.
Nothing to do there and nothing to see:
Life was all shopping and afternoon tea!
Amy Elizabeth Ermyntrude Annie
Ran away back to the country and Grannie!
~ By Queenie Scott-Hoppper~
Went to the country to visit her Grannie;
Learnt to churn butter and learnt to make cheese,
Learnt to milk cows and take honey from bees;
Learnt to spice roseleaves and learnt to cure ham,
Learnt to make cider and black-currant jam.
When she came home she could not settle down,
Said there was nothing to do in the town.
Nothing to do there and nothing to see:
Life was all shopping and afternoon tea!
Amy Elizabeth Ermyntrude Annie
Ran away back to the country and Grannie!
~ By Queenie Scott-Hoppper~
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Price of Children
This is just too good not to pass on to all. Something absolutely positive for a change. I have repeatedly seen the breakdown of the cost of raising a child, but this is the first time I have seen the rewards listed this way. It's nice.
The government recently calculated the cost of raising a child from birth to 18 and came up with $160,140.00 for a middle income family. Talk about price shock! That doesn't even touch college tuition.
But $160,140.00 isn't so bad if you break it down.
It translates into:
* $8,896.66 a year,
* $741.38 a month, or
* $171..08 a week.
* That's a mere $24.24 a day!
* Just over a dollar an hour.
Still, you might think the best financial advice is don't have children if you want to be 'rich.' Actually, it is just the opposite.
What do you get for your $160,140.00?
* Naming rights. First, middle, and last!
* Glimpses of God every day.
* Giggles under the covers every night.
* More love than your heart can hold.
* Butterfly kiss es and Velcro hugs.
* Endless wonder over rocks, ants, clouds, and warm cookies.
* A hand to hold, usually covered with jelly or chocolate.
* A partner for blowing bubbles and flying kites.
* Someone to laugh yourself silly with, no matter what the boss said or how your stocks performed that day.
For $160,140.00, you never have to grow up. You get to:
* finger-paint,
* carve pumpkins,
* play hide-and-seek,
* catch lightning bugs, and
* never stop believing in Santa Claus.
You have an excuse to:
* keep reading the Adventures of Piglet and Pooh,
* watch Saturday morning cartoons,
* go to Disney movies, and
* wish on stars.
* You get to frame rainbows, hearts, and flowers under refrigerator magnets and collect! spray painted noodle wreaths for Christmas, hand prints set in clay for Mother's Day, and cards with backward letters for Father's Day.
For a mere $24.24 a day, there is no greater bang for your buck.
You get to be a hero just for:
* retrieving a Frisbee off the garage roof,
* taking the training wheels off a bike,
* removing a splinter,
* filling a wading pool,
* coaxing a wad of gum out of bangs, and coaching a baseball team that never wins but always gets treated to ice cream regardless.
You get a front row seat in history to witness the:
* first step,
* first word,
* first bra,
* first date, and
* first time behind the wheel.
You get to be immortal. You get another branch added to your family tree, and if you're lucky, a long list of limbs in your obituary called grandchildren and great grandchildren.. You get an education in psychology, nursing, criminal justice, communications, and human sexuality that no college can match.
In the eyes of a child, you rank right up there under God. You have all the power to heal a boo-boo, scare away the monsters under the bed, patch a broken heart, police a slumber party, ground them forever, and love them without limits, so one day they will, like you, love without counting the cost. That is quite a deal for the price!!!!!!!
Love & enjoy your children & grandchildren & great-grandchildren !!!!!!!
It's the best investment you'll make!
The government recently calculated the cost of raising a child from birth to 18 and came up with $160,140.00 for a middle income family. Talk about price shock! That doesn't even touch college tuition.
But $160,140.00 isn't so bad if you break it down.
It translates into:
* $8,896.66 a year,
* $741.38 a month, or
* $171..08 a week.
* That's a mere $24.24 a day!
* Just over a dollar an hour.
Still, you might think the best financial advice is don't have children if you want to be 'rich.' Actually, it is just the opposite.
What do you get for your $160,140.00?
* Naming rights. First, middle, and last!
* Glimpses of God every day.
* Giggles under the covers every night.
* More love than your heart can hold.
* Butterfly kiss es and Velcro hugs.
* Endless wonder over rocks, ants, clouds, and warm cookies.
* A hand to hold, usually covered with jelly or chocolate.
* A partner for blowing bubbles and flying kites.
* Someone to laugh yourself silly with, no matter what the boss said or how your stocks performed that day.
For $160,140.00, you never have to grow up. You get to:
* finger-paint,
* carve pumpkins,
* play hide-and-seek,
* catch lightning bugs, and
* never stop believing in Santa Claus.
You have an excuse to:
* keep reading the Adventures of Piglet and Pooh,
* watch Saturday morning cartoons,
* go to Disney movies, and
* wish on stars.
* You get to frame rainbows, hearts, and flowers under refrigerator magnets and collect! spray painted noodle wreaths for Christmas, hand prints set in clay for Mother's Day, and cards with backward letters for Father's Day.
For a mere $24.24 a day, there is no greater bang for your buck.
You get to be a hero just for:
* retrieving a Frisbee off the garage roof,
* taking the training wheels off a bike,
* removing a splinter,
* filling a wading pool,
* coaxing a wad of gum out of bangs, and coaching a baseball team that never wins but always gets treated to ice cream regardless.
You get a front row seat in history to witness the:
* first step,
* first word,
* first bra,
* first date, and
* first time behind the wheel.
You get to be immortal. You get another branch added to your family tree, and if you're lucky, a long list of limbs in your obituary called grandchildren and great grandchildren.. You get an education in psychology, nursing, criminal justice, communications, and human sexuality that no college can match.
In the eyes of a child, you rank right up there under God. You have all the power to heal a boo-boo, scare away the monsters under the bed, patch a broken heart, police a slumber party, ground them forever, and love them without limits, so one day they will, like you, love without counting the cost. That is quite a deal for the price!!!!!!!
Love & enjoy your children & grandchildren & great-grandchildren !!!!!!!
It's the best investment you'll make!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT
THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT
In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.
John Carver
William Bradford
Edward Winslow
William Brewster
Isaac Allerton
Miles Standish
John Alden
Samuel Fuller
Christopher Martin
William Mullins
William White
James Chilton
John Craxton
John Billington
Richard Warren
John Howland
Steven Hopkins
Edward Tilly
John Tilly
Francis Cook
Thomas Rogers
Thomas Tinker
John Rigdale
Edward Fuller
John Turner
Francis Eaton
Moses Fletcher
Digery Priest
Thomas Williams
Gilbert Winslow
Edmond Margeson
Peter Brown
Richard Bitteridge
Richard Clark
Richard Gardiner
John Allerton
Thomas English
Edward Doten
Edward Liester
John Goodman
George Soule
In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.
John Carver
William Bradford
Edward Winslow
William Brewster
Isaac Allerton
Miles Standish
John Alden
Samuel Fuller
Christopher Martin
William Mullins
William White
James Chilton
John Craxton
John Billington
Richard Warren
John Howland
Steven Hopkins
Edward Tilly
John Tilly
Francis Cook
Thomas Rogers
Thomas Tinker
John Rigdale
Edward Fuller
John Turner
Francis Eaton
Moses Fletcher
Digery Priest
Thomas Williams
Gilbert Winslow
Edmond Margeson
Peter Brown
Richard Bitteridge
Richard Clark
Richard Gardiner
John Allerton
Thomas English
Edward Doten
Edward Liester
John Goodman
George Soule
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "Appendices"
Appendix A: When does each human life begin? The answer of scripture
"The babies [Jacob and Esau] jostled each other within her [Rebekah]." (Genesis 25:22)
"In the womb he [Jacob] grasped his brother's heel; as a man he struggled with God." (Hosea 12:3)
"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit." (Job 10:8-12)
"Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?" (Job 31:15)
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:13-16)
"Surely I was sinful at birth; sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)
Note: Only a person can have a sin nature. David's statement clearly shows he was a person at the point of conception.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
"His mother Mary . . . was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit . . . [the angel said] 'what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.'" (Matthew 1:18-20)
"But the angel said to Mary 'you will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. . . . The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'" (Luke 1:30-31, 35)
Summary of Luke 1:39-44: After the angel left, Mary "hurried" (v. 39) to get to Elizabeth. Unborn John the Baptist (in his 6th month after conception) responded to the presence of the unborn Jesus inside Mary. Allowing for travel, Jesus was no more than 8-10 days beyond conception when they arrived. Implantation doesn't begin until 6 days after conception and isn't complete until 12 -- most likely Jesus was not yet fully implanted in his mother's womb when unborn John responded to his presence.
Appendix B: When does human life begin? The answer of science
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life."
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. . . . This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome)
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic
"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter -- the beginning is conception."
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School
"I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest -- that human life commences at the time of conception and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances."
Dr. Landrum Shettles, pioneer in sperm biology, fertility and sterility, discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm.
Appendix C: Abortion: perspectives of the early Church leaders
Note: The Didache was a second century (AD 120) catechism for young Christian converts. The inclusion of these statements shows that instruction to not commit abortion was a basic and essential Christian teaching, not a fringe or secondary issue.
"Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant." (The Didache 2.2). "The Way of Death is filled with people who are . . . murderers of children and abortionists of God's creatures." (The Didache 5:1-2).
"You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated." (Epistle of Barnabas 19.5; 125 AD)
"We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. For the same person would not regard the child in the womb as a living being and therefore an object of God's care and then kill it. . . . But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it." (Athenagoras, Legatio 35, AD 165)
"The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God's care" (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 35.6; AD 177)
"It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, the destruction is murder." (Tertullian, Apology, 9.4-6; second century)
"Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, in order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings." (Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2, AD 175)
"Reputed believers began to resort to drugs for producing sterility and to gird themselves round, so as to expel what was conceived on account of their not wanting to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time." Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies 9:7, AD 200)
"The wealthy, in order that their inheritance may not be divided among several, deny in the very womb their own progeny. By use of parricidal mixtures they snuff out the fruit of their wombs in the genital organs themselves. In this way life is taken away before it is born. . . . Who except man himself has taught us ways of repudiating children?" Ambrose of Milan, Hexameron, c. AD 350)
"Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons." (Basil the Great, Canons, 188.2; fourth century)
"Thou shalt not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed." The Apostolic Constitutions 73; AD 380)
"Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before birth? For you do not even let the harlot remain a mere harlot, but make her a murderer also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather something even worse than murder. For I have no real name to give it, since it does not destroy the thing born but prevents its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the place of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?" (John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on Romans, c. AD 375)
Jerome called abortion "the murder of an unborn child" (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13; fourth century). Augustine used the same phrase, warning against the terrible crime of "the murder of an unborn child." (On Marriage, 1.17.15; fourth century)
"The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light." (John Calvin, sixteenth century reformer)
Appendix D: God is Creator and Owner of all people (and therefore has sole rights over all)
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27)
"Know that the Lord Himself is God: it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people and the sheep of His pasture." (Psalm 100:3, NASV)
"For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son." (Ezekiel 18:4)
"Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand." (Isaiah 64:8)
"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)
Appendix E: God has exclusive prerogatives over human life and death
"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand." (Deuteronomy 32:39)
"The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up." (1 Samuel 2:6)
"You shall not commit murder." (Exodus 20:13)
Note: Except when he specifically delegates that right to men (e.g. capital punishment, self defense, or just war), God alone has the right to take a human life.
"And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. . . . And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."(Genesis 9:5)
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Exodus 21:22-25)
"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:13)
Appendix F: The shedding of innocent blood
"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 18:21)
"The LORD said . . . 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. . . . by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. . . . If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech . . . I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him . . ." (Leviticus 20:1-5)
"Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed." (Deuteronomy 19:10)
"The LORD sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him. He sent them to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by his servants the prophets. Surely these things happened to Judah according to the Lord's command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, including the shedding of innocent blood. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive." (2 Kings 24:2-4)
"The LORD said, 'What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.'" (Genesis 4:10)
"For God will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalm 72:12-14)
"There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19)
"Therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will give you over to bloodshed and it will pursue you. Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you." (Ezekiel 35:6)
Appendix G: How God sees children
"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven." (Matthew 18:10)
"But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." (Luke 18:16)
"Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost." (Matthew 18:14)
"Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him." (Psalm 127:3-4)
Appendix H: Defending the weak and helpless
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:3-4)
"Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?" (Proverbs 24:11-12)
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9)
"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." (James 4:17)
"House of David, this is what the LORD says: 'Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done -- burn with no one to quench it.'" (Jeremiah 21:12)
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come . . . take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. . . . I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me. . . . For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me. . . . 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'" (Matthew 25:31-46)
Randy Alcorn is the author of "Money, Possessions & Eternity"; "Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments", and other books. He is on staff at Multnomah Bible College. He and his wife Nanci founded Eternal Perspectives Ministries in Gresham, Oregon.
"The babies [Jacob and Esau] jostled each other within her [Rebekah]." (Genesis 25:22)
"In the womb he [Jacob] grasped his brother's heel; as a man he struggled with God." (Hosea 12:3)
"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit." (Job 10:8-12)
"Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?" (Job 31:15)
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:13-16)
"Surely I was sinful at birth; sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)
Note: Only a person can have a sin nature. David's statement clearly shows he was a person at the point of conception.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
"His mother Mary . . . was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit . . . [the angel said] 'what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.'" (Matthew 1:18-20)
"But the angel said to Mary 'you will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. . . . The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'" (Luke 1:30-31, 35)
Summary of Luke 1:39-44: After the angel left, Mary "hurried" (v. 39) to get to Elizabeth. Unborn John the Baptist (in his 6th month after conception) responded to the presence of the unborn Jesus inside Mary. Allowing for travel, Jesus was no more than 8-10 days beyond conception when they arrived. Implantation doesn't begin until 6 days after conception and isn't complete until 12 -- most likely Jesus was not yet fully implanted in his mother's womb when unborn John responded to his presence.
Appendix B: When does human life begin? The answer of science
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life."
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. . . . This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome)
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic
"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter -- the beginning is conception."
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School
"I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest -- that human life commences at the time of conception and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances."
Dr. Landrum Shettles, pioneer in sperm biology, fertility and sterility, discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm.
Appendix C: Abortion: perspectives of the early Church leaders
Note: The Didache was a second century (AD 120) catechism for young Christian converts. The inclusion of these statements shows that instruction to not commit abortion was a basic and essential Christian teaching, not a fringe or secondary issue.
"Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant." (The Didache 2.2). "The Way of Death is filled with people who are . . . murderers of children and abortionists of God's creatures." (The Didache 5:1-2).
"You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated." (Epistle of Barnabas 19.5; 125 AD)
"We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. For the same person would not regard the child in the womb as a living being and therefore an object of God's care and then kill it. . . . But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it." (Athenagoras, Legatio 35, AD 165)
"The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God's care" (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 35.6; AD 177)
"It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, the destruction is murder." (Tertullian, Apology, 9.4-6; second century)
"Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, in order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings." (Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2, AD 175)
"Reputed believers began to resort to drugs for producing sterility and to gird themselves round, so as to expel what was conceived on account of their not wanting to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time." Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies 9:7, AD 200)
"The wealthy, in order that their inheritance may not be divided among several, deny in the very womb their own progeny. By use of parricidal mixtures they snuff out the fruit of their wombs in the genital organs themselves. In this way life is taken away before it is born. . . . Who except man himself has taught us ways of repudiating children?" Ambrose of Milan, Hexameron, c. AD 350)
"Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons." (Basil the Great, Canons, 188.2; fourth century)
"Thou shalt not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed." The Apostolic Constitutions 73; AD 380)
"Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before birth? For you do not even let the harlot remain a mere harlot, but make her a murderer also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather something even worse than murder. For I have no real name to give it, since it does not destroy the thing born but prevents its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the place of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?" (John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on Romans, c. AD 375)
Jerome called abortion "the murder of an unborn child" (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13; fourth century). Augustine used the same phrase, warning against the terrible crime of "the murder of an unborn child." (On Marriage, 1.17.15; fourth century)
"The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light." (John Calvin, sixteenth century reformer)
Appendix D: God is Creator and Owner of all people (and therefore has sole rights over all)
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27)
"Know that the Lord Himself is God: it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people and the sheep of His pasture." (Psalm 100:3, NASV)
"For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son." (Ezekiel 18:4)
"Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand." (Isaiah 64:8)
"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)
Appendix E: God has exclusive prerogatives over human life and death
"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand." (Deuteronomy 32:39)
"The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up." (1 Samuel 2:6)
"You shall not commit murder." (Exodus 20:13)
Note: Except when he specifically delegates that right to men (e.g. capital punishment, self defense, or just war), God alone has the right to take a human life.
"And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. . . . And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."(Genesis 9:5)
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Exodus 21:22-25)
"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:13)
Appendix F: The shedding of innocent blood
"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 18:21)
"The LORD said . . . 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. . . . by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. . . . If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech . . . I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him . . ." (Leviticus 20:1-5)
"Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed." (Deuteronomy 19:10)
"The LORD sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him. He sent them to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by his servants the prophets. Surely these things happened to Judah according to the Lord's command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, including the shedding of innocent blood. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive." (2 Kings 24:2-4)
"The LORD said, 'What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.'" (Genesis 4:10)
"For God will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalm 72:12-14)
"There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19)
"Therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will give you over to bloodshed and it will pursue you. Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you." (Ezekiel 35:6)
Appendix G: How God sees children
"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven." (Matthew 18:10)
"But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." (Luke 18:16)
"Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost." (Matthew 18:14)
"Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him." (Psalm 127:3-4)
Appendix H: Defending the weak and helpless
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:3-4)
"Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?" (Proverbs 24:11-12)
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9)
"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." (James 4:17)
"House of David, this is what the LORD says: 'Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done -- burn with no one to quench it.'" (Jeremiah 21:12)
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come . . . take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. . . . I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me. . . . For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me. . . . 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'" (Matthew 25:31-46)
Randy Alcorn is the author of "Money, Possessions & Eternity"; "Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments", and other books. He is on staff at Multnomah Bible College. He and his wife Nanci founded Eternal Perspectives Ministries in Gresham, Oregon.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 7"
Conclusion
Convictions or convenience: A spiritual stronghold? -- Where do we go from here?
It is a tragic irony that we who are Christians try to persuade people not to have a single surgical abortion, while as a result of our choice to take the Pill we may be having two, three or a half dozen chemical abortions ourselves.
My intention is not to finger-point. I take no glee whatsoever in writing this. I do not wish to put my brothers and sisters on the defensive. Nor do I assume the worst of them, that they will all ignore this evidence and be callous to the lives of their unborn children.
If we'd had the information then that we do now, I am convinced Nanci and I would have stopped using the Pill. In the face of the overwhelming evidence, I think many others will make the same decision. Of course, I am not naive. I realize that many otherwise pro-life people will continue to take the Pill and many Christian physicians will continue to recommend it. I do hope that over time this will change, as our consciences become sensitized.
I have spoken with many Christian physicians, brothers I deeply respect, asking them their opinions on this research. One said, "I've never heard of any of this before." Another said, "I've heard rumors, but no one has ever pointed me to any hard evidence."
I believe what I've presented here is hard evidence. There is a clear answer to our question "Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?" The answer is definitely "yes."
In the face of this overwhelming evidence, our position on the Pill offers a great test of our true convictions. Do we really believe human life begins at conception? And will we exercise this conviction even at the cost of our personal inconvenience?
Or perhaps what we thought was a conviction will be proven to be no more than a preference. Perhaps the truth is, if we can avoid abortion without inconvenience to ourselves we will do so, but if it requires extra effort on our part, we will go ahead and risk the lives of our children. (In fact, they are really not "our" children to risk -- they are created by God and owned by God, and entrusted to us by Him to protect and nurture.)
Can God, who creates each human life at the point of conception, fully bless the pro-life efforts of CPC volunteers and Right to Life workers and sidewalk counselors and pastors and doctors -- and any of us -- when we turn right around and use, prescribe or recommend a product that sometimes takes the life of an unborn child?
Are we consistently pro-life or only selectively pro-life? Do we oppose later abortions while not really caring about the earliest ones? Is the only difference between us and those we call "proabortion" that they are willing to embrace the killing of bigger and older children while we are willing to embrace the killing only of smaller and younger children? Are we moral relativists and gradualists different only in degree but not in kind with those we call abortionists?
Because we have grown so accustomed to the Pill, will we turn our heads away from the risks it poses to our children? Do we dare to play God by infringing upon his sole and sacred prerogatives over human life?
We often encounter proabortion people who deny the basic medical and moral realities of the issue, and sometimes we shake our heads in wonder at the extent of their denial of the obvious, that abortion kills children and that it is ethically unacceptable. Many pro-lifers, for instance, have lived in denial when we've said, "I oppose abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and deformity." (Of course, an unborn child is a child; regardless of how he was conceived and what his handicaps are, it is wrong to kill a child.)
Because of social pressures and half-hearted convictions, when it comes to something so deeply entrenched in our society and in the Christian community as the Pill, each of us is fully capable of denial. Looking back, I believe I was in denial on this issue from the time I first heard about it six years ago. Why didn't I dig deeper? Why didn't I research it more carefully?
I have many other reasons to explain it away, but perhaps the bottom line is because I just didn't want it to be true. But there are many things I don't want to be true that still are. I don't want to believe there is an eternal hell; or that as a Christian I will be held accountable for my life's works at the judgment seat of Christ; or that millions of children go to bed hungry each night; or that abortion kills children; or that the Pill causes abortions. I don't want to believe any of these things, but I believe each of them nonetheless because the evidence clearly demonstrates them to be true.
Is there a supernatural reason for our ignorance and denial on this issue? As much as I believe in the spiritual realm and the spiritual battle, I am not as quick as many people to attribute every misunderstanding or problem in the church to demonic influence. However, consider what Jesus said: "the devil . . . was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44). When Satan carries out murder in an outwardly "civil" society, inevitably he must bury the murder in a huge grave of lies so that no one sees the corpses. When he convinces the church of these lies he has achieved his greatest victory -- it's hard to imagine a more horrid irony or a more crippling blow to the church than that we, followers of Christ, would make choices that result in the deaths of our own children.
The biggest threat to Satan's success in killing the innocent is that people become aware of the truth and then act on it. When I consider my own ignorance and lack of motivation to pursue and act on the truth that the Pill kills children, I am forced to conclude this may well be a spiritual stronghold that the evil one has on the church. Until we come to grips with, repent of and abstain from the chemical abortions we ourselves are having, I wonder how effective we will be as Christ representatives in general, and in particular in our efforts to prevent abortions.
Many surgical abortions happen in Christian churches, far more than most people realize. According to the latest Guttmacher Institute study, it is now just under one out of five women getting surgical abortions who claims to be a born again Christian. But it is the chemical abortions that are going almost completely unchallenged, even in the most pro-life churches and organizations, and it is these that represent the direction of abortion in America and around the world. Trends indicate that in years to come there will be fewer surgical abortions, because of the popularity and "ease" of chemical abortions. If the church herself is committing chemical abortions as a way of life, then we are woefully unprepared to fight the abortion battle at any level, let alone this one.
Ironically, the move to chemical abortifacients brings us full circle, since it is actually a return to the ancient way of doing abortions. In times where surgical abortions were very rare, certain herbs, chemicals and poisons were given to women by abortionists, who were often apothecaries or unethical doctors with a knowledge of what chemicals induced miscarriages.
That's why the ancient Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians stated, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel, and in like manner, I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce an abortion." A pessary was an oval stone inserted in the vagina sometimes used to prevent conception and sometimes used to cause an abortion.
As the IUD is parallel to the "pessary" (a physical device) of the Oath, so the Pill and other chemical abortifacients are parallel to the "deadly medicine" ethical physicians would not prescribe.
It was in the face of such chemical and device-caused abortions that Christian leaders in the first few centuries consistently denounced all abortions. For instance, in about AD 200, Minucius Felix wrote in Octavius, "There are women who swallow drugs to stifle in their own womb the beginnings of a man to be -- committing infanticide before they even give birth to the infant." In the fourth century Basil the Great wrote, "Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons." (See Appendix C: Abortion: Perspectives of the Early Church Leaders.)
In fact, a strong case can be made for understanding the Greek word translated "sorcery" in Galatians 5:20 as a reference to administering drugs to commit abortions. This word is "pharma-keia," from which we get our word "pharmaceuticals," or drugs. The administering of drugs and potions was common in sorcery, and hence the word sometimes took on that secondary connotation. But it is also used in the Greek literature of the day with its original primary meaning of drugs, chemicals or medications. The most prevalent social example of the evil use of chemicals was using them to induce abortions. Pharmakeia was used early in the second century by the physician Soranos of Ephesus in his book Gynecology, referring specifically to drugs which cause abortions.
Galatians 5:20 lists pharmakeia as one of the "acts of the sinful nature," and precedes it with sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery and idolatry. All of these relate to the immoral practices that led to many unwanted children and therefore many abortions, giving further logic to the idea that pharmakeia may in fact refer to using chemicals to kill unborn children.
The same word is used three times in Revelation. In Revelation 9:21 it says: "Nor did they repent of their murders, their pharmakeus, their sexual immorality or their thefts." In 21:8 it states: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, the pharmakeus, the idolaters and all liars -- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur." In Revelation 22:15 it says, "Outside are the dogs, the pharmakeus, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."
As the devil loved the sacrifice of children in the ancient heathen cultures, so he loves the sacrifice of our children in our modern culture. Whether children are sacrificed to a heathen god called Moloch or to the god of our own convenience, he does not care. (See Appendix F: The Shedding of Innocent Blood.) Whether these children are born or unborn does not matter to the Murderer from the beginning, for each of them is equally created in the image of God, and by killing them he comes as close as he can to striking out at God himself. In killing those created in his image, Satan kills God in effigy.
The evil one's vested interests in our blindness on this issue cannot be overstated. The forces of darkness desperately do not want us to see these newly conceived children as their Creator sees them. If we are to come over to God's way of thinking about them, it will only be through searching the Scriptures, praying, examining the evidence and openly and boldly addressing this issue in our churches and Christian organizations.
Time to search our hearts and change our ways?
Christian couples who are using the Pill, it is time to sit down and have a heart to heart talk. As a matter of conscience and conviction, do you believe you can or should continue with the Pill? Or is it time to consider other alternatives? Surely we should search the Scriptures together, pray together, look at the facts presented here, and ask God's guidance for our families.
Pastors, counselors, physicians, nurses, pharmacists and others: what will you do with this information? Our churches, our patients, our counselees, our families look to us for leadership. Let's take our God-given role seriously and provide that leadership. At the very least we must present people with both the scientific facts and the biblical principles, so they can be informed enough to make wise and godly decisions. We dare not be silent in the face of the lives of children created in the image of God. "Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves; defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9) (See Appendix H: Defending the Weak and Helpless)
If for some reason you are not satisfied with the evidence presented here, will you commit yourself to find out the truth? Go to the Scriptures first, then go to the medical journals and textbooks. Call the Pill manufacturers. (Of course, you must be prepared for the fact that they have been trained to deal with questions from pro-lifers and to minimize concerns about abortion. Even then, if you persist in your questions, most of them will acknowledge that their literature is in fact correct -- the Pill does sometimes prevent implantation of a newly conceived human being.)
If after investigating the issue, you still are not convinced, ask yourself "If this evidence doesn't convince me, is there any evidence that would?" Is it possible -- and I ask this with caution and, I think, without a critical spirit -- that your own vested interests in this issue are blinding you to the truth?
It is always better to live in the light than the darkness, even if for the moment the darkness may be comforting to the eye. Ultimately, facing the truth will set us free, while denying it will put us in bondage. The truth about the Pill may disturb us -- it certainly disturbs me -- but if we respond prayerfully to what we know, we can make informed choices to follow the Lord and affirm his Lordship over us, our families and our churches. God will surely bless us for that.
Let God's Word be the final one: "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
Note: If you wish, feel free to copy this booklet or download it from our website at http:/www.epm.org/~ralcorn and give it to your friends, family, church or anyone else. You have my full permission to do so. If you prefer to order copies of this booklet from Eternal Perspective Ministries, you can contact us at 2229 East Burnside #23, Gresham, OR, 97080.
Convictions or convenience: A spiritual stronghold? -- Where do we go from here?
It is a tragic irony that we who are Christians try to persuade people not to have a single surgical abortion, while as a result of our choice to take the Pill we may be having two, three or a half dozen chemical abortions ourselves.
My intention is not to finger-point. I take no glee whatsoever in writing this. I do not wish to put my brothers and sisters on the defensive. Nor do I assume the worst of them, that they will all ignore this evidence and be callous to the lives of their unborn children.
If we'd had the information then that we do now, I am convinced Nanci and I would have stopped using the Pill. In the face of the overwhelming evidence, I think many others will make the same decision. Of course, I am not naive. I realize that many otherwise pro-life people will continue to take the Pill and many Christian physicians will continue to recommend it. I do hope that over time this will change, as our consciences become sensitized.
I have spoken with many Christian physicians, brothers I deeply respect, asking them their opinions on this research. One said, "I've never heard of any of this before." Another said, "I've heard rumors, but no one has ever pointed me to any hard evidence."
I believe what I've presented here is hard evidence. There is a clear answer to our question "Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?" The answer is definitely "yes."
In the face of this overwhelming evidence, our position on the Pill offers a great test of our true convictions. Do we really believe human life begins at conception? And will we exercise this conviction even at the cost of our personal inconvenience?
Or perhaps what we thought was a conviction will be proven to be no more than a preference. Perhaps the truth is, if we can avoid abortion without inconvenience to ourselves we will do so, but if it requires extra effort on our part, we will go ahead and risk the lives of our children. (In fact, they are really not "our" children to risk -- they are created by God and owned by God, and entrusted to us by Him to protect and nurture.)
Can God, who creates each human life at the point of conception, fully bless the pro-life efforts of CPC volunteers and Right to Life workers and sidewalk counselors and pastors and doctors -- and any of us -- when we turn right around and use, prescribe or recommend a product that sometimes takes the life of an unborn child?
Are we consistently pro-life or only selectively pro-life? Do we oppose later abortions while not really caring about the earliest ones? Is the only difference between us and those we call "proabortion" that they are willing to embrace the killing of bigger and older children while we are willing to embrace the killing only of smaller and younger children? Are we moral relativists and gradualists different only in degree but not in kind with those we call abortionists?
Because we have grown so accustomed to the Pill, will we turn our heads away from the risks it poses to our children? Do we dare to play God by infringing upon his sole and sacred prerogatives over human life?
We often encounter proabortion people who deny the basic medical and moral realities of the issue, and sometimes we shake our heads in wonder at the extent of their denial of the obvious, that abortion kills children and that it is ethically unacceptable. Many pro-lifers, for instance, have lived in denial when we've said, "I oppose abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and deformity." (Of course, an unborn child is a child; regardless of how he was conceived and what his handicaps are, it is wrong to kill a child.)
Because of social pressures and half-hearted convictions, when it comes to something so deeply entrenched in our society and in the Christian community as the Pill, each of us is fully capable of denial. Looking back, I believe I was in denial on this issue from the time I first heard about it six years ago. Why didn't I dig deeper? Why didn't I research it more carefully?
I have many other reasons to explain it away, but perhaps the bottom line is because I just didn't want it to be true. But there are many things I don't want to be true that still are. I don't want to believe there is an eternal hell; or that as a Christian I will be held accountable for my life's works at the judgment seat of Christ; or that millions of children go to bed hungry each night; or that abortion kills children; or that the Pill causes abortions. I don't want to believe any of these things, but I believe each of them nonetheless because the evidence clearly demonstrates them to be true.
Is there a supernatural reason for our ignorance and denial on this issue? As much as I believe in the spiritual realm and the spiritual battle, I am not as quick as many people to attribute every misunderstanding or problem in the church to demonic influence. However, consider what Jesus said: "the devil . . . was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44). When Satan carries out murder in an outwardly "civil" society, inevitably he must bury the murder in a huge grave of lies so that no one sees the corpses. When he convinces the church of these lies he has achieved his greatest victory -- it's hard to imagine a more horrid irony or a more crippling blow to the church than that we, followers of Christ, would make choices that result in the deaths of our own children.
The biggest threat to Satan's success in killing the innocent is that people become aware of the truth and then act on it. When I consider my own ignorance and lack of motivation to pursue and act on the truth that the Pill kills children, I am forced to conclude this may well be a spiritual stronghold that the evil one has on the church. Until we come to grips with, repent of and abstain from the chemical abortions we ourselves are having, I wonder how effective we will be as Christ representatives in general, and in particular in our efforts to prevent abortions.
Many surgical abortions happen in Christian churches, far more than most people realize. According to the latest Guttmacher Institute study, it is now just under one out of five women getting surgical abortions who claims to be a born again Christian. But it is the chemical abortions that are going almost completely unchallenged, even in the most pro-life churches and organizations, and it is these that represent the direction of abortion in America and around the world. Trends indicate that in years to come there will be fewer surgical abortions, because of the popularity and "ease" of chemical abortions. If the church herself is committing chemical abortions as a way of life, then we are woefully unprepared to fight the abortion battle at any level, let alone this one.
Ironically, the move to chemical abortifacients brings us full circle, since it is actually a return to the ancient way of doing abortions. In times where surgical abortions were very rare, certain herbs, chemicals and poisons were given to women by abortionists, who were often apothecaries or unethical doctors with a knowledge of what chemicals induced miscarriages.
That's why the ancient Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians stated, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel, and in like manner, I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce an abortion." A pessary was an oval stone inserted in the vagina sometimes used to prevent conception and sometimes used to cause an abortion.
As the IUD is parallel to the "pessary" (a physical device) of the Oath, so the Pill and other chemical abortifacients are parallel to the "deadly medicine" ethical physicians would not prescribe.
It was in the face of such chemical and device-caused abortions that Christian leaders in the first few centuries consistently denounced all abortions. For instance, in about AD 200, Minucius Felix wrote in Octavius, "There are women who swallow drugs to stifle in their own womb the beginnings of a man to be -- committing infanticide before they even give birth to the infant." In the fourth century Basil the Great wrote, "Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons." (See Appendix C: Abortion: Perspectives of the Early Church Leaders.)
In fact, a strong case can be made for understanding the Greek word translated "sorcery" in Galatians 5:20 as a reference to administering drugs to commit abortions. This word is "pharma-keia," from which we get our word "pharmaceuticals," or drugs. The administering of drugs and potions was common in sorcery, and hence the word sometimes took on that secondary connotation. But it is also used in the Greek literature of the day with its original primary meaning of drugs, chemicals or medications. The most prevalent social example of the evil use of chemicals was using them to induce abortions. Pharmakeia was used early in the second century by the physician Soranos of Ephesus in his book Gynecology, referring specifically to drugs which cause abortions.
Galatians 5:20 lists pharmakeia as one of the "acts of the sinful nature," and precedes it with sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery and idolatry. All of these relate to the immoral practices that led to many unwanted children and therefore many abortions, giving further logic to the idea that pharmakeia may in fact refer to using chemicals to kill unborn children.
The same word is used three times in Revelation. In Revelation 9:21 it says: "Nor did they repent of their murders, their pharmakeus, their sexual immorality or their thefts." In 21:8 it states: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, the pharmakeus, the idolaters and all liars -- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur." In Revelation 22:15 it says, "Outside are the dogs, the pharmakeus, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."
As the devil loved the sacrifice of children in the ancient heathen cultures, so he loves the sacrifice of our children in our modern culture. Whether children are sacrificed to a heathen god called Moloch or to the god of our own convenience, he does not care. (See Appendix F: The Shedding of Innocent Blood.) Whether these children are born or unborn does not matter to the Murderer from the beginning, for each of them is equally created in the image of God, and by killing them he comes as close as he can to striking out at God himself. In killing those created in his image, Satan kills God in effigy.
The evil one's vested interests in our blindness on this issue cannot be overstated. The forces of darkness desperately do not want us to see these newly conceived children as their Creator sees them. If we are to come over to God's way of thinking about them, it will only be through searching the Scriptures, praying, examining the evidence and openly and boldly addressing this issue in our churches and Christian organizations.
Time to search our hearts and change our ways?
Christian couples who are using the Pill, it is time to sit down and have a heart to heart talk. As a matter of conscience and conviction, do you believe you can or should continue with the Pill? Or is it time to consider other alternatives? Surely we should search the Scriptures together, pray together, look at the facts presented here, and ask God's guidance for our families.
Pastors, counselors, physicians, nurses, pharmacists and others: what will you do with this information? Our churches, our patients, our counselees, our families look to us for leadership. Let's take our God-given role seriously and provide that leadership. At the very least we must present people with both the scientific facts and the biblical principles, so they can be informed enough to make wise and godly decisions. We dare not be silent in the face of the lives of children created in the image of God. "Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves; defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9) (See Appendix H: Defending the Weak and Helpless)
If for some reason you are not satisfied with the evidence presented here, will you commit yourself to find out the truth? Go to the Scriptures first, then go to the medical journals and textbooks. Call the Pill manufacturers. (Of course, you must be prepared for the fact that they have been trained to deal with questions from pro-lifers and to minimize concerns about abortion. Even then, if you persist in your questions, most of them will acknowledge that their literature is in fact correct -- the Pill does sometimes prevent implantation of a newly conceived human being.)
If after investigating the issue, you still are not convinced, ask yourself "If this evidence doesn't convince me, is there any evidence that would?" Is it possible -- and I ask this with caution and, I think, without a critical spirit -- that your own vested interests in this issue are blinding you to the truth?
It is always better to live in the light than the darkness, even if for the moment the darkness may be comforting to the eye. Ultimately, facing the truth will set us free, while denying it will put us in bondage. The truth about the Pill may disturb us -- it certainly disturbs me -- but if we respond prayerfully to what we know, we can make informed choices to follow the Lord and affirm his Lordship over us, our families and our churches. God will surely bless us for that.
Let God's Word be the final one: "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
Note: If you wish, feel free to copy this booklet or download it from our website at http:/www.epm.org/~ralcorn and give it to your friends, family, church or anyone else. You have my full permission to do so. If you prefer to order copies of this booklet from Eternal Perspective Ministries, you can contact us at 2229 East Burnside #23, Gresham, OR, 97080.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 6"
"Life is full of risks -- you can't avoid them all"
This is certainly true. We put ourselves and our children at risk every time we drive a car. If we let our kids go swimming we take risks. Our child's ability to grow and mature and gain confidence and trust in God in a world of risks partially depends on our willingness to take reasonable risks.
But we are also careful not to take unnecessary risks. Our risks are wise and calculated. Because we love our children we expose them only to a measured level of risk -- they ride in the car, yes, but we belt them in and drive carefully. As they grow up they learn to make their own decisions as to what level of risk is wise and acceptable.
And the younger our children are, the less risks we take with them. We might leave an eight year old free to roam the house, while we wouldn't a toddler. When we are talking about a newly conceived human being, if we take the Pill it is his life we are risking. The reason we're doing so is not for his growth and maturity, but for our convenience. We are unnecessarily putting him at risk of his very survival. Through the choice to take certain chemicals into our bodies via the Pill, we may be robbing him of the single most important thing we can offer a newly conceived child -- a hospitable environment in which he can be nourished and grow.
We would not consider withholding food and a home and physical safety for our children who are already born. We would not be careless about what we eat and drink and the chemicals we ingest and the activities we do that could jeopardize the child within when she's six months after conception. Then neither should we put our child at unnecessary risk when she's six days after conception. Yes, we can't know for certain she's there at six days. But if we've been sexually active we know she may be there. And therefore we should do nothing unnecessarily that could jeopardize her life.
A sexually active woman runs a new risk of aborting a child with every Pill she takes. Of course, the decision to take the Pill isn't just a woman's but her husband's, and he is every bit as responsible for the choice as she is. As the God-appointed leader in the home, in fact, he may be even more responsible.
How much risk is acceptable risk? Part of it depends on the alternatives. There is no such thing as a car or a house that poses no risk to your children. But there is such a thing as a contraceptive method which does not put a child's life at risk. There are safe alternatives to the birth control Pill that do not and cannot cause abortions.
"Can't we just take higher dose pills?"
At first, I'd hoped this was the case. But I kept running into materials showing that even when high dose estrogen was used the pregnancy rate of women on the Pill was still 1% and the effects on thinning the endometrium were the same as they are now. This means that breakthrough ovulation, perhaps at a little lower rate, certainly still took place. It may have added up to fewer abortions then, but not no abortions.
To double check on this, I asked the pharmacist at Ortho-McNeil if the higher dose pills were more successful in suppressing ovulation. He said, "Not really -- there's a ceiling point of estrogen, beyond which more isn't better. By the time you get to 35 micrograms, for most people you've reached the point of maximum ovulation suppression." (This appears to contradict some other sources I cited earlier. I include it for the sake of fully representing viewpoints.)
In any case, unless you were able to get three current "high dose" birth control prescriptions (50 micrograms) and take three pills a day, you could not equal the 1960s standard of 150 micrograms of estrogen each day. Even if you did, you would have to face the very serious side effects and risks to women that motivated pill manufacturers to lower the estrogen level in the first place.
"Without the Pill there would be more unplanned pregnancies and therefore more abortions"
A pro-life physician pointed this out in a letter to her pastor, stating that 50% of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion, and therefore a million more pregnancies each year could mean a half million more abortions each year.
Suppose this were true. The logic would be, "let's go ahead and kill some children now because at least if we do there may be other children, more of them, who won't get killed." The same approach could be used to deny drowning children access to a crowded life raft. This sort of pragmatism rings hollow when we put certain human lives at risk, without their consent, for the supposed good of others.
Ultimately, however, the premise itself is not true, since (unfortunately) it is only a small minority who would even consider not taking the Pill because it causes early abortions. The only people who will stop taking the Pill for this reason are not only pro-life, but deeply committed to their beliefs. The point of this booklet is not to attempt to ban the world from using the Pill, but to convince the people of God we should choose to live by a higher moral code than the world does.
A person who as a matter of conscience will not risk the life of a newly conceived child -- whose presence in her womb she cannot even yet feel -- will surely not turn around and kill a child just because she has an unplanned pregnancy. Among people who stop taking the Pill to protect unborn children, there may be more unplanned pregnancies, but they will result in births not abortions.
"But how can we exercise birth control without the Pill?"
Some will respond to this question by saying, "You shouldn't be taking birth control in the first place -- it's God who opens and closes the womb, and it's playing God to try to dictate your family size. The Bible says children are a blessing from the Lord -- not inconveniences to be avoided. Children are blessings sent from God. Which of his other blessings -- such as financial provision, a good job, a strong marriage, or a solid church -- are you desperately trying to avoid?"
Though this is not the point of view I've embraced over the years, and for various reasons my wife and I "stopped" after two children, I still cannot take this position lightly. Frankly, as I tell the students in my Bible college ethics class, I think we must look at both sides of this issue seriously and be sure we are not succumbing to our society's "Planned Parenthood" view of children rather than God's view of children. Appendix G: How God Sees Children.) I believe God is grieved by the anti-child mentality that surfaces with every negative comment made to and about families with more than three children. I believe large families should be seen as a blessing from God. (My own father was the tenth of thirteen children. Am I glad his parents didn't stop after nine children? If they would have, I wouldn't be here to write this article, and my daughters wouldn't be here to make the difference for God's kingdom they're making.)
However, this article is not motivated by a hidden agenda in which I'm trying to persuade people that all attempts at family planning are wrong. My only agenda here is an open one that I believe all Christians should agree on regardless of their position on family planning -- namely, that no "family planning" which sacrifices the lives of a family member can be morally right and pleasing to God.
For genuinely pro-life Christians who believe in family planning and the use of contraceptives, the question is, "what are the non-abortive alternatives to the Pill, Minipill, IUD, Depo-Provera and Norplant?" The answer is, the barrier methods, such as condoms and diaphragms. Though they can have their own problems and inconveniences, they are not abortive.
There is also Natural Family Planning, which is not simply the old "rhythm" method, but a very thoughtful and scientific approach. The Couple to Couple League is a good source of information on natural family planning. They cite a number of studies showing their methods to be extremely effective. Detailed information can be found on the Couple to Couple League's website at www.ccli.org, or they can be contacted e-mail at 73311.256@Compuserve.com or at P.O. Box 111184, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211-1184, or telephone 513-471-2000. Though I am not a student of this method, everything I have seen suggests it is certainly worth exploring.
"But these methods aren't as effective -- we may have an unwanted child." In fact, the barrier methods, especially when used in combination with spermicides, are highly effective, though not as effective as the Pill and certainly less convenient. Natural Family Planning, practiced by informed couples, can be just as effective as the Pill. Some studies suggest it is actually more effective.
But let's look at the "worst case" scenario -- you conceive and give birth to an unplanned child. Consider how many people have been richly blessed by children who were unplanned. These are not "accidents," they are precious creations of God. Babies are not cancerous tumors to be desperately avoided and dramatically removed. That they are unplanned by us does not mean they are unplanned by God.
We have to weigh the greater "risk" of having a child (whom God calls a blessing) against the possibility of killing a child (which God calls an abomination). No matter where a Christian stands on the birth control issue, we should surely be able to agree that the possibility of having a child is always better than the possibility of killing a child!
I know a man whose married daughter recently stopped taking the Pill when she learned it sometimes causes abortion. She got pregnant soon thereafter. He said to me with a smile, "thanks to my daughter not taking the Pill, God gave us a wonderful grandchild!" Is that really so bad? I am convinced God was pleased by their choice to not place children at risk for the sake of their convenience.
There may also be some health benefits to women who choose not to take the Pill. As anyone who has read the inserts packaged with birth control pills knows, there are serious risks to some women associated with oral contraceptives, including increased incidence of blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, sexually transmitted diseases, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, breast cancer, cervical cancer, liver tumors, and ectopic pregnancy. These and other risks are spelled out under each bcp's listing in The Physician's Desk Reference. (The health issue is not my central concern in this article, but the life issue. Still, health issues are worth considering.)
There are some benefits in taking the Pill that have no relation to issues of pregnancy. It is prescribed by doctors to regulate hormones connected to such conditions as ovarian cysts. It is used to treat acne, and to get women "on schedule" who desire ultimately to go off the Pill and have children. If one was careful to use a nonabortive contraceptive in addition to the Pill, perhaps it could be reasonable to use the Pill briefly to regulate her periods in preparation for a pregnancy. If a single woman has had certain ovarian problems, as long as she does not engage in sex her doctor's prescription of the Pill to treat her condition might be very appropriate.
As long as sexually inactive women are aware of the physical risks to themselves, which they may well determine are acceptable, they are certainly free to take the Pill for its other benefits. The moral problem is when, regardless of the reasons for taking it, a sexually active woman takes the Pill and thereby runs the continual risk of aborting a child.
One Ob/Gyn told me that years ago, after coming to realize the Pill causes abortions, he decided he could no longer prescribe it. He informed his patients why. At first, he lost a significant number of patients and income. Ultimately his practice started thriving again, since many pro-life people who respected his stand and believed they could trust him on matters of principles and ethics, came to him as their physician. Of course, even if he had never regained the lost patients and income, the important thing is that he believes he made the decision that honored God and the sanctity of human life created by God.
Similarly, there are pharmacists, including those who are part of Pharmacists for Life, who are committed not to distribute the Pill because of their convictions. This can create difficulty and controversy, but sometimes taking a stand for what is right inevitably does that, and people are ultimately informed, challenged and benefited.
"I never knew this about the Pill -- should I feel guilty?"
I know exactly what you're experiencing. If we had known, I believe Nanci and I would never have used the Pill. But we didn't know, and there's nothing we can do now to change that. If we were still using the Pill, upon discovering these realities, we would immediately stop using it. But I also must deal with my failure in recent years (long after we stopped using the Pill) to investigate the occasional reference I heard to the possibility that the Pill causes abortions.
What about guilt? There is true guilt and there are guilt feelings that plague us even when we are not guilty, or no longer guilty because of Christ's promise of forgiveness. Whenever we have done something in ignorance, it is hard to discern our level of responsibility, but Scripture makes clear we are capable of doing wrong even when not consciously aware of it.
When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the LORD's holy things, he is to bring to the LORD as a penalty a ram from the flock . . . It is a guilt offering . . . If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible. He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect . . . In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven. (Leviticus 5:14-18)
We are to seek out before the Lord unintentional and unknown sins:
How many wrongs and sins have I committed? Show me my offense and my sin. (Job 13:23)
Who can discern his errors? Forgive my hidden faults. (Psalm 19:12)
Test me, O LORD, and try me, examine my heart and my mind. (Psalm 26:2)
I have considered my ways and have turned my steps to your statutes. (Psalm 119:59)
Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. (Psalm 139:23-24)
Scripture clearly teaches we will each stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an account of what we have done in our lives on earth (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10). While our salvation doesn't depend on this, our rewards in heaven do.
The Bible teaches that by coming to terms now with our sin and our responsibility, we can to a certain extent preserve ourselves from having to face judgment later: "But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment" (1 Corinthians 11:31).
All of us who have used the Pill may have unknowingly caused abortions, and we certainly ran a risk of doing so. All of us who have recommended it are also accountable.
Because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross on our behalf, God freely offers us pardon and forgiveness for everything -- known sins, unknown sins, and actions taken in ignorance and sincerity that have terrible and unintended results.
He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust. (Psalm 103:10-14)
Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:18-19)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
To be honest, I haven't quite known exactly how to respond to our years of our using the Pill and my recommending it to others. My prayer has gone something like this -- "Lord, I'd like to think this wasn't a sin, given our ignorance, but based on your word I suspect it probably was. Since I am usually more guilty than I think, not less, I would rather assume I have sinned rather than presuming I have not. Please forgive me. I thank you that the price you paid means I need not labor under the guilt of my wrong choices in the past. Help me now to demonstrate the condition of my heart by living out consistently my convictions about the sanctity of human life. Help me never to dare to play God by usurping your sole prerogatives as the giver and taker of life. And help me do what I can to encourage my brothers and sister not to do so either."
I have been told that it would be better to be silent, to not raise the issue of the Pill's being able to cause abortions. Why? Because it will make people feel guilty, and it will make them more accountable. But sometimes a greater sense of guilt and accountability is exactly what we need, for then we can deal with them in God's way, and be relieved of them rather than ignoring or stuffing them. The same "don't make people feel guilty" logic prompts people not to say what the Bible really says. But ultimately it is never in people's best interests to keep them in ignorance and give them no opportunity to respond to the Lord.
Our mission must be to tell the truth, not to hide it. We are here not simply to help each other feel good, but to help each other be good. Ultimately, the greatest kindness we can offer each other is the truth. The Christian life is not based on avoiding the truth but hearing it and submitting to it. Far better to feel guilty, repent and become obedient than to not feel guilty, and continue to disobey our Lord, endanger the lives of the innocent, and lay up judgment for ourselves.
I've given my understanding of it, but whether we consider ourselves innocent or guilty due to our past ignorance, I believe we ought to agree that in light of our knowledge of the truth that the Pill can cause abortions, we should no longer use or recommend it, and should take the opportunity to explain, especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ, why we cannot.
Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD. (Lamentations 3:40)
He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy. (Proverbs 28:13)
"Let's not get sidetracked from fighting real abortions"
One pro-life physician read a few of the citations in this booklet, and wrote me this in an email: "I think pro-lifers should stay away from these theoretical arguments and stick with fighting what we know to be wrong: elective induced abortions. We defeat ourselves if we get carried away on tangents arguing about bcps."
But when I examine the evidence, I do not see it as theoretical, I see it as actual. We don't know how many children are dying from the use of oral contraceptives, but we know that some, and likely many, certainly are.
As to sticking with fighting "what we know to be wrong," the question is whether we know that early abortions are wrong, just as we know later ones are. Or whether we know killing children by chemicals is wrong, just as we know killing them with surgical tools is wrong. The answer to both these questions, I believe, is yes. Both really happen, both result in the deaths of children created in God's image, and both are surely worthy of our attention.
Will we "defeat ourselves" by speaking up for children killed by chemicals as we do for children killed by surgeries? Or will we just become more consistent (and less hypocritical) advocates of the unborn? Is pointing out the abortifacient nature of birth control pills a "tangent," or is it just staying (or getting) on track by obeying God's command to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves?
This is certainly true. We put ourselves and our children at risk every time we drive a car. If we let our kids go swimming we take risks. Our child's ability to grow and mature and gain confidence and trust in God in a world of risks partially depends on our willingness to take reasonable risks.
But we are also careful not to take unnecessary risks. Our risks are wise and calculated. Because we love our children we expose them only to a measured level of risk -- they ride in the car, yes, but we belt them in and drive carefully. As they grow up they learn to make their own decisions as to what level of risk is wise and acceptable.
And the younger our children are, the less risks we take with them. We might leave an eight year old free to roam the house, while we wouldn't a toddler. When we are talking about a newly conceived human being, if we take the Pill it is his life we are risking. The reason we're doing so is not for his growth and maturity, but for our convenience. We are unnecessarily putting him at risk of his very survival. Through the choice to take certain chemicals into our bodies via the Pill, we may be robbing him of the single most important thing we can offer a newly conceived child -- a hospitable environment in which he can be nourished and grow.
We would not consider withholding food and a home and physical safety for our children who are already born. We would not be careless about what we eat and drink and the chemicals we ingest and the activities we do that could jeopardize the child within when she's six months after conception. Then neither should we put our child at unnecessary risk when she's six days after conception. Yes, we can't know for certain she's there at six days. But if we've been sexually active we know she may be there. And therefore we should do nothing unnecessarily that could jeopardize her life.
A sexually active woman runs a new risk of aborting a child with every Pill she takes. Of course, the decision to take the Pill isn't just a woman's but her husband's, and he is every bit as responsible for the choice as she is. As the God-appointed leader in the home, in fact, he may be even more responsible.
How much risk is acceptable risk? Part of it depends on the alternatives. There is no such thing as a car or a house that poses no risk to your children. But there is such a thing as a contraceptive method which does not put a child's life at risk. There are safe alternatives to the birth control Pill that do not and cannot cause abortions.
"Can't we just take higher dose pills?"
At first, I'd hoped this was the case. But I kept running into materials showing that even when high dose estrogen was used the pregnancy rate of women on the Pill was still 1% and the effects on thinning the endometrium were the same as they are now. This means that breakthrough ovulation, perhaps at a little lower rate, certainly still took place. It may have added up to fewer abortions then, but not no abortions.
To double check on this, I asked the pharmacist at Ortho-McNeil if the higher dose pills were more successful in suppressing ovulation. He said, "Not really -- there's a ceiling point of estrogen, beyond which more isn't better. By the time you get to 35 micrograms, for most people you've reached the point of maximum ovulation suppression." (This appears to contradict some other sources I cited earlier. I include it for the sake of fully representing viewpoints.)
In any case, unless you were able to get three current "high dose" birth control prescriptions (50 micrograms) and take three pills a day, you could not equal the 1960s standard of 150 micrograms of estrogen each day. Even if you did, you would have to face the very serious side effects and risks to women that motivated pill manufacturers to lower the estrogen level in the first place.
"Without the Pill there would be more unplanned pregnancies and therefore more abortions"
A pro-life physician pointed this out in a letter to her pastor, stating that 50% of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion, and therefore a million more pregnancies each year could mean a half million more abortions each year.
Suppose this were true. The logic would be, "let's go ahead and kill some children now because at least if we do there may be other children, more of them, who won't get killed." The same approach could be used to deny drowning children access to a crowded life raft. This sort of pragmatism rings hollow when we put certain human lives at risk, without their consent, for the supposed good of others.
Ultimately, however, the premise itself is not true, since (unfortunately) it is only a small minority who would even consider not taking the Pill because it causes early abortions. The only people who will stop taking the Pill for this reason are not only pro-life, but deeply committed to their beliefs. The point of this booklet is not to attempt to ban the world from using the Pill, but to convince the people of God we should choose to live by a higher moral code than the world does.
A person who as a matter of conscience will not risk the life of a newly conceived child -- whose presence in her womb she cannot even yet feel -- will surely not turn around and kill a child just because she has an unplanned pregnancy. Among people who stop taking the Pill to protect unborn children, there may be more unplanned pregnancies, but they will result in births not abortions.
"But how can we exercise birth control without the Pill?"
Some will respond to this question by saying, "You shouldn't be taking birth control in the first place -- it's God who opens and closes the womb, and it's playing God to try to dictate your family size. The Bible says children are a blessing from the Lord -- not inconveniences to be avoided. Children are blessings sent from God. Which of his other blessings -- such as financial provision, a good job, a strong marriage, or a solid church -- are you desperately trying to avoid?"
Though this is not the point of view I've embraced over the years, and for various reasons my wife and I "stopped" after two children, I still cannot take this position lightly. Frankly, as I tell the students in my Bible college ethics class, I think we must look at both sides of this issue seriously and be sure we are not succumbing to our society's "Planned Parenthood" view of children rather than God's view of children. Appendix G: How God Sees Children.) I believe God is grieved by the anti-child mentality that surfaces with every negative comment made to and about families with more than three children. I believe large families should be seen as a blessing from God. (My own father was the tenth of thirteen children. Am I glad his parents didn't stop after nine children? If they would have, I wouldn't be here to write this article, and my daughters wouldn't be here to make the difference for God's kingdom they're making.)
However, this article is not motivated by a hidden agenda in which I'm trying to persuade people that all attempts at family planning are wrong. My only agenda here is an open one that I believe all Christians should agree on regardless of their position on family planning -- namely, that no "family planning" which sacrifices the lives of a family member can be morally right and pleasing to God.
For genuinely pro-life Christians who believe in family planning and the use of contraceptives, the question is, "what are the non-abortive alternatives to the Pill, Minipill, IUD, Depo-Provera and Norplant?" The answer is, the barrier methods, such as condoms and diaphragms. Though they can have their own problems and inconveniences, they are not abortive.
There is also Natural Family Planning, which is not simply the old "rhythm" method, but a very thoughtful and scientific approach. The Couple to Couple League is a good source of information on natural family planning. They cite a number of studies showing their methods to be extremely effective. Detailed information can be found on the Couple to Couple League's website at www.ccli.org, or they can be contacted e-mail at 73311.256@Compuserve.com or at P.O. Box 111184, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211-1184, or telephone 513-471-2000. Though I am not a student of this method, everything I have seen suggests it is certainly worth exploring.
"But these methods aren't as effective -- we may have an unwanted child." In fact, the barrier methods, especially when used in combination with spermicides, are highly effective, though not as effective as the Pill and certainly less convenient. Natural Family Planning, practiced by informed couples, can be just as effective as the Pill. Some studies suggest it is actually more effective.
But let's look at the "worst case" scenario -- you conceive and give birth to an unplanned child. Consider how many people have been richly blessed by children who were unplanned. These are not "accidents," they are precious creations of God. Babies are not cancerous tumors to be desperately avoided and dramatically removed. That they are unplanned by us does not mean they are unplanned by God.
We have to weigh the greater "risk" of having a child (whom God calls a blessing) against the possibility of killing a child (which God calls an abomination). No matter where a Christian stands on the birth control issue, we should surely be able to agree that the possibility of having a child is always better than the possibility of killing a child!
I know a man whose married daughter recently stopped taking the Pill when she learned it sometimes causes abortion. She got pregnant soon thereafter. He said to me with a smile, "thanks to my daughter not taking the Pill, God gave us a wonderful grandchild!" Is that really so bad? I am convinced God was pleased by their choice to not place children at risk for the sake of their convenience.
There may also be some health benefits to women who choose not to take the Pill. As anyone who has read the inserts packaged with birth control pills knows, there are serious risks to some women associated with oral contraceptives, including increased incidence of blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, sexually transmitted diseases, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, breast cancer, cervical cancer, liver tumors, and ectopic pregnancy. These and other risks are spelled out under each bcp's listing in The Physician's Desk Reference. (The health issue is not my central concern in this article, but the life issue. Still, health issues are worth considering.)
There are some benefits in taking the Pill that have no relation to issues of pregnancy. It is prescribed by doctors to regulate hormones connected to such conditions as ovarian cysts. It is used to treat acne, and to get women "on schedule" who desire ultimately to go off the Pill and have children. If one was careful to use a nonabortive contraceptive in addition to the Pill, perhaps it could be reasonable to use the Pill briefly to regulate her periods in preparation for a pregnancy. If a single woman has had certain ovarian problems, as long as she does not engage in sex her doctor's prescription of the Pill to treat her condition might be very appropriate.
As long as sexually inactive women are aware of the physical risks to themselves, which they may well determine are acceptable, they are certainly free to take the Pill for its other benefits. The moral problem is when, regardless of the reasons for taking it, a sexually active woman takes the Pill and thereby runs the continual risk of aborting a child.
One Ob/Gyn told me that years ago, after coming to realize the Pill causes abortions, he decided he could no longer prescribe it. He informed his patients why. At first, he lost a significant number of patients and income. Ultimately his practice started thriving again, since many pro-life people who respected his stand and believed they could trust him on matters of principles and ethics, came to him as their physician. Of course, even if he had never regained the lost patients and income, the important thing is that he believes he made the decision that honored God and the sanctity of human life created by God.
Similarly, there are pharmacists, including those who are part of Pharmacists for Life, who are committed not to distribute the Pill because of their convictions. This can create difficulty and controversy, but sometimes taking a stand for what is right inevitably does that, and people are ultimately informed, challenged and benefited.
"I never knew this about the Pill -- should I feel guilty?"
I know exactly what you're experiencing. If we had known, I believe Nanci and I would never have used the Pill. But we didn't know, and there's nothing we can do now to change that. If we were still using the Pill, upon discovering these realities, we would immediately stop using it. But I also must deal with my failure in recent years (long after we stopped using the Pill) to investigate the occasional reference I heard to the possibility that the Pill causes abortions.
What about guilt? There is true guilt and there are guilt feelings that plague us even when we are not guilty, or no longer guilty because of Christ's promise of forgiveness. Whenever we have done something in ignorance, it is hard to discern our level of responsibility, but Scripture makes clear we are capable of doing wrong even when not consciously aware of it.
When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the LORD's holy things, he is to bring to the LORD as a penalty a ram from the flock . . . It is a guilt offering . . . If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible. He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect . . . In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven. (Leviticus 5:14-18)
We are to seek out before the Lord unintentional and unknown sins:
How many wrongs and sins have I committed? Show me my offense and my sin. (Job 13:23)
Who can discern his errors? Forgive my hidden faults. (Psalm 19:12)
Test me, O LORD, and try me, examine my heart and my mind. (Psalm 26:2)
I have considered my ways and have turned my steps to your statutes. (Psalm 119:59)
Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. (Psalm 139:23-24)
Scripture clearly teaches we will each stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an account of what we have done in our lives on earth (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10). While our salvation doesn't depend on this, our rewards in heaven do.
The Bible teaches that by coming to terms now with our sin and our responsibility, we can to a certain extent preserve ourselves from having to face judgment later: "But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment" (1 Corinthians 11:31).
All of us who have used the Pill may have unknowingly caused abortions, and we certainly ran a risk of doing so. All of us who have recommended it are also accountable.
Because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross on our behalf, God freely offers us pardon and forgiveness for everything -- known sins, unknown sins, and actions taken in ignorance and sincerity that have terrible and unintended results.
He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust. (Psalm 103:10-14)
Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:18-19)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
To be honest, I haven't quite known exactly how to respond to our years of our using the Pill and my recommending it to others. My prayer has gone something like this -- "Lord, I'd like to think this wasn't a sin, given our ignorance, but based on your word I suspect it probably was. Since I am usually more guilty than I think, not less, I would rather assume I have sinned rather than presuming I have not. Please forgive me. I thank you that the price you paid means I need not labor under the guilt of my wrong choices in the past. Help me now to demonstrate the condition of my heart by living out consistently my convictions about the sanctity of human life. Help me never to dare to play God by usurping your sole prerogatives as the giver and taker of life. And help me do what I can to encourage my brothers and sister not to do so either."
I have been told that it would be better to be silent, to not raise the issue of the Pill's being able to cause abortions. Why? Because it will make people feel guilty, and it will make them more accountable. But sometimes a greater sense of guilt and accountability is exactly what we need, for then we can deal with them in God's way, and be relieved of them rather than ignoring or stuffing them. The same "don't make people feel guilty" logic prompts people not to say what the Bible really says. But ultimately it is never in people's best interests to keep them in ignorance and give them no opportunity to respond to the Lord.
Our mission must be to tell the truth, not to hide it. We are here not simply to help each other feel good, but to help each other be good. Ultimately, the greatest kindness we can offer each other is the truth. The Christian life is not based on avoiding the truth but hearing it and submitting to it. Far better to feel guilty, repent and become obedient than to not feel guilty, and continue to disobey our Lord, endanger the lives of the innocent, and lay up judgment for ourselves.
I've given my understanding of it, but whether we consider ourselves innocent or guilty due to our past ignorance, I believe we ought to agree that in light of our knowledge of the truth that the Pill can cause abortions, we should no longer use or recommend it, and should take the opportunity to explain, especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ, why we cannot.
Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD. (Lamentations 3:40)
He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy. (Proverbs 28:13)
"Let's not get sidetracked from fighting real abortions"
One pro-life physician read a few of the citations in this booklet, and wrote me this in an email: "I think pro-lifers should stay away from these theoretical arguments and stick with fighting what we know to be wrong: elective induced abortions. We defeat ourselves if we get carried away on tangents arguing about bcps."
But when I examine the evidence, I do not see it as theoretical, I see it as actual. We don't know how many children are dying from the use of oral contraceptives, but we know that some, and likely many, certainly are.
As to sticking with fighting "what we know to be wrong," the question is whether we know that early abortions are wrong, just as we know later ones are. Or whether we know killing children by chemicals is wrong, just as we know killing them with surgical tools is wrong. The answer to both these questions, I believe, is yes. Both really happen, both result in the deaths of children created in God's image, and both are surely worthy of our attention.
Will we "defeat ourselves" by speaking up for children killed by chemicals as we do for children killed by surgeries? Or will we just become more consistent (and less hypocritical) advocates of the unborn? Is pointing out the abortifacient nature of birth control pills a "tangent," or is it just staying (or getting) on track by obeying God's command to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 5"
When the first mechanism fails, how often does the second work?
We've seen that various sources put ovulation failure at rates of 7%, 2-10%, 4-10%, 4.7%, 20% and even Dr. Ronald Chez's whopping 50%. Let's take 5-10% as a figure to work with. That would mean in an average woman's cycle, she will have two to four breakthrough ovulations every three years.
The question then becomes, how many times when ovulation occurs does the second mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus, prevent sperm from reaching the egg? It is impossible to know, but studies on animals suggest this mechanism may not be as effective as Pill manufacturers seem to assume.
Drs. MC Chang and DM Hunt did experiments on rabbits what could not be done on human beings ("Effects of various progestins and estrogen on the gamete transport and fertilization in the rabbit," Fertility and Sterility, 1970; 21, p. 683-686.) They gave the rabbits estrogen and progestin to mimic the Pill, then artificially inseminated them. They then killed the rabbits and did microscopic studies to examine how many sperm had reached the fallopian tubes.
The progestin, the hormone that thickens cervical mucus, might be expected to prevent nearly all the sperm from traveling to the tubes. However, it did not. In every rabbit that had taken the progestin, there were still thousands of sperm which reached the fallopian tubes, as many as 72% of the number in the control group. This is noteworthy evidence that the progestin-caused increased thickness of cervical mucus does not necessarily significantly inhibit sperm from reaching the egg, and therefore does not serve as an effective contraceptive.
When ovulation takes place and the thickened mucus fails to prevent conception -- which may well be the majority of the time -- the significantly altered and less hospitable endometrium caused by the Pill comes into play. Given the observably diminished capacity of the endometrium to sustain life, it seems likely that implantation may be the exception rather than the rule. For every child that does implant, many others may not. Of course, we don't know the percentage that will implant in a normal endometrium unaffected by the Pill, but it is reasonable to believe whatever that percentage is, the Pill significantly lowers it.
Approximately fourteen million American women take the Pill each year. At the 3% rate, which is firmly established statistically, in any year there will be 420,000 detected pregnancies of Pill-takers. (I say "detected" pregnancies, since pregnancies that end before implantation will never be detected but are nonetheless real.) Each one of these children has managed to implant even in a hostile endometrium.
The question is, how many children failed to implant in that hostile environment that would have implanted in a nurturing environment unhindered by the Pill? The number who die might be significantly higher than the number who survive. If it was four times as high, that would be 1,680,000 deaths; if twice as high, 840,000 deaths. If the same number of children do not survive the hostile endometrium as do survive, it would be 420,000. If only half as many died as survived, this would be 210,000 -- still a staggering number of Pill-induced abortions each year.
In his brochure "How the Pill and the IUD Work: Gambling with Life" (American Life League, P.O. Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555), Dr. David Sterns asks:
Just how often does the pill have to rely on this abortive 'backup' mechanism? No one can tell you with certainty. Perhaps it is as seldom as 1 to 2% of the time; but perhaps it is as frequently as 50% of the time. Does it matter? The clear conclusion is that it is impossible for any woman on the pill in any given month to know exactly which mechanism is in effect. In other words, the pill always carries with it the potential to act as an abortifacient.
Though they have been unable to cite studies indicating lower figures than these, physician friends of mine tell me they believe the highest figures I've cited here are too high. I hope they are right. It concerns me, however, that they have not provided empirical evidence that refutes such figures. (If any reader has such evidence, I would greatly appreciate seeing it.)
In any case, even if the numbers are lower, they could still add up to hundreds of thousands of child casualties per year. When pro-lifers routinely state there are 1.5 million abortions per year in America (I have often said this myself), we are leaving out all chemical abortions and are therefore vastly understating the true number. Perhaps we are also immunizing ourselves to the reality that life really does begin at conception and we are morally accountable to act like it.
Let's make it more personal by bringing it down to an individual woman. If a fertile and sexually active woman took the Pill from puberty to menopause, she would have a potential of 390 suppressed ovulations. Eliminating those times when she wouldn't take the Pill because she wanted to have a child, or because she was already pregnant, she might have 330 potentially suppressed ovulations. If 95% of her ovulations were suppressed (it could be considerably less, but not much more), this would mean she would have sixteen breakthrough ovulations.
If she is fertile and sexually active, a few of those ovulations might end up in a known pregnancy because the second and third mechanisms both fail. Of the other fourteen, perhaps nine would never be fertilized (some prevented by the number two mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus). And perhaps, as a result of the number three mechanism, she might have five early abortions because conception took place, but the children could not be implanted in the endometrium.
If the same woman took the Pill for only ten years, she might have one or two abortions instead of five. Again, we don't know the exact figures, and likely never will. Some would say these estimates are too high, but based on my research it appears equally probable they are too low.
There is no way to be certain, but the truth is that a Christian woman taking the Pill might over time have no Pill-induced abortions, or she might have one, three or a dozen of them.
Our beliefs should be governed by the evidence, not by wishful thinking. But since the numbers cannot be decisively determined, based on what you do know, come up with an estimate you think might be in the ballpark. Now, whatever that figure is, ask yourself this question -- is it morally right to unnecessarily risk the lives of those children?
Questions & objections
In the process of research I've had countless conversations with Christians, including physicians, pastors and many others. These are some of the questions and objections people have most often raised.
"If this is true, why haven't I heard it before?"
There are many possible answers to this question. One is that concerns about abortions, especially early ones, are not widespread among researchers, scientists and the medical community in general. Since preventing implantation isn't of concern except to those who believe God creates people at the point of conception, it isn't terribly surprising the experts haven't gotten the word out. In their minds, why should they?
While the evidence for Pill-caused abortions is substantial, it is spread out in so many obscure and technical scientific journals, dozens of them, that relatively few physicians -- much less the general public -- have ever seen the most compelling evidence at all, or if they have, only piecemeal. It has effectively fallen through the cracks and failed to get their attention.
Many well-meaning physicians, including Christians, simply are not aware of this evidence. (I know this, because that's what they've told me.) When patients hear someone suggest the Pill causes abortions, they will often come to their physician, who may be pro-life, and ak if this is true. The physician may sincerely say, "According to my understanding, the Pill just prevents conception, it doesn't cause abortions. You have nothing to be concerned about." Physicians assume that if this were really true, they would surely know it. In most cases they are not deliberately misleading their patients, but unfortunately the bottom line is that their patients are indeed misled. Based on their physician's reassurances, they don't look into the matter further, and because the dedicated physician is so busy, and confident that the Pill only prevents conception, neither does he.
An isolated reference here or there simply isn't sufficient to change or even challenge the deeply-ingrained pro-Pill consensus of medicine, society or the church. If Time magazine -- or even a major Christian periodical -- devoted a cover story to the subject, the information would reach a popular level in a way it never has before.
Even when the information leaks out, so many Christians -- including pastors and parachurch leaders -- have used and recommended the Pill, that we have a natural resistance to raising this issue or looking into it seriously when others raise it. This is likely why so few individuals or organizations have researched or drawn attention to this subject.
Ultimately, the widespread ignorance and blindness on this issue among Christians may be largely attributable to supernatural forces of evil which promote the deaths of the innocent and lie and mislead to cover those deaths. (I address this in the Conclusion.)
We also cannot escape the fact that the Pill is a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry. Its manufacturers, the drug companies, have tremendous vested interests. So too do many physicians prescribing it. (I do not mean by this that most physicians prescribe it primarily for financial gain, but simply that it is a significant part of many practices.)
Those in the best place to disseminate this information are the Pill-manufacturers. The problem, however, is that they gain customers by convincing them the Pill works, not by teaching them exactly how it works. No one takes the Pill because she knows it prevents implantation, but many might stop taking it if they knew it does.
Hence, a pharmaceutical company has nothing to gain by drawing attention to this information, and potentially a great deal to lose. There are many people in America who profess to believe life begins at conception; companies do not want these people to stop using their pills. This concern for good public relations was very evident to me in my conversations with staff at four major Pill manufacturers. It is also demonstrated in the fact that their FDA-monitored disclosures in the fine-print professional labeling, and in Physician's Desk Reference, all mention that the Pill prevents implantation, but this is stated in very few of their package inserts and none of their colorful consumer-oriented booklets.
Dr. James Walker, in his paper "Oral Contraception: A Different Perspective" (Pharmacists for Life, PO Box 1281, Powell, OH, 43065), points out the Pill's potential to cause abortion. He then says,
A large percentage of consumers would undoubtedly refuse to use this form of birth control if they were aware that oral contraceptives worked in this way. Also, a large number of physicians would refrain from using this method of contraception if they were aware of the abortifacient mechanism of oral contraceptives . . . why is the medical (or prescribing) and consumer population so poorly informed? It could be that the pharmaceutical industry is interested in making large profits without regard for the sanctity of human life. Or it could be that the medical community has become so conditioned to supply means for instant gratification, that our eyes have been blinded to the eternal consequences of our daily action.
"If we don't know how often abortions happen, why shouldn't we take the Pill?"
We can be certain that the Pill causes some abortions. But since we are uncertain about the actual numbers of abortions, how should we act on our uncertainty?
If a hunter is uncertain whether a movement in the brush is caused by a deer or a person, should his uncertainty lead him to shoot or not to shoot?
If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes?
Shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt to life? Let's say that you are skeptical of all this research, all these studies, and all the Pill manufacturers' claims that the Pill sometimes results in the death of a child. (You might ask yourself if the reason is because of your bias and vested interests, but for the moment let's just say you're genuinely uncertain.) Is it a Christlike attitude to say "Because taking the Pill may or may not kill a child, I will therefore take it"? If we are uncertain, shouldn't that compel us not to take it?
My research has convinced me the evidence is not uncertain, but compelling, in the single most important sense -- the Pill does result in abortions. Only the numbers are uncertain. Can we really say in good conscience, "Because I'm uncertain exactly how many children are killed by the Pill, therefore I will take it"? (How many dead children would it take to be too many?)
It seems to me more Christlike to say, "Because I know there is a widespread understanding of the most informed scientific and medical people (including the research departments of those manufacturing it) that the Pill does sometimes cause abortions, I will therefore not take the Pill and I will encourage others not to."
"But spontaneous abortions happen frequently anyway"
One physician pointed out there are many spontaneous abortions and miscarriages. Because of this, he felt we should not be troubled by pre-implantational abortions caused by the Pill. I've heard the same logic used to defend fertility research and in vitro fertilization in which embryos are conceived outside the womb. Three to six of these may be implanted in a uterus in the hopes one may live, but the majority die, and some are frozen or discarded. (In the best case scenario, two to five die in the attempt to implant one, and often all of them die.)
When, even under optimal conditions, physicians attempt to implant an embryo conceived in-vitro, it is true that there is a low success rate. According to Dr. Leon Speroff, the success rate in any given cycle is 13.5% and since typically three to six embryos may be used to attempt implantation, the actual survival rate is just over 3%. This means that 29 out of 30 embryos die in the attempt to implant a child (Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility; Williams and Wilkins, fifth edition, 1994, page 937-39). This confirms that in the natural process of a woman's cycle there are likely many early miscarriages, perhaps considerably more than there are live births.
Since this is true, however, does it therefore follow, "Because God or nature causes millions of early abortions a year, it's okay if we cause some?"
The proper response to this is that there is a big difference, a cosmic difference, between God and us! What God is free to do and what we are free to do are not the same. God is the giver and taker of life. God is the potter, we are the clay (Isaiah 45:9-11). He has the right to take human life, we do not. Nature is under the curse of sin and as a result there is widespread death in this world, both inside and outside the womb (Romans 8:19-22). God is the Superintendent of nature and can overrule it when he so chooses. But none of this permits us to say "because God lets so many people die, I'll go ahead and kill some of them myself!"
It is one thing for God to take a human life. It is an entirely different thing for us to do so. His prerogatives are unique to Him. He is the Creator, we are the creatures. (See Appendix D: God is Creator and Owner of all people.) The same principle applies when someone says that since a baby will probably die within a few days or weeks of his birth, we may as well abort him now. The difference is between losing a child to death (by God's sovereign choice) and choosing to kill that child. This is a fundamental and radical difference. (See Appendix E: God has exclusive prerogatives over human life and death.)
To justify using a chemical that takes some lives by saying it really causes fewer abortions though preventing conception again puts us in the place of God. The logic seems to be that God is letting many children die, so when we will kill some ourselves we can take consolation in knowing that the chemical that kills some children prevents many children from ever being conceived and therefore from ever dying.
But God has never delegated the right to us to unnecessarily risk the lives of our children. Furthermore, if there are fewer miscarriages because of the Pill it is not because the Pill brings any benefit to a preborn child, but only because it results in less children. This is all an illusion -- it is not that lives are truly being preserved, but simply that there are fewer lives to preserve! There is less death only because there is less life.
Using this logic, the most pro-life thing we could do would be to eliminate all pregnancy and thereby all children. We could congratulate ourselves that we eliminated abortion by eliminating children. (The number of people with cancer could also be lowered by reducing the number of people in society, but we would hardly think of that as a cure -- especially if the means we used to have less people meant killing some of them!)
We may indeed lose through early spontaneous miscarriages several children we don't even know of. But that in no way justifies our choosing to take something into our bodies that puts the lives of other children in danger.
"But Pill-takers aren't intending to have abortions"
I've been told several times that because most people's intention in taking the Pill is to prevent conception, not to have an abortion, it's therefore ethical for them to continue taking the Pill.
I certainly agree that most women taking the Pill don't intend to get abortions. In fact, I'm convinced 99% of them are unaware this is even possible. But the fact remains that while the intentions of those taking the Pill may be harmless, the results can be fatal.
A nurse giving your child an injection could sincerely intend no harm to your child, but if she unknowingly injects him with a fatal poison, her good intentions will not lessen the tragedy of the results. Whether the nurse has the heart of a murderer or a saint, your child is equally dead. The best intentions do nothing to reverse the most disastrous results.
In this sense, taking the Pill is analogous to playing Russian roulette, but with more chambers and therefore less risk per episode. In Russian roulette, participants usually don't intend to shoot themselves. Their intention is irrelevant, however, because if they play the game long enough they just can't beat the odds, and they die.
The Russian roulette of the Pill is done with someone else's life, a new and unique creation of God. Each time someone taking the Pill engages in sex, she runs the risk of aborting a child. (Instead of a one in six chance, maybe it's a one in thirty or one in a hundred or one in five hundred chance, I'm not sure, but it's certainly a real risk -- the scientific evidence tells us the chemical "gun" is loaded.) The fact that she will not know when a child has been aborted in no way changes whether or not a child is aborted. Every month she continues to take the Pill increases her chances of having her first -- or next -- silent abortion. She could have one, two, a half dozen or a dozen of these without ever having a clue.
A word that continuously surfaced in my research and my dialogue with the birth control pill manufacturers was the word "primary" as opposed to "secondary." A pro-life physician told me he felt comfortable still using the Pill because "It's primarily contraceptive and only secondarily abortive."
But how would you respond to someone who says "here, eat this hamburger -- the meat we use sometimes causes fatal food poisoning, but its primary effect isn't to poison you, so don't worry about it." Or more to the point, what would you think if a doctor said to you, "This chemical I'm about to inject in your child has the primary effect of curing his allergies; it also may kill him, but that would only be a secondary effect."
We've seen that various sources put ovulation failure at rates of 7%, 2-10%, 4-10%, 4.7%, 20% and even Dr. Ronald Chez's whopping 50%. Let's take 5-10% as a figure to work with. That would mean in an average woman's cycle, she will have two to four breakthrough ovulations every three years.
The question then becomes, how many times when ovulation occurs does the second mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus, prevent sperm from reaching the egg? It is impossible to know, but studies on animals suggest this mechanism may not be as effective as Pill manufacturers seem to assume.
Drs. MC Chang and DM Hunt did experiments on rabbits what could not be done on human beings ("Effects of various progestins and estrogen on the gamete transport and fertilization in the rabbit," Fertility and Sterility, 1970; 21, p. 683-686.) They gave the rabbits estrogen and progestin to mimic the Pill, then artificially inseminated them. They then killed the rabbits and did microscopic studies to examine how many sperm had reached the fallopian tubes.
The progestin, the hormone that thickens cervical mucus, might be expected to prevent nearly all the sperm from traveling to the tubes. However, it did not. In every rabbit that had taken the progestin, there were still thousands of sperm which reached the fallopian tubes, as many as 72% of the number in the control group. This is noteworthy evidence that the progestin-caused increased thickness of cervical mucus does not necessarily significantly inhibit sperm from reaching the egg, and therefore does not serve as an effective contraceptive.
When ovulation takes place and the thickened mucus fails to prevent conception -- which may well be the majority of the time -- the significantly altered and less hospitable endometrium caused by the Pill comes into play. Given the observably diminished capacity of the endometrium to sustain life, it seems likely that implantation may be the exception rather than the rule. For every child that does implant, many others may not. Of course, we don't know the percentage that will implant in a normal endometrium unaffected by the Pill, but it is reasonable to believe whatever that percentage is, the Pill significantly lowers it.
Approximately fourteen million American women take the Pill each year. At the 3% rate, which is firmly established statistically, in any year there will be 420,000 detected pregnancies of Pill-takers. (I say "detected" pregnancies, since pregnancies that end before implantation will never be detected but are nonetheless real.) Each one of these children has managed to implant even in a hostile endometrium.
The question is, how many children failed to implant in that hostile environment that would have implanted in a nurturing environment unhindered by the Pill? The number who die might be significantly higher than the number who survive. If it was four times as high, that would be 1,680,000 deaths; if twice as high, 840,000 deaths. If the same number of children do not survive the hostile endometrium as do survive, it would be 420,000. If only half as many died as survived, this would be 210,000 -- still a staggering number of Pill-induced abortions each year.
In his brochure "How the Pill and the IUD Work: Gambling with Life" (American Life League, P.O. Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555), Dr. David Sterns asks:
Just how often does the pill have to rely on this abortive 'backup' mechanism? No one can tell you with certainty. Perhaps it is as seldom as 1 to 2% of the time; but perhaps it is as frequently as 50% of the time. Does it matter? The clear conclusion is that it is impossible for any woman on the pill in any given month to know exactly which mechanism is in effect. In other words, the pill always carries with it the potential to act as an abortifacient.
Though they have been unable to cite studies indicating lower figures than these, physician friends of mine tell me they believe the highest figures I've cited here are too high. I hope they are right. It concerns me, however, that they have not provided empirical evidence that refutes such figures. (If any reader has such evidence, I would greatly appreciate seeing it.)
In any case, even if the numbers are lower, they could still add up to hundreds of thousands of child casualties per year. When pro-lifers routinely state there are 1.5 million abortions per year in America (I have often said this myself), we are leaving out all chemical abortions and are therefore vastly understating the true number. Perhaps we are also immunizing ourselves to the reality that life really does begin at conception and we are morally accountable to act like it.
Let's make it more personal by bringing it down to an individual woman. If a fertile and sexually active woman took the Pill from puberty to menopause, she would have a potential of 390 suppressed ovulations. Eliminating those times when she wouldn't take the Pill because she wanted to have a child, or because she was already pregnant, she might have 330 potentially suppressed ovulations. If 95% of her ovulations were suppressed (it could be considerably less, but not much more), this would mean she would have sixteen breakthrough ovulations.
If she is fertile and sexually active, a few of those ovulations might end up in a known pregnancy because the second and third mechanisms both fail. Of the other fourteen, perhaps nine would never be fertilized (some prevented by the number two mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus). And perhaps, as a result of the number three mechanism, she might have five early abortions because conception took place, but the children could not be implanted in the endometrium.
If the same woman took the Pill for only ten years, she might have one or two abortions instead of five. Again, we don't know the exact figures, and likely never will. Some would say these estimates are too high, but based on my research it appears equally probable they are too low.
There is no way to be certain, but the truth is that a Christian woman taking the Pill might over time have no Pill-induced abortions, or she might have one, three or a dozen of them.
Our beliefs should be governed by the evidence, not by wishful thinking. But since the numbers cannot be decisively determined, based on what you do know, come up with an estimate you think might be in the ballpark. Now, whatever that figure is, ask yourself this question -- is it morally right to unnecessarily risk the lives of those children?
Questions & objections
In the process of research I've had countless conversations with Christians, including physicians, pastors and many others. These are some of the questions and objections people have most often raised.
"If this is true, why haven't I heard it before?"
There are many possible answers to this question. One is that concerns about abortions, especially early ones, are not widespread among researchers, scientists and the medical community in general. Since preventing implantation isn't of concern except to those who believe God creates people at the point of conception, it isn't terribly surprising the experts haven't gotten the word out. In their minds, why should they?
While the evidence for Pill-caused abortions is substantial, it is spread out in so many obscure and technical scientific journals, dozens of them, that relatively few physicians -- much less the general public -- have ever seen the most compelling evidence at all, or if they have, only piecemeal. It has effectively fallen through the cracks and failed to get their attention.
Many well-meaning physicians, including Christians, simply are not aware of this evidence. (I know this, because that's what they've told me.) When patients hear someone suggest the Pill causes abortions, they will often come to their physician, who may be pro-life, and ak if this is true. The physician may sincerely say, "According to my understanding, the Pill just prevents conception, it doesn't cause abortions. You have nothing to be concerned about." Physicians assume that if this were really true, they would surely know it. In most cases they are not deliberately misleading their patients, but unfortunately the bottom line is that their patients are indeed misled. Based on their physician's reassurances, they don't look into the matter further, and because the dedicated physician is so busy, and confident that the Pill only prevents conception, neither does he.
An isolated reference here or there simply isn't sufficient to change or even challenge the deeply-ingrained pro-Pill consensus of medicine, society or the church. If Time magazine -- or even a major Christian periodical -- devoted a cover story to the subject, the information would reach a popular level in a way it never has before.
Even when the information leaks out, so many Christians -- including pastors and parachurch leaders -- have used and recommended the Pill, that we have a natural resistance to raising this issue or looking into it seriously when others raise it. This is likely why so few individuals or organizations have researched or drawn attention to this subject.
Ultimately, the widespread ignorance and blindness on this issue among Christians may be largely attributable to supernatural forces of evil which promote the deaths of the innocent and lie and mislead to cover those deaths. (I address this in the Conclusion.)
We also cannot escape the fact that the Pill is a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry. Its manufacturers, the drug companies, have tremendous vested interests. So too do many physicians prescribing it. (I do not mean by this that most physicians prescribe it primarily for financial gain, but simply that it is a significant part of many practices.)
Those in the best place to disseminate this information are the Pill-manufacturers. The problem, however, is that they gain customers by convincing them the Pill works, not by teaching them exactly how it works. No one takes the Pill because she knows it prevents implantation, but many might stop taking it if they knew it does.
Hence, a pharmaceutical company has nothing to gain by drawing attention to this information, and potentially a great deal to lose. There are many people in America who profess to believe life begins at conception; companies do not want these people to stop using their pills. This concern for good public relations was very evident to me in my conversations with staff at four major Pill manufacturers. It is also demonstrated in the fact that their FDA-monitored disclosures in the fine-print professional labeling, and in Physician's Desk Reference, all mention that the Pill prevents implantation, but this is stated in very few of their package inserts and none of their colorful consumer-oriented booklets.
Dr. James Walker, in his paper "Oral Contraception: A Different Perspective" (Pharmacists for Life, PO Box 1281, Powell, OH, 43065), points out the Pill's potential to cause abortion. He then says,
A large percentage of consumers would undoubtedly refuse to use this form of birth control if they were aware that oral contraceptives worked in this way. Also, a large number of physicians would refrain from using this method of contraception if they were aware of the abortifacient mechanism of oral contraceptives . . . why is the medical (or prescribing) and consumer population so poorly informed? It could be that the pharmaceutical industry is interested in making large profits without regard for the sanctity of human life. Or it could be that the medical community has become so conditioned to supply means for instant gratification, that our eyes have been blinded to the eternal consequences of our daily action.
"If we don't know how often abortions happen, why shouldn't we take the Pill?"
We can be certain that the Pill causes some abortions. But since we are uncertain about the actual numbers of abortions, how should we act on our uncertainty?
If a hunter is uncertain whether a movement in the brush is caused by a deer or a person, should his uncertainty lead him to shoot or not to shoot?
If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes?
Shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt to life? Let's say that you are skeptical of all this research, all these studies, and all the Pill manufacturers' claims that the Pill sometimes results in the death of a child. (You might ask yourself if the reason is because of your bias and vested interests, but for the moment let's just say you're genuinely uncertain.) Is it a Christlike attitude to say "Because taking the Pill may or may not kill a child, I will therefore take it"? If we are uncertain, shouldn't that compel us not to take it?
My research has convinced me the evidence is not uncertain, but compelling, in the single most important sense -- the Pill does result in abortions. Only the numbers are uncertain. Can we really say in good conscience, "Because I'm uncertain exactly how many children are killed by the Pill, therefore I will take it"? (How many dead children would it take to be too many?)
It seems to me more Christlike to say, "Because I know there is a widespread understanding of the most informed scientific and medical people (including the research departments of those manufacturing it) that the Pill does sometimes cause abortions, I will therefore not take the Pill and I will encourage others not to."
"But spontaneous abortions happen frequently anyway"
One physician pointed out there are many spontaneous abortions and miscarriages. Because of this, he felt we should not be troubled by pre-implantational abortions caused by the Pill. I've heard the same logic used to defend fertility research and in vitro fertilization in which embryos are conceived outside the womb. Three to six of these may be implanted in a uterus in the hopes one may live, but the majority die, and some are frozen or discarded. (In the best case scenario, two to five die in the attempt to implant one, and often all of them die.)
When, even under optimal conditions, physicians attempt to implant an embryo conceived in-vitro, it is true that there is a low success rate. According to Dr. Leon Speroff, the success rate in any given cycle is 13.5% and since typically three to six embryos may be used to attempt implantation, the actual survival rate is just over 3%. This means that 29 out of 30 embryos die in the attempt to implant a child (Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility; Williams and Wilkins, fifth edition, 1994, page 937-39). This confirms that in the natural process of a woman's cycle there are likely many early miscarriages, perhaps considerably more than there are live births.
Since this is true, however, does it therefore follow, "Because God or nature causes millions of early abortions a year, it's okay if we cause some?"
The proper response to this is that there is a big difference, a cosmic difference, between God and us! What God is free to do and what we are free to do are not the same. God is the giver and taker of life. God is the potter, we are the clay (Isaiah 45:9-11). He has the right to take human life, we do not. Nature is under the curse of sin and as a result there is widespread death in this world, both inside and outside the womb (Romans 8:19-22). God is the Superintendent of nature and can overrule it when he so chooses. But none of this permits us to say "because God lets so many people die, I'll go ahead and kill some of them myself!"
It is one thing for God to take a human life. It is an entirely different thing for us to do so. His prerogatives are unique to Him. He is the Creator, we are the creatures. (See Appendix D: God is Creator and Owner of all people.) The same principle applies when someone says that since a baby will probably die within a few days or weeks of his birth, we may as well abort him now. The difference is between losing a child to death (by God's sovereign choice) and choosing to kill that child. This is a fundamental and radical difference. (See Appendix E: God has exclusive prerogatives over human life and death.)
To justify using a chemical that takes some lives by saying it really causes fewer abortions though preventing conception again puts us in the place of God. The logic seems to be that God is letting many children die, so when we will kill some ourselves we can take consolation in knowing that the chemical that kills some children prevents many children from ever being conceived and therefore from ever dying.
But God has never delegated the right to us to unnecessarily risk the lives of our children. Furthermore, if there are fewer miscarriages because of the Pill it is not because the Pill brings any benefit to a preborn child, but only because it results in less children. This is all an illusion -- it is not that lives are truly being preserved, but simply that there are fewer lives to preserve! There is less death only because there is less life.
Using this logic, the most pro-life thing we could do would be to eliminate all pregnancy and thereby all children. We could congratulate ourselves that we eliminated abortion by eliminating children. (The number of people with cancer could also be lowered by reducing the number of people in society, but we would hardly think of that as a cure -- especially if the means we used to have less people meant killing some of them!)
We may indeed lose through early spontaneous miscarriages several children we don't even know of. But that in no way justifies our choosing to take something into our bodies that puts the lives of other children in danger.
"But Pill-takers aren't intending to have abortions"
I've been told several times that because most people's intention in taking the Pill is to prevent conception, not to have an abortion, it's therefore ethical for them to continue taking the Pill.
I certainly agree that most women taking the Pill don't intend to get abortions. In fact, I'm convinced 99% of them are unaware this is even possible. But the fact remains that while the intentions of those taking the Pill may be harmless, the results can be fatal.
A nurse giving your child an injection could sincerely intend no harm to your child, but if she unknowingly injects him with a fatal poison, her good intentions will not lessen the tragedy of the results. Whether the nurse has the heart of a murderer or a saint, your child is equally dead. The best intentions do nothing to reverse the most disastrous results.
In this sense, taking the Pill is analogous to playing Russian roulette, but with more chambers and therefore less risk per episode. In Russian roulette, participants usually don't intend to shoot themselves. Their intention is irrelevant, however, because if they play the game long enough they just can't beat the odds, and they die.
The Russian roulette of the Pill is done with someone else's life, a new and unique creation of God. Each time someone taking the Pill engages in sex, she runs the risk of aborting a child. (Instead of a one in six chance, maybe it's a one in thirty or one in a hundred or one in five hundred chance, I'm not sure, but it's certainly a real risk -- the scientific evidence tells us the chemical "gun" is loaded.) The fact that she will not know when a child has been aborted in no way changes whether or not a child is aborted. Every month she continues to take the Pill increases her chances of having her first -- or next -- silent abortion. She could have one, two, a half dozen or a dozen of these without ever having a clue.
A word that continuously surfaced in my research and my dialogue with the birth control pill manufacturers was the word "primary" as opposed to "secondary." A pro-life physician told me he felt comfortable still using the Pill because "It's primarily contraceptive and only secondarily abortive."
But how would you respond to someone who says "here, eat this hamburger -- the meat we use sometimes causes fatal food poisoning, but its primary effect isn't to poison you, so don't worry about it." Or more to the point, what would you think if a doctor said to you, "This chemical I'm about to inject in your child has the primary effect of curing his allergies; it also may kill him, but that would only be a secondary effect."
Friday, October 30, 2009
Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 4"
Still more evidence
Three Physicians
Dr. Paul Hayes, a pro-life Ob/Gyn in Lincoln, Nebraska, pointed me to Leon Speroff's and Philip Darney's authoritative text A Clinical Guide for Contraception (Williams & Wilkins, 1992). Dr. Hayes calls Dr. Speroff, of the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, "the nation's premier contraceptive expert and advocate." Speroff's text, written for physicians, says this on page 40:
Since the effect of a progestational agent will always take precedence over estrogen (unless the dose of estrogen is increased many, many fold), the endometrium, cervical mucus, and perhaps tubal function reflect progestational stimulation. The progestin in the combination pill produces an endometrium which is not receptive to ovum implantation, a decidualized bed with exhausted and atrophied glands. The cervical mucus becomes thick and impervious to sperm transport. It is possible that progestational influences on secretion and peristalsis within the Fallopian tube provide additional contraceptive effects.
As a leading scientific expert on the Pill, Dr. Speroff must be taken seriously when he states that the Pill creates "an endometrium which is not receptive to ovum implantation." This means that the Pill does in fact cause abortions.
In an e-mail to me dated February 22, 1997, Dr. Hayes pointed out a semantic aspect of Dr. Speroff's statement which I, as a nonphysician, wouldn't have noticed:
I was struck dumb when I read this, at the fact that Dr. Speroff would expect me, as a doctor, to accept the 'implantation' of an 'ovum.' Call it a fertilized ovum, or a blastocyst, or a zygote, or any one of a number of other dehumanizing names for a baby, but don't warrant to me, in a textbook for doctors, that what implants is just an ovum!
Dr. Hayes's point is that "ovum" used without a qualifier always means unfertilized ovum, and that Dr. Speroff is misusing the term consciously or unconsciously to minimize the taking of human life inherently involved in the preventing of implantation. This type of semantic manipulation is common in later stages, as demonstrated by references to "terminating a pregnancy" instead of "taking a child's life." It is further illustrated in the fact that Dr. Speroff includes as a form of "contraception" the destruction of an already conceived person.
In an interview conducted by Denny Hartford, director of Vital Signs Ministries, Pharmacist Larry Frieders, who is also Vice-president of Pharmacists for Life, said this:
Obviously, the one "back-up mechanism" [of the Pill] that we're most concerned with is the one that changes the woman's body in such a way that if there is a new life, that tiny human loses the ability to implant and then grow and be nourished by the mother. The facts are clear -- we've all known them intellectually. I learned them in school. I had to answer those questions on my state board pharmacy exam. The problem was getting that knowledge from my intellect down to where it became part of who I am. I had to accept the fact that I was participating in the sale and distribution of a product that was, in fact, causing the loss of life. ("The New Abortionists," Life Advocate, March 1994, page 26)
Later in the same interview, Hartford asked world famous fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers, "Are there any birth control pills out there that do not have this potential to abort a developing child?" Dr. Hilgers answered,
There are none! At my last count in looking at the Physicians Desk Reference . . . there were 44 different types of birth control pills. . . . and they have different concentrations of chemicals that make them work. None of these so-called birth control pills have a mechanism which is completely contraceptive. Put the other way around, all birth control pills available have a mechanism which disturbs or disintegrates the lining of the uterus to the extent that the possibility of abortion exists when break-through ovulation occurs. (Life Advocate, March 1994, page 28-29)
Three more risks of the Pill to preborn children
In My Body, My Health (Stewart, Guess, Stewart, Hatcher; Clinician's Edition, Wiley Medical Publications, 1979, page 169-70), the authors point to still another abortive potential of the Pill:
Estrogen and progestin may also alter the pattern of muscle contractions in the tubes and uterus. This may interfere with implantation by speeding up the fertilized egg's travel time so that it reaches the uterus before it is mature enough to implant.
In its 1984 publication "Facts About Oral Contraceptives," the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated,
Though rare, it is possible for women using combined pills (synthetic estrogen and progestogen) to ovulate. Then other mechanisms work to prevent pregnancy. Both kinds of pills make the cervical mucus thick and 'inhospitable' to sperm, discouraging any entry to the uterus. In addition, they make it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant, by causing changes in Fallopian tube contractions and in the uterine lining.
As noted by the previous source, these changes in Fallopian tube contractions can speed up the fertilized egg's travel time, and bring it to the endometrium when it is too immature to implant. This is another abortive possibility distinct from and in addition to the endometrium's inhospitality to the blastocyst.
But that's not all. There's yet another threat posed to a young child by the Pill. It was pointed out to me by a couple from my church who stopped using their pills after reading the package insert. I have in front of me that insert. It concerns Desogen, a combination birth control Pill produced by Organon. Near the end of the two page paper it has a heading called "Pregnancy Due to Pill Failure," under which it states:
The incidence of pill failure resulting in pregnancy is approximately one percent (i.e., one pregnancy per 100 women per year) if taken every day as directed, but more typical failure rates are about 3%. If failure does occur, the risk to the fetus is minimal.
Exactly what is this risk to the fetus? When I asked Dr. Bill Toffler of the Oregon Health Sciences University, he informed me that the hormones in the Pill, progestin and estrogen, can (though often they don't) have a harmful effect on an already implanted child. The problem is, since women do not know they are pregnant in the earliest stages, before realizing they are pregnant they will continue to take the Pill at least one more time, if not two or more (especially if cycles are irregular). This creates the risk the leaflet refers to. So not only is the pre-implanted child at risk, but so is an already implanted child who is subjected to the Pill's hormones.
The risk is called "minimal." But what does this mean? If someone was about to give your child a chemical and they assured you there was a "minimal risk," would you allow them to proceed without investigating to find out exactly what was meant by "minimal"? Wuldn't you ask whether there was some alternative treatment without this risk? Rather than be reassured by the term "minimal," a parent might respond, "I didn't know that by taking the Pill I caused any risk to a baby -- so when you tell me the risk is 'minimal' you don't reassure me, you alarm me."
So, in addition to the risk of abortion due to an atrophied endometrium, we must add the risk of the Pill causing Fallopian tube contractions that throw off the crucial timing of the blastocyst's arrival at the endometrium, as well as the chemical risk to an already implanted child.
If that isn't enough, there's still another risk, this one to children conceived after a woman stops taking the Pill:
There is some indication that there may be a prolonged effect of the oral contraceptives on both the endometrium and the cervix after a woman has ceased taking the pill. There may well be a greater likelihood of miscarriage in that period also as a result of some chromosomal abnormalities. . . . It is worth noting that the consumer advice from the manufacturers cautions that pregnancy should be avoided in the first three months after ceasing the combined oral contraceptive. (Nicholas Tonti-Rilippini, "The Pill: Aortifacient or Contraceptive? A Literature Review," Linacre Quarterly, February 1995, page 8-9)
Why should pregnancy be avoided three months after no longer using the Pill? Is it because the Pill produces effects that threaten the life and welfare of a child? If those effects are not considered no longer a risk until three months after the Pill was last taken, what does this say about the risk they pose to any child conceived when the Pill fails to stop ovulation?
The new Morning After Pill: Standard BC pills
In June, 1996 the Food and Drug Administration announced a new use for standard combination birth control pills:
Two high doses taken within two to three days of intercourse can prevent pregnancy, the FDA scientists said. Doctors think the pills probably work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus. ("FDA panel: Birth control pills safe as morning after drug," The Virginian-Pilot, June 29, 1996, A1, A6.)
On February 24, 1997, the FDA approved the use of high doses of combination birth-control pills as "emergency contraception" (Peter Modica, "FDA Nod to `Morning-After' Pill Is Lauded," Medical Tribune News Service, February 26, 1997). The article explains,
The morning-after pill refers to a regimen of standard birth control pills taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. The pills prevent pregnancy by inhibiting a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus and developing into a fetus.
Of course, the pills do not "prevent pregnancy" since pregnancy begins at conception, not implantation. (Acting as if pregnancy begins at implantation takes the emphasis off the baby's objective existence and puts it on the mother's endometrium's role in sustaining the child that has already been created within her.) As World magazine (March 8, 1997, page 9) points out, "In reality the pill regimen -- designed to block a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus -- aborts a pregnancy that's already begun."
It is significant that this "morning after pill" is in fact nothing but a combination of several standard birth control pills taken in high dosages. When the announcement was made, the uninformed public probably assumed that the high dosage makes birth control pills do something they were otherwise incapable of doing. But the truth is it simply increases the chances of doing what it already sometimes does -- cause an abortion.
In a April 29, 1997 USA Today cover story (page 1A), "Docs spread word: Pill works on morning after," Marilyn Elias wrote,
U.S. gynecologists are launching a major nationwide campaign to make sure women know about the best-kept morning-after contraceptive secret: common birth control pills. . . . Some oral contraceptives may be taken after intercourse -- two in the first dose up to 72 hours after sex, then two more 12 hours later -- and will prevent 75% of pregnancies . . . Critics call the morning-after method de facto abortion, but Zinberg says the pills work before an embryo implants in the uterus so there's no abortion.
Again, the truth is these pregnancies aren't prevented, they are terminated. It's semantic gymnastics to redefine abortion in such a way that killing the fertilized egg doesn't qualify. Life does not begin at implantation, it begins at conception. To suggest that a fertilized egg is not a living person just because she has not yet settled into her home (the endometrium), and therefore it's fine to make her home hostile to her life, is as fallacious as suggesting the homeless are not really people since they aren't living in a house, and it's therefore all right to burn down homes they might otherwise have inhabited and leave them out in the cold to die.
After all is said and done, the Pill appears to be different only in degree, but not in kind from every other birth control chemical, including RU-486, Depo-Provera, Norplant, the mini-pill and the morning after pill. It may not cause as many abortions as these, but like all of them, it does in fact cause abortions.
Evidence to the contrary?
Is there any evidence refuting the abortive potential of the Pill? I have not only searched far and wide to find such evidence myself, I have also asked a number of physicians to provide me with any they have or know of. Beyond the letter from Dr. Struthers at Searle, dealt with previously, I have seen very little of such evidence.
One source is "Advances in Oral Contraception" in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine (January 1983, page 100 ff.). The article is a question and answer session with eight physicians. The pro-life physician who gave this to her pastor underlined several statements that in her mind do not support the evidence that the Pill causes abortions. This is one of them:
Do the OCs with 30 micrograms of estrogen act primarily by preventing implantation rather than suppressing ovulation?
Dr. Christie: "Our studies in Europe and Canada showed that the 150/30 pill's main mode of action is inhibition of ovulation." (page 101)
This statement is not in conflict with the evidence I've presented. No one disputes whether the inhibition of ovulation is the Pill's main mode of action, only whether preventing implantation is a secondary or tertiary mode. A more significant segment of the same article is this one:
Are factors besides anovulation affected by the contraceptive action of the Pill?
Dr. Christie: Yes -- cervical mucus, maybe nidation, the endometrium, so it's not in the appropriate condition for receiving a fertilized ovum. The authorities agree that with the LH and FSH changes, no ovulation occurs; the egg isn't there to be fertilized.
Dr. Goldzieher: Some time ago Pincus found, when studying Enovid 5 and 10, that conceptions occurred with these pills. To me his evidence indicates that there must not be much of an antiimplantation effect on the endometrium if a woman can skip a very-high-dose OC for a few days and become pregnant. If there is an antiimplantation effect, it certainly is absent in some cases.
These statements are significant, but do they only qualify the mountain of other evidence, they do not refute it. Dr. Christie acknowledges the anti-implantational effect of the Pill, but says that with the proper chemical changes no ovulation occurs. He is surely not claiming that these chemical changes always happen in the intended way, nor is he denying that ovulations occur among Pill-takers. He is well aware that pregnancies occur (as Dr. Goldzieher confirms in the very next sentence), and for every measurable pregnancy there are obviously a number of breakthrough ovulations.
Dr. Goldzieher, whose own work, cited elsewhere in this booklet, acknowledges the antiimplantation effect, is affirming that "it certainly is absent in some cases." He bases this on the fact that pregnancies do occur. This is akin to Dr. Struthers' point that the blastocyst sometimes implants in 'hostile' sites such as the Fallopian tubes and the ovaries, and also in the Pill-affected endometrium. The point, a valid one, is that the conceived child sometimes implants in more hostile environments. But this is no way undermines the obvious fact that he will more often implant in a more favorable environment.
Once again, no one is claiming that the Pill's diminishing of the endometrium always makes implantation impossible. Obviously it doesn't. The issue is whether it sometimes does. That plants can and do grow through cracks in driveways does not negate the fact that they will more likely grow in the tilled fertile soil of the garden. The Pill's changing the endometrium from fertile to inhospitable does not always result in an abortion, but sometimes it does. (And "sometimes" is all it takes to be an abortifacient.)
I have before me an article, a four page letter from a pro-life physician, assuring the recipient that the Pill, Norplant and Depo-Provera are not abortifacients, while RU486, the "morning after pill" and the "minipill" are. She is not certain about the IUD. The letter is well written, but it is missing a crucial element -- it does not cite a single study or produce any evidence whatsoever to back up any of its claims. (The sole reference is to a textbook that may somewhere within it -- no page numbers indicated -- offer evidence that the IUD does not really cause abortions.) In the absence of any such evidence, I am forced to conclude that this letter is simply a sincere expression of the physician's personal beliefs about birth control methods. Unfortunately, beliefs do not constitute evidence.
I was also sent a photocopied page from an article, but unfortunately the name and date of the publication isn't included and I have no way to trace it. The article is an excerpt from a speech by a pro-life physician named Dr. Mastroianni:
"It's also important," Dr. Mastroianni added, "when talking about oral contraception, to dispel any idea that the pill acts as an abortifacient. Propaganda has led some people to believe that somehow the pill works after fertilization, and that's further from the truth than anything I can think of. The pill works by inhibiting ovulation, as well as by thickening the cervical mucus and therefore inhibiting sperm migration."
This confident claim is made wihtout the offer of any evidence to support it. (Leveling the accusation of "propaganda" is not the same as presenting evidence, or refuting it.)
When the scientific and medical sources, including not just reference books but original studies reported in medical journals over decades, consistently affirm there is a third effect of the Pill that does in fact work after fertilization, how can a physician state this to be "further from the truth than anything I can think of"? When these sources consistently and repeatedly conclude there are at least three ways the Pill works (one of which is clearly abortive), how can someone definitively say there are really only two?
I do not consider this quotation from a well-meaning pro-life physician as evidence of anything but the human tendency (which I confess to as well) to deny something we do not wish to believe. (If a reader knows Dr. Mastroianni, and he does have evidence for his beliefs not cited in his presentation or this article, I would very much like to see it.)
When I submitted to him a half dozen of the sources I've cited in this booklet, a pro-life physician I very much respect wrote this to me:
It is known fact that 6% of women on bcps will become pregnant while on the pill, meaning that cervical mucous failed, ovulation occurred, and implantation was successful. This implies that when bcps don't work, it is because they totally fail, and that when mechanisms 1 and 2 don't work, implantation is not prevented by the bcps causing an early abortion. If I believed bcps worked by causing abortion, I wouldn't recommend them. I firmly believe that when they work, they work by preventing ovulation and by creation of thick cervical mucous.
I do not question this physician's sincerity, but I do question the logic. We do not know how often mechanism number one, two or three actually work, we only know that sometimes all three fail. But because number one and two sometimes fail, no one therefore concludes that they always fail. So why conclude that because number three sometimes fails, therefore it always fails?
How can we look at a known pregnancy, which proves the failure of all three mechanisms, then conclude that number one and number two normally work, but that number three must never work? The logic escapes me. If number three were not abortifacient in nature, I don't think anyone would deny that it happens. The denial is not prompted by the evidence but by the desire that what the evidence indicates not be true.
How often does the Pill cause abortions?
Though it is clear that the Pill does in fact cause abortions, it is difficult to determine the numbers of times it does this. This depends on how often the Pill fails to prevent ovulation, and how often when ovulation succeeds and pregnancy occurs, the third mechanism prevents a fertilized egg from implantation.
I posed the question to Dr. Harry Kraus, a physician and writer of popular novels with medical themes. This was his response in a December 23, 1996 e-mail:
You have asked a very good question, but one which is impossible to answer in concrete statistics: How often do birth control pills prevent pregnancy by causing the lining of the uterus to be inhospitable to implantation? You will not see an answer to that question anywhere, with our present state of the science. The reason is that we can only detect early pregnancy by a hormone, beta-hcg (Human chorionic gonadotropin) which is produced by the embryo after implantation. After fertilization, implantation does not take place for approximately six days. After implantation, it takes another six days before the embryo (trophoblast) has invaded the maternal venous system so that a hormone (beta-hcg) made by the embryo can reach and be measured in the mom's blood. Therefore, the statistic you seek is not available.
Keeping in mind that definitive numbers cannot be determined, there are nonetheless certain medical evidences that provide rationales for some physicians and pharmacists to estimate the numbers of Pill-induced abortions.
Determining the rate of breakthrough ovulation in Pill-takers is one key to coming up with informed estimates.
In his Abortifacient Contraception: The Pharmaceutical Holocaust (Human Life International, 1993, page 7), Dr. Rudolph Ehmann says,
As early as 1967, at a medical conference, the representatives of a major hormone producer admitted that with OCs [oral contraceptives], ovulation with a possibility of fertilization took place in up to seven percent of cases, and that subsequent implantation of the fertilized egg would usually be prevented.
Bogomir M. Kuhar, Doctor of Pharmacy, is the president of Pharmacists for Life. In his booklet Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives (page 26), he cites studies suggesting oral contraceptives have a breakthrough ovulation rate of 2 to 10%. Fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers estimates the rate at 4 to 10%, adding that minipills allow ovulation 50-60% of the time ("The New Abortionists," Life Advocate, March 1994, page 29).
Dr. Nine van der Vange, at the Society for the Advancement of Contraception's November 26-30, 1984 conference in Jakarta, stated that her studies indicated an ovulation rate of 4.7% for women taking the Pill.
How do these percentages translate into real numbers? The Ortho Corporation's 1991 annual report estimated 13.9 million U.S. women using oral contraceptives. Multiplying this by the low 2% ovulation figure, and factoring in studies showing a 25% overall conception rate for normally fertile couples of average sexual activity, Dr. Kuhar arrives at a figure of 834,000 birth-control-pill-induced abortions per year. Multiplying by the high 10%, the figure is 4,170,000 per year. The low figure is over 50% the number of surgical abortions (1.5 million), the high is 250% that number. (Using other studies, also based on total estimated number of ovulations and U.S. users, Dr. Kuhar attributes 3,825,000 annual abortions to IUDs; 1,200,000 to Depo-Provera; 2,925,000 to Norplant.)
J.C. Espinoza, M.D., says,
Today it is clear that in at least 5% of the cycles of women on the combined Pill "escape ovulation" occurs. This fact means that conception is possible during those cycles, but implantation will be prevented and the "conceptus" (child) will die. That rate is statistically equivalent to one abortion every other year for all women on the Pill. (Birth Control: Why Are They Lying to Women?, page 28.)
In a segment from his Abortion Question and Answers, published online by Ohio Right to Life, Dr. Jack Willke states:
The newer low-estrogen pills allow "breakthrough" ovulation in up to 20% or more of the months used. Such a released ovum is fertilized perhaps 10% of the time. These tiny new lives which result, at our present "guesstimations," in 1% to 2% of the pill months, do not survive. The reason is that at one week of life this tiny new boy or girl cannot implant in the womb lining and dies.
There are factors that can increase the rate of breakthrough ovulation and thereby increase the likelihood of the Pill causing an abortion. Dr. Bogomir Kuhar says,
The abortifacient potential of OCs is further magnified in OC users who concomitantly take certain antibiotics and anticonvulsants which decrease ovulation suppression effectiveness. It should be noted that antibiotic use among OC users is not uncommon, such women being more susceptible to bacterial, yeast and fungal infections secondary to OC use. (Contraceptives can Kill Babies, American Life League, 1994, page 1.)
Three Physicians
Dr. Paul Hayes, a pro-life Ob/Gyn in Lincoln, Nebraska, pointed me to Leon Speroff's and Philip Darney's authoritative text A Clinical Guide for Contraception (Williams & Wilkins, 1992). Dr. Hayes calls Dr. Speroff, of the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, "the nation's premier contraceptive expert and advocate." Speroff's text, written for physicians, says this on page 40:
Since the effect of a progestational agent will always take precedence over estrogen (unless the dose of estrogen is increased many, many fold), the endometrium, cervical mucus, and perhaps tubal function reflect progestational stimulation. The progestin in the combination pill produces an endometrium which is not receptive to ovum implantation, a decidualized bed with exhausted and atrophied glands. The cervical mucus becomes thick and impervious to sperm transport. It is possible that progestational influences on secretion and peristalsis within the Fallopian tube provide additional contraceptive effects.
As a leading scientific expert on the Pill, Dr. Speroff must be taken seriously when he states that the Pill creates "an endometrium which is not receptive to ovum implantation." This means that the Pill does in fact cause abortions.
In an e-mail to me dated February 22, 1997, Dr. Hayes pointed out a semantic aspect of Dr. Speroff's statement which I, as a nonphysician, wouldn't have noticed:
I was struck dumb when I read this, at the fact that Dr. Speroff would expect me, as a doctor, to accept the 'implantation' of an 'ovum.' Call it a fertilized ovum, or a blastocyst, or a zygote, or any one of a number of other dehumanizing names for a baby, but don't warrant to me, in a textbook for doctors, that what implants is just an ovum!
Dr. Hayes's point is that "ovum" used without a qualifier always means unfertilized ovum, and that Dr. Speroff is misusing the term consciously or unconsciously to minimize the taking of human life inherently involved in the preventing of implantation. This type of semantic manipulation is common in later stages, as demonstrated by references to "terminating a pregnancy" instead of "taking a child's life." It is further illustrated in the fact that Dr. Speroff includes as a form of "contraception" the destruction of an already conceived person.
In an interview conducted by Denny Hartford, director of Vital Signs Ministries, Pharmacist Larry Frieders, who is also Vice-president of Pharmacists for Life, said this:
Obviously, the one "back-up mechanism" [of the Pill] that we're most concerned with is the one that changes the woman's body in such a way that if there is a new life, that tiny human loses the ability to implant and then grow and be nourished by the mother. The facts are clear -- we've all known them intellectually. I learned them in school. I had to answer those questions on my state board pharmacy exam. The problem was getting that knowledge from my intellect down to where it became part of who I am. I had to accept the fact that I was participating in the sale and distribution of a product that was, in fact, causing the loss of life. ("The New Abortionists," Life Advocate, March 1994, page 26)
Later in the same interview, Hartford asked world famous fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers, "Are there any birth control pills out there that do not have this potential to abort a developing child?" Dr. Hilgers answered,
There are none! At my last count in looking at the Physicians Desk Reference . . . there were 44 different types of birth control pills. . . . and they have different concentrations of chemicals that make them work. None of these so-called birth control pills have a mechanism which is completely contraceptive. Put the other way around, all birth control pills available have a mechanism which disturbs or disintegrates the lining of the uterus to the extent that the possibility of abortion exists when break-through ovulation occurs. (Life Advocate, March 1994, page 28-29)
Three more risks of the Pill to preborn children
In My Body, My Health (Stewart, Guess, Stewart, Hatcher; Clinician's Edition, Wiley Medical Publications, 1979, page 169-70), the authors point to still another abortive potential of the Pill:
Estrogen and progestin may also alter the pattern of muscle contractions in the tubes and uterus. This may interfere with implantation by speeding up the fertilized egg's travel time so that it reaches the uterus before it is mature enough to implant.
In its 1984 publication "Facts About Oral Contraceptives," the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated,
Though rare, it is possible for women using combined pills (synthetic estrogen and progestogen) to ovulate. Then other mechanisms work to prevent pregnancy. Both kinds of pills make the cervical mucus thick and 'inhospitable' to sperm, discouraging any entry to the uterus. In addition, they make it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant, by causing changes in Fallopian tube contractions and in the uterine lining.
As noted by the previous source, these changes in Fallopian tube contractions can speed up the fertilized egg's travel time, and bring it to the endometrium when it is too immature to implant. This is another abortive possibility distinct from and in addition to the endometrium's inhospitality to the blastocyst.
But that's not all. There's yet another threat posed to a young child by the Pill. It was pointed out to me by a couple from my church who stopped using their pills after reading the package insert. I have in front of me that insert. It concerns Desogen, a combination birth control Pill produced by Organon. Near the end of the two page paper it has a heading called "Pregnancy Due to Pill Failure," under which it states:
The incidence of pill failure resulting in pregnancy is approximately one percent (i.e., one pregnancy per 100 women per year) if taken every day as directed, but more typical failure rates are about 3%. If failure does occur, the risk to the fetus is minimal.
Exactly what is this risk to the fetus? When I asked Dr. Bill Toffler of the Oregon Health Sciences University, he informed me that the hormones in the Pill, progestin and estrogen, can (though often they don't) have a harmful effect on an already implanted child. The problem is, since women do not know they are pregnant in the earliest stages, before realizing they are pregnant they will continue to take the Pill at least one more time, if not two or more (especially if cycles are irregular). This creates the risk the leaflet refers to. So not only is the pre-implanted child at risk, but so is an already implanted child who is subjected to the Pill's hormones.
The risk is called "minimal." But what does this mean? If someone was about to give your child a chemical and they assured you there was a "minimal risk," would you allow them to proceed without investigating to find out exactly what was meant by "minimal"? Wuldn't you ask whether there was some alternative treatment without this risk? Rather than be reassured by the term "minimal," a parent might respond, "I didn't know that by taking the Pill I caused any risk to a baby -- so when you tell me the risk is 'minimal' you don't reassure me, you alarm me."
So, in addition to the risk of abortion due to an atrophied endometrium, we must add the risk of the Pill causing Fallopian tube contractions that throw off the crucial timing of the blastocyst's arrival at the endometrium, as well as the chemical risk to an already implanted child.
If that isn't enough, there's still another risk, this one to children conceived after a woman stops taking the Pill:
There is some indication that there may be a prolonged effect of the oral contraceptives on both the endometrium and the cervix after a woman has ceased taking the pill. There may well be a greater likelihood of miscarriage in that period also as a result of some chromosomal abnormalities. . . . It is worth noting that the consumer advice from the manufacturers cautions that pregnancy should be avoided in the first three months after ceasing the combined oral contraceptive. (Nicholas Tonti-Rilippini, "The Pill: Aortifacient or Contraceptive? A Literature Review," Linacre Quarterly, February 1995, page 8-9)
Why should pregnancy be avoided three months after no longer using the Pill? Is it because the Pill produces effects that threaten the life and welfare of a child? If those effects are not considered no longer a risk until three months after the Pill was last taken, what does this say about the risk they pose to any child conceived when the Pill fails to stop ovulation?
The new Morning After Pill: Standard BC pills
In June, 1996 the Food and Drug Administration announced a new use for standard combination birth control pills:
Two high doses taken within two to three days of intercourse can prevent pregnancy, the FDA scientists said. Doctors think the pills probably work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus. ("FDA panel: Birth control pills safe as morning after drug," The Virginian-Pilot, June 29, 1996, A1, A6.)
On February 24, 1997, the FDA approved the use of high doses of combination birth-control pills as "emergency contraception" (Peter Modica, "FDA Nod to `Morning-After' Pill Is Lauded," Medical Tribune News Service, February 26, 1997). The article explains,
The morning-after pill refers to a regimen of standard birth control pills taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. The pills prevent pregnancy by inhibiting a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus and developing into a fetus.
Of course, the pills do not "prevent pregnancy" since pregnancy begins at conception, not implantation. (Acting as if pregnancy begins at implantation takes the emphasis off the baby's objective existence and puts it on the mother's endometrium's role in sustaining the child that has already been created within her.) As World magazine (March 8, 1997, page 9) points out, "In reality the pill regimen -- designed to block a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus -- aborts a pregnancy that's already begun."
It is significant that this "morning after pill" is in fact nothing but a combination of several standard birth control pills taken in high dosages. When the announcement was made, the uninformed public probably assumed that the high dosage makes birth control pills do something they were otherwise incapable of doing. But the truth is it simply increases the chances of doing what it already sometimes does -- cause an abortion.
In a April 29, 1997 USA Today cover story (page 1A), "Docs spread word: Pill works on morning after," Marilyn Elias wrote,
U.S. gynecologists are launching a major nationwide campaign to make sure women know about the best-kept morning-after contraceptive secret: common birth control pills. . . . Some oral contraceptives may be taken after intercourse -- two in the first dose up to 72 hours after sex, then two more 12 hours later -- and will prevent 75% of pregnancies . . . Critics call the morning-after method de facto abortion, but Zinberg says the pills work before an embryo implants in the uterus so there's no abortion.
Again, the truth is these pregnancies aren't prevented, they are terminated. It's semantic gymnastics to redefine abortion in such a way that killing the fertilized egg doesn't qualify. Life does not begin at implantation, it begins at conception. To suggest that a fertilized egg is not a living person just because she has not yet settled into her home (the endometrium), and therefore it's fine to make her home hostile to her life, is as fallacious as suggesting the homeless are not really people since they aren't living in a house, and it's therefore all right to burn down homes they might otherwise have inhabited and leave them out in the cold to die.
After all is said and done, the Pill appears to be different only in degree, but not in kind from every other birth control chemical, including RU-486, Depo-Provera, Norplant, the mini-pill and the morning after pill. It may not cause as many abortions as these, but like all of them, it does in fact cause abortions.
Evidence to the contrary?
Is there any evidence refuting the abortive potential of the Pill? I have not only searched far and wide to find such evidence myself, I have also asked a number of physicians to provide me with any they have or know of. Beyond the letter from Dr. Struthers at Searle, dealt with previously, I have seen very little of such evidence.
One source is "Advances in Oral Contraception" in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine (January 1983, page 100 ff.). The article is a question and answer session with eight physicians. The pro-life physician who gave this to her pastor underlined several statements that in her mind do not support the evidence that the Pill causes abortions. This is one of them:
Do the OCs with 30 micrograms of estrogen act primarily by preventing implantation rather than suppressing ovulation?
Dr. Christie: "Our studies in Europe and Canada showed that the 150/30 pill's main mode of action is inhibition of ovulation." (page 101)
This statement is not in conflict with the evidence I've presented. No one disputes whether the inhibition of ovulation is the Pill's main mode of action, only whether preventing implantation is a secondary or tertiary mode. A more significant segment of the same article is this one:
Are factors besides anovulation affected by the contraceptive action of the Pill?
Dr. Christie: Yes -- cervical mucus, maybe nidation, the endometrium, so it's not in the appropriate condition for receiving a fertilized ovum. The authorities agree that with the LH and FSH changes, no ovulation occurs; the egg isn't there to be fertilized.
Dr. Goldzieher: Some time ago Pincus found, when studying Enovid 5 and 10, that conceptions occurred with these pills. To me his evidence indicates that there must not be much of an antiimplantation effect on the endometrium if a woman can skip a very-high-dose OC for a few days and become pregnant. If there is an antiimplantation effect, it certainly is absent in some cases.
These statements are significant, but do they only qualify the mountain of other evidence, they do not refute it. Dr. Christie acknowledges the anti-implantational effect of the Pill, but says that with the proper chemical changes no ovulation occurs. He is surely not claiming that these chemical changes always happen in the intended way, nor is he denying that ovulations occur among Pill-takers. He is well aware that pregnancies occur (as Dr. Goldzieher confirms in the very next sentence), and for every measurable pregnancy there are obviously a number of breakthrough ovulations.
Dr. Goldzieher, whose own work, cited elsewhere in this booklet, acknowledges the antiimplantation effect, is affirming that "it certainly is absent in some cases." He bases this on the fact that pregnancies do occur. This is akin to Dr. Struthers' point that the blastocyst sometimes implants in 'hostile' sites such as the Fallopian tubes and the ovaries, and also in the Pill-affected endometrium. The point, a valid one, is that the conceived child sometimes implants in more hostile environments. But this is no way undermines the obvious fact that he will more often implant in a more favorable environment.
Once again, no one is claiming that the Pill's diminishing of the endometrium always makes implantation impossible. Obviously it doesn't. The issue is whether it sometimes does. That plants can and do grow through cracks in driveways does not negate the fact that they will more likely grow in the tilled fertile soil of the garden. The Pill's changing the endometrium from fertile to inhospitable does not always result in an abortion, but sometimes it does. (And "sometimes" is all it takes to be an abortifacient.)
I have before me an article, a four page letter from a pro-life physician, assuring the recipient that the Pill, Norplant and Depo-Provera are not abortifacients, while RU486, the "morning after pill" and the "minipill" are. She is not certain about the IUD. The letter is well written, but it is missing a crucial element -- it does not cite a single study or produce any evidence whatsoever to back up any of its claims. (The sole reference is to a textbook that may somewhere within it -- no page numbers indicated -- offer evidence that the IUD does not really cause abortions.) In the absence of any such evidence, I am forced to conclude that this letter is simply a sincere expression of the physician's personal beliefs about birth control methods. Unfortunately, beliefs do not constitute evidence.
I was also sent a photocopied page from an article, but unfortunately the name and date of the publication isn't included and I have no way to trace it. The article is an excerpt from a speech by a pro-life physician named Dr. Mastroianni:
"It's also important," Dr. Mastroianni added, "when talking about oral contraception, to dispel any idea that the pill acts as an abortifacient. Propaganda has led some people to believe that somehow the pill works after fertilization, and that's further from the truth than anything I can think of. The pill works by inhibiting ovulation, as well as by thickening the cervical mucus and therefore inhibiting sperm migration."
This confident claim is made wihtout the offer of any evidence to support it. (Leveling the accusation of "propaganda" is not the same as presenting evidence, or refuting it.)
When the scientific and medical sources, including not just reference books but original studies reported in medical journals over decades, consistently affirm there is a third effect of the Pill that does in fact work after fertilization, how can a physician state this to be "further from the truth than anything I can think of"? When these sources consistently and repeatedly conclude there are at least three ways the Pill works (one of which is clearly abortive), how can someone definitively say there are really only two?
I do not consider this quotation from a well-meaning pro-life physician as evidence of anything but the human tendency (which I confess to as well) to deny something we do not wish to believe. (If a reader knows Dr. Mastroianni, and he does have evidence for his beliefs not cited in his presentation or this article, I would very much like to see it.)
When I submitted to him a half dozen of the sources I've cited in this booklet, a pro-life physician I very much respect wrote this to me:
It is known fact that 6% of women on bcps will become pregnant while on the pill, meaning that cervical mucous failed, ovulation occurred, and implantation was successful. This implies that when bcps don't work, it is because they totally fail, and that when mechanisms 1 and 2 don't work, implantation is not prevented by the bcps causing an early abortion. If I believed bcps worked by causing abortion, I wouldn't recommend them. I firmly believe that when they work, they work by preventing ovulation and by creation of thick cervical mucous.
I do not question this physician's sincerity, but I do question the logic. We do not know how often mechanism number one, two or three actually work, we only know that sometimes all three fail. But because number one and two sometimes fail, no one therefore concludes that they always fail. So why conclude that because number three sometimes fails, therefore it always fails?
How can we look at a known pregnancy, which proves the failure of all three mechanisms, then conclude that number one and number two normally work, but that number three must never work? The logic escapes me. If number three were not abortifacient in nature, I don't think anyone would deny that it happens. The denial is not prompted by the evidence but by the desire that what the evidence indicates not be true.
How often does the Pill cause abortions?
Though it is clear that the Pill does in fact cause abortions, it is difficult to determine the numbers of times it does this. This depends on how often the Pill fails to prevent ovulation, and how often when ovulation succeeds and pregnancy occurs, the third mechanism prevents a fertilized egg from implantation.
I posed the question to Dr. Harry Kraus, a physician and writer of popular novels with medical themes. This was his response in a December 23, 1996 e-mail:
You have asked a very good question, but one which is impossible to answer in concrete statistics: How often do birth control pills prevent pregnancy by causing the lining of the uterus to be inhospitable to implantation? You will not see an answer to that question anywhere, with our present state of the science. The reason is that we can only detect early pregnancy by a hormone, beta-hcg (Human chorionic gonadotropin) which is produced by the embryo after implantation. After fertilization, implantation does not take place for approximately six days. After implantation, it takes another six days before the embryo (trophoblast) has invaded the maternal venous system so that a hormone (beta-hcg) made by the embryo can reach and be measured in the mom's blood. Therefore, the statistic you seek is not available.
Keeping in mind that definitive numbers cannot be determined, there are nonetheless certain medical evidences that provide rationales for some physicians and pharmacists to estimate the numbers of Pill-induced abortions.
Determining the rate of breakthrough ovulation in Pill-takers is one key to coming up with informed estimates.
In his Abortifacient Contraception: The Pharmaceutical Holocaust (Human Life International, 1993, page 7), Dr. Rudolph Ehmann says,
As early as 1967, at a medical conference, the representatives of a major hormone producer admitted that with OCs [oral contraceptives], ovulation with a possibility of fertilization took place in up to seven percent of cases, and that subsequent implantation of the fertilized egg would usually be prevented.
Bogomir M. Kuhar, Doctor of Pharmacy, is the president of Pharmacists for Life. In his booklet Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives (page 26), he cites studies suggesting oral contraceptives have a breakthrough ovulation rate of 2 to 10%. Fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers estimates the rate at 4 to 10%, adding that minipills allow ovulation 50-60% of the time ("The New Abortionists," Life Advocate, March 1994, page 29).
Dr. Nine van der Vange, at the Society for the Advancement of Contraception's November 26-30, 1984 conference in Jakarta, stated that her studies indicated an ovulation rate of 4.7% for women taking the Pill.
How do these percentages translate into real numbers? The Ortho Corporation's 1991 annual report estimated 13.9 million U.S. women using oral contraceptives. Multiplying this by the low 2% ovulation figure, and factoring in studies showing a 25% overall conception rate for normally fertile couples of average sexual activity, Dr. Kuhar arrives at a figure of 834,000 birth-control-pill-induced abortions per year. Multiplying by the high 10%, the figure is 4,170,000 per year. The low figure is over 50% the number of surgical abortions (1.5 million), the high is 250% that number. (Using other studies, also based on total estimated number of ovulations and U.S. users, Dr. Kuhar attributes 3,825,000 annual abortions to IUDs; 1,200,000 to Depo-Provera; 2,925,000 to Norplant.)
J.C. Espinoza, M.D., says,
Today it is clear that in at least 5% of the cycles of women on the combined Pill "escape ovulation" occurs. This fact means that conception is possible during those cycles, but implantation will be prevented and the "conceptus" (child) will die. That rate is statistically equivalent to one abortion every other year for all women on the Pill. (Birth Control: Why Are They Lying to Women?, page 28.)
In a segment from his Abortion Question and Answers, published online by Ohio Right to Life, Dr. Jack Willke states:
The newer low-estrogen pills allow "breakthrough" ovulation in up to 20% or more of the months used. Such a released ovum is fertilized perhaps 10% of the time. These tiny new lives which result, at our present "guesstimations," in 1% to 2% of the pill months, do not survive. The reason is that at one week of life this tiny new boy or girl cannot implant in the womb lining and dies.
There are factors that can increase the rate of breakthrough ovulation and thereby increase the likelihood of the Pill causing an abortion. Dr. Bogomir Kuhar says,
The abortifacient potential of OCs is further magnified in OC users who concomitantly take certain antibiotics and anticonvulsants which decrease ovulation suppression effectiveness. It should be noted that antibiotic use among OC users is not uncommon, such women being more susceptible to bacterial, yeast and fungal infections secondary to OC use. (Contraceptives can Kill Babies, American Life League, 1994, page 1.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)