Wednesday, September 06, 2006

American "Fundamentalists" and Abortion: The Lines are Blurring

Recently, on a very fundamentalist blog site to which I occasionally enter posts, there was a discussion regarding the use of the birth control pill.


I made the audacious statement that "every pharmaceutical form of birth control available today does not prevent fertilization but does prevent the implantation of the embryo into the wall of the uterus," therefore really rendering the birth control an abortifacient: a human pesticide.

The reaction by some was truly a revealing moment. A Christian doctor responded and stated that scientifically my assertion was wrong. He did not provide any documentation for his assertion. (BTW---the thread on which this discussion appeared was shut down by an administrator who cited apparent offenses committed by some contributors to the discussion i.e. questioning the motives of people involved in the discussion who believe that the use of "the pill" was an acceptable alternative. I have gone over that thread a couple of times and considering the subject matter the tone was very civil, all things considered. I did not see a direct assault of this nature by anyone. I will probably lose my privileges there for even discussing the issue here!)

So, what do the purveyors of these birth control chemicals say about themselves? One example:

How does ORTHO EVRA help to prevent pregnancy?
ORTHO EVRA helps prevent pregnancy the same way birth control pills do: by preventing ovulation, which means that the ovary does not release an egg to be fertilized; by thickening the cervical mucus, which makes it more difficult for sperm to enter the uterus; and by changing the endometrium to reduce the chance of implantation.


If this chemical prevents ovulation, why the rest of the items in the list? And what really is going on if an embryo is unable to be implanted in the endometrium? Is it just a blob of tissue and cells which is ejected from the womb?

It seems like the manufacturers of Ortho Evra are saying, "And if that doesn't work, then Ortho Evra will do"...the next item in the list, all leading to the chemical end of a pregnancy...sorry----the prevention of a pregnancy.

I am personally stunned that such beliefs are now a part of even those who profess the most conservative of Christian views: fundamentalists.

Paul B. Fowler penned a book in 1987 titled "Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Concensus." (Multnomah Press) In this book he documents the release (1968) of an opinion paper from the combined efforts of Christianity Today and the Christian Medical Society consisting of a plethora of scholars from the medical and theological schools. The released book was called: "Birth Control and the Christian."

What were the findings of these great scholars?:

"The human being originates at conception by a traducian process and constitutes a unitary being which is from the first potentially human...which eventually consumates in a human being..."

"Potentially human..." Yes, these are the words of an evangelical.

Amazingly, these same words ended up a few years later in a landmark court decision: Roe v. Wade. Someone was listening...

These same evangelicals also stated that the "fetus was a potential person," that life did not begin at conception; they affirmed the continued need for "therapeutic abortions," the "permissability of induced abortions," the use of abortion in the protection of "greater values" which include "individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility..." and the prevention of the birth of children with genetic disorders which is a "reasonable Christian objective..." (Fowler, pp. 69-70.)

Many of the scholars who participated in the findings of this symposium have reversed their positions since 1972. However, the dam was broken.

This recent interchange on the above web site reminded me of Fowler's book so I took it off of the shelf in my study. I am chilled by the similarities in reason and argument between the evangelicals then and the fundamentalists now.

Maybe our biggest problem is not the "infidels" in Iraq...but the infidelity here at home. Possibly?

Randy Alcorn provides documentation on this issue which may prove enlightening:

No comments: