Protestant denominations & abortion

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

The evolution of the birth control pill from pure contraceptive to frequent abortifacient poses important questions to pro-life activists.

Many women (including pro-lifers) who would never even consider a surgical abortion now use low-dose birth control pills that cause them to abort on an average of once or twice every year. A large number of pro-life women use these pills, and these are usually the women who cannot seem to make the connection between contraception and abortion in their minds.

These women and their husbands are employing a self-defense mechanism known as denial, and this eventually causes their entire pro-life philosophy to unravel. Ironically, the average pro-abortion woman has at most two or three surgical abortions during her childbearing years, while the average ‘pro-life’ woman on the Pill for ten years aborts at least ten times.

Some researchers (using very conservative figures) have calculated that the birth control pill directly causes between 1.53 and 4.15 million chemical abortions per year between one and two and a half times the total number of surgical abortions committed in this country every year! The Catholic Church has recently expanded its definition of abortion to include new drugs and surgical procedures. This expansion has not been necessary until this time because such abortifacient drugs and procedures simply have not existed until recently, and their invention has created a new ‘grey area’ that needed to be clarified.

The Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, on November 24, 1988, stated that abortion is not only “the expulsion of the immature fetus,” but is also “the killing of the same fetus in any way and at any time from the moment of conception.”

This definition of abortion includes the use of any of the following;

• all birth control pills, because *every birth control pill manufactured *
today causes early abortions part of the time;
• mini-pills, morning-after pills, and true abortion pills such as RU-486;
• injectable or insertable abortifacients such as NORPLANT and
Depo-Provera; and
• the use of all intrauterine devices (IUDs), which are all abortifacients and
act by preventing the implantation of the already-fertilized zygote.

.
This is all fine but I’ve seen no evidence. None has been provided here. And the background for the book I referred to uses ingoramus language such as "there is evidence to that pills abort…then goes on to say, “there’s no evidence that it doesn’t”.

That’s the most idiotic, political, journalistic, con ndescending garbage I’ve seen. Sorry, it just chaps me butt that someone would write a book of “evidence” and then market it by giving such ridiculous language.

My wife gets upset because I correct people’s spelling and remarks in marketing campaigns and commercials. I just think if someone wants to be taken seriously for their “scholarly” efforts they should have the intelligence to back it up. I wouldn’t read this idiot’s pamphlet for the simple fact of his ignoranant statement of trying to prove the negative - “there’s no evidence to support that the pill doesn’t cause abortions”. Incredible!

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

The evolution of the birth control pill from pure contraceptive to frequent abortifacient poses important questions to pro-life activists.

Many women (including pro-lifers) who would never even consider a surgical abortion now use low-dose birth control pills that cause them to abort on an average of once or twice every year. A large number of pro-life women use these pills, and these are usually the women who cannot seem to make the connection between contraception and abortion in their minds.

These women and their husbands are employing a self-defense mechanism known as denial, and this eventually causes their entire pro-life philosophy to unravel. Ironically, the average pro-abortion woman has at most two or three surgical abortions during her childbearing years, while the average ‘pro-life’ woman on the Pill for ten years aborts at least ten times.

Some researchers (using very conservative figures) have calculated that the birth control pill directly causes between 1.53 and 4.15 million chemical abortions per year between one and two and a half times the total number of surgical abortions committed in this country every year! The Catholic Church has recently expanded its definition of abortion to include new drugs and surgical procedures. This expansion has not been necessary until this time because such abortifacient drugs and procedures simply have not existed until recently, and their invention has created a new ‘grey area’ that needed to be clarified.

The Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, on November 24, 1988, stated that abortion is not only “the expulsion of the immature fetus,” but is also “the killing of the same fetus in any way and at any time from the moment of conception.”

This definition of abortion includes the use of any of the following;

• all birth control pills, because *every birth control pill manufactured *
today causes early abortions part of the time;
• mini-pills, morning-after pills, and true abortion pills such as RU-486;
• injectable or insertable abortifacients such as NORPLANT and
Depo-Provera; and
• the use of all intrauterine devices (IUDs), which are all abortifacients and
act by preventing the implantation of the already-fertilized zygote.

.
This is all fine but I’ve seen no evidence. None has been provided here. And the background for the book I referred to uses ingoramus language such as "there is evidence that pills abort…then goes on to say, “there’s no evidence that it doesn’t”.

That’s the most idiotic, political, journalistic, condescending garbage I’ve seen. Sorry, it just chaps my butt that someone would write a book of “evidence” and then market it by giving such ridiculous language.

My wife gets upset because I correct people’s spelling and remarks in marketing campaigns and commercials. I just think if someone wants to be taken seriously for their “scholarly” efforts they should have the intelligence to back it up. I wouldn’t read this idiot’s pamphlet for the simple fact of his ignorant statement of trying to prove the negative - “there’s no evidence to support that the pill doesn’t cause abortions”. Incredible!

Peace…

 

[Lisa_N]

Katholikos:

John Paul II the Great!

Yes he is. I am so thankful that he will be with us a bit longer. What a frightening episode last week! Every day he is on the earth is a day where his wisdom can influence these very chaotic and troubled times.

Katholikos:

I’m so proud of Father Neuhaus. We’ve got some great converts in this Church! On what program was this interview? I’m dazzled by his brilliance. Have you read *First Things, *the mag he edits and publishes?!

Yes indeed I am a ROFT’r as they call them. I love this magazine and would recommend it to anyone who wants an indepth understanding of current issues and politics.

Katholikos:

hope you’re right about the tide, Lisa. But I am concerned that many “Christian” denominations remain committed to abortion and that even “pro-life Protestants” remain committed to abortifacient methods of contraception. They are, one has to say, not as pro-life as they think they are. That has to change if we’re ever to be victorious against abortion. We have to unite to oppose all, not some, abortions. Otherwise, we have little credibility with the abortion providers. They say, ‘why are you trying to put me out of business when you approve of X.’

Is it simply a matter of education? I don’t think so, since the abortion-causing devices and chemicals currently being used are well known. Why are these pro-life Protestants so myopic? How do we change their hearts and minds?

Maybe our pro-life Protestant sisters and brothers on this thread can answer these questions.

JMJ Jay

You are right the effect is well known. I remember in high school (30 years ago) that PP stated clearly the Pill works by suppressing ovulation AND by making the fertilized embryo unable to implant. But somehow it did not translate to me until recently. So yes education IS a necessary element of this process but I agree not the only element.

As to the myopic Protestent brothers and sisters, I think a lot of the problem is their acceptance of “feminism” as a cause. Somehow the idea that women are in control of “their” body is a cause celebre. Because they have made so much of “equalizing” women (priests, ministers, in church hierarchy) it seems to them oppressive to say well you cannot terminate a pregnancy. That’s my interpretation anyway. Because when you mention that everything in the Bible points to a protection of unborn life, they focus on the woman’s power over her destiny and forget about the unborn child.

Lisa N

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

.
This is all fine but I’ve seen no evidence. None has been provided here. And the background for the book I referred to uses ingoramus language such as "there is evidence that pills abort…then goes on to say, “there’s no evidence that it doesn’t”.

That’s the most idiotic, political, journalistic, condescending garbage I’ve seen. Sorry, it just chaps my butt that someone would write a book of “evidence” and then market it by giving such ridiculous language.

My wife gets upset because I correct people’s spelling and remarks in marketing campaigns and commercials. I just think if someone wants to be taken seriously for their “scholarly” efforts they should have the intelligence to back it up. I wouldn’t read this idiot’s pamphlet for the simple fact of his ignorant statement of trying to prove the negative - “there’s no evidence to support that the pill doesn’t cause abortions”. Incredible!

It sounds like you support contraception. That’s unfortunate. Be careful when you throw words around like “ignoramus” and “idiotic”. I’m sure there is very good objective reports on the abortificient qualities of BCP that others on this forum can provide. This is just a small bit that I found.

Progestin-only contraceptives are known to alter the cervical mucus, exert a progestinal effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation, and, in some patients, suppress ovulation.

When the female reproductive system is functioning naturally, the hypothalamus (the part of the brain containing the vital autonomic regulatory centers) controls the release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which signals the pituitary gland to secrete luteinizing hormone (LH), which in turn assists ovulation and coordinates the release of estrogen and progestin from the ovaries.

When a woman ingests birth control pills, they literally take over her reproductive system by brute force. The pills cause the ovaries to maintain a steady high level of estrogen and/or progestin production, depending upon the brand of pill being used. The hypothalamus adjusts to this high level of hormone secretion and essentially shuts off GnRH production. Therefore, the production of luteinizing hormone by the pituitary gland is also inhibited, and ovulation ceases or is drastically curtailed.

The original class of birth control pills contained a high dosage of both estrogen and progestin, which led to a variety of side effects, including blurred vision, nausea, cramping, irregular menstrual bleeding, headaches, and possibly breast cancer.

Beginning in about 1975, the manufacturers of the Pill, in reaction to adverse publicity generated about the severe side effects caused by the high-dosage pills, steadily decreased the content of estrogen and progestin in their products.

The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation now boast that the average dosage of estrogen in the Pill has declined from 150 micrograms in 1960 to 35 micrograms in 1988.

Users of the “old” high-dosage birth control pills experienced relatively severe side effects. However, many of these pills were generally considered non-abortifacient in their two-fold (“biphasic”) modes of action. The pills would thicken cervical mucus and inhibit ovulation, but they would generally not inhibit implantation of the blastocyst (the five-day old, 256-cell developing human being) in the uterine lining.

However, the new low-dosage pills are “triphasic.” They have three modes of action; they thicken cervical mucus, inhibit ovulation, and block implantation. Therefore, the “new” Pills are all abortifacient in nature.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in its 1984 pamphlet entitled “Facts About Oral Contraceptives,” said that " 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. These actions explain why the minipill works, as it generally does not suppress ovulation."

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

It sounds like you support contraception. That’s unfortunate. Be careful when you throw words around like “ignoramus” and “idiotic”. I’m sure there is very good objective reports on the abortificient qualities of BCP that others on this forum can provide. This is just a small bit that I found.

Progestin-only contraceptives are known to alter the cervical mucus, exert a progestinal effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation, and, in some patients, suppress ovulation.

When the female reproductive system is functioning naturally, the hypothalamus (the part of the brain containing the vital autonomic regulatory centers) controls the release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which signals the pituitary gland to secrete luteinizing hormone (LH), which in turn assists ovulation and coordinates the release of estrogen and progestin from the ovaries.

When a woman ingests birth control pills, they literally take over her reproductive system by brute force. The pills cause the ovaries to maintain a steady high level of estrogen and/or progestin production, depending upon the brand of pill being used. The hypothalamus adjusts to this high level of hormone secretion and essentially shuts off GnRH production. Therefore, the production of luteinizing hormone by the pituitary gland is also inhibited, and ovulation ceases or is drastically curtailed.

The original class of birth control pills contained a high dosage of both estrogen and progestin, which led to a variety of side effects, including blurred vision, nausea, cramping, irregular menstrual bleeding, headaches, and possibly breast cancer.

Beginning in about 1975, the manufacturers of the Pill, in reaction to adverse publicity generated about the severe side effects caused by the high-dosage pills, steadily decreased the content of estrogen and progestin in their products.

The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation now boast that the average dosage of estrogen in the Pill has declined from 150 micrograms in 1960 to 35 micrograms in 1988.

Users of the “old” high-dosage birth control pills experienced relatively severe side effects. However, many of these pills were generally considered non-abortifacient in their two-fold (“biphasic”) modes of action. The pills would thicken cervical mucus and inhibit ovulation, but they would generally not inhibit implantation of the blastocyst (the five-day old, 256-cell developing human being) in the uterine lining.

However, the new low-dosage pills are “triphasic.” They have three modes of action; they thicken cervical mucus, inhibit ovulation, and block implantation. Therefore, the “new” Pills are all abortifacient in nature.

The statement I cited is indeed idiotic of a person that supposedly has written an extensive pamphlet on the subject. Again, I will quote from this gentlemen, “***there is very strong evidence that contraceptive pills cause abortions and there is NO evidence that they do not.” ***He supposedly has evidence, but ignorantly asserts there’s not any evidence that they do not either. That implies to me that he has a weak argument to begin with and is trying to assert the negative to strengthen his weak evidence.

I oppose the willful destruction of the fetus/baby by the mother or anyone else. I make no judgement about other people’s reproductive plans however. If John and Jane don’t want any more children, that is their perogative. No one has the right or authority to tell them otherwise. So, yes I support contraceptive means for the aforementioned reasons.

First, every “pill” on the market has side effects. Every OTC pill has side effects. Have you listened to any drug commercials lately? “May cause diarrhea, severe cramping, bleeding, etc. etc”. It’s horrible.

How does thickening cervical mucus, inhibiting ovulation and blocking implantation cause abortions? I read every word of your post and don’t see any connection. Obviously ovulation is a normal process of the reproductive system. So, how does “blocking” this process cause abortions?

Peace…

 

[Lisa_N]

ahimsaman72:

“***there is very strong evidence that contraceptive pills cause abortions and there is NO evidence that they do not.” ***He supposedly has evidence, but ignorantly asserts there’s not any evidence that they do not either. That implies to me that he has a weak argument to begin with and is trying to assert the negative to strengthen his weak evidence.

I oppose the willful destruction of the fetus/baby by the mother or anyone else. I make no judgement about other people’s reproductive plans however. If John and Jane don’t want any more children, that is their perogative. No one has the right or authority to tell them otherwise. So, yes I support contraceptive means for the aforementioned reasons.

How does thickening cervical mucus, inhibiting ovulation and blocking implantation cause abortions? I read every word of your post and don’t see any connection. Obviously ovulation is a normal process of the reproductive system. So, how does “blocking” this process cause abortions?

Peace…

Say, I think you are confusing two processes. Blocking ovulation is contraception and I don’t think anyone is calling this process abortion. OTOH if an egg is fertilized and the byproduct of the birth control method makes the uterus a hostile environment so that the embryo cannot implant it is expelled. So this is in effect a chemical abortion. The problem with some methods is that you do not KNOW exactly how they work–by blocking ovulation or by not allowing the embryo to implant. Many do both and some may produce blocking one month and the next month ovulation isn’t blocked so it works by making the pregnancy unsustainable.

Lisa N

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

The statement I cited is indeed idiotic of a person that supposedly has written an extensive pamphlet on the subject. Again, I will quote from this gentlemen, “***there is very strong evidence that contraceptive pills cause abortions and there is NO evidence that they do not.” ***He supposedly has evidence, but ignorantly asserts there’s not any evidence that they do not either. That implies to me that he has a weak argument to begin with and is trying to assert the negative to strengthen his weak evidence.

I oppose the willful destruction of the fetus/baby by the mother or anyone else. I make no judgement about other people’s reproductive plans however. If John and Jane don’t want any more children, that is their perogative. No one has the right or authority to tell them otherwise. So, yes I support contraceptive means for the aforementioned reasons.

First, every “pill” on the market has side effects. Every OTC pill has side effects. Have you listened to any drug commercials lately? “May cause diarrhea, severe cramping, bleeding, etc. etc”. It’s horrible.

How does thickening cervical mucus, inhibiting ovulation and blocking implantation cause abortions? I read every word of your post and don’t see any connection. Obviously ovulation is a normal process of the reproductive system. So, how does “blocking” this process cause abortions?

Peace…

1. Did you read the whole pamphlet. I would refrain from hurling insults until you do.
2. The egg is fertilized, conception has ocurred, but implantation is prevented. Hence the new life dies. Hence abortion.
3. We are co-creators with God. Contraception indicates that we do not trust God, so we block our participation in the process of life. We are to trust Him. God will only give you what you can handle.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Lisa N:

Say, I think you are confusing two processes. Blocking ovulation is contraception and I don’t think anyone is calling this process abortion. OTOH if an egg is fertilized and the byproduct of the birth control method makes the uterus a hostile environment so that the embryo cannot implant it is expelled. So this is in effect a chemical abortion. The problem with some methods is that you do not KNOW exactly how they work–by blocking ovulation or by not allowing the embryo to implant. Many do both and some may produce blocking one month and the next month ovulation isn’t blocked so it works by making the pregnancy unsustainable.

Lisa N

OOHHHHHHhhhhhhhh!!!

Okay, I get it.

Thanks…

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

1. Did you read the whole pamphlet. I would refrain from hurling insults until you do.

1. The egg is fertilized, conception has ocurred, but implantation is prevented. Hence the new life dies. Hence abortion.
2. We are co-creators with God. Contraception indicates that we do not trust God, so we block our participation in the process of life. We are to trust Him. God will only give you what you can handle.

1. No, I didn’t read any of it. It looked like you had to buy it. I’m telling you it’s a dumb statement. I’m not saying he is a dumb guy, just probably a smart guy who made a dumb statement.
2. If the egg is fertilized and if conception has occurred - right?
3. We are potential co-creators. Monks aren’t condemned because they don’t procreate. Why are married people automatically to procreate? Can’t they enjoy their lives together without a mandate to procreate?

No, you assume people’s reasons for not procreating. It’s not because everybody is afraid of the financial fears people have. I’ve had three kids myself. I’m done. She’s done. I’m happy with what I have. There’s no financial worries. It’s a matter of a choice to not continue to have more.

If a couple has decided that they have had enough people come into their lives and want to nurture and love and support what they have and get on with their lives, then they have every right to do so. The Genesis proclamation to be fruitful and multiply does not apply to all people at all times, just like the Mosaic law of 613 commandments doesn’t apply to you or me.

I see this argument furthered by the Catholic Church and it is a weak argument. If we still did everything God commanded in the OT, you wouldn’t be Catholic, you’d be either a pagan or a Jew.

Peace…

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

1. We are potential co-creators. Monks aren’t condemned because they don’t procreate. Why are married people automatically to procreate? Can’t they enjoy their lives together without a mandate to procreate?

No, you assume people’s reasons for not procreating. It’s not because everybody is afraid of the financial fears people have. I’ve had three kids myself. I’m done. She’s done. I’m happy with what I have. There’s no financial worries. It’s a matter of a choice to not continue to have more.

If a couple has decided that they have had enough people come into their lives and want to nurture and love and support what they have and get on with their lives, then they have every right to do so. The Genesis proclamation to be fruitful and multiply does not apply to all people at all times, just like the Mosaic law of 613 commandments doesn’t apply to you or me.

I see this argument furthered by the Catholic Church and it is a weak argument. If we still did everything God commanded in the OT, you wouldn’t be Catholic, you’d be either a pagan or a Jew.

Peace…

Marriage is a vocation. Monks have their own vocation. (I won’t go into that here). You are telling God that you know what’s right! You say that you will not have anymore children for whatever justification. You do not trust in the will of God.

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72 says:

No, you assume people’s reasons for not procreating. It’s not because everybody is afraid of the financial fears people have. I’ve had three kids myself. I’m done. She’s done. I’m happy with what I have. There’s no financial worries. It’s a matter of a choice to not continue to have more.

I assume nothing! You put those words in my mouth.

If a couple has decided that they have had enough people come into their lives and want to nurture and love and support what they have and get on with their lives, then they have every right to do so.

That’s called relativism.

I see this argument furthered by the Catholic Church and it is a weak argument.

Your opinion.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

Marriage is a vocation. Monks have their own vocation. (I won’t go into that here). You are telling God that you know what’s right! You say that you will not have anymore children for whatever justification. You do not trust in the will of God.

Yes, I understand the vocation deal. I’m not telling God I know what’s right. I’m not telling Him anything. I’m living my life and my decision to stop procreating is inevitably left up to me. I don’t understand the inference to trusting the will of God.

So, if I want a straight answer from God as to whether or not to keep having children - what do you want me to do? Call a meeting and ask Him to come and speak through the intercom??? That may sound harsh, but your judgement of God’s will is not applicable to my life.

Let God lead you and let Him lead me. Perhaps they are two different directions, but neither I nor you can tell the other differently. We must each follow our own path.

God has given you and me free reign over our minds and bodies. He expects us to use them honorably and intelligently. He has given us free-will. If we don’t have free-will to choose things in our lives then God is a puppetmaster of your imagination.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

ahimsaman72 says:

No, you assume people’s reasons for not procreating. It’s not because everybody is afraid of the financial fears people have. I’ve had three kids myself. I’m done. She’s done. I’m happy with what I have. There’s no financial worries. It’s a matter of a choice to not continue to have more.

I assume nothing! You put those words in my mouth.

If a couple has decided that they have had enough people come into their lives and want to nurture and love and support what they have and get on with their lives, then they have every right to do so.

That’s called relativism.

I see this argument furthered by the Catholic Church and it is a weak argument.

Your opinion.

You spoke of a lack of trust - that’s not putting words in your mouth. I was responding to that.

You call it relativism - I call it living according to the dictates of one’s God given conscience and intelligence.

And you have your opinions.

Peace…

 

[Mickey]

You spoke of a lack of trust - that’s not putting words in your mouth. I was responding to that.

I said nothing about monetary difficulties. I spoke of trust in God.

You call it relativism - I call it living according to the dictates of one’s God given conscience and intelligence.

Relativism- All truth is relative to the individual. Call it what you will.

And you have your opinions.

My opinions regarding theology and doctrine are synonamous with magesterium of the Catholic Church.

You’re not alone, Ahim. Many people are in denial when it comes to contraception. Most do not want to face the feelings of guilt that would result from the Catholic view of contraception, so they justify it with all ferver. My best friend has been a baptist for 38 years, and has just recently acknowledged the evils of contraception. He feels as if he has been liberated from a big lie. May your journey bear good fruit, Ahim. God Bless you!

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

So, if I want a straight answer from God as to whether or not to keep having children - what do you want me to do? Call a meeting and ask Him to come and speak through the intercom??? That may sound harsh, but your judgement of God’s will is not applicable to my life.
Peace…

Pray, Ahim, Pray! Humbly ask God to speak to your heart. God will answer.

 

[Cindy]

ahimsaman72:

The statement I cited is indeed idiotic of a person that supposedly has written an extensive pamphlet on the subject. Again, I will quote from this gentlemen, “***there is very strong evidence that contraceptive pills cause abortions and there is NO evidence that they do not.” ***He supposedly has evidence, but ignorantly asserts there’s not any evidence that they do not either. That implies to me that he has a weak argument to begin with and is trying to assert the negative to strengthen his weak evidence.

Hi Ahimsaman,

I’m just wondering, did you read the whole description of this book (see below)? And by the way, that description wasn’t even written by the author. “Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?” is an excellent book and extremely well documented. I would be happy to send you a copy if you like.

God bless,

Cindy

From a Bible-oriented Christian background and wide ranging knowledge of the subject, the author examines this topic with logic and honesty. He concludes that there is very strong evidence that contraceptive pills cause abortions and there is NO evidence that they do not. Concluding that it can never be ethical for a Christian to use this sort of contraceptive, he goes on to discuss a number of excuses used by doctors and couples who wish to continue prescribing or using the Pill. Especially powerful are his appendices of Biblical and scientific reasons for avoiding this sort of abortion.
*“From medical textbooks and pharmacy references to statements from the Pill-manufacturers themselves, this book proves the abortion causing action of birth control pills. This book should be read by everyone interested in knowing the truth.” Paul L Hayes, MD Board Certified Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. *

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

You spoke of a lack of trust - that’s not putting words in your mouth. I was responding to that.

I said nothing about monetary difficulties. I spoke of trust in God.

You call it relativism - I call it living according to the dictates of one’s God given conscience and intelligence.

Relativism- All truth is relative to the individual. Call it what you will.

And you have your opinions.

My opinions regarding theology and doctrine are synonamous with magesterium of the Catholic Church.

You’re not alone, Ahim. Many people are in denial when it comes to contraception. Most do not want to face the feelings of guilt that would result from the Catholic view of contraception, so they justify it with all ferver. My best friend has been a baptist for 38 years, and has just recently acknowledged the evils of contraception. He feels as if he has been liberated from a big lie. May your journey bear good fruit, Ahim. God Bless you!

And may God continue to bless you my friend…

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Cindy:

Hi Ahimsaman,

I’m just wondering, did you read the whole description of this book (see below)? And by the way, that description wasn’t even written by the author. “Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?” is an excellent book and extremely well documented. I would be happy to send you a copy if you like.

God bless,

Cindy

From a Bible-oriented Christian background and wide ranging knowledge of the subject, the author examines this topic with logic and honesty. He concludes that there is very strong evidence that contraceptive pills cause abortions and there is NO evidence that they do not. Concluding that it can never be ethical for a Christian to use this sort of contraceptive, he goes on to discuss a number of excuses used by doctors and couples who wish to continue prescribing or using the Pill. Especially powerful are his appendices of Biblical and scientific reasons for avoiding this sort of abortion.
"From medical textbooks and pharmacy references to statements from the Pill-manufacturers themselves, this book proves the abortion causing action of birth control pills. This book should be read by everyone interested in knowing the truth." Paul L Hayes, MD Board Certified Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Hi Cindy!

No. After I read the above quote I was flabbergasted. Now, the bottom makes sense! Thank you for your kind suggestion to send a copy. I won’t take you up on it now - thanks anyway .
And, by the way, I’d fire the person who wrote the intro to the book.

Peace…

 

[RobbyS]

Tlaloc:

methinks the good doctor may be padding the number a tidge. Consider that if he did four abortions a day (a ludicrously high number) it’d have taken 51 years to reach 75,000. In studies I’ve read some clinics have done up to 50 a day, but that’s with a staff of 100 people.

He was a founder of NARAL and operated a clinic, so he can rightly claim to be personally responsible for the deaths of many, many babies.

 

[Katholikos]

Lisa N:

You are right the effect is well known. I remember in high school (30 years ago) that PP stated clearly the Pill works by suppressing ovulation AND by making the fertilized embryo unable to implant. But somehow it did not translate to me until recently. So yes education IS a necessary element of this process but I agree not the only element.

As to the myopic Protestent brothers and sisters, I think a lot of the problem is their acceptance of “feminism” as a cause. Somehow the idea that women are in control of “their” body is a cause celebre. Because they have made so much of “equalizing” women (priests, ministers, in church hierarchy) it seems to them oppressive to say well you cannot terminate a pregnancy. That’s my interpretation anyway. Because when you mention that everything in the Bible points to a protection of unborn life, they focus on the woman’s power over her destiny and forget about the unborn child. Lisa N

TV ads in Phoenix now promote the ultimate “cure” for a natural condition known as fertility – I think it’s called “abradment” or something similar. A smiling doctor in a white jacket tells women that if they’ve had all the kids THEY want (never mind what God may want), they can “stop the flow” and “control their own bodies” – permanently. It only takes a few minutes, the doctor says, and “you can be free” of the burden of being a woman. This is “Feminism” carried to its ultimate conclusion.

Fertility is the only area where “getting fixed” means to destroy the unbroken mechanism God designed for us to be co-creators with Him and “be fruitful and multiply.” In society today, If one us deliberately maims his or her hand, he/she is referred to a psychiatrist. But is we maim our bodies in order to destroy our fertility, we are congratulated and applauded.

May God have mercy on us.

JMJ Jay