E
Eden
Guest
For those who belong to “bible only” Christianity, why do your faiths allow for the use of birth control pills which are known abortifacients when the bible says, “Thou shalt not kill”?
- Status
T
Texan_in_DC
Guest
actually modern day birth control pills puts hormones into the womans body, making her walls “wet” you could say and so when the sperm hits the wall it slides down. No life has actually begun.
The morning after pill is a higher dosage of the same drug.
And the abortion pill is the one that kills the life inside the woman, I would think that very few christian churches would agree to the last.
Many Catholics and most protestant do not see any danger or murder in taking birth control, in some cases a woman has to take birth control for medical reasons to help level out her hormones in her body.
Today I am a Catholic and I fully support the Churches teachings on contraception, and the Church has never called using birth control or condom use murder.
The morning after pill is a higher dosage of the same drug.
And the abortion pill is the one that kills the life inside the woman, I would think that very few christian churches would agree to the last.
Many Catholics and most protestant do not see any danger or murder in taking birth control, in some cases a woman has to take birth control for medical reasons to help level out her hormones in her body.
Today I am a Catholic and I fully support the Churches teachings on contraception, and the Church has never called using birth control or condom use murder.
1
1ke
Guest
Texan in DC:
This is completely untrue.
E
Eden
Guest
Birth control pills are abortifacient. In other words, the primary role is to prevent ovulation but the back up method of this contraceptive is to create a hostile environment in the womb in which a life, if accidently conceived, is not capable of being sustained. So, the pill works to abort a conceived life if the primary function of blocking ovulation fails. So, clearly the pill is capable of killing and so it’s use is not consistent with Christian teaching.
B
Batjacboy
Guest
Texan in DC:
“And the abortion pill is the one that kills the life inside the woman.”
It’s not just the “abortion pill.” The birth-control pill does too, for exactly the reasons Eden mentioned.
“Many Catholics and most protestant do not see any danger or murder in taking birth control.”
Well, they should, in those cases where an abortion does, in fact, occur.
“the Church has never called using birth control or condom use murder.”
But the Church does say they’re still mortal sins, not only because the pill causes abortions, but because the pill and condoms are clear-cut, outright violations of natural law.
This is absolutely false, as the previous two posters have stated. Trust me, I went to medical school, and this is NOT what we learned there.
“And the abortion pill is the one that kills the life inside the woman.”
It’s not just the “abortion pill.” The birth-control pill does too, for exactly the reasons Eden mentioned.
“Many Catholics and most protestant do not see any danger or murder in taking birth control.”
Well, they should, in those cases where an abortion does, in fact, occur.
“the Church has never called using birth control or condom use murder.”
But the Church does say they’re still mortal sins, not only because the pill causes abortions, but because the pill and condoms are clear-cut, outright violations of natural law.
A
alsligh
Guest
If I may interject here…as a Protestant who took (read: past-tense) BCP’s for years, I’d be willing to bet that most of “us” don’t really understand how birth control pills work. I suspect that most people who think it’s alright to take them do so because they think the pill prevents conception only. Period.
I took them for years beginning in high school on the recommendation of my gyn (not for birth control initially) and with the blessing of my mother, a staunch Southern Baptist who had taken them herself. My mom isn’t what I would call a militant fundamentalist, in that she is very loving and not anti-Catholic at all, but she is very devout and doesn’t even drink an occasional glass of wine because she believes it’s a sin. I stopped taking them after having a lengthy conversation with my sister in which we decided among the two of us that they are bad. My husband was thrilled beyond belief because he had wanted me to stop taking them years ago. My sister and I both are using natural methods now. It wasn’t until after I stopped taking them and started doing some reading that I realized what a huge mistake it really was. I mentioned my new views to my mom recently (and the fact that I am not taking them), and her reaction was to be fearful about my not using any contraception (I am married and healthy, but have a poor track record with pregnancy). I suspect that most Protestants are just ignorant of the facts.
Just my two cents. Take it or leave it.
Andi
I took them for years beginning in high school on the recommendation of my gyn (not for birth control initially) and with the blessing of my mother, a staunch Southern Baptist who had taken them herself. My mom isn’t what I would call a militant fundamentalist, in that she is very loving and not anti-Catholic at all, but she is very devout and doesn’t even drink an occasional glass of wine because she believes it’s a sin. I stopped taking them after having a lengthy conversation with my sister in which we decided among the two of us that they are bad. My husband was thrilled beyond belief because he had wanted me to stop taking them years ago. My sister and I both are using natural methods now. It wasn’t until after I stopped taking them and started doing some reading that I realized what a huge mistake it really was. I mentioned my new views to my mom recently (and the fact that I am not taking them), and her reaction was to be fearful about my not using any contraception (I am married and healthy, but have a poor track record with pregnancy). I suspect that most Protestants are just ignorant of the facts.
Just my two cents. Take it or leave it.
Andi
E
Eden
Guest
I agree that most Protestants who use birth control pills are probably not aware of the abortifacient nature of this kind of contraception.
But the Catholic Church teaches that using all artificial contraception is morally wrong, so even if individual Catholics are not aware of the nature of birth control pills they are still being “guided into all truth”.
From the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
The signatories were distressed by the statement that “millions and millions” of preborn sisters and brothers have been and will be lost to these hormonal agents which obviously can be abortifacient. Let’s look at the math. Women on BCP’s have 28 day cycles and thus have 13 cycles/year (365/28 = 13.3). According to FACTS IN BRIEF from the Alan Guttmacher Institute faxed 3/13/98, indicates that 10,410,000 U.S. women are current pill users, 26.9% of all methods. This is second only to sterilization used by 27.7% of contraceptors. This would appear to be another sign of their anti-life nature. Dr. Don Gambrell has informed us that there is a 14% breakthrough ovulation rate in females taking the 50 microgram pills (10,410,000 x .14 = 1,457,400 ovulations each cycle). 1,457,400 x 13 cycles/year = 18,946,200 possible exposures to pregnancy each year. The accepted rate for “pill pregnancies” is 3-5 per 100 women years. Noting the fact that there is 60+% rate of spontaneous tubal abortions with an unfavorable implantation site in ectopic pregnancies, it is reasonable for us to calculate a rate of conceptions lost to early physician (BCP) induced abortion of intrauterine pregnancies in pill users as twice that of term “pill pregnancies”, given once again, an endometrium that is “less vascular, less glandular, thinner” than normal. Thus the possible abortion rate induced by BCP’s is 18,946,200 x .06 = 1,136,772 or 18,946,200 x .1 = 1,894,620 per year. We are convinced that the reasoning with regard to the math on this issue is sound.
www.aaplog.org/collition.htm
T
Texan_in_DC
Guest
This is one example how I am partially right
The minipills, which contain no estrogen, inhibit the egg’s ability to travel through the fallopian tubes, alter the cervical mucus to block sperm, partially suppress the sperm’s ability to unite with an egg, and partially inhibit implantation in the uterine wall. For maximum effectiveness, you need to take the pills as prescribed.
B
Batjacboy
Guest
First, that’s a lot of partially’s when the final result is or could be abortion.
Second, there’s no such thing as “partially inhibits” implantation: either implantation of the embryo is inhibited (which causes an abortion) or implantation is not inhibited (which results in pregnancy).
The true science is clear: the pill works either by inhibiting ovulation (contraception), or by inhibiting implantation (abortion).
Both are condemned, and rightly so.
J
joshua_b
Guest
I think that arguing the mechanics of “how” the birth control pill works misses some of the theology of the teaching. Deeper than the fact that the pill can be in some circumstances an abortifacient, we have to look at the theology of human sexuality. The Jews, as far back as Old Testament times, revered sexuality as the “Holy of Holies”…it was (and still is) a gift from God, designed so that we as humans could share in His procreative power. Human procreative sexuality is as close as we can possibly come to the Holiness of God while still on this earth.This is why a woman was declared “unclean” after having given birth; because it was considered sinful to come into contact with anything so Holy as the procreative power of God. That is why women had to give sin offerings after delivering a child…THEY HAD COME INTO DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE HOLY POWER OF GOD ALMIGHTY!!! That is how Holy human sexuality is for the Jews, and for Catholics as well (at least officially, and imho should be for the rest of us laity as well). With that foundation being laid, and if you accept that theology, then one need only to look at the fact that artificial birth control pills are the ONLY “medicine” designed to completely shut down the system that they “treat” (the reproductive system). What could possibly be more evil than completely shutting down the Holiest physical gift that God has given us as human beings ?
J
joshua_b
Guest
With all of that theology out of the way, doesn’t it strike anyone as odd that the Catholic Church declared artificial contraception intrinsically evil BEFORE we had the scientific evidence of its mechanical functionality ? I find it more than mere coincidence that in the 60’s, the Pope warned about the devastating effects artificial contraception would have on society (breakdown of the family, rising divorce rates, increased abortion rates, etc.) and fourty years later, that is exactly what has happened. I guess my point is that the position of the Catholic Church on artificial contraception has remained unchanged for 2000 years, and maybe only until the last 4 decades of history are we able to see “why”.
B
Batjacboy
Guest
Joshua,
Well said!
This is why contraception is condemned: it’s a violation of Natural Law, which forms the basis of all of Catholic sexual ethics (e.g. Humanae Vitae, Donum Vitae, etc.).
E
Eden
Guest
Yes.
I thought the entire theology against contraception might be overwhelming as most people in our culture are conditioned to accept contraception as normal, so I tried to target something I would expect all Christians to agree on - using a pill that is abortifacient is not consistent with scripture. But the entire “theology of life” (can I call it that?) in the Church is beautiful and clearly of God and I hope any Protestants who are rethinking this whole idea of contraception will study further into it.
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
I’m not saying I disagree with the Catholic position on contraception, but I am puzzled by the constant appeal to “Natural Law.” What is this “Natural Law,” and how do we know we are supposed to live according to it? Thanks! 
B
Batjacboy
Guest
Good question.
This is crucial, so here goes:
St. Thomas Aquinas, referring to Natural Law, taught that
“[t]he human will has a natural inclination to desire what is good. The first precept of the natural law, therefore, is that good is to be done and sought after, and evil is to be avoided.”
He repeatedly emphasized that this ability is innate: “the natural law . . . can nowise be blotted out from men’s hearts.”
Thus, the Church teaches that man is capable of distinguishing the moral from the immoral without revelation.
Now, remember that in this context the term “natural” is used in an ontological sense (dealing with man’s nature), not in a strictly biological sense (dealing with man’s body), although there is a lot of overlap.
As was made clear in Donum Vitae, acting against man’s nature diminishes man’s dignity.
So, the Church teaches that since natural law emphasizes that man has a nature given by God, acting against that nature is intrinsically evil.
In applying natural law to issues of sexual ethics, it must be remembered that sexual intercourse is designed to proceed uninterrupted to a natural conclusion, and because coitus interruptus and contraceptives cause an artificial disruption of that natural process, they are condemned as immoral.
Those with the contraceptive mentality directly promote an artificial disruption of the natural sexual process, and their actions violate natural law.
Bottom line: man’s nature is designed to deposit his sperm into the vagina, let them go where they’re going to go, fertilize an egg (if one is there) and then let the egg implant. That is in accord with man’s nature (essence, being). Any artificial interruption or violation of that natural process violates man’s nature, a nature given by God, who made man in his image, and is therefore offensive to God.
This is why the Church condemns contraception, oral sex, anal sex, homosexual sex, etc.–because it is not in man’s nature to use the natural sexual process in this fashion.
That’s a very basic outline; the theology will go much deeper than that, but you get the idea.
This is crucial, so here goes:
St. Thomas Aquinas, referring to Natural Law, taught that
“[t]he human will has a natural inclination to desire what is good. The first precept of the natural law, therefore, is that good is to be done and sought after, and evil is to be avoided.”
He repeatedly emphasized that this ability is innate: “the natural law . . . can nowise be blotted out from men’s hearts.”
Thus, the Church teaches that man is capable of distinguishing the moral from the immoral without revelation.
Now, remember that in this context the term “natural” is used in an ontological sense (dealing with man’s nature), not in a strictly biological sense (dealing with man’s body), although there is a lot of overlap.
As was made clear in Donum Vitae, acting against man’s nature diminishes man’s dignity.
So, the Church teaches that since natural law emphasizes that man has a nature given by God, acting against that nature is intrinsically evil.
In applying natural law to issues of sexual ethics, it must be remembered that sexual intercourse is designed to proceed uninterrupted to a natural conclusion, and because coitus interruptus and contraceptives cause an artificial disruption of that natural process, they are condemned as immoral.
Those with the contraceptive mentality directly promote an artificial disruption of the natural sexual process, and their actions violate natural law.
Bottom line: man’s nature is designed to deposit his sperm into the vagina, let them go where they’re going to go, fertilize an egg (if one is there) and then let the egg implant. That is in accord with man’s nature (essence, being). Any artificial interruption or violation of that natural process violates man’s nature, a nature given by God, who made man in his image, and is therefore offensive to God.
This is why the Church condemns contraception, oral sex, anal sex, homosexual sex, etc.–because it is not in man’s nature to use the natural sexual process in this fashion.
That’s a very basic outline; the theology will go much deeper than that, but you get the idea.
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
That makes sense. Still, I struggle with the idea that something is immoral just because it violates the natural order of things. After all, there are many things we do that circumvent the natural order of things. We perform surgery on those who would ordinarily die, we protect the weaker members of our society, we convert oil into gasoline so we can drive cars, we wear clothing, etc…Perhaps these aren’t good examples, but I still fail to see how something is immoral just because it isn’t “natural.” Have moral prohibitions based on Natural Law been passed down as apostolic teachings, or are they the result of theological theories by men like St. Thomas Aquinas?
Once again, I’m not attacking the Catholic Church’s position on contraception. I’m just confused by the use of this “Natural Law” argument to justify it.
God bless!
Once again, I’m not attacking the Catholic Church’s position on contraception. I’m just confused by the use of this “Natural Law” argument to justify it.
God bless!
B
Batjacboy
Guest
T
Texan_in_DC
Guest
LOL
Ok if a woman uses a pill, this does not abort a fetus because a fetus has to be in place for it to be aborted.
A woman on the pill will alter her cervical mucus so that they sperm would have a harder time getting through to fertilize the egg.
“The same thing happens when a woman goes through her normal God Given cycle, during that time estrogen is higher and her cervial mucus is altered, therefore making is harder to concieve a child.”
Some women in her normal cycle cannot practice NFP because her cycle is too short and or irregular which means that it cannot be measured to know when to have or not to have sex.
Also some women need to take the pill to help her function the way it should.
My attack on this issue is simple you are stating that other christian faiths who practice contraception are aborting therefore = murderers and that is where you are 100% WRONG.
You are assuming that every person that takes the pill is doing so to prevent life, abort life and that is wrong, that is judgement on your part.
two examples
As a catholic you are working the register at a drug store and a man is buying condoms, you believe that bc of your faith that you cannot sell him the condoms bc within our faith we cannot use them, you decide not to sell it to him.
You have sinned, bc you have judged him, you do not know why he is buying the condoms, you do not know what he is going to do with them. You just decided that he is going to do what most ppl do.
2nd
A woman tries to buy the pill, you do not want to sell it to her again bc of our religious stance, you are assuming what she is doing with the pill. You have again sinned by judgement.
Perhaps she has an ovarian cyst or has had ovarian cyst and she needs to take the pill to help regulate her body to help eliminate her pain with a cyst.
Ok if a woman uses a pill, this does not abort a fetus because a fetus has to be in place for it to be aborted.
A woman on the pill will alter her cervical mucus so that they sperm would have a harder time getting through to fertilize the egg.
“The same thing happens when a woman goes through her normal God Given cycle, during that time estrogen is higher and her cervial mucus is altered, therefore making is harder to concieve a child.”
Some women in her normal cycle cannot practice NFP because her cycle is too short and or irregular which means that it cannot be measured to know when to have or not to have sex.
Also some women need to take the pill to help her function the way it should.
My attack on this issue is simple you are stating that other christian faiths who practice contraception are aborting therefore = murderers and that is where you are 100% WRONG.
You are assuming that every person that takes the pill is doing so to prevent life, abort life and that is wrong, that is judgement on your part.
two examples
As a catholic you are working the register at a drug store and a man is buying condoms, you believe that bc of your faith that you cannot sell him the condoms bc within our faith we cannot use them, you decide not to sell it to him.
You have sinned, bc you have judged him, you do not know why he is buying the condoms, you do not know what he is going to do with them. You just decided that he is going to do what most ppl do.
2nd
A woman tries to buy the pill, you do not want to sell it to her again bc of our religious stance, you are assuming what she is doing with the pill. You have again sinned by judgement.
Perhaps she has an ovarian cyst or has had ovarian cyst and she needs to take the pill to help regulate her body to help eliminate her pain with a cyst.
T
Texan_in_DC
Guest
“The Pro-Life Office of the Bishops Conference, by the way, holds that ‘A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatment to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.’
This quote was taken from the Catholic league of relgious and civil rights
This quote was taken from the Catholic league of relgious and civil rights
T
Texan_in_DC
Guest
Catholic doctrine holds that God created the marital act to be both unitive and procreative. Deliberately altering fertility or the marital act with the intention of preventing procreation is considered to be a grave sin. Thus, artificial birth control methods and orgasmic acts outside of full marital intercourse are forbidden. Not having sex at all (abstinence) can be considered moral. Having sex at an infertile time in a woman’s life (such as pregnancy or menopause) can also be moral since the infertile condition is considered to be created by God, rather than as an act by the couple intended to frustrate fertility.
Thus, it is considered morally acceptable to abstain during the fertile part of the woman’s menstrual cycle. Increasing the infertile period through particular breastfeeding practices — the Lactational Amenorrhea Method — is also considered a moral way to space a family’s children.
The benefits of spacing children are recognized by the Catholic Church, and use of Natural Family Planning for this reason is encouraged. Humanae Vitae cites “physical, economic, psychological and social conditions” as possibly compelling reasons to avoid pregnancy. Couples are warned, however, against using NFP for frivolous, selfish, or materialistic reasons. Many Catholic sources extol the benefits children bring to their parents, their siblings, and society in general, and couples are encouraged to have as many children as their circumstances make practical.
Thus, it is considered morally acceptable to abstain during the fertile part of the woman’s menstrual cycle. Increasing the infertile period through particular breastfeeding practices — the Lactational Amenorrhea Method — is also considered a moral way to space a family’s children.
The benefits of spacing children are recognized by the Catholic Church, and use of Natural Family Planning for this reason is encouraged. Humanae Vitae cites “physical, economic, psychological and social conditions” as possibly compelling reasons to avoid pregnancy. Couples are warned, however, against using NFP for frivolous, selfish, or materialistic reasons. Many Catholic sources extol the benefits children bring to their parents, their siblings, and society in general, and couples are encouraged to have as many children as their circumstances make practical.
- Status