Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?

Warning!!! You may (though I hope not) be too emotionally involved with this issue to read this post. I will be as honest and frank as I usually am. I may call you a murderer and tell you that I think you should be killed. So read at your own risk. I say this as a concession. I wish everyone were as I am. I know and acknowledge that I am a murdering, adulterous thieving idolater. It's the truth and there is so much freedom in the truth. But even I will admit that there are times when we should bring the grace and mercy of God (if the wrath and justice of God have already been brought), so if you are in one of those times, you may want to postpone reading this. Despite all that, I believe the information I'm attempting to convey is extremely important for Christians, men and women, to consider. If you've never seriously looked at this issue or want more information without the conclusions I've drawn, I'd highly recommend Alcorn's book Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? Just please don't be content to remain ignorant on the issue.

So as can probably be guessed, this post was inspired by Alcorn's Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? It was the last of his books that I ordered and had not read. I'm actually not finished with it, but the issue of importance was settled within the first 10 pages or so for me (the book is only about 100 pages, so it's a quick read) so I'm going ahead and writing. It's fresh on my mind and I'm motivated, so it's best if I do it now rather than make an indefinite postponement. I had heard the assertion made years ago by a friend's wife that in fact “the Pill” did cause abortions. I didn't have the technical data of how this happened, but even then I acknowledged that if in fact “the Pill” did sometimes cause abortions, it was morally wrong to use. This was not something that I received with joy. At that time I had much more hope of marriage than I currently do, so the idea that from the outset of marriage, either temporary abstinence or possibly becoming pregnant would be the only options for my wife and I was not something that I was extremely excited about. For the last 15 years there's never been a day when I didn't want to have sex, so getting married and then having to abstain for a certain number of days every month (I don't know the exact number as it has never been necessary for me to know) was definitely not attractive. Being extremely selfish as well, getting married and then my wife immediately getting pregnant was not what I pictured as my ideal plan either (I'm still not sure how much of this view is justifiable and how much is sinful. I think it's an issue of the heart. For some it's sinful, for others it may be sacrificial love. That may be the subject of another post sometime in the future.). All that to say that I sincerely hoped that the “the Pill” did not in fact cause abortions. You may be in the same boat. You may be struggling financially already just as a married couple on two incomes without children. With children on one income seems an impossibility. You may have been using “the Pill” for years and now face the realization that if in fact it can cause abortions, you may have inadvertently aborted one of more of your children. You may think yourself totally unqualified to raise children and something to avoid at all costs. You may gotten married just to have sex without a guilty conscious (ah, a fellow sexaholic) and children wasn't what you bargained for. I don't deny these are real issues (mainly resulting from the sins of the past, but that's irrelevant), but we must never make our judgments about truth based on our circumstances. We must arrive at truth objectively, even abstractly, and then judge our circumstances and make our choices based on that. Without this attitude there's really no reason even discussing anything else. You can and will justify any and everything to suit your desires and circumstances. There is no proof that is valid. There is no evidence that is sound. You have made yourself judge. You have made yourself god. At least acknowledge that and throw off your useless quasi-Christianity and quit trying to pay lip service to God. If you have acknowledged this, that the truth is true regardless of your circumstances, then, and only then, we can have a profitable discussion.

So let's begin with definitions. Up until recently this would not have been an issue and we could understand what the secular world meant when it spoke, but in what appears to be blatant attempts to mislead the public, certain words and definitions have been changed. The most important of these is conception. Obviously this is important since the issue at hand deals with contraceptives, I.e. anti conception. The traditional definition and the one meant in ordinary language is that conception is the point of fertilization. As wikipedia says, “conception (biology) or fertilisation, the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism of the same species” (I was actually somewhat surprised that wikipedia has such a good definition). If this were the universal definition accepted and used and contraceptives did in fact do merely that, then there would be no point to discuss. To the question of, “Does the birth control pill cause abortions?” the answer would be a simple, “No. It merely prevents the egg from being fertilized by the sperm which is before conception. Thus no new life has been formed and abortion cannot happen without life.” Of course this is not the case else I wouldn't be laboring so intensely about it. In fact in 1976, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) changed the definition of conception to mean “anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst, which occurs six or seven days AFTER fertilization” (emphasis mine). Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (27th Edition) defined conception as “the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of the blastocyst.” Now you see how, using either of latter two definitions above, one could market a product as a contraceptive even if it prevented implantation of a blastocyst, which is a six or seven day old human being, and not be technically lying. And in fact this is exactly what is being done. The birth control pill (and by birth control pill, “the Pill”, oral contraceptives, oral contraceptive pills I am referring to all the combination pills containing estrogen and progestin that are what you think of when you think of any of the many different pills that are labeled “contraceptive”) has three means of “contraception”. The first is prevention of ovulatioin. Obviously if a woman doesn't release an egg then it can't be fertilized and she can't get pregnant. The second changes the cervical mucus which inhibits the sperm from entering the uterus, thus also preventing the egg from becoming fertilized. The third makes “changes in the endometrium which reduces the likelihood of implantation.” The endometrium is the lining of the uterus that, in preparation to receive a blastocyst, gets thick with blood vessels and glycogen. No one argues about the first two. They are contraceptive in nature (now there is another debate as to the morality of contraceptives in general, but that is beyond the scope of this blog). The third means, that is by making changes in the endometrium, however, is the determining factor. Bear in mind, what is being talked about is the implantation of a blastocyst. We are not dealing with eggs and sperm here. An egg or sperm cell doesn't implant. Only blastocysts implant (A blastocyst is a fertilized egg of about a week old). All the genetic material you and I have now was present when we were blatocysts. Preventing this implantation is the expressed purpose of “the Pills”'s third means of preventing “conception”. Now you see the necessity of changing the definition. If conception is understood to occur at fertilization, then “the Pill” not only prevents fertilization by the first two methods, but in cases where it fails to do this and fertilization occurs, it clearly works as an abortifacient. The secular world was intelligent enough to recognize this and make the ridiculous change to the definition of conception. This is however what I would expect of the secular world. They are blind and will do and act in whatever illogical way to serve themselves. What is extremely discomforting is the lengths that supposedly Christians go to deny this. In the book Alcorn quotes several Christian physicians who vehemently deny “the Pill” can have any abortive effects. Their attempts at logically arguing this are indeed pathetic. Even using mental gymnastics, a child could destroy these arguments. Really this is the end of it. If you're a follow of Christ than the issue should be settled. “the Pill” has three means of preventing “conception”. Two of them actually do just that, prevent conception. The third however prevents an already conceived human from implanting and thus being able to grow and live. It's like death by exposure. Yeah maybe you didn't strangle your infant, but leaving him outside in the elements with no food or warmth is just the same. You still killed your baby. Yeah maybe you didn't have your fetus sucked out of you with a vacuum, but intentionally creating a 1 mm thick endometrium so that he or she will pass out of you into the toilet is essentially the same thing.

What I've presented thus far is factual (except my exposure analogy and my evaluation of the secular world and their motives). If you read the small print on “the Pill” insert it will say just what I've said or refer you to the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR), which will say it. When someone, particularly a physician, says that “the Pill” is not an abortifacient, they are either ignorant (which actually many are) or have adopted alternative definitions to suit their purposes. As far as I can tell, all contraceptive pills are abortifacients as well. There's really nothing left to discuss. The details as to numbers and what is the primary compared to secondary means is all just that, the details. The principle has been established and decisions are made on that. The book goes into a fair amount of detail and studies which I found helpful and drove the point home even more, so I do recommend it still, but what I've presented I think should be sufficient to convince anyone who is open to the truth.

Now some of you may actually be horrified right now. And to some degree you should be. The fact that it was unintentional is only small consolation to the fact that you may have killed your child. There is some relief that we cannot know for sure. I certainly hope that my mother didn't unknowingly kill one of my siblings or that one of my sisters hasn't unknowing killed one of my nieces or nephews. In fact I'm glad I don't know. But even if we could know, or if we feel guilty even at the possibility, there is forgiveness in Christ. Even as they crucified Him, He said “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” What more appropriate language to use now. “Father, forgive us, for we knew not what we did.” Perhaps as Acts 17:30 says, God will overlook these times of ignorance, but regardless, He now commands all men to repent. That is the remedy, repentance and faith. But included in repentance is a turning away from past sins. We must now live according to the light that we've been given. If you didn't know this before, you do now. From now on you can't make a claim of ignorance. You are without excuse. From now on it's murder. But for the past, let us remember that even these sins Christ's blood can cover.

Some of you may actually have known this already and yet disdained it or pushed it out your mind so as not to cause any unplanned ripples in your life. If so, I sincerely hope that the weight of feticide falls entirely on your shoulders and you are broken under the guilt of it. I hope you dream of little babies crying out to you, “Why did you murder me, Mommy?”, “Why did you let them kill me, Daddy?” You have sacrificed your children to your own selfish desires and there will be a reckoning day for it. But even here, there is forgiveness in Christ. (On a side note, it is interesting how closely the Bible relates child sacrifice to pagan worship and how vehemently God tells His people not to do it.)

I've recently been thinking about the term “abortion”. I wonder who came up with applying it to a human life? I imagine it was an attempt to make murder or feticide less grotesque. Abortion is merely the noun form of abort. I think of missions being aborted, operations being aborted, but not life. We don't say that someone aborted someone else by shooting him or that a car wreck resulted in an abortion of a 17 year-old drunk driver. Now I understand that they use abortion in reference to pregnancy, i.e. she aborted her pregnancy. This however still doesn't make sense. Pregnancy is the quality of being pregnant. Pregnant is “containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring in the body.” Thus to abort means to terminate the quality of containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring in the body. Do you see the awkwardness of this? If we normally think of abort in reference to missions, operations, countdowns, etc., doesn't it seem strange to apply it to a quality, specifically the quality of containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring in the body? Are there other qualities that we abort? In our acceptance of the language, we have already capitulated so much. I personally will refer to it from now on as either feticide or child murder.

I remember reading an article in a Catholic magazine (can't remember the name but my roommate John had a subscription) dealing with abortion or rather child murder. The main point was that Christians were trying to make a category distinction that the Bible never makes. The biblical language for pregnancy is “with child”. She's not “with zygote”, “with blastocyst” or even “with fetus”. Not that I don't see and understand the usefulness of having terms that refer to a specific time frame in the child's early life (first 9 months specifically), but the point being that from the outset, she is “with child”. The intentional and unjustified death of the child inside of her is just as much murder as the intentional and unjustified death of the child outside of her. The only categorical difference is before and after fertilization has occurred. Everything else is simply a difference of degree, or more accurately a difference of quantity or a difference of location. If you are going to argue that life begins at any time besides fertilization (though this is only a generalization, I would say conception actually begins when the nucleus of the sperm and egg join giving the unique 46 chromosomes for that individual, but this is the immediate action right after fertilization and I don't know the technical term for it) then on that same basis I could argue that females, who are generally smaller than men, aren't as human as men. And children, who aren't as big as they will be, aren't as human as they will be later in life. Of course older people, once they reach and pass their maximum size start to become less human. And we should certainly not look down on or encourage the morbidly obese to lose weight, why, they have become the most human of all. You see how ridiculous this is, but in fact this (or one similar) is the same argument that one has to make if we do not acknowledge that life and humanity begins with chromosomal fertilization (my term to to refer to the above mentioned moment).

My last question is what should be done with these murderers. Though I don't personally know of anyone who has committed child murder, I'm sure I personally know people who have committed it. And since murder by definition involves knowledge and intent, I would not say that those who have killed their child through the use of “the Pill” are murderers necessarily (if done in ignorance), though some are (if done with knowledge). For those in ignorance, I believe, at least before the courts, they are innocent. If done with knowledge (though of course theoretically since we can't know who has murderer their child through “the Pill”) I believe they are as guilty as any other murderer. Actually, they are more guilty than any other murderer in that their victim never had an act of the will that was remotely punishable at all, much less by death. So obviously if I make that statement about those who murder their child through “the Pill” (which is not 100% successful), then even more so those who surgically murder their child are guilty. So the question remains, “What should be done with these child murderers?” Rack my brain as much as I can, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is the death penalty. All of the arguments that would imply something less are inconsistent with the arguments I've made above. The child of 1 day or 1 month is just as much a child as my nephews are. I would certainly demand the death penalty for anyone who murdered any one of them. How can I then reason something less for another child simply because his physical position is still inside his mother or he is only a couple hundred or couple thousand cells while my nephews are already millions. I can't. It's irrational. Now obviously the laws are not in agreement with me (because our law makers are either content to be inconsistent or too irrational to understand the inconsistency). Child murder is legal. But the question is not “What is being done with these murderers?”, but “What SHOULD be done with these murderers?” Are they innocent because they have believed a lie or does not even their own consciences tell them it is wrong? Is not even the Post Abortion Stress Syndrome evidence that they have done what they know to be wrong? Were slave owners justified in killing their slaves because they sincerely thought of them as animals and property? Were the Nazis justified because they sincerely believed the Jews were sub-human? The Nuremberg trials have already shown that the courts still held them guilty. Many of them were even under orders. Nobody is ordering a mother to commit child murder. In fact nobody, including the father of the child, has any legal right to make her or make her not do what she wants. Granted husbands and boyfriends are often guilty of pressuring a wife or girlfriend into murdering her child, and they should be punished, but ultimately (as of now) it comes down to a woman's choice. And while women will always have that choice (just as I have the choice to murder you or not), it should not be a legally justifiable choice but rather a criminal choice with criminal ramifications.

Now I know there are tons of “what if” scenarios you can come up with to try and negate all that I've said. What if she's raped? What if she's going to die? What if the baby is mentally disabled? What if the baby is going to die? There are perfectly good answers to these questions. If you sincerely have them and cannot rationally apply biblical principles to them, then I'll be glad to answer them for you, but only if you first acknowledge the principles I've set out above. Basically that murder (unjustified killing of someone) is wrong, at conception is the only categorical or qualitative change in an egg and sperm cell and thus life begins at chromosomal conception. Therefore what is commonly known as abortion is in fact child murder and is wrong. And since “the Pill” does in fact act to make a woman's endometrium inhospitable to a human child of 6 or 7 days, then “the Pill” can result in the death of one's own child. Intentionally doing this which actually does result in the death of the developing child is murder.

Again, Alcorn's book is much more technical and far less condemning than I am, so if you doubt my arguments I'd encourage you to pick it up.