It’s amazing how many young women take a mysterious pill almost every, single morning…and don’t know what it is doing to their body.
The Birth Control Pill, aside from being contraceptive, fundamentally changes how a woman’s body was made to function. It basically tricks her body into thinking it is constantly pregnant. When it “works” it prevents a woman’s body from going through her completely natural and healthy hormonal cycle. Isn’t that funny?
I thought medicine was supposed to fix things that were broken. Heal things that are sick. But the Birth Control Pill is one of the only pills that does exactly the opposite. It intentionally breaks something in your body that is working. And while there are some morally acceptable applications of The Pill to fix or help other issues a woman may be having, her fertility is not one of those things! And often those problems, as I understand, can be fixed more effectively by alternative methods that are much healthier.
So ask yourself this: If you aren’t sick, why are you taking a pill every morning? Do you really think this is God’s plan for your life? Or did He perhaps design you with something else in mind?
Another little known fact about the Birth Control Pill is that it can act as an abortifacient. And not only can it, but it is designed to do so.
If you read the fine print about the Birth Control Pill, they all say that they work these three basic ways.
- By hopefully preventing the woman from ovulating.
- It causes a woman’s cervical mucus to thicken to try and prevent sperm from getting through.
- It thins the lining of the uterus so that (if points 1 and 2 don’t work and a sperm happens to fertilize an egg) the fertilized egg can not implant – ending the life of the new human that the woman just created.
From what I understand it’s very difficult to verify how often #3 occurs (if anyone has any numbers please share!). But given the widespread examples of women getting pregnant while using The Pill (i.e. all 3 steps failing), it seems probable that #3 is happening quite a bit (some estimate it to be millions every year just in the US). Women just don’t realize it’s happening because they wouldn’t be able to tell their normal menstrual cycle from an abortion at this early point.
I wrote a post over at the National Catholic Register about a new documentary on the Pill that talks precisely about this issue and how Pill providers try to hide these facts from women and doctors. Here is the short version of the documentary:
For a comparison, here is Planned Parenthood’s endorsement of The Pill:
You’ll notice that they conveniently leave out step #3. Unconscionable, in my opinion. It’s also sad that they don’t mention the truest and safest way to prevent both pregnancy and STDs: Abstinence. But they don’t make any money off of people controlling themselves.
Additionally, I would encourage every person, man and woman, to learn about Natural Family Planning (NFP). Especially couples! It’s over 99% effective at postponing pregnancy. And the best part is that it respects the dignity and function of a woman’s body the way that God made her. It also has countless other positive points (like being in complete harmony with living a Christian life – as opposed to contraception). Once you are educated about it, it’s a no-brainer.
Do you know what the divorce rate is among couples who practice NFP? 0.2%. Case closed.
Additionally, here are a couple of other good videos explaining more on how The Pill works:
Please share this with everyone you know – especially the women!
Please subscribe to the Blogma by: Email | RSS | Facebook | Twitter. It's fun!
Related Posts
- The 50 Million Missing Man March
- When does science say Human Life begins?
- Do You Love Life?
- Just a piece of tissue, eh, Planned Parenthood?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 44 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s interesting that you post this today, Matt. Thanks for doing so. I was discussing this with a friend just yesterday. And next week is the National Theology of the Body Congress. I hear it’s sold-out, but I saw on the website they are offering live-streaming of the speakers. TOB really gives a great perspective on this subject for those who want to learn more. I’ll be watching live. If you’re interested too, I went to this website: http://tobcongress.com/register/live-streaming
I actually learned about this in an upper level biology course in college. I am a biology major and our professor went into depth about the birth control pill when we studied the reproductive and hormonal control in women. I had always thought (and I have to say after sharing with many friends, they always thought as well) that the pill kept you from ovulating. Women can and do ovulate when taking the pill, thus fertilization does occur given the chance the woman has intercourse. By not allowing the new zygote to implant in the uterus the woman has an abortion without even knowing it! I am happy to see that people are striving to educate the public, in what appears to be a lack of understanding in a highly controversial topic. I know many happily married Christian women, (who are obviously against abortion) who don’t think twice about taking the pill, when in effect they have no idea that their actions may prove contrary to the beliefs they hold in their heart. I’m happy to see someone finally stepping up!
Here is something I have been thinking about recently. I’m not sure if Matt is implicitly making the following case, but I think the point is quite relevant. In some Protestant circles, any birth control pill that may act as an abortifacient is (rightfully) rejected. However, it is sometimes SOLELY rejected on the basis that it acts as an abortifacient. For example, you will find Protestants who sill allow things like condoms. Now I reject all forms of contraception completely. But my question is, is it a sufficient reason to reject the birth control pill based SOLELY on its abortifacient affect?
Given the fact that the actual percentage of abortions that the pill causes seems to be very small, I lean more towards the answer to my question being “no.” For there are many things that have a small percentage chance of harming or even aborting the fetus, but we would not consider them evil because they are an a priori good or neutral. I’m thinking of something like the caffeine in a cup of coffee. Coffee does pose a threat, however minor, to the developing fetus. But since that threat is so small and since there is nothing intrinsically wrong with having a cup of coffee, we do not condemn a pregnant woman for having a cup. Examples of actions which are morally acceptable and which may have a very minor effect on the developing fetus can be multiplied.
So this raises the question: is the birth control pill (or contraception in general) an a priori good? Sadly, it is the case that in today’s society, teh answer is “yes”, even though in objective reality the answer is “no.” So the burden of proof is on us to show that contraception is in fact evil. But if the argument is that “the birth control pill is evil because it can sometimes cause abortions and the reason we do not apply this same standard to coffee is because contraception is intrinsically evil and coffee is not” is to beg the question.
Please don’t get me wrong. I am not at all arguing for the acceptance of the pill. But what I do what to do is make sure that we pro-lifers give the best possible arguments, which includes being critical of things we hear in our own circles. Any comments or counter-arguments would be greatly welcomed.
I disagree with your logic here. While I think you were genuine in voicing your concern it is faulty nonetheless. I would think that the answer to your question,”Is it a sufficient reason to reject the birth control pill based SOLELY on its abortifacient affect?,” is a resounding yes! See, this is one of the main pitfalls the abortion discussions take. Many people seem to try to rationalize abortion in making it right. We say, well if a woman was raped it’s okay, or if the baby will be born with disabilities it’s okay. Well, the answer is no it’s not. If we are going to be pro-life, and against abortion, we have to be either for it, or against it 100%, there is no middle ground. The catholic church teaches that you cannot (and correct me if I’m wrong on this) make an evil right, by doing another evil. This is why it does not support abortion in any case be it rape, disability, etc.
Moreover, the whole caffeine is bad for the baby is an ongoing investigation. There is no proof that it actually has any effect in small doses. We simply, do not know. So I think comparing abortion to drinking caffeine is quite the stretch. The truth is, all of the food we eat can be potentially harmful. It may have parasites, microbial agents, or a number of carcinogens that we are not aware about. Should mothers refuse to eat because what she consumes may harm her child? Obviously, the answer is no.
Lastly, you stated that “Given the fact that the actual percentage of abortions that the pill causes seems to be very small.” On what grounds are you basing this? I am unaware of a study that has confirmed this, let alone researching it now. Please provide a source to back up this claim. The simple answer is, we have no idea this is happening. And given the wide variety of symptoms and reactions a woman may experience while on the pill, it is impossible to tell. Everyone’s body responds differently. Even if it is a small percentage, an act that can potentially lead to an abortion can never be rationalized no matter the odds. I don’t think God would say, “the abortion was okay because it was so unlikely.” We know the potential risk, and we have to be responsible for our actions. So, please, everyone, either be for abortion or against it. Don’t fall into the pitfall of rationalization, trying to make an evil…less evil.
Hi David. Thanks for the reply.
“Moreover, the whole caffeine is bad for the baby is an ongoing investigation. There is no proof that it actually has any effect in small doses. We simply, do not know. So I think comparing abortion to drinking caffeine is quite the stretch. ”
This misses the point I was trying to make. Take any other morally neutral action that may have a small chance of producing a negative side effect on the fetus. In fact, you mention that all food could potentially harm the fetus right after the quote above, which is precisely my point. We would never disallow normal food or drink for a pregnant woman because it has a small chance of harming or even killing the fetus so why hold the pill to that standard if it too has a very low percentage chance of harming the fetus? This, of course, raises the very next point you make.
“I am unaware of a study that has confirmed this, let alone researching it now. Please provide a source to back up this claim.”
I don’t have one, and I don’t like the game that people play where they just quick google search something and then throw up a link without reading it (nor do they even have the exercisable potency to understand it) and then say “ha! this research proves it!” If the percentage is large, then my argument is moot.
So I guess I’m actually just interesting in discussing then if theoretically the birth control pill had caused an abortion as frequently as any other food or drink or whatever that is morally neutral, would we look at it as evil just based on that criteria alone?
“Even if it is a small percentage, an act that can potentially lead to an abortion can never be rationalized no matter the odds.”
I don’t think this is correct. You put your unborn child at risk by driving in a car because you could get into an accident. You can engage in any number of activities that could potentially harm your unborn child. It gets into this odd calculus of how much risk is too much risk? I don’t have the answer. I just wish to discuss it.
“So, please, everyone, either be for abortion or against it. Don’t fall into the pitfall of rationalization, trying to make an evil…less evil.”
I am 100% against it. I am critiquing the argument, not the conclusion. You can have true conclusions but faulty or unsound arguments leading up to those conclusions, and that is what I am trying to investigate. God love you.
Actually, to try and make what I’m saying a little more clear, let me put it into a syllogism.
1. If an action has the potential to cause an abortion, then that action is evil.
2. The birth control pill has the potential to cause an abortion.
Therefore, the birth control pill is evil.
This is logically valid but unsound since there are many counter examples to the major premise. So I would guess that those who reject teh birth control pill SOLELY on the basis of its abortifacient aspect would tweak teh major premise. And that, I suppose, is what I am interested in knowing. If one rejects the birth control pill based ONLY on its abortifacient aspect, what would the major premise of the syllogism be? In other words, what is the overriding PRINCIPLE on which the rejection of birth control pills is based on? (which of course precludes any arguments about theology of the body or why birth control in general is evil, which it is) For the sake of argument, I am happy to concede the minor premise i.e. that the pill satisfies the major. But that is what I am curios to know. What is the major premise of which the pill is a part of but which all these other activities which can potentially harm the unborn is not?
And again, for the record, I completely agree with the conclusion. I’m just trying to make our arguments as tight as possible.
Thanks for the reply. Bobby, I think you have an interesting perspective. I see your point in calculating potential risks at “aborting” a baby. But, I think you are missing a key point when it comes to the pill. The pill is an ARTIFICIAL product which is meant to eliminate the chance of pregnancy, which in case causes the zygote (it is not yet a fetus) to be ARTIFICIALLY aborted.
This is a huge difference when comparing it to day to day activities that are necessary. The simple truth is, yes, food may be harmful, driving in a car across town to get to work may be harmful, just about everything we do “may be harmful.” But one cannot go without food, you still have to go to work, in short, you still have to live your life. However, one CAN go WITHOUT the pill. I believe this is the whole miracle of childbirth. Taking into account everything that can go wrong during gestation, the birth of a child praises God all the more. I believe the pill is contrary to God’s plan concerning marriage and parenthood. And in an answer to your question, no I cannot justify using a device that is deliberately designed to prevent a pregnancy, or kill a zygote, over eating an apple or driving to the bookstore.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the idea of sources backing up a claim. An argument is only as good as it’s sources, and unfortunately making claims that can or cannot be backed up by research, and in fact do not, must be taken with a grain of salt. And if you do not have the capacity to understand it (as you say: “nor do they even have the exercisable potency to understand it”) then maybe the said person should think twice about presenting an argument.
If you are as you say “100% against it [abortion]” then how can you justify a PILL that is not necessary that can lead to it.
“Given the fact that the actual percentage of abortions that the pill causes seems to be very small, I lean more towards the answer to my question being “no.””
Hey David.
“The pill is an ARTIFICIAL product which is meant to eliminate the chance of pregnancy, which in case causes the zygote (it is not yet a fetus) to be ARTIFICIALLY aborted. ”
Actually, it would be a blastocyst, right? :)
Okay, I think this is on the right track. So the problem is that the pill is artificial? Is it the combination of artificial and that it has the potency to kill that makes it problematic?
“This is a huge difference when comparing it to day to day activities that are necessary. The simple truth is, yes, food may be harmful, driving in a car across town to get to work may be harmful, just about everything we do “may be harmful.” But one cannot go without food, you still have to go to work, in short, you still have to live your life. However, one CAN go WITHOUT the pill.”
But see, this is the problem with the pill ITSELF though. This is why the pill is wrong. This doesn’t address the fact that it is abortifacient. This is my whole point that the argument is question begging. It assumes the truth of the evilness of the pill based on the more general argument of the immorality of contraception.
“I believe the pill is contrary to God’s plan concerning marriage and parenthood.”
Indeed. All contraception is. But that hypothesis is smuggled into the argument concerning the abortifacient nature of the pill. So why don’t we just argue that the pill is evil because it is contraception and contraception is evil because of teh reasons (and others) that you outlined above?
“no I cannot justify using a device that is deliberately designed to prevent a pregnancy…”
Exactly! It is wrong to thwart the conjugal act through artificial means, and this is why the birth control pill is evil.
“I’m sorry that you don’t like the idea of sources backing up a claim.”
I do like the idea. IWhat I don’t like is the way the internet has turned everyone into a scholar. Again, I’m not going to do a quick google search and act like I’m some expert in the field. As I mentioned above, I’m only interested in this as a theoretical argument. Then whatever teh data happens to be, we can go from there. Did I make a claim that I can’t back up? Yes. Do I make that same claim now? No. Let’s just assume it’s true for the sake of argument.
“And if you do not have the capacity to understand it (as you say: “nor do they even have the exercisable potency to understand it”) then maybe the said person should think twice about presenting an argument.”
I didn’t say I couldn’t understand it. I’m simply not interested right now enough in what the actual data might say to thoroughly read research papers. Hopefully my above syllogism made it more clear what I am trying to get at. If hypothetically both the pill and caffeine cause abortions .3% of the time, what is it that allows a pregnant women to consume caffeine but not teh pill? Is it because the pill is unnatural amongst teh other arguments you made? I agree. But then that is an argument against all contraception, having nothing to do with the pill’s abortifacient effect.
“If you are as you say “100% against it [abortion]” then how can you justify a PILL that is not necessary that can lead to it.”
I have never once in any way shape or form justified use of the pill, and I think I have made this abundantly clear by stating numerous times that I think contraception is evil. the last quote of mine that you quoted is an answer to the question that I posed:
“But my question is, is it a sufficient reason to reject the birth control pill based SOLELY on its abortifacient affect?”
The key word here is SOLELY. Again, I am critiquing the argument, not the conclusion that the birth control pill is evil. The pill is evil. The pill is evil. The pill is evil. All contraception is gravely and inherently evil. Let that be known that that is my position. God love you.
“Actually, it would be a blastocyst, right? :)”
Yes, Bobby, it is technically known as a blastocyst. I am sorry for using the term zygote loosely (which is often the case unless you want something more technical) The zygote becomes a mass of 8 cells called a morula, which divides further into a hollow ball called a blastocyst, which in turn (as you have pointed out) implants in the uterus. I am actually studying embryology right now so thanks for clearing that one up. I digress…
I understand your argument. I understand you are against abortion. Do I need to say it again? I understand you are against abortion. I guess I am just not following the rest of your logic.
If by abortifacient, you mean a substance that inherently causes abortions, then yes I believe the pill as an abortifacient alone makes it wrong. I am unaware of something being called an abortifacient (pill, medicines, etc) that is not used to purposefully cause abortions. (I will go ahead and not google this so I won’t seem like an expert :) )
In actuality, if by contraceptive we mean an unnatural device used to prevent pregnancy, wouldn’t all abortifacients be contraceptives? So, yes, the pill’s SOLE abortaficient qualities make it wrong, at least to me.
By eating contaminated foods, or foods that have carcinogens (or what have you) in them that causes an “abortion” would be a miscarriage to me. The mother did not DELIBERATELY kill her baby. I think the fact that the pills deliberate (it’s designed to do it) act of causing an abortion is a reason enough to make it wrong.
God bless.
“I am unaware of something being called an abortifacient (pill, medicines, etc) that is not used to purposefully cause abortions.”
I think the term is used precisely how you describe it above. Matt used it in this article in that way as well.
“I will go ahead and not google this so I won’t seem like an expert”
LOL. You can (like you need my permission!) google a word to find out a definition. A pet peeve is of mine is just teh constant citing and posting of scholarly articles by people who don’t understand them just to win an argument. If someone doesn’t understand the literature, then all that happens is the following: Someone posts a link to a study. The person responds by either saying 1) The study is biased or 2) Correlation does not imply causation or 3) A study done by someone else with the opposite results. It just ends up going no where, and the problem is that one needs to read teh studies with a critical eye and take a lot of time to do so, which message boards are not good mediums for.
“In actuality, if by contraceptive we mean an unnatural device used to prevent pregnancy, wouldn’t all abortifacients be contraceptives?”
No because it is an unintentional side effect. And see, that is what I am worried pill supporters will counter with, essentially invoking the principle of double effect. The INTENT (they would say) is to contraceptive, but a rare and unintended side effect is an abortion (or they to may even use the term miscarriage), just like food or whatever. So then this raises the question- is the intent to contracept okay? And of course the answer is no, but that is what we need to argue with them.
“The mother did not DELIBERATELY kill her baby. I think the fact that the pills deliberate (it’s designed to do it) act of causing an abortion is a reason enough to make it wrong.”
So again, I think the argument would be that the pill’s intent is to contracept (a good action in the minds of contraceptors) through either the prevention of the oocyte being released or through the slowing down of sperm. Pill supporters would argue that they have no intention to kill nor is the pill’s purpose to kill. True, it has this third effect, but it is [possibly] so rare and unintended that it falls under the principle of double effect, much like a food which has a small chance of harming the unborn.
So it seems to me that this all goes back to the question of whether or not the intent to contracept is good, which of course it is not. But then the argument is that all contraceptives are evil, regardless of whether or not they are an abortifacient.
Maybe I’m not being as clear as possible… does anyone else see what I”m trying to say and can you explain it more coherently than I can?
“No because it is an unintentional side effect.”
I guess what I would argue it is not an unintentional side effect. The pill is specifically designed to prevent implantation if fertilization occurs. I think the argument, it’s an unintentional side effect, would be an excuse to justify it.
I appreciate your replies, I would like to hear what other people thought as well, being it’s an interesting topic
i took the pill for a VERY short time to address other issues, not as a contraceptive. my doctor even prescribed one of the lower dose of hormones. in less than 6 months was in the hospital due to blood clots caused by this pill. i went through a lot because of this illness, including losing my job at my paris, and am still on blood thinners a year later. it is possible that the hormones actually permanently affected the blood proteins. permanently. which means i may have to be on blood thinners for the rest of my life. i really don’t fault my doctor, who is at a catholic hospital, for prescribing the pill because he really was trying to address some other problems. the sad part is that, since then, a high dose of iron has corrected all but one issue i was having. iron. that’s it. now, there are health issues associated with taking iron when it is not needed, so there are still risks. but my point is that the Pill is not always necessary. i don’t share this story with everyone, because i feel ashamed that i was on the pill, even for such a short time and for reasons that have nothing to do with contraception, but i do think that women should really discuss this extensively with their doctors before accepting this prescription for any issue. in the end everything that happened turned out to be blessing after blessing after blessing and am thankful to be where all of this led me.
My main concern for use of the pill to treat other medical problems is that is doesn’t treat the problem at all–only symptoms. I have struggled with hormone and gynecological issues for 10 years now and finding a doctor to treat me without throwing the pill at me is a daunting task. I will be making a 4 hour drive next month just to see such a doctor! Thanks, Matt for bringing this information about the pill to the surface. It is about time our voices be heard on this matter. Too many woman are causing harm to their bodies (and babies) without even knowing that it is happening.
I agree with your sentiment there, Jill! The pill seems to be very over-prescribed to simply handle symptoms and avoid solving the real root of the challenges a woman may be facing.
Thank you too, David, for indulging me and my “devil’s advocate” discussion. I mean, the truth is, I think there might be something there to the fact that the pill is an abortifacient, but I certainly can’t articulate it and I’m not satisfied with the current arguments I’ve heard in that regards. I think it can be articulated properly, but I certainly don’t know how to. Take care, bro. God love you.
The problem with step #3 is that it occurs naturally in women not on the pill. Many many women become pregnant without ever knowing because a womans own body self aborts. It would be very difficult to find numbers on #3, but I imagine that they would be very similar to the number of times it happens to women on the pill.
I fail to see how naturally occurring miscarriages (NOT “self abortions”) make step #3 a problem. They are completely unrelated. The bald fact is that women on the pill can never know for certain which of the 3 mechanisms is at work within their bodies and could in fact be repeatedly aborting their own unborn children. The reality of my complicity in such actions by continuing to be on the pill is what finally allowed me to acquiesce to the teaching of the Church on the immorality of all birth control — a true moment of the presence of the grace of the Holy Spirit in my life. My husband and I now practice NFP and the joy of knowing I am obedient to God’s command outweighs all my guilt and shame (which I had to give over to Him in confession, of course). I know now that there could very will be the souls of my children in heaven already, and I want to make sure I get there.
On a side note, since this personal revelation, I have been wanting to find a Catholic doctor who lives and practices within the truths of the Catholic Church, but have been unable to find one even remotely close to wear I live. I believe this needs to be a concurrent prayer to our prayers to end abortions caused by birth control — that the Lord raise up more doctors who will minister faithfully to His truth.
HI Erin.
Have you tried this website?
http://www.aaplog.org/aaplog-physician-directory/
It is a serach for pro-life physicians, which of course does not necissarily mean Catholic, but it might be a good place to start. God love you.
I was very curious about how often this occurs in women, and a study was actually performed called the “Study of Abortion Deaths Commission.” They estimate 1 million to 4 million babies are aborted by the pill each year. In 2005 there were 1.21 million surgical abortions performed in the United States. Even their more “conservative” estimate is almost as high as the national average for surgical abortions. Moreover, they have proved the new pill causes even more “breakthrough ovulations” than they once did. Just thought I would throw some numbers out there.
Oh last thing… If you want the numbers they found for breakthrough ovulations for pills they tested… (Breakthrough ovulation is just a way of saying the pill doesn’t cause the woman to stop ovulating)
Norplant: 50-65%
Depo-Provera 40-60%
IUD: 100%
As a doctor, and without judging the reason the pill is taken, I can only say risks overcome the benefits by far, read the literature.
Great topic, once again Matthew!
I’m not Catholic, but I did stop taking the pill after hearing about the possibility of it being an abortifacient. I have done tons of research and have come across a few studies that delved into the statistical probability of the pill causing abortions. To Bobby: You might find this study interesting, http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/ It basically found that there was no statistical evidence to suggest that the “hostile endometrium” theory is plausible. Also Bobby, I liked how you framed the argument. Pregnant women indeed do things that are incredibly dangerous for the unborn child, like driving. And to David, a pregnant woman doesn’t really HAVE to drive. If it is truly immoral to put the embryo at any risk, then a woman should simply sit in her house for 9 months. Of course, I’m exaggerating. The point Bobby was trying to make is that you can’t say don’t take the pill because there’s a chance it could cause an abortion. There’s also a chance that driving a car would directly cause an abortion.
David, you also said, “The pill is specifically designed to prevent implantation if fertilization occurs.” The study I linked to above shows that really the pill doesn’t work in that way. It appears it’s more of a marketing technique on the part of the pharmaceutical companies than it is scientific fact, if that makes sense.
So then like Bobby said, the thing we have to prove is that contraception is evil. And that’s the argument I’m interested in hearing. I guess you could say I’m a bit on the fence about it. I don’t think it is evil, but I want to hear the argument as to why it is. Here is why I don’t think it’s evil: it seems to me that God has already put a sort of natural birth control in place. A woman can only get pregnant a few days out of the month, and all a couple must do is abstain during the highly probable fertile time. So, how is this different than say, using a condom? Is it because it’s artificial? Because if that is the case, then is it also morally wrong to take Tylenol when you’ve got a headache? Is it morally wrong to use all medication, including prosthetic limbs? I’m not trying to bait anyone. These are sincere questions that I have, and that I think about a lot. I’d really like to hear the Catholic side of this, as most of my friends are Protestant, and therefore support artificial birth control.
Kayla, Thank you so much for sharing that link! I am in the middle of reading it and am going to study it a bit more. But I will plan on updating this post appropriately with this great info once I am finished! This seems very convincing so far to the contrary of my previous position.
Kayla,
I recently was able to speak with a very qualified pro-life OB/GYN on the link you sent me from the AAPLOG. After further analysis, it doesn’t seem they have any evidence at all to back up what they are claiming. Unfortunately, it seems like it may just be the pill-prescribing pro-life doctors trying to massage their conscience on the issue and prevent division within the community. But they actually avoid the problematic issues addressed in this blog post and admit buried down in the paper that they have no evidence at all that “step 3″ does not occur and cause abortions as a result of use of the BCP.
Thanks for researching this Matt. I will stick with my views as the pill being an abortificient.
Thank you for the reply and the link, Kayla. You’ve brought up some great points and asked some really great questions, and I”ll do my best to answer them.
“So, how is this different than say, using a condom? Is it because it’s artificial? Because if that is the case, then is it also morally wrong to take Tylenol when you’ve got a headache? Is it morally wrong to use all medication, including prosthetic limbs?”
Right, excellent point. What we should first do is understand what we mean by the word “natural.” Many people understated the word “natural” to mean something along the lines of “occurring ion nature” which is basically the way I think you’re thinking about the term above, Kayla. However, when we talk in this context about something being “natural”, we mean that it “acts in accord with the essence or the purpose of an object.” So while it seems a little odd to call Tylenol “natural”, it would certainly not be unnatural when you use it for a headache. Why? Because it cures or diminishes an aliment; in other words, your body is not functioning properly when you have a headache- there is a defect there. What Tylenol does is to help restore the proper function of your body to you i.e. the cause that Tylenol brings about is in accord with the purpose or proper function of the human body.
Now when you look at the question of contraception from this point of view, one immediately sees that contraception actually thwarts teh proper function of one’s fertility. When a women is fertile, her body is functioning properly. There is nothing wrong with a women’s body when it is fertile a few days of the month nor is there anything wrong with a man’s body when he is fertile continuously. The bodies are functioning properly in accordance with nature. Yet what does contraception do? It purposely destroys that proper function designed into our bodies by God himself.
Now let’s look a bit more at the difference between contraception and abstinence during certain times of the month. Both contraception and periodic abstinence (NFP) have the same ends- avoidance of a pregnancy. Now there is nothing wrong with wishing to avoid pregnancy. There can be certain cases and instances where a couple mutually decides that having children right now would not be prudent. Okay, so let us establish that the avoiding pregnancy right now is desired and that this ends is good. We have an ends we would like to achieve (lack of being pregnant). Let’s look at the two possible MEANS by which to bring about this ends; contraception and NFP. Both having the exact same good ends, but the different means. And herein lies the issue. With contraception, the means is purposefully and willfully thwarting the procreative nature/purpose of the sexual act. With NFP, what is the means? It is abstinence. It is choosing NOT to engage in the conjugal act so that there is no thwarting of the purpose of the conjugal act since there is no conjugal act taking place to thwart! This is a key point. With contraception, you will the pleasure of the sexual act but without the consequences. An analogy with contraception vs. NFP is often made with bulimia vs. dieting.
You have two people who wish to lose weight or get in shape, but one who does it through inducing vomiting and the other through dieting. Same ends, different means. The bulimic wishes the pleasure of food without the consequences of that food, so she forces herself to vomit, thereby thwarting the purpose of eating. The dieter uses the natural rhythms found in the body and takes advantage of what her body can do on its own by exercising, eating more healthy foods, and abstaining from snacking or desserts. The overarching idea here is that one always should be doing things that act in accord with the proper function and purpose of the body.
Let me give a few brief other reasons, without going into too much detail. In the bible, you will find that children are always a blessing. In the OT, it seems that the greatest promise God could make to someone is that their tribe would increase and that their descendants would be numerous. On the other hand, one of the worst punishments seems to be barenness. We see this with Sarah and Rachel, just as a couple of examples. True, there is no one single bible passage that condemns contraception, but the whole overarching context of children in teh bible is that they are a blessing and a gift. No where is it ever suggested that they are anything but that. Now that of course does not prove that contraception is wrong, but the fact that the bible has nothing but good things to say about pregnancy and children and only bad things to say about being barren is evidence of the awesome gift that children are and how it seems contrary to God’s law to try and thwart that.
Kayla, let me also recommend a couple of great books about this subject. First, Charles Provan wrote a book called “The Bible and Birth Control.” Provan is a Protestant, but he came to see the numerous biblical passages that testify to the evil of contraception. His short book is FULL of passages. Not only that, but he has quote after quote after quote from the reformers rejecting contraception. Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, etc. They all rejected contraception. In fact, contarception was universally rejected by EVERY SINGLE Christian denomination until 1930. It wasn’t until the Anglican Lambeth conference in 1930 that they said you could use contraception in marriage under really really extreme circumstances. Yet it didn’t take long at all for every single denomination to cave on this and allow contraception for any and all reasons. If it was 100 years ago, all Christians groups would be unanimously rejecting contraception. A good question to ponder is “what has changed in the past 100 years that makes it so that while contraception was once evil, it is now morally permissible?”
A second short book is by a Catholic named Patrick Coffin and titled “Sex Au Natural.” It is brand new, and it looks at the issue of contraception from a variety of angles. It is very well written, very easy to read, and DEFINITELY worth giving a chance for anyone who is looking into this issue.
So that is all I have for now, Kayla. Please let me know if you have any other questions or clarifications or couter-points or anything. God love you.
While I do NOT agree with the previous argument regarding birth control being an abortificient. This is really well explained and I DO agree with it. Nice job Bobby and God bless.
Bobby – very nicely explained! Also, I’m going to steal the bulimia vs dieting analogy. That’s a good one!
This looks like a REALLY interesting paper, Kayla. I’ll look through it over the next few weeks.
Bobby, Thanks for articulating the argument so well. I will definitely try to get my hands on the books you mentioned. You make a great point about contraception not being acceptable until the 30s. Seems like so much has been deemed “acceptable” in recent history that shouldn’t have been.
Great Biblical examples too.
So one wonderment I have now is, “Is it thwarting God’s design if we don’t have sexual relations with our spouse during the fertile time?” Again, not trying to be argumentative, just trying to look at all angles. God’s definitely made it so we “want to do it” given hormones and such, so wouldn’t it be thwarting God in a way, if we’re married, and we ignore those feelings? I hope I’m articulating my question well.
For me, a primary argument against contraception is that it encourages relationships which are not conducive to parenting. In other words, people have relationships with people with whom they have no intention of every parenting a child. Oh, this is awkward phrasing :-/ This leads to the necessity of abortion and many fractured and unstable relationships.
As far as abstinence goes, it isn’t easy. Because it isn’t easy, it pretty much insures that the couples are making a decision (hopefully in prayer) on wether or not to ask for another child or not.
Yes, your question is articulated quite well, Kayla. And indeed, it seems that women are most often inclined to engage in the conjugal act when they are fertile. Let us also assume that this is a MUTUAL decision for both members to withhold sexual relations for the sake of postponing pregnancy, as one spouse forcefully withholding from the other is a completely different topic.
I think we can best come to an answer by considering the more general question that this problem falls into. And that is, is it permissible to do a good action instead of a better action? Here the good action is postponing pregnancy, but the better action would be attempting pregnancy (or at least leaving it completely in the hands of God.) We see this kind of situation all the time. I want to give money to teh Church or a charity. It would be best if I could give all of it, which would be a good, but I can’t give all because then I can’t provide support for my family, which I NEED to do. Although this may be a bit esoteric given your non-Catholic background, Kayla, my favorite theologian of the 20th century Fr Garrigou-Lagrange takes up this question in his book “The Love of God and the Cross of Jesus Volume 1.” Here Fr G-L looks at the case of a doctor who finds himself with some free time on his hands in the morning. He is confronted with the following dilemma: he could spend the extra time studying his field and therby becoming a more competant doctor and helping people more (which is obvioulsy a good) or he could spend that time attending daily mass (which in Catholic theology is the probably THE greatest good anyone can do because we understand it to be an action which man can performs which glorifies God the most). One could just as easily replace going to mass with spending time in prayer or reading scripture and the point would still be the same. Giving glory to God is by far a greater good than the good of improving your trade and helping people here on earth, but would it be WRONG to choose to study over praying/mass? I think the answer here is a pretty clear “no.” For although we are first and foremost required to love God with our whole mind, soul, and strength (Luke 10:27), the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we focused 100% of all our energies on God alone, we could not fulfill the second greatest commandment. So in a situation like this, prudence must be shown.
But more to the point, if you WERE required to pray/attend mass rather than study, then we would be in the absurd case of it being a SIN to do something GOOD. In other words, you would be sinning by becoming a more competant doctor. This is simply absurd. It is never a sin to do good, even if you could be doing a greater good. It is a form of what is called situation ethics championed by Joseph Fletcher to have morality change depending on circumstance to such a degree. I don’t know if you’ve heard of situation ethics, but it is an ethical theory which I believe would be rejected by all strips of Christians.
Thus, applying this principle to your question, we see that although it would be a higher good to attempt preganncy, there would be nothing wrong with choosing a lower good or abstaning, assuming that there is a legitimate reason. Hope that makes sense, Kayla. God love you.
Kayla,
I came into the Catholic Church due to the contraception issue. Please allow me to give you the basic line of reasoning I followed. First, I believed strongly that we are put on this earth to do God’s will. After my first child was born, social pressure increased from all directions to prevent another birth. My first question was what is God’s will. And so, I went to the elder women in my church (non-denom) to seek their advice (after all the Bible tells young women to do this). I asked them what is God’s will concerning having children? Their answers were similar and disturbing. Combined, they all sounded like this: “Oh yes, we should follow God’s will. I had X number of children and then he got fixed.” One woman told me that she got fixed, but it was only because her husband refused to do so. I was confused. These were God-fearing women in solid marriages. God’s will was all-important to them- except when it came to having children. This was their domain; their decision only. I went back to the Bible. As an earlier post mentioned, the Bible is clear: children are a blessing; the more the better. Never once is mentioned a couple who complained about having too many children. Some would say, “Well modern times give us different circumstances.” If this is true, then perhaps we should throw out the entire outdated Scriptures and make up our own version of God’s plan. To continue…
I wanted to have more children and my husband did too. We both refused any surgical removal (including tying and burning) of our private parts. As an avid reader of labels, I did not fancy any of the side effects of the pill, depo-provera or norplant (a real scary read). We were left with the most useless pregnancy prevention ever known to man- the condom. And so, soon after I was pregnant again. I really had to solve this spiritual dilemma fast. I needed a church that would recognize this basic occurrence in marriage.
I was very disturbed about this, mostly because I knew the only Christian church that stood up against birth control was the Roman Catholic Church (Some would mention that Mormons also have large families. Yes, they often do, but there are no rules in that church against using contraception or getting fixed). And so, I kept searching. While I spent some time in the Eastern Mennonite Church, my husband was looking in church history. He shared his historical findings (pointing towards the Catholic Church) and I shared my family life lessons learned from the Mennonites. Oddly, I thought then, the Catholic Church seemed to right on target about a lot of things. The Eucharist (John 6) was a major revelation.
But, you asked about birth control…
That was several years ago. We now have a wonderful, happy and large family and love our faith- despite the sinners like us who abound in it. It is the one Christ Himself founded and He has not let it go astray, especially in the issues that mean the most- the basic family unit.
God bless you.
Kayla,
One more thing you mentioned- artificiality. I also wondered about that one. As I understand it, the issue is not about being artificial- it’s about being open to God’s will. Not all sexual acts produce children even during the fertile time. God makes it happen with us as co-creators. It’s, pardon the expression, magical and marvelous. Contraception is our will only and does not give us an opportunity to work with God in the most intimate way. It also hinders our marriages. The women I spoke with seemed to have good marriages and yet they also seemed to hold their husbands in disregard when this subject was broached.
The best ever explanation of this is by Dr. Janet Smith. It’s called “Contraception, Why Not?” Give it a listen (along with your husband, of course). Here’s a link: http://catholicipod.stblogs.com/2008/03/05/contraception-why-not-janet-smith-mp3s-audio/
Please listen to the whole thing as she covers sexuality and marriage fully in its true context.
God bless you.
Also – I just wanted to say thank you very much to all of you for the outstanding comments! You contribute so much to this blog and it would not be near as valuable for people without your input and discussion. I learn a lot from all of you and I know that others reading do as well.
God bless you,
Matthew Warner
Okay, I am not sure if this was mentioned but the answer to why “ANY” contraception is wrong in whatever faith you may be this isn’t just for Catholics this is what God said and applies to everyone, that’s the first point so just because you are not Catholic does not mean you get to use contraception, second the act in which produces a child should only be in the Sacrament of Marriage and you are not to get married unless you are open to receiving children (thats why you say it in your vows), so point is that is why contraception is bad, you can use NFP (Natual Family Planning) if for the only reason is that it is a grave matter to which a child should not come into your family, it is not Catholic birth control, it is wrong to use it for such a thing, because it is of a selfish reason.
The other point is people are eating up the lie that birth control can stop you from getting pregnant hence that is why it is only whatever percentage effective, what you must realize is that no life in created without God, pregnancy is not a side effect of sex, I have been married for almost 12 years and have not used anything and I have ZERO living children, I do have a son that at 20 weeks when I was pregnant passed away, and that was almost nine years ago, so anyway the point is any birth control is bad because, 1) you should only be having sex in a Sacramental Marriage and should be open to life, 2) it is not for you to be able to have pre-marital sex. On the point for medical reason which I hear all the time, be proactive in your health, I had doctor after doctor tell me the reason I wasn’t getting pregnant was because I was not regular so they wanted to put me on the “PILL” go figure, however there is a wonderful pill that is peanut oil and progestrone and that is what most women are lacking and that worked just fine, I actually only had to take it for a few months and haven’t been on it for years now.
So anyway that is my two cents on the matter ; God Bless to all!!
Much agreed! You said everything right. Good points.Thanks for sharing!
Bobby, once again, thanks for articulating so well. Even though I’m not Catholic, I enjoy the esoteric. Gives my brain something to chew on during the day.
So here’s the next question: how do we judge the legitimacy of the reason a couple is choosing to delay pregnancy?
For example, right now my husband and I are in the middle of selling our house, and we’ve already bought the other piece of property. We have 2 mortgage payments, and virtually no savings. This would seem, at first blush, to be a legitimate reason to delay, but is it really? Wealth is extremely relative. There are people who live in mud huts, and there are people who live in huge mansions. I guess what I’m asking is, is lack of money really a good excuse? Wouldn’t it be arbitrary if we excused a person for not having a baby based on finances?
Kayla,
In short, there is no easy answer to your question about when it is legitimate to postpone or avoid pregnancy. It is only through prayful discernment between your husband, yourself and God. I have 8 children, 7 still at home. My youngest is 5 months. I am feeling my age and my body. In today’s society, people tell me all of the time that I have “had enough (children)” and can stop. Still, each month my husband and I pray and talk and talk and pray. God will put the answer in your hearts. I have been wanting an easy answer for years ;-) But, more than the easy answer, I want to only do God’s will–He is so much wiser than I!! As far as financial reasons, we must be prudent with our finances at all times and live within our means. God does provide when we seek His Will. So again, turn to prayful discernment.
Kayla,
“So here’s the next question: how do we judge the legitimacy of the reason a couple is choosing to delay pregnancy?”
Good question. This is best answered in retrospect. Which of my living children would I choose not to have had? This pretty much solves the issue of when to use NFP for not having children. The fact is, although we would love to believe otherwise, we simply do not know what the future holds. God, however, does know. Now, if we decide to be completely open to God’s will, which in marriage is the procreating and raising of children, will He not provide all that we need? God is good and faithful (I heard a quote from somewhere saying that with every child God sends a sandwich).
NFP is wonderful and everyone should know how it works because it shows the marvels of creation. I love knowing that I have a good chance of conceiving a new child with this particular act at at this particular time and my husband does as well. It is a special moment not to be denied for merely material reasons. No car, house or vacation can replace the years of joy given by even one child. And the more the better. I am pregnant with my 13th child (lost two to miscarriage and one was born alive long enough to receive Baptism). My older children (a few are adults) are as excited as we are and do everything they can to prepare for the blessed event.
One issue no one seems to remember is that these children do not stay helpless and dependent; they grow up to love God and build a life and a home with you and your spouse. They do not end up like the world’s children- depressed, dysfunctional and rebellious. My teenagers are a joy to be around. They are always looking to create things and help each other (except when stubbornly acting like their parents).
NFP should be used to delay pregnancy when children may come a little too close together- like women who ovulate despite breastfeeding. But why delay such a joy? If we really see children the way God sees them, we would not care so much about our busy schedule and financial concerns. Jesus said: “Let the children come to Me.” Shall we obey the Lord’s command?
Jennifer,
May God bless you. I know the pain of losing children through miscarriage and infancy. There is nothing to describe it, especially in a world that is pleased for your loss and allows no grief to be expressed. You are a witness to God’s plan for marriage, whether or not you are able to bear children. Your experience shows those who would consider birth control how different they would feel should they not be able to have a child. It gives us the proper prospective in life. Being open to God’s will is one of the greatest virtues- obedience. “To obey is better than sacrifice.” Be strong as the others who came before you. And pray for those of us who would deny our wombs for the sake of material goods.
God bless you and your husband.
This week (July 25-31) is National Natural Family Planning Week. Relevant information and helpful links can be found at the link below.
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2010/07/national-natural-family-planning.html
This week also marks the 42nd anniversary of Humanae Vitae (On Human Life), the prophetic encyclical of Paul VI which reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to artificial contraception.
Excerpts and a reflection on its significance can be found here:
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2010/07/42nd-anniversary-of-humane-vitae.html