The Pill

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

This thread presuposes the following:

1) You are a Christian

2) You know that it is prima facie wrong to do anything to end the life of the unborn

3) You aren't necessarily committed to the view that every sexual act must be carried out with the intention of procreation. For example, you're open to natural family planning, which is just one way of avoiding conception, along with perhaps other means of contraception.

If you meet these criteria - or are willing to adopt them all for the sake of argument, welcome to this thread (so long as you meet theregular criteria to post in this area).

I have thought about posting this thread before, but I felt like I might offend people. At the risk of treading on toes, especially the toes of Christian women, I think I am doing you a favour in saying the following: Please don't use the contraceptive pill, and if you are using it, stop.

I want to explain that the contraceptive pill is not just a contraceptive. It is an abortifacient. If you are in a sexual relationship, and you are avoiding pregnancy by using the pill, then every once in a while, a very early chemical abortion occurs.

I define my terms like this:

A Contaceptive device or method is one the prevents the fertilisation of an ovum, so no new life comes into existence.

An Abortifacient device or method is one that destroys the new life after conception, in any number of ways. The fertilised ova might be poisoned, it might be prohibited from implanting, and so eventually die, or it may be allowed to implant and develop further, and then be physically removed - or perhaps other methods.

Using these definitions, both major varieties of the contraceptive pill are abortifacients. The two major kinds are the "mini pill" and the combined pill. Here is the basis of my claim:

1. The Progesterone-only oral contraceptive ("mini pill)

This pill is marketed as a contraceptive. It contains one hormone, progesterone. Here are two descriptions of how it works. One is from the manufacturer's guide to femulin, a brand of the mini pill. The second is information provided by the family planning association, an organisation that promotes contraception and abortion in New Zealand.

Femulen (a form of the progesterone-only pill) thickens the mucus in the neck of the womb so that it forms a barrier to the passage of sperm. In addition, the lining of the womb is altered so that it is unfavourable for the growth of an egg that might nevertheless be fertilised.

Its main action is to thicken the mucus in the cervix so that it is less likely to travel through to meet the egg. The lining of the uterus is changed so that it is less likely to accept a fertilised egg. Some women stop producing their monthly egg while on the pill.

This third quote is from Contraceptive Technology 14th Ed. (New York: Irvington Publishers), 191-192. "The progestin-only pill however [as opposed to the combined pill] has a weaker effect. It generally does not suppress ovulation."

The mini pill then makes it very likely that over an extended period of time, a number of ova are fertilised, but the conceptus is unable to implant, and so is destroyed. This is an abortifacient.

2. The Combine Oral Contraceptive ("The Pill")

The combined pill contains two different hormones - Oestrogen and progesterone. This means it does the same thing as the mini pill plus some other things. The combined pill does three things. Firstly it suppresses the release of an ovum/egg, so that it often stops a woman having her period. Secondly it thickes the cervical mucis, making it less likely that sperm will enter the uterus. So far, these effects are contraceptive. But then comes the same old abortifacient effect: Thirdly it affects the lining of the uterus, because sometimes conception still occurs, and this third method prevents successful implantation and further development.


The bottom line that if you are taking either of the oral contraceptives as a regular method of contraception, you are using contraceptive methods that, from time to time, cause abortions.

[TuckEverlasting]

This is actually a topic I've wanted to see discussed for a long time. I have so many Christian friends who have gotten married over the past few years, and they're not exactly popping out many kids. Of course there's nothing wrong with that per se (!), but I can't help but think that some of them must be on the pill... and I think the problem is that people genuinely don't know that the pill actually works in this way.

Here's my question: can a Christian doctor, in good conscience, prescribe the pill for someone else? I suspect the answer should be 'no', but I'd like to hear what you think.

[Jedidiah]

My wife and I used the pill for many years. When we learned the abortifacient aspect we made some changes.

[TuckEverlasting]

My wife and I used the pill for many years. When we learned the abortifacient aspect we made some changes.
Pearls for having such strength of character. :cool:

I mean, part of the problem is... *nothing* works *nearly* as well as the pill. :nsm: What are you supposed to do if you wanna have a lot of sex? :shrug:

[M]

But is it okay to take for other reasons? My fiance takes it because it reduces the pains and stresses of her period (she has bad ones), but we aren't sexually active.

[dizzle]

I used to be on the pill but no longer am. However, Theonomy I am not convinced of your OP, but perhaps because the issue is not clear, one should err on the side of caution.

When this was first brought to my attention when I was on the pill, I visited and interviewed multiple evangelical Christian gynecologists and some nonbelieving ones (long story, but I actually was instrumental in leading my current gynecologist to Christ - yes I have had some unusual witnessing stories) - and all of them have assured me the pill was not an abortifacient.

I am very sensitive to medications of any sort and try to get rid of what I can, so for that reason I am not on the pill - with me everything is a complication, and I used to have some complications from the pill some of them of a personal nature I would not want to discuss in mixed company and others just very bothersome, such as continual mouth ulcers.

However, as I get older, I am developing (having chronic clinical depression makes one susceptible to this) severe PMDD. It is recommended to take the pill to even out the very wild hormonal fluctuations I experience.... and I mean seriously wild, to the point, where if I were not strong in my faith and had too many people who cared about me that I would never want to hurt, I likely would be suicidal. That serious. So if my doctor advises me that for that I need to go on the pill, what then? As you know, as I shared with you, I had a potentially life threatening side effect with taking an SSRI (which are also prescribed for PMDD) - my options are not all that great.

(an option I suppose would be to take the pill and use one or more other methods of birth control - but none of them are 100% - so is that one in a million chance if using other methods in conjunction with the pill worth the PMDD - which is getting progressively worse? These are not hypothetical questions for me. If my PMDD gets much worse, I am effectviely disabled for several weeks out of the month)

[Storico]

But is it okay to take for other reasons? My fiance takes it because it reduces the pains and stresses of her period (she has bad ones), but we aren't sexually active.

I'd think it applies to couples who are sexually active.

From a female perspective: The Pill does more than JUST contraception. It helps manage pain and complications, helps clear acne (although the number of people using the pill for acne alone is likely small) and overall, it regulates quite a bit. It's extraordinarily helpful if you are NOT in a sexually active relationship and you have no plans of having a family for a while.

But using it as a contraceptive has problems. There are the abortive issues already mentioned. Also, if you're in a relationship/married and you'd like children later... the pill REALLY pulls a whammy on your body. If used regularly (say, for a year or longer), it takes a VERY long while for many people to get over its effects if they're planning a family for later -- some doctors (including my own) suggest your body isn't totally rid of its effects for up to 3 years after taking it. The older you are, the longer it takes.

Long story short: to prevent pregnancy, there ARE other methods. If you're in a stable, long term relationship or in a marriage, then using non-abortive methods isn't going to hurt at all. If a child happens to come along under circumstances like this, chances are, you both will be able to deal with the pregnancy. If you can't cope with a pregnancy due to financial reasons etc, then abstaining from intercourse until you can might be an idea. If it's due to health reasons (ie, getting pregnant will harm you physically), I'd say that's another conversation entirely -- and personally, my comments aren't directed at folks in that situation at all.

[dizzle]

Well you know what they call women who use the Rhythm Method (i.e. Natural Family Planning)?



















































Mom.

[Bill the Cat]

I've been snipped, so it's not an issue for us.

[dizzle]

Tmi

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Darth, the fact is, a lot of people who prescribe the pill are not well clued up on the pill itself. They will tell people about possible side effects, and they will tell them it prevents preganancy. But the manufacturers of the pill quite frankly admit what it does. All of them without exception admit that one of the things it does is obstruct implantation, resulting in the "loss" of the conceptus.


In my experience the diaphragm is very effective, and it doesn't have some of the less pleasant side effects as condoms. (I figured if someone is following this thread they have no objection to freely talking about all this.) After our fourth child I got the snip. I think we've quite ably contributed to the army. :wink: If we're going to take over the world, we need the numbers.

[dizzle]

Theonomy I did raise other issues (and the evangelicals gyns I spoke with claimed to not be ignorant on this issue, I have no idea why they would lie).

But on another note, and seeing how I am one of the most rabid antiabortion posters on this forum I think I have some standing to say this without any whiff that I am trying to justify anything (as I said, I am not on the pill and haven't been for years) - if what you say is true, realistically what are the chances? At what percentage is a chance a realistic chance? Because honestly a lot of normal behaviour that fertile women engage in can cause failure to implant or other problems before she even knows she is pregnant. Do fertile women have to avoid every possibility that something may happen if she may be pregnant? I am being serious here. Heck I may become pregnant, the meds I used to take for depression can theoretically cause harm or abortion, should I not take them if there is the remotest chance I could become pregnant or that they could impact my implantation ability? Am I required to be celebate because my body is not the most hospital place for a fertilized egg?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Can I say that I completely agree with Theonomy on this issue.

An important point though. The definition of "abortion" has been officially changed by the medical community and this causes confusion. To a Christian, an "abortion" means something that destroys the zygote/embryo after conception. But now "abortion" means something that destroys the embryo after implantation in the uterus. This was a diabolical move that means that many methods that destroy the zygote/embryo after conception but before implantation in the uterus are now officially considered "contraceptives" and not "abortifacients". This is of course purely semantics. Theonomy's definition of a contraceptive is correct, but if you meet a modern medical specialist they will tell you he is wrong. They can hold there hand on their heart and say "the pill is not an aboritifacient". They are not lying. They are just using a deceptive definition of "abortifacient".

The argument that was used to change the terminology is that a "pregnancy" can only be said to begin when implantation occurs. But changing semantics doesn't change the facts. Whenever you want to say "pregnancy" begins, the fact remains that life begins at conception. The real reason for the change was that the pharmaceutical companies that produce these medicines wanted to confuse people and obscure the fact that their product was an abortifacient. This is the reason that so many people are confused about this, Darth Xena.

As Theonomy says, the pill has three mechanisms of action. One of these is to prevent implantation from occurring. That is, in the proper sense of the word, an abortion, even though it is not technically an "abortion" in the modern medical sense. Whatever you want to call it, it is murder from a Christian point of view. The three mechanisms of action can be found in any comprehensive textbook.

[dizzle]

I explained exactly what I meant when I asked the questions of the gynecologists so it was not possible in my questioning that there was some ambiguity in terminology. I was quite clear, and brought some Catholic literature with me that outlined some of what was said in Theo's opening post.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Well Darth Xena, if that is so, then I can tell you categorically that you were lied to. I have a PhD in Medicine. But all you have to do is check in a comprehensive O&G textbook, and I gaurantee you it will list the three mechanisms of action, including prevention of implantation.

[dizzle]

Again I am not on the pill but I am not convinced of this whole thing either.

I found some material from a source I trust on the issue

http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html

which appears to confirm the above, and brought back details to memory of what I was told

I believe in one case (I am even picturing the office) I was told that number 2 makes it virtually impossible to proceed to step 3 (nearly every pill "failure" is operator error not pill failure), and the chances are pretty miniscule. Some may say any chance is a chance. Well then, I suggest that some study be conducted on the optimum baby-generating and growing enviroments for women and insist that if they are sexually active that they not to potentially anything that might cause in any remote chance in any way a miscarriage. Including me taking antidepressants, too much Advil, having an Xray, exercising too strenously... getting upset, etc.

[Rusty T]

Tmi

:nod:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Theonomy I did raise other issues (and the evangelicals gyns I spoke with claimed to not be ignorant on this issue, I have no idea why they would lie).I've been in just the same position. It came toa head for me when we were in a doctor's office, and I said to him directly - "So what happens if we're taking this pill, and a sperm makes it through and fertilises the ovum?" He answered - and I believe that he believed that he knew what he was talking about, and was not lying - and said "Then you'll get pregnant" (referring to "us", not me personally!). He literally didn't know what the pill does.

And it's also important to note the shift of language in some of the literature being pushed by family planning clinics. Given a certain use of language, the pill is not abortifacient, and does not end a pregnancy. That's because in some of the literature, pregnancy is defined as beginning with a successful implantation. So a person can say honestly "no, the pill doesn't end a pregnancy and cause an abortion."

For several years prior to coming to TWeb I worked with a pro life activist group, reaearching and writing pamphlets, and this kind of language shift and the sheer difficulty of getting professionals to state the facts plainly - and sometimes to even be aware of them - was really frustrating.
But on another note, and seeing how I am one of the most rabid antiabortion posters on this forum I think I have some standing to say this without any whiff that I am trying to justify anything (as I said, I am not on the pill and haven't been for years) - if what you say is true, realistically what are the chances? At what percentage is a chance a realistic chance?I do not know what the odds are.
Because honestly a lot of normal behaviour that fertile women engage in can cause failure to implant or other problems before she even knows she is pregnant. Do fertile women have to avoid every possibility that something may happen if she may be pregnant? I am being serious here. Here's the thing - many things have the unfortunate side effect of causing the end of a new life, sure. But the pill is designed in such a way that one of its proper functions is to end a new life.
Heck I may become pregnant, the meds I used to take for depression can theoretically cause harm or abortion, should I not take them if there is the remotest chance I could become pregnant or that they could impact my implantation ability? Am I required to be celebate because my body is not the most hospital place for a fertilized egg?
No, I don't think you have to do everything possible to avoid such an accident.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Again I am not on the pill but I am not convinced of this whole thing either.

I found some material from a source I trust on the issue

http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html

which appears to confirm the above, and brought back details to memory of what I was toldThe article at that link is essentially an expanded version of my opening post, and his conclusion is the same as mine.

[dizzle]

I've been in just the same position. It came toa head for me when we were in a doctor's office, and I said to him directly - "So what happens if we're taking this pill, and a sperm makes it through and fertilises the ovum?" He answered - and I believe that he believed that he knew what he was talking about, and was not lying - and said "Then you'll get pregnant" (referring to "us", not me personally!). He literally didn't know what the pill does.

And it's also important to note the shift of language in some of the literature being pushed by family planning clinics. Given a certain use of language, the pill is not abortifacient, and does not end a pregnancy. That's because in some of the literature, pregnancy is defined as beginning with a successful implantation. So a person can say honestly "no, the pill doesn't end a pregnancy and cause an abortion."

For several years prior to coming to TWeb I worked with a pro life activist group, reaearching and writing pamphlets, and this kind of language shift and the sheer difficulty of getting professionals to state the facts plainly - and sometimes to even be aware of them - was really frustrating.
I do not know what the odds are.
Here's the thing - many things have the unfortunate side effect of causing the end of a new life, sure. But the pill is designed in such a way that one of its proper functions is to end a new life.

No, I don't think you have to do everything possible to avoid such an accident.

Last sentence only - my questions on percentages and the like remain unanswered - I don't think one gets out of the pickle by stating that the pill is designed to end a new life (I don't think that is its design, but a byproduct), and stating that one does not have to do eveyrthing possibile to avoid such a happening.

[dizzle]

The article at that link is essentially an expanded version of my opening post, and his conclusion is the same as mine.

I agree, I posted it for everyone's reference, but also as what jarred my recollection on some things told me. As I have not been on the pill, it hasn't been the priority it once was, and my memory is not so hot.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Last sentence only - my questions on percentages and the like remain unanswered - I don't think one gets out of the pickle by stating that the pill is designed to end a new life (I don't think that is its design, but a byproduct), and stating that one does not have to do eveyrthing possibile to avoid such a happening.Well it's a by product in the sense that the pill is designed to create a certain set of circumstances (make the uterus inhospitable to implantation), and a direct result of this is the loss of a life. The pill has this designed feature so that a new life is not continued. So I think it's fair to say that the pill is designed to do several things, and one of those things is end a new life. The ending of a life is definitely not accidental, it's foreseen by pill manufacturers, and it is one of the things the pill is meant to do.

Accidental loss of life would include things like taking medication for another purpose (e.g. depression), when in fact the medication has an effect that is coincidental to the design of that medication (e.g. endangering a new life, as opposed to intentionally ending it).

And yes, your questions on percentages remain unanswered for the reason I gave, namely, I don't know what the percentages are.

[Abigail]

I thought the pill suppresses ovulation ...I heard that's why after long term pill usage some women take a good while to start ovulating again?

After our second child we decided our family was complete so took more permanent measures so pill is not an issue for us any longer.

[Ryokan]

Theonomy I did raise other issues (and the evangelicals gyns I spoke with claimed to not be ignorant on this issue, I have no idea why they would lie).

But on another note, and seeing how I am one of the most rabid antiabortion posters on this forum I think I have some standing to say this without any whiff that I am trying to justify anything (as I said, I am not on the pill and haven't been for years) - if what you say is true, realistically what are the chances? At what percentage is a chance a realistic chance? Because honestly a lot of normal behaviour that fertile women engage in can cause failure to implant or other problems before she even knows she is pregnant. Do fertile women have to avoid every possibility that something may happen if she may be pregnant? I am being serious here. Heck I may become pregnant, the meds I used to take for depression can theoretically cause harm or abortion, should I not take them if there is the remotest chance I could become pregnant or that they could impact my implantation ability? Am I required to be celebate because my body is not the most hospital place for a fertilized egg?This is pretty much what I was going to say. The pill can be a abortificant. So can Jogging, depression, various meds and antibiotics, types of foods.... Unfortunately, a wide variety of normal human behavior prevent implantation. I don't think God intended for this to prevent women from living. If you are engaging in the behavior without the intention of causing an abortion, and it has a reasonable chance of not causing one, I don't think it is immoral. I may consult a priest or something as back up, though.

[dizzle]

This is pretty much what I was going to say. The pill can be a abortificant. So can Jogging, depression, various meds and antibiotics, types of foods.... Unfortunately, a wide variety of normal human behavior prevent implantation. I don't think God intended for this to prevent women from living. If you are engaging in the behavior without the intention of causing an abortion, and it has a reasonable chance of not causing one, I don't think it is immoral. I may consult a priest or something as back up, though.

That are my thoughts, but as it not being a personal issue any longer, I haven't given it the same thought. I do not believe from the information I have that the function of the pill is to make the uterus inhospitable, the function from what I have learned is the first two issues (i.e. primarily to prevent ovulation and to make travel nearly impossible for the sperm) and that the third is co-incident, not intended, and contrary to (from what I have read) the angle that is drawn from this, not even often even to be a real factor. That is why I believe percentages are important here. It seems to me to be swallowing a camel if we say, well because the Pill is designed to prevent pregnancy and in some rare cases may be an abortifacient (and this may shock some people, though I believe life begins at conception, I do see room for evangelicals that it, in the sense of the woman being a host being supporting the life of another and having the obligation to continue to support that life, begins at implantation). I would not draw a line in the sand on this, and I am sure that surprises some people.

But back to my point, I think it is inappropriate splitting hairs to say, well this medicine is meant to cure female baldness but one side effect is it might mess up the miracle of conception and cause an abortion at its earliest time, but since that is not its intent, its okay. I don't buy that. If the percentages at the level of the pill are not okay (and it is my understanding that such is not the primary intent nor are the percentages anything significant), then I would think this sort of concern would necessarily have to extend to any activity the female might do during her fertile sexually active years that might cause the same thing.

IOW, isn't a fetus aborted through use of (and just picking examples out of the air) Prozac and one through the use of Depoprevara, just as aborted? Don't we make that argument all the time for rape? That a child born of rape is no less innocent than a child born of marital love?

[Teallaura]

Lots of drugs are contraindicated for pregnancy or those attempting to get pregnant - that's not a compelling argument for taking a drug for the specific purpose of preventing a pregnancy whether by suppressing ovulation* or by preventing implantation. Patients are routinely warned against contraindicated drugs specifically so that they may avoid the possibility (they make these things called condoms that used in conjunction with sterilization procedures or other methods consistent with not permitting the conception in the first place should effectively eliminate the possibility of inadvertent pregnancy while on contraindicated drugs - heck, they are pretty danged effective for that purpose even without another method in place!) so 'because it might' is not a good argument for something that is much more likely to do so deliberately. Nor is it any argument against intent.

There are no figures nor will there be any time soon - how the heck would you get them? Microscopic examination of any hint of a discharge/menses for the zygote? Any woman knows how extremely impractical that is - you'd have to wear some sort of pad 24/7 for who knows how long - and then a trip to the restroom could defeat them. Since you are measuring the prevention of implantation you have to use live subjects - no way to reproduce that in a Petri dish. At the end of the day you have to make the decision whether or not you are going to deliberately use something which is contraindicated in pregnancy knowing you oppose ending life at conception and knowing that the possibility exists whether or not you can calculate the probability.

For me, that would not be acceptable so for avoiding pregnancy in the short term condoms, more probably female, are going to be in use - period. In the long term, somebody is getting fixed - probably both of us. At present, I have no reason to use chemical BC - abstinence works much better, thanks.








































































*Yes, I realize this can be a totally separate argument - my point is that the opposing argument is not compelling in either case.

[themuzicman]

I think it's pretty safe to say that women who use the pill to stabilize their hormones or for other health effects are probably within moral bounds to do so, since their intent is medical recovery.

If I remember correctly, when I went to see the urologist, he said that they can install little valves that allow or prevent sperm from being present in semen. Granted that it's an invasive procedure, but I hear it's not much different from the snip and zap, which was basically a weekend in the easy chair.

Maybe that's a better alternative solution.

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

Tmi
:nsm:

[Teallaura]

I've often wondered why they don't simply remove the vas deferens. Once that's gone bye-bye it's over - no sperm will reach the ureter.

I've had to take that time of hormonal therapy - but in conjunction with other methods of prevention (for me, abstinence). For some short term drugs abstinence is the recommended method, but prevention is always recommended for contraindicated drugs regardless of method.

I don't get this 'well, anything can prevent implantation so it doesn't matter if we take something we know will prevent implantation' (even as an artifact - which is a dubious distinction at best given the drug design) argument. It seems to completely divorce itself of intent - or of any alternative method of prevention (condoms are variable against STD but pretty effective against pregnancy) which should be in place when using other contraindicated drugs. It's like saying that because I might get an astronomically unlikely effect I can simply be irresponsible in my decisions. I might get run over by a bus while staying on the sidewalk - but that's hardly an argument for playing in the street.

[dizzle]

(they make these things called condoms ...

Gee, I am glad you told me about that. Never heard of them.

[dizzle]

I've often wondered why they don't simply remove the vas deferens. Once that's gone bye-bye it's over - no sperm will reach the ureter.

I've had to take that time of hormonal therapy - but in conjunction with other methods of prevention (for me, abstinence). For some short term drugs abstinence is the recommended method, but prevention is always recommended for contraindicated drugs regardless of method.

I don't get this 'well, anything can prevent implantation so it doesn't matter if we take something we know will prevent implantation' (even as an artifact - which is a dubious distinction at best given the drug design) argument. It seems to completely divorce itself of intent - or of any alternative method of prevention (condoms are variable against STD but pretty effective against pregnancy) which should be in place when using other contraindicated drugs. It's like saying that because I might get an astronomically unlikely effect I can simply be irresponsible in my decisions. I might get run over by a bus while staying on the sidewalk - but that's hardly an argument for playing in the street.

If the odds are about the same, I believe it is. However, I said what I wish to and am hitting unsubscribe from this thread. You all want to rail against the use of the Pill, that is your freedom. I in my Christian conscience feel it is unwarranted, and I don't have a hound in this race. If the Pill became my last option for effective PMDD treatment, I will take it. However, I do note, that even when I was taking it before, in the last years, we always used a secondary form of birth control as I was not diligent in taking it at the same time, would often forget, and didn't trust it entirely to prevent ovulation. If I chose to take it again for PMDD, it would be the same situation. I wouldnt' trust it for birth control, user-error is too great with me.

And without getting into TMI - condoms suck. I appreciate that they are helping with the spread of SDTs and pregnancies in unmarried relationships, but within the bounds of marriage they suck. And I am not speaking from a male POV, though I can imagine it would totally suck for them, but from the female POV. It is about as appealing as a latex gynecological exam. Yes TMI, but wanted to put that out there, and I have a feeling a bunch of guys are relieved that a female put that out there so they wouldn't feel like selfish jerks.

[themuzicman]

Without getting into TMI...

AMEN SISTER!

[Abigail]

You all want to rail against the use of the Pill, that is your freedom. I in my Christian conscience feel it is unwarranted, and I don't have a hound in this race.

I havent railed against anyone. I always thought the normal pill suppresses ovulation and that it is the morning after pill which prevents implantation. This is the first I have heard of this argument.

[dizzle]

Abigail - "all" was hyperbole, it refers to those who do, obviously not everyone on this thread does - Ryokan for example.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

That are my thoughts, but as it not being a personal issue any longer, I haven't given it the same thought. I do not believe from the information I have that the function of the pill is to make the uterus inhospitable, the function from what I have learned is the first two issues (i.e. primarily to prevent ovulation and to make travel nearly impossible for the sperm) and that the third is co-incident, not intended, and contrary to (from what I have read) the angle that is drawn from this, not even often even to be a real factor.Wait, unintended?

Words cannot express how confused I am that you'd say this - and even defend it. This isn't me being argumentive, it's just that saying this is like saying the sky isn't blue as far as I can tell. The pill does this third thing as one of it's birth prevention methods.

Why do you think this is just an accidental extra, and not part of the function of the pill?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I always thought the normal pill suppresses ovulation and that it is the morning after pill which prevents implantation. This is the first I have heard of this argument.Well now you know. :smile: All the pill manufacturers tell people this. From memory it's even printed on some of the leaflets that come in the box.

[Ryokan]

Wait, unintended?

Words cannot express how confused I am that you'd say this - and even defend it. This isn't me being argumentive, it's just that saying this is like saying the sky isn't blue as far as I can tell. The pill does this third thing as one of it's birth prevention methods.

Why do you think this is just an accidental extra, and not part of the function of the pill?
As understand it, yes, it is an extra. Basically, the pill makesit so that a woman's cycle doesn't work normally, and as a result eggs usually aren't released. Additionally, since the wallsof the uterusdon'tsgrow as they normally would, sperm travel less well. On the other hand, if fertilization occurs, it has nowhere to latch on too. Unfortunately, this is the fate of 2/3 of all fertilized eggs as I understand it, pill or not.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

As understand it, yes, it is an extra. Basically, the pill makesit so that a woman's cycle doesn't work normally, and as a result eggs usually aren't released. Additionally, since the wallsof the uterusdon'tsgrow as they normally would, sperm travel less well.Sperm don't travel along the wall of the uterus. The function of changing the walls of the uterus is so that the conceptus cannot implant on the walls of the uterus. This is actually part of the function of the pill. The three birth control methods are 1) suppress ovulation, 2) prevent sperm getting through the cervix, and 3) inhibit implantation. The manufacturers make no pretence to the contrary.

This isn't some malicious imputation of intent to the pill manufacturers. They come right out and say it.
On the other hand, if fertilization occurs, it has nowhere to latch on too. That's the only reason the pill is designed to alter the lining of the uterus. Sperm swim, they don't climb.
Unfortunately, this is the fate of 2/3 of all fertilized eggs as I understand it, pill or not.Well, this is not a defence of using something designed to inhiit implantation. For example, if there was a very high rate of miscarriage for some reason, this would not justify a surgical abortion since "infortunately it happens to a lot of fetuses anyway."

The marked difference between the pill and, say, excercise or any of the other factors you listed in a prvious post is that excercise doesn't make you fit by endangering a baby. The pill, however, prevents pregnancy by causing the conceptus to be expelled, unable to implant.

I grant that this method is a beackup method. The pill's main intent is to stop the ovum being released int he first place. But the suggestion that preventing implantation is an accidental effect of what the pill is meant to do is not true, and it requires the supposition that pill manufacturers and famly planning clinics have been needlessly impugning themselves in the eyes of pro lifers by claiming otherwise.

As I understand it, the morning after pill works by doing exactly the same thing, except it is more concentrated. This is because the contraceptive pill only needs to prevent implantation, whereas the morning after pill needs to - potentially at least - dislodge a conceptus that is already implanted. But it's the same function.

[Clarice]

The pill, however, prevents pregnancy by causing the conceptus to be expelled, unable to implant.


Perhaps things have changed in the last 3 decades, and please correct me if what I am sharing is incorrect.

When I took the pill, it was a combination of two hormones - estrogen and progesterone. The purpose of giving these drugs was to fool the female body into thinking it was already pregnant, thus interfering with the normal female monthly cycle.

Normally, the female body releases these hormones in different levels throughout the month that result in the build up of the endometrium (where the fertilized egg implants) and in the release of an egg from the ovary. By fooling the body into thinking that it is pregnant, neither of these will take place.

Logic also says that if for some reason a woman who is on the pill ends up ovulating (the hormone cocktail not working) the endometrium will experience the normal monthly build up that goes along with ovulation. So that if you are on the pill and ovulate anyways, chances are the endometrium will have been prepared by the body for implantation, if the egg is fertilized, which is what happened to me.

I was on the pill but due to other health interferences, the hormone cocktail did not work, and so I ovulated AND my endometrium was prepared to received the fertilized egg, and voila, I found myself pregnant.

I do not know about the present birth control pills, but with the ones I took, the lack of build up of the endometrium was not the targeted result, but just a consequence of the body thinking it was already pregnant.

While reading through this thread, I thought that the differing thoughts behind expressed here relate to one's view of God. If one sees God as an old man type figure that is making instaneous decisions regarding His creation, he may see the pill in the same way - judging it by its effects - assuming all the effects of the pill were thought about and planned out. But if one views God as having created a Law or Energy that governs His creation - what happens then is the consequences of His Law, not individual decisions and actions taken, they might see that the effects of the pill are just consequences flowing out of the one intended goal of the hormonal cocktail, and that is to fool the female body into thinking that it is pregnant.

You know if we follow the logic that some are presenting with the pill, it would be ungodly for a woman to become pregnant. Because pregnancy itself is an abortifacient in that the hormones produced from pregnancy, continuing after delivery of the baby, prevent the build up endometrium, disallowing the implantation of a fertilized egg, just as the pill does.




c

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Perhaps things have changed in the last 3 decades, and please correct me if what I am sharing is incorrect.

When I took the pill, it was a combination of two hormones - estrogen and progesterone. The purpose of giving these drugs was to fool the female body into thinking it was already pregnant, thus interfering with the normal female monthly cycle.Actually that's the purpose of only one of those hormones. Oestrogen is included to inhibit ovulation. But progesterone's purpose is to change the physical enviroment inside the uterus, making implantation possible.

The mini pill, for example, is progesterone only, and doesn't try to stop ovulation.
Logic also says that if for some reason a woman who is on the pill ends up ovulating (the hormone cocktail not working) the endometrium will experience the normal monthly build up that goes along with ovulation. So that if you are on the pill and ovulate anyways, chances are the endometrium will have been prepared by the body for implantation, if the egg is fertilized, which is what happened to me.Logic says that the normal buildup would occur unless something were working against it, such as the thinning of lining, due to progesterone.

Now of course, none of the methods the pill uses is fool proof. If the mucus plug doesn't work, then the lack of ovulation is supposed to do the trick, and if that fails, the thinning of the uterus lining is supposed to do the trick by stopping implantation. But that, too, can fail, and you end up with a baby :smile:
I was on the pill but due to other health interferences, the hormone cocktail did not work, and so I ovulated AND my endometrium was prepared to received the fertilized egg, and voila, I found myself pregnant.Yes, the pill isn't perfectly reliable.
I do not know about the present birth control pills, but with the ones I took, the lack of build up of the endometrium was not the targeted result, but just a consequence of the body thinking it was already pregnant.It's not either/or.
You know if we follow the logic that some are presenting with the pill, it would be ungodly for a woman to become pregnant. Because pregnancy itself is an abortifacient in that the hormones produced from pregnancy, continuing after delivery of the baby, prevent the build up endometrium, disallowing the implantation of a fertilized egg, just as the pill does.The fact that something can happen without our intervention doesn't really warrant us doing something that causes it. For example, miscarriage at a very early stage is common, but that wouldn't justify taking the morning after pill.

[Clarice]

Actually that's the purpose of only one of those hormones. Oestrogen is included to inhibit ovulation. But progesterone's purpose is to change the physical enviroment inside the uterus, making implantation possible.

The mini pill, for example, is progesterone only, and doesn't try to stop ovulation.
Logic says that the normal buildup would occur unless something were working against it, such as the thinning of lining, due to progesterone.

Now of course, none of the methods the pill uses is fool proof. If the mucus plug doesn't work, then the lack of ovulation is supposed to do the trick, and if that fails, the thinning of the uterus lining is supposed to do the trick by stopping implantation. But that, too, can fail, and you end up with a baby :smile:
Yes, the pill isn't perfectly reliable.
It's not either/or.
The fact that something can happen without our intervention doesn't really warrant us doing something that causes it. For example, miscarriage at a very early stage is common, but that wouldn't justify taking the morning after pill.

Yes, these two hormones govern the woman's reproductive cycle.

When I began to take the pill, it was understood then that there were negative effects on female body if estrogen alone were given. Even today, I still am hearing about the harm of taking estrogen alone. Perhaps there have been breakthroughs. Initially, though, the pill contained both, not to create the abortifacient effect, but because estrogen alone was harmful to the woman. The abortifacient effect was just consequential, but you know how marketers are! Given that the majority of the population is not against abortifacients, it is understandable that those marketing the pill used this side effect for a strategic edge in marketing.

One cannot give a woman progesterone without it affecting the build up of the endometrium. But the reason for including progesterone in the pill, at least intitially, was not to be an abortifacient, but to create a safe hormonal level in the body, one that mirrored pregnancy. The intent was to prevent ovulation. Preventing the build up of the endometrium was a side effect.

I personally do not like the pill and stopped taking it when my awareness and understanding grew.

Anything artificial in the body has its consequences, even if the intent is sincere and I do value sincere attempts to prevent unwanted pregnancies. My heart can better bear the knowledge of a fertilized egg passing through without attaching, for whatever reason, than another unwanted child being born and hurt and abused by this unloving world.

I feel that the best standard to apply is the same standard applied by Apostle Paul. All things are permitted but not all things are beneficial. And so whatever we choose, we must let our conscience or a higher standard such as the Bible - if we look to it - guide our actions as to what is most beneficial, most loving, for our human family.

For me, according to my conscience and my understanding of Biblical revelation, the most beneficial is my celibacy - or as Jesus called it, making oneself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.




c

[Ryokan]

Sperm don't travel along the wall of the uterus. The function of changing the walls of the uterus is so that the conceptus cannot implant on the walls of the uterus. This is actually part of the function of the pill. The three birth control methods are 1) suppress ovulation, 2) prevent sperm getting through the cervix, and 3) inhibit implantation. The manufacturers make no pretence to the contrary.

This isn't some malicious imputation of intent to the pill manufacturers. They come right out and say it.
That's the only reason the pill is designed to alter the lining of the uterus. Sperm swim, they don't climb.
Well, this is not a defence of using something designed to inhiit implantation. For example, if there was a very high rate of miscarriage for some reason, this would not justify a surgical abortion since "infortunately it happens to a lot of fetuses anyway."

The marked difference between the pill and, say, excercise or any of the other factors you listed in a prvious post is that excercise doesn't make you fit by endangering a baby. The pill, however, prevents pregnancy by causing the conceptus to be expelled, unable to implant.

I grant that this method is a beackup method. The pill's main intent is to stop the ovum being released int he first place. But the suggestion that preventing implantation is an accidental effect of what the pill is meant to do is not true, and it requires the supposition that pill manufacturers and famly planning clinics have been needlessly impugning themselves in the eyes of pro lifers by claiming otherwise.

As I understand it, the morning after pill works by doing exactly the same thing, except it is more concentrated. This is because the contraceptive pill only needs to prevent implantation, whereas the morning after pill needs to - potentially at least - dislodge a conceptus that is already implanted. But it's the same function.
I'll get back too you tommorrow.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

My heart can better bear the knowledge of a fertilized egg passing through without attaching, for whatever reason, than another unwanted child being born and hurt and abused by this unloving world.I have a feeling that this sentence is the root of our difference. If it is a good way to think, then it is also a good reason for surgical abortion.

[Ryokan]

I have a feeling that this sentence is the root of our difference. If it is a good way to think, then it is also a good reason for surgical abortion.
Well, it comes down to a question of when personhood begins, honestly. this is a tough issue for me. Tradition and the bible come down, for the most part, on the life begins at conception end of things, but on the other hand I don't understand why God would allow most of the human race to die within a few weeks of creating them. Before they are more than a cell cluster. What are we to think?

[Rupert Pupkin]

I believe in one case (I am even picturing the office) I was told that number 2 makes it virtually impossible to proceed to step 3 (nearly every pill "failure" is operator error not pill failure), and the chances are pretty miniscule.

I do not know what the odds are.

OK, let me tell you the facts about this. Anyone who says it is virtually impossible to get to step 3, is engaging in wishful thinking. The fact is that there are no studies which have been undertaken to address the issue of the relative importance of the various three mechanisms in "preventing" pregnancy. The truth is that we cannot say what proportion of babies are aborted by this mechanism, nor what the chances are. The pharmaceutical companies couldn't care less about it, and probably would prefer not to have attention drawn to the issue.

There is no empirical basis for the reassurance you have received. Before I was married, I did a thorough literature search for my wife on the issue. There just are no studies.

I personally have discussed this with medical professionals whom have been longstanding friends and who are Christians but who prescribe the pill. They say exactly what you say but can't cite any studies to support it. I think they are just believing what they would like to believe because they want to rationalize their acts.

Moral clarity requires making tough choices even in the face of a concensus to compromise.

Some may say any chance is a chance. Well then, I suggest that some study be conducted on the optimum baby-generating and growing enviroments for women and insist that if they are sexually active that they not to potentially anything that might cause in any remote chance in any way a miscarriage. Including me taking antidepressants, too much Advil, having an Xray, exercising too strenously... getting upset, etc.

The issue here is one of intention. The pill is designed to avoid/abort pregnancy and we are concerned with people who are taking it for contraceptive purposes i.e. not for any other medical reason. In such a case the intention is to avoid/abort pregnancy.

But where there is a genuine medical reason to undertake some course of treatment that might increase the risk to the baby, the situation is not the same at all. There is no intention to harm the baby. That is an unfortunate and undesirable possible side-effect. In such a case the pros and cons of the treatment will need to be weighed (how great is the risk to the baby vs benefits of treatment). The same principle applies generally.

We all engage in behaviour that involves risk to our children sometimes. For example, if I go to the shops I might take my children with me in the car. There is a quite real statistical chance in so doing that we might be involved in a car crash and they might be killed, and on many occasions it isn't strictly necessary for me to take them with me. I could leave them at home. But the point is that when I take them in the car there is no intention to harm. Intention is everything in ethics.

There are other contraceptive alternatives. Furthermore, there are excellent possible contraceptives that have not been funded for development because of the dominance of the pill. For example, work is presently going on for developing a male contraceptive pill that would therefore have no ethical problems. But the research has been very slow, because the dominance of the female pill has meant that the pharmaceutical companies don't think there is a significant market for it.

but on the other hand I don't understand why God would allow most of the human race to die within a few weeks of creating them

My understanding is that this "most fertilized ova don't survive under normal conditions" argument is not based on any empirical studies. It's just a "factoid" that some pro-abortionist came up with ages ago via dubious reasoning and it is just repeated endlessly since and hence becomes "true". Like "more than 10% of the population are homosexuals". If you can cite me a study to support it I'd be most impressed.

Other things Christians can do:

1. Divest any share holdings in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture oral contraceptives.

2. Try to avoid buying products manufactured by companies which manufacture the pill (this is not always possible because they have patents on other medications as well obviously).

3. Be enthusiastic supporters of research trials for a male contraceptive pill.

Just to show how dishonest the medical profession is about these things, have a look at information on the morning after pill. Now this is a pill taken after intercourse and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it must be an abortifacient. However, because it acts prior to implantation, it is now considered a "contraceptive". For example the info on the site below says this:

Postinor-2 is an emergency contraceptive only. Postinor-2 is not intended as a regular method of contraception. It is used to prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse.

Note the words in bold. You can't believe everything your doctor tells you, unfortunately.

Taken from:

http://www.appco.com.au/appguide/drug.asp?drug_id=00072425&t=cmi

[Clarice]

I have a feeling that this sentence is the root of our difference. If it is a good way to think, then it is also a good reason for surgical abortion.

Yes. And again each must function according to their own conscience, for as Paul says, if it is against one's conscience it is a sin to them.

I offer, although I know most here will not agree, that what God created in His image is not the flesh body that comes from the womb. God is Spirit and Spirit gives birth to Spirit and flesh to flesh.

Also Jesus made a clear distinction in Himself in referring to the Son of Man - that born of woman, that made from the dust of this earth, and what He called "I", what He referred to when speaking in first person.

What is born of God, made in His image, no man can destroy. It is the Spirit that will again return to God. Dust though will return to dust.

What is lost, what Jesus came into this world to redeem is the soul, which I feel scripture clearly differentiates from the body.

Still, there are moral issues regarding flesh and body, and each must function according to His own conscience.

Again, what is born of God, made in His image, cannot be destroyed by man.



c

[Ryokan]

Honestly, I don't think I am up on the science enough to argue this intelligently. I will ask my priest and see what he thinks, and maybe a doctor. I have to foist leftover cookies on the first today anyway.

[Kenny]

My wife and I decided to give up using the pill on account of such concerns. We have had two unplanned pregnancies since then, one that resulted in our current almost two year old daughter and one that is currently in progress (and yes, we have practiced other means of contraception). But, even back then our decision was not based in a firm conviction that using the pill was wrong, but was more of a cautionary one; since we were uncertain about the morality of using the pill, we stopped.

I have since become convinced that taking the pill is not wrong, however, for a few of reasons. First, the claim that the pill acts as an abortificiant is not uncontroversial. See here (http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm). Second, I think Dee Dee's point about there being many factors that may cause miscarriage or failure of implantation is correct. We are not obligated to take every possible precaution, nor even give up all relevant conveniences, simply because failing to do so brings a slight elevated risk of failed implantation or miscarriage. And, while I appreciate the point about intentionally verses accidentally causing a failed implantation, I think it is the intentions of the couple using the pill, and not the intentions of the pill manufacturers that are the salient ones (although I grant that I can see some intuitive pull for thinking that the intentions of the manufactures also matters).

The third reason, I have changed my mind is that I am personally no longer convinced that human life begins at the moment of conception. I think that doesn't happen until around 14 days into the gestation process (when the primitive steak forms, cell specialization has started and twinning is no longer possible). Before that point, I don't think that a human organism has been composed (I think there is just a collection of cells, of no greater moral significance than a sperm and egg side by side in a Petri dish). I agree with prolifers that we should draw the line of moral considerability at the beginning of the existence of a human organism (and not at some latter point in that organism's development). I just happen to think that most prolifers draw that line at the wrong point in the conception process.

But, I understand if no one is readily convinced by the third of the above points (you shouldn't be unless you've done the research yourself, since I just gave you a small summary of my own position, not reasons for thinking it is true). I think the first two points stand on their own, however.

FYI, here's an earlier thread on the subject, where I raised this same issue:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=9904&page=1&pp=16

[Geoffrey]

Well you know what they call women who use the Rhythm Method (i.e. Natural Family Planning)?

Mom.

Equating the Rhythm Method and Natural Family Planning is a common misconception. The "Rhythm Method" consists in nothing more than counting days between periods, and thus isn't very effective in avoiding pregnancy.

"Natural Family Planning" (or NFP for short) typically refers to the sympto-thermal method, which involves charting the wife's temperature and mucus to determine fertile and infertile days. If faithfully practiced, NFP is behind only abstinence and sterilization for avoiding conception.

I agree with Theonomy about the abortifacient nature of contraceptive pills. Pharmacists for Life has some interesting information on the topic: http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=kemikalkill .

Even if, for the sake of argument, contraceptive pills kill only a very small number of preborns, my wife would still avoid contraceptive pills. If there were no other alternative, I'd just as soon not have sex than risk the lives of our preborn children. Sex isn't worth it. Nothing is.

[dizzle]

It was a joke guy.

Even if, for the sake of argument, contraceptive pills kill only a very small number of preborns, my wife would still avoid contraceptive pills. If there were no other alternative, I'd just as soon not have sex than risk the lives of our preborn children. Sex isn't worth it. Nothing is.

What about other pharmeucitals? I seriously doubt that zoloft or ambien (I was taking both until recently) are terribly wonderful for potential children. Yes we use alternative means of BC (I am not on the pill) but none is 100 percent. I don't think the intent argument cuts it. A baby not intended to be dead is just as dead. And I also think that realistics odds do have to be factored.

And though I disagree with Kenny on the nature of the conceptus, and I think pushing it out 14 days is incorrect, unlike those professing Christians who would support abortion until much later, I can understand those Christians who would not accept that life begins at conception, but rather at implantation or very very soon thereafter. As such, I don't find it (to me) productive to take a hard line stance on the pill though I take a militantly hard line stance against abortion.

[Geoffrey]

It was a joke guy.



What about other pharmeucitals? I seriously doubt that zoloft or ambien (I was taking both until recently) are terribly wonderful for potential children. Yes we use alternative means of BC (I am not on the pill) but none is 100 percent. I don't think the intent argument cuts it. A baby not intended to be dead is just as dead. And I also think that realistics odds do have to be factored.

I know. I got the joke. :smile: It was your seeming equation of NFP and the Rhythm Method that I wanted to address.

The thing with Zoloft or Ambien is that they have as their purpose the treatment of illness. If a given drug (with a curative purpose) can have side effects bad for a preborn, then one must weigh the risks and benefits and decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to take the drugs. But "the Pill" (when not used in the treatment of cramps and such) is simply to avoid babies. Avoiding babies is not an instance of curing or treating or healing. Rather, it is simply a way to have sex without babies. I do not see how one could make a decision to risk her own preborns' lives simply for the sake of sex.

Also, I'm a bit leery of your "dead is just as dead" argument. That seems to place the emphasis on an end result rather than on WHAT WE DO. Ethics is concerned with what we do, not with end results. We must do our duty and let God take care of the consequences.

[Rupert Pupkin]

First, the claim that the pill acts as an abortificiant is not uncontroversial.

One of the key problems with the argument of those who dispute the abortifacient effect of the pill, is that they constantly state that "no scientific studies" show directly that it is an abortifacient. That is a key claim in the article you linked to, and in every defence of pill usage by Christians that I have ever seen.

This argument, however, is deeply morally flawed. The problem is that there are no scientific studies that show directly that the pill isn't an abortifacient, either. Therefore this raises the question of how do we act in the face of a lack of evidence, but a prima facie possibility of harm.

Suppose that I invent a new treatment for some disease. You ask me, "does this medicine have any dangerous side effects?" I say, "no scientific studies have shown any side effects". The problem is, that I secretly know that no studies at all have been carried out to specifically examine the question of side effects. Would you be happy taking my medicine? Would my medicine be licensed by the FDA and other authorities to be used in humans? Not on your nelly!

So my question is this: why do we have one standard of care for one set of humans (outside the womb), and another standard of care for another set of humans (from conception to birth). If this were a medicine for use in humans other than those prior to birth, it would be considered outrageous that no studies have been done to determine its safety.

Until such studies are done, and demonstrate solidly the harmlessness of a medicine to human life after conception, the medicine in question ought not to be used.

[Kenny]

This argument, however, is deeply morally flawed. The problem is that there are no scientific studies that show directly that the pill isn't an abortifacient, either.

Have there been any scientific studies that indicate that eating hormone injected beef isn’t abortifacient (maybe there has, I don’t know), or that jogging early in pregnancy isn’t? What about various strenuous physical activities undertaken in the earliest stages of pregnancy (before a woman realizes she is pregnant)? Any scientific studies about that? Should all sexually active woman refrain from doing just any activity that might have an abortifacient effect? In fact, for some of these activities, I would think that even if there were scientific studies that indicated a slightly elevated risk associated with some of these activities of there being failures of implantation or early miscarriages, it would not follow that sexually active woman would be morally obligated to forego them (even assuming, for the sake of argument, that human life begins at conception).

Therefore this raises the question of how do we act in the face of a lack of evidence, but a prima facie possibility of harm.

No; mere epistemic possibility is not enough (as I think the points I raised above demonstrates). There has to be at least some good positive reason for thinking that harm will result, and the risk of harm must be significant enough to warrant moral constraints.

Suppose that I invent a new treatment for some disease. You ask me, "does this medicine have any dangerous side effects?" I say, "no scientific studies have shown any side effects". The problem is, that I secretly know that no studies at all have been carried out to specifically examine the question of side effects. Would you be happy taking my medicine?

I suppose it depends on what sort of disease I had, and what I thought the cost/benefit analysis was (if it were a serious enough disease, then it might be worth the risk).

Would my medicine be licensed by the FDA and other authorities to be used in humans? Not on your nelly!

No, it probably wouldn’t get licensed by the FDA.

So my question is this: why do we have one standard of care for one set of humans (outside the womb), and another standard of care for another set of humans (from conception to birth).

There isn’t one (at least not in this case). The birth control pill isn’t administered to newly fertilized embryos as a means of treatment. It is administered to woman for the purpose of preventing pregnancy. I see no relevant analogy between this and administering untested medications to currently existing persons.

I do agree, however, that if there were strong positive reasons for thinking that use of the pill brings about a significantly elevated risk of harming the unborn, it should not be used

If this were a medicine for use in humans other than those prior to birth

The pill isn’t for use in humans prior to birth. It’s for use in adult women.

[dizzle]

No; mere epistemic possibility is not enough (as I think the points I raised above demonstrates). There has to be at least some good positive reason for thinking that harm will result, and the risk of harm must be significant enough to warrant moral constraints.

I agree with you Kenny. I tend to think that other behaviour of women is far more potentially dangerous to a fetus, including other medications. Heck I had to have an MRI and they would have refused to do it for fear of being sued unless I told them there was no possibility of me being pregnant. But here the fact. I am 99.99999 percent I am not pregnant. I in fact was having my time of the month, but that is not 100% certain. I know a woman who had her monthly for the first few months of her pregnancy - so should I have forgone havng the MRI (which was right on my lower back, my womb is directly above)

I do agree, however, that if there were strong positive reasons for thinking that use of the pill brings about a significantly elevated risk of harming the unborn, it should not be used

That was my point. The article I referred to really jogged my remembrance of the discussions I had wtih the gyns back then, and from my understanding, the pill functions by preventing ovulation and the mucus plug... it also as a side consequence makes implantation highly difficult, but that is not its means of preventing pregnancy. It is a side issue of having a low dose pill - which was not done so that pro-aborts could sneak in an implantation issue, the low dose pill is the only ones avaiable now because they are safer with regards to cancer and other problems with high dose hormones. Something that would of I would think of significantly higher risk to a fetus which was implanted and the woman didn't know and kept on taking the pill.

[Jugulum]

I agree with you Kenny. I tend to think that other behaviour of women is far more potentially dangerous to a fetus, including other medications. I agree that any number of activities or medications can be dangerous to a fetus. In all such cases, we should make our decisions based on an informed estimate of the risks, balanced against the benefits of the activity. If, for instance, we knew that only one out of a billion women would ever lose their child because of the anti-implantation effects of the Pill, I don't think it would worry me. If it were more like one out of 10 women, it would be a major concern. The threshold isn't easy to identify.

You said in an earlier post:
If the percentages at the level of the pill are not okay (and it is my understanding that such is not the primary intent nor are the percentages anything significant), then I would think this sort of concern would necessarily have to extend to any activity the female might do during her fertile sexually active years that might cause the same thing.I agree with most of your ethical analysis. If the risk is low enough, it's morally acceptable to use the Pill. Everything we do comes with some amount of risk.

Your parenthetical comment about preventing implantation not being the primary intent is meaningless. The primary intent of drinking wine while pregnant isn't damaging your growing child, either. We should be making our decisions based on the risk of harm (balanced against the benefits of the activity), not based on whether the harm was our intention. To adapt your examples of other medications: If you're taking medication for depression that usually causes serious damage a fetus, and you find out you're pregnant, then you have to decide whether to continue taking it. It would be ridiculous for you to think, "Well, my purpose isn't to damage my child, so I'll just go ahead and stay on the drug." (i realized my example is a bit different--it involves knowledge that you actually are pregnant. But I don't think that affects the point it makes. You can also ask, "What are the odds that I will become pregnant while on this medication and wind up with an injured or dead child?" And that should be the basis of your decision. If the risk is high enough, you should consider a less effective--but safer--drug, or doing without entirely. It should be purely risk-benefit analysis.)

But this highlights the importance of determining an objective estimate of the risks. You say your understanding is that the risks of preventing implantation with the Pill are very low. If you're right about that, then I agree it's OK to use the Pill. But if you're wrong, then you're making a quite literally fatal mistake--fatal for the children of anyone who follows your advice.

So anyone considering the Pill had better have d%@$ed-good justification for their estimates of the risks. We have a clearly-identified mechanism--two, actually--by which the Pill could be interfering with implantation. This is not wild speculation; it's reported on the box.

I have no idea whether your stated understanding is well-founded. I'm not attempting to pass judgment on you. I'm saying that if it's not, then your negligence makes your responsible for the consequences to your children and the children of anyone who follows your advice. You will have to live with that, and face Christ.

You say you're basing your opinion on some conversations with gynecologists. If you have no idea whether or not their statements were well-informed and impartial--or if you have no idea whether more recent research supports or contradicts them--then I would suggest that you aren't exercising due diligence. Randy Alcorn reports that many physicians he speaks to tell him that they knew nothing about this issue until he presented his case. That doesn't mean Alcorn is right about the effects of the Pill, of course. But that--combined with the inherently charged, politically-sensitive, morally-significant nature of this issue--leads me to say that we shouldn't trust anyone's conclusion on this unless we have a good understanding of how they reached it.

Really, I doubt anyone is exercising due diligence unless they can articulate exactly what the medical evidence is.

[Jugulum]

As a follow-up, I'm going to repost a question I asked (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=89801) in the Natural Science forum a few days ago.

------------------
I recently read the 2nd edition of Randy Acorn's booklet, Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?. His answer is yes, it probably does at rates significant enough to be of concern. I'm researching the matter, trying to find any contradictory material that exists and to examine the relevant supporting evidence. The book is extensively referenced, so I can track down his published sources.

I was wondering if anyone here has looked into the subject and knows of any careful rebuttals.


Note: The Pill (in its various specific recipes) has two mechanisms that prevent fertilization. It prevents ovulation, and makes it more difficult for sperm to get to the egg. The controversy is mainly over a third mechanism. In cases where fertilization does occur, does the Pill affect implantation of the fertilized egg? How likely is it to happen?

Also, I'm not interested in the semantic issues. I'm aware that in the currently-accepted medical definitions, "conception" refers to implantation (not fertilization) and anything that happens before implantation is not "abortion" by definition. I'm only interested in the science of whether the Pill interferes with implantation, and if so, how likely is it? How uncertain are we about these issues?

[Jugulum]

So anyone considering the Pill had better have d%@$ed-good justification for their estimates of the risks. We have a clearly-identified mechanism--two, actually--by which the Pill could be interfering with implantation. This is not wild speculation; it's reported on the box.Sorry for the back-to-back, but I want to clarify something about this point.

When I said that this is not wild speculation, I had Kenny's comments in mind:
Should all sexually active woman refrain from doing just any activity that might have an abortifacient effect? In fact, for some of these activities, I would think that even if there were scientific studies that indicated a slightly elevated risk associated with some of these activities of there being failures of implantation or early miscarriages, it would not follow that sexually active woman would be morally obligated to forego them (even assuming, for the sake of argument, that human life begins at conception).To respond directly, Kenny, no, sexually active women are not morally obligated to refrain from any activity that might have an abortifacient effect. (I'm assuming here that life begins at fertilization.) It's a matter of risk. If the risk is high enough, there's a moral obligation. If the risk is low enough, there isn't. If you aren't sure what the exact rates of damage are, then you should still think of it in terms of estimating risk. (How likely is it that there's a negative effect?)

We can't perform scientific studies on every single activity out there to determine the risks to fetal development. It's not feasible. And we can't live paralyzed in fear that anything we do might hurt our children. So if something is just speculation, with no credible mechanism for damage, with no reason to believe it's dangerous, then I think we can ignore it--even though it's possible it really is dangerous.

But in this situation, if the theoretic basis is sound, it should be a factor in our decisions--especially if there's any corroborating empirical evidence.

The theoretical basis here is sound. The effects to the endometrium are observable with the naked eye, and we understand how it would affect implantation. I've also been told (I have no solid references) that fertility specialists care about the thickness of the endometrium for precisely this reason. And for empirical evidence, I read in Alcorn's booklet part of a letter from pro-life physicians who were rebutting the first edition of his booklet. They argued that if the Pill interferes with implantation, then the ratio of ectopic (i.e. tubal) pregnancies to regular pregnancies would be higher for those on the Pill than for women not on the Pill. But they were unaware of 5 studies showing precisely that effect.

This is not proof, but it is evidence. We're not just dealing with a "might".


Finally, I think it's somewhat odd for people to be talking about this in terms of "moral obligation". Unless someone is proposing making the Pill illegal, then this discussion only has the purpose of helping people to make personal decisions on whether or not to use the Pill. Those who don't believe life begins at fertilization won't care about it at all, so we can limit ourselves to considering people who do believe life begins at fertilization. In other words, we're talking about possible risks to our children's lives. If we establish that there's a significant risk, who's going to think, "OK, this is a serious risk to my children's lives, therefore I have a moral obligation not to do it." That's bizarre. People will think, "Oh no, this has a good chance of hurting my child!" I tend to regard the desire to protect our children as inherent. It can be assumed.

I realize some people have a complete disregard for their children's health, but AFAIK they're more the exception than the rule. Unless we're specifically discussing people who have that disregard, there's no need to mention moral obligations. We can just ask, "What are the risks to my kids? Is it worth the danger?"

[Kenny]

Unfortunately, this is the fate of 2/3 of all fertilized eggs as I understand it, pill or not.

Something else that may be worth considering (although I am not sure how, exactly, to assess its moral significance) is that if the natural rate of implantation really is this high, then there is a good chance (at least if I’m doing my math right) that use of the pill actually lowers the overall risk of failed implantation by reducing the chance of initial fertilization.

Here’s some probability formulas. Take some given instance of sexual intercourse during a woman’s fertile period. Let A be the proposition that there will be an “abortion” (i.e. a case failed implantation). Let F be the proposition that fertilization will take place. Let P be the proposition that the woman in question is on the pill. Note that P(x/y) stands for the probability of x given y, and ~x stands for “not x”.

Here’s the formula for the probability that an “abortion” will occur given that the woman is on the pill:

P(A/P) = P(F/P)*P(A/F&P) + P(~F/P)*P(A/~F&P)

We can plug in the following numbers:

P(F/P) = 1/10 (let’s suppose; I don’t know what the actual number it is, but I bet its lower than this, and the lower it is, the stronger my case).

P(A/F&P) = 1/10 (let’s suppose that the pill causes 1 out of 10 fertilized eggs to fail to implant; that seems rather high, but if its lower, my case is again stronger). (Edited: Note; I've made an error here. See my admendment in the subsequent post).

P(A/~F&P) = 0 (obviously; if no egg has been fertilized, nothing can fail to implant)

Then, given these numbers P(A/P) = (1/10)(1/10) = 1/100



Here’s the formula for the probability of an abortion given that the pill hasn’t been taken:

P(A/~P) = P(F/~P)*P(A/F&~P) + P(~F/P)*P(A/~F&~P)

P(F/~P) = 1/4 (if memory serves, that’s close to the actual probability of pregnancy for an instance of unprotected sex during a woman’s fertile period, so its on the low side for instances of fertilization, since more eggs are fertilized than are implanted)

P(A/F&~P) = 2/3 (plugging in Ryokan’s number)

P(A/~F&~P) = 0 (obviously!)

P(A/~P) = (1/4)(2/3) = 1/6

If these numbers were correct, then people who have sex without the pill would average 1 “abortion” out of six acts of intercourse during the woman’s fertile period and those with the pill would only average 1 out of 100! That’s a huge difference! Of course, those are all just guestimates, but I suspect the actual numbers would produce at least the result that the overall risk of failed implantation on the pill is lower than the risk off of it.

And, of course, the above is a measure of the overall chances of there being a failed implantation (not of there being one given that fertilization has occurred). So, I’m not sure how to assess the ethical significance. It seems to me that a lot of messy issues crop up when we try to assess the issue of prospective harm to currently non-existent persons (especially when various acts of ours also affect the probability of these persons coming to exist in the first place).

[Kenny]

Whoops, I screwed something up in the last post.

If Ryokan’s number is right, then P(A/F&P) ought to be greater than 2/3 (because its not just the failed implantations caused by the pill that matter, it’s the one’s that would have occurred naturally that also matter). So, let’s just go ahead and be extreme by assuming that P(A/F&P) = 1. In that case (leaving all the other numbers alone) P(A/P) = 1/10, and P(A/~P) = 1/6. That’s still a big difference.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Have there been any scientific studies that indicate that eating hormone injected beef isn’t abortifacient (maybe there has, I don’t know), or that jogging early in pregnancy isn’t? What about various strenuous physical activities undertaken in the earliest stages of pregnancy (before a woman realizes she is pregnant)?

None of these are medications, so the analogy doesn't hold. We have very strict legal requirements governing new medications that mandate thorough testing to evaluate possible side effects and risk of death or injury. This legal requirement exists even if we believe that the medication in question might be life-saving, which by no stretch of the imagination can the pill be considered. The fact that the medication is given to the mother rather than the child is immaterial, since once the child comes into existence it is a party to the effects of the medication.

There is, therefore, a huge double standard. The unborn are being treated in a callous manner that no post-birth human would ever be exposed to.

The pill does not save human life. There are plenty of other means to prevent pregnancy that are ethical and others that could be developed readily with sufficient funding (e.g. the male contraceptive pill, which in principle is no more difficult to produce than the female one). So to compare this to a potentially life-saving medication which might be fast-tracked through clinical safety testing is laughable.

And as has been pointed out, there is in fact a good prima facie case that harm is being caused. So that is a second reason that such studies ought to be done before the medication is used.

Something else that may be worth considering (although I am not sure how, exactly, to assess its moral significance) is that if the natural rate of implantation really is this high, then there is a good chance (at least if I’m doing my math right) that use of the pill actually lowers the overall risk of failed implantation by reducing the chance of initial fertilization.

OK then. A child has, let's say, a 1 in 100 chance of dying before their 10th birthday. So suppose that I invent a contraceptive pill that has, as a side effect, in a small percentage of patients that at the age of 10 the child suddenly explodes in spontaneous human combustion. I can argue, using Kenny's logic, that the probability of a child dying before its 10th birthday is less if you use my pill, because fewer children will be produced, and hence the increased risk of death to the child by exploding on their 10th birthday is offset by the reduced chance of producing a child in the first place.

Not a good argument, Kenny. I suspect it would only take a few exploding 10-year olds, before the contraceptive in question would be banned and I would be facing major lawsuits.

The only reason your argument appears even vaguely plausible is because you are treating the unborn in a manner in which post-birth humans would never be treated.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The only reason your argument appears even vaguely plausible is because you are treating the unborn in a manner in which post-birth humans would never be treated.Precisely. THAT is what is doing the work here, a subconscious disconnect between a pro life view of the unborn and the consequences of the pill.

[Jugulum]

If these numbers were correct, then people who have sex without the pill would average 1 “abortion” out of six acts of intercourse during the woman’s fertile period and those with the pill would only average 1 out of 100! That’s a huge difference! Of course, those are all just guestimates, but I suspect the actual numbers would produce at least the result that the overall risk of failed implantation on the pill is lower than the risk off of it.Hmmm... Dangit, Kenny, I thought I had the ethical aspects of this figured out, and all I had to do was figure out the science of the risks involved. Now you've gone and murkied up the water. :sigh:

Seriously, you've given me something to think about. I don't see a straight-forward response.

And, of course, the above is a measure of the overall chances of there being a failed implantation (not of there being one given that fertilization has occurred). So, I’m not sure how to assess the ethical significance.Neither am I.

At first glance, the 1/100 vs. 1/6 comparison seems compelling. But as you point out, those are the overall chances of there being a failed implantation, not the odds of any given fertilized egg failing to implant.

In other words, it's like we're comparing murder rates in Sioux City, IA to murder rates in New York. (Sioux City would be to New York as on-the-Pill is to not-on-the-Pill.) The population of Sioux City is much smaller than the population of New York--85,000 to 19,000,000--so you can't just compare the raw number of deaths each year.

If in an average year Sioux City has 100 murders, and New York has 1000, New York looks much more dangerous. But New York would actually be safer. The per-capita murder rates are about 1.2 per 1000 people in Sioux City, and about 0.05 per 1000 people in New York. So New York is safer.


So how should that work when we're talking about creating new lives? Off the pill, there are more deaths, but each individual life is safer. Does that settle it?

Instead of looking at implantation, let's suppose we're talking about death rates for children or adults. Suppose you had to choose between two courses of actions. In the first, you will have 4 children, and 2 of them will die in his youth. In the second, you will have 10 children, and 4 of them will die in their youth. In the second situation, you lose more children...but each individual child is safer. So does that mean you're putting your children in greater danger if you choose the first situation?

Hmmm....

Edited to add: OK, Humphrey Bogart's human combustion illustration is interesting. It's basically a more straight-forward version of my last illustration. I'll have to think about it, HB, but I think you might have solved the dilemma.

[Kenny]

At first glance, the 1/100 vs. 1/6 comparison seems compelling.

I may have more to say later. But, for now, keep in mind my retraction in the previous post. 1/100 is way too low for the value of P(A/P) given the other numbers I plugged in.

[Kenny]

Not a good argument, Kenny. I suspect it would only take a few exploding 10-year olds, before the contraceptive in question would be banned and I would be facing major lawsuits.

You are attributing to me a conclusion I did not draw. I specifically stated that I was uncertain about how to assess the ethical significance of the (genuine) statistical possibility I pointed out.

Upon further reflection (for reasons I may try to explain at a later time -- my opportunity to post these days is hit and miss), I'm leaning toward thinking that all that matters (assuming that human life begins at conception, although I personally do not believe that is so) is the probability of failed implantation given that fertalization has occured, and not the overall probability. That is, I am leaning toward your position on the matter. But, I still think the issue I raised is worth thinking about.

Things are complicated, imho, by the fact that the actions we are considering have ramifications not only with respect to the probability of harming the persons in question, but also with respect to the probability that those persons will exist in the first place.

[Jugulum]

I may have more to say later. But, for now, keep in mind my retraction in the previous post. 1/100 is way too low for the value of P(A/P) given the other numbers I plugged in.Thanks for the reminder. Off-hand, though, I don't see how correcting it to 1/10 vs 1/6 (instead of your miscalculated 1/100 vs 1/6) shouldn't affect our conclusion. If P(A|P) is what matters, lowering the odds from 1/6 to 1/10 would still be important.

But as you said to HB, it seems like P(A|F) is what matters.

[dizzle]

The only reason your argument appears even vaguely plausible is because you are treating the unborn in a manner in which post-birth humans would never be treated.

No this fails. If my taking of other medications could have a chance of harming already born children, I doubt people would be thinking it is okay because the primary purose of them is to not do so. It is precisely my point that you are making.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No this fails. If my taking of other medications could have a chance of harming already born children, I doubt people would be thinking it is okay because the primary purose of them is to not do so. It is precisely my point that you are making.
Darth, I had to read this twice. Are you saying that if you were doing something that had a small chance of killing a ten year old, people would not do it, since that's not he purpose of doing it? That's how this reads, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Whether it was the primary purpose of the act or not, doing something for yourself that has a small chance of killing a ten year old strikes me as something you wouldn't do. Am I right?

[dizzle]

Driving doesn't have a chance of killing a ten year old? (and no that wasn't my point)

the point was that we are allowing something to happen to the unborn that we would not allow to happen to afterborn, I am saying that is not always the case

My meds have a chance of harming a fetus if I were pregnant, but it is allowed, I wouls say it would not be so if they had the same chance of harming a born child

[Jugulum]

Driving doesn't have a chance of killing a ten year old? (and no that wasn't my point)

the point was that we are allowing something to happen to the unborn that we would not allow to happen to afterborn, I am saying that is not always the case

My meds have a chance of harming a fetus if I were pregnant, but it is allowed, I wouls say it would not be so if they had the same chance of harming a born childWhy? What ethically-relevant difference do you see between a fetus and a born child?

[dizzle]

I must be stuttering because my point was exactly the opposite

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

My meds have a chance of harming a fetus if I were pregnant, but it is allowed, I wouls say it would not be so if they had the same chance of harming a born childSo your meds are OK if they might harm an unborn child, but not alright if they might harm a born child?

Is this your position, or are you describing someone else's view?

[dizzle]

I wasn't representing anyone's view, I was pointing an inconsistency in the post I was responding to that was accusing me of advocating something to the unborn that I would not advocate to the born. I believe that poster's view suffers from that problem. Obviously I am not communicating very well today.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No this fails. If my taking of other medications could have a chance of harming already born children, I doubt people would be thinking it is okay because the primary purose of them is to not do so.Just so it dosn't go unnoticed, the bolded part of this is still apparently false. The manufacturers state that the abortive effect is intended, and on the face of it their claims appear to be true (and of course the strongest evidence that this is intended is that they admit it).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I wasn't representing anyone's view, I was pointing an inconsistency in the post I was responding to that was accusing me of advocating something to the unborn that I would not advocate to the born. I believe that poster's view suffers from that problem. Obviously I am not communicating very well today.If the poster was Bogart, then he was quite consistent. He was saying that the view expressed by some here treats the unborn in a way they would not treat the born.

And on an earlier point, you asked if we should demand that women provide the best possible enviroment for the development of a baby. My answer is - one conception has occured, yes this demand is the right one to make.

And on another note again: Imagine you're in another Universe, where people are not conceived, they spring into existence as a ten year old. After a husband and wife have ses, a ten year old is about to appear. You don't want the ten year old. So the scientist says to you - "Here, press this red button. It will stop the ten year old from appearing. It's not perfect, but it will probably work." You ask "Not perfect? So what happens if it doesn't work?" The scientist tells you "If it does't work, then the ten year old will come into existence, and then after six hours he will spontaneously combust. So you still won't have to worry about looking after the ten year old. But that's not likely, don't worry."

What do you do?

[Rupert Pupkin]

My meds have a chance of harming a fetus if I were pregnant, but it is allowed, I wouls say it would not be so if they had the same chance of harming a born child

The two should be assessed in the same way. The fact that they are not assessed the same way is wrong; that was my point. What is the case ought not to be the case. My posts are quite consistent.

But I am not saying that medications should not be permitted that increase the risk to the child ever under any circumstances. If the mother suffers from a life-threatening illness that requires immediate treatment, but that treatment might increase the risk to the child, then that situation should be assessed on its merits. But both the mother and the child should be treated as full human beings for the purposes of deciding what to do; it should be no different to other circumstances in which such difficult decisions have to be made. Unfortunately, the practice of medicine not infrequently presents extremely difficult ethical choices. For instance, in an emergency there may be 10 people requiring treatment but only enough medicine for 5. Life and death decisions will then have to be made. For instance, we may need to do triage. In general, the situation with a pregnant woman is actually easier in ethical terms then these kind of situations, because usually, unless it is fairly late in the pregnancy, whatever kills the mother will also kill the child, and therefore virtually any treatment that saves the life of the mother is justified no matter what the risk to the child.

But whatever criteria are employed in making those decisions, they should be criteria that treat each of the people as having the same rights.

And to get back to the pill, it just isn't (in 99.9% of cases anyway) a life-saving intervention. So there's no ethical justification for endangering the child.

[Gabby]

And on another note again: Imagine you're in another Universe, where people are not conceived, they spring into existence as a ten year old. After a husband and wife have ses, a ten year old is about to appear. You don't want the ten year old. So the scientist says to you - "Here, press this red button. It will stop the ten year old from appearing. It's not perfect, but it will probably work." You ask "Not perfect? So what happens if it doesn't work?" The scientist tells you "If it does't work, then the ten year old will come into existence, and then after six hours he will spontaneously combust. So you still won't have to worry about looking after the ten year old. But that's not likely, don't worry."

What do you do?

The problem with this analogy is that the 10 year old is an unmistakable knowable. The baby that has been just concieved however cannot be known to be there until the mothers hormones change, a few days later. So the intent is not quite the same.

It's like going hunting with a group of people, a couple who are pushing bush and a couple who are actually shooting. Now the person pushing bush is out of site of the actual hunter but if things go the way they are suppose to they will never be in the line of fire. However if things just go slightly off a person unknowingly could be in the line of fire when the hunter shoots. Now that totally different than when a person is shooting with a person knowingly and in sight in the line of fire and the person fires anyways.

Are both situations unacceptable? Most definately! But they are not the same and are not comparable.
Am I making sense?

[themuzicman]

Is the purpose of taking the pill to prevent a child from coming into being? After all, most adults know that this is a natural consequence of sexual intercourse.

Michael

[Kenny]

We can't perform scientific studies on every single activity out there to determine the risks to fetal development. It's not feasible. And we can't live paralyzed in fear that anything we do might hurt our children. So if something is just speculation, with no credible mechanism for damage, with no reason to believe it's dangerous, then I think we can ignore it--even though it's possible it really is dangerous.

I suspect that if I knew more about biology, I could come up with some speculative theoretical mechanisms for how at least some of the activities I mentioned might cause damage. But, alas, I do not know more about biology.

But in this situation, if the theoretic basis is sound, it should be a factor in our decisions--especially if there's any corroborating empirical evidence.

From what I’ve read, there’s an extreme paucity of evidence. I’ve also seen conflicting assessments of the evidence from both sides of the debate (coming from pro-life Christians who believe that life begins at conception, and who define conception as fertilzation). Some on the pro-pill side claim there is positive evidence suggesting no abortive effect. Some on the anti-pill side claim that there is positive evidence suggesting there is an abortive effect. Frankly, given my lack of expertise, it is hard for me to asses the arguments offered by both sides.

The theoretical basis here is sound. The effects to the endometrium are observable with the naked eye, and we understand how it would affect implantation. I've also been told (I have no solid references) that fertility specialists care about the thickness of the endometrium for precisely this reason.

Yes, but I’ve also read that some physicians believe that if breakthrough ovulation occurs, the woman’s body (even if she is on the pill) is flooded with hormones that make the endometrium hospitable.

And for empirical evidence, I read in Alcorn's booklet part of a letter from pro-life physicians who were rebutting the first edition of his booklet. They argued that if the Pill interferes with implantation, then the ratio of ectopic (i.e. tubal) pregnancies to regular pregnancies would be higher for those on the Pill than for women not on the Pill. But they were unaware of 5 studies showing precisely that effect.

It’s been a while since I’ve read this stuff, frankly, but I seem to recall there was a dispute about how to interpret this evidence, and whether Alcorn had done so correctly.

This is not proof, but it is evidence.

Perhaps there is some evidence, but from what I’ve read, it does not appear that the evidence is compelling enough so that the experts are in unanimous agreement.

We're not just dealing with a "might".

Given that (at least from my lay perspective) the evidence all looks pretty ambiguous, and there appears to be little if no direct evidence (only theoretical arguments), I think I am still dealing with only a “might.”

Finally, I think it's somewhat odd for people to be talking about this in terms of "moral obligation".

Why? This is a moral issue.

Unless someone is proposing making the Pill illegal, then this discussion only has the purpose of helping people to make personal decisions on whether or not to use the Pill.

Yes, and that decision should be based on moral concerns.

In other words, we're talking about possible risks to our children's lives.

Not quite. We are talking about perspective harm to future persons who don’t currently exist. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have any non-existent Children.

If we establish that there's a significant risk, who's going to think, "OK, this is a serious risk to my children's lives, therefore I have a moral obligation not to do it."

Both times my wife and I discovered (even suspected) she was pregnant, we immediately began to take precautions (e.g. we bought pre-natal vitamins, she stopped drinking alcohol, etc.) out of both moral obligation and fear for harming one of our children. But, frankly, I have no parental attachment to children who don’t exist (I don’t think, in fact, that it is even possible that I could have affection for persons who don’t exist – if I thought I did have such affections, I would just be confused, having false believes about the nature of some of my propositional attitudes).

I do think, however, that we have a moral obligation to avoid performing actions that carry a significant prospective risk of harming persons (whether now or in the future). I don’t have moral obligations to refrain from actions that (for all I know), just might harm future persons, however.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The problem with this analogy is that the 10 year old is an unmistakable knowable. The baby that has been just concieved however cannot be known to be there until the mothers hormones change, a few days later. So the intent is not quite the same. But the similarity is here: In both cases it is not knowable that a human being will be destroyed. So both cases are unknowable in the relevant sense.

[Gabby]

But the similarity is here: In both cases it is not knowable that a human being will be destroyed. So both cases are unknowable in the relevant sense.

Except, and I'm not saying this to support use of the pill, in the end you know that you have ended a life with the 10 year old, but with the pill you will never know of any life ended or IF a life was ended.

In other words with the 10 year old senerio a person would have to look the child in the eyes and for most there would be clear connection, where as there is no connection to the unknown in the case of the Pill.

chris

[Jugulum]

Except, and I'm not saying this to support use of the pill, in the end you know that you have ended a life with the 10 year old, but with the pill you will never know of any life ended or IF a life was ended.

In other words with the 10 year old senerio a person would have to look the child in the eyes and for most there would be clear connection, where as there is no connection to the unknown in the case of the Pill.

chrisAre you saying that's an explanation for why people don't face up to the reality of the situation? Or are you saying this should be a factor in their conscious decision-making?

[Gabby]

Are you saying that's an explanation for why people don't face up to the reality of the situation? Or are you saying this should be a factor in their conscious decision-making?

I'm saying that it IS a factor in how people see things.

chris

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Except, and I'm not saying this to support use of the pill, in the end you know that you have ended a life with the 10 year old, but with the pill you will never know of any life ended or IF a life was ended.

In other words with the 10 year old senerio a person would have to look the child in the eyes and for most there would be clear connection, where as there is no connection to the unknown in the case of the Pill.

chrisOh yes, I agree there. And that's a big reason for the differing attitudes in those two cases. In the case of the pill people are not faced witht he consequences when this happens. That's why the illustration is so effective, because it tries to make people see it for what it is.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Is the purpose of taking the pill to prevent a child from coming into being? After all, most adults know that this is a natural consequence of sexual intercourse.

MichaelWell untimately the purpose is to prevent birth (hence "birth control), but it does this in more than one way. The first method is by preventing the child from coming into being. But there's a backup, which is to cause the newly conceived being to be "lost."

[Jugulum]

Kenny,

I don't have time for a full response at the moment--I'm getting ready to move. For now, I'd like to refer you to this site (http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/TakingPlanB/faqs.aspx#AL2) by the makers of Plan B, the emergency contraceptive that is essentially a high-dose version of the Pill, IIRC.

Part of the reason I don't regard the Pill's prevention of implantation as simple speculation--comparable to the examples you gave for other possible activities that could affect implantation--is that the manufacturers themselves identify it as one of the mechanisms.

Alcorn's book has similar references specific to the Pill, BTW.

[Kenny]

None of these are medications, so the analogy doesn't hold.

I can’t see any morally significant difference between activities that do not involve the consumption of medication that might be harmful to a unborn person and activities that do involve the consumption of medication that might be harmful to an unborn person. Why should that fact alone matter for moral decision making.

We have very strict legal requirements governing new medications that mandate thorough testing to evaluate possible side effects and risk of death or injury. This legal requirement exists even if we believe that the medication in question might be life-saving, which by no stretch of the imagination can the pill be considered.

At best, that indicates an inconsistency in our legal practices. That doesn’t necessarily mean there is an inconsistency in the moral practices of those who are actually taking the pill.

The fact that the medication is given to the mother rather than the child is immaterial

It isn’t immaterial with respect to the issue of whether our legal practices are inconsistent. The testing of medications typically targets how that medication affects its intended recipients. So, it is not inconsistent with typical medical testing practices to ignore those who aren’t the intended recipients. Now, granted, ethically, perhaps, there should be testing in cases where one person’s taking a medication may pose a threat to others who are not taking it. But, then it would just turn out that our medical testing practices are unethical, not inconsistent.

since once the child comes into existence it is a party to the effects of the medication

True. But (assuming that life begins at conception), there are likely a number of environmental factors, dieting practices on the part of the mother, various activities that the mother undertakes, etc. that might pose a risk of harm. I don’t think we have a moral obligation to conduct medical tests on every possible factor that might pose a threat. And, I don’t see why the mere fact that the pill is medication makes a salient moral difference (leaving aside questions about the consistency of our medical testing practices). Granted, though, if there is some strong theoretical evidence that the pill may pose a threat to newly fertilized embryos (and there is), and the theoretical evidence is compelling enough to warrant testing (and, it seems to me, though I am only a laymen, that it likely is), and we agree that life begins at or very shortly after fertilization (I don’t think so, but I’m willing to grant the point for the sake of argument), then we should test.

There is, therefore, a huge double standard.

I don’t see that there is such a double standard in this regard. As I noted above, I’m not convinced that you have established that our medical testing practices are inconsistent (though, I grant that they may be consistent and still unethical).

The pill does not save human life.

Most of the time, no. In some rare cases, it might help (e.g. cases in which it is extremely dangerous for a woman to get pregnant). But I grant that such cases are rare and atypical.

There are plenty of other means to prevent pregnancy that are ethical

Agreed, but they have their own associated costs. And, even if there is some slight risk of harm to potential unborn children, the benefits (i.e. conveniences) of using the pill may outweigh the risk it poses.

And, as I have already said, there are plenty of activities that are risky to others that we undertake (e.g. it is risky for me to put my daughter in the car in order to run an errand that is merely for my own convenience), but we are not morally required to forgo all such activities (nor are we even uncaring or bad parents or less virtuous individuals for failing to forgo all such activities). It is morally permissible, in many cases, to put others at risk (if the risk isn’t sufficiently high) for the sake of one’s own convenience (as bad or un-PC as that may sound at first, a little reflection reveals that it is true).

and others that could be developed readily with sufficient funding (e.g. the male contraceptive pill, which in principle is no more difficult to produce than the female one).

I’m all for that (for a number of reasons – it would be better, for example, if woman did not have to shoulder so much of the burden of responsibility for contraception). But, until then, what’s the lay person who has to make a choice given the options that are available supposed to do?

So to compare this to a potentially life-saving medication which might be fast-tracked through clinical safety testing is laughable.

I never made any such comparison (I did mention that I would take medication that hadn’t been sufficiently tested if the cost-benefit analysis came out right, but that was in direct response to a question you posed concerning whether I would be comfortable taking medication that had not been adequately tested.

And as has been pointed out, there is in fact a good prima facie case that harm is being caused.

I’m not so sure that there is a good prima facie case that there is a risk of harm that is significant enough to warrant moral restraint.

OK then. A child has, let's say, a 1 in 100 chance of dying before their 10th birthday. So suppose that I invent a contraceptive pill that has, as a side effect, in a small percentage of patients that at the age of 10 the child suddenly explodes in spontaneous human combustion. I can argue, using Kenny's logic, that the probability of a child dying before its 10th birthday is less if you use my pill, because fewer children will be produced, and hence the increased risk of death to the child by exploding on their 10th birthday is offset by the reduced chance of producing a child in the first place.

I concur with you that all that matters is the probability of harm assuming that a person will come into existence. One cannot protect individuals from harm simply be preventing them from coming into existence (I think the idea that one could benefit or harm individuals who don’t and never will exist is an incoherent one – we can only harm individuals who do or will exist). So, I concede your point here.

Not a good argument, Kenny.

I didn’t make any argument here. I pointed out a genuine statistical possibility and then I explicitly noted that I was not sure how to assess its ethical significance. Upon reflection, I now concur with your assessment of its ethical significance.

I suspect it would only take a few exploding 10-year olds, before the contraceptive in question would be banned and I would be facing major lawsuits.

Maybe, but the issue of how our legal system would handle these things, or how we would react to them, is not directly relevant to assessing their moral significance. But, as I said, I concur with your assessment.

The only reason your argument appears even vaguely plausible is because you are treating the unborn in a manner in which post-birth humans would never be treated.

Well, I’m not so sure about that. Some moral theories with strong consequentialist elements (and not just utilitarian theories) would recommend taking the “exploding ten-year old pill” in the scenario you describe, because that still minimizes the risk of there being instances of harm. I think such theories get the wrong result in these cases, but I don’t think the result is all that particularly implausible either. There are a lot of metaphysically tricky matters that come into play when we start assessing issues of prospective harm to persons who only might exist, especially when our actions affect the likelihood that they will exist or not. In fact, there’s a lot of ethical literature out there surrounding just those sorts of issues.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I can’t see any morally significant difference between activities that do not involve the consumption of medication that might be harmful to a unborn person and activities that do involve the consumption of medication that might be harmful to an unborn person. Why should that fact alone matter for moral decision making.

I'm just saying that as a matter of fact, it is regarded as of major importance for post-birth humans. If I develop a new exercise regime, I do not need to get it approved by the FDA and I do not need to do studies to look for side effects. But if I develop anything that could vaguely be considered a medication, medical instrument, or anything else, it has to undergo rigorous testing. There are ethical reasons behind this; we could argue all day about whether or not this practice is justified; but the point is that it is the case, that it is widely established in law and in medical ethics. If we have this situation, by law, for post-birth humans, then it ought to apply to the unborn as well.

The basic rationale is that the human body is complex, and the ingestion of a physiologically active substance is something that is potentially fraught with danger - there is a prima facie possibility of danger, and that danger might be extreme. Whereas with an exercise regime, the inherent possibility of danger is much less.

But in any case your examples are merely speculations and lack any prima facie grounding. If you want to give me a plausible physiological basis for saying there's a risk to the fetus, then I'll happily advocate for research to be done to investigate, and ceasation of the practice in the meantime. But until you make such a case, you're wasting our time. For the pill, a prima facie case exists on two grounds - it is a medication (see previous paragraph), and we know that it affects the endometrium in a manner which potentially affects implantation. No amount of wishful thinking absolves people of their responsibility in these regards.

At best, that indicates an inconsistency in our legal practices. That doesn’t necessarily mean there is an inconsistency in the moral practices of those who are actually taking the pill.

The inconsitency in the legal practice consists in treating an unborn child in a manner in which no post-birth human would ever be treated.

It isn’t immaterial with respect to the issue of whether our legal practices are inconsistent. The testing of medications typically targets how that medication affects its intended recipients. So, it is not inconsistent with typical medical testing practices to ignore those who aren’t the intended recipients.

Utterly wrong; this is not typical medical practice at all. You would be thrown off any ethics committee. A medication has to be evaluated with respect to anyone who might be affected by it. So, for instance, all medications have to be evaluated to determine whether they will affect breast-feeding babies. The same principles apply, although in this case there is a solution if there is a problem: just bottle-feed the baby. But medications certainly need to be thoroughly tested with respect to their effects on breast-feed babies. Similarly, radiation therapy has to be assessed with respect to its possible effects on the technicians who administer it, and not just the patient. And this is the way things should be. There is no moral basis for making such a distinction.

there are likely a number of environmental factors, dieting practices on the part of the mother, various activities that the mother undertakes, etc. that might pose a risk of harm.

Well present your prima facie case, and I'll consider it, as noted above. Until you do that, don't waste our time. This is a bit like a murderer who has just shot someone saying, "well, overhead high power cables might cause death too, so why are you all picking on me? Go arrest the power company".

And, as I have already said, there are plenty of activities that are risky to others that we undertake (e.g. it is risky for me to put my daughter in the car in order to run an errand that is merely for my own convenience),

The crucial difference is this. It is acceptable to put a child in some situation of slightly increased risk if there is a material benefit to the child directly or indirectly, such as the need to purchase groceries, take time out with a parent, or go to school. The greater the benefit to the child, the greater the risk which may be taken; if the child is about to be shot, then we may engage in very risky activity to get them out of harm's way.

But it is not acceptable to subject a child to increased risk when there is no corresponding benefit whatsoever to them, and they have nothing to gain but only to lose. Of course, if they fail to implant that might be of benefit to the parents; but that benefit comes at total loss to the child. The behaviour has no benefit to the child who is subject to risk and therefore is immoral.

It is morally permissible, in many cases, to put others at risk (if the risk isn’t sufficiently high) for the sake of one’s own convenience (as bad or un-PC as that may sound at first, a little reflection reveals that it is true).

No, it is not. In the case of parental convenience, it may be permissible to put the child at slightly increased risk, but only because having less stressed parents is of benefit to the family as a whole, and it may simply be impossible for parents to function without involving some risk. But subjecting others to increased risk without their consent purely for one's own benefit is immoral.

Indeed, many circumstances that appear to be increased risk may not be so in the "big picture". For instance, a method of transport that involves slightly increased risk but is quick, may leave the parents less tired; and tired parents would no doubt pose a measurable risk (of accident etc) to the child, so the risk trades off. This situation is rather like the one with limited resources that have to be distributed for maximal benefit. Parents make these decisions to the best of their ability. But that is utterly different to subjecting a person to risk purely for one's own benefit, which is evil.

I’m not so sure that there is a good prima facie case that there is a risk of harm that is significant enough to warrant moral restraint.

Well I believe you are badly misinformed; or unwilling to accept the evidence.

Well, I’m not so sure about that. Some moral theories with strong consequentialist elements (and not just utilitarian theories) would recommend taking the “exploding ten-year old pill” in the scenario you describe, because that still minimizes the risk of there being instances of harm. I think such theories get the wrong result in these cases, but I don’t think the result is all that particularly implausible either.

And at this point we part company. Indeed, such consequentialist theories would, if applied consistently, also allow abortion, infanticide (see Peter Singer on this) and many other things, such as gratuitous torture of one individual if it benefited many others. They are morally reprehensible.

[Kenny]

And at this point we part company. Indeed, such consequentialist theories would, if applied consistently, also allow abortion, infanticide (see Peter Singer on this) and many other things, such as gratuitous torture of one individual if it benefited many others. They are morally reprehensible.

Quick point.

Humphrey, I really wish that you would try to read me more charitably.

First, I didn't endorse the theories I had in mind. In fact, I said they got the wrong results here.

Second, I noted that they were theories with heavy consequentialist elements, not necessarily utilitarian ones, or even purely consequentialist ones (they may have built in Kantian constraints, for example). So, they may or may not allow for the wicked things (and I agree they are wicked) that you note.

Third, I explicitly noted that much of the trouble here stems from the fact that we are dealing with cases of propsective harm to persons who only might exist, and that is what throws some complications into our moral assesments.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Kenny, in retrospect my post was probably overheated. However, if there was even issue for which getting overheated is justified, it is this one. This is not an academic debate about the metaphysics of personal identity. It is an issue of actual life and death; about counselling people whether or not to take actions that potentially can result in the death of a child. So if I have been too harsh with you, I apologize for that. Nonetheless the gravity of this particular debate puts it in a different class to most others.

If we were having a debate in 1935 about whether or not Christians should support the Nazi party, I would say that debate would probably be quite heated. No doubt feelings were hurt along the way. Though in retrospect the answer was obvious, I am sure some well-intentioned Christians at the time were confused about the issue, and saw arguments both ways (I find it hard to understand why so many Christians support Bush and the war in Iraq, but, so it seems, they do!) Nonetheless history has proved that those who held the line and refused to compromise, were in the right - although they comprised the minority of the church at that time. Sometimes the concrete circumstances of our existential context force us to engage in battles with a determination that is unwarranted for merely academic debates. Where we believe we have achieved moral clarity in a crucial question that confronts the church, passion and conviction are required, or we stand condemned as W.B. Yeats warned: "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity". I do not wish a crucial message to die the death of a thousand qualifications and footnotes.

On this particular issue, there can be no compromise, and it is necessary to inform the general Christian church urgently.

[Kenny]

Kenny, in retrospect my post was probably overheated.

Thanks for the concession.

However, if there was even issue for which getting overheated is justified, it is this one.

I don’t mind heat so much (I’ve gotten overheated on the abortion issue plenty of times!). My only complaint was that it did not seem (in this case and a few others) that you were attending to many of the qualifications and concessions I tried to be careful to make, and it seems to me that this led you to attribute arguments and conclusions to me that I did not make or draw. It could be that the fault is mine (perhaps I am not communicating clearly as I should), but, honestly, that is not the way it seems to me.

This is not an academic debate about the metaphysics of personal identity.

From my perspective, this debate is wholly an academic one, since I do not, in fact, believe that a human organism is composed as soon as fertilization takes place. I don’t think that happens until about fourteen days (when twining is no longer possible and strong cell specialization has sat in). In this thread I have been willing to grant the premise that life begins at fertilization for the sake of argument. But, given that I don’t believe it, I am a bit more emotionally distanced from the issue than you likely are.

It is an issue of actual life and death; about counselling people whether or not to take actions that potentially can result in the death of a child. So if I have been too harsh with you, I apologize for that. Nonetheless the gravity of this particular debate puts it in a different class to most others.

I understand that that is so from your perspective. I can get similarly exercised when the debate turns to abortions that happen after the 14 day mark.

If we were having a debate in 1935 about whether or not Christians should support the Nazi party, I would say that debate would probably be quite heated. No doubt feelings were hurt along the way. Though in retrospect the answer was obvious, I am sure some well-intentioned Christians at the time were confused about the issue, and saw arguments both ways

I understand the analogy. Although (you may disagree), I think the metaphysical complexities and moral subtitles in the abortion debate are far greater than those in the Nazi debate would have been. But, at the end of the day, people who are killed are still killed (regardless of how subtle the issues are); I do understand that.

(I find it hard to understand why so many Christians support Bush and the war in Iraq, but, so it seems, they do!)

That makes two of us!

Nonetheless history has proved that those who held the line and refused to compromise, were in the right - although they comprised the minority of the church at that time.

Not always. Think of many of the minority heretical movements that have emerged throughout history.

Sometimes the concrete circumstances of our existential context force us to engage in battles with a determination that is unwarranted for merely academic debates.

Agreed. But, clarity of thought is also very important when we are grappling with these issues as well.

Where we believe we have achieved moral clarity in a crucial question that confronts the church, passion and conviction are required, or we stand condemned as W.B. Yeats warned: "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity".

I do understand.

I do not wish a crucial message to die the death of a thousand qualifications and footnotes.

Perhaps there are real qualifications and footnotes that you have overlooked, however?

On this particular issue, there can be no compromise, and it is necessary to inform the general Christian church urgently.

Assuming that your perspective is correct, I agree. But, of course, whether that assumption is true is part of what the current debate is about.

[Rupert Pupkin]

From my perspective, this debate is wholly an academic one, since I do not, in fact, believe that a human organism is composed as soon as fertilization takes place. I don’t think that happens until about fourteen days (when twining is no longer possible and strong cell specialization has sat in).

I can see no possible reasonable basis for this position. There is no nervous system at this stage, so if you are an anthropological monist, there is no consciousness to speak of. So human personal identity must relate to something else. If it relates to the body, then the body as it exists at 14 days is absolutely continuous with the body at 13 days and 12 days (and 9 months and 10 years) and it is completely arbitrary to draw a line anywhere in development and say "there is a body here, there was not before". The object has a continuous permanent identity since fertilization. At fertilization there is a radical juncture; a zygote is formed for the first time with a unique full complement of chromosomes that from then on grows by mitosis in a continuous manner. The 14 day embryo is just a continuous development from the zygote. Indeed, there is no more difference between the zygote and the embryo at 14 days then there is between a 5 year old child and an adult. Strong cell specialization seems a completely arbitary point to draw the line. Why not choose presence of a functioning heart, or developed nervous system, or any other arbitrary marker? As soon as you adopt some functional marker, or a certain "level of complexity" or "level of development", the whole question becomes arbitrary.

I don't see how the possibility of twining makes any difference. There might be a question about which person the pre-twined organism was; but even if that is difficult to answer, that the pre-twined organism was a human organism is obvious. It seems bizarre to conclude from a difficult to decide which human was present, that no human was present! If I take a car, chop it exactly down the middle, and then build new halves on each half so that there are now two cars, we might argue all day about whether these are two new cars or whether they are both the original car or whatever, but one thing is certain: no-one would argue that the original car was not a car.

There are other difficulties. There would seem to be a "temporal gap" between the parents and the child on your view. We would accept, I think, that gametes are cells of the parents. So the sperm is a cell of the father and the ovum is a cell of the mother. After 14 days we can say that embryonic tissue are cells of the child. But whose cells are the cells in the interim from conception to 14 days? No-ones? That seems odd, and I think is a crucial difficulty.

In short, if anthropological monists accept that it is the body which is the basis of human personal identity, then it seems to me to follow automatically that the human comes into being at conception.

As for anthropological dualism, if we accept traducianism, then the answer is clear: the human comes into existence at conception (otherwise we are left with a "temporal gap", in which an immaterial "substance" that was impersonal and not anyone's would have to exist for some period). For creationists, there might be other options, although the conception option is still the most logical.

Finally, if ever there was a basis for the application of a precautionary principle, it is in this kind of instance. Suppose there is a mine cave-in and we don't know whether anybody was in the mine or not. In such a circumstance it seems imperative to treat the cave-in as if there was someone trapped in there, at least until we are certain that there isn't. Similarly, if there is any uncertainty at all, we should assume that there is a person present. There is no high cost in doing so, but the cost of not doing so, like the mining example, is catastrophic.

And why are we doing all of this endangering of life? So as to not have to have children. What a noble ambition.

[Kenny]

Hello Humphrey,

At the moment, I have little time to enter into a discussion of this, and I think if I were to enter into an extended discussion of this particular issue, I would start a whole new thread on the subject (but as the semester is about to begin again, I’m not going to do that now).

I have discussed this before. See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68176). And, I think there is more to be said on the subject than what I said there. But, as I said, that will have to wait.

For now, I am just going to clarify my position a little, so that it is not misrepresented here. I’ll say what I want to say on this particular issue and then bow out of this discussion (I may or may not, time permitting, go back and take up some of the previous issues we discussed).

And, I will concede this. Although this is my view, I also do not feel as competent in my knowledge of the biology as I would like to be before I strongly defended it. So, I encourage people here not to simply take my word for things on the biology. I am just a lay person in this area and I can get things wrong. Take what I say with a grain of salt. As I do agree that this is a very significant moral issue, I strongly urge people to do their own research.

I can see no possible reasonable basis for this position.

Well, at the very least, the position that I hold is somewhat common among philosophers who hold that human persons are identical to material objects. Peter van Inwagen and Eric T. Olson, for example, both hold it. And, it was thinking about metaphysical issues surrounding composition and personal identity that convinced me of it, not any direct thinking about moral issues that did (although I was aware, and did keep in mind, some of the moral implications)

There is no nervous system at this stage, so if you are an anthropological monist, there is no consciousness to speak of.

For me, consciousness is not the issue. The question is whether a single well-individuated organism has come to be composed, or whether there are still just several cells loosely cooperating.

So human personal identity must relate to something else. If it relates to the body, then the body as it exists at 14 days is absolutely continuous with the body at 13 days and 12 days (and 9 months and 10 years) and it is completely arbitrary to draw a line anywhere in development and say "there is a body here, there was not before".

I don’t think that is true. Prior to (around) 14 days (at least this is my understanding), there is a distinctive lack of cell-specialization and only a very loose coordination among cells. There is also biological indeterminacy as to which cells will be the ancestors of cells in the child and which will be the ancestor of cells in the placenta. There is more to be said, I think. But, for reasons along these lines, I don’t think that the cells at the earliest stages of the gestation process are caught up into a single well-individuated biological life until around the 14 day mark. So, I don’t think that there is the sort of “absolute continuity” with prior bodies that you speak of (in fact, before then, I don’t think there is any body to speak of, only several cells, at the earlier stages).

The object has a continuous permanent identity since fertilization.

At the very least (and again I think there is more to be said) that is far less clear than you seem to think.

At fertilization there is a radical juncture; a zygote is formed for the first time with a unique full complement of chromosomes that from then on grows by mitosis in a continuous manner.

That assumes that the multiple cells, at these earliest stages, as yet compose a single object. That is what I deny.

The 14 day embryo is just a continuous development from the zygote. Indeed, there is no more difference between the zygote and the embryo at 14 days then there is between a 5 year old child and an adult.

I think it is the difference of there being a single continuous well-individuated life in the five year old to adult case, and there being no such life in the zygote to 14 days case.

Strong cell specialization seems a completely arbitary point to draw the line.

The line is existence. My view is that lack of cell specialization, the biological indeterminacy of which cells will be the ancestor of which organs, and the possibility of twinning indicate that, at the earliest stages of the gestation process, no new human organism has yet been composed. Rather, at those stages, there is nothing more than several cells.

Why not choose presence of a functioning heart, or developed nervous system, or any other arbitrary marker?

Because it’s obvious that there is a single well-individuated life prior to all of those points in an organism’s development. It is (at the very least) not so obvious that there is such a life prior to around the 14 day mark.

As soon as you adopt some functional marker

I don’t. My criteria is the same as yours in that it is ontological. I draw the line at the beginning of the existence of a human organism. We just disagree on when that occurs.

or a certain "level of complexity" or "level of development", the whole question becomes arbitrary.

But criterion that the organism must exist is not arbitrary.

I don't see how the possibility of twining makes any difference.

Perhaps it doesn’t by itself, but that possibility together with the other facts about biological indeterminacy and lack of any tight coordination among cells, I think, adds up to make a strong case that there simply is no well-individuated human organism at the earliest stages.

There might be a question about which person the pre-twined organism was; but even if that is difficult to answer, that the pre-twined organism was a human organism is obvious. It seems bizarre to conclude from a difficult to decide which human was present, that no human was present!

Well, I think there is more to the argument than that, but I’ll leave this issue to the side for a moment, since my primary aim at this point is to clarify my position, not necessarily to defend it.

There are other difficulties. There would seem to be a "temporal gap" between the parents and the child on your view. We would accept, I think, that gametes are cells of the parents. So the sperm is a cell of the father and the ovum is a cell of the mother.

If the relevant notion of possession here is one of composition, then I don’t think that the sperm and ovum cells are among those cells that compose the father and mother (they are not themselves caught up in the lives of the respective parents). And, I don’t see what other kind of notion of possession might be relevant here, except for perhaps that of ownership over one’s bodily materials. But if that is the case (assuming that we do have such ownership), I suppose the most natural thing to say about the cells that come into being after fertilization belong jointly to the father and the mother.

After 14 days we can say that embryonic tissue are cells of the child. But whose cells are the cells in the interim from conception to 14 days? No-ones? That seems odd, and I think is a crucial difficulty.

I don’t see a difficulty here. I defer you back to my answer above.

In short, if anthropological monists accept that it is the body which is the basis of human personal identity, then it seems to me to follow automatically that the human comes into being at conception.

See what I have said above.

As for anthropological dualism, if we accept traducianism, then the answer is clear: the human comes into existence at conception (otherwise we are left with a "temporal gap", in which an immaterial "substance" that was impersonal and not anyone's would have to exist for some period).

Maybe there is a problem for traducianists here. I’d have to think more about this to be convinced, though.

For creationists, there might be other options, although the conception option is still the most logical.

I think that, for creationists, the post-twinning stage is the most logical point to draw the line (since that is when you have a well-individuated organism to house the soul).

Finally, if ever there was a basis for the application of a precautionary principle, it is in this kind of instance. Suppose there is a mine cave-in and we don't know whether anybody was in the mine or not. In such a circumstance it seems imperative to treat the cave-in as if there was someone trapped in there, at least until we are certain that there isn't.

I think the precautionary principle is the strongest argument in favor of your position. But, at the same time, I also think certainty is too high of a standard. There is almost always some epistemic possibility that our judgments are wrong, but at some point we do have to weigh all the factors and draw the relevant lines. I don’t think we are obligated, for example, to check out every cave-in in remote uninhabited regions, simply because, there is some negligible chance that someone might have been living in that region out in the woods all these years (even though we have no reason to think so, it still seems that’s an epistemic possibility) and might have gotten stuck in there.

Although, I agree with you that, all else being equal, the metaphysical arguments in favor of my position may not be strong enough to overcome the cautionary presumption in favor of protecting life when it comes to the issue of mere contraception. Although that presumption may be overridden in higher-stakes scenarios (such as whether or not to conduct certain kinds of potentially life-saving research or even whether to administer emergency contraception to a rape victim).

And why are we doing all of this endangering of life? So as to not have to have children. What a noble ambition.

Well, this extends beyond just the issue of ordinary contraception. It also extends to how we should council and treat rape victims, how we should view embryonic stem-cell research, and various other issues along those lines.

But, in any case, I also think it is wrong to put false moral burdens on people, if there is no good reason for doing so. So, at the very least, I think these issues are worth weighing carefully, without deferring to simple knee-jerk reactions.

[Rupert Pupkin]

OK, thanks for your reply. My time is limited too; others can make their own judgement.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So, at the very least, I think these issues are worth weighing carefully, without deferring to simple knee-jerk reactions.I wonder if people who say this type of thing really have any idea how insulting it is?

[Kenny]

I wonder if people who say this type of thing really have any idea how insulting it is?

Insulting to who? If it doesn't apply to you (and I don't think it does BTW) and it wasn't directed toward you (and it wasn't), then why should you be insulted?