Birth Control & Abortion

Yes - some types of birth control are definitely abortive.

IUDs work to prevent a fertilized egg (conceptus) from implanting.
"Morning after" pills do the same.

Contraceptive pills (regular kind) prevent ovulation, but usually contain a morning after ingredient as well, "just in case" she ovulates anyway.

The types of BC that are NOT abortive are the barrier type: condoms, Cervical diaphragms, and surgical types like vasectomy and tubal ligation. They work by keeping sperm and egg apart, preventing fertilization.

But of course the BEST birth control is not having intercourse.

rosevs said:

Abortion is a very sensitive topic both for me and for all other Christians who are trying to live a godly life.

Just recently I went to volunteer at a pregnancy center nearby where they told me that birth control causes abortions. I was immediately like Woah! That sounds crazy!

In order for a fertilized egg to grow, it must implant into the female's uterus. Basically, most birth controls nowadays prevent fertilization, BUT, if fertilization does occur, the birth control will prevent the egg from implanting; expelling the egg.

I went to some trusted Christian adult about this issue. They argued that: since fertilization with the birth control is rare, and since a woman's body expels 2/3 of her fertilized eggs without any form of contraceptive/birth control NATURALLY, they believe birth control is fine and not abortive. The wife argued that life starts at implantation anyway, but that is really something I cannot define.

I am asking for opinions. I personally agree with the husband and wife. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

At the pregnancy center they told you right, even if that is not the most common action of birth control pills. It is a deliberate secondary action. Some fertilized eggs will die as a result of using birth control pills.

Your trusted Christians seem like they want to avoid rocking the boat. Other Christians, when they find out about this, give up on birth control pills. I think that is the morally proper thing to do. But you might want to consult a moral theologian who focuses on sexuality, someone like Janet Smith.

The beginning of life is when a sperm penetrates an egg and the DNA combines. That is before implantation. But those who don't want to be bothered by that have said a new life begins at implantation, mostly just to play word games that allow for the anti-implantation 'feature' of birth control pills to be considered as prevention rather than killing of a fertilized egg. Which it actually (sometimes) is.

There is a whole lot to living a moral sexuality than just avoiding abortion. Here is where someone like Janet Smith can be very helpful.

rosevs said:

Abortion is a very sensitive topic both for me and for all other Christians who are trying to live a godly life.

Just recently I went to volunteer at a pregnancy center nearby where they told me that birth control causes abortions. I was immediately like Woah! That sounds crazy!

In order for a fertilized egg to grow, it must implant into the female's uterus. Basically, most birth controls nowadays prevent fertilization, BUT, if fertilization does occur, the birth control will prevent the egg from implanting; expelling the egg.

I went to some trusted Christian adult about this issue. They argued that: since fertilization with the birth control is rare, and since a woman's body expels 2/3 of her fertilized eggs without any form of contraceptive/birth control NATURALLY, they believe birth control is fine and not abortive. The wife argued that life starts at implantation anyway, but that is really something I cannot define.

I am asking for opinions. I personally agree with the husband and wife. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I prefer to keep things simple. Abortion is abortion. Birth control is birth control. Let's not make things more complicated than they are.

Only one is taking a living, growing, human baby, and tearing it into bits, and sucking out it's brain.

Again... keep it simple. Abortion is abortion.

I have to agree with Andrew. I see nothing wrong with preventing pregnancy through birth control..

Abortion is killing a living fetus.. which is a growing human being.. not prevention of pregnancy.

Andrew77 said:

I prefer to keep things simple. Abortion is abortion. Birth control is birth control. Let's not make things more complicated than they are.

Click to expand...

The multiple designed actions of the birth control pills are complex. Less so back in the early days when a whopping dose of hormones made ovulation almost impossible. But then all of those hormones were not healthy. So more modern formulations have much lower doses. Which means more ovulations occur and some of those result in conception, which is then prevented by the secondary action of preventing implantation of the already fertilized egg. So some times birth control IS abortion. And that is uncommon but known and deliberate.

Its a complex mix of philosophy, theology, and biology.

Philosophy and theology are tricky, as when does human life begin? Traditions are all over the place, everywhere from conception to first breath. Original sin plays a role with this as well... are the "naturally" expelled fertilized eggs doomed to hell, or maybe they don't get a soul until first breath occurs? Baptism in the womb, and rules that unbaptized stillborn babies couldn't be buried in a Christian cemetery were historical practices that came about from life / ensoulment at conception beliefs. Today, somehow fetuses are considered innocent. There are no easy or convincing arguments for any of this... albeit Augustine's struggle with it more sense to me. Bottom line it really comes down to a matter of faith.

As far as birth control... yes, unimplanted fertilized eggs are ejected by "natural causes" albeit I'm not convinced of that being a purely "natural" thing. My guess is as reproductive science improves, causal factors will come to light that suggest human action / inaction plays a significant role in this. In this regard, barrier and/or surgical forms of birth control are the safest approach to avoid moral culpability for aborting a fertilized egg. Being we already know that the rates of miscarriage later in pregnancy can be reduced, but as a society we specifically don't want to go there, my guess is even if human intent plays a role and thus we are morally culpable, most won't want to go there.

As far as pharma based birth control, the probability of it causing a fertilized egg to be expelled is quite low... and many in reproductive science state it is impossible based upon more recent research than when FDA theoretical studies were submitted (which is what drives the product labeling). Still its a really difficult thing to study in a clinical sense and the cohorts would need to be huge to be 100% certain. Ultimately, I think it comes down to a matter of faith.

Ultimately, if one believes life begins at conception, then it would be prudent to wrestle and ponder with the scriptures, biologists, philosophers, and moral theologians to see if one is truly honoring God with respect to birth control. The life created at conception still dies due to deliberate human action whether it be an unimplanted fertlized egg, an implanted egg, an embryo, or a fetus.

For me, it's fairly simple.

Thanks to advancements in science, we now know that a new, unique, human being comes into existence at fertilization. Fact.

As Christians, we turn to Scripture to be our trusted guide and primary source of revelation from God. In it, we learn that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Therefore, I don't think it's really a stretch here to suggest that killing innocent human beings, whether born or unborn is immoral.

Thus, I would suggest that any form of birth control that prevents fertilization from occurring is morally neutral, while any form of birth control that either intentionally, or potentially kills already fertilized eggs is immoral.

Andrew77 said:

I prefer to keep things simple. Abortion is abortion. Birth control is birth control. Let's not make things more complicated than they are.

Only one is taking a living, growing, human baby, and tearing it into bits, and sucking out it's brain.

Again... keep it simple. Abortion is abortion.

Click to expand...

You are describing only one abortion method, which occurs after an embryo becomes a fetus. There is no brain to suck out and nothing to tear apart when a few human stem cells are implanted in the uterus.

ChristianForCats said:

There is no brain to suck out and nothing to tear apart when a few human stem cells are implanted in the uterus

Click to expand...

You mean when a brand new, unique human being, created in the image of God is implanted into the uterus. Right?

It would be nice if we used the designation conception control for those methods that are not in any way abortive. You then have abortion, birth control and conception control. After all, is a person that does not want to have a baby really only interested in avoiding birth or is that person actually more interested in avoiding conception in the first place.

SPF said:

You mean when a brand new, unique human being, created in the image of God is implanted into the uterus. Right?

Click to expand...

I was correcting a poster who thinks D&E is the only kind of aboriton procedure.

ChristianForCats said:

I was correcting a poster who thinks D&E is the only kind of aboriton procedure.

Click to expand...

And I was correcting a poster who was incorrectly describing a zygote.

SPF said:

And I was correcting a poster who was incorrectly describing a zygote.

Click to expand...

By now every member of this forum should know what a zygote is.

ChristianForCats said:

By now every member of this forum should know what a zygote is.

Click to expand...

and yet you referred to it as a lump of stem cells!

The question of when human personhood begins is a complicated topic.

A common argument today is that fused gametes, a fertilized ovum, is itself properly a human person. The trouble I have with that argument is that it seems somewhat arbitrary. But I also don't know how we avoid making a purely subjective, arbitrary decision on this matter.

What actually differentiates a fertilized ovum, metaphysically, from the prior existing separated gametes? Or perhaps more importantly, how can one reach this position objectively in any way.

I want to be very clear what I'm not saying: I'm not saying a fetus is not a human person, I'm addressing the issue of when/how/where of the metaphysics of human personhood; or perhaps more technically the question of human ensoulment.

I'm also not defending abortion, or at least certainly not in any broad sense. That isn't my reason for posting, and that isn't the point of my question-asking.

My question is properly: What makes fertilization the origin of human personhood? And how can we know this?

-CryptoLutheran

SPF said:

and yet you referred to it as a lump of stem cells!

Click to expand...

No, I called the oocyst/blastocyst/embryo a few stem cells. I know a zygote is only one cell.

ChristianForCats said:

No, I called the oocyst/blastocyst/embryo a few stem cells. I know a zygote is only one cell.

Click to expand...

It only starts as one cell...

ViaCrucis said:

My question is properly: What makes fertilization the origin of human personhood? And how can we know this?

Click to expand...

Easy, the distinction between a human being and a human person is subjective, arbitrary, and made up. There is no actual distinction.

SPF said:

Easy, the distinction between a human being and a human person is subjective, arbitrary, and made up. There is no actual distinction.

Click to expand...

I wasn't making a distinction between a human being and a human person, so I don't see how this addresses my question.

-CryptoLutheran