Birth control??

[Johnv]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
Just an observation. If you were to destroy a fertilized American Bald Eagle egg, you would be committing a felony. Why? Because Bald Eagles are endangered (or at least they used to be), and evironmentalists know from that egg will grow an eagle, so it deserves the same protection as a "hatched" eagle would.

That's a completely separate issue, as demonstrated by the fact that if you destroy a fertilized chicken agg, no one cares.

And scripture is not silent on the "life begins at conception" issue. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before we are conceived, and in fact, He is the one "forming" us in the womb. I don't see how that can be discounted in this debate.

In actuality, Jer 1:5 is God talking solely to Jeremiah, telling him that he was set apart to be a prophet of God before he was even born. However, if you apply Jer 1:5 to all people, it does not say that life begins at conception. It says that God knew us before we were formed in the womb. Big diffrence.

I'm not saying I disagree with the concept that life begins at conception, or in the latest, implantation, however, to insist that scripture says so is completely false doctrine.

 

[Debby in Philly]

Originally posted by Johnv:
We don't look at a fertilized chicken egg or turtle egg and say "this is a chicken" or "this is a turtle", but when it comes to a fertilized human egg, we do so vehemently. I've never been able to figure out why. Especially since the woman's body routinely discharges fertilized eggs all the time. Most women have had fertilized eggs discharged several times without ever realizing it. We seem to ignore that fact when it suits us.

The eggs we eat are not fertilized. But that aside, a fertilized chicken egg will only ever produce a chicken, not a turkey. A fertilized human egg will only ever produce a human, with a soul.

And those fertilized human eggs that are discharged "all the time?" Well, those were God's "choices" weren't they, not the woman's. He is the only One who has that right.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
How can the morning after pill not work that way? You've already either ovulated or not. You've already either been impregnanted or not.

If a man and woman engage in a sexual act, and wait 8 to 9 hours following intercourse, the egg either has or has not been fertilized.

There's a fertility window several days before to one or two days after ovulation. If a woman is raped and has not ovulated yet, she is in risk of becoming pregnant if she ovulates a day or two later. This is where the emergency contraceptive works by delaying or preventing ovulation.

If ovulation has already occurred, pregnancy is more likely, but the emergency contraceptive also works by thickening the mucus and making it more alkaline, so the sperm have a harder time moving and die more rapidly. This can prevent fertilization.

Evidence shows that the emergency contraceptive doesn't really change the endometrium that much, so implantation can still occur. This is probably why the emergency contraceptive is only 85-90% effective, and effectiveness falls off rapidly with time.

 

[TexasSky]

Petrel,

I think you misunderstand how the morning-after-pill and for that matter, fertilization, works.

By the time a woman has been assaulted, and sought police help, then sought medical help, fertilization - IF she had ovulated - has already taken place before she ever takes the morning-after-pill.

It does not take "six hours after sex" to fertilize an egg.

 

[Petrel]

Why don't you go argue with the authors of the review article I posted about?

Gemzell-Danielsson, K.; Marions, L. "Mechanisms of action of mifepristone and levonorgestrel when used for emergency contraception." Human Reproduction Update, 2004, 10, 341.

 

[TexasSky]

Petrel,

This is one of those things that I feel is a "lie of obmission".

For one thing - most sites/books/etc., that make the claim that the morning after pill is not an abortion pill also claim that pregnancy doesn't really occur until about 10 to 12 days after fertilization of the egg. They state that fertilization doesn't matter, only implantation.

Well, to a lot of Christians - it matters.

Then there is the simple fact that they teach, in reproduction and contraception classes - that fertilization is anytime from the moment of sex to a few days afterwards. Not as in, "you won't get pregnant until days later," but as in, "Even if you don't get pregnant that morning, you might get pregant within 24 hours later."

So, they change their story, and I don't trust them.

They pull the same nonsense with regards to condoms. MOST of my life they taught us that a condom was the absolute worst form of birth control available. They reminded us that they break, leak, slip, and are unreliable. Then AIDS came out and suddenly the "success of the condom" was being talked about as if it was wonderful.

That reversal convinced me that Satan has control of the medical-science-community.

They contradict themselves in order to push the sin du jour.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
... They state that fertilization doesn't matter, only implantation.

Medical dictionaries define conception and pregnancy starting at implantation.

We can argue the "life begins at fertilization" issue until we're blue in the face. However, the fact is that scripture does not define it as such, and we therefore cannot require this as doctrine for Christians. Plain and simple.

 

[jdcanady]

Johnv

My point on Jeremiah 1 was not that it specifically uses the words "life begins at conception", but that it specifically says God forms Jeremiah in the womb. That has implications for this debate.

You appear to believe God is telling Jeremiah that His forming in the womb was somehow different from everyone else. That is fine, but I don't think so and I don't think the context supports your interpretation.

God is not telling Jeremiah that he got special treatment while being formed in the womb. God isn't saying to Jeremiah, "I formed you and only you in the womb." The point of the passage is that God is assuring Jeremiah that his special task as a prophet was ordained by God, even before he was born.

The mention of "formed you in the womb" demonstrates God's ongoing activity in the creation of mankind, through procreation. The "potter and the clay" analogy from Romans 9:21 supports this interpretation as well.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
The eggs we eat are not fertilized.

I our society, you're correct. However, this is not true worldwide, nor does it answer the question of whether a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken. BTW, fertilized turtle eggs are a rather expensive delicassy in parts of the world.

ANd what of fruits and vegetables? They're all fertilized seeds. Is an ear of corn a corn plant in and of itself? Or a tomato? Or rice grain? Or acorn? In fact, scripture referrs to these things very clearly as seeds, not as plants unto themselves. I know it's not akin to human existence. However, it's scripturally clear that seeds are not plants. It is not scripturally clear that a person is a person at conception.

And those fertilized human eggs that are discharged "all the time?" Well, those were God's "choices" weren't they, not the woman's. He is the only One who has that right.

What I'm saying is that the discharge of fertilized eggs is a common and normal occurrence. And, as to whether it's God's choice or not, is God's choice defined as what is natural? If that's the case, then all of birth control is a sin, since it is not natural.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
My point on Jeremiah 1 was not that it specifically uses the words "life begins at conception", but that it specifically says God forms Jeremiah in the womb.

That issue is not at debate. It's clear scripturally that God forms us in the womb. It's not scripturally clear that life begins at conception, and therefore, for us to doctrinally teach that, we're twisting scripture.

You appear to believe God is telling Jeremiah that His forming in the womb was somehow different from everyone else.

Not at all, I'm pointing out that the purpose of the verse was God picking out Jeremiah as His prophet before he was born. It was not written to address the issue of whether life begins at conception, implantation, ejaculation, etc.

 

[Debby in Philly]

You can abort all the chickens and beans you want. They are not humans, whom God created in His image.

Preventing the fertilization of a human egg is quite another matter from killing the newly conceived human being. We prevent fertilization by not engaging in sexual activity until God says it is permissible. We may use true prevention methods so as not to bring children into the world who would not be properly cared for in the circumstance God has allowed us to be in.

Once brought into existence (conceived), only God has the right to hold the decision of life and death over a human. So if a woman expels a fertilized egg "naturally," without having caused it, then it was God's rightful choice.

 

[jdcanady]

Johnv

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you".

Is the question, "When did God start the "forming" process"?

Medical science tells us that the moment the egg is fertilized, it starts "forming", changing, splitting, growing. It doesn't wait until it is implanted, does it? The miracle of "Life" happens at conception. All the elements are there for the "process" of forming to take place, and it starts immediately.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
This is one of those things that I feel is a "lie of obmission".

I can see it now, a vast conspiracy among biologists to engineer fake research producing the conclusion that emergency contraception does not affect implantation--for what motive is unclear because most people really don't care if it prevents implantation or not.

So you say they're out-and-out lying to their colleagues, who would know enough to know that it was a lie?

The objective of this review is to summarize available data on the effects of mifepristone and levonorgestrel on female reproductive functions relevant to the emergency use of the compounds. When summarized, available data from studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effects of both levonorgestrel and mifepristone, when used in single low doses for emergency contraception, involve either blockade or delay of ovulation, due to either prevention or delay of the LH surge, rather than to inhibition of implantation.

Treatment with levonorgestrel 0.75 mg twice, 12 h apart, on day LH-2 had no effect on the endometrial development during the mid-luteal phase at the expected time of endometrial receptivity and implantation (Marions et al., 2002).

Levonorgestrel (0.75 mg £ 2) administered on day LHþ 2 did not affect endometrial morphology or any studied markers of receptivity (Durand et al., 2001; Marions et al., 2002).

The contraceptive effect of 1.5 mg levonorgestrel or 10 mg of mifepristone involves blockade or delay of ovulation. The ‘window of effect’ for levonorgestrel seems to be rather narrow. It begins after selection of the dominant follicle, but before LH begins to rise. Levonorgestrel does not affect endometrial development or steroid receptor expression in the Fallopian tube. Animal studies confirm that levonorgestrel acts to block or delay ovulation but does not affect fertilization or implantation (Mu¨ller et al., 2003). If the effect of EC is mainly to block the LH surge or to interfere with other processes involved in ovulation, is not clear and needs to be further studied.

In summary, available data from the studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effect of 10 mg mifepristone used as a single dose for emergency contraception is mainly due to impaired ovarian function, either by blocking the LH surge or by postponing the surge rather than inhibiting the implantation. In contrast, higher doses affect both ovulation and implantation.

Why would so many people risk their professional reputations and chance at getting their grants funded by fabricating entire studies when they all think we're kooks for caring anyways?

 

[Johnv]

No one has answered my question. Why do we not refer to a fertilized chicken egg as a chicken? Or an acorn as a tree? Yet we refer to a fertilized human egg as a man. This question isn't even addressing the abortion/contraception topic. It's a simple question.

 

[TexasSky]

Johnv,

Why don't we refer to a male child as a man?
Why don't we refer to a female child as a woman?

There are stages of development.

An unfertilized egg has no chance of becoming a chicken.
A fertilized egg, given proper care, WILL become a poultry creature.
An unfertilized human egg has no chance of becoming a human.
A fertilized human egg, given proper care, WILL become a human being.

 

[Petrel]

I believe because the assumption is that the spirit is created at fertilization. Chickens and trees don't have spirits at any level of growth.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
A fertilized human egg, given proper care, WILL become a human being.

I agree. As for your previous post, I think you know what I mean. Fertilized human eggs are commonly referred to as full humans. Yours is the first time I've heard someone say that a
fertilized human egg will become a human being, and I agree with that.

My contention is with the fact that we don't call a fertilized chicken egg a chicken, or an acorn a tree, but we call a fertilized human egg a human.

Originally posted by Petrel:
I believe because the assumption is that the spirit is created at fertilization. Chickens and trees don't have spirits at any level of growth.

Good point. But in Gen2, the idea of the physical person is separated from the soul. When God breathed the breah of life into man, He gave man his soul, and man from then on became a living soul. However, prior to that, the physical man was still a physical man. He just didn't have a soul. The physical nature of fertilization isn't any different between a human, acorn, and chicken physically, yet we refer to them differently.

Again, this is not a question on the abortion topic (those who know me are aware of the fact that I'm against elective abortions). It's my opinion that we label the fertilized human egg out of subjectivity. In fact, some Christians get very upset if you don't refer to the fertilized egg as a human being. Lacking scriptural support, I think that's a bit extreme, and somewhat unrigheously judgemental of persons who refer to a fertilized egg as a fertilized egg.

 

[Andy T.]

My comment meant that I had never heard anyone other than Roman Catholics teach that birth control was sinful, or that it was our Christian duty to have large families - until this thread.

Actually, until quite recently, most Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, opposed birth control.

 

[Glory Bound]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Johnv,

Why don't we refer to a male child as a man?
Why don't we refer to a female child as a woman?

There are stages of development.

An unfertilized egg has no chance of becoming a chicken.
A fertilized egg, given proper care, WILL become a poultry creature.
An unfertilized human egg has no chance of becoming a human.
A fertilized human egg, given proper care, WILL become a human being.

Actually, I'd phrase this a little differently. A fertilized human egg IS fully human... at the earliest stage of development. It is growing and developing along a path that will eventually take it to full adulthood in approximately 20 years.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Glory Bound:
Actually, I'd phrase this a little differently. A fertilized human egg IS fully human... at the earliest stage of development.

Okay. Is a fertilized chicken egg fully a chicken? Is an acorn fully a tree? Why or why not?

Again, I'm not arguing the abortion issue, and those who know me know I'm against elective abortions (I'm sure some of you are getting weary of me ending every post with that, but if I don't, someone's going to accuse me of being pro-abortion or some such claim. Sad, don't you think, that I need to put a disclaimer at the end of every post to prevent being misjudged?)