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

[dsc]

"Assuming that there is a situation in which continuing a pregnancy would kill the mother, what could be the possible objection to aborting or some other procedure to terminate the growth within the womb? Is there no such thing as self-defense?"

Try it this way: Assuming that there is a situation in which continuing a pregnancy *might* kill the mother, what could be the possible objection to *killing the baby* within the womb? Is there no such thing as self-defense, *whereby a mother reduces risk to herself by killing her helpless baby*?

It's almost 3 a.m. here. Gotta get some schleep.

[ohmage]

History of Christian thought on Birth Control

An impressive array of arguments and proof of the Church's long standing position on the sanctity of life.

But in the not so wealthy parish I grew up in I distinctly remember the only acceptable method of birth control, to the Church, was the rythymn method.

Even that ( can't spell it again ) appears to be unacceptable to Church fathers. How did that gain acceptance when Augustine's Marriage and Concupiscence seems to address that issue?

[fortaydoos]

One does not compromise with evil, and the murder of millions of unborn babies is evil.

[Snuffington]

While I largely agree with your article, I also have some trouble with it as a matter of political tactics. Not because the link between abortion and contraception shouldn't be made - it should be made forcefully and frequently.

The problem I have is the "How do we get there from here" part.

In answer to this question, I think the best tactic is to fall back on the Natural Law, rather than address it in a way that relies upon Church history (not that Church history can't play a role - it can and should - but that need not be the main rhetorical thrust).

The Natural Law on this issue is very simple. The purpose of sex is procreation. If you're engaging in sex in a way that intentionally blocks the procreative purpose, you're committing a perversion against the Natural Law.

All the moral and social consequences that follow from that are the same ones identified several places above. When you create a society that systematically violates the Natural Law, you would obviously expect social decay and even social breakdown in some areas (witness the growing acceptance of homosexual "marriage," sexualization of ever younger children, and now a growing "polyamorist" movement). That's the importance of Natural Law in a secular society. It allows you to address moral problems, even among conflicting moral views, by drawing on the experience of our shared humanity.

Obviously the Christian teachings on the matter are richer and fuller, and Christians should eagerly engage anyone (especially their fellow Church members) with a willingness to brag about how true and right the Church has always been about this issue. That would be a welcome shift from the currently pervasive embarrassed avoidance of it.

I think the main problem here is two-fold. The first part is that most people truly have separated sex from procreation. They see them as virtually unrelated things. Getting them to see them as one is going to be one heck of a struggle all its own, but it's an essential foundation to any progress against contraception.

The second problem is sexual obsession bordering on addiction. Even when they realize and admit it's wrong, there are going to be a LOT of people who refuse to change anyway (and don't think these will all be liberal Democrats). Many (perhaps even most) will still want their sex for recreation, rather than procreation.

I think we can do something about the first problem. The second is trickier. Part of it stems from the "culture of death" mindset, which has conditioned most people to see lots of children as a burden and a sadness rather than a blessing and a joy. When people want 1 or 2 children (or none at all), an anti-contraception ("contra-contraception?" Or perhaps just "ception"?) message seems to hedge them into a life of celibacy. The way this mindset pervades so many aspects of our culture is dizzying. Modern people don't realize that we live in the most sexually obsessed culture the world has ever seen. The fact that it has simultaneously lead to such an anti-child culture is a perversion worthy of Satan himself.

[Snuffington]

But in the not so wealthy parish I grew up in I distinctly remember the only acceptable method of birth control, to the Church, was the rythymn method. Even that ( can't spell it again ) appears to be unacceptable to Church fathers. How did that gain acceptance when Augustine's Marriage and Concupiscence seems to address that issue?

An extremely important question!

The "Rhythm method" was really just an early form of Natural Family Planning, which has since adopted more sophisticated, yet still technically licit, methods. Google the "sympto-thermo method" or "Natural Family Planning" for more info on the methods.

The theology, however, is tricky. In fact, I would argue that in most cases, couples practicing Natural Family Planning are violating the constant teaching of the Church on this topic. I say this as a former practitioner of it, who only saw the problems inherent in it after the birth of my first child.

I know Dr. Kopp has a differing opinion, and I'll not try to put words in his mouth. But in my opinion, Natural Family Planning lends itself very easily to the same contraceptive intentions as artificial contraception. In those cases, it is in violation of the Church's teaching.

[VeritatisSplendor]

The Janet Smith article is excellent. But please distinguish between talking to the society at large, talking to others in the pro-life movement, and talking to other CHRISTIANS in the pro-life movement. Without contradicting oneself or denying anything true, one may still emphasize different arguments with different audiences.

The "argument from natural law" against contraception, in order to get off the ground, STILL requires you to convince a secular society of propositions which, while true, are NOT logically necessary to argue against abortion.

When speaking to other pro-lifers who are Christian but not Catholic, one may of course argue directly for the teaching against contraception and point out the link with abortion; but most of them will be more interested in preventing unborn babies from being killed than preventing them from being conceived.

In fact, "preventing them from being conceived" is the wrong emphasis even theologically, and the Aquinas quote is therefore inappropriate; what is illicit is the ARTIFICIAL prevention of conception in the context of a sexual act, not the prevention of conception per se. "Natural family planning", avoiding sex at the fertile times of a wife's reproductive cycle, is not condemned.

Thus the analogy with murder is misguided. The gravity of the sin of artificial contraception is, at most, on a par with that of sodomy. It would be better to prevent one murder than to prevent one thousand acts of sodomy, and similarly for acts of artificial contraception (as always, classifying abortifacient "contraception" properly as abortion).

This is what I meant earlier by "incommensurability". Of course, smaller sins can still result in one's condemnation, but that doesn't mean we should regard all such sins as objectively of the same order.

[Snuffington]

The "argument from natural law" against contraception, in order to get off the ground, STILL requires you to convince a secular society of propositions which, while true, are NOT logically necessary to argue against abortion.

I think you're missing the larger picture. You can argue against a single instance of abortion without recourse to the issue of contraception. But I believe we're finding solid evidence that you can't argue against abortion as a socially accepted practice without addressing contraception.

The Janet Smith article states this fairly directly: "The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion."

Stated another way, you can try to stop abortion and ignore contraception, but you'll fail because the contraceptive mindset is continually building the "abortion ethic." Without the ability to address this, the pro-life movement will remain marginalized to sidewalks in front of abortion clinics, and passing the occasional parental notification law.

[Redleg Duke]

Good points, but I am afraid wasted. Just like all of the other "pure conservatives", they fall victim to their "single-issue" positions.

This is the one salvation of the liberal left...conservative purity.

[Voice in your head]

” 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.”

When they recognized a right, the Justices were actually “imposing their morals on the nation”? If you read the decision of Griswold vs Connecticut, then you read the reasoning that clearly explains why the decision was a defense of liberty, by removing coercive enforcement of a law designed to violate, rather than defend people’s lives.

Justice Goldberg wrote: “To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that ‘[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people....’”

In regards to your link about “the Pill”, I found a link at the bottom of the page with a scientific article written on the topic. This article helped to clarify a lot of details that were glossed over in the postfertilization article. It is worth noting that the claim of the brochure is actually a hypothesis. However, the author of the scientific article made a good case and I will concede for the sake of argument that your statement, "... hormonal contraceptives at least are no different than any other form of chemically induced abortion..." is completely true. My original comment was this: “Contraception and birth control are measures taken to prevent conception. Why are these on the same moral level as killing babies? In the former, nobody’s rights are violated. In the latter, a baby’s right to life is clearly violated.” We have addressed the hormonal contraceptives. What about condoms? Is using a condom is on the same moral level as killing babies?

[Voice in your head]

"Try it this way: Assuming that there is a situation in which continuing a pregnancy *might* kill the mother, what could be the possible objection to *killing the baby* within the womb? Is there no such thing as self-defense, *whereby a mother reduces risk to herself by killing her helpless baby*?"

If I understand your question, then the answer is "no." Self-defense against what "might" happen? My neighbor might try to kill me. Should I kill him first? Self-defense is rightfully invoked for imminent threats.

[Polycarp]

How did that gain acceptance when Augustine's Marriage and Concupiscence seems to address that issue?

.

NFP vs Contraception

Spacing children may be a desirable goal that does not violate God's laws in certain serious situations such as those outlined above. But the means of achieving the goal differ.

One is intrinsically evil (abortion, abortifacient contraception, barrier methods, sterilization) while one is morally neutral (Natural Family Planning.

In one, an act is performed (sex) but its natural outcome is artificially foiled.

In the other, no act is performed (simple abstinence during fertile times) so there IS no act, therefore the practice is morally neutral.

It is then the intention of using NFP that constitutes its relative moral licitness or illicitness.

If NFP is used in a selfish manner, it too can be sinful.

If it is used only in grave circumstances, it is not sinful.

The difference is real.

Dieting (decreasing caloric intake, the "act" of NOT eating) is a moral and responsible means of losing weight to maintain the body's health.

Bulimia (the ACT of eating, them vomiting) is rightly called an eating DISORDER.

An ACT is performed (eating in this case) and its natural outcome (nutrition) is foiled by expelling the food from the body.

Likewise contraception is a disorder. An ACT is performed (sex) and its natural outcome (procreation) is foiled by expelling the sperm or egg or both (abortifacient contraceptives) from the body.

Contraception is to NFP what Bulimia is to dieting.

But just as dieting can be misused (anorexia) so too can NFP be misused in a sinful manner.

Finally, regarding infertility, if the sterility of the couple is through no act or conscious fault of their own, their marital relations cannot possibly be immoral, since it is not their intent to be sterile.

Yet many the Church married, who were thought for decades to be sterile, have indeed borne children in their later years. So it would be awefully presumptuous of any Church to disallow an "infertile" couple to marry.

We teach there are 4 main reasons for having recourse to NFP.

1--Physical/ mental health---a pregnancy could kill you or so physically impair you as to prevent your fulfillment of your duties in your state in life---NOT because of a widening wasteline or drooping skin! Or psychological health, i.e., mom would literally have a nervous breakdown if she became pregnant---not because she "just couldn't stand being home with the little kids all day without the personal fulfillment of her professional job..."

2--Financial constraints---your child will starve if you have another. Wanting a bigger house or designer SUV just does not cut it!

3--work on the mission fields by one or both spouses that would proclude having children temporarily

4--active persecution or war---i.e., you or your child likely to die by coercive abortion, in concentration camp, in acts of war, etc.

Clearly we say these reasons must be SERIOUS, not trivial. Only the couple and their confessor can truly decide what truly constitutes grave reason.

We've had couples sit through my talk on this subject and literally say, "Gee, we thought we were being good Catholics just for deciding to use NFP. Now we realize we don't even have grounds for recourse to NFP," then tell us a month or two later they're pregnant.

[Polycarp]

However, the author of the scientific article made a good case

Oops, my error. That is the article I had intended to link for you in my post. I have it linked on my profile page, but that link was changed, and I mixed up the urls when I posted to you.

[Polycarp]

OK, thanks. My error.

[Lorianne]

mmThe 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.

I believe this to be true. It has never been fully examined. However, the quixotic comprehensive "culture of life" has never been fully examined. If it had been examined and studied, it would be widely publicised that a comprehensive "culture of life" has NEVER existed on the planet Earth at any time in history. Just a few examples:

___A comprehensive "culture of life" would not unilaterally demonized women who are pregnant, but not married.

___A comprehensive "culture of life" would not stigmatize children born out of wedlock as "bastards" and illegitimate (how can a human being, in God's likeness, be "illegitimate"?). It would not have singled out these children of God for discrimination and public shame.

___A comprehensive "culture of life" would not support the law-of-the-jungle mentality in financial and resource distribution. (Laws of the jungle dictate that the weak must be sacrificed for the survival of the strong.)

___A comprehensive "culture of life" would not advocate, aid and abet father abandonment of offspring, such as the children born of unions during wartime excursions in foreign lands (as has been the US policy in Asia and before that the policy of all European empirical excursions).

___A comprehensive "culture of life" would not hide, aid and abet rapists and child rapists among its heirarchy. ___A comprehensive "culture of life" would not allow millions of mostly women and children to starve in poor coutries while selling arms for profit to spread more misery and internal strife in poor areas.

___A comprehensive "culture of life" would not have supported slavery and near slavery, nor would it have supported race and gender apartheid in education and economic opportunities.

In short, to single out contraception without looking at all the cultural instetutions we have supported and continue to support which are not anything near to supporting the concept of the value of every human life, is shortsighted and hypocritical. There is much we have not fully and credibly debated.

[BlackElk]

May I suggest three things that I do not believe were explicit in the article.

First, with no government or court approval whatsoever, we may refuse to practice any form of birth control, maximize the number of our children and raise them dedicated to the entire agenda and to raise their large families similarly and so on through the generations. As we well know, our opponents will not emulate this tactic. We will have as allies the hard-core Chassidic Jews (average 9 kids per family), the hard core of the Islamic faith who have similar birth rates and the hard core of the evangelicals and pentecostals who also have high birth rates and whose literature racks and stores increasingly carry books urging couples to trust God and turn their backs on the contraceptive mentality.

Second, many, many serious religious believers do not understand the science of the birth control pill and the science of the IUD, both of which function as abortifacients and NOT as contraceptives. More babies are killed by these two methods than by a multiple of all surgical abortions. Most folks do not want this news. Our job is to make sure they get this news anyway. Fully informed, under our post-Griswold, post-Roe culture and "laws", they can make the decision to kill or not to kill their children. That decision is not a mere decision as to whether to have children or how many to have.

Third, we must convert "Catholics" to the Catholic Faith once again, replacing dissenters with Catholics.

Demography will take care of the rest.

[george wythe]

abortifacient contraception

My mom once told me that certain contraceptive methods prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus, therefore killing a life after conception.

Do you know how the anti-abortion Christians justify killing embryos with abortifacient contraception while opposing abortion of embryos?

Since you seem to have research this subject from the theological viewpoints, I would appreciate if you can provide a brief summary of the "pro-life" arguments allowing contraception that kills after conception.

[BlackElk]

For whatever it is worth:

The attorney representing the State of Connecticut in Griswold vs. Connecticut was a very Catholic Irishman named Joe Clark. He was one of nine children and he had nine children of his own. He was an assistant prosecutor in what was then the New Haven County Court. He was very dedicated to the cause of stopping contraception. He got little help. On Estelle Griswold's side (she being PP's state Executive Director) was Yale Law School and the ringleader and strategist of the PP case, Yale Law Professor Thomas Emerson. When the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold, Emerson was reported the very next day in the New Haven Register as saying: Now is the time to go for abortion.

Joe Clark later became a judge and he told me repeatedly that we would never resolve Roe legally until we got rid of Griswold simultaneously, that the entire matter was simply none of the business of the federal courts, that the Tenth Amendment left such matters to the states and that we should strive to establish that strategy. He was an old-fashioned kind of Democrat and tone of the very best human beings as a judge. He died rather suddenly of a heart attack when putting on his coat in chambers one day to walk home from the New Haven courthouse. I forget exactly when but it was in the mid-nineties. Keep Joe Clark, his widow and his family in your prayers. They were also Tridentine Mass Catholics just like our ancestors.

[Polycarp]

I would appreciate if you can provide a brief summary of the "pro-life" arguments allowing contraception that kills after conception.

In a nutshell, they simply deny that the pill works in an abortifacient manner.

There are some real semantics games going on, however. Here's an old thread I put together on the issue:

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"

---

[ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ]

Click to scroll to commentary.

Medical dictionaries redefine "CONCEPTION" to obscure the TRUTH regarding contraceptive technologies
Online Medical Dictionaries | 12/12/01 | Dr. Brian Kopp

Posted on 12/11/2001 11:57 PM EST by Dr. Brian Kopp

The redifining of "conception" by medicine in new medical dictionaries: Verbal engineering always preceeds social (and medical)engineering

There are several major print medical dictionaries, and several online versions. Apparently, under pressure from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), many of them have changed the defintion of "conception" in the last few years, proving once again that verbal engineering always preceeds social (and medical) engineering.

Here is Tabor's Medical Dictionary's entry:

conception (kSn-s&p´shTn)
1. The mental process of forming an idea. 2. The onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall. SEE: contraception; fertilization; implantation.
Copyright 2001 by F. A. Davis Company

Here is the entry from "On-line Medical Dictionary":

conception
The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst, the formation of a viable zygote. Origin: L. Conceptio

However, Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary sits on the fence:

Main Entry: con·cep·tion
Pronunciation: k&n-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both b : EMBRYO, : FETUS 2 a : the capacity, function, or process of forming or understanding ideas or abstractions or their symbols b : a general idea

Yet the good old "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition," Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, is much more straightforward:

con·cep·tion (kn-spshn)
n.
Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote. The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions. Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought. See Synonyms at idea. Archaic. A beginning; a start. [Middle English concepcioun, from Old French conception, from Latin concepti, conceptin-, from conceptus. See concept.]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc., does not mince words either:

conception \Con*cep"tion\, n. [F. conception, L. conceptio, fr. concipere to conceive. See Conceive.] 1. The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life.[remaider of definitions deleted]

WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University puts it succinctly:

conception n 1: an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances [syn: concept, construct] [ant: misconception] 2: the act of becoming pregnant; fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon 3: the event that occured at the beginning of something; "from its creation the plan was doomed to failure" [syn: creation] 4: the creation of something in the mind [syn: invention, innovation, excogitation, design]

I wonder how these medical dictionaries define a tubal pregnancy, if "conception" does not occur till after implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall?

I wonder why the "medical" definition of "conception" has been quietly changed?

No need to wonder, really. All the latest contraceptive technologies target the baby at its most vulnerable point, i.e., before implantation but after conception (as traditionally defined.)

If "conception" is not redefined, medicine must admit that these new technologies are indeed abortifacient. Then comes the whole problem of informed consent, conscience clauses, and a refocus of pro-life activity exactly where medicine does NOT want it: At that distinct line between conception and implantation, a line already crossed by hormonal contraception, the morning after pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, IUD's, cloning, stem cell research, and many other emerging technologies.

Here lies the future of the pro-life battle, or its failure, if none show up to do battle.

AMA VOTES AGAINST LETTING WOMEN KNOW "THE PILL" IS ABORTIFACIENT

Culture/Society
Source: CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS
Published: Dec 10, 01 Author: CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS
Posted on 12/11/01 12:17 AM Eastern by proud2bRC

AMA Votes Against Letting Women Know "The Pill" Is Abortifacient

WASHINGTON, DC, Dec 10, 01 (LSN.ca/CWNews.com) - The American Medical Association last week voted overwhelmingly against a proposal to inform women about the potential for birth control pills to cause the abortion of an embryo by preventing implantation in the uterus.

Cybercast News Service reports that Dr. John C. Nelson, a member of the AMA's executive committee and a self-described conservative, said the Alabama doctor who put forward the proposal before the AMA "believes that in the spirit of enhancing the patient/physician relationship, that information ought to be disclosed to patients to help them make choices." Nelson said, "I couldn't agree more. That's exactly what the AMA is about. It's a cornerstone of American medicine."

However, according to Nelson, the proposal was voted down because "many people from the American Society of Reproductive Medicine... decided that they would testify, and their testimony was that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to suggest" that birth control substances can induce abortions. Walter Weber, senior litigation counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a Virginia-based public interest law firm, reacted to the vote saying, "If [pro-life women] are using a method that can operate after fertilization as well as before fertilization, and they don't know it, they are basically being deceived by lack of information into violating their own consciences."

The Family Research Council (FRC) condemned the attempt to conceal the truth from women. FRC Advisory Board Member John Diggs, MD, said Friday, "The AMA is doing a great disservice to women by refusing to fully inform them of their birth control options. Since informed consent is a basic medical ethic, it should be standard operating procedure to tell women that the birth control pill can cause an abortion. Each woman has the right to know what's good for her health and acceptable to her conscience. If the AMA has suppressed its conscience, it shouldn't draw American women into its own ethical lapses."

FRC noted that the prescribing information for Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a popular oral contraceptive, enumerates three pathways by which the pill works: suppressing ovulation, preventing fertilization, and precluding the implantation of an already fertilized egg. The third one constitutes an abortion. The third function is conspicuously excluded from information made available to patients. "If manufacturers are telling doctors that oral contraceptives can keep a new member of the human family from being nourished, why isn't that information being passed on to patients?", asked Diggs.

Nelson noted that lobbying by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine largely contributed to the AMA's decision.

====================================================

Catholic World News is available via email for personal use only. To subscribe or for further information, contact subs@cwnews.com or visit our Web page at http://www.cwnews.com.

Catholic World News (c) Copyright Domus Enterprises 2001.

---

Archives of Family Medicine, Vol. 9 No. 2, February 2000, "Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent," Walter L. Larimore, MD; Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH

ABSTRACT:

The primary mechanism of oral contraceptives is to inhibit ovulation, but this mechanism is not always operative. When breakthrough ovulation occurs, then secondary mechanisms operate to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. These secondary mechanisms may occur either before or after fertilization. Postfertilization effects would be problematic for some patients, who may desire information about this possibility. This article evaluates the available evidence for the postfertilization effects of oral contraceptives and concludes that good evidence exists to support the hypothesis that the effectiveness of oral contraceptives depends to some degree on postfertilization effects. [in other words, early chemical abortions--proud2brc] However, there are insufficient data to quantitate the relative contribution of postfertilization effects. Despite the lack of quantitative data, the principles of informed consent suggest that patients who may object to any postfertilization loss should be made aware of this information so that they can give fully informed consent for the use of oral contraceptives.<

---

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: Click to Add Keyword

---

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

[BlackElk]

See MHGinTN's #33

[Polycarp]

But in my opinion, Natural Family Planning lends itself very easily to the same contraceptive intentions as artificial contraception. In those cases, it is in violation of the Church's teaching.

I agree completely.