I was surprised to learn recently that it is difficult to find a pro-life physician who also refuses to prescribe chemical contraceptives as birth control. My initial thought was that this is a no-brainer. Chemical contraceptives can cause an abortion (let's not debate that here), doctors should strive to prevent abortion, so doctors should not prescribe chemical contraceptives as birth control. Where is the difficulty here?

I then thought about the argument that the doctor is just giving the patient access to pharmaceuticals, and the patient's autonomy in making her own healthcare decisions removes any culpability from the physician. Can this situation be likened to, say, an employee at a book store? Is the sales clerk culpable when he rings up a patron's purchase of pornography? What about a sale of the latest Joel Osteen?

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

In terms of chemical contraceptives, are we talking about the "morning after" pill or the general pregnancy-prevention pill?

__________________
Dan Pemberton
Vacaville, CA

Member, First Baptist Church San Luis Obispo
Formerly ABUSA (We left, so I guess that makes us American Baptists Unleashed!)

In most situations, the roles are different - the doctor would most often be actively recommending or proposing the sinful thing, rather than merely ringing up a purchase of Osteen.

Yet, there are probably physicians who will not recommend or propose such pills, but would be willing to 'ring up the purchase' so to speak. This may apply more to pharmacists than GP's.

And in that case, I have a very strong immediate reaction that even that course is unacceptable, though I am having trouble being consistent in my reasoning.

I would (grudgingly) ring up an Osteen book, but refuse a purchase of pornography, and would not work at a store that carried such. Likewise, I would hope doctors refuse to prescribe the pill even a the direct insistence of the patient.

To be consistent, I would have to deny the Osteen purchase also. That doesn't really bother me all that much , but I'd want to hear other opinions before actually taking that hard of a line.

An elder at our church has been a pharmacist for 30+ years, and has come very close to losing his job many times over this exact issue. He works at a major retail/drugstore chain, and has somehow managed not to budge an inch and have that respected.

__________________
Jeremy Gage
First Baptist Church
Durham, NC

"No heart can conceive that treasury of mercies which lies in this one privilege, in having liberty and ability to approach unto God at all times, according to his mind and will." - John Owen

Actually, now that I think about it - there appears to be a fundamental difference between the Osteen book on the one hand, and pornography and the pill on the other.

The pill and pornography, IMHO, are sinful in and of themselves and have no possible God-honoring use.

Whereas, the Osteen book is certainly filled with drivel and sinful theology - the act of possessing and reading the book can have a God-honoring purpose, namely to be prepared to defend the gospel and the hope that is within us. It could also be used sinfully by respecting it/him as an authority on the Word of God.

In that case, how the material is used, and the culpability for it, lies solely with the reader. In the pornography or pill case, there is culpability on both parties regardless of how they are used.

__________________
Jeremy Gage
First Baptist Church
Durham, NC

"No heart can conceive that treasury of mercies which lies in this one privilege, in having liberty and ability to approach unto God at all times, according to his mind and will." - John Owen

Let's not debate that here?

That issue is THE vital issue. If the Pill causes abortions then there is one answer. If the Pill is merely contraceptive and not an abortive pill than the answer is different.

But that question is the crux of the whole issue.




Are you assuming that all forms of contraception for all reasons are sinful?

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

The abortion pill (RU486) cannot be given by a Christian to anyone without sin I believe.

But I believe that the birth control pill can (at least some kinds...the older kinds are clearly not abortifacients, but some newer kinds might have abortifacient effects).

Therefore a Christian pharmacist or docter could prescribe the birth control pill to a patient nder certain circumstances.

The birth control pill can be taken by Christians without sin under certain circmstances. It regulates periods and provides a uterine rest for a while while a mother recovers from hard birth.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

This is an important thing to note, regardless of what one believes about the pill causing abortions.

It cannot cause abortions in believing, pure women who are single, and there can be many very helpful uses of the pill to them in that context.

__________________
Jeremy Gage
First Baptist Church
Durham, NC

"No heart can conceive that treasury of mercies which lies in this one privilege, in having liberty and ability to approach unto God at all times, according to his mind and will." - John Owen

I was careful to say that the use of the chemical contraception was for birth control. Obviously use by a celibate woman to treat something like PCOS is acceptable.

For the sake of argument I am assuming that the Pill and other chemical contraceptives occasionally cause abortion. I do believe this is the case, and the people I have been discussing this with agree that it is the case. The disagreement is does this means that it can't be prescribed.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

I regularly prescribe chloroquine and quinine for malaria and both are known to cause abortion. However, malaria is more likely to cause abortion than the pills in question. Therefore in prescribing these, I'm actually, over many patients, preventing abortion.

It depends on when human life begins, whether these things involve abortion. That is a matter of opinion.

__________________
Mary Vanderkooi
Kale Heywott Church (KHC)
Soddo, Ethiopia

I'm trying to phrase my words carefully, because talking about the various sides of the life of an unborn child is not that easy for me.

I am unfamiliar with the times in which it can cause an abortion. Are the situations in which it happens known? Or is a woman who takes the pill more likely to miscarry?

__________________
Dan Pemberton
Vacaville, CA

Member, First Baptist Church San Luis Obispo
Formerly ABUSA (We left, so I guess that makes us American Baptists Unleashed!)

i'm confused. Can the "normal" birth control pill cause an abortion (i.e. killing an embryo)? if there is a chance then it seems to me that a no is a no brainer.

__________________
Joseph P. Grigoletti II
Lay-person
Église Réformée du Québec
Québec, Québec Canada

''Nothing is so sacred that Satan will not invade it. In fact, the more sacred something is, the more he desires to profane it.''
John MacArthur

Replace abortion with something else. If the pill is sinful because it may cause abortion then anything that causes a side effect that harms anyone is sinful.

Any medicine, sport, exercise, pipe smoking, etc.. is sinful, because they can all cause harmful side effects.

Really, folks, I do tree removal and bee and wasp exterminations. Monday I had to climb a huge oak tree that was too big for my safety harness to kill some aggressive bees 40 feet up. The chance of me hurting myself is a degree of magnitude greater than a married women who for reasons she and her husband believe are for her health takes responsible chemical birth control for a limited time.

It shouldn't be that difficult.

Ask yourself the question. On those grounds, that the pill could as a rare side effect cause abortion, would you make a complaint to the Session about it, and demand church discipline take place if the family doesn't desist?

__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member Redeemer OPC, Santa Maria CA.

Treading carefully, and being open to correction, I do think the answer depends to some extent, on exactly how often the pill in question causes abortions.

A pill that is meant to prevent contraception from even occurring but which occasionally has a small statistical probability of causing a miscarriage or abortion instead to me is a very different situation from a pill which is designed and will most likely or in all cases cause an abortion.

In the former scenario, it seems to me there is very little difference in selling a pill which has a small, statistical chance of causing an abortion and selling say, a car which has a small, statistical chance of causing a death.

I want to be wary of speaking hastily on matters like these, but what exactly is the difference?

__________________
Mark Li
International University Church
New South Wales, Australia

This is a somewhat ridiculous argument to me. Is it wrong to sell matches because they can be used for arson? Should the internet not be used because there is **** on the web? Should narcotic pain killers not be prescribed because they can lead to addiction? Really, this situation is no different from any of the above.

However, I do agree with some of the above posts that it all depends on intent. If a doctor is prescribing a contraceptive pill for the intent of inducing an aborting or preventing implantation, then yes, that is wrong and the doctor is culpable. Likewise, if he prescribed the RU-486 or another drug that causes abortion, then again, he is culpable. On the other hand, if he is prescribing a standard contraceptive at standard doses to prevent fertilization, I see nothing wrong with it.

Just to note, the RU-486 pill is not the same thing as the "morning after pill." The morning after pill is basically a double dose of a standard oral contraceptive, with the goal to prevent implantation of the embryo in the endometrium not to prevent conception. Taking two standard oral contraceptive pills at the same time is effectively the same as taking a morning after pill.

__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

It's my opinion hum,an life begins at 14 years old. That'll give me enough time to sort my kids out or start over without being held liable for murder.

Humbly madam, that's rediculous.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)

Do your patients contract malaria so you can prescribe chloroquine and quinine in order to terminate their pregnancies? If not, you are treating an illness and not murdering a child.

Did you really just say that?

__________________
Craig French
Married and father of a beautiful daughter.
Member of Christ The Word, PCA
Toledo, OH

MY BLOG

I strongly agree with your first paragraph and strongly disagree with your second paragraph.

The first paragraph shows that one can take or give birth control pills without sin.

THe second paragraph, however, says that when life begins is opinion, which is a very dangerous position.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Agree completely, especially with your last point. All medical school text books say life begins at conception. Only secular philosophers and politicans would seek to define it otherwise.

__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

One obvious difference between this question and your examples is that an abortion ends the life of another individual. If you choose to put your life in danger by taking certain medications or participating in certain activities, then at least it is you who are responsible for your own death, should the unthinkable occur. If the pill causes abortions, then an innocent child's life is at stake because of its parents' alleged needs.

I'm not sure that the jury is out on the pill question. A new couple in my congregation, one of whom is in academia and has degrees from Harvard and Princeton, the other an MD, have stated that it would be impossible for a researcher to get the funds to do the necessary investigation, and that anyone who tried would probably lose their job, because of the ramifications of the research. Think of what a blow it would cause to the industry if there were peer-reviewed studies showing a link between hormonal birth control and abortion. For now, as far as I know, the allegations are hypotheses based on the fact that the morning after pill merely administers a higher dosage of the same hormones, but not based on some empirically derived amount which is known to surely stop implantation. We simply don't know at what dosage the effects include not merely the stopping of fertilization, but also the damage of the uterine wall to the point where implantation cannot occur during that cycle.

__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

The key distinction, from what I have gathered from those who would call it an abortifacient, is that part of the modern Pill's specifically designed functionality is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo in case the contraceptive components fail.

The ethical question is not one of "can it possibly cause an abortion as a side-effect", but rather "does this pill have an abortive 'fail-safe' mechanism as part of its a deliberate design".

My question is whether there are still any of the older contraceptive-only Pills available for those worried about the possible abortive design.

__________________
Scott - Dallas, Texas - PCA

"It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do." - Edmund Burke