Dan’s current teaching series has us working through the later chapters of Romans. Two weeks ago, we were in chapter 13. In the Men’s Bible study on that Wednesday morning, we discussed the proper role of a Christian in society, especially when civil law is in opposition to Biblical morality. One of the big topics was the Christian response to abortion in America.
One of the frustrations that was expressed concerned what we can do that will make any difference. I’d suggest that there are three areas where Christians are making a substantive difference on this issue. The first is in educating people about the true nature of abortion. The second is in training people to do that education within their spheres of influence. The third is on the front lines in crisis pregnancy centers across the county. And you could probably throw in a fourth area if you throw in those who are working through political channels.
We can help by supporting organizations involved in any of those activities. We can also help by being trained in how to advocate the pro-life position with those we come in contact with.
The next posts in this series will explore exactly how we can be involved in making a difference in each of these areas.
The answer to your title question, as you already have said, is a resounding “yes!” This is a much-needed thinking process, though, since we live in a country full of people who don’t vote because they don’t feel they make a difference. If 2.5% of America decided they didn’t make a difference, their absence would decidedly swing an election! Thanks for starting this one rolling…
Not sure if this is a taboo subject or not but … most of the recent stuff I have read on female birth control pills seems to imply that it is potentially abortive. That is, if it does not prevent the egg from being fertilized it could prevent the egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus.
I have heard this for years but it seems like most churches, even though they admit the possibility, do not make a strong statement against the pill. Are Protestants afraid of making a stand on this issue because it would seem to put them too close to the Catholic position? Are we afraid of talking about it because Christians already have an image of being sexually repressive and this would just add to it? Maybe it is just me but it seems somewhat hypocritical for someone to take a strong stand against abortion while they are possibly causing them (even if it is unintentional).
By the way, I realize that I am potentially attacking a large number of Christians with these statements. I was considering how to apologize for this when I realized that this is the very problem with this issue. There are a lot of Christians who use this method so we don’t want to offend them. Well … maybe I am wrong on the research. Maybe the research is wrong. Personally I don’t want to take that chance and I think other Christians should take a hard look and see if they think the same.
Matt, this issue shouldn’t be taboo. We need to deal with challenges like you offer straight on. Anything less would be hypocritical–as you say.
If “the pill” is an abortifacient, then it would be the moral equivalent of abortion. But this is a highly disputed matter. The pill works by preventing ovulation, and therefore conception. Some have claimed that taking the pill makes a spontaneous abortion (in the case that ovulation happens despite taking the pill) more likely. I don’t believe that this is an intended “feature” of any of the available birth control pills. I’ve only ever researched one (talking with a doctor about it and reading the accompanying literature), and could find no evidence that there was an intention to cause an abortion if conception occurs.
There is a natural risk of spontaneous abortion with any conception. Any medication that a woman might take could have the potential of increasing that risk. I believe there is a moral distinction between intent to cause an abortion and an increase in the risk of abortion as an unintended side-effect. However at some point, if the increase in risk becomes high enough, then, even if through negligence, one may be morally responsible. I’d be interested in what your research has shown. Can you give us details?
First, most of my research tends to have come from web pages. I am not sure about the validity of them but one is a letter from some MD’s and others come from Randy Alcorn. There is some more information on this topic here which has links to the above article and one showing the otherside. It also makes the statement which pretty much summarizes my view:
On to something else you said though. You stated that if the intent of BCP’s is not abortive then there is a moral distinction. I am not sure if I agree completely. Ignorance may make a moral distinction but if there is a known side-effect then it is a part of the moral decision process. Now this is a big “if” and currently there does not seem to be a definitive answer.
As to the other part of your analogy – “any medication that a woman might take could have the potential of increasing that risk” – well I would hope (though I would not necessarily assume) that those medications would include warnings that they may cause abortions or other problems with conception. If that is the case then the morally responsible person would choose to either abstain or use a birth control method that would decrease the likelyhood of conception.
Also, what percentage becomes high enough to make it morally responsible? If birth control pills were necessary for some reason then I can see there being an argument that you can play the odds. However there are multiple other contraceptive options and there is always the option of no contraceptive at all. When there are alternatives I cannot see an argument being made for playing the percentages.
Let me make an analogy. We have been told not to let our newborn have any type of nuts for the first two years of his life. This is because even though there is not that great a percentage of children with nut allergies, if they do have an allergy it is extremely dangerous. Now, having been informed of this information if I choose to ignore it and feed him peanut butter and he has an allergic reaction which kills him, am I at fault (at least partially)?
One further note … I am not a biologist and do not feel qualified to determine if the pill does in fact cause abortions. What I do know is that there is enough confusion over the issue that I do not feel comfortable with it.
To bring another theological argument into this, is this a candidate for a Disputable Matter? If one is fully convinced that the pill does not cause abortions than they can use it? If one is not fully convinced then they should not?
I would say that, based on the current state of the medical evidence and debate, this is a disputable matter. But not in exactly the same way as the things that Paul pointed out in Romans 14. I don’t think that it’s so much a weaker/stronger brother thing as it is disputable because there is so much unknown surrounding it. If it is a matter of conscience, then one should certainly avoid oral contraceptive (OC). On the other hand, I don’t think there is enough evidence to make this a ‘black’ issue either.
Here is an article from four Christian pro-life Obstetrician-Gynecologists that make the case against OC as an abortifacient.
There are lots of things that increase the risk of miscarriage. There are those that make the case that Aspartame increases the risk. Based on this, should we say that sexually active women have a moral obligation to avoid Aspartame? To answer this, one would probably ask… What is the basis for saying that it increases the risk? And, how much does it increase the risk?
I’ve got more I could say on this, but I’ve got to get to work…
*In a corrupt, fallen world.
A few last comments. One, I have read that article. This becomes one of those science vs science debates where I know I am outclassed. That is why for myself I have to make it a matter of conscience. Of course, there are many other areas where there are other debates which come down to science vs science and I still make a decision one way or the other. I guess for this one since there are other options available and since the possible consequences are so high, I end up on the side of avoiding OC’s.
Two, I agree that there are other products and things out there which may cause or increase miscarriages. To be honest I am not sure what I think about whether or not sexually active women have a moral obligation to avoid those items. I know that once Jenny and I decided to have a kid that she avoided things that she knew could cause problems BUT I know that she probably didn’t avoid everything. Normally though I think we would say it is morally wrong for a woman to do things which may cause miscarriages or even birth defects once they know they are pregnant – for example smoking or drinking alchoholic beverages (though these do have a higher percentage it is still “iffy” in my mind to draw line based on percentages). I don’t think there is some special rule which says which ones are OK and which ones are bad.
Three, I am not trying to condemn those who use birth control pills. When I become convinced of a personal “preference” I tend to argue strongly about it. I also see a pattern in our culture to put our own comfort on a pedestal. I sometimes fear that issues such as this one is driven by our comfort rather than a desire to live godly lives. (NOTE: That as I write this I am being convicted of the fact that my diet conforms to my own comforts rather than what I know I should eat.) Maybe the science is wrong on birth control pills and NutraSweet. Maybe in our not so clear cut world it is impossible to avoid all of the things that can cause miscarriages. In my mind (though not always in practice), I keep weighing the scales and on one side is something I may prefer and on the other is the possibility of abortion and I cannot seem to justify that a preference (even if only a possibility) should weigh more.
Fourth, and finally, I want to make sure this doesn’t come across as “holier than thou”. At the beginning of our marriage we used oral contraceptives, even though I knew about these same arguments. The reason we stopped was not because I became convicted but for other medical reasons. Since then I wasn’t really challenged by it until taking an ethics class here at seminary. Still, I must admit that it is easier for me to say not to use oral contraceptives because we have other reasons not to. There are many more areas of my life where I know I don’t put the same theories I have been “preaching” into practice.
Thanks for the responses. They have been making me think through the issues of living in our corrupt world rather than just a mental ethics exercise.
Leaving birth control, and back to the broader topic…
Scott Klusendorf has a great piece on what he’d like to ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on this issue. His questions expose the fact that the abortion debate isn’t (primarily) about murder – it’s about worldview. His questions read like this:
Question for the forum: how does the way one answers these questions – whether you are a jurist or not – affect your answer to Eric’s original question of “what can we do about abortion?”
Great question! This line of questioning reveals what seems to be the greatest issue facing our government and legal system: “What is the rational grounds for the laws and policies that we create grounded in? Man or God?”
Or to say it another way, “what makes these laws rational?” Until we get this debate out in the open, we will constantly be addressing an endless regress of postmodern interpretations of the law.
But, if the meaning of the law is not based only in the interpreter of that law (in this case, judges), then we have a greater issue to address. Who created laws? In what is our morality based? Is it transcendent, or relative? When we evaluate the debate in this light, it seems abortion is the symptom of a greater problem.
I would not leave the abortion debate behind, but I think it would be wise to press our government to make a better choice concerning what it uses as a basis for moral law and legality. Until this is challenged, we have only scratch the surface of issues that lead one to conclude that abortion is appropriate.
Ha! I knew that would drag you out of hiding Jason… but I’m disappointed. I thought you would accuse me of being a pro-life presuppositionalist. 😉
Sorry, grammar is not my thing. The question in my first paragraph should be “On what standard do we base our laws and policies?”
And in the second paragraph, “What makes our current laws rational.”
I am such a bumpkin. 🙂
Hugh, I am nothing if not predictable. Heh, heh.