Single or double imputation, and the chemical murder of babies...

(Tim, w/thanks to James) First, this from our sermon text yesterday:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. (Matthew 23:23)

It's sometimes depressing, but other times very encouraging to see what believers in Jesus Christ are doing in their place of work or profession as they face the onslaught of demonic forces. Often, we compromise with this present evil age--incrementally, of course. Yet from the perspective of those who have lived longer than thirty-five years and have some familiarity with church history, the compromises are punch-you-in-the-nose obvious.

There are other brothers in Christ, though, who boldly confess their faith. All of us are strengthened by their pursuit of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Take, for instance, this Washington Post piece reporting on pharmacists starting new pharmacies that refuse to sell drugs that kill unborn babies.

Of course, the Post is incapable of accurately reporting the story because they are committed to using their paper to market their belief that unborn children are not fully "persons" under the United States Constitution. Thus their story is sold as a battle over "birth-control," "contraception," and "rape" with no mention of the chemical murder of babies and those babies' deaths.

Many, many, many, many, many, many believers in Jesus Christ, both couples and pharmacists, refuse to submit to the claims of love as they apply to these little ones. We cultivate ignorance of the destruction of unborn children that is a constant in the use of birth control pills. For many years, now, pharmaceutical firms, doctors, and pharmacists have known birth control pills kill unborn babies. Some have adapted their definition of life to allow their own use of those pills, or their fulfillment of prescriptions for these abortifacients.

Sadly, most of us have such seared consciences that we feel no need to provide a biblical base for our actions. We justify nothing.

Within evangelical or reformed churches, no one raises the subject. When it comes to chemical (as opposed to mechanical) baby-killing, mum's the word. It's completely legit, no questions asked. After all, how would the whole evangelical reformed money-making machine work if women started having babies every nine months?

"'Chemical baby-killing?' What are you, some sort of fanatic? My parents used the Pill back in the Sixties. Are you saying they killed some of my brothers and sisters? That's absurd! Why don't you go become a Catholic? You aren't secretly going to Mass, are you? Matter of fact, tell me your views on justification, would you? Are you all imputation or are you sympathetic to infusion? And speaking of imputation, single or double, dude? No sneaking away and hiding behind a rock. Which is it? En garde!"

Beyond the church, though, the treatment of this issue by the Post is itself instructive. Look how their headline demonstrates...

the sort of neutral and objective journalism they practice:

'Pro-Life' Drugstores Market Beliefs

We could ask for the Post's recommendation of a drugstore where beliefs aren't marketed?

Likely they'd punt, responding that pharmacies that offer every drug that's legal are the ones not marketing their beliefs. Next question.

This piece is a good specimen of the close-minded elitism that permeates our chattering class. Obviously they hate diversity, inclusivity, and pluralism.

So here we have a story about pharmacists who don't believe it's right to murder unborn children in the womb by the use of chemicals, they are starting pharmacies that don't profit off these lethal doses, and what's the response?

"We may find ourselves with whole regions of the country where virtually every pharmacy follows these limiting, discriminatory policies and women are unable to access legal, physician-prescribed medications," said R. Alta Charo, a University of Wisconsin lawyer and bioethicist. "We're talking about creating a separate universe of pharmacies that puts women at a disadvantage."

"These are uncharted waters, since the issue of so-called pro-life pharmacies are so new," said Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a private, nonprofit organization that researches reproductive issues.

Note the words: "whole regions," "virtually," "limiting," "discriminatory," "legal," "physician-prescribed," "creating a separate universe," "putting women at a disadvantage," and "so-called pro-life pharmacies."

Picture the Nazis' newspaper, Das Reich,  running a story on a concentration camp founded with the explicit goal of keeping its inmates alive. Of course the jounalist is in the hip pocket of Hitler's Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels (with a Ph.D. from Hedelberg University), who founded the paper.

So he runs quotes from Himmler associates (identified as "incarceration experts") sniffing about this "so-called pro-life concentration camp" that discriminates against those seeking new lampshades made of human flesh and refuses even to advertise the fact that they won't hire sadistic employees with a lust for blood. Doing a little investigation, the reporter breaks the news that, when the box cars dispense their cargo of new inmates at this "so-called pro-life concentration camp," there are no signs prominently displaying the fact that the camp's showers have been designed for their inmates' cleanliness, not their murder. Nor have they bothered to inform the new guards they've hired that their ovens are small and used to bake bread, only.

He goes on to make it clear, though, that things are not standing still. The authorities are pondering this new phenomena and may well take action, although at this point the new enterprise is skating under the eyes of the law. The reporter sums up the situation as it now stands:

The Third Reich does not have any laws or regulations that would prohibit a pro-life concentration camp and is not considering adopting any, according to the Berlin Board of Incarceration.

Back to the Washington Post:

"I'm very, very troubled by this," said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, a Washington advocacy group. "Contraception is essential for women's health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women's health."

The pharmacies are emerging at a time when a variety of health-care workers are refusing to perform medical procedures they find objectionable. Fertility doctors have refused to inseminate gay women. Ambulance drivers have refused to transport patients for abortions. Anesthesiologists have refused to assist in sterilizations.

Critics also worry that women might unsuspectingly seek contraceptives at such a store and be humiliated, or that women needing the morning-after pill, which is most effective when used quickly, may waste precious time.

"Rape victims could end up in a pharmacy not understanding this pharmacy will not meet their needs," Greenberger said. "We've seen an alarming development of pharmacists over the last several years refusing to fill prescriptions, and sometimes even taking the prescription from the woman and refusing to give it back to her so she can fill it in another pharmacy."

"If you are a health-care professional, you are bound by professional obligations," said Nancy Berlinger, deputy director of the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank in Garrison, N.Y. "You can't say you won't do part of that profession."

On the other hand, some better statements so we can leave this matter on a positive note:

"In general, I think product differentiation expressive of differing values is a very good thing for a free, pluralistic society," said Loren E. Lomasky, a bioethicist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "If we can have 20 different brands of toothpaste, why not a few different conceptions of how pharmacies ought to operate?"

And finally:

"We try to practice pharmacy in a way that we feel is best to help our community and promote healthy lifestyles," said Lloyd Duplantis, who owns Lloyd's Remedies in Gray, La., and is a deacon in his Catholic church. "After researching the science behind steroidal contraceptives, I decided they could hurt the woman and possibly hurt her unborn child. I decided to opt out."

Comments

[Amy]

You wouldn't happen to know where I could find a list of such pharmacies, would you? I would love to move my pharmacy business to such a location if one were to be found in my area...

[Kamilla]

http://www.pfli.org/

You can do a search on this site.

Kamilla

[Denver]

"Contraception is essential for women's health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women's health."

I must have missed that part in health class about fertilized eggs carrying Anthrax, napalm, and M-16s.

"If you are a health-care professional, you are bound by professional obligations," said Nancy Berlinger, deputy director of the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank in Garrison, N.Y. "You can't say you won't do part of that profession."

I don't know anything about the Hastings Center, but being in the medical profession, I can tell you we do this all the time. We must always seek to do what's best for the preservation of life, not just whatever the patient feels like. In fact, prescribing abortifacients should cost a doctor his license, considering he would be doing the exact OPPOSITE of what his profession calls him to do.

[Jack's Pipe]

There's usually an iron fist behind the velvet glove of the tolerant. They want laws to ban the right of businesses to follow their scruples, just like they (via their political enablers) continue to force all of us to contribute to Planned Parenthood's killing machine with our tax money.

[rob]

Of course, if you can't find a pharmacy with the drug you want, there's mail-order. Can't really see the logic of moaning on the internet about about local business monopolies.

[Denver]

Rob, I think you've missed the point. This isn't about "local businesses" but the ideology of a culture.

[CBDM]

"Contraception is essential for women's health."

Unfortunately, this does seem to be the view of most healthcare professionals these days. At a recent appointment with a midwife (I chose this group specifically because they claimed to be a Christian midwifery practice), I was rebuked by the midwife for not using birth control between pregnancies.

[Clint Mahoney]

I really should stop commenting, but I just love this stuff. It never occurred to me that there even existed pro-life pharmacies. We are so radically uninformed in this country.

I had an odd experience this week. I looked up something on abortion in Google and accidentally found a little blog called "unbiased abortion information" and stupidly couldn't help but for Ginger and I to respond to a woman who asked how long her emotional pain from the abortion would last and was kicked off and a complaint sent to my ISP for saying that the emotional pain lasts a lifetime for many people. They kept swearing I was lying and that women "never" have physical or emotional effects from abortion (which the post I replied to and many others refuted very well). They said that they were all for truth but I'd never seen a more angry closed-minded group. And of course, we can all think of a million ways abortion hurts women physically and a billion ways non-physically - truth is not important but these Docs are always right - because what they say is "Science" we Christians are the liars even when we assert that 2+2 does not equal 5. The mere fact that we've said it means it cannot be true and should be banned from the Internet and everyone in for the same of free speech.

Until this past year I thought I had a somewhat clear idea of how dark the world is but I had no idea until I encountered the bitterness, hatred and deceit of the Pro-Abortion machine. The abortion issue really brings the state of humanity and Christianity into sharp focus. I never realized what a pivotal issue it is yet all of us really should have known - I'm ashamed at my ignorance and sin in not seeing it - every Christian needs to be paying attention and somehow acting. But the blindness of people (speaking as former king of the blind myself) regarding this issue can be so soul-crushingly discouraging, yet I know I still haven't seen the half of it.

I keep thinking of the Isaiah 59 passage "Their feet run to evil, And they hasten to shed innocent blood" - I guess that's the natural passage to think of but every time I read it now I think of how at Planned Parenthood the pregnant women line up often a half hour before it opens, sometimes outside in the rain or cold as if they can't wait to get in. It makes me think of how C.S. Lewis described the doors to Hell as being barred from the inside.

[Clint Mahoney]

Whoops, typo"everyone in for the same of free speech." of course is supposed to be "in the name of free speech"

I remember when I worked at the public schools in their computer department back in 1998 - we were implementing internet filters for the first time and "hate speech" was identified as something that should be blocked. How much you wanna bet that Baylyblog.com is blocked - I gotta remember to try it sometime. Yet the pro-abortion site I went to surely isn't.

If they can't shut us up by claiming we're completely non-factual they can always say we're harassing or using "hate speech" - Ahh, America, gotta love it - I've always thought it was ironic that Credena is published out of Moscow, and Provda in the rest of the US.

[Matthew]

We cultivate ignorance of the destruction of unborn children that is a constant in the use of birth control pills.

This is so timely.

My wife and I just had our second baby in May. I'm a struggling seminary student who would like to finish my studies before baby number three comes along. So our OB/GYN, who attends our church, and delivers many babies born to couples at my seminary, recommended a "nursing pill."

We got home and read the description, and were perplexed to read that one of the mechanisms by which it works is preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. We double-checked with our OB and his head nurse (who also attends our church), and they have told us in the strongest possible terms that the information on the package "could not be more wrong. It does NOT cause abortions."

If the medical description on the package doesn't mean what is says, then what DOES it mean?

And the more I dig online, the more I am persuaded my literal hermeneutic has not misled me in this either.

I am overcome with profound sadness.

[Benjamin P. Glaser]

I am in the exact same situation as you Matthew. My wife and I just had our second and I am a third-year seminarian who will be looking for a call after the first of the year. However my wife is a "new Christian" and has not been taught very well by her mother who is a non-Christian about these life issues. I have been trying to teach her on this issue especially and it is hard going.

Even moreso what is really sad is that it is almost an anathema even in conservative evangelical circles to speak against prophylactics and other "birth control" devices.

[RBerman]

I must be a contrary person, because I find myself disagreeing with all sides here. I disagree with the secularists who are scandalized that a Christian, believing contraceptives to be abortifacents, and believing abortion to be wrong, would refuse to be party to it, and would run a pharmacy business along those lines. I say we need more Christians who are willing to risk the world's opprobrium by standing up for what they believe is right. So more power to 'em!

At the same time, I believe that Christians acting on this particular issue are mistaken, because properly used contraceptives have an extremely low chance of being the cause of a fertilized egg failing to implant. Not only do contraceptives (again, properly used) have quite a low rate of breakthrough ovulation, but they also tend to prevent sperm movement through cervical mucus (thus reducing the likelihood of fertilizing the occasional breakthrough ovulation). Add to that the percentage of eggs that fail to get fertilized even in the presence of sperm, and add to that the percentage of fertilized eggs that fail to implant even in ideal circumstances, and you're talking about mighty small numbers.

That said, the number is not zero. The same is true of many choices we make in life. There's a small number of people who go into surgery for some bothersome but non-life-threatening medical issue (say, tonsillectomy) who die in the hospital. The risk is tiny but nonzero. The same can be said for any medicine, which has a tiny but measurable risk of causing death through severe allergy or liver failure. People's brakes fail unexpectedly in traffic, causing them to careen into another car and kill someone. We live in a fallen world, and things don't always work as intended.

It then becomes a matter of Christian prudence how to weigh those tiny risks in the aggregate. Some people won't drive in a thunderstorm because of the documented increased risk of an accident. I respect that viewpoint even though I don't hold it myself. It's not as simple as "the only acceptable risk is zero risk," and good men will honestly disagree about how much risk is too much risk in a particular situation.

[Tim Bayly]

Two responses: First, there's no need for us to use contraception or to risk killing our unborn child if we choose to trust God with the fruitfulness of our marriage bed.

But if this is something we believe we need to control ourselves, there's no need to use contraception that, in a statistically significant percentage of times, works by preventing a baby from attaching himself to the uterine wall. Other methods of barring fruitfulness from the womb carry no risk at all of murdering a child.

[Mark Chambers]

Two responses: First, there's no need for us to use contraception or to risk killing our unborn child if we choose to trust God with the fruitfulness of our marriage bed.

But if this is something we believe we need to control ourselves, there's no need to use contraception that, in a statistically significant percentage of times, works by preventing a baby from attaching himself to the uterine wall.Other methods of barring fruitfulness from the womb carry no risk at all of murdering a child.

Right. Only the risk incurred when one chooses to play God. The command to be fruitful and multiply is not terminated with "at your convenience".

[Cathy in NOLA]

RBerman, do you know what it's like to wake up one day and realize that any of the periods you had while on the pill may have resulted in the death of your unborn child?

I too felt the way you do. "God is soveriegn," I told myself, "and he can bless my use of this pill." I was so wrong and my reasons were so steeped in sin.

I've done a lot of research since I began to question my usage of chemical birth control.The truth is that the "low-dose" pill is probably *more* likely to act as an abortifacient. The original high dosages seen when the Pill was introduced were more likely to shut down ovulation. But doctors realized that the associated health risks and side effects occurred at a higher rate. The low dose Pill may sidestep this more often but at the cost of more "break-though ovulation" which forces the mechanisms of the thickening cervical mucous and thinning uterine lining to play greater roles in the prevention of pregnancy.

I asked my doctor whether the Pill acted as an abortifacient. He is a professing Christian and I chose him b/c he was the most pro-life OB I could find. He responded with a definite negative. So I did more research. I found out that the definition of "pregnancy" changed when the Pill was introduced. No longer did ACOG and other groups define a woman as pregnant when the egg and sperm join together. A woman is now considered pregnant only when the child burrows into the uterine lining and starts setting off all those chemical reactions. It's called a "chemical pregnancy." How convenient, eh? I also asked whether there would be any way to tell if a miscarriage (aka "spontaneous abortion") had occurred if the baby had been conceived but did not successfully implant in the uterus. He said no.

No one can tell us what the statistics are for break-through ovulation. The drug companies hardly have any motivation to find out.

The truth is that Christians are compromised in this area. They don't want to hear about the negative aspects of the Pill b/c the woman are taking it. They are petrified of having a lot of children.

Many are afraid of the sacrifices entailed. Even if you don't suffer financially, it isn't easy having many children. Let's face it, how many of us have been trained for that by our parents? Then there's the social aspects of being sneered at by our peers. Throw homeschooling into it and it can be downright unpleasant. I should know. I'm a homeschool mom who just had my 5th child in 9 years. I'm not going to get any prizes for either my teaching abilities or my parenting. But I'll be darned if I'll play Russian Roulette with my unborn kids.

Scripture says that children are a blessing. We talk out of both sides of our mouth when try to tell God when and how often He's allowed to bless us. Our words betray us when we speak of children using words like "risk" or "choose." We don't worship the god of statistics but the Lord of Hosts.

[RBerman]

Mark, since children are a blessing from the Lord there's a good argument to be made that Christians ought not intentionally decrease their reproductive potential, but that wasn't what I was addressing. I was talking about the question of whether we should be concerned about the abortifacent potential of OCPs.

Tim, the whole debate will hinge on how high the the aforementioned "statistically significant" risk is. My whole point was that life is full of statistically significant risks, and we can and should discuss the pros and cons of taking or not taking them. But that debate is stifled if we jump straight from "there is a minute risk" to "therefore it's wrong." No one really lives life by that credo.

Cathy, you appear to have contradicted yourself. You first said that the low-estrogen OCPs increased the likelihood of ovulation, but then you said that no one knows what the rate of ovulation on the low-estrogen OCPs is. Can you help me sort out these two statements?

[Kamilla]

RBerman,

The problem lies in whether we are taking a risk for ourselves or for another. Would you take the same chance if the risk involved your wife, your mother, your 16 year old son? Once we accept even a very small abortifacent risk - we have no moral or ethical basis upon which to stand against a known risk.

Kamilla

[Mark Chambers]

No one really lives life by that credo.

The question Rob, is not how lives are lived, but how they ought to be lived. I agree with Kamilla here. The words "statistically significant" merely serve to minimize (read sanitize) the word risk. How does one justify a risk, however statistically insignificant in might appear, when the possible outcome of that risk is the death of one who has no say in the matter?

[Cathy in NOLA]

RBerman, sorry I was unclear. No one knows just how much *higher* the rate of breakthrough ovulation is. The higher-dosage pills supressed ovulation more thoroughly. People tend to think of the Pill in terms more consistent with it when it was introduced and not how it actually works now, which relies the mucous/lining changes.

[RBerman]

Cathy, thanks for the clarification. It seems then that there must be some research about an increased rate of ovulation with low-dose OCPs. Is that correct? Otherwise you wouldn't even have been able to say as much as you said just above.

Kamilla and Mark, we do things every day that involve a tiny chance of death for other people who have no say in the matter, unless we count "You stepped out of your house" as their say in the matter. Sometimes not even staying home guarantees safety.

Every day in your state and mine, people die from events which, when taken individually, have a tiny a priori likelihood of happening. Events caused by the actions of other people, actions which did not "have to" occur (humanly speaking) but were part of regular people living regular lives.

We don't want those realities to paralyze us into fearful inaction, and we don't want them to numb us into nonchalant carelessness. We want to navigate a middle course of prudence. There's a discussion that can be had about the nonzero risk of OCPs not only upon babies but upon women (blood clots, cancer, etc.). But the discussion is not going to go anywhere from an untenable starting position such as "zero risk is the only acceptable risk."

[Tim Bayly]

>the discussion is not going to go anywhere

Yes, it appears it won't. The impossibility of informed consent on the part of the one whose risk the father and mother are taking; the presence of suitable alternatives that are effective in barring fruitfulness from the marriage bed; the option of embracing fruitfulness as an alternative; the risk being murder, not a blood blister; but we must chill out and accept the Pill because it's long been an acceptable part of the reformed lifestyle and no one has questioned it in the past. Also maybe because it's kind of Romish to question it.

This all reminds me of the dean of academic ethicists until his death years ago, Princeton's Paul Ramsey, pointing out in connection with abortion that the burden of proof did not rest on anti-abortionists to prove it was a life, but pro-abortionists to prove it wasn't, and beyond a shadow of a doubt. To illustrate, he told the story of a hunter out in a field who thinks he sees a buck in the brush at the field's edge. Raising his rifle for the shot, his mind asks, "Is that really a buck, or is it a man I'm mistaking for a buck?"

Ramsey then pointed out that if the hunter shoots and kills a man, he's guilty of a felony. It's his duty to establish conclusively that it's not a man before he shoots. If he doesn't, he's a criminal. So with abortion. And so with the Pill.

Talk of life being risky doesn't cut it for Christians. For utilitarians, yes. For pragmatists, yes. But for those who love Jesus saying to the babies, "Suffer the little ones to come unto Me?" No.

* * *

Need I say that I know Mr. Berman would not say some of the things I have listed above. I've been speaking about the aggregate of those who promote the Pill--not simply Mr. Berman's promotion of it.

[RBerman]

Thanks for the disclaimer, Tim. Indeed, I would not make any of the pro-OCP arguments you mentioned, because they are not good arguments for OCPs. I'm sure there are many Christians who haven't given a second thought to the moral implications of OCPs and wronly approach the topic strictly from the viewpoint of, "How can this choice advance my personal life agenda?"

[Mark Chambers]

Every day in your state and mine, people die from events which, when taken individually, have a tiny a priori likelihood of happening.

Rob, you don't really want to argue this point. Driving to work puts others at risk. I have to drive to work. There are numerous other examples that could be cited for your point of regular people living regular lives, doing things that are normal and natural. But the use of OCP's is not a necessary aspect of regular living. It is not normal and it is most certainly not natural. Even if we grant that usage has zero risk, there is an a priori question begging assumption that the use of birth control is even legitimate. But they are not zero risk, adding the possibility of murder to their already unjustifiable use. Unjustified unless someone is willing to mount an adequate defense for birth control from the pages of Scripture.

[RBerman]

It would be interesting to study what different cultures consider "necessary parts of regular living." Cars are clearly not a necessary part of regular living, considering how many people live without them. Nor am I prepared to defend the Biblical necessity of cars. But cars are a necessary means for maintenance of certain lifestyles, and they carry risks and benefits. That's where prudence comes in.

As I mentioned above, your other argument is a better one, namely that OCPs are a problem because they are usually taken with the specific intent of avoiding something (children) which the Bible indicates we ought to desire, not avoid. That's a matter of false values, i.e. idolatrous self-worship. We'd do well to focus our energies on teaching the Biblical view of family, and then debates about the safety of OCPs would become largely moot.

[Kamilla]

RBerman,

You've answered your own argument - you just haven't seen it. We do give our consent by engaging in life in this society. Everytime we walk outside our front door we give our consent to the minute risk someone else's actions may cause our death or dismemberment.

But your argument doesn't hold when we consider the tiny human life that will be extinguished when its mothers womb proves a hostile environment - that human being, created in the image of God, who is just as worthy of the chance to give consent as any of us who are alive today - that tiny person has no opportunity to give consent.

And THAT is why your argument fails on the face of it.

Kamilla

[Sam Steinmann]

I'm muddled on the whole question. My wife and I have so far chosen to rely entirely on natural methods, and would like as many children as God gives us within the bounds of reasonable health. I'm inclined to take the Catholic position, and falling short of that, Tim's position.

However: it seems to me that RBerman is making a reasonable point vs Kamilla, Mark, etc. If I put my son in his carseat and take him with me to the grocery store, he could be killed in an car wreck--due to my poor driving or entirely outside my control. And I have no problem "gambling with his life" in that way--the risk is small enough, although it is certainly real.

Another reasonable point is that a lot (estimates are around 20% IIRC) of conceptions don't implant, and NFP almost certainly increases that proportion. It's not, to my knowledge, at all certain that hormonal birth control is worse than NFP in that regard.

[RBerman]

Kamilla, I find the concept of fetal consent quite bizarre. Surely the patriarchal view places the onus on the man of the house to exercise watchcare over his family, including potential unborn children. So once again it becomes a matter of prudential parenting. Should I let my child climb that tree, that waterfall, that light pole? Is that lake safe for ice skating? Is swimming safe? It depends, on so many factors. But none of those activities are 100% risk free.

[Kamilla]

AAARRGGGH!

Once again, RBerman, I think you are missing your own arguments. Do you truly, honestly and within the depths of your heart, not find any difference between taking risks in the actions of life and the risk of simply existing? The difference between letting your child skate on ice that might not be thick enough and letting your child simply exist - the two are not even comparable.

Yes, the concept of fetal consent is bizarre - it's a reductio ad absurdam.

Kamilla

[Denver]

I don't know so much if the issue is "risk management" but "what is being accomplished and why"

Aren't BCPs DESIGNED (as a "purposeful" side effect) to cause abortions just in case ovulation occurs? And won't most patients, if educated, take them more willingly because that gives even greater guarantee a pregnancy won't occur?

[Kamilla]

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2008/07/from-lambeth-19.html

The above is a link to a similar conversation over at MereComments. What I think is saddest about these conversations is that we have so rapidly gone from condemning artificial means of birth control to embracing them as an acceptable risk of parenting.

I will close my participation in this thread by inviting your prayers for Dr. Toon's health. It is not good and seems likely he will not end the year on this earth.

Kamilla

[Scott Tibbs]

Point of fact: PLANNED PARENTHOOD admits that the birth control pill can result in the death of a newly-formed human being.

They don't use the term "human being", of course - they use "embryo" or "zygote" or some other means of denying truth. It is a documented scientific fact, however, that life begins at fertilization. Until and unless God decides to change the laws of biology, there is nothing anyone can do to refute this absolute truth.

[Benjamin P. Glaser]

Cathy in NOLA,

Amen. You really spoke to my wife in a way that had her in tears, in a good way. We will never use Birth-Control again.

God Bless.

[RBerman]

Denver, I don't think OCPs were designed to prevent implantation, per se. The drug and dosage in OCPs are intended to prevent ovulation without causing untoward side effects on the rest of the body. Whatever effects the drugs have on implantation or cervical mucus or the price of tea in China are incidental and, depending on your point of view, may be either welcome or unwelcome or some combination thereof.

Kamilla, I don't expect a reply, but the examples of risky behavior that I gave are all ones that can result in death. I don't believe you've comprehended my point that simply allowing your children to play in the yard entails a nonzero risk of their deaths. Expecting a zero death risk only in the case of OCPs seems like a case of special pleading.

[Mark Dove]

In one case I tell my kids to play and work, knowing that we live in a fallen world and that death may come. In another case, as we sit around the dinning room table, I give a drink to each of my children, knowing that this drink kills a small percentage of children every day.

While some may not see a distinction, I can tell you that I'm not giving the drink to my kids but I will let them go out and climb a tree.

[Mark Dove]

Taking another stab at this, I would reject the idea that I should forgo guns because they sometimes cause accidental injury or death. It isn't sin to be shot by Dick Cheney. Different story if you pick up a revolver, put in a bullet, spin the cylinder, put it to your head and pull the trigger.

Am I missing something here?

[Rebecca Nugent]

(sighing heavily..)

Perhaps this is a bit of a tangent from the argument regarding whether or not it is a moral/theological duty for Christians to abstain from using the pill. However, the more I read through the comments, the more frustrated I'm getting.

I'm no doctor, no nurse (and my music degree puts me as far away as possible from having any true gravitas on this subject), but as a wife and a mother of one, I will say that getting pregnant is NOT easy. This whole "being careful" mentality is SUCH a myth, even amongst Christians. I recall receiving some advice from a fellow Christian before getting married that went something like this: "If you guys don't use birth control, you'll end up having twelve kids." Well, we didn't take his advice. We've been married almost four years, and have only one child. One. According to this fellow, and to the nurse-midwives that came into my hospital room three mornings in a row (after I just gave birth to my son) to discuss "birth control options" with me, we should have at least three children by now. I will even go farther to say that I am currently on medication that greatly increases my chances of getting pregnant. I've been taking this since winter, and as of now, I'm not with child and there is no medical reason for this. My own mother, who bore five of us, also neglected her "birth control options." (Lucky for her, it was only five, right?)I have heard countless stories of women who are aching to be pregnant, and their doctors are unable to come up with medical explanations as to why they have no children yet. Yet, some women seem to be very fertile, having no problem bearing children. One friend of the family got pregnant (while using birth control) at age 15. She and her boyfriend got married, and by the time she was 21, they had five children. They used every possible method of birth control available at that time, but got pregnant anyway.

So, I can only come to the conclusion that God is the One Who opens and closes the wombs. Many women who use birth control faithfully are blessed with babies, and many women who don't are still waiting.

[Benjamin P. Glaser]

Well said Rebecca.

[Denver]

RBeamon, I understand HOW and WHY BCPs prevent implantation, but my point was that this IS a welcomed side effect, both to the drug companies and to the patient, because their goal is not to "prevent ovulation" but to "prevent the inconvenience of a child." Quite different than the price of tea in China...this is the price of human life.

[RBerman]

Mark, you're right that I see the distinction you're drawing as completely arbitrary. Have you ever given your children peanunts? Don't you know that there are children who unpredictably develop a peanut allergy, and their throat closes up and they die right before your eyes? Peanuts carry a nonzero risk of death. I could go on for pages about the things that parents do every day that expose their children to a minute but measurable risk of fatality. It then becomes a matter of prudence to figure out which risks are acceptable and which are not.

To use your example, most people would find Russian Roulette to be an unacceptable risk. Some people would say having guns in the home inherently constitutes an unacceptable risk. Some people think guns, properly managed, are fine. It's something that we can talk about. But there's nothing to talk about if "No risk is acceptable" is taken as a slogan, because it's not a principle that is applied consistently even by those who propound it, nor could it ever be applied consistently. It's a false principle.

Denver, it depends on the person whether "fertilized eggs have a reduced risk of implanting" is a welcome side effect. For a Christian, it should not be a welcome side effect. I'm sure Planned Parenthood feels differently, and touts OCPs accordingly. one man's bug is another man's feature.

[Tim Bayly]

THIS COMMENT IS GOING TO SCANDALIZE SOME, SO DON'T READ FURTHER UNLESS YOU BELIEVE DISCUSSIONS OF LIFE AND DEATH ARE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO RISK HONESTY...

Mr. Berman? R?,

You've repeated yourself enough, I think, for us all to get that you think the risk of killing an unborn child is roundly equivalent to the risk of eating peanuts, playing on a see-saw, getting up in the morning, riding in a car, etc.

What you haven't explained is why you're so zealous to defend the risk of killing an unborn child by a particular form of fruitless sex. Because zealous you are. That's obvious to everyone. This is not simply an academic discussion of game theory. We're talking husbands and wives and fathers and mothers and sons and daughters and life and death, here. So why your zeal to defend death by fruitless sex as a suitable/reasonable/godly risk?

Maybe that's none of my business, and I can accept that. But it's something I wonder and want everyone to know I wonder.

Beyond that question, though, I'd also like to know why you've never responded to my point that there are other methods of fruitless sex that do the job fine without killing babies? And seeing the lack of response to that point, here, I'm wondering again--this time whether we're really talking risk with the Pill simply because it gives us a certan measure of relief from another risk: Namely, the risk of our sex actually being fruitful if we use a condom, diaphragm, or abstain?

I can imagine this discussion taking place between a husband and wife:

"Honey, you wanna make love tonight?"

"Not really. Ever since you started crying whenever we talked about using the Pill (saying you never knew all those years that you were playing Russian roulette with your babies), my libido's been gone."

"But sweetheart, you know we can use a diaphragm or condom. Come on to bed, sweetie, and let's make love."

"I'm tired, honey; can't we do it later this week."

"But John, this is the way you've been for months, now. Ever since I asked you if we could use some other form of fruitless sex than the Pill. Are you ever gonna wanna make love again, or do I have to start taking the Pill again so you think I'm pretty again?"

"Oh no, dear, you're beautiful. I promise you--there's no one as beautiful as you. It's just I'm so tired anymore. That's all."

"So why did it all start when I said I wanted to stop using the fruitless sex method that works sometimes by killing my babies? That's when you stopped wanting to make love!"

"Alright! Yes! What's the big deal! Talk about risk! Don't you realize each time we give our children a Snickers bar, it's risky and they could die! Each time you put Johny on a see-saw or swing, he could die! Every time you get him out of bed, he could die! What's the big deal!?! Life is dangerous! Get over it! I don't want more kids! My job isn't secure! We've got $50,000 in credit card debt! We haven't even gotten our house equity up to the point where we can stop paying PMI! And no, I'm not going to run the risk of having more children by using a condom. I don't like it and it's only eighty or ninety percent effective. And you yourself know how much we dislike the lack of spontaneity involved in using a diaphragm! Why can't you just chill out and think like a man? Everything's a risk. So the Pill's a risk. So what? Get a life! Honestly, you women are wacko! So you have a tiny chance of killing your baby? So what? There's risk EVERYWHERE! EVERYWHERE! And I'm telling you, I DON'T WANT ANOTHER BABY! NOT ONE MORE, _ _ _ _ _ _ !"

Now of course, this could be cleaned up somewhat by saying it's the husband's desire for his wife never to suffer the awful close-to-suicide post partum depression again, and out of his love for her, the mother of his other children, he's protecting her. Or we could say that the only pregnancies she's capable of having are tubal, so it's a life and death matter.

But we all know that what I've written is the reality in a thousand homes and bedrooms for every one home or bedroom where there's a real risk to the mother that's so serious that everyone would approve of the couple making their lovemaking fruitless.

So again, what's the problem with a condom or diaphragm?

You know, it's interesting to think of how almost any mother would feel if she viewed the tight parsing of risk being done above and realized what the risk actually was that was under risk management. It's clear to me, at least, that it's in the nature of woman to view this with horror. Yes, some men could browbeat their wives into countenancing the horror, and maybe even growing comfortable with it--or even coming to like it. But she would be less a woman, and certainly less a mother, once her husband had had his way with her in this.

It's also interesting that my own experience matches that of our sister above, that even pro-life Christian physicians, when asked, deny that the Pill causes abortions. Yet the paper inside the box and pharmacists' continuing ed curricula say the Pill causes abortions. (I know because I've asked friends who are physicians and my pharmacist friend showed me his continuing ed curriculum.)

So why do physicians lie about this? Even Christian physicians. Even anti-abortion Christian physicians. Can't they simply say, "Well, yes, they cause abortions, but it's so rare that you shouldn't worry about it?"

No, they can't say that, and therefore they don't say that. But why?

Because they all know that any mother who hears that will go all ditzbrainy fruitcake womanie on them. Or another way of saying it is, "There will be tears." And we all know what THAT means.

So what, mothers are stupid? Dumb? Irrational? Gullible? Too sentimental?

Men, we need to listen to our women and trust that the reasons of their hearts are often more true and right and godly than the numbers we come up with in our endless pursuit of objectivity.

After all, Onan was a honest pragmatist who'd have no trouble convincing every reformed or evangelical man today of the wisdom of his action. But then he died.

* * *

So after posting this comment, I go to lunch. As we're finishing our food, a man at an adjoining table is greeted by a long-lost friend, and the greeting and subsequent conversation envelope the quarter of the restaurant they're sitting in. It's enthusiastic, cheerful, and loud.

After the "Whaddya doin, man?" stuff where we all found out the man at the table was a pastor serving such-and-such church, they had the following exchange:

"Naw, we're done. No more kids. I don't know if my wife agrees, but we're done. Life's too wacko, you know, dude?"

And that's the truth of the church and her pastors, today. Not just the attitude he cops and his faithlessness, but all of it being so deeply ingrained in the church that a man set apart for the ministry of the Word and Sacrament would think nothing of proclaiming his lovelessness toward his wife and his own faithlessness toward God to unbelievers in a restaurant loudly, just after he's also told them he's a pastor at such-and-such church.

[Mark Chambers]

However: it seems to me that RBerman is making a reasonable point vs Kamilla, Mark, etc.

No he isn’t and I’ll tell you why. Parents taking their children with them is normal behavior. Whether riding an ox, an ass or riding in a car the behavior is Scripturally normative. Driving a car to work in modern day society—or riding a bus or a train or a taking a plane is all natural and normative and not different in terms of category than the forms of transportation used in Bible times. Taking children to church in a car is not categorically different than taking a 12 year old on foot down robber laden roads to visit the temple. Plowing with a tractor is not categorically different that plowing with a yoke of oxen nor is riding the range with a pick-up truck and a rifle categorically different than roaming the range on foot or on donkey with a staff and a sling.

But altering the bio-chemical processes of the human body in order to prevent what God has explicitly commanded is not in that same category. It is neither normal nor is it defensible from the pages of Scripture. That there is risk involved only adds sin to sin.

[Sam Steinmann]

Mark,

It seems your primary opposition is to birth control (including NFP and abstinence), not oral contraceptives.

[Kamilla]

Tim,

Thank you for having the courage to say that.

I was pondering this last night when I couldn't sleep (no airconditioning) and two things occurred to me. The first is that, according to the OT laws about a woman's uncleanness/cleanness - they practically guaranteed a husband and wife would come together during her most fertile time. The second is that there is an attraction "The Pill" holds over simple mechanical barrier methods - a woman's uncleanness occurs during fewer days of the month.

Cathy and Rebecca - thank you so very much for your courageous words!

Kamilla

[RBerman]

Tim, I get the sense (which may be wrong) that you're indirectly asking whether I am hounding this issue to justify my own personal contraceptive choices. To get that out of the way, I'll just say (with wife's permission) that my wife and I do not use OCPs. In fact, she took fertility drugs so that we could have our wonderful five year old son.

One of the cornerstones of presuppositional apologetics is identifying the ways in which people do not really believe the things they say they believe. Like an atheist who frets about the logic of the "problem of evil," when neither logic nor evil can exist apart from God. We are all like that atheist in various ways. It serves us well to avoid blanket statements like "All one-in-a-million risks must be avoided" unless we're really prepared to apply them faithfully.

Believe you me, I would love for the discussion to proceed onward to "which risks are acceptable, and which are not?" because then we could discuss condoms vs NFP vs OCPs, which could be interesting, and you're already raising some good points for that discussion, as is Mark. But there's no point in going forward as long as "No risk is ever acceptable" is a popular dogma in the discussion. But your implication is well taken that I'm beating a dead horse at this point.

[Tim Bayly]

>Tim, I get the sense (which may be wrong) that you're indirectly asking whether I am hounding this issue to justify my own personal contraceptive choices.

Actually, not. It was only one of a number of possibilities that occurred to me, none of which made any sense as I looked over the discussion. Still mystified, I am, although I know you think you've answered me.

God bless you, dear brother.

[RBerman]

And you, brother. Mark can vouch that I like to obsess over each point in a logical chain before moving on to the next. It's not everyone's cup of tea. Have a great week.

[Denver]

RBerman, I'm confused. You say "I wish we could move on." Aren't YOU the one who has been saying that "a risk is a risk and we take them every day" and WE (the 5 or so here who are on the other side of this discussion) have been trying to move on, saying this risk is radically different from the casual things you equate it to?

[Scott Tibbs]

RBerman, you are correct. We can't erase risk from our daily lives. To live is to risk death - even when doing simple, seemingly safe things. The point is that the risk presented by the pill is simply not necessary.

[Mark Chambers]

I’ll take a minute and speak for Rob. His is simply taking issue with the argument over level of risk. It is based on the illegitimacy of using the drugs under discussion because they might act as abortifacents. He simply mentioned that any number of human activities involve risk, including activities that put others at risk, even the risk of death, and that without their permission. Taking a four year old out on a motorcycle because one was too impatient to wait for his wife to get home with the car is an example and we could easily fill a couple of pages with similar things. He is not arguing for the acceptability of their use based on the fact that there is minimal risk. He is merely noting the inconsistency of the argument based on regular human risk taking behavior. If one is going to rest his case on ‘possibilities’, then to be consistent one has to address with equal fervor all the activities that include similar risks. That is why the argument fails.

The problem is that an argument from risk includes the tacit (though perhaps not intentional) assumption that birth control is a legitimate practice. If the practice of birth control is contra-Scripture then the argument over risk is moot. If the practice is legitimate then one needs to be consistent in all their behavior for that is the first thing that will be pointed out by ungodly opposition.

Blessings

[Kamilla]

Mark,

I understand the argument - otoh I was arguing that the risks are of a different order so the argument doesn't hang together.

Oh well, we live to argue another day,

Kamilla