Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Authored By  :
Published On :
Last Updated :

NOTE: This article or series has not been updated recently. As such, it may possibly contain some outdated information, and/or ideas and beliefs which I no longer embrace, or which have changed to some degree.



As I mentioned at the conclusion of part five, regardless of which method is chosen, birth control or abortion, the end result is still basically the same, because both approaches offer a way to potentially interfere with what may possibly be God's Will; that is, bearing a child. Whether one relies upon contraceptives, or some form of abortion, their obvious intent is to prevent a new human life from being created, or to destroy that life if it has already been created; both of which are more often than not motivated by pure selfishness.

Earlier, we examined some verses in the Book of Exodus that offered us some hints regarding the Lord's view concerning abortion. While at first glance, the Scriptures don't appear to contain any specific commandments regarding birth control, there is one particular story which comes to mind, which may offer us some clues regarding God's views on this issue. It can be found in the thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis, and it deals with the sad tale of a fellow by the name of Onan, who was the second son of Judah. Judah was one of the twelve sons of the Patriarch Jacob.

At that time, Judah left the rest of his brethren and went down and pitched his tent near his Adullamite friend Hirah. Judah caught sight of a particular Canaanite girl, who was the daughter of one Shuah. We are told that Judah engaged in sexual relations with this unnamed daughter, and that it eventually resulted in the birth of three sons to Judah: Er, Onan and Shelah. After they had grown up, Judah obtained a wife for his eldest son, Er, by the name of Tamar. While we don't know exactly what happened, we are told that the Lord slew Er due to his wickedness.

Now, according to Hebrew custom at the time, called "yabam", a brother was supposed to produce an heir for his brother's wife, if that brother were to die prematurely before having any children. So Judah told his son Onan to fulfill "yabam" by marrying Tamar, and having intercourse with her, so that Er's family line would continue. However, Onan knew that it would not be to his personal benefit, being as the child would be named after his brother Er; so rather than fulfill his responsibility to Tamar, we are told that Onan chose to ejaculate on the ground. Here is a part of the story:

"And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also."


So as you can see, Onan selfishly withdrew while engaging in intercourse with Tamar, and ejaculated on the ground. This selfish act angered the Lord, and so He slew Onan just as He had done with his older brother, Er. Onan's selfish actions were quite literally a form of birth control, so we could conclude that this story reveals God's opinion concerning this issue. In fact, today, this practice of withdrawal is referred to as onanism.

However, there is a lot more to this story than what meets the eye. While we could say that the reason why God smote Onan was because he was unwilling to provide his widowed sister-in-law -- now his wife -- with a son so that the line of Er could continue, the deeper story here is that it may be that the Lord was specifically working to preserve the seed of Judah, from which Jesus Christ would eventually be born.

If you take the time to read this story in its entirety, and then look at the genealogies of Jesus, you will discover that after the death of his two sons, Er and Onan, Judah himself unknowingly had sex with Tamar, his daughter-in-law, who set a scheme in motion by disguising herself and pretending to be a harlot. Tamar was apparently one determined woman, and she wanted what was rightfully hers according to their laws.

The reason why Tamar did this is because Judah failed to keep his promise by giving Tamar his youngest son, Shelah, when he became of age. Judah's sexual encounter with this temptress, Tamar, resulted in the birth of Phares and Zerah. It was from Phares' side of the family that the line of King David would eventually arise. It is for this very reason that Jesus is referred to as the son of David, as well as the Root of David and the Lion of the tribe of Judah in the Book of Revelation.

So when all is said and done, we are left with this question: Was Onan's sin that he practiced a form of birth control, and in so doing, refused to provide Tamar with an heir, which was her right according to the law of "yabam", or was it that by selfishly withdrawing, Onan was indirectly refusing to be a part of God's overall Plan of Salvation? I'll leave it to you the reader to make your own determination.

In addition to the cervical cap, diaphragm, spermicide gel, contraceptive sponge, a variety of contraceptive pills, etc., other forms of birth control which are commonly in use today are known as the Rhythm Method, the Standard Days Method and the Fertility Awareness Method. These forms of birth control are used by practicing Roman Catholics. In fact, the Rhythm Method was first developed by a Dutch Roman Catholic doctor by the name of John Smulders. As you may already know, the way that these forms of birth control work is that a married couple will time their sexual intercourse so that it occurs when the wife is least likely to be in a fertile state. The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy teaches that this method is the only morally-acceptable, and more natural, form of birth control. In fact the RCC refers to these methods as Natural Family Planning, or NFP.

While this may offend some people, in my view, birth control is birth control, regardless of which method is used; and no method is more morally-acceptable than any other; because as everyone knows, the goal of all of these methods is the very same; to prevent pregnancy from occurring. It just seems to me that by relying upon these timing methods, Catholics are basically playing a kind of guessing game with God, and are trying to outsmart Him. Just like other worldly people, they want to enjoy sex, but without having it result in another pregnancy, and that is just plain selfishness.

The truth is, that just as occurred with their water baptism doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church found itself in quite a quandary. Due to the teachings of the RCC regarding the issue of birth control, many Roman Catholics were having very large families. As we have already seen, the Bible teaches us that children are a blessing of the Lord; yet at the same time, it is evident that having a large family places a rather heavy financial burden on a husband, particularly during a period when the world is experiencing a financial upheaval, such as at our current time. So what were Roman Catholics to do? How were they supposed to cope? How could Roman Catholics honor the teachings of the pope, and remain good Catholics by not using birth control, while still dealing with the realities of the world and its financial hardships?

Thus, beginning in 1930, a form of relief was developed when physician John Smulders introduced the Rhythm Method. Since that time, the RCC has cautiously permitted similar forms of birth control as well. In short, the Roman Catholic Church has offered some loopholes to its followers which circumvent the prohibition of using birth control pills. As I explain in "Roman Catholicism, Water Baptism And The Trinity", they did basically the same thing with the water baptism doctrine. So many people were dying without having been baptized in water, such as infants, young children, and other loved ones, that the Roman Catholic Church had to begin to make a number of exceptions to its doctrine which states that water baptism is absolutely necessary in order for one to obtain Salvation. I discuss this issue more in-depth in the aforementioned series.

It just seems to me that the fact that Roman Catholics would resort to any of these timing methods demonstrates their lack of faith in the Lord. Rather than simply trust that God knows what is the best situation for them, they are still trying to control the size of their families, regardless of how natural the method may be. As I've said before, if God wants a woman to become pregnant, then she will become pregnant, regardless of which method the couple may use. If the Lord does not want a woman to become pregnant, then she won't. We even find some examples in the Bible where God purposely struck some women barren for various reasons. Sometimes it was just temporary, such as in the case of Abraham's wife, Sarah, who gave birth at the age of ninety, and Jacob's wife, Rachel, who was dealt with by the Lord, as we see here:

"And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi. And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing. And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die. And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?"


In Judges chapter thirteen we also find the story of Manoah's wife. Despite being barren, the Lord eventually blessed her, and she became the mother of the nazarite and Israelite strong man and judge, Samson. In other cases, the Lord cursed certain women by making them barren for life, such as in the case of David's jealous wife, Michal, as we see here:

"And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart. And they brought in the ark of the LORD, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it: and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD. And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts. And he dealt among all the people, even among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine. So all the people departed every one to his house. Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD. And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour. Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."


Sadly, as we saw earlier in this series, despite their best attempts to use these various timing methods in order to keep pregnancy from occurring, in many cases, Roman Catholics, and other Christians as well, have failed, and these methods have not proven to be very reliable. As a direct result, Catholic and Protestant women form the two largest groups of those who are currently obtaining abortions in the United States. So it seems that what Rome deems as morally-acceptable is not quite the same as what the American Roman Catholic laity believes.

What further solidifies my opinion concerning this issue of birth control, is the fact that thanks to French researcher Etienne Beaulieu, there is now a dangerous pill on the market that goes by the commercial name of Mifepristone. Technically referred to as RU 486, this so-called "Morning-After Pill" is not really a method of birth control as some pharmaceutical companies love to claim; it is in fact an abortion-inducing pill, the treatment of which begins the morning after one has had a sexual encounter. The idea of referring to RU 486 as a so-called "Morning-After Pill" is an intentional deception, because this pill is effective during the first seven weeks following a woman's last menstrual cycle. In short, RU 486, or Mifepristone, is just another form of abortion which is being disguised as a form of birth control.

A similar abortion-inducing drug, which likewise began being promoted during the 1980's, is Epostane. To prove that these pills are truly a form of abortion, consider what an article in the October 10, 1988 edition of Time magazine had to say concerning them:

----- Begin Quote -----

The two drugs act in a similar manner, by interfering with the hormone progesterone, which maintains a proper uterine environment for pregnancy. Epostane prevents the ovaries from making progesterone; RU 486 blocks the hormone's activity. In both cases, the uterine lining sloughs off and the embryo is expelled.

Studies of RU 486, which was first incorrectly dubbed the "morning-after pill" when it was discovered in 1982 by French researcher Etienne Beaulieu, have found it to be effective 95% of the time when taken during the first five weeks of pregnancy in conjunction with a prostaglandin, a substance that causes the uterus to contract. According to last week's Journal, Dutch researchers found epostane to be 84% effective in women five to eight weeks pregnant. Suction abortions, the usual surgical method, have a 96%-98% success rate. While both drugs allow women to avoid the dangers of surgery and anesthesia, they do carry a small risk of causing excessive bleeding. Should they fail, surgical abortion would be urged, since the drugs could damage the surviving fetus.

----- End Quote -----

Sadly, two years later, in September of 2000, near the very end of the liberal Clinton Administration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration foolishly cut corners and rushed through the approval of the usage of RU 486 in the United States. In other words, rather than following the established protocol for testing and approving new drugs, the FDA lumped in and approved Mifepristone with other drugs that are designed for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer and AIDS. We must all ask the question: Since when is pregnancy regarded as a life-threatening illness? At this current time, Mifepristone is being manufactured and distributed in the United States under the name "Mifeprex" by a pharmaceutical company called Danco Laboratories. An Associated Press news article at that time confirmed what had been reported by Time magazine two years earlier. It stated in part:

----- Begin Quote -----

RU-486, now known by its chemical name mifepristone, can be used only within 49 days of the beginning of the woman's last menstrual period. The woman takes three mifepristone pills. Two days later, she returns to the doctor to swallow a second drug, misoprostol, that causes uterine contractions to expel the embryo. She returns for a follow-up visit within two weeks to make sure the abortion is complete.

The FDA will allow mifepristone to be distributed only to doctors trained to accurately diagnose the duration of pregnancy and to detect ectopic, or tubal, pregnancies, because those women cannot receive mifepristone.

Also, the FDA restricted mifepristone's use to doctors who can operate in case a surgical abortion is needed to finish the job or in cases of severe bleeding -- or to doctors who have made advance arrangements for a surgeon to provide such care to their patients.

Studies show mifepristone is 92 percent to 95 percent effective in causing early abortion, by blocking action of a hormone essential for maintaining pregnancy. Without that hormone, progesterone, the uterine lining thins so an embryo cannot remain implanted and grow.

The pill-induced abortion can be painful, causing bleeding and nausea. Heavy bleeding is a potentially serious side effect but one the FDA determined is rare. In safety testing of the first 2,100 American women who took mifepristone, four bled enough to need a transfusion.

Health experts say mifepristone won't increase abortions -- that didn't happen in Europe. But the FDA's formal approval may encourage more doctors who don't offer surgical abortions to offer the pill, thus making it easier for women, particularly in rural areas, to get an abortion without traveling hundreds of miles or entering surgical clinics often staked out by protesters.

----- End Quote -----

As the previous excerpts make clear, these pills are not risk free. They can induce severe bleeding which may result in the necessity of a blood transfusion being performed. In fact, as you will see in a moment, Mifepristone, or RU 486, has a very bad track record, and can be deadly.

What I find particularly repulsive is the ungodly attitude, and the obvious lack of respect for the sanctity of human life, that is evident in the latter excerpt. I am referring to the writer's cold reference to the need "to finish the job" in case complications arise. These are unborn, living children that we are talking about; yet to the cold-hearted abortionist, it is just another job so that he can get his pay check. "Well, if the RU 486 fails to work properly, we will just have to 'finish the job' of slaughtering the baby by performing a regular abortion" seems to be the attitude of these cold-hearted monsters.

What I also find troubling about RU 486 is the fact that it adds yet another layer of secrecy to the abortion issue. In other words, it allows millions of women worldwide to murder their babies during the first seven weeks of gestation while making it easier to do so; because they won't have to go to a high-profile abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood center, where they may be vulnerable to attack or criticism by those people who oppose abortion. In other words, because of the legalization of this damnable pill, they will now be able to commit their sin against God more in secret. Because RU 486 only works for a very limited period of a woman's pregnancy, that is, during the first five to seven weeks, no one will ever know that she is aborting her baby, except herself and her doctor. Many women don't even begin to show that early. So as I said, Mifeprex/Mifepristone cloaks abortion in even more secrecy than before.

As the previous excerpts explain, all that these women have to do is visit their doctor; take three Mifepristone pills, return two days later to take another kind of pill, go home, and return two weeks later to make sure the entire fetus has been expelled through the pill-induced miscarriage. But it is not really an accidental miscarriage, it's an intentional chemical-induced abortion, plain and simple. RU 486 creates an environment where the fetus is unable to remain attached to the uterus. The second pill then forces the uterus to expel the fetus in a very painful way.

As I noted a moment ago, Mifepristone is not one hundred per cent safe by any means; and there are serious complications for a small number of women who use it. While the advocates of RU 486 claim that the additional layer of secrecy that is provided by this new form of terrorism against the unborn will not contribute to a rise in the abortion rate, I don't see how this can be true, and I must question their claims. If anything, RU 486 will increase the opportunity for many young girls to obtain an abortion in secret, without their parents ever knowing about it. This seems to be verified by information which I found on the Wikipedia website, which was itself extracted from a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It states in part:

----- Begin Quote -----

Medical abortions as a percentage of total abortions in the United States have increased every year since the approval of mifepristone: 1.0% in 2000, 2.9% in 2001, 5.2% in 2002, 7.9% in 2003, 9.3% in 2004 (14.2% of those less than 9 weeks gestation); although data is limited by eleven states not reporting statistics to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (including California where an estimated >23% of total U.S. abortions were performed in 1997).

----- End Quote -----

In the previous excerpt, the phrase "medical abortions" is referring to the use of drugs, such as RU 486, in order to induce an abortion. As you can see, medical abortions have in fact risen every single year since Mifeprex/Mifepristone was first introduced into the United States and approved by the FDA during liberal President Bill Clinton's watch.

Furthermore, it should also be noted that RU 486 will also contribute to a rise in promiscuity, because the fear of a discovered pregnancy will be mitigated. In other words, the mentality will probably be "Well if the birth control fails, I can just fall back on this new abortion pill in order to abort the fetus before anyone finds out about it." In short, people will be more inclined to engage in promiscuous sex, because they will believe that they have now got all of the bases covered, in case a girl or woman does become pregnant.

Thankfully, Mifepristone/RU 486 has not fared as well in US pharmaceutical markets as had been hoped for and expected. A news article published in the June 20th, 2001 edition of the Maranatha Christian News stated in part:

----- Begin Quote -----

Experts expected the FDA's approval of the pill last fall to revolutionize abortion practices. But with less than a third of Planned Parenthood facilities providing it nationally, and with more women rejecting the complicated procedure of multiple medical visits required for the pill, RU-486's market penetration has been modest.

----- End Quote -----

In fact, a full four years after this dangerous abortion drug was approved by the FDA, a clear picture had begun to develop which clearly reveals that it was a very serious mistake to have ever allowed this hideous form of chemical abortion into the United States. A November, 2004 article in the New York Times states in part:

----- Begin Quote -----

The first woman in the United States whose death was tied to mifepristone suffered a ruptured ectopic pregnancy in September 2001. The F.D.A. has received 676 reports of problems with the drug, including 17 ectopic pregnancies, 72 cases of blood loss so severe that they required transfusions and 7 cases of serious infections, the agency reported.

The death of a California woman in January after she took an abortion pill prompted federal drug regulators on Monday to strengthen the warning label on the drug, RU-486, also known as mifepristone.

The death was the third in the United States that the Food and Drug Administration has linked to the pill since its approval in 2000.

Neither he nor Dr. Summers would disclose any further information about the case, but the latest death is similar to that of Holly Patterson, a woman from the San Francisco area, who died of sepsis after taking mifepristone on Sept. 17, 2003, less than a month after her 18th birthday.

"How many more women have to die before F.D.A. will put women's health and lives above the politics of abortion?" Ms. Wright said.

----- End Quote -----

As I said a moment ago, the legalization of Mifepristone made it even easier for young teenaged pregnant girls to obtain an abortion, without the knowledge or consent of their parents. As a direct result of the tragic death of eighteen year old Holly Patterson in California in September of 2003, a bill, commonly referred to as Holly's Law, but legally known as the RU-486 Suspension and Review Act, was proposed in Congress in 2003 by U.S. Representatives Jim DeMint and Roscoe Bartlett, and Senator Sam Brownback. The explicit purpose of the bill was to further review, and in fact to ban, the use of RU 486 in the United States. Sadly, to date, this bill continues to languish in the U.S. Congress. In their public letter, Monty and Helen Patterson, Holly's parents, described what happened to their young daughter as a "conspiracy of silence". If you would like to read their full letter, please go to this URL:

https://www.godandscience.org/abortion/patterson.html

In spite of the clear, undeniable health threats which are presented by RU 486, Dr. Cynthia Summers, a spokeswoman for Danco Laboratories, the pharmaceutical company that produces and distributes Mifepristone in the United States, had the audacity to state "We believe our drug is not to blame". It is totally unbelievable that this woman would even make such a preposterous claim, in light of overwhelming evidence. To add injury to insult, as of this date, in spite of the risks that Mifepristone presents to pregnant girls and women, it is still legally available in all fifty states, as well as in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the American territory of Guam.

To help you to fully understand the irony of using abortion pills, consider the following. Whenever we read news reports regarding instances where a particular nation resorts to the use of biological or chemical warfare against another nation, we are horrified and appalled. Suddenly, there is a flood of talk regarding genocide and crimes against humanity. We saw this happen in such cases as the trials of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, both of whom are now dead. Yet, strangely enough, at the same time, for almost two decades, (depending on where you live), an unspoken war, and in fact, a secret war against life has been waged, in which millions of unborn children have been cruelly slaughtered in cold blood through the use of chemical agents; that is to say, abortion pills such as Mifepristone. Why does the world condemn dictators, yet ignore similar evil tactics when they are used against the unborn? Do you see something seriously wrong with this picture? Abortion pills amount to secret chemical warfare against the unborn. Period.

As we have already seen, while birth control proponents claim that using some form of birth control reduces the number of pregnancies, statistical evidence points to the fact that the exact opposite holds true. Furthermore, as I have also noted, these same people fail to mention the fact that relying upon birth control encourages widespread promiscuity, which leads not only to more pregnancies, but also to more opportunities for sexually-transmitted diseases to propagate. So in a word, whether we are discussing abortion or birth control, the end results are still the same, and the exact opposite of what both birth control and abortion advocates are claiming.

Considering the harm that certain forms of birth control do to a woman's body, whether it is through inserting some kind of physical object deep into her vagina, or through taking a questionable chemical agent, I personally find all of it very unsettling, repugnant and morally unacceptable. The Lord made a woman's body so that it follows a natural monthly cycle. By introducing artificial chemicals into her body, she's in fact interrupting that natural cycle, causing who-knows-what kind of damage to herself. Personally, as a man, I simply do not feel that I have the right to ask a woman to take that kind of risk. I will admit that on one occasion, not quite twenty years ago, I did make such a request under a very unique set of conditions; however, I will never do it again. In fact, I seriously doubt that such an opportunity will ever present itself again in my life anyway. The reason for this is quite simple. I have been single, as well as a practicing celibate for the past seventeen years by my own personal choice.

My belief is that the only morally-acceptable way to refrain from having any children, is by totally abstaining from sex. You cannot do this if you are not single. If you are married, then obviously, as the Apostle Paul tells us in his Epistles, you are obligated to meet the sexual needs of your partner, even if you do both agree to abstain from a sex for a time. Please refer to some of my other articles if you wish to know more about my views regarding this issue.

Please go to part seven for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.