Both the birth control pill and the IUD function by inhibiting the implantation of the fertilized egg in the womb, interfering in the development of the fertilized egg. "Pro-lifers" conclude that women who use these artificial methods of birth control are no different from women who have abortions. Through the HLA, many "anti-abortion", "pro-life" advocates intend to deprive women not only of access to abortion but also to the most popular means of artificial birth control. I can only wonder if they believe that both groups of women deserve to die.

      The question "when does life begin?" can have a myriad of answers. Medical, biological, religious, biblical, philosophical, historical, and/or legal arguments can be used to defend or to defeat the idea that life begins at conception, when the heart begins to beat, when the first nerve impulses are present, when brain waves are present, when the 5 senses are fully developed, at quickening (that magical moment when the mother first senses motion of the fetus), and when the fetus becomes viable outside of the mother's womb. For me, part of the answer lies in the answer to the question "when does life end?". Life ends when either the body or the brain cannot sustain itself. While technology can mimic many of the biological functions of life, independent life with a fully functional, vibrant individual ceases when life is not present. Why then are we not consistent and use this argument for defining when life begins? Life then begins when it becomes capable of sustaining itself outside of the mother's womb.

      The notion that interference in the creation of life is an affront to God also deserves comment. Many families have children only through artificial insemination, drugs and surgery for infertility treatment, and in-vitro fertilization. Many healthy children who may have otherwise never have been born alive are here today only due to prenatal care. These medical procedures certainly interfere in the conception and birth of individuals. Are we to use the "pro-life " argument that interference in the creation of life is an affront to God and so to outlaw these medical procedures? Is it any less interference in God's plan for life to treat a child for pneumonia, to treat an adult for a heart condition, to give a diabetic a daily injection of insulin? Would pro-lifers reject life giving medical treatment on the grounds that it is interference in God's plan for life and consequently it is an affront to God? I find the "pro-life" position regarding interference in God's plan for life utterly inconsistent with and repeatedly contradicted by their willingness to support medical intervention in the daily struggle for life. Their argument is utilitarian and specious and should be rejected. The HLA must be repudiated as fraudulent policy based on inconsistent logic.

What can you do?

• To individuals: Spread the message about the true goal of "pro-life" activists.
• Talk to family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues.
• Attend town meetings and candidate forums for members of the school board, local, state, and federal office. Query the speakers about their stand on the human life amendment. Verify that they understand the impact of the HLA on women's access to birth control.
• Write letters to the editor of local newspapers, radio stations, TV stations ,and national magazines which clearly and unambiguously explain the ramifications of the HLA.
• Use Internet bulletin boards and talk radio to get the message out to the general public.
• To local, state, and national NOW presidents: Sponsor a lecture at a local community college about the medical, legal, and theological history of birth control and abortion.
• To National NOW: Perhaps it is time to initiate a series of debates about abortion.Remember, in a debate the advantage goes to the side who chooses the time, place, topic, and speakers.
• To any journalists out there: Write articles discussing the true goal of anti-abortion activists.
• To an interested author/historian: I'll bet that a book on the medical, philosophical, religious, and legal history of abortion from antiquity to the present would be a best seller. Include sections on Babylonia, Ancient Egypt, Palestine, Classical Greece, Classical Rome, Canon Law, and English common Law all of which influenced current theology and law.

PostScript: April 25, 2001

I received several e-mail messages indicating that I was perhaps an alarmist when I wrote this essay. Well, check out this news story on a Law Suit [Which] Claims Using Birth Control Pills Is Abortion.

1) Old Testament Biblical

      The only biblical reference to the termination of a pregnancy occurs in Exodus 21:22. Clearly, when a man causes a woman to miscarry, the penalty is determined by the attitude of the aggrieved party. Although the penalty is subject to judicial review (for reasonableness?), the action in no way is regarded as murder and is not regarded as a matter of interest to the body politic.

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.
                                                            Exodus 21:22 (NRSV)

Sunny, October 20, 1998

2) New Testament Biblical

      In the first century AD, Roman law gave the paterfamilia, the male head-of-household, absolute control over all aspects of his household, including the authority to determine the life and death of all members. The paterfamilia had the right to expose newborns, the right to force women "to take the potion", to drink a drink which induced abortion, and the right to compel their wives to use contraception. Early Christians would surely have been aware of these customs. Although the New Testament unabashedly discusses Christian morality as applied to everyday life, the New Testament is completely silent on these customs: no teachings of Jesus, Paul, or any of the other disciples either condemns or condones these practice. Both armchair and scholarly theologians attempt to assign meaning to the Bible's silence. For me, the Bible's silence on family limitation (contraception, abortion, and infanticide) are truly deafening. The Bible is silent on abortion because its authors considered family limitation decisions too personal for the church to intervene. Surely, if early Christians remained silent about infanticide, the death of a fully functioning individual, little concern would they have manifested toward a fertilized egg. The historical biblical arguments against abortion are very weak; surely precedent is not on the side of its opponents.

3) English Common Law

      For centuries, both English common law and American law (during both colonial and national periods) permitted women to have abortions until quickening. Since the fetus was not considered alive until quickening, pre-quickening abortions carried no particular stigma. To drive their unschooled competitors out of business, in the second half of the 19th century pressure from doctors resulted in laws forbidding abortion during all stages of gestation. Although performing abortions became illegal, having an abortion was not illegal! Since the pre-quickened fetus had no life, abortion was not considered a moral issue and Protestant churches remained silent on the matter. Roe v. Wade, then, mearly returns the law to same position on abortion that the law had for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

4) Catholic theology

The following is a direct quote from U. S. News and World Report, April 10, 1995, page 18:

• Circa 400. St. Augustine declares abortion, though a sin, is not murder since a fetus has no soul.
• 1140. Canon law decrees abortion is murder only when the fetus is fully formed.
• 1588. Pope Sixtus V decrees all abortion and contraception is murder.
• 1591. Pope Gregory XIV annuls 1588 decree.
• 1869. Pope Pius IX declares abortion at any stage is punishable by excommunication.
• 1968. Pope Paul VI forbids all abortions and contraceptions, even for therapeutic reasons.
• 1974. Vatican declares to abort a fetus is to risk murder and is a "grave sin."

5) How would the HLA be enforced?

• Would the birth control pill become an illegal drug?
• Would the birth control pill become illegal to manufacture?
• Would an IUD become an illegal device to own? to use?
• How would the government determine if a woman was using an IUD?
• Could the government force a woman to submit to a search of her uterus?
• Would drugs which mimic RU486 become illegal and the new drugs of choice (pardon the pun)?
• Would all drugs, including some of our most powerful drugs, which induce abortions as a side affect become illegal?
• Would the desire for these drug spawn a new Mafia?
• Is death the appropriate penalty for a woman who has an abortion? for women who use one of the forbidden methods of contraception?
• Would American's learn to hold the constitution and the law in contempt?
• In this overpopulated world, is it moral to encourage woman who remain fertile for 35 to 40 years to forgo birth control? Would this country's population explode?

The human life amendment would only create problems and solve none.

Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 1978, Georgetown University, Collier Macmillan Canada LTD

James C. Mohr, Abortion in America, The Origins and Evolution of Abortion Policy, Oxford University Press, 1978

John M. Riddle, Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance, Harvard University Press, 1992

"But I ask no favors for my sex. I surrender not our claim to equality. All I ask of our brethren is, that they will take their feet from off our necks, and permit us to stand upright on the ground that God has designed us to occupy."

            Sarah Grimke (1792-1873), Quaker minister, abolitionist, and woman's rights advocate in _Letters on the Equality of the Sexes_, Letter II

To the Essays Menu

e-mail sunshine@pinn.net