September/October, 1997 Volume XII Number 8

Goto Table Of Contents
When the first mechanism fails, how often does the second work?

We've seen that various sources put ovulation failure at rates of 7%, 2-10%, 4-10%, 4.7%, 20% and even Dr. Ronald Chez's whopping 50%. Let's take 5-10% as a figure to work with. That would mean in an average woman's cycle, she will have two to four breakthrough ovulations every three years.
The question then becomes, how many times when ovulation occurs does the second mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus, prevent sperm from reaching the egg? It is impossible to know, but studies on animals suggest this mechanism may not be as effective as Pill manufacturers seem to assume.
Drs. MC Chang and DM Hunt did experiments on rabbits what could not be done on human beings ("Effects of various progestins and estrogen on the gamete transport and fertilization in the rabbit," Fertility and Sterility, 1970; 21, p. 683-686.) They gave the rabbits estrogen and progestin to mimic the Pill, then artificially inseminated them. They then killed the rabbits and did microscopic studies to examine how many sperm had reached the fallopian tubes.
The progestin, the hormone that thickens cervical mucus, might be expected to prevent nearly all the sperm from traveling to the tubes. However, it did not. In every rabbit that had taken the progestin, there were still thousands of sperm which reached the fallopian tubes, as many as 72% of the number in the control group. This is noteworthy evidence that the progestin-caused increased thickness of cervical mucus does not necessarily significantly inhibit sperm from reaching the egg, and therefore does not serve as an effective contraceptive.
When ovulation takes place and the thickened mucus fails to prevent conception -- which may well be the majority of the time -- the significantly altered and less hospitable endometrium caused by the Pill comes into play. Given the observably diminished capacity of the endometrium to sustain life, it seems likely that implantation may be the exception rather than the rule. For every child that does implant, many others may not. Of course, we don't know the percentage that will implant in a normal endometrium unaffected by the Pill, but it is reasonable to believe whatever that percentage is, the Pill significantly lowers it.
Approximately fourteen million American women take the Pill each year. At the 3% rate, which is firmly established statistically, in any year there will be 420,000 detected pregnancies of Pill-takers. (I say "detected" pregnancies, since pregnancies that end before implantation will never be detected but are nonetheless real.) Each one of these children has managed to implant even in a hostile endometrium.
The question is, how many children failed to implant in that hostile environment that would have implanted in a nurturing environment unhindered by the Pill? The number who die might be significantly higher than the number who survive. If it was four times as high, that would be 1,680,000 deaths; if twice as high, 840,000 deaths. If the same number of children do not survive the hostile endometrium as do survive, it would be 420,000. If only half as many died as survived, this would be 210,000 -- still a staggering number of Pill-induced abortions each year.
In his brochure "How the Pill and the IUD Work: Gambling with Life" (American Life League, P.O. Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555), Dr. David Sterns asks:

Just how often does the pill have to rely on this abortive 'backup' mechanism? No one can tell you with certainty. Perhaps it is as seldom as 1 to 2% of the time; but perhaps it is as frequently as 50% of the time. Does it matter? The clear conclusion is that it is impossible for any woman on the pill in any given month to know exactly which mechanism is in effect. In other words, the pill always carries with it the potential to act as an abortifacient.

Though they have been unable to cite studies indicating lower figures than these, physician friends of mine tell me they believe the highest figures I've cited here are too high. I hope they are right. It concerns me, however, that they have not provided empirical evidence that refutes such figures. (If any reader has such evidence, I would greatly appreciate seeing it.)
In any case, even if the numbers are lower, they could still add up to hundreds of thousands of child casualties per year. When pro-lifers routinely state there are 1.5 million abortions per year in America (I have often said this myself), we are leaving out all chemical abortions and are therefore vastly understating the true number. Perhaps we are also immunizing ourselves to the reality that life really does begin at conception and we are morally accountable to act like it.
Let's make it more personal by bringing it down to an individual woman. If a fertile and sexually active woman took the Pill from puberty to menopause, she would have a potential of 390 suppressed ovulations. Eliminating those times when she wouldn't take the Pill because she wanted to have a child, or because she was already pregnant, she might have 330 potentially suppressed ovulations. If 95% of her ovulations were suppressed (it could be considerably less, but not much more), this would mean she would have sixteen breakthrough ovulations.
If she is fertile and sexually active, a few of those ovulations might end up in a known pregnancy because the second and third mechanisms both fail. Of the other fourteen, perhaps nine would never be fertilized (some prevented by the number two mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus). And perhaps, as a result of the number three mechanism, she might have five early abortions because conception took place, but the children could not be implanted in the endometrium.
If the same woman took the Pill for only ten years, she might have one or two abortions instead of five. Again, we don't know the exact figures, and likely never will. Some would say these estimates are too high, but based on my research it appears equally probable they are too low.
There is no way to be certain, but the truth is that a Christian woman taking the Pill might over time have no Pill-induced abortions, or she might have one, three or a dozen of them.
Our beliefs should be governed by the evidence, not by wishful thinking. But since the numbers cannot be decisively determined, based on what you do know, come up with an estimate you think might be in the ballpark. Now, whatever that figure is, ask yourself this question -- is it morally right to unnecessarily risk the lives of those children?

Goto Table Of Contents
Questions & objections

In the process of research I've had countless conversations with Christians, including physicians, pastors and many others. These are some of the questions and objections people have most often raised.

"If this is true, why haven't I heard it before?"
There are many possible answers to this question. One is that concerns about abortions, especially early ones, are not widespread among researchers, scientists and the medical community in general. Since preventing implantation isn't of concern except to those who believe God creates people at the point of conception, it isn't terribly surprising the experts haven't gotten the word out. In their minds, why should they?
While the evidence for Pill-caused abortions is substantial, it is spread out in so many obscure and technical scientific journals, dozens of them, that relatively few physicians -- much less the general public -- have ever seen the most compelling evidence at all, or if they have, only piecemeal. It has effectively fallen through the cracks and failed to get their attention.
Many well-meaning physicians, including Christians, simply are not aware of this evidence. (I know this, because that's what they've told me.) When patients hear someone suggest the Pill causes abortions, they will often come to their physician, who may be pro-life, and ak if this is true. The physician may sincerely say, "According to my understanding, the Pill just prevents conception, it doesn't cause abortions. You have nothing to be concerned about." Physicians assume that if this were really true, they would surely know it. In most cases they are not deliberately misleading their patients, but unfortunately the bottom line is that their patients are indeed misled. Based on their physician's reassurances, they don't look into the matter further, and because the dedicated physician is so busy, and confident that the Pill only prevents conception, neither does he.
An isolated reference here or there simply isn't sufficient to change or even challenge the deeply-ingrained pro-Pill consensus of medicine, society or the church. If Time magazine -- or even a major Christian periodical -- devoted a cover story to the subject, the information would reach a popular level in a way it never has before.
Even when the information leaks out, so many Christians -- including pastors and parachurch leaders -- have used and recommended the Pill, that we have a natural resistance to raising this issue or looking into it seriously when others raise it. This is likely why so few individuals or organizations have researched or drawn attention to this subject.
Ultimately, the widespread ignorance and blindness on this issue among Christians may be largely attributable to supernatural forces of evil which promote the deaths of the innocent and lie and mislead to cover those deaths. (I address this in the Conclusion.)
We also cannot escape the fact that the Pill is a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry. Its manufacturers, the drug companies, have tremendous vested interests. So too do many physicians prescribing it. (I do not mean by this that most physicians prescribe it primarily for financial gain, but simply that it is a significant part of many practices.)
Those in the best place to disseminate this information are the Pill-manufacturers. The problem, however, is that they gain customers by convincing them the Pill works, not by teaching them exactly how it works. No one takes the Pill because she knows it prevents implantation, but many might stop taking it if they knew it does.
Hence, a pharmaceutical company has nothing to gain by drawing attention to this information, and potentially a great deal to lose. There are many people in America who profess to believe life begins at conception; companies do not want these people to stop using their pills. This concern for good public relations was very evident to me in my conversations with staff at four major Pill manufacturers. It is also demonstrated in the fact that their FDA-monitored disclosures in the fine-print professional labeling, and in Physician's Desk Reference, all mention that the Pill prevents implantation, but this is stated in very few of their package inserts and none of their colorful consumer-oriented booklets.
Dr. James Walker, in his paper "Oral Contraception: A Different Perspective" (Pharmacists for Life, PO Box 1281, Powell, OH, 43065), points out the Pill's potential to cause abortion. He then says,

A large percentage of consumers would undoubtedly refuse to use this form of birth control if they were aware that oral contraceptives worked in this way. Also, a large number of physicians would refrain from using this method of contraception if they were aware of the abortifacient mechanism of oral contraceptives . . . why is the medical (or prescribing) and consumer population so poorly informed? It could be that the pharmaceutical industry is interested in making large profits without regard for the sanctity of human life. Or it could be that the medical community has become so conditioned to supply means for instant gratification, that our eyes have been blinded to the eternal consequences of our daily action.

Goto Table Of Contents
"If we don't know how often abortions happen, why shouldn't we take the Pill?"
We can be certain that the Pill causes some abortions. But since we are uncertain about the actual numbers of abortions, how should we act on our uncertainty?
If a hunter is uncertain whether a movement in the brush is caused by a deer or a person, should his uncertainty lead him to shoot or not to shoot?
If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes?
Shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt to life? Let's say that you are skeptical of all this research, all these studies, and all the Pill manufacturers' claims that the Pill sometimes results in the death of a child. (You might ask yourself if the reason is because of your bias and vested interests, but for the moment let's just say you're genuinely uncertain.) Is it a Christlike attitude to say "Because taking the Pill may or may not kill a child, I will therefore take it"? If we are uncertain, shouldn't that compel us not to take it?
My research has convinced me the evidence is not uncertain, but compelling, in the single most important sense -- the Pill does result in abortions. Only the numbers are uncertain. Can we really say in good conscience, "Because I'm uncertain exactly how many children are killed by the Pill, therefore I will take it"? (How many dead children would it take to be too many?)
It seems to me more Christlike to say, "Because I know there is a widespread understanding of the most informed scientific and medical people (including the research departments of those manufacturing it) that the Pill does sometimes cause abortions, I will therefore not take the Pill and I will encourage others not to."

Goto Table Of Contents
"But spontaneous abortions happen frequently anyway"
One physician pointed out there are many spontaneous abortions and miscarriages. Because of this, he felt we should not be troubled by pre-implantational abortions caused by the Pill. I've heard the same logic used to defend fertility research and in vitro fertilization in which embryos are conceived outside the womb. Three to six of these may be implanted in a uterus in the hopes one may live, but the majority die, and some are frozen or discarded. (In the best case scenario, two to five die in the attempt to implant one, and often all of them die.)
When, even under optimal conditions, physicians attempt to implant an embryo conceived in-vitro, it is true that there is a low success rate. According to Dr. Leon Speroff, the success rate in any given cycle is 13.5% and since typically three to six embryos may be used to attempt implantation, the actual survival rate is just over 3%. This means that 29 out of 30 embryos die in the attempt to implant a child (Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility; Williams and Wilkins, fifth edition, 1994, page 937-39). This confirms that in the natural process of a woman's cycle there are likely many early miscarriages, perhaps considerably more than there are live births.
Since this is true, however, does it therefore follow, "Because God or nature causes millions of early abortions a year, it's okay if we cause some?"
The proper response to this is that there is a big difference, a cosmic difference, between God and us! What God is free to do and what we are free to do are not the same. God is the giver and taker of life. God is the potter, we are the clay (Isaiah 45:9-11). He has the right to take human life, we do not. Nature is under the curse of sin and as a result there is widespread death in this world, both inside and outside the womb (Romans 8:19-22). God is the Superintendent of nature and can overrule it when he so chooses. But none of this permits us to say "because God lets so many people die, I'll go ahead and kill some of them myself!"
It is one thing for God to take a human life. It is an entirely different thing for us to do so. His prerogatives are unique to Him. He is the Creator, we are the creatures. (See Appendix D: God is Creator and Owner of all people.) The same principle applies when someone says that since a baby will probably die within a few days or weeks of his birth, we may as well abort him now. The difference is between losing a child to death (by God's sovereign choice) and choosing to kill that child. This is a fundamental and radical difference. (See Appendix E: God has exclusive prerogatives over human life and death.)
To justify using a chemical that takes some lives by saying it really causes fewer abortions though preventing conception again puts us in the place of God. The logic seems to be that God is letting many children die, so when we will kill some ourselves we can take consolation in knowing that the chemical that kills some children prevents many children from ever being conceived and therefore from ever dying.
But God has never delegated the right to us to unnecessarily risk the lives of our children. Furthermore, if there are fewer miscarriages because of the Pill it is not because the Pill brings any benefit to a preborn child, but only because it results in less children. This is all an illusion -- it is not that lives are truly being preserved, but simply that there are fewer lives to preserve! There is less death only because there is less life.
Using this logic, the most pro-life thing we could do would be to eliminate all pregnancy and thereby all children. We could congratulate ourselves that we eliminated abortion by eliminating children. (The number of people with cancer could also be lowered by reducing the number of people in society, but we would hardly think of that as a cure -- especially if the means we used to have less people meant killing some of them!)
We may indeed lose through early spontaneous miscarriages several children we don't even know of. But that in no way justifies our choosing to take something into our bodies that puts the lives of other children in danger.

Goto Table Of Contents
"But Pill-takers aren't intending to have abortions"
I've been told several times that because most people's intention in taking the Pill is to prevent conception, not to have an abortion, it's therefore ethical for them to continue taking the Pill.
I certainly agree that most women taking the Pill don't intend to get abortions. In fact, I'm convinced 99% of them are unaware this is even possible. But the fact remains that while the intentions of those taking the Pill may be harmless, the results can be fatal.
A nurse giving your child an injection could sincerely intend no harm to your child, but if she unknowingly injects him with a fatal poison, her good intentions will not lessen the tragedy of the results. Whether the nurse has the heart of a murderer or a saint, your child is equally dead. The best intentions do nothing to reverse the most disastrous results.
In this sense, taking the Pill is analogous to playing Russian roulette, but with more chambers and therefore less risk per episode. In Russian roulette, participants usually don't intend to shoot themselves. Their intention is irrelevant, however, because if they play the game long enough they just can't beat the odds, and they die.
The Russian roulette of the Pill is done with someone else's life, a new and unique creation of God. Each time someone taking the Pill engages in sex, she runs the risk of aborting a child. (Instead of a one in six chance, maybe it's a one in thirty or one in a hundred or one in five hundred chance, I'm not sure, but it's certainly a real risk -- the scientific evidence tells us the chemical "gun" is loaded.) The fact that she will not know when a child has been aborted in no way changes whether or not a child is aborted. Every month she continues to take the Pill increases her chances of having her first -- or next -- silent abortion. She could have one, two, a half dozen or a dozen of these without ever having a clue.
A word that continuously surfaced in my research and my dialogue with the birth control pill manufacturers was the word "primary" as opposed to "secondary." A pro-life physician told me he felt comfortable still using the Pill because "It's primarily contraceptive and only secondarily abortive."
But how would you respond to someone who says "here, eat this hamburger -- the meat we use sometimes causes fatal food poisoning, but its primary effect isn't to poison you, so don't worry about it." Or more to the point, what would you think if a doctor said to you, "This chemical I'm about to inject in your child has the primary effect of curing his allergies; it also may kill him, but that would only be a secondary effect."

Goto Table Of Contents
"Life is full of risks -- you can't avoid them all"
This is certainly true. We put ourselves and our children at risk every time we drive a car. If we let our kids go swimming we take risks. Our child's ability to grow and mature and gain confidence and trust in God in a world of risks partially depends on our willingness to take reasonable risks.
But we are also careful not to take unnecessary risks. Our risks are wise and calculated. Because we love our children we expose them only to a measured level of risk -- they ride in the car, yes, but we belt them in and drive carefully. As they grow up they learn to make their own decisions as to what level of risk is wise and acceptable.
And the younger our children are, the less risks we take with them. We might leave an eight year old free to roam the house, while we wouldn't a toddler. When we are talking about a newly conceived human being, if we take the Pill it is his life we are risking. The reason we're doing so is not for his growth and maturity, but for our convenience. We are unnecessarily putting him at risk of his very survival. Through the choice to take certain chemicals into our bodies via the Pill, we may be robbing him of the single most important thing we can offer a newly conceived child -- a hospitable environment in which he can be nourished and grow.
We would not consider withholding food and a home and physical safety for our children who are already born. We would not be careless about what we eat and drink and the chemicals we ingest and the activities we do that could jeopardize the child within when she's six months after conception. Then neither should we put our child at unnecessary risk when she's six days after conception. Yes, we can't know for certain she's there at six days. But if we've been sexually active we know she may be there. And therefore we should do nothing unnecessarily that could jeopardize her life.
A sexually active woman runs a new risk of aborting a child with every Pill she takes. Of course, the decision to take the Pill isn't just a woman's but her husband's, and he is every bit as responsible for the choice as she is. As the God-appointed leader in the home, in fact, he may be even more responsible.
How much risk is acceptable risk? Part of it depends on the alternatives. There is no such thing as a car or a house that poses no risk to your children. But there is such a thing as a contraceptive method which does not put a child's life at risk. There are safe alternatives to the birth control Pill that do not and cannot cause abortions.

Goto Table Of Contents
"Can't we just take higher dose pills?"
At first, I'd hoped this was the case. But I kept running into materials showing that even when high dose estrogen was used the pregnancy rate of women on the Pill was still 1% and the effects on thinning the endometrium were the same as they are now. This means that breakthrough ovulation, perhaps at a little lower rate, certainly still took place. It may have added up to fewer abortions then, but not no abortions.
To double check on this, I asked the pharmacist at Ortho-McNeil if the higher dose pills were more successful in suppressing ovulation. He said, "Not really -- there's a ceiling point of estrogen, beyond which more isn't better. By the time you get to 35 micrograms, for most people you've reached the point of maximum ovulation suppression." (This appears to contradict some other sources I cited earlier. I include it for the sake of fully representing viewpoints.)
In any case, unless you were able to get three current "high dose" birth control prescriptions (50 micrograms) and take three pills a day, you could not equal the 1960s standard of 150 micrograms of estrogen each day. Even if you did, you would have to face the very serious side effects and risks to women that motivated pill manufacturers to lower the estrogen level in the first place.

Goto Table Of Contents
"Without the Pill there would be more unplanned pregnancies and therefore more abortions"
A pro-life physician pointed this out in a letter to her pastor, stating that 50% of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion, and therefore a million more pregnancies each year could mean a half million more abortions each year.
Suppose this were true. The logic would be, "let's go ahead and kill some children now because at least if we do there may be other children, more of them, who won't get killed." The same approach could be used to deny drowning children access to a crowded life raft. This sort of pragmatism rings hollow when we put certain human lives at risk, without their consent, for the supposed good of others.
Ultimately, however, the premise itself is not true, since (unfortunately) it is only a small minority who would even consider not taking the Pill because it causes early abortions. The only people who will stop taking the Pill for this reason are not only pro-life, but deeply committed to their beliefs. The point of this booklet is not to attempt to ban the world from using the Pill, but to convince the people of God we should choose to live by a higher moral code than the world does.
A person who as a matter of conscience will not risk the life of a newly conceived child -- whose presence in her womb she cannot even yet feel -- will surely not turn around and kill a child just because she has an unplanned pregnancy. Among people who stop taking the Pill to protect unborn children, there may be more unplanned pregnancies, but they will result in births not abortions.

Goto Table Of Contents
"But how can we exercise birth control without the Pill?"
Some will respond to this question by saying, "You shouldn't be taking birth control in the first place -- it's God who opens and closes the womb, and it's playing God to try to dictate your family size. The Bible says children are a blessing from the Lord -- not inconveniences to be avoided. Children are blessings sent from God. Which of his other blessings -- such as financial provision, a good job, a strong marriage, or a solid church -- are you desperately trying to avoid?"
Though this is not the point of view I've embraced over the years, and for various reasons my wife and I "stopped" after two children, I still cannot take this position lightly. Frankly, as I tell the students in my Bible college ethics class, I think we must look at both sides of this issue seriously and be sure we are not succumbing to our society's "Planned Parenthood" view of children rather than God's view of children. Appendix G: How God Sees Children.) I believe God is grieved by the anti-child mentality that surfaces with every negative comment made to and about families with more than three children. I believe large families should be seen as a blessing from God. (My own father was the tenth of thirteen children. Am I glad his parents didn't stop after nine children? If they would have, I wouldn't be here to write this article, and my daughters wouldn't be here to make the difference for God's kingdom they're making.)
However, this article is not motivated by a hidden agenda in which I'm trying to persuade people that all attempts at family planning are wrong. My only agenda here is an open one that I believe all Christians should agree on regardless of their position on family planning -- namely, that no "family planning" which sacrifices the lives of a family member can be morally right and pleasing to God.
For genuinely pro-life Christians who believe in family planning and the use of contraceptives, the question is, "what are the non-abortive alternatives to the Pill, Minipill, IUD, Depo-Provera and Norplant?" The answer is, the barrier methods, such as condoms and diaphragms. Though they can have their own problems and inconveniences, they are not abortive.
There is also Natural Family Planning, which is not simply the old "rhythm" method, but a very thoughtful and scientific approach. The Couple to Couple League is a good source of information on natural family planning. They cite a number of studies showing their methods to be extremely effective. Detailed information can be found on the Couple to Couple League's website at, or they can be contacted e-mail at or at P.O. Box 111184, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211-1184, or telephone 513-471-2000. Though I am not a student of this method, everything I have seen suggests it is certainly worth exploring.
"But these methods aren't as effective -- we may have an unwanted child." In fact, the barrier methods, especially when used in combination with spermicides, are highly effective, though not as effective as the Pill and certainly less convenient. Natural Family Planning, practiced by informed couples, can be just as effective as the Pill. Some studies suggest it is actually more effective.
But let's look at the "worst case" scenario -- you conceive and give birth to an unplanned child. Consider how many people have been richly blessed by children who were unplanned. These are not "accidents," they are precious creations of God. Babies are not cancerous tumors to be desperately avoided and dramatically removed. That they are unplanned by us does not mean they are unplanned by God.
We have to weigh the greater "risk" of having a child (whom God calls a blessing) against the possibility of killing a child (which God calls an abomination). No matter where a Christian stands on the birth control issue, we should surely be able to agree that the possibility of having a child is always better than the possibility of killing a child!
I know a man whose married daughter recently stopped taking the Pill when she learned it sometimes causes abortion. She got pregnant soon thereafter. He said to me with a smile, "thanks to my daughter not taking the Pill, God gave us a wonderful grandchild!" Is that really so bad? I am convinced God was pleased by their choice to not place children at risk for the sake of their convenience.
There may also be some health benefits to women who choose not to take the Pill. As anyone who has read the inserts packaged with birth control pills knows, there are serious risks to some women associated with oral contraceptives, including increased incidence of blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, sexually transmitted diseases, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, breast cancer, cervical cancer, liver tumors, and ectopic pregnancy. These and other risks are spelled out under each bcp's listing in The Physician's Desk Reference. (The health issue is not my central concern in this article, but the life issue. Still, health issues are worth considering.)
There are some benefits in taking the Pill that have no relation to issues of pregnancy. It is prescribed by doctors to regulate hormones connected to such conditions as ovarian cysts. It is used to treat acne, and to get women "on schedule" who desire ultimately to go off the Pill and have children. If one was careful to use a nonabortive contraceptive in addition to the Pill, perhaps it could be reasonable to use the Pill briefly to regulate her periods in preparation for a pregnancy. If a single woman has had certain ovarian problems, as long as she does not engage in sex her doctor's prescription of the Pill to treat her condition might be very appropriate.
As long as sexually inactive women are aware of the physical risks to themselves, which they may well determine are acceptable, they are certainly free to take the Pill for its other benefits. The moral problem is when, regardless of the reasons for taking it, a sexually active woman takes the Pill and thereby runs the continual risk of aborting a child.
One Ob/Gyn told me that years ago, after coming to realize the Pill causes abortions, he decided he could no longer prescribe it. He informed his patients why. At first, he lost a significant number of patients and income. Ultimately his practice started thriving again, since many pro-life people who respected his stand and believed they could trust him on matters of principles and ethics, came to him as their physician. Of course, even if he had never regained the lost patients and income, the important thing is that he believes he made the decision that honored God and the sanctity of human life created by God.
Similarly, there are pharmacists, including those who are part of Pharmacists for Life, who are committed not to distribute the Pill because of their convictions. This can create difficulty and controversy, but sometimes taking a stand for what is right inevitably does that, and people are ultimately informed, challenged and benefited.

Goto Table Of Contents
"I never knew this about the Pill -- should I feel guilty?"
I know exactly what you're experiencing. If we had known, I believe Nanci and I would never have used the Pill. But we didn't know, and there's nothing we can do now to change that. If we were still using the Pill, upon discovering these realities, we would immediately stop using it. But I also must deal with my failure in recent years (long after we stopped using the Pill) to investigate the occasional reference I heard to the possibility that the Pill causes abortions.
What about guilt? There is true guilt and there are guilt feelings that plague us even when we are not guilty, or no longer guilty because of Christ's promise of forgiveness. Whenever we have done something in ignorance, it is hard to discern our level of responsibility, but Scripture makes clear we are capable of doing wrong even when not consciously aware of it.
When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the LORD's holy things, he is to bring to the LORD as a penalty a ram from the flock . . . It is a guilt offering . . . If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible. He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect . . . In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven. (Leviticus 5:14-18)
We are to seek out before the Lord unintentional and unknown sins:
How many wrongs and sins have I committed? Show me my offense and my sin. (Job 13:23)
Who can discern his errors? Forgive my hidden faults. (Psalm 19:12)
Test me, O LORD, and try me, examine my heart and my mind. (Psalm 26:2)
I have considered my ways and have turned my steps to your statutes. (Psalm 119:59)
Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. (Psalm 139:23-24)
Scripture clearly teaches we will each stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an account of what we have done in our lives on earth (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10). While our salvation doesn't depend on this, our rewards in heaven do.
The Bible teaches that by coming to terms now with our sin and our responsibility, we can to a certain extent preserve ourselves from having to face judgment later: "But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment" (1 Corinthians 11:31).
All of us who have used the Pill may have unknowingly caused abortions, and we certainly ran a risk of doing so. All of us who have recommended it are also accountable.
Because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross on our behalf, God freely offers us pardon and forgiveness for everything -- known sins, unknown sins, and actions taken in ignorance and sincerity that have terrible and unintended results.

He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust. (Psalm 103:10-14)
Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:18-19)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

To be honest, I haven't quite known exactly how to respond to our years of our using the Pill and my recommending it to others. My prayer has gone something like this -- "Lord, I'd like to think this wasn't a sin, given our ignorance, but based on your word I suspect it probably was. Since I am usually more guilty than I think, not less, I would rather assume I have sinned rather than presuming I have not. Please forgive me. I thank you that the price you paid means I need not labor under the guilt of my wrong choices in the past. Help me now to demonstrate the condition of my heart by living out consistently my convictions about the sanctity of human life. Help me never to dare to play God by usurping your sole prerogatives as the giver and taker of life. And help me do what I can to encourage my brothers and sister not to do so either."
I have been told that it would be better to be silent, to not raise the issue of the Pill's being able to cause abortions. Why? Because it will make people feel guilty, and it will make them more accountable. But sometimes a greater sense of guilt and accountability is exactly what we need, for then we can deal with them in God's way, and be relieved of them rather than ignoring or stuffing them. The same "don't make people feel guilty" logic prompts people not to say what the Bible really says. But ultimately it is never in people's best interests to keep them in ignorance and give them no opportunity to respond to the Lord.
Our mission must be to tell the truth, not to hide it. We are here not simply to help each other feel good, but to help each other be good. Ultimately, the greatest kindness we can offer each other is the truth. The Christian life is not based on avoiding the truth but hearing it and submitting to it. Far better to feel guilty, repent and become obedient than to not feel guilty, and continue to disobey our Lord, endanger the lives of the innocent, and lay up judgment for ourselves.
I've given my understanding of it, but whether we consider ourselves innocent or guilty due to our past ignorance, I believe we ought to agree that in light of our knowledge of the truth that the Pill can cause abortions, we should no longer use or recommend it, and should take the opportunity to explain, especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ, why we cannot.

Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD. (Lamentations 3:40)
He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy. (Proverbs 28:13)

Goto Table Of Contents
"Let's not get sidetracked from fighting real abortions"
One pro-life physician read a few of the citations in this booklet, and wrote me this in an email: "I think pro-lifers should stay away from these theoretical arguments and stick with fighting what we know to be wrong: elective induced abortions. We defeat ourselves if we get carried away on tangents arguing about bcps."
But when I examine the evidence, I do not see it as theoretical, I see it as actual. We don't know how many children are dying from the use of oral contraceptives, but we know that some, and likely many, certainly are.
As to sticking with fighting "what we know to be wrong," the question is whether we know that early abortions are wrong, just as we know later ones are. Or whether we know killing children by chemicals is wrong, just as we know killing them with surgical tools is wrong. The answer to both these questions, I believe, is yes. Both really happen, both result in the deaths of children created in God's image, and both are surely worthy of our attention.
Will we "defeat ourselves" by speaking up for children killed by chemicals as we do for children killed by surgeries? Or will we just become more consistent (and less hypocritical) advocates of the unborn? Is pointing out the abortifacient nature of birth control pills a "tangent," or is it just staying (or getting) on track by obeying God's command to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves?

© 1997 Advocates for Life Ministries