That's not what contraceptive pills do.  When taken as a 'birth control pill' they prevent ovulation, there is no mature egg to be fertilized.  When taken as a 'morning after pill' they prevent fertilization and implantation.

There are abortifacient pills, but these are different from contraceptives.  If someone was pro-life, using an abortifacient would be contradictory.

I am prolife and I would not take an abortifacient.

Ummm.  Jae.

I have met  you in person.  You are a guy....no need for abortifacient.

Not necessarily.  That is a common definition.  But not the only one.

I consider myself pro-life which means that I believe that every new life form should be wanted, valued and cherished.  Along that vein, I thus believe that contraception and, in extreme cases even abortion, should be readily and legally available to all women.  Women (and the men in their lives, if appropriate) should have the option to choose when to welcome new life into their lives.

first of all, i'm not sure where you are getting the information that 'many contraceptive pills destroy the egg that has already been fertilized...'  most birth control pills that are taken actually prevent ovulation in the first place.  i'd be curious to know where you got that information, camron.

do you mean 'conception', besh, or do you really mean 'life begins at contraception'?

I am unsure if this is a new poster trying to get a rise out of folks or if this is a person asking a question wishing some advice about using contraception.

Lets hope it's the latter.

Firstly, there are reasons against using the pill.  There are side effects like any medication and this is a decision that should be carefully discussed with your personal doctor.

Depending on your medical history and family genetics the Pill might not be the best alternative for you.

As noted by others above, the mechanism for the pill is not to abort a fertilized egg but to prevent ovulation of a ripe egg in the first place.  SO you don't need to worry that you are somehow aborting potential lives.

If you are worried about the Pill and it's side effects ( less than there used to be ) then there are other useful contraception methods.  Again, a discussion with yoru doc is in order.

Many people value life and are even prolife but don't necessarily agree tath life begins are conception.   Others might think life begins at viability which is generally around 27 weeks if the baby is born in a hospital with a neonatal unit.  And others have different definitions.

Contraception will help you control the size of your family , the when of your family and your personal reproductive health.

Find some , use it wisely.

Thanks DaisyJane,

When I said that using an abortifacient would be contradictory if one was pro-life I was referring to the stereotypical pro-lifer, with a black and white point of view.  You're right, this wouldn't include everyone who considers themselves to be pro-life.  There are many instances where a 'pro-lifer' having an abortion various forms would not be contradictory.

"About a year ago my girlfriend was on the pill, using a diaphram, and an IUD all at once. Recently she had a baby. The baby was born wearing armor."

 - Stephen Wright

Just for clarification sake.  How can some of you be pro-life and still beleive it is ok to have an abortion.  The definition of pro-life is as follows: Advocating the legal protection of human embyos and fetuses, especially by favoring the outlawing of abortion on the ground that it is taking of a human life.

My second point would be to the people who are confused with some contraceptive being abortificant.  Yes, some contraception is abortificant.  Do some research on this topic if you are confused.

Here is another interesting fact.  The rate of abortion has went up at almost the exact same rate as the use of the pill in the last 50 years.   If you think about it...what exactly is abortion?  It is almost like a backup plan for those who get pregnant that did not plan on it.  When on the pill, people are not planning on getting pregnant.  This causes the idea of children to be a burden in a sense.  Thus, people then use the morning after pill (abortificant) or abortion as their backup plan for unwanted children. 

If all people are created in the image and likeness of God and you are pro-life (see definition)  then how is it ok to use some types of birthcontrol.  I would invite people who claim to be prolife but beleive in abortion to explain their stance a little more so I can understand. 

Please don't be offended by my post, I am just trying to get some open dialogue going here.

I am pro-life in a general sense, but I feel the term has been badly misused by the so-called "pro-life" movement (some of whom are not, IMHO, pro-life given their willingness to support overseas wars that kill thousands) and I am certainly not part of that movement (indeed, I am an opponent of it). I am also, by the way, pro-choice which is not necessarily the same as "pro-abortion" no matter how some on both sides may spin it that way.

I don't believe that life begins at conception or even necessarily implantation. You do realize that many embryos fail to implant naturally or miscarry even if the do implant? Life really doesn't begin until a viable pregnancy comes to term, IMHO. So, preventing ovulation, conception, and implantation is fair game, which is what contraception does. If we had easy to use, safe, effective, universally available contraception, there would be fewer abortions.

I am less comfortable with actual abortion unless it is a case of medical necessity. If the choice is between the viable life of the mother and the possibly non-viable life of the fetus, we should save the viable life. I also think that "medical necessity" isn't just based on physical condition. There are some cases where bringing the child into the world just isn't a good idea.

On the other hand, abortion of an otherwise healthy, normal pregnancy as a substitute for birth control is something that I, personally, wouldn't advocate but, and here is I part company with the right-wing "pro-life" crowd, I also wouldn't advocate stopping others from making that decision through political or judicial means. It should be between a woman, her doctor, and anyone else she chooses to consult (clergy, therapist, etc.).

To my mind, the solution for stopping the abortion of unwanted pregnancies is safe, effective contraception that is readily available as well as improving women's health and socio-economic status so that the social and medical complications that might trigger the decision don't happen. The goal needs to be making sure EVERY (or at least almost every) pregnancy is safe and wanted. Then abortion will go away as part of the natural course of events. This is likely another area where I part company with the so-called pro-life movement, at least the Roman Catholic arm of it.

Mendalla

Hi Camron. Welcome to the cafe.

I'm curious to know where your definition of pro-life came from.  I think that in much the way the term "Christian" can be seen different ways by different cultures and denominations, "pro-life" can mean different things to different people.  For instance, I would disagree that legality has anything to do with my decision to be pro-life.  I don't think that it should be illegal to abort a pregnancy.

Mendalla - it looks like we posted at the same time.  I wish I had said most of the things that you did!  thanks.

Hello Camron and welcome to WonderCafe.

My opinion is that using contraception and being pro-life are not mutually exclusive.  Preventing a pregnancy from happening is not the same as terminating one that has begun.

Many is a vague term.  Can you be more clear?  Of all contraceptives that are routinely used  to fill perscriptions which operate in the manner you describe and which do not?

Life is a possibility at conception.  The odds are better after implantation (which is technically the beginning point of a pregnancy) since there are no biological markers which indicate fertilization has happened.  The hormones which indicate pregnancy are not produced until after implantation takes place.

Contraceptives which prevent implantation are not contradictory to a pro-life position.  Abortifants would be.

Which is fine in theory.

Other factors do come into play.  One of which is choice.

If I hold a pro-life position then I am making a choice which I will abide by.  You are not bound by my choice and are free to make a contrary decision for yourself.

If I hold a pro-choice position I recognize that whatever an individual chooses is their right.

If I believe that I have a right to project my belief onto others I am neither pro-life or pro-choice.  I am pro-tyranny.  Provided, of course, I get to be the tyrant.

I hope that you are here to discuss your issues maturely and respectfully.

Grace and peace to you.

John

So I see you have a definition of "pro life" that othersw wouldn't necessarily agree with.

And you are correct that the morning after pill is a method of destrolying a possibly fertilized egg.

But your original statement said   "many contraception pills"  and that is incorrect. No one would classify the morning after pill as a contraception pill.  It woudl be classifed as a "rescue" pill.  A mistake happens , say a broken condom, and the couple/woman needs some reassurance that she is ok.

Properly taken the Pill doesnt' result in pregnancy.  It isn't the same thing at all.

How can someone be pro life and for abortion? 

I think many people decide on abortion ethics based on how they feel "life" is diagnosed and how they compare the life of the mother verses the potential life of the fetus/embryo.

You appear to be strongly in the camp of "life begins at conception" which is fine.  SO don't have an abortion and you will be fine.

But don't ever believe that your beliefs have any bearing on what I may choose to do or not to do.

Camron,

You picked a definition for "pro-life". There are others. 

Some make room in the definition for those who are ethically or politically opposed to elective abortion.

Elective is a really tricky word in the medical world. Elective is anything that is planned or is not considered an emergency, that does not mean it is not considered medically necessary. An appendectomy is an emergency. Many cardiac surgeries are elective. They restore blood flow or heart function, like angioplasty or a pacemaker... but they are not a life and death emergency. They may become such, but they are usually not. Hip replecment is another elective as is cataract surgery, both are medically necessary and improve quality of life, but someone does not die without them.

So, is elective abortion any one scheduled or is it those in the absence of medical necessity? 

Now, there are those who do not support most abortions but do in extenuating circumstances like where life is in danger. Then, for them, it becomes medically necessary

There are also those who make room for quality of life decisions. That is where some leave room for rape or incest. 

Then there are those who ethically would not seek an abortion themselves but also support reproductive rights. 

I would agree with you that most people have no idea how their birth control works. They do not know the difference between contraceptive and interceptive. They also often do not know how their interceptive/contraceptive/contragestation method works.

The pill controls hormones, but that does not mean a woman does not ovulate. An egg can be fertilized, but it will not gestate in utero. The hormone levels will not allow it to remain attached. 

Contraception does not always prevent fertilization. Barrier methods do prevent fertilization. Hormonal methods, the pill Norplant, etc... do not prevent fertilization. IUDs, modern ones, are thought to prevent fertilization. The copper and levonorgestrel  i spermicidal. That is why they have a 5-10 year life span. 

Where are you starting "life"?

Are you starting it with egg joining sperm, fertilization, or the implantation in the uterus? 

As far as asking how someone can be pro-life and use something that can be abortificant...

If you are pro-life, how do you use nutmeg, vitamin C, papaya, pomegranate? They  can all be abortificant. 

It is not quite as black and white as either side would like it to be. 

Hi Camron,

Speaking personally I don't believe that abortions are okay.  I wouldn't prohibit them simply because there are, in statistically rare instances, times when abortion is therapeutic.  Ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency.

What would a pro-life position be when to continue such a pregnancy would most likely result in the death of both mother and the infant?

Who is responsible for the definition that you have provided?  Is it a widely recognized definition or the specific definition of a specific organization?

It doesn't appear to me that there is any confusion between contraceptives and abortificant.  In your language you allow that not all contraceptives are abortificant.  That would be contradictory to your earlier stated position that life begins at fertilization/conception.  

If you truly believe that contraceptives which are designed to prevent implantation are also abortificants then you need to be clear about that.  

I think that you are confusing causation with correlation.

The reported rate of abortion increased at the same rate as the use of the pill.  Primarily because previous means of silencing reports (guilt) was rendered ineffectual.  In an atmosphere where one will be shamed if one admits to a certain behaviour it is not unreasonable or unusual for such behaviour not to be reported.

When the atmosphere changes and grace and forgiveness are more readily offered it is not unreasonable or unusual for more individuals to admit to a behaviour.

Which doesn't mean that a more gracious and forgiving atmosphere is what causes the behaviour to happen.  It just makes observing such behaviour easier.

When plan A fails one hopes that plan B will prevail.  People are not immoral because Plan A has a particular failure rate and they are pushed into using plan B.

In a non-sense perhaps.

The operant idea is that people do not want to get pregnant.  Getting pregnant when one does not want to be pregnant becomes a problem for those people.

I may think that their reasons for not wanting to be pregnant are trivial to the point of tom-foolery and yet, the point of their life is not to be approved by me.  If they have a reason to not want to be pregnant then they have a reason to not want to be pregnant.  It is as valid for them as they choose for it to be.

The "unwanted child" position is a means of forcing guilt and shame.  The pregnancy is unwanted.  Abortion ends the pregnancy that was unwanted.

While it is statistically probable that every pregnancy will result in a live birth there is deviation from that norm.  Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) happens.  Ectopic pregnancies happen.  Neither of them is wanted and neither can be legislated against.

Your use of the word "if" does not strengthen your argument in any way.

Again there is a difference between saying abortion is okay (preferable) and saying that abortion is okay (permissable).

Like others I believe that abortion should be safe, accessible and rare.  I would argue that I am pro-life.  Most would say that I should be in the pro-choice camp.  My choice extends only as far as my influence.  Since I will never be in the position to carry a child I will never fully understand what that entails.  My wife, who has carried three embryos to term and miscarried once, assures me that it is no picnic.

I can understand why a woman may not be excited about undertaking such a venture.

Particularly if such an adventure was not something they were planning at present.

I could be firm and suggest that if they didn't want to undertake such a venture they should have taken steps to prevent it.  Our third child was not planned and we were using multiple means to prevent a pregnancy.  The statistical failure rates aligned and pregnancy happened.

Because neither of us would choose abortion we had a beautiful baby girl.  Events during birth could have meant all that gestation went for naught.  Women who choose not to go through any of that should not be forced to go through any of that.

There is nothing wrong with respectful dialogue.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Some good posts.  I am not trying to convince anyone to my thinking, just getting people to think about what they beleive.  Obviously my opinion on what is prolife is different from others.  In my case, I beleive every creation is that of God and life begins at conception.  To play God and destroy life is in my opinion morrally wrong.  There are of course some cases where abortion is needed to save the life of the mother in a pregnancy gone wrong and this is another issue. 

To correct myself...some contraceptives are abortificates. 

There are alot of issues in this post and I don't have time to comment on them all.  The reason I beleive abortions went up at the same rate as the pill is that using the pill requires an abortive mentality because when you are on the pill you are not being open to life.  You are not allowing Gods plan for creation to be put in place.  Thus, when a pregnancy does occur people concider it an "accident."  However, there are no accidents in creation if you beleive that God is the giver and creator of life.  When the person using contraceptive becomes pregnany, they had not planned on it and so the only way to end the pregnancy would be through abortion or the morning after pill. 

However, if you are using a natural method of birthcontrol with the mentality of being open to life, then Gods plan can be put in place because you are open to life whenever the sexual act occures and there is always a possiblity of life in every sexual act.  This does not mean that you will become pregnany everytime you have sex.  Natural Family Planning is very effective when used properly.  The couple using Natural Family Planning must always be praying about whether God is calling them to have another child.  Remember, God does not give you anything you cannot handle.

Just as a side note, it was prohibited to use contraception by all Christian denominations until the 1960's.  When the pill was introduced, so Christian leaders stated that it was a bad idea and that abortions would skyrocket. This is exactly what happened.

I am open to more comments.

There is a point during the pregnancy when the baby has a nervous system and I believe can rightfully be called a life, and I oppose ending that life for many reasons, except if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.  Then it gets more tricky.

But there are many weeks where all we have are a collection of cells.  I don't have the chart of the number of weeks handy, but at these stages, what we have are cells that have the potential to be a life, not an actual life.  One sperm and one egg also have the potential to be a life, and lots of them go to waste.

Point is, there is a point in time, at which we should not be aborting based on the mother's wishes.  That should be the debate, and it is a scientific question - not a religious one.  The religious have weighed in on this in the past, giving unrealistic dates on when the embryo can feel pain, etc.  As I recall, proper information invalidates these unrealistic claims, but there is a grey area, and that's where, I believe, the answer lies.  Not in a book, but in picking the number of weeks into a pregnancy where abortion is acceptable, based on what we know.

That is pure, unmitigated crap.

You don't want to get me started on this one.

^^ Remember, you can handle that cancer.  No need for medicine, chemo, surgery, anything like that.  If you couldn't handle it yourself, then God wouldn't have given it to you...

*barf*

I'm pro-life. I oppose that the UCC supports abortion. I think God has a plan for every human being and every human being deserves salvation that's why the "when does life begin" debate shouldn't matter from a Christian point of view. Life begins with the first mitosis which means when female and male chromosomes fuse to form a new living being that has the right to life like you and me. I think God is the only one who has the right to give and take life.

However, it is common sense to perform an abortion when the mother's life is threatened. her body is the one who provides for the baby the first 9 months. Well, until someone invents some kind of birth machine that can take care of that. I have mixed feeling in cases of rape and incest. It should be up to the girl, or woman to decide. I encourage it, but I can totally understand why she would decide to abort.

Icthys:  So, God chooses for a pair of unmarried teenagers to have sex at a party?  That's in his deliberate plan?

If a baby resulting from such a union is a part of "God's plan", then it necessarily follows that their sinful sex was a part of "God's plan" in the first place.  Otherwise, the baby could never have been born.

So, the lesson here is that all humans should try to procreate as often as possible, since any baby that results is a part of "God's plan".  To refrain from procreation is to abort "God's plan" for any infant(s) that would result.

Rather than writing things out I will just say ditto to DaisyJane on this thread.  That fits pretty much with what I believe.

Hi Camron,

So long as you are also open to thinking about what you believe that should not be a problem.

Fair enough.  That is what you believe and you are free to believe it.  What remains to be seen is the limits of freedom you allow to others and how your belief seeks to shape the beliefs of others.

This is as good a place as any to start.

As noted above you are welcome to your belief and free to hold it.  Where your belief begins and ends is an issue.  

You are free to believe that abortion is morally wrong.  To accuse those who opt for abortion of playing God is you forcing your belief on others.

No, actually it is not another issue.  If abortion is morally wrong as you posit how can it become morally right?  Therapeutic abortion and abortion as a contraceptive plan B still result in the termination of pregnancy.

Which would mean then that not all contraceptives would compromise a pro-life standing.

This is another area where your use of language does not square with your stated intent of open dialogue.

Abortive mentality?  What do you mean by that?  Future serial killer perhaps?

Enemies of God as well as future serial killers eh?  Your dialogue skills don't seem to reflect your stated intent Camron.

An accident is defined as an undesireable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap.

Getting pregnant when one doesn't desire to be pregnant qualifies as an accident by definition.  Finding that you are pregnant when you did not wish to be pregnant would not likely be considered fortunate.

Again, you are dictating how others must think and believe.  That is very contrary to open dialogue.  

If an accident is, as the definition above suggests, an undesired or unfortunate event then an undesired pregnancy is an accident.

The world you construct establishes God as tyrantr.  God, seeing a couple intent on preventing nature from running its course intervenes and causes the contraceptive to fail.  The couple is then forced to be parents against their will or invoke the wrath of God.  Such action is neither just, nor gracious how do you reconcile it with the character of God?

Conversely, the God who interferes with the effectiveness of the contraceptive is what?

Again, you seek to dictate.

Using birth control is not anti-life.

Platitudes are easy.  Living with the burden God places upon you is not.  Again, you are free to believe what you wish to believe.  You are not free to dictate to others what they must believe.

Which proves what exactly Camron?  Owning slaves wasn't is it wrong that we no longer allow slavery?

Again, you are arguing causation which has not been proven.

Correlation, that things happen alongside and independently of each other, is most likely responsible for the increase.

How far back can you track incidence of abortion Camron?  StatsCan only provides stats from 1970 and following.  The United States provides data collected from 1960 (the year that the birth control pill became available) to 2005.  The connection you claim exists does not appear to be supported by the United States statistics.

http://www.johnstonarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate,html

While it is true that the rates of abortion do climb.  There is little change in the rate of abortions until the pill has been available for ten years.  It would appear that something in 1969 is closer to being the cause for the rise in abortions than the availability of the pill in 1960.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Lol.

If you're going to use scientific terms, at least try to know what they mean first.

What you have described is NOT mitosis. What you have described is syngamy. Mitosis is the splitting of a cell after chromosomal duplication to form two new daughter cells with the same number of chromiosomes as the original cell.

Quite frankly this kind of puts anything you say on the subject in the "doubtful" column.

LOL!!  i have done research, my friend... i was on the birth control pill for many years!!

i'm asking you to show ME where you find information that the mechanism of action for the birth control pill is to destroy a fertilized embryo.  cause thats not what it does at all.

i know that the mechanism of action for the 'morning after pill' is to flush out the uterus.  but that is a different medication alltogether from the birth control pill.

thats not what mitosis is, though...

Misinformation helps nobody. Opinion is great, touting something as fact that is false is another. 

The information regarding a ban on contraception posted above, using the word "all" regarding Christian denominations is WRONG as is the 1960's figure and the pill also WRONG. 

Contraception has been known since ancient times. One needs to remember that abstinence is contraception. It is the only one sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church and is acknowledged as contraception.

So too is withdrawl (coitus interuptus) and natural family planning.... The rhythm method is a contraception practice. 

If we are talking about methods other than abstinence and natural family planning, then we also should likely be aware  that In Jewish, Hindu, Islamic texts they record herbal contraception used. There is also no UNIFORM position in most religious denominations. Some we would guess do not allow any form of contraception use, actually do. Mormonism says it is between the couple. The Amish use both planned abstinence and the rhythm method. 

Anglicanism in the 1930's and its Lambeth Conference gave permission for contraception when abstinence was not practical. The Federal Council of Churches made their decision in 1931. 

Eastern Orthodox differs from Roman Catholicism on the issue of contraception.

There are those who do not use contraception because of their religious beliefs. That is their choice. It is their choice regardless of the denominational stance. One can find any number of RC's who use birth control. 

Now, like I said, many people have no idea how their birth control methods work. The pill controls hormones. It hormonally causes a shedding of the uterus, basically- bringing on a timely period. That can and does mean that a fertilized egg can be shed. The shedding expels the fertilized and implanted egg. It is a personal decision on whether that is acceptable. 

No matter your decisions, they should be based in fact... not propaganda... from religious leaders or pharmacuetical companies. 

Perhaps looking at the US declaring in 1873 that contraception was illegal would let one know it was happening to see a need to declare it illegal. 

There were condoms, linen and animal gut long before the rubber ones. In the 1500's they were used for prevention of syphilis and were treated with chemicals for spermicide. 

There were also douches for women and devices. 

Rubber vulcanization in 1839 meant rubbers, IUDs, sponges, cervical caps, diaphragms...

Once made illegal, things became touted as simply "hygiene products". 

From 1930-1960 Lysol was a top selling "contraceptive" used by women. It was never proven to work, but they touted it as "protecting women from germs" which was code. 

Sperm = germs.

Funny!

 The ads are hilarious and disgusting at the same time. 

www.mum.org/lysol1.htm

www.americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/douche_with_lysol_for_femin...

(the latter has a few versions of the ads)

Sorry I was inacruate about my dates many Christian churches allowing the use of the pill.  Up until the 1930's all protestant denominations beleived contraception to be sinful.

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17).

No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture.

Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception.

Here is one article on the birthcontrol pill causing abortion since one post was wondering where this information is coming from.

http://www.emmerich1.com/Does%20the%20Birth%20Control%20Pill%20Cause%20Abortions%207th%20edition.pdf

If you research the different types of birthcontrol you will find information on how the different birth control pills work.  You can also look at the book that contains all the medications in and how they work.  A pharmacist would have a book like this.

As for the posts on birth control and the rate of abortion.  I stated that the use of birth control and the rate of abortions having increased at the same rate.  You do not need statistics beyond 1960 becausse you are measuring from that point onward. 

On another note.  If God is the creator of life and all people are created in the image and likeness of God, then destroying a life would be wrong, even if it is based solely on the fact that all life is created by God.  Is the the embryo not a living thing?  You are playing God if you are deciding at what point a human is actually a human. 

Here are some bible verses to back up my arguements against abortion.

God knows the preborn child. "You knit me in my mother’s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret" (Psalm 139:13,15). God also helps and calls the preborn child. "You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God" (Psalm 22:10-11). "God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace" (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15).

I will say to God: ... "Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? (NIV, Job 10:2, 8-9)

I challenge you to find bible verses that state that God is not the creator of life or bible verses that condone abortion.

your opinion.  this is only catholic church dogma, not gods word. 

there is a big difference there.

really??  because my husband and i have been married for 20 years now, and we have used birth control for quite awhile now.  and our relationship couldn't be stronger.

where is the 'harm' supposed to be coming from, i wonder??

considering that this is the same church which blames society for the fact that priests are molesting children, and refuses to allow the perpetrators of those horrible sins to face justice for what they have done, i would have to say that i don't think that they are in ANY position to be telling me whether contraception is going to harm the relationship between my spouse and i.

thank you very much.

'no one can doubt' that??  are you KIDDING ME???!!!?? 

i doubt it.  big time.  in fact, i think that you and the pope have a pretty large set of balls if you think that i should actually listen to your teachings on anything related to sex after hiding thousands of sexual predators and refusing to release them to the authorities to face justice for what they have done.

LOL!!  what study is that??  good grief.

and 'the magisterium'??!?!?  what is this, 'the golden compass' or something??

well, when i tried to view that study, it flipped into adobe and promptly crashed my computer.  so if you can actually just cut and paste the words here, i'd appreciate it.

secondly, i have a degree in nursing.  took pharmacology.  and i can tell you that the mechanism of action, or MOA for the birth control pill that i and many other women take is to prevent ovulation in the first place. 

i advise YOU to go and look that up in the pharmacology text, my friend.  sounds like you might learn a thing or two about some of the sources you are relying on for your information here.

huh??

camron, we play god ALL THE TIME.  right now, we are at war in afghanistan, and just the other day we played god and killed a bunch of rebels.  are we not playing god by deciding to kill these people just because they attacked us??  by your logic, shouldn't we be allowing god to make that decision, rather than our soldiers?? 

as a nurse, i know that doctors are determining who lives and who dies every day.

this conundrum you are describing above is not something that is unique to the question of abortion, you know.

I love The Golden Compass.  Good catch, Sigh.  It didn't work too well in Lyra's Oxford, and it's not working too well here.

Wow, I the great Somegirl, have thwarted almighty God's plan for me to be a welfare mother of many children with a simple interuterine device.  I'm more powerful than God, who'd a thunk it?

Camron, that was one giant ball of fail, and we're all less intelligent for reading it. 

sigh.

I was able to download the material.  It is written by Randy Alcorn who describes himself as thus...my comments in brackets.

I am not a physician or a scientist, but I am an experienced researcher.(HUH. some credentials please). If I were conducting medical research, obviously the fact that I am not a physician or scientist would disqualify me.  (Yup, you're right, it does). But I have attempted no medical research (and this somehow adds to your credibility?). I have simply hunted down, read, and organized the research  findings of others (that solely support your agenda). I have then evaluated their cumulative findings and added my own insights in areas where I am more qualified, including biblical studies (I would suggest that is highly doubtful). 

The book is published by something with a name like Eternal Ministeries.  Sorry Camron this is not, in any way, unbiased scientific research. It does not count.  It is an article published by a man who very clearly had an agenda and completed "research" only to support that agenda.  Any research worth its merit would provide an unbiased discussion fully exploring contrasting opinions.  There is none in this article. It cannot be taken seriously and should not be used as an educational or instructional tool, certainly not outside of an evangelical context where people have already made their decision about procreation.

 In terms of the rest of your post I would pretty much have to agree with everything sigh said. The Catholic church is in no way able to provide (IMO) any reasonable comment on normal sexual relations.  The Vatican is comprised exclusively of people who have elected celibacy.  Anyone with any real power is a male. The church has a long history of sheltering pedophiles.  That alone makes it difficult to offer ANY credibility to anything they might suggest regarding sexuality.  Their general lack of practical experience with normal sexuality futher complicates the scenario.

I wanted to comment on this seperately.

You suggest contraception is wrong.  This, once again, supports RevJohn's pro-tyrant suggestion.  You have decided, for you, contraception is unacceptable.  That is fine.  However, you might want to allow the rest of us to make our own decisions about family planning.

..."The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God". 

You've spoken to Her directly about this matter.  Can I have her cell number?  I'd like to ask a few questions myself.  You may wish to refrain from speaking on behalf of God. 

...."But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation."

Where on earth are you finding this crap????  I have been married for 17 years and have three boys.  All of our pregnancies were wanted, chosen and planned.  In my opinion THAT is the best way to welcome children into this world. Birth control was used when we did not wish to conceive and a more permanent method was employed following our youngest son's birth.   To suggest that the loving relationship I have with my dear husband has become unnatural, or even harmful, because I have somehow thwarted God (in your opinion, not mine) borders on offensive, and at the very least is utterly laughable.

If you wish to potentially conceive anytime you might have sex that is most certainly your choice and I wish you every happiness with the family that might ensue (or has ensued).  However, these matters are highly personal.  Family planning is very much an issue that is best confined to partners and the God they look to.  Your opinions really have no place in the broader conversation.  Nor do the Vatican's in my opinon.

It is also very interesting to note that the author of the article is a paster who is openly pro-life.  His wife used the pill when they wished to avoid pregnancy, they then had two children and followed that up with permanent birth control.

Do what I say, not what I do???? An excellent way to earn credibility and respect.

Mendalla, you nailed it for me...again. 

 Camron - Can you point me to Scriptural verses where contraception use is spelled out as implicitly wrong? 

I can't believe I missed this.  Jae, I congratulate you and your uterus.

LOL!!  heck, i missed that too!!

really, jae, the 'morning after pill' is not meant for the man... its for the woman.  just to be clear there.

Hi Camron,

Mistakes happen.  Thanks for apologizing.  

I get the feeling though that you are brushing aside the mistake without actually reflecting upon how your mistake seriously weakens the argument that you put forward.  It is as if the conclusion you have reached is more important than whether or not the facts support it.

More of you telling us what we should think rather than what you believe.

I think most of us here would agree with you on this point.

With one small conjunction you dismiss what you refer to as blessing.  It becomes non blessing.  

Do you have proof of this harm Camron?

With respect Camron, the papacy is not authoritative for members of the protestant branch of the Christian family tree.  Nor am I convinced of Pope Paul IV's predictive abilities.

While I have no problem with the doctrine of Total Depravity and understanding that where humanity can mess up (anywhere) humanity will mess up.  I find Pope Paul IV's argument a further instance where correlation and causation are confused.  His argument that the use of contraceptives will threaten marital fidelity appears to presume that it is only fear of being caught which keeps a marriage intact is extremely saddening.

I'm betting many can.

You are aware that the "free love" movement began in the 1820's aren't you?

Could you provide links to one or two of those recent studies please Camron?

Thank you for the article Camron.  The article has a very strong bias which the author makes no effort to hide.  As honest as Mr. Alcorn's declaration is it also colours his findings.  For example, Mr. Alcorn, much like yourself proclaims that life begin at fertilization.  It is obvious that if fertilization is the starting point for life everything that impedes implantation is abortive.

One of the other problems I have with Mr. Alcorn's article is his willingness to fill in the gaps of knowledge with conjecture.

For example:

Which can be translated to say, "We have no way of knowing so we guess."

Which Alcorn uses as a proof even though he has already stated that it is a fact that definitive numbers cannot be determined.

Using the estimate of a spokesman for a major hormone producer to determine the rate when he has already stated that determining definitive numbers is not possible is dishonest.

He follows this with, "studies suggest," "estimates,"  and the inclusion of a study from a a group comprised of 22 women.  Alcorn does state very clearly that this study is too small to provide definitive numbers.  However, if you are interested the numbers of this extremely small study and two equally small studies are . . . .

That is not unbiased research.

Which works if all one is concerned with is correlation.  It doesn't work if one is concerned with causation.  Such a strategy deliberately eliminates other social factors which may be closer to causation than other factors which are correlational.

Respectfully Camron, none of the verses you have provided backs up your arguments against abortion.  The verses have nothing at all to do with abortion.  They do lift up God as creator of human life.  They do not state that life begins at conception, just that God is responsible for starting it.

Aside from the atheists that frequent WonderCafe I doubt that you would find many here who would take issue with God as the Creator of life.  The point of contention is "when does life begin?"

None of the texts you cite answer that question.

I do not believe any here have made a claim that abortion is condoned in scripture so I am confused as to why this challenge has been made.  

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi DaisyJane,

Respectfully I think you are attacking Mr. Alcorn's character rather than his argument.  Ad Hominem's do not disprove any of the points that he has made.

Alcorn very clearly shares his family history, what he believed, how he acted within that belief, that his mind was changed and he now views previous behaviour with some shame.

I don't agree with Alcorn's conclusions and while I do find some of his research academically dishonest he is, at the very least, transparent with respect to his bias.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Duplicate post editted to erase duplication.

Hi sighsnootles,

Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Most Protestant denominations do not use the term magisterium.  That doesn't mean that we do not recognize it.

In The United Church of Canada we use the phrase, "General Council said . . ."

The magisterium would be something that would be an authority for members of the Roman Catholic Church.  It would not be recognized by anyone outside of Roman Catholicism.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Life begins at conception.

Unfortunately for the newly conceived the laws do not recognize them as a person.   So they have no protection.  As a society we have a long ways to go and this is just one of our many short comings.

Women were marganlized in the past.  We have not won that war yet.

Colored people were marginalized in the past.  We have not won that war yet.

Children were marginalized in the past.  We have not won that war yet.

GLBT were marginalized in the past.  We have not won that war yet.

There are many other groups that are marginilized and we have not won those wars yet.

Is there hope on any of the fronts?  I have no idea.  I am just busy living my life and I admit that and do not use the excuse that "I believe this but no one is obligated to share my beliefs"

wow, serena... good insights there.

i hope that when you look at me and my contributions to wondercafe, that you see as much growth as i see in you.