The following is a research paper written by my wife, Anne Clark. I encourage a thorough and thoughtful read. Soli Deo Gloria, Asher.
Christians have long held the belief that life is sacred and should be protected, and that marriage and children are blessings from God. And yet, this is not reflected in the widespread support by Protestant Christians of hormonal contraception. Christians must regain a Biblical theology of marriage and sex, which does not line up with the use of hormonal contraceptives due to their ending of human life and their degradation of the biblical purpose of sex. This can be seen by examining how contraceptives work and by understanding God’s design for sex.
To understand the mechanisms of hormonal contraceptives and their effects on a developing fetus, one must have at least a basic knowledge of conception and the first few stages of the developing embryo. Conception occurs when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte (also known as an ovum, or more simply, egg). When the sperm and egg cells fuse together, they create a zygote, which according to Susan Ward and Shelton Hisley in their textbook, Maternal-Child Nursing Care, “…is genetically unique in that it contains half of its chromosomes from the mother and half from the father.” This is an indication of a unique, human life that occurs immediately, not after it has successfully implanted in the uterus and begun growing, which is the point at which many Christians falsely refer to as the true beginning of life.
The Christian birth control user’s definition of life beginning after implantation is ambiguous, for it is unclear what constitutes the difference between the embryo before and after successful implantation. Some, especially those in the pro-choice movement, contend that it is only at a certain number of gestational weeks, such as the second or even third trimester, that the fetus should be considered a life to be protected. But why is one point of growth considered “life” over another? If one follows that line of thinking, why does it not continue after the baby is born? As Paul Stark puts it in his article, “When does life begin? It’s pretty simple,”
“If personhood is acquired through a gradual process… then why doesn’t the process continue after birth? Physiological change doesn’t stop at birth—it is continuous throughout the entirety of someone’s life. But teenagers don’t deserve greater respect than toddlers.”
Regardless of the point of gestation, unborn life should be protected, even a zygote before implantation. Any fatal effects on this zygote are therefore killing the life of a person that God has already “fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:14, ESV)
By the time the zygote travels through the fallopian tubes to the uterus and implants in the lining of the uterus, known as the endometrium, the zygote’s cells have divided several times (further evidence of life), and it is now called a blastocyst. It is at this stage that hormonal contraceptives can prevent further development of a pregnancy. While hormonal contraceptives do use several mechanisms of action, one such mechanism is a thinning of the lining of the uterus to prevent the implantation of a blastocyst. If all other methods of contraception fail, and a sperm and egg unite, the resulting blastocyst (human life), will die because it will not be able to implant in the malnourished uterine lining.
The two hormones in contraceptives that work to prevent pregnancy are estrogen and progestin. While the views vary on precisely how these hormones work, critics on several sides of the issue, from neutral medical professionals, to pro-choice defenders, to pro-life Christians, admit that these hormones in hormonal birth control affects the endometrium in a way that can hinder the implantation of a fertilized egg. Susan Ward and Shelton Hisley attest to the post-fertilization effects of contraceptives that use progestin in their textbook, Maternal-Child Nursing Care. They state, “Progestin-only contraceptives are thought to function primarily by creating a thickened cervical mucus…and by causing endometrial atrophy. These alterations inhibit egg implantation…” Further, Sarah Horvath, MD, says in her book, Contraception, “Estrogenic effects include…Alteration of secretions and cellular structures of the endometrium within the uterus.”
Later in her book, Horvath states that this does not only apply to the pill form and all other types of hormonal contraceptives (arm implants, Depo-Provera injections, vaginal rings, etc.), but also particularly to intrauterine devices. She states, “Both medicated and non-medicated IUDs can alter the uterine lining so that it becomes unfavorable for implantation.” Not only do IUDs use this mechanism of action, most, such as the progestin-only IUD, actually rely on it. According to Horvath, “Ovulation may be inhibited in about twenty percent of women, but this is not the main mechanism of action.” This means that the IUD relies on the other mechanisms of action to prevent pregnancy. She says this also applies to progestin-only pills, which suppress ovulation about fifty percent of the time.
In addition, copper IUDs, while not containing any hormones, can, nevertheless, also impede implantation. John Guillebaud states in his book, Contraception Today: Pocketbook,
“In studies, fertilized ova are almost never retrievable from the genital tract of copper IUD users, hence they must operate mainly by preventing fertilization. Their effectiveness when put in postcoitally indicates that they can also act to block implantation. However, this seems to be primarily a back-up mechanism when devices are in situ (in the normal position) long term.”
Note that Guillebaud says that “fertilized ova are almost never retrievable,” and that copper IUDs “must operate mainly by preventing fertilization.” These vague terms reveal that while preventing implantation is not a main mechanism of action for copper IUDs, it is still a by-product of them that successfully ends a pregnancy at an unknown percentage of the time. This accounts for why copper IUDs are known mainly as an emergency contraceptive, for they can be effective after fertilization. This overwhelming amount of medical evidence reveals that not just some, but all forms of hormonal contraceptives have the potential to kill life.
Even Rachel Frank, an advocate for the use of contraception, writes in her article entitled, “Miss-Conceptions: Abortifacients, Regulatory Failure, and Political Opportunity,”
“All hormonal contraception, including emergency contraception, potentially acts to altar the endometrium…In fact, it is more probable that daily contraceptives affect implantation than emergency contraceptives do, because a daily dose of hormones over a long period of time is more likely to have an effect in the body than a single dose.”
Protestant Christians, while generally supportive of contraception, are beginning to question the use of birth control. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says in his article, “Can Christians Use Birth Control?,”
“Not all birth control is contraception, for some technologies and methods do not prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg, but instead prevent the fertilized egg from successfully implanting itself in the lining of the womb. Such methods involve nothing less than an early abortion. This is true of all IUDs and some hormonal technologies.”
Mohler continues on to argue that Christians must carefully consider what forms of birth control they choose to use, making sure that they are truly contraceptive and not abortifacient. In sum, critics from all sides of the issue are admitting the post-fertilization effects of hormonal birth control.
For antiabortion and pro-life advocates, one would think this reality would at least resonate with them. However, they seem to ignore the issue of contraceptives when it would hurt them politically, as Joerg Dreweke rightly points out in his article, “Contraception Is Not Abortion: The Strategic Campaign of Antiabortion Groups to Persuade the Public Otherwise.” Dreweke asserts,
“Rather than applying the claim that some contraceptive methods in effect cause abortion consistently to all aspects of their advocacy, antiabortion groups ignore and often contradict their positions when it might hurt them politically. “
Instead, Dreweke says, antiabortion groups “have focused on less commonly used methods, like IUDs and emergency contraceptives.”
But as medical evidence has shown, IUDs and emergency contraceptives are not the only contraceptives that have an abortive effect. Antiabortion groups willingly speak out against emergency contraceptives, all the while missing the glaring inconsistency in their arguments. Maybe it is because of the sure failure it would receive politically, even from other pro-lifers, or perhaps it is for the same reason that most Christians ignore the issue: inconvenience. Admitting the abortifacient effects of contraceptives would mean giving up the convenient use of birth control. So Christians loudly protest the horrors of abortion, all the while quietly ignoring the inconvenient truth about the birth control they use that is, in reality, doing the very same thing as an abortion. But we have not been called to a life of ease and convenience. Jesus calls us to “take up our cross.” So why are Christians so quick to lay it down and instead pick up the mantle for birth control? It is because they have lost sight of what God created sex and marriage for and have bought into the world’s lie that sex is purely for pleasure. While God certainly made sex to be pleasurable and enjoyed within the boundary of marriage, the Bible tells us that it is meant for much more than that.
The Bible describes the sanctioning of marriage in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (ESV) This one-flesh union, as Todd Wilson, in his book Mere Sexuality, says, “…has a dual purpose: to unite and to procreate.” After creating Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Genesis 1:28, ESV) God clearly had a special purpose in mind for sex, in addition to uniting two people in an intimate way: children! Therefore, a result of Christians approving of contraceptive use is a separation of sex from its purpose of procreation, resulting in a devalued view of what sex is really for. Evan Lenow, in his article, “Protestants and Contraception,” agrees, saying,
“Part of the one-flesh union is the sexual relationship that was designed to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply. Birth control interrupts the procreative potential of male-female union and thus runs counter to the one-flesh formula…The deliberate intention to render marital union infertile, through artificial means of birth control, leads to a diminished understanding of the purposes of sex.”
Hormonal birth control kills a fertilized egg (human life) and devalues God’s design for sex and marriage. The implications of these issues are clear: Christians cannot, in good conscience, use hormonal contraceptives, without killing life and defying God’s design for sex. To be clear, this does not mean that taking responsible steps to avoid pregnancy is unbiblical, but neither is it the same as using hormonal methods that can kill an already-begun pregnancy. However, this does not leave Christian couples with the solitary option of unprotected sex and the inevitable result of pregnancy. There are numerous resources available for non-hormonal contraceptives that do not affect a fertilized egg, including condoms, diaphragms, spermicide, fertility tracking, and natural family planning, or a combination of these. All of these methods should be used wisely and with an openness and respect to the possibility of procreation.
Christians need to be aware of these issues and be well-informed enough to teach the younger generation about it, just as they are called to do in Titus 2:3-4: “Older women…are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children.” (ESV) Churches should offer more support for couples as they are preparing for marriage so that they can ensure that they are beginning their marriage with a Biblical understanding of sex and marriage. Both churches and parents need to teach their youth not simply to avoid sex before marriage, but to go one step further and explain why it must be avoided. Sex is a powerful thing that results in uniting two people and creating life that must be valued and protected. It is a gift. But so is a child. And a proper understanding of God’s purposes for sex will cause young people to respect God’s desire and command for us to procreate.
These changes will hopefully lead to a proper Biblical theology of marriage and sex, and a more consistent conviction of the God-given sanctity of human life. A theology and conviction that does not sacrifice one’s unborn children on the altar of convenience.
Wretched Yet Redeemed 