Dumbing-Down the Pro-life Movement

CatholicCitizens.Org ^ | 9/1/03 | Dr. Brian Kopp

[Polycarp]

HOME | ABOUT US | PRESS | EVENTS | PEOPLE | ISSUES | NEWSLETTER | CONTACT US | SEARCH
		Dumbing-Down the Pro-life Movement 9/1/2003 4:05:00 PM By Dr. Brian Kopp - Catholic Family Association of America, www.cathfam.org Pope Paul VI warned that the contraceptive mentality was counter to Christian morality, and would open the floodgates of divorce, abortion, euthanasia, and moral decine. He was right, but some pro-lifers still don't get it. In this post-Christian era of American society, where conservative politics and the multitude of Christian sects blur in a desperate attempt to build more effective coalitions, many pro-life activists have embraced a ‘least common denominator’ approach to confronting the problem of legalized abortion. In so doing, basic fundamental tenets of moral theology are set aside in hopes of forging a voting block large enough to accomplish incremental advances in this long entrenched battlefront of the culture wars. But by allowing ‘exceptions’ and contraceptions, has political expediency so diluted the Pro-life movement that its political effectiveness and its very moral foundations have been compromised? Has the Pro-life movement been dumbed-down to the point of being unable to credibly defend the unborn? Broad coalitions and voting blocks are essential for achieving political victories. Unfortunately, each incremental increase in size of the ‘conservative/pro-life’ voting block has been gained by incremental lowering of the ‘least common denominators’ to being Pro-life. The most obvious and most debated lowering is in allowing exceptions for the ‘hard cases’ of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. A further lowering includes a generic ‘health of the mother’ exception, which casts a net so wide that the most ardent pro-lifers leave the coalition, and the line between pro-life and pro-choice becomes hopelessly blurred. The pro-life movement began in the late 1960s and early 1970's in response to efforts to legalize abortion. In the ensuing years, the coalition set aside arguments over ‘exceptions’ to forge a larger coalition. The issue of contraception was never credibly debated because many of the movement’s founders were evangelical Protestants who held that the issue had already been ‘settled,’ in spite of the historic Christian traditions to the contrary. For better or for worse, in the interest of political effectiveness, compromises were made, and a movement was born. The historical Christian prohibition on contraception was first shaken by the Anglican's 1930 Lambeth Conference, and within three decades practically all the main Protestant sects had abandoned the universal Christian prohibition against contraception. A large portion of Catholics joined in the rejection of Humanae Vitae in 1968, so that in the earliest stages of the pro-life movement, contraception, a fundamental consideration in the fight against abortion, was never really examined or debated, in spite of Pope Paul VI’s landmark encyclical. The Pope had warned that legalized contraception would result in widespread divorce, abortion, euthanasia and disregard for life and morality, and of course, he was correct. The connection between the acceptance of contraception, beginning only in 1930, and the legalization of abortion, just four decades later, cannot be overstated. The apocryphal ‘right to privacy,’ upon which the horrid decision in Roe v. Wade was based, was first invented by five justices on the Supreme Court in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut. That case held that married couples have a ‘privacy’ right to purchase contraceptives. To this day, Constitutional scholars openly concede that there was simply no foundation or precedent for such a ruling, but there was also no means to stop the Justices from imposing their morals on the nation. The Griswold ruling struck down the only remaining ‘Comstock Laws,’ which were written by Protestant legislators in the 1800's, and made illegal the sale or distribution of all forms of contraception. Over time, contraception and birth control became accepted in our culture because certain Christian sects abandoned traditional Christian teaching regarding sexual morality. The Roe v. Wade ruling was based upon that so-called ‘right to privacy’ unknown prior to Griswold’s overturning of anti-contraception ordinances. The fabricated legal foundations for the ‘right’ to birth control progressed naturally to the philosophical foundations of a ‘right’ to abortion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the US Supreme Court said: "In some critical respects, abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception... for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." This brutal honesty on the part of the US Supreme Court should have been cause for the pro-life community to reevaluate the role of secular and Christian acceptance of the contraceptive mentality is fomenting the legalization of abortion. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. To orthodox Christians who form the core of the Pro-life movement, it is morally and philosophically inconsistent to support contraception and oppose abortion. The Pro-life community must come to understand the roots of the acceptance of contraception and the direct correlation between the contraceptive mentality and legalized abortion. Even the US Supreme Court admitted the connection. Surely the Pro-life community can address this topic, which has, for the most part, never even been debated, in spite of its role in the legalization of abortion. It can be argued that the dumbing-down of the pro-life movement (i.e. the acceptance of contraception and ‘exceptions’) has prevented any real success in advancing pro-life legislation, and set the movement back. By diluting traditional doctrines of sexual morality within the Pro-life movement, it has become less of a moral movement, and more of a political fishnet designed for harvesting voters for right of center Republican candidates who are expected to moderate their Pro-life views with sufficient ‘exceptions’ to be deemed ‘electible.’ The difference of opinion regarding contraception demonstrates that even Christians can’t agree on what constitutes orthodoxy in theology or sexual morality. Prior to the Lambeth Conference, the major differences between Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism surrounded the Sacraments and the definition of “salvation.” Until 1930, however, all Christians, be they Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, agreed on what constituted orthodoxy in moral theology - adultery, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and contraception were universally condemned as gravely sinful. Sadly, only Roman Catholics have carried this torch into the 21st century. The general acceptance of contraception and the steadfast position of the Roman Catholic Church against it is now one of most compelling arguments that Roman Catholicism is Christ's church. In this context, the abandonment of sexual morality is a harbinger of that Great Apostasy foretold in scripture. And how could it be anything else? The dumbing-down of the Pro-life movement to its ‘lowest common denominator’ is a suicidal policy, and it must be resolved among pro-life Christians, even if the larger political pro-life movement refuses. Failure to resolve the inconsistency between being pro-contraception and anti-abortion pits the Pro-life movement against itself, a position from which we cannot effectively demand public policies protecting society from abortion. The pro-life movement cannot stop judges from ‘playing God’ in courtrooms or women from ‘playing God’ with their unborn babies if they insist on ‘playing God’ in their homes using contraception and birth control. Dr. Brian Kopp - Catholic Family Association of America, www.cathfam.org

[litany_of_lies]

"I still assert - anyone who is not prepared to have children and attempts to enter a marriage to "grow in maturity", does so invalidly."

I think you're reading too much into my position. I don't think I'm saying that couples go into it saying "We're not mature, but we're going to marry anyway." If they are, that's a big mistake. It's that they don't even realize they're not mature (youthful hubris being what it is), they slip through the screening process, and they realize shortly after the ceremony "holy moly, we have issues we better work on before we bring children into the world." To me this constitutes a "serious" situation justifying NFP for what one would hope is a pretty brief time. It assumes that the couple is sincere, honest, and prayerful about their situation, and that they work vigorously on solving whatever the issues are.

This group would NOT include the "grow to know each other crowd" you mentioned. How large or small the "eligible" group is I don't know. Given the societal baggage of the perpetual adolescence culture, the wide variations in the quality of the screening, and the "whatever" attitude of many parents of engaged couples, I would think it's more than rare.

[litany_of_lies]

BTW, what the heck is a Cherusker? Or am I better off not knowing?

"A dating couple so filled with lust that they cannot control their passions is not going to free themselves from sin by marrying - they will only heighten their sin by abusing the Sacrament. Lust is a sin regardless of whether it is inside or outside of marriage, because it is a disorder placing pleasures above right reason and good."

I don't disagree with this, but I believe there are couples who hasten their marriage because they want to have sex inside of marriage and eliminate the temptation of having it outside of marriage. Are they making the decision because of lust or geniune love? Only they and God know. A prerequsite is obviously openness to the possibility of procreation from Day 1. If we buy into the idea that the grace of the sacrament and Holy Spirit can have a gradual transformative effect on such a couple open to their work, this would appear to be a righteous path.

Or not?

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for expressing your opinion. Perhaps I was not clear: contraception addresses sperm and ova and the effort to keep those sub-units of organs from amle and female apart, to prevent the conception of a new individual organism. Abortion purposely kills the newly conceived organism. There is a fundamental difference in what contraception seeks to accomplish and what abortion seeks to accomplish.

Lacking your deep knowledge of all societies and your deeper understanding of huamn nature, I asserted that it is possible to practice contraception without favoring the killing of already existing posterity via abortion. That is my 'illiterate opinion'.

[TheCrusader]

"No one would argue, I hope, that an immature couple having kids early in a marriage is a good idea, or one that the Church would support. For some, it might be the "shake" they need to become mature (I have seen it work this way, but not often)"

Huh? When I had kids we all grew up together, with them showing me the way to maturity by forcing me to meet life head on and to do the right thing. This is how life works. Having children changes us forever, as we suddenly see the world differently and develop the desire to make the world a better place for them. Children force us to take the focus off our own selfish little desires, while we protect them and pave the way for their future.

Anyone who thinks parents need to be well established financially, fully mature and "ready" for children before allowing their birth is way off the mark. Nothing strengthens and bonds a married couple more than having beautiful, and totally vulnerable, little children. They instinctively work together for the welfare of the children, and the survival and prosperity of their family. Children are not the reason for the 52% divorce rate in our country, they are the victims of it.

The real culprit behind divorce is the anti-Christian, anti-male and narcissistic sentiment in our nation that was let loose from the sulphuric bowels of hell around 35 years ago. Our own government has been a dispenser and a blind agent of this new-age, demonic "freedom". Once women felt that they no longer needed the male to survive, men became dispensable. And now that men feel unneeded in the traditional role of protector and provider, women have been reduced to mere sexual objects.

The juggernaut of the 'culture of death', dealing a mortal blow to our nation's sense of morality via birth control devices and the legalization of abortion, has hardened the hearts of women and men, and turned what formerly was the procreative marital act into a sensual playground of lust; forcing all of its participants into a perpetual state of immaturity. As a result, when a child is born, he/she is often more of a 'mistake' than a heavenly blessing, and the parents often remain immature because they don't really want to raise their little 'mistake'. Selfish hearts are cold hearts. Of course this is not always the case, but it too often is.

It seems to me that this phenomenon started in America, but it has now spread its tentacles all over the earth. The answer? A return to the True God, and the living of our lives in Christian morality. Nothing else is going to work.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

This raises an interesting question. Let's say that on the day of your marriage you have no intention of ever having children. This is an impediment to a valid marriage. But after a year or two you change your mind and accept children. Does your marriage automatically become valid with the removal of the impediment?

The Marriage is validated by properly exchanged vows. As far as I know, which could be wrong, you cannot remove an impediment like this by simply "willing it away". My understanding is that you would have to have your Marriage validated by your supplying the proper consent that was lacking at the time of your marriage ceremony using the vows. Confession would be helpful too.

This is what I don't understand about many of the process annullments (the 40,000 contended annullments requiring testimony), although I only have hearsay evidence. Why doesn't the Church do more to encourage such people to validate their existing civilly recognized Marriage? Maybe Sinky can answer that.

[litany_of_lies]

"There is a fundamental difference in what contraception seeks to accomplish and what abortion seeks to accomplish."

Yes and no. I appreciate your distinction but society certainly doesn't when it comes to the use of the word "contraceptive."

Condoms are indeed solely designed to prevent conception, so the Church's only valid objection to it comes from Natural Law (which is objection enough). This also goes for "withdrawal."

Some IUDs are designed to prevent conception but they don't always do it. If an egg does get fertilized, Plan B is to prevent its implantation. That is really an abortion of a fertilized egg. So IUDs are usually contraceptive, sometimes abortive.

The Pill really isn't designed to prevent conception at all. I'm pretty sure it doesn't intentionally alter the properties of the egg by making it less penetrable, more breakable, or whatever, it only prevents any egg that happens to get fertilized from implanting. That's in vitro abortion pure and simple, and unless I misunderstand the full scope of what The Pill does, it's a pure abortificant and (agreeing with you) it shouldn't even be CALLED a contraceptive.

I would think that the Pro-Life movement may someday reach a point where a ban on anything that could or does cause an "invisible" abortion could be accomplished. However, banning true contraceptives that truly prevent fertilization from ever occurring is probably not possible or even desirable, and crosses into the "winning hearts and minds" category.

[MHGinTN]

"The Pill really isn't designed to prevent conception at all." The contraceptive pill was and is designed to prevent ovulation during a time when fertilization might occur. The 'pill' was designed to interrupt the folliculating hormone cycle and thus prevent an ovum from being matured and expelled into the fallopian tube. The IUD was designed to create an inflammatory state in the uterine region and thus inhibit the passage of sperm through the uterus toward the fallopian tubes, as well as create an environment not conducive to implantation and sustained life support.

[litany_of_lies]

Don't hang the "immature couple" argument on Polycarp. That was me.

See my 301. It's addressed to the reality that some immature couples, especially in this world as you describe it, are going to get through the pre-marriage screening. Maybe you'll still disagree.

[Polycarp]

How did you manage to catch on to the truth after a year of marriage?

I learned about the abortifacient effect of the pill in pharmacology class in medschool and private research. Even when I was a lukewarm Catholic, even during my stage as an intellectual atheist in college, I was still pro-life.

The rest was purely through prayer, while praying the Rosary.

maybe God has a reason for your seeming infertility

Certainly! God has a reason for every cross He allows us to carry.

God's Will and Living the Present Moment

[Polycarp]

If you posted it here at FR, I must have missed it (my activity level here fluctuates pretty wildly).

Thread: Sealed With Blood: Letter From a Father to His Beloved Son

[litany_of_lies]

Wait a minute. You're saying that eggs don't get produced at all when a woman is using The Pill. So it's a potential abortificant only when it doesn't "work" correctly?

That doesn't square with what I learned (or thought I learned) 30 years ago. I need a freaking science lesson it would appear.

[Polycarp]

a related story line I want to write into a novel "someday."

LOL! See my comment here on the thread I linked above.

[litany_of_lies]

That is too funny.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Not to quibble, but I don't think the Church has dealt with family planning issues during its entire 2000 years. Maybe I'm not giving the ancients enough credit, but did they even know that women had relatively fertile and infertile periods during the month, or if they did, were the men smart or communicative enough to "take advantage" of them?

Somwhere along the way, priests "on the street" must have observed the selfishness of some couples planning their sexual relations around the menstrual cycle, which would have given rise to the need for the Church to (eventually) take a formal position.

The Manichees did this to avoid children completely, for which St. Augustine famously condemned them and their practice of perpetual barrenhood.

"Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very questionable chastity consists. For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse. ... Didn't you warn us before to watch as carefully as possible for the time after the monthly period, when a woman may be expected to conceive, and to abstain from intercourse at this time, lest a soul be enclosed in the flesh? It follows from this that, in your opinion, marriage was not intended to beget children but to satisfy desires." (St. Augustine of Hippo, "Morals of the Manachaeans", Chapter 18)

Maybe I need to get a life, but I think it would be real interesting to learn how the Church's position on children and family planning came to be from its inception, starting WAY before 1930, when the Protestants started giving in, but probably well after the original disciples.

The Church has never condemned abstinence or periodic continence. In fact, the old disciplinary norms of abstinence from sex on Friday and Saturday (to prepare for Holy Communion), all of Lent, and during the days of fast in Ember Days, Rogation Days, and Vigils meant that more often than not, a couple would not be having sex at a fertile time.

The Sacred Penitentiary also approved of the Rhythm Method back in 1853 and again in 1880. In fact, Confessors were directed to suggest the practice to penitents engaged in repeated acts of Onanistic intercourse for contraceptive purposes. The notion spread abroad by some that NFP is some new heterdox teaching is not true. It is perfectly licit, provided the people involved adhere to the moral norms of marriage concerning the necessity of having children if possible, and a concrete number of at least four.

"Question: Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month when conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days, to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?

"Response: Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception." (Decree of the Sacred Penitentiary, 2 March 1853)

"Married couples who use their marriage rights in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism." (Decree of the Sacred Penitentiary, 16 June 1880)

It is with the denial of the plain words of these decrees of the Holy See that the anti-NFP heretics (I will call them that since they contest against the Magisterium), like Solange Hertz and various extremists associated with "The Remnant" have gone so famously wrong in their denunciation of NFP.

Again, there is nothing wrong with using NFP or equivalent for one's entire marriage, provided that the married couple fulfills their duties of justice to society of having at least four children. Catholics are not under an obligation to have as large a family as possible. The Popes have called those who do so "praiseworthy" (because they have performed an act of supererogation) but they do not simultaneously condemn those who have fewer children, so long as they do not use contraceptives and do their duty.

In a way, its somewhat akin to Holy Communion. It is praiseworthy to receive Holy Communion every day. But it is not sinful to only receive it just once a year. We might judge a man foolish who did this, counting God's blessings for so little, just as we might judge a man foolish who decided not to have more children when he had done the minimum, counting God's blessing of children for little. But we cannot condemn either person as having done something intrinscially wrong.

The problem today is that 1) many Catholics do not recognize this duty to have four children, 2) some Catholics promote and use NFP for sinful reasons like this "growth in maturity" nonesense, 3) there appears a general expectation and promotion of NFP as a norm for all, rather than something one may or may not use depending upon the circumstances of ones life (I do see this last point as caused by the overwhelming contraceptive mentality of today, and Catholic attempts to hold it back at the lowest level possible so as to include the greatest number of people).

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Incidentally, they cannot do this within the Catholic sacrament of matrimony, which requires both to commit to attempt to have children and raise them in the Catholic faith.

If people marry over the age of 45, they do have a valid Catholic Marriage, and do not sin by the fact that they cannot have children. They don't need to intend the physcially impossible, although they can be open to miracles.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

So then, the question is why would someone put themselves in the occasion of sin of "going-steady" and "getting engaged" in College, when there is no realitic prospect for forming a Christian Marriage at that time?

You can't stop people from falling in love, but people can put their focus elsewhere, and avoid looking for love at the wrong times.

[Polycarp]

Some IUDs are designed to prevent conception but they don't always do it. If an egg does get fertilized, Plan B is to prevent its implantation. That is really an abortion of a fertilized egg. So IUDs are usually contraceptive, sometimes abortive.

IUDs are almost always abortive. They cause a foreign body inflammatory response within the uterus that prevents implantation if conception occurs. If newer IUDs are impregnated with long term chemical hormones, they may at times prevent conception by stopping ovulation. However I'm not up on newer IUDs, and I'm not sure if they do use hormones in addition to the foreign body effect.

The Pill really isn't designed to prevent conception at all. I'm pretty sure it doesn't intentionally alter the properties of the egg by making it less penetrable, more breakable, or whatever, it only prevents any egg that happens to get fertilized from implanting. That's in vitro abortion pure and simple, and unless I misunderstand the full scope of what The Pill does, it's a pure abortificant and (agreeing with you) it shouldn't even be CALLED a contraceptive.

Actually, the pill WAS designed to be solely contraceptive by blocking ovulation. Here's a couple articles I wrote that explains what happened during the progreesion of the pill's dosages:

The Pill: Contraception Or Abortion?

by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

     When speaking about "contraception" most of us normally assume that fertilization of an ovum by a sperm is being prevented. The two main ways of preventing fertilization are barrier methods (condoms, diaphragm, spermicides, coitus interruptus, etc.) and inhibition of ovulation (release of an egg by the ovary).

     Inhibition of ovulation is most commonly accomplished today by the use of oral contraceptives ("the pill"). The original intention of the inventors of the pill was to inhibit ovulation by interrupting the natural hormonal cycle with high doses of estrogen and progesterone. These early combination pills were very successful in completely inhibiting ovulation but caused unacceptably high levels of side effects. Therefore, the hormonal content was progressively reduced. At the same time, other mechanisms by which the pill "prevents" fertilization were discovered. These are as follows:

     1) Inhibition of ovulation: During the normal reproductive cycle, the pituitary gland in the brain releases hormones which stimulate the ovary to mature and release an ovum (egg). The combination pill usually interrupts the release of these pituitary hormones, thereby inhibiting ovulation. The progestin (synthetic progesterone)-only products (the mini-pill, Norplant, Depo-provera injections) generally do not suppress ovulation due to their weaker effect.1

     2) Impeding sperm migration: The women’s cervix produces a watery mucus through which sperm can swim and by which the sperm are nourished in the female reproductive tract. Progestin causes thickening of this mucus, impeding sperm motility and migration.

     3) Changes in fallopian tubes: The fallopian tubes transport the egg to the uterus. Progestin decreases the motility of the tube, thereby slowing down the transport of the egg to the uterus.

     4) Changes of the endometrium: The endometrium, the lining of the uterus, undergoes a monthly cyclical build-up in preparation for the possible implantation of a fertilized egg. The initial build-up occurs under the influence of the body’s own natural estrogen produced by the ovary itself during a normal cycle. After release of an egg at ovulation the endometrium is maintained and further developed by the body’s production of progesterone. The combination pill causes an asyncronous build-up of the endometrial lining and altered maturation of that lining.2 The progestin component causes the inner lining of the uterus to become thin and shriveled, unable to support implantation if fertilization occurs.3

HIGH "SUCCESS RATE"?

     This point is key in understanding the overall "success rate" for oral contraceptives today. As mentioned above, due to the multiple undesirable side effects, the dosages of the hormones in the oral contraceptives were progressively decreased. However, their overall effectiveness has remained around 98% to 99%. Why?

     Multiple studies have established that with the reduced hormone dosages breakthrough ovulation occurs. The rates cited in the literature range from 2% to 10% for breakthrough ovulation for all forms of oral contraception. Triphasic preparations may allow an ovulation once every four months.4 The progesterone only products may allow breakthrough ovulation 50% of the time; very low dose and long term use products (such as Norplant, Depo-provera) may alter the endometrium without inhibiting ovulation at all.5

     In these cases where breakthrough ovulation has occured, the other mechanisms of the pill come into play. The barrier effect of the thickened cervical mucus may prevent sperm transport thereby preventing fertilization. However, when breakthrough ovulation occurs, the body produces its own estrogen which may allow the cervical mucus to support sperm migration. We must assume, therefore, that fertilization of the egg can occur with breakthrough ovulation.


CONTRACEPTION... OR ABORTION?

     What happens to the new life conceived when fertilization does indeed occur? The progestin slows the transport of the embryo through the fallopian tube. The embryo may become too old to be viable when it does enter the uterus, and it will die. If the embryo is still viable when it reaches the uterus, it is unlikely that implantation would be possible in the altered endometrium developed under the influence of the pill, and again in would die.6

     Clearly, by preventing the transport and implantation of this newly conceived life, oral contraceptives are indeed abortifacient. No concrete number can be given as to the absolute frequency with which the pill acts as an abortifacient and not as a contraceptive. However, if even the possibility of an abortifacient effect exists we as Christians must seek other ways of spacing or limiting pregnancy.

"JELLIES, JAMS, AND DAMS"

     Barrier methods are the second most popular form of contraceptives used by Americans. Again these include condoms, diaphrams, sponges, spermicidal jellies and foams, etc. Barrier methods as a whole have an effecitve rate of approximately 85%. This is certainly much less effective than the pill and other related medications. (Furthermore, in Genesis, Chapter 38, God speaks very clearly about Onan who "wasted his seed on the ground. . . What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too." Gen 38: 10. Onan practiced coitus interruptus, withdrawing and wasting his sperm. This same thing is practiced today with barrier methods of contraception which also "waste the seed." All Christian faiths taught artificial contraception was wrong until as recently as the 1930's based on this and other Biblical texts.)

THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY...

     There is a method that is entirely safe, very effective, and requires no abortifacient chemicals or artificial barriers. This is called the symptothermal method of natural family planning. It relies on the naturally occuring symptoms of a woman’s fertility including her body temperature, cervical mucus, and other signs, to determine when the women is potentially fertile. Selective abstinence during the 6 to 10 fertile days per month allow the couple to space or limit pregnancies with a 95% to 99% use effective rate. The British Journal of Medicine recently reported a study in which 20,000 poor, mostly illiterate women from Calcutta learned and practiced this method with a 99% effective rate.7


     This method is effective for women with irregular cycles, breastfeeding women, and pre-menopausal women. It is also very much in accord with God’s plan for us, because it relies on the cycles and symptoms God created in women to limit or space pregnancies.

     If you would like to learn more about the symptothermal method of natural family planning, or if you provide spiritual counsel to individuals or couples who might benefit from this knowledge, please contact Natural Family Planning of the Alleghenies at (814) 946-3544 or Dr. Brian Kopp at (814) 266-1582.


NOTES

1. Goodman, Gilman. The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. Pergamon Press. 1990. P. 1405.

2. Pritchard, MacDonald, Gant. Obstretics. Appleton-Century- Crofts. 1985. P. 812.

3. Weckenbrock. The Pill: How Does It Work? Is It Safe? pamphlet: The Couple To Couple League International. 1993.

4. Ehmann. Abortifacient Contraception: The Pharmaceutical Holocaust. Human Life International. 1993. p. 19

5. Goodman, Gilman. p 1405

6. Ibid.

7. British Medical Journal, March 1993.

Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent.

by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

     A groundbreaking study was published in the February 2000 edition of Archives of Family Medicine entitled "Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent." This study has far reaching ramifications for all pro-life individuals who believe life begins at conception, as well as the health care professionals who treat them.

     According to the authors, while the primary mechanism of oral contraceptives (OC's) is to inhibit ovulation, breakthrough ovulation (release of an egg) does occur. Analyzing journal articles on OC's published since 1970, they found breakthrough ovulation occurs between 1.7% to 28.6% for combination OC's and from 33% to 65% for progesterone only OC's.

     The authors show that OC's maintain a high effective rate by "postfertilization effects," which come into play after an egg is released and is fertilized. According to the authors, postfertilization effects involve one or more of the following: "(1) A postfertilization preimplantation effect would consist of a slower transport of the preembryo through the fallopian tube, preventing the preembryo from implanting in the uterus... (2) A peri-implantation effect would be the alteration of the endometrium, such that a preembryo that reached the uterus was unable to successfully implant into the endometrial lining of the uterus. (3) A postimplantation effect could result from alteration of the endometrium not sufficient to prevent implantation but unfavorable for maintenance of the pregnancy..."

     Most patients, for personal, scientific or religious reasons, identify the start of human life at conception. For some, a method of birth control that has the potential of killing their newly conceived child (an abortifacient) may not be acceptable. This would include all oral contraceptives, as well as Norplant, Depo-Provera, the morning after pill, emergency contraceptives, and RU486.

     According to the authors, "Since it would be difficult to predict which patients might object to being given an OC if they were aware of possible postfertilization effects, mentioning the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs to all patients and providing detailed information about the evidence to those who request it is necessary for adequate informed consent." Of course, "adequate informed consent" has legal ramifications beyond the question of medical ethics.

     For the pro-lifer, "postfertilization effects" is simply a medical term for early chemical abortions. How many pro-lifers are aware of these facts? Have they truly received "informed consent"? More importantly, why are our preachers and priests silent in the face of these chemical abortions, which far outnumber surgical abortions? The journal article is available online, at http://archfami.ama-assn.org/issues/v9n2/full/fsa8035.html

[TheCrusader]

"See my 301. It's addressed to the reality that some immature couples, especially in this world as you describe it, are going to get through the pre-marriage screening. Maybe you'll still disagree."

Some sort of pre-marital advice and counseling by the couple's Church may be a great idea, as a step towards tying the knot; but actually forcing an adult couple to pass some sort of maturity litmus test is nuts. By this formula, immature couples should not be allowed to purchase a home either, which requires the long committment of a thirty year mortgage and hard work to maintain it. Their income would not be the only factor, but also their maturity level to meet such a long committment. It's all ridiculous to me. People grow up in a hurry when they want to. Today they don't want to grow up because it's too much "fun" and it's too easy remaining irresponsible. But growing up is a choice we all have to make, ---sooner or later. There was only one Peter Pan. :o)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The divorce rate among Catholics who reject contraception is less than 5%, while that of contracepting Catholics approaches the rate of the secular culture. That alone should be a sobering statistic.

I've heard this a lot, but I've come to doubt that there is much backing for it. The total number of Catholics alive today ever divorced is around 21%. This is equivalent to the figure for atheists, and well below the 30%+ figure for Baptists and other "Fundementalist" types.

The 50% divorce "rate" is a simple division of current year divorces over current year marriages. It has little bearing on the actual outcome of any given marriage contracted today. More simply put, 50% of people married during the last 10 years are not already divorced. In fact, there isn't a single cohort of the population where over 40% of them have been divorced ever. If you grasp that truth, you can see the fallacy of predictions based on "rates".

[litany_of_lies]

I'd REALLY like to know specifically where the "DUTY to have a concrete number of at least four" came from, especially since it appears from trusting your perspective that it's a mandate if physically possible. Ya sorta threw that one in.

You either seem to be in the "don't ever need to have serious reasons for NFP" camp, or that you don't get to move into the non-serious reasons category until you've carried out your duty (to the best of your ability) to have 4. Which is it, or is it none of the above?

This is probably a good time to go into lurk mode (necessary business intervenes), because I suspect the "gotta go for 4" statement is gonna REALLY light things up.

Words can't even begin to describe my gratitude for the patient input of the various posters and Polycarp, the originator of the thread.