I think Cristina is confusing contraception with abortifacient contraception. These are two different things, although the line of distinction is quite blurred.
Well, I could firmly say that I would absolutely criminalize hormonal contraception because of its abortifacient nature- and I believe a great majority of the active pro-life movement would as well (being predominately Catholic). Unlike you, JivinJ, I don't think the jury is out on contraceptive chemicals being abortifacients, and even so, the benefit of the doubt should err on the side of life.
Although many active pro-lifers also personally oppose other methods of birth control on theological grounds, I doubt any of us would support the criminalization of condoms, diaphragms, spermicides and sponges (do those still exist?), because they don't hurt an innocent party. It's not a moral imposition we propose, but protection of the smallest human beings. If the difference between true contraception and abortifacients are recognized, I think Ms. Page would see that it's not the rubbers and jellies we would legally oppose, but the earliest abortions. I see no difference between an implantation-inhibiting chemical and RU-486, and I think that's the stance of most of the movement (hence the stink over the Morning After Pill).
I don't think pro-lifers will ever adopt an anti-abortifacient campaign as a strategy (because it's foolish), but I disagree that being anti-abortifacients isn't an innate part of the pro-life ideology. Because a small faction of the pro-life movement is pro-contraception doesn't change that general culture.
P.S. Speaking of the innate pro-life ideology, I think it includes the support pre-marital sexual abstinence. This is why I think all of the married evangelical women I know can high-and-mightily condemn the MAP while ingesting the same chemicals themselves daily. Because they are having married sex (the pro-life ideal) and opposing an abortive (another pro-life ideal), oblivious to the fact that the makers of borth control pills label them as abortive.
It's a pervasive culture issue.
Jacqueline wrote:
Unlike you, JivinJ, I don't think the jury is out on contraceptive chemicals being abortifacients, and even so, the benefit of the doubt should err on the side of life.
The jury is out. That's not JivinJ's opinion. That's simply a fact. There is no scientific consensus about how emergency contraception works. Does it prevent implantation or not? We don't actually know.
(I think it's interesting that our society would promote a drug when we don't actually know how it works ... but that's another issue altogether.)
Hormonal contraception is equally murky. Does it prevent implantation, or does it merely prevent ovulation? I have seen studies that reach both conclusions. Unlike many other studies in this area, both sets of studies were performed by people with no discernible bias on the issue, so I'm inclined to trust them. I don't know what to believe.
Which leads me to your catch-all conclusion:
...and even so, the benefit of the doubt should err on the side of life.
That depends on the magnitude of the error in question. In the case of birth control, you're messing with something that is viscerally important to a large number of people. You're also telling every woman who has ever taken birth-control pills that she's a potential murderess. The stakes are very high. We should be sure of our facts before we make such claims.
Relevant to the abortion debate, I am also troubled by the possibility that birth-control can split the pro-life coalition. (Actually, I think that's why pro-choicers keep bringing up the subject!) Hormonal contraception might or might not kill unborn children. Abortion most certainly does kill unborn children. Yet we risk undermining any progress that we can make against abortion for the sake of fighting against contraception! That's illogical to me. We should concentrate on preventing the deaths of which we are certain before we spend any of our limited resources on trying to prevent possible deaths. In other words, we should shelve the contraception debate until we have achieved victory against legal abortion.
I think Cristina Page is wrong when she says that National Right to Life has the goal of ending access to contraception. On the other hand, a lot of the loud pro-life voices in the public square really are anti-contraception. The Catholic Church, some Protestant churches, the self-styled pro-family groups, and anti-abortion groups like ALL are all out there talking about how contraception is in opposition to God's plan for sexuality, how contraception leads inevitably to abortion, etc. The membership of these groups may or may not go along with that (and I suspect not, since polls show a very low percentage of outright anti-contraception sentiment in the populace) but the leaders have managed to make "pro-life" synonymous with "anti-contraception" in the public eye, and that's how they think it *should* be. In that environment, for other pro-life groups such as NRLC to officially take no position on contraception is to say that it's not worth defending, and therefore to be at least functionally anti-contraception.
I think Page misses the boat completely when she criticizes NRLC for not wanting funding to go to Planned Parenthood, because she doesn't seem to notice the obvious fact that Planned Parenthood *provides abortions*. But then again, if pro-life groups really were fine with contraception, Planned Parenthood would have some pro-life competition in the arena of providing contraceptive services. After all, there's a network of crisis pregnancy centers around the country -- you'd think we could manage to open even *one* pro-life birth control clinic. But the people with influence in this movement don't seem to want one.
...er, sorry, I don't think she mentioned NRLC in conjunction with Planned Parenthood funding. She was criticizing Sam Brownback for voting against it.
Jacqueline,
The majority of prolifers would criminalize the birth control pill? You can't seriously believe that, can you? Do Catholics even make up a majority of prolifers? I know a fair number of Catholics who don't use contraceptives (because of their church's teaching) but I don't know a single one that would want to criminalize the use of them. Not one. I know more pro-life Catholics who use contraceptives than would be in favor of criminalizing them.
I disagree that being anti-abortifacients isn't an innate part of the pro-life ideology
I didn't say it wasn't. You're assuming hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients. However, even if you think hormonal contraceptives prevent the implantation of a human embryo you still shouldn't see "no difference" between them and abortion. For example - intent or as Naaman points out - certainty.
Jen,
When you say "anti-contraception" what do you mean? In one sense of the phrase, I think you're correct since a number of Catholic prolife organizations don't believe in using contraceptives for theological reasons but I haven't seen much (or actually anything I can recall) calling for contraceptives (with the exception of EC which they believe to be an abortifacient) to be made illegal or banned.
Do Catholics even make up a majority of prolifers?
You're kidding, right? Catholics make up a vast, vast majority of the pro-life movement. Mind you there is a difference in pro-life ideology and pro-life activism. Many people believe abortion is the murder of a baby: few act like it. Of those that act like it, most are Catholics. I know this from years of being the vast minority as an evangelical sidewalk counselor. You were at the March for Life- didn't you notice the obvious disproportion between Catholics are Non-Catholics?
I know a fair number of Catholics who don't use contraceptives (because of their church's teaching) but I don't know a single one that would want to criminalize the use of them.
That's because they're oblivious to the pills' abortive nature, or in flat-out denial. Notice that very few deny the abortive qualities of the Morning After Pill and the subsequent unanimous rally against its FDA approval- Guess what? It's the same thing as a regular birth control pill only in a super-concentrated dose. Missing 3 days of low-dose pills and taking all three at once will create the same effect. But one is abortive and not the other? Or one is socially acceptable for married Evangelical women and the other is for those unmarried harlots? I smell hipocrisy on those high horses!
However, even if you think hormonal contraceptives prevent the implantation of a human embryo you still shouldn't see "no difference" between them and abortion. For example - intent or as Naaman points out - certainty.
Well, JivinJ, I would argue that the kids are equally dead, regardless of the intent. It's all the same to those children, isn't it? So is it about protecting human life or pointing fingers at the evil heathens who intentionally kill their kids so we can pop our pills that kill our kids just the same and still feel good about ourselves? It makes no difference to the dead children.
Look at it this way- suppose a toy for children is extremely dangerous (think Johnny Switchblade of Bag O'Glass from the old SNL skits). Some parents give it to their children with the intent of harming them. Other parents, oblivious to the danger, give it to their children to amuse them. Both sets of children end up injured, and despite the good intentions of one group of parents, I would still suggest a recall to prevent further harm to children. So chemical contraceptive users with good and bad intentions alike should not be offered a substance that kills children. Period.
You're assuming hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients.
This is not an assumption- It is a non-debatable fact. The creators of the pill made it clear that abortion was one of the mechanisms by which the pill works. This (and the IUD) were the reasons why the technical definition of pregnancy was changed from conception to implantation, othe
whoops...continuation:
This (and the IUD) were the reasons why the technical definition of pregnancy was changed from conception to implantation, otherwise they would have been illegal under pre-Roe, post Griswold law. So as you can see, pro-aborts/choicers accept this easily. It's the pro-life former users and pro-life current users that deny this readily-accepted truth. And to have evidence that the pill might cause abortions, to oppose abortion, and yet use them anyway puts the culpability right up their with those Morning After Pill-popping, intentional baby-killing hussies, does it not?
Randy Alcorn did a great study on how pro-lifers deny,deny about this because of vested interest. I have my own vested interest (I have a medical condition almost exclusively treated with hormonal contraception). Alternative treatments weren't easy to find, but I couldn't deny the obvious truth in this matter and maintain my personal (and intellectual) integrity. I was blessed to find an NFP only Catholic physician that helped, picked up some materials on NFP and anti-contraception while at his office and went from pro-contraception prolife Evangelical to anti-contraception Evanglical. Now I'm an anti-contraception Catholic where it's been easier to find like-minded folk. 
From the American Association of Pro-Life OBs and GYNs:
As individuals committed to the protection of human life from the moment of conception, we have come to differing conclusions about the effect, or non-effect, of oral contraceptives on the early conceptus. It is in a situation such as this where we are at our best when we "agree to disagree" in a spirit of humility, while remaining open to new information which may further enlighten us.
http://www.aaplog.org/oral.htm
Jacqueline wrote:
Notice that very few deny the abortive qualities of the Morning After Pill and the subsequent unanimous rally against its FDA approval- Guess what? It's the same thing as a regular birth control pill only in a super-concentrated dose. Missing 3 days of low-dose pills and taking all three at once will create the same effect. But one is abortive and not the other? Or one is socially acceptable for married Evangelical women and the other is for those unmarried harlots?
While I agree with you that emergency contraception (EC) and "the Pill" have similar effects and should produce similar concerns, I totally disagree with the rest of your argument.
First, there are studies to suggest that neither form of hormonal contraception -- EC or "the Pill" -- is abortive. JivinJ has linked them before, and perhaps he can find them for you.
Second, the fact the EC is basically a mega-dose of oral contraceptives is significant. A drug or hormone that is perfectly safe in lower doses might not be equally safe in higher doses. This is basic common sense, and that common sense is part of why I am uncomfortable with EC.
Third, "the Pill" requires a prescription because of its known side-effects. Much of the outcry over EC was triggered by the FDA's decision to grant over-the-counter status for EC. If "the Pill" requires a prescription and a doctor's supervision, then shouldn't EC? Again, common sense tells us that something fishy is happening.
Fourth, many pro-lifers have a serious concern for how EC may be misused. Other countries that have gone whole-hog for EC have seen it advertised in men's magazines. Now why would a men's magazine advertise EC? And what is the potential for abuse, especially in circumstances such as date-rape? And what are the long-term effects of someone who would use EC as her primary method of birth-control?
Fifth -- and finally -- what's with the personal attacks and charges of hypocrisy? I expect such behavior from pro-choice ideologues, but not from fellow pro-lifers. Can you not consider the possibility that some pro-lifers (maybe even a lot of pro-lifers) simply disagree with you on the issue of contraception?
Jacqueline,
You're kidding, right? Catholics make up a vast, vast majority of the pro-life movement.
Any evidence to back that up? Where I'm from the movement is split fairly evenly between people who are Catholics and who aren't. In fact, almost all the sidewalk counselors in my area aren't Catholic. But even then the vast majority of movement Catholics aren't in favor of banning birth control pills.
Sure, if hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient then the children would be equally dead but that doesn't mean you shouldn't see any difference between the intentional and certain destruction of a human being and the unintentional and possible destruction of a human being.
It is not a non-debatable fact. Anyone you says something like that has seriously not done their homework on this subject and citing Randy Alcorn interviews with pill makers isn't a scientific study. This is same kind of lazy unscientific stuff which has convinced a bunch of people that EC is definitely an abortifacient when the scientific studies tend to show otherwise.
Just because someone makes something doesn't mean they know how it works. We had this discussion before on the I'm not Sorry blog and if I remember correctly you were unable there to provide an actual study which shows birth control pills prevent human embryos from implanting. I will again post a link to a paper by the president or former president of the American Association of Prolife OB/GYNs.
To act like your position is some uncontested fact shows that you really haven't looked into the facts.
Morning After Pill-popping, intentional baby-killing hussies, does it not?
I suggest you refrain from using that kind of language on this blog.
Jacqueline,
I also wonder how you feel about breastfeeding after pregnancy since some studies show that breast feeding has a similar effect to a woman's ovulation as taking the birth control pill and endometrium thickness is reduced during breast feeding.
EPM's response when a reader raises this question is very weak.
Do you think breastfeeding should be criminalized because there might a chance of a breakthrough ovulation and a thinned endometrium (because of breast feeding) would prevent implantation?
Just because someone makes something doesn't mean they know how it works.
I think this is something a lot of people don't realize. Heck, scientists didn't even figure out how aspirin works until relatively recently.
JivinJ, to answer your question about what I mean by "anti-contraception": I don't necessarily consider someone anti-contraception if they choose not to use it themselves for moral or health-related reasons. I consider them anti-contraception if they think that nobody should use it and that it's bad for society, even if they don't think it should be banned.
Naaman & Jive,
First of all- I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT. I want you to be right. I will research all these studies you speak of and hope that I can become convinced that you're right- but even if we went head to head on research, it doesn't change the fact that there is substantial doubt, as Naaman pointed out, and the benefit of that doubt should be extended the unborn rather than letting them (possibly) be a casualty of such doubt?
There is much debate about whether abortion kills a human being or simply a bunch of cells. Should we "agree to disagree" in a spirit of humility regarding that, or once again, if there exists a remote possiblity that abortion kills a human being should we err on the side of life? Why is the benefit of the doubt not applied in cases of contraceptives? If the jury was out on whether or not taking a certain medication would kill you, I doubt you'd take that risk and be so cavalier at the possiblity of dying. Unfortunately, the newly conceived unborn don't have that option. Some pro-lifer contraceptive users are taking risks with lives that aren't theirs that they wouldn't likely take with their own.
So "agreeing to disagree" in the face of any evidence that these drugs kill human life is a injustice to those that could possibly be dying from it. The burden of proof is not on the lifers to prove that the unborn are human, but on the choicers to prove that the unborn aren't human. Thus, the burden is not on me to prove that contraceptives are abortive, but on those that claim to champion the rights of the unborn to prove that they are not abortive.
I can, and will if you like, create a scientific argument, but apparently you have a vested interest in believing what you want. Likewise, that morally flawed statement by the Pro-Life Doctors (essentially "We can't prove that this drug is killing people, so let's keep using it like it doesn't"), many of which are looking to vindicate their support of contraceptives, is as convincing to me as Randy Alcorn is to you.
Sure, if hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient then the children would be equally dead but that doesn't mean you shouldn't see any difference between the intentional and certain destruction of a human being and the unintentional and possible destruction of a human being.
This is once again morally flawed. There is a higher culpability for those that know better. The disregard you have of the potential and unintentional destruction of a human being and your support of people participating in possible (although unintentional) destruction is more reprehensible than the oblivious 19 year old that goes to the clinic for an abortion because "it's not a baby yet."
Can you not consider the possibility that some pro-lifers (maybe even a lot of pro-lifers) simply disagree with you on the issue of contraception?
Absolutely! I'm not on a crusade against condoms and sponges. I just oppose pills that (y
Continued:
Absolutely! I'm not on a crusade against condoms and sponges. I just oppose pills that (you concede) could be abortifacient. It's when people that take oppose killing embryos for research concede to possibly killing them for the purpose of birth control. That's not our concession to make- and is that not hipocritical? The whole, "Well those researchers INTEND to kill those embryos. We don't intend to kill embryos, we're just fine with the fact that we might be." Once again- both equally dead.
Do you think breastfeeding should be criminalized because there might a chance of a breakthrough ovulation and a thinned endometrium (because of breast feeding) would prevent implantation?
I suppose you'll also bring up the fact that for every child that implants, studies show that 4 did not? Way to compare apples and oranges and divert from the topic.
There is a difference between a miscarriage and an abortion, a murder and a natural death. Breastfeeding is a natural act. Taking a pill to sabotage your reproductive system and render yourself infertile is the antithesis of natural.
A woman miscarries naturally. Another takes RU486. Wouldn't you argue that there is a difference? It's that 'intent' thing your so keen on. Babies can also selectively reduce naturally in cases of multiples. I would argue that this is different from aborting triplets to twins.
A child not implanting because I take a pill which works to that end (or at least, can work to that end), then that child is dead because of my choice to risk their life. My losing a child through a natural failure to implant caused by hormonal issues or breastfeeding is not the same as sticking a pill in my body where the package insert explains that it cause thinning of the endometrium which causes failure to implant.
"We can't prove that this drug is killing people, so let's keep using it like it doesn't"
More like "We have no evidence that this drug is killing people, so let's keep using it like it doesn't unless and until we get evidence to the contrary."
From the paper that JivinJ linked:
In the extensive literature we have reviewed, no writer has addressed this very significant question: In a menstrual cycle on the "pill" in which ovulation occurs, what is the histology of the endometrium six days after ovulation (the time of implantation)? Certainly the hormone milieu and endometrial histology will be different from a menstrual cycle on the "pill" in which ovulation does not occur (i.e.,the typical atrophic, or "hostile," endometrium). The FSH-LH-estradiol surge the day before ovulation, and the resulting corpus luteum formation, with its ten to twentyfold estradiol and progesterone output, should produce significant changes in the endometrium. In a normal menstrual cycle, on the day of ovulation the uterine lining (proliferative endometrium) is not receptive to implantation. Seven days of follicle and corpus luteum hormone output transform it to "receptive." The same follicle and corpus luteum hormone output, when ovulation occurs in a "pill" cycle, should have a similar salutary effect on the pill-primed endometrium. It is highly probable that the so-called "hostile to implantation" endometrium-- heralded (without proof) from the beginning by the "pill" producing companies, echoed (without investigation) by 2 generations of scientific writers, and now adopted (as a scientific fact) by some sincere prolife advocates-- simply does not exist six days after ovulation in a pill cycle. What is currently known about the endometrial response to corpus luteum hormones suggests this conclusion. Research regarding endometrial histology on the sixth day after escape ovulation in "on pill" cycles would add useful information to the current discussion.
A child not implanting because I take a pill which works to that end (or at least, can work to that end), then that child is dead because of my choice to risk their life.
But if breastfeeding also has the potential to cause failure of implantation (and see above -- there is good reason to believe that it doesn't), then you're choosing to risk a child's life by breastfeeding, too. Breastfeeding is better for the baby, but it's not necessary. One could choose not to.
Jacqueline,
I'm sorry but when did I say "agree to disagree" or propose any such thing?
The paper from the prolife Ob/gyns explains that there isn't objective evidence that birth control pills prevent the implantation of embryo so we shouldn't go off making the kind of statements you've made at this blog. You're essentially asking them (along with Naaman and I) to prove a negative. OK - prove to me that eating a big bag of candy corn in 4 days (something my pregnant wife recently did) has absolutely no negative effects on the unborn child? What? You can't prove that negative?
How am I showing disregard? I'm arguing you're wrong - not asserting the unborn lives (if you actually had any evidence they were prevented from implanting) don't mean anything.
but apparently you have a vested interest in believing what you want.
What is your deal with comments like this? You come here and make all kind of rather silly assertions (without any research besides Randy Alcorn's interviews) and then accuse me of believing what I believe because I have some vested interest. Please. I sincerely hope you don't act like this on the sidewalk because that would not be a good witness.
So it's okay for women to breastfeed if that breastfeeding prevents the implantation of a human embryo simply because breastfeeding is natural?
What happened to the Jacqueline who argued, "I would argue that the kids are equally dead, regardless of the intent. It's all the same to those children, isn't it?"
You've now seem to have fallen back on this rather weak "it's natural" argument. Couldn't women looking to end their pregnancy use some "natural" herb and claim "it's natural?"
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue the birth control pill should be illegal because it could on occasion prevent the implantation of a human embryo (even though you've provided no evidence of this) while saying there is nothing wrong with breastfeeding even though breastfeeding could potentially have the same supposed effect. Both are actions where the intent isn't to kill an unborn child (the vast majority of women aren't even aware their is a debate over whether the pill could prevent implantation).
If you want to oppose the birth control pill because it's not natural then go ahead but that's not necessarily a prolife argument.
eating a big bag of candy corn in 4 days (something my pregnant wife recently did)
Heh -- wait until she starts breastfeeding, if she's planning to.
I have never been so hungry in my *life*.
Commenting by HaloScan
