Is using contraception morally equivalent to abortion?

[Strathos]

Please explain your answer.

I would say no, because even if you believe that an embryo is a full human being, most forms of contraception prevent it from even reaching that stage.

 

[AvgJoe]

Helpful article on the subject~~~> What does the Bible say about birth control / contraceptives? Should Christians use birth control?

 

[John Hyperspace]

Please explain your answer.

I would say no, because even if you believe that an embryo is a full human being, most forms of contraception prevent it from even reaching that stage.

I would say, no. For me, there has to be potential. A sperm has no potential in-and-of itself. An egg has no potential in-and-of itself. It's only when the two join that potential begins.

It seems that if we would say that contraception is morally equivalent to abortion, then we are saying that sperm and egg have potential in-and-of themselves; which would lead to conception as being the result of mass abortion since all those sperms and eggs that didn't make it are each morally equivalent to abortion. So then the very act of conception would require the act of mass abortion in order to achieve a single conception.

 

[morse86]

Absolutely. Stick to God's word instead of "world philosophers" and "biblical interpreters". We have clear cut scripture, it is not up for interpretation. It is God that forms us in the womb and it starts at conception.

Jeremiah 1:5 - Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Isaiah 44:24 - Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Job 31:15 - Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Please explain your answer.

I would say no, because even if you believe that an embryo is a full human being, most forms of contraception prevent it from even reaching that stage.

Sometimes it is. As in when an egg is fertilized by a sperm and it cannot implant due to the chemical environment caused by contraception. In this case conception has occurred. Not so absolutely rare with more modern low dose hormonal contraception that doesn't always prevent ovulation.

Other than that, it's not an exact equivalent just as assault and battery differs from murder.

Most Christians simply assume that contraception is no problem. But before 1930 every single Christian denomination was dead set against contraception. It was the Anglicans who allowed it only for exceptional circumstances in 1930. I'd like to know how we got so much more advanced in our theology to get to that point.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I've never really heard anyone say its abortion. And theres no biblical evidence to support it. The only verses that address it refer to "in the womb". So, unless you don't know how sex works, the sperm leaves the man and if fights its way into the egg. At which point a life is made (well more complex then that). Hence its in the womb. The egg by itself and the sperm by itself aren't life yet per say. Just two "ingredients" to form something.

Now some say wasting your "seed" (sperm) is life. Which makes little sense at least when it comes to "being like abortion". Because if were to say its a life, then when a man... "spills the seed" he would be killing millions upon millions. Even if a man is not uh "MB" (which is another hot button topic), just spilling the seed in the woman still means millions and millions of "lives" die off. God wouldn't make it that way then say its a sin and murder since obviously we don't control the amount of sperm that are released.

So condom, IUD....etc are not equal to abortion. With that said the only thing I think is abortion (aside from abortion itself) is anything that terminate the sperm in the egg afterwards. Such as the morning after pill.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So condom, IUD....etc are not equal to abortion. With that said the only thing I think is abortion (aside from abortion itself) is anything that terminate the sperm in the egg afterwards. Such as the morning after pill.

The actions of current hormonal contraceptives sometimes result in the death of a fertilized egg. The first action is to prevent ovulation. But the hormone level is not high enough to prevent all ovulation. So the secondary mode of action is to prevent ovulation after conception. So hormonal contraception can and does sometimes cause the death of a conceived human being.

 

[morse86]

I've never really heard anyone say its abortion. And theres no biblical evidence to support it. The only verses that address it refer to "in the womb". So, unless you don't know how sex works, the sperm leaves the man and if fights its way into the egg. At which point a life is made (well more complex then that). Hence its in the womb. The egg by itself and the sperm by itself aren't life yet per say. Just two "ingredients" to form something.

Now some say wasting your "seed" (sperm) is life. Which makes little sense at least when it comes to "being like abortion". Because if were to say its a life, then when a man... "spills the seed" he would be killing millions upon millions. Even if a man is not uh "MB" (which is another hot button topic), just spilling the seed in the woman still means millions and millions of "lives" die off. God wouldn't make it that way then say its a sin and murder since obviously we don't control the amount of sperm that are released.

So condom, IUD....etc are not equal to abortion. With that said the only thing I think is abortion (aside from abortion itself) is anything that terminate the sperm in the egg afterwards. Such as the morning after pill.

No, you are wrong. Why don't you let the bible speak for it's self through clear scripture??

Genesis 20:18 - For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife.

Genesis 29:31 - And when the LORD saw that Leah [was] hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel [was] barren.

Jeremiah 1:5:
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

1) God opens and closes wombs.
2) God knows all before they are even born.

 

[jayem]

So hormonal contraception can and does sometimes cause the death of a conceived human being.

That is a purely theoretical matter. Realistically, how would a woman know if her contraceptive is preventing ovulation, or inhibiting implantation? All she would know is that she is sexually active, and not getting pregnant.

 

[Cearbhall]

I would say that they're different, but it's impossible to lump together all abortions. There are some instances of abortion that I would consider to be more moral than the way that certain people use contraception.

 

[Paidiske]

That is a purely theoretical matter. Realistically, how would a woman know if her contraceptive is preventing ovulation, or inhibiting implantation? All she would know is that she is sexually active, and not getting pregnant.

Not necessarily true. If the contraception prevents any menstrual cycle, for example, you can be confident that you are not ovulating. Some women will also know in other ways; for example, I get very severe ovulation pain, so I know exactly when I have or have not ovulated.

For someone who believes that preventing the implantation of a fertilised ovum is wrong, they will need to choose a form of contraception which prevents fertilisation; but the claim is often made that various forms of contraception are (or could be) abortifacients when that is not true, or not true in all cases. Each woman is best placed to evaluate how a particular form of contraception functions in her own body.

FWIW, I have no moral problem with contraception (the prevention of fertilisation) as a general principle (each couple will need to discern the rightness of it in their own circumstances), and do not consider it anywhere near morally equivalent to abortion.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Please explain your answer.

Abortion cheapens human life. In the event of pregnancy, a couple has the options of keeping the baby or else giving it up for adoption.

Contraception cheapens the human body. It has the effect of turning a husband's wife or a wife's husband into a sex object, which implicitly rejects intrinsic human dignity.

Abortion and contraception are both grave sins.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

The actions of current hormonal contraceptives sometimes result in the death of a fertilized egg. The first action is to prevent ovulation. But the hormone level is not high enough to prevent all ovulation. So the secondary mode of action is to prevent ovulation after conception. So hormonal contraception can and does sometimes cause the death of a conceived human being.

Hmm. If this is true then I have my wife avoid it if she went down that route. Though she doesn't seem to be able to get pregnant so it may not matter.

No, you are wrong. Why don't you let the bible speak for it's self through clear scripture??

Genesis 20:18 - For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife.

Genesis 29:31 - And when the LORD saw that Leah [was] hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel [was] barren.

Jeremiah 1:5:
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Again those are talking about the womb. I assume, and I don't mean this in a offensive way, you know what and where the womb is right? When the "seed" is spilled its in the vaginal cavity and from there other things take place. So hences its not in the womb yet. Well that and if your using a condom nothing reaches anything inside anyways, so thus its not a life yet.

1) God opens and closes wombs.
2) God knows all before they are even born

Again the womb is mentioned. Nothing else before hand.

Abortion cheapens human life. In the event of pregnancy, a couple has the options of keeping the baby or else giving it up for adoption.

Well obviously I agree about all that. I always tell couples if you don't want a baby the give it up for adoption. Or just use protection in the first place. Granted accidents happen.

Contraception cheapens the human body. It has the effect of turning a husband's wife or a wife's husband into a sex object, which implicitly rejects intrinsic human dignity.

I'm kinda of confused by what you mean? I mean couples have sex because sex is bonding, fun and can produce a child (for those who want one). Me personally, I want a daughter but for now we use protection because the time is not right but we still want to enjoy sex. God never said sex was just for making babies. Because if that was the case He could have made us impregnate a wife in a easier way. Why would he make it enjoyable if it was for making baby purpose only?

Abortion and contraception are both grave sins.

I guess like anything else on this forum, it depends on your denomination. Some do believe contraception is a sin and bad. Others don't. Though I rarley see anyone say abortion is not a sin, which is good. At least most agree on that.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That is a purely theoretical matter. Realistically, how would a woman know if her contraceptive is preventing ovulation, or inhibiting implantation? All she would know is that she is sexually active, and not getting pregnant.

It is not 'purely theoretical'. It is part of the mode of action now that hormonal contraception uses less than the earlier massive amounts of hormones that did effectively shut down ovulation. But they had other serious side effects so the levels had to be reduced. So now the hormone dose is much lower. It stops most but not all ovulation. It prevents implantation by design as a secondary mode of action. That's real.

A woman would not know which action worked in her situation any given month. So, unless she understood the modes of action of the hormonal contraception she was using, and accepted the secondary mode, she would not be consciously aborting her child. It could be happening, but not deliberately on her part. So there isn't quite the moral guilt of choosing an abortion. Even there, they still lie to women about it only being a blob of tissue. In such situations any moral guilt is diminished, just as when boyfriend forces an abortion, as still happens.

Someone who looks at contraception from a scientific point of view would have to realize that hormonal contraception has changed over the years and that modern lower dose regimes, although safer for the women taking them, do result in a certain amount of discarding fertilized eggs after conception. Of course some people then have simply redefined conception to be implantation rather than fertilization to linguistically avoid the whole issue.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Not necessarily true. If the contraception prevents any menstrual cycle, for example, you can be confident that you are not ovulating. Some women will also know in other ways; for example, I get very severe ovulation pain, so I know exactly when I have or have not ovulated.

If someone knows when ovulation occurs, they can also know with reasonably good accuracy exactly when they are fertile. This is the basis for natural family planning.

For someone who believes that preventing the implantation of a fertilised ovum is wrong, they will need to choose a form of contraception which prevents fertilisation; but the claim is often made that various forms of contraception are (or could be) abortifacients when that is not true, or not true in all cases. Each woman is best placed to evaluate how a particular form of contraception functions in her own body.

Not every kind of contraception will prevent implantation, and the prevention of implantation that occurs with hormonal contraception is only a secondary mode of action. So it will not occur in every woman, or in any particular woman all the time. It will happen some time to some women. That mode of action will be listed on the product insert that comes with the prescription.

FWIW, I have no moral problem with contraception (the prevention of fertilisation) as a general principle (each couple will need to discern the rightness of it in their own circumstances), and do not consider it anywhere near morally equivalent to abortion.

The prevention of fertilization is not the same as abortion, even for (most) people who oppose contraception.

 

[Paidiske]

If someone knows when ovulation occurs, they can also know with reasonably good accuracy exactly when they are fertile. This is the basis for natural family planning.

Only if your cycle is extremely regular and predictable, as you have to know ahead of time when you will ovulate.

So it will not occur in every woman...

This was my point. Women on the mini-pill or with an Implanon or the like can still be anovulatory. So telling us that such contraception works by preventing implantation, as a blanket statement, is false. Different women respond differently and we would each need to make a judgement call about what is happening in our particular circumstances.

 

[Kiterius]

God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply. He didn't say that they were to do so only if it was convenient for them.

 

[dysert]

God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply. He didn't say that they were to do so only if it was convenient for them.

Yeah, but we're not Adam or Eve. They were told to multiply because God wanted more than just the two of them on earth. We've pretty much got that taken care of nowadays.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Only if your cycle is extremely regular and predictable, as you have to know ahead of time when you will ovulate.

Not quite, although a regular cycle does make it much easier. There are good physiological clues for when ovulation has occurred. For most women it will work if they try to be aware of what their bodies are doing. For some women it will be much less certain.

This was my point. Women on the mini-pill or with an Implanon or the like can still be anovulatory.

And the PRIMARY mode of action of hormonal contraception is to prevent ovulation. I never intended to imply otherwise.

So telling us that such contraception works by preventing implantation, as a blanket statement, is false.

I said that the prevention of implantation is a secondary mode of action. The primary mode is to prevent ovulation. Thus no fertilization and no fertilized egg to implant. But the primary mode is not foolproof. Some ovulations will occur anyhow, depending on the pill, depending on the woman. The secondary mode of action then will prevent ovulation of a fertilized egg.

Different women respond differently and we would each need to make a judgement call about what is happening in our particular circumstances.

Which is why reading product inserts is important and understanding the ramifications of how hormonal contraception works is important. Prevention of implantation of fertilized eggs with newer hormonal contraception formulations does happen. It is not the primary mode of action, but a sort of backup mode of action.

 

[Kiterius]

Yeah, but we're not Adam or Eve. They were told to multiply because God wanted more than just the two of them on earth. We've pretty much got that taken care of nowadays.

God never rescinded that command. His people are still to multiply. Find good partners and have good sex for the purpose of having lots of babies.