One area of controversy among pro-life Christians concerns the
oral contraceptive pill (OCP).
Actually, there is more than just one moral debate regarding this
pill. However, the most important issue has to do with its potential function as
an abortifacient, i.e., something that causes abortions. This will be the main
focus in what follows.
THE TYPE OF PILL IN
VIEW IN THIS ARTICLE
Before getting into the discussion itself, we need to be clear
about the type of pill we are thinking about in this article. This is
important, because not every sort of birth control pill has the same
ingredients.
One kind of pill contains the hormone progesterone but does not
contain the hormone estrogen. This is sometimes known as the “mini pill.” It is
not the pill that most women take. Pro-life Christians seem to agree quite
broadly that this type of pill sometimes acts as an abortifacient and that it
should be avoided.
More commonly, women use an oral contraceptive pill that contains
both progesterone and estrogen. This is the standard type of pill that women
take daily, and it is what “OCP” refers to in this article.
Differing views regarding
the OCP
Pro-life Christians differ on whether or not it is acceptable to
use the OCP.
On the one hand, there are Christians who say that concerns over
the abortifacient nature of the OCP mean that it shouldn’t be used. Some of
these believe that the scientific evidence is clear that the OCP is an
abortifacient. Others think that the evidence is not so clear, but argue that
because it may be an abortifacient, women shouldn’t risk using it.
On the other hand, there are Christians who say that it is morally
acceptable to use the OCP. Some of these deny that the OCP acts as an
abortifacient. Others think it may or does occasionally act in this way, but
argue that because the main aim of taking it is not to cause an abortion, it is
fine to use it.
In what follows, we will be asking which of these viewpoints is
correct. To keep things concise, I will refer to pro-life Christians who say
that the OCP should not be used as “anti-OCP Christians.” And I will refer to pro-life
Christians who say that the OCP may be used as “pro-OCP Christians.”
DOES THE OCP ACT AS AN
ABORTIFACIENT?
The most important question we need to ask is whether the OCP acts
as an abortifacient.
I am not a doctor or biologist myself, so I am not able to speak
with authority on the scientific aspects of this issue. Nevertheless, I have
spent some time reading what the experts have to say, and I do think it is
possible for a lay person to reach some cautious conclusions on this point.
What the
pharmaceutical companies claim
Firstly and importantly, we need to take account of what the
pharmaceutical companies which make the OCP say in their literature.
As far as I am aware, all these companies claim that the OCP works
in two basic ways. First, it prevents the sperm fertilizing the egg, i.e.,
conception. And second, it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg in the
lining of the womb.
If there are any companies that make a different claim, I have not
come across any. And I am confident that at least the vast majority of
companies claim that the OCP works in these two ways.
If the OCP does indeed work in the second of these ways, then it
would certainly be an abortifacient. As pro-life Christians, we are clear that
a human being exists from the moment of conception. So, if the OCP acts to
prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg in the womb, it is acting to prevent
the human being from continuing to live. And therefore it is an abortifacient.
It is true that fertilized eggs very often naturally fail to
implant in the womb anyway. But that is beside the point. If a substance is
taken that increases the likelihood of failure to implant, then that substance
is certainly an abortifacient.
Pro-OCP Christians who comment on the claims of pharmaceutical
companies on this point often argue as follows:
There is no scientific evidence that the OCP prevents implantation
of the fertilized egg in the womb. This is misinformation by pharmaceutical
companies. These companies are guarding themselves against potential lawsuits
by claiming that the OCP prevents implantation, just in case it is found that
it does act in this way.
This seems to be a very weak argument. Ever since the OCP was
developed in the 1950s, manufacturers have claimed that one of the ways it
works is by preventing implantation in the lining of the womb. And there seems
to be no good reason for thinking that this is all misinformation.
Thinning of the lining
of the womb
Secondly, there is the thinning of the lining of the woman’s womb
to consider.
Everyone agrees that the OCP usually causes women who are taking
it to have a much thinner lining of the womb than women who are not on the OCP.
And everyone agrees too that it is usually much more difficult for a fertilized
egg to implant in a thin lining than in a lining of normal thickness. Unsurprisingly,
anti-OCP Christians see this as a strong piece of evidence that the OCP is an
abortifacient.
Some pro-OCP Christians try to counter by arguing in this way:
It is true that women on the OCP who are not ovulating have a thin
lining of the womb. However, when the OCP fails to prevent ovulation in a woman
who is taking it and she has a “breakthrough ovulation,” her body will act to
reverse the effect of the OCP on the lining of the womb. The chemicals that are
released will thicken the lining and make it receptive to implantation.
Therefore, the OCP does not act as an abortifacient.
Again, this seems to be a weak argument. It looks unjustified to
claim that when a woman on the OCP ovulates, there will be an immediate
thickening and alteration of the womb’s lining to the extent that all effects
of being on the OCP are immediately reversed.
The amount of blood produced by women during their periods depends
on the thickness of the lining of the womb. Women on the OCP usually have
lighter periods than those not on the OCP. But importantly, when a woman stops
using the OCP and starts ovulating again, it usually takes a few months before her
blood flow is back to what it was before she started taking the OCP. This is a significant
piece of evidence that when a woman’s lining is thin as a result of taking the
OCP, it normally takes months after she begins ovulating before her lining gets
back to normal thickness.
Therefore, it makes sense to think that even if a woman on the OCP
experiences breakthrough ovulation, she will very probably still have a thinner
lining of the womb than she had before she started taking the OCP. And if this
is right, because a thinner lining makes it more difficult for the fertilized
egg to implant, the OCP would be acting to hinder implantation. In other words,
it would be functioning as an abortifacient.
Drawing a conclusion
It seems, then, that there are two good reasons for thinking that
the OCP does sometimes act as an abortifacient. Pharmaceutical companies widely
claim that it works in this way. And the fact that it usually takes time for
the blood flow of women who stop taking the OCP to return to normal is also a
strong piece of evidence.
I think a balanced conclusion is that it is highly likely that the
OCP does at times cause abortions.
TREATING THE OCP AS A
MEDICINE
Some pro-OCP Christians agree that the OCP does at times act as an
abortifacient. And other pro-OCP Christians, similarly, agree that it may sometimes act as an abortifacient.
Those in each of these groups often argue as follows:
The main purpose of the OCP is to prevent conception. It does this
far more often than it acts as an abortifacient. Therefore any abortifacient function
is just an unwanted side-effect. Medicines are prescribed all the time that
have unwanted side-effects and even a low risk of causing death. The OCP is
just one of these. Besides, there is no other medicine that achieves the same
results as well as the OCP.
This is a very weak argument that includes some mistaken thinking.
A faulty understanding
of the purpose of the OCP
Firstly, it is surely not the case that the main purpose of the
OCP is specifically to prevent conception. Most women who take it do so for the
purpose of avoiding a clinically recognized pregnancy. And relatively few of
them will know how the OCP works in any detail.
Similarly, doctors who prescribe the OCP typically have the same
purpose in view: preventing a clinically recognized pregnancy.
It is therefore surely wrong to see the potential abortifacient
function of the OCP as a side-effect. If the OCP acts as an abortifacient, as
seems highly likely, then, far from being a side-effect, this is one of the
basic ways in which it works.
It is true that the OCP does apparently prevent conception far more
often than it causes abortions. Nevertheless, it still seems highly probable
that it causes some abortions. And many experts believe that the occasions on
which it does this are far from rare.
Taking the OCP to
prevent pregnancy is not medicinal
Secondly, when the OCP is prescribed for the purpose of preventing
pregnancy, it is stretching things to see it as a medicine. A medicine is a
substance taken to heal some ailment. However, if a woman has sex and becomes
pregnant, it is hardly the case that anything is wrong with her.
Natural methods of
contraception
Thirdly, there are other effective ways of preventing pregnancy
that don’t involve tampering with the woman’s body. Nowadays natural family
planning is very sophisticated and scientific, with results that are on a par
with the effectiveness of the OCP.
The Creighton method of natural family planning is one that
anti-OCP Christians often speak highly of. Another is the Billings
Drawing a conclusion
The argument by pro-OCP Christians that appeals to viewing the OCP
as an important medicine with side-effects therefore seems to be a very weak
one.
AVOIDING THE OCP
I have argued that it is highly likely that the OCP functions as
an abortifacient. And I have just argued too that to accept its abortifacient function
as an acceptable side-effect is unjustified.
If the points I have made are valid, as I think they are, it seems
wrong to use this product. There is simply too much doubt about its moral
acceptability. Let us be clear that we are talking here about matters of life and
death. And because other, natural methods of family planning exist, there seems
to be no justifiable reason for women to use the OCP for the purpose of
avoiding pregnancy.
If a pregnant woman’s life is in danger because of some illness,
and a side-effect of her medication involves a risk of causing abortion, it
seems to me that there would be a place for a legitimate ethical debate about
whether she should take this medicine.
However, taking a substance to avoid getting pregnant is hardly of
the same urgency as combating a life-threatening illness. Regardless of whether
or not it is by design, the evidence suggests that one of the ways the OCP
works is by causing abortions, and that should be enough to decide against
using it.
IGNORANCE ABOUT THE
OCP’S POTENTIAL TO CAUSE ABORTIONS
As far as I am aware, there are huge numbers of pro-life
Christians who have never heard any suggestion that the OCP is or might be an
abortifacient. Until a few years ago I myself had never heard anyone mention
this.
I think one reason for this ignorance is that over the last 50
years or so there has been a change in how pregnancy is defined. It used to be
the case that a woman was said to become pregnant at the moment of conception,
when the sperm fertilized the egg. Increasingly, however, people now say that
pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg attaches to the lining of the womb,
about a week after conception.
The definition of abortion has remained the same, i.e., as a termination
of pregnancy. However, because the definition of pregnancy has changed, this
means that destroying a fertilized egg in the first few days of its existence
is no longer usually classed as an abortion. Therefore, the OCP’s potential
ability to destroy in this way is not usually described using the word
“abortion.” And so, most people are unaware of its probable abortifacient function.
The reason for the change in the definition of pregnancy seems
obvious. People have suppressed their consciences (Romans 1:18 ) and are trying to kid others and themselves that wrong
is not wrong. If they can persuade people, including themselves, that a woman
doesn’t get pregnant until a few days after conception, and that any
destruction of a fertilized egg in that time window is not an abortion, then it
is not so hard on their consciences. They are more able to have all the sex
they want without any consequences they don’t want.
A HUMAN BEING FROM THE
MOMENT OF CONCEPTION
We must not be fooled into thinking that the tiny physical size of
a fertilized egg in the first few days after conception means that it is
somehow less than human. That would make no sense.
Christian theology rightly recognizes that human beings are made
up of a material part and an immaterial soul. Although the material part of the
human grows in size as fertilized egg, embryo and fetus, and then after birth
as a body, the soul is indivisible and cannot grow in size or exist in part.
This means that whenever a human soul is present, a complete soul has to be
present.
There should be no doubt that immediately before a baby is born it
already has a soul, and few people calling themselves Christians would dispute
this. But if it already has a soul before birth, it makes sense to think that
the joining of the soul to the material part of the human occurs at some
critical point. However, before birth the only really critical point that
exists is conception.
If we were to say that the soul joins to the fertilized egg or embryo
or fetus at some time after conception but before birth, what reason would we
give for taking this view? Why would we think that the soul joins after the physical
component of the human has been growing for a week? Or why would we think this
happens after 10 days or after 20 or 40? Crucially, nothing critical happens at
these times. But, by contrast, the time the sperm fertilizes the egg is a real
critical point, and this is surely the time at which the soul joins the
physical part of the human.
Thinking, then, that the tiny size of a human fertilized egg in
the first few days after conception means that it is not really a human being
doesn’t make sense. In fact, a human being with a human soul is present. And we
must therefore not underestimate the seriousness of what taking the OCP
involves.
ANOTHER MORAL ISSUE
CONCERNING THE OCP
The potential abortifacient function of the OCP is not the only
moral issue concerning this product. The fact that it works by preventing a
woman ovulating is also controversial.
This is not such an important topic as the one we have been
discussing. Nevertheless, for the record, I personally think it is doubtful
that deliberately preventing a woman from ovulating is in itself morally
acceptable. I think this is one of the few areas where Roman Catholics are more
likely to be on God’s side than most evangelicals. Hindering the normal
function of a woman’s reproductive organs seems to me to be intruding into what
should be God’s domain.
FINAL COMMENTS
Mainstream Western culture sees individual choice as something
that is almost sacred. This includes a woman’s choice to destroy a pre-born
human that she may be carrying in her womb.
However, the Western, human-centered worldview is poles apart from
the Christian, God-centered worldview. Christians need to understand clearly
that many choices which Western people typically regard as legitimate are
nothing other than grave sins in God’s sight. We must understand too that on
the Day of Judgment we will each have to give an account to Him for all that we
have done.
Any believer who is not submitting to God in matters of family
planning is therefore committing a serious sin. And that includes decisions
about whether to use or endorse using the OCP.
In view of the points we have discussed, it makes sense to think
that the dangers of using this product are too great. There are other, natural
methods of family planning that don’t carry the risk of causing abortions, and
these should be used instead.
I would also love to see church leaders do more to teach their
flocks about this and similar issues. Too often, there seem to be “no go areas”
that leaders shy away from. However, a leader who is concerned about the
spiritual wellbeing of his flock should want to warn them about anything that
is outside the will of God. And that includes issues of family planning.
See also:
