LifeSiteNews.com

News

New Evangelical Documentary Exposes Abortifacient Qualities of the Birth Control Pill, Promotes NFP

LifeSiteNews.com

By Alex Bush

 

May 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A documentary called “28 Days on the Pill” has been released that seeks expose the abortifacient properties of the birth control pill.  The documentary explains that many forms of birth control pills contain progestins, which thin the endometrium, the walls of the uterus, which in turn causes it to become inhospitable to a conceived ovum.  This inhospitality may cause a newly conceived human being not to implant in the endometrium and cause an abortion

 

The documentary instead promotes the use of Natural Family Planning, which is the use of natural periods of infertility to regulate the number of children a family will have.  “Modern, scientific, Natural Family Planning in every study published today is more effective than the pill, and it doesn't cause abortions,” said Dr. W. Larimore, who was interviewed in the documentary.

 

Larimore told the interviewer that the pill has “unnatural, high doses of steroids, has potential side effects including a potential breast cancer side effect, and may cause an abortion that you won't even know about until you're in heaven.”

 

“On the other side, is modern scientific Natural Family Planning - some call it fertility awareness - that's more effective than the pill, doesn't have the side effects of the pill,” Dr. Larimore said.

 
NFP, he said, “it involves the man and the woman, they have to talk together, they have to pray together, they have to learn together, they have to become one together. No wonder that studies have implied that people who practice NFP have higher satisfaction with marriage, they have more frequent sex, they have more satisfying sex, they have a lower divorce rate.”

 

 “It's because the whole issue of birth spacing becomes a couples issue.”

 

The documentary does state that barrier methods, such as condoms, are truly contraceptive, but that there are differing opinions surrounding the morality of them.

 

The documentary also explores the use of contraception in the Catholic Church.  “One Roman Catholic doctor we talked to said he knew of no Roman Catholic hospital in the United States that did not prescribe [the pill],” said the documentary. “Tremendous pressure can be placed on Roman Catholic doctors to conform.  So what the official teaching is and what is done in practice can be two different things.”

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states in paragraph 2399 that “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”  However, the Catholic Church does allow the use of NFP, provided that the couple is open to becoming pregnant. The Catholic Church also says that couples may only use NFP to intentionally refrain from having a child for a “grave” reason.

 

Dr. Harnisch, another doctor interviewed in “28 Days on the Pill,” said about the pill: “I believe that any time there is a doubt with something as precious life that we should always err on the side of protecting life, rather than saying 'prove to me that that wasn't alive, so it's dead, so what?  How do you know it ever happened?' ”

 

Dr. Larimore said that he used to think that birth control had no abortifacient properties, saying it was “a bunch of rubbish.”  Dr. J. Stanford, who first informed Dr. Larimore about this aspect of the pill, persisted, asking him to prove that the pill was not an abortifacient.  The result was a study called “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent.”  This study showed how birth control pills can cause abortions. The study caused a stir among Christian medical groups, such as the Christian Medical and Dental Association, Focus on the Family's Physicians Research Group, and the Catholic Medical Association.

 

Dr. A. Moell, who was also interviewed, said that when she was taught about contraceptives in medical school, birth control pills were “just another contraceptive, meaning that they prevented conception.”  She was not informed of any abortifacient properties the pill may have.

 

According to “28 Days on the Pill,” the abortifacient qualities of the pill have been hushed up. The film cites the opposition to the study written by Dr Larimore and Stanford.  Dr. Stanford said that “the pro-choice physicians have no problem” with the abortifacient aspects of the pill because they are “comfortable with prescribing the pill and they don't want to reconsider that.”

 

While the thinning of the endometrium is explained to physicians in textbooks and manuals, one of the authors of the documentary who went to a health-unit seeking information on the birth control pill received a fact sheet that neglected to mention the thinning of the endometrium of the uterus as an effect of the pill.

 

According to the documentary, the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties (CPS), the Canadian Pharmacists Association's drug information resource, and the Physicians Desk Reference, the American standard, mentioned the abortifacient qualities of the pill. But the majority of information given to patients fails to mention it.

 

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said that doctors shy away from telling their patients about the abortifacient aspects of the pill because “it could lead to awkward questions and lifestyle changes, and it could also put persons in the position of very deep moral reconsideration of what they've taken for granted since the early 1960s”

 

However, he said that “it is ethically wrong to withhold that information.”

 

“I am always careful to say that I'm not a medical doctor or pharmacist, I'm a theologian and a pastor, and as a pastor, I would never counsel a couple to use the pill,” Dr. Mohler continued.

 

Furthermore, the documentary claims that “much of the medical community has changed its definition for when pregnancy begins, which means any hindering of implantation would not be considered an abortion.”

 

According to L. Powell, a Registered Nurse from London, Ontario, the moment of conception is at implantation of the fertilized ovum in the endometrium.  “I think that is the general consensus,” she said, “It varies from person to person on what conception is.”

 

“28 Days on the Pill” Website:

http://28daysonthepill.com/

 

Related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

 

Planned Parenthood in Hysterics over Bush Memo Defining Abortifacient Contraception as Abortion

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071604.html

 

Target Pharmacist Fired for Refusing to Dispense Abortifacient Morning-After Pill

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jan/06012703.html

 

Pro-Life Groups Publish Pamphlet Exposing Dangers of Abortifacient Birth Control

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/nov/03111002.html

 

Abortifacient Contraceptives

http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/pillabortion_types.html



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Blogs,

Please, enough with the cult of pop stars. Our kids need real heroes.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two things happen each time a significant pop culture figure dies: Christians attempt to dredge up some moderately conservative or traditional thing that figure said at some point during his long career, and mainstream media attempts to convince a society thoroughly bored with such things that the person in question was a ground-breaking radical. The two most recent examples are the androgynous David Bowie—a cringe-worthy and possibly blasphemous video of him dropping to his knees during a rock performance and uttering the Lord’s Prayer circulated just following his death--and the pop star Prince.

I’ve had to suppress my gag reflexes many times as I saw my Facebook newsfeed fill up with memes sporting quotes from Prince about his faith and articles announcing that the musician who “embraced gender fluidity before his time,” according to Slate and “will always be a gay icon” according to The Atlantic, was against gay marriage. Sure, maybe he was. But only a Christian community so shell-shocked by the rapid spread of the rainbow blitzkrieg and the catastrophic erosion of religious liberty would find this remarkable. After all, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said the same thing barely one election cycle ago. As one obituary celebrating Prince’s paradigm-smashing sexual performances written by Dodai Stewart put it:

Dig, if you will, a picture: The year is 1980. Many states still have sodomy laws. The radio is playing feel-good ear candy like Captain and Tennille and KC and the Sunshine Band. TV hits include the sunny, toothy blond shows Three’s Company and Happy Days. There’s no real word for “gender non-conforming.” But here’s what you see: A man. Clearly a man. Hairy, mostly naked body…a satiny bikini bottom. But those eyes. Rimmed in black, like a fantasy belly dancer. The full, pouty lips of a pin-up girl. Long hair. A tiny, svelte thing. Ethnically ambiguous, radiating lust. What is this? A man. Clearly a man. No. Not just a man. A Prince.

Right. So let’s not get too carried away, shall we? I know Christians are desperate to justify their addictions to the pop culture trash that did so much to sweep away Christian values in the first place and I know that latching on to the occasional stray conservative belief that may manifest itself in pop culture figures makes many feel as if perhaps we are not so weird and countercultural, but this bad habit we have of claiming these figures upon their passing is downright damaging.

After all, parents should be teaching their children about real heroes, titans of the faith who changed the world. Heroes of the early church who stood down tyrants, halted gladiatorial combat, and crusaded against injustice in a world where death was all the rage. These men and women were real rebels who stood for real values. If we want to point our children to people they should emulate, we should be handing them books like Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness by the brilliant writer Eric Metaxas rather than the pop albums Purple Rain or Lovesexy by Prince. If parents spend their time glorifying the predecessors of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus instead of highlighting heroes like William Wilberforce, they can hardly be surprised when their children choose to emulate the former rather than the latter.

The mainstream media’s adulation of these pop stars is equally irritating. The unspoken truth of these obituaries is that the flamboyant antics of Prince and the rest of the so-called rebellious drag queens populating the rock n’ roll scene have been mainstream for a long time already. Want to see dozens of bizarre body piercings? Weird hairdos? Purple mohawks? Dudes with nail polish? Strange tattoos? Easy. Just go onto any university campus, or any public high school without a dress code. With headphones wedged firmly in their ear canals, they can pump the cleverly commercialized “counterculture” straight into their skulls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

More than that, some of these courageous rebels have actually sued their employers to ensure that they can let their establishment-smashing freak flag fly at work, too. An Edmonton woman with 22 visible body piercings complained that her employer was unfair because apparently she was being discriminated against “based on body modifications.” Yeah! The Man must be told, after all. And if he doesn’t agree, we will lawyer up. I wonder what the shrieking rebels of the early days would think about the snivelling children of the current grievance culture.

So these days, the media’s eulogizing about aging culture warriors who went mainstream a long time ago rings a bit hollow. After all, most rock n’ roll stars these days look tame compared to what shows up in the children’s section at Pride Week. Freaky is normal now. Normal is radical. Welcome to 2016.

When Christians are posting nostalgic tributes to the rebels who helped inoculate their children against the radical views of Christianity in the first place, you know that the victories of the counterculture are complete and Stockholm syndrome has set in.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Paul McKinnon / Shutterstock.com
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien

News,

Target boycott climbs to over 1 million

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien

April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Over 1 million people have signed a pledge to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms. 

The American Family Association’s Boycott Target petition gained traction immediately, reaching the one million mark in only nine days.

“Corporate America must stop bullying people who disagree with the radical left agenda to remake society into their progressive image,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “#BoycottTarget has resonated with Americans.  Target’s harmful policy poses a danger to women and children; nearly everyone has a mother, wife, daughter or friend who is put in jeopardy by this policy.  Predators and voyeurs would take advantage of the policy to prey on those who are vulnerable.  And it’s clear now that over one million customers agree.”

Target defended its policy in a statement saying that it believes everyone “deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally” and earlier this week, a Target spokeswoman defended the policy as “inclusive.” 

The AFA said that unisex bathrooms are a common-sense alternative to allowing men unfettered access to women’s bathrooms.

“Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex option should be provided,” the petition says. 

The AFA warned that Target’s new policy benefits sexual predators and poses a danger to women and children. 

“With Target publicly boasting that men can enter women's bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?” the petition asked. 

There have been numerous instances of predatory men accessing women’s bathrooms and intimate facilities in the wake of “transgender” bathroom policies allowing them to do so. 

“We want to make it very clear that AFA does not believe the transgender community poses this danger to the wider public,” said Wildmon. “Rather, this misguided and reckless policy provides a possible gateway for predators who are out there.”



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News,

Amazing new video captures the flash of light the moment life begins

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

CHICAGO, April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Life begins with a spark – literally.

Researchers at Northwestern University have documented the striking event in a new video that accompanies a study published this week.

At the moment of conception, the egg releases massive amounts of zinc, which creates a spark that can be seen with the aid of a microscope.

“It was remarkable,” said Teresa Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University's medical school. “To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”

The research team had noted the zinc sparks before in mice eggs but had never observed the process in human beings.

“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization,” Woodruff said, “yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”

One of the researchers, Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O'Halloran, explained the science behind the process in 2014.

“The egg first has to stockpile zinc and then must release some of the zinc to successfully navigate maturation, fertilization and the start of embryogenesis,” he said. “On cue, at the time of fertilization, we see the egg release thousands of packages, each dumping a million zinc atoms, and then it's quiet.”

“Each egg has four or five of these periodic sparks,” O'Halloran said. “It is beautiful to see, orchestrated much like a symphony.”

Since the amount of zinc in an egg correlates with successful implantation and birth, the Northwestern researchers are highlighting that their research may be used to assist in vitro fertilization.

But that raises concerns given the grave moral issues with IVF, which involves creating numerous embryos that are either killed or frozen. Moral theologians also emphasize that IVF is an injustice even for the children who are born as a result, as they are created in a lab rather than in the union of man and woman.

The study may have far-reaching consequences the research team did not intend, such as strengthening public belief in the longstanding scientific consensus that life begins at the moment of conception/fertilization.

Many of those who saw the Northwestern video said it testifies to the beauty of life and the shallow lies that buttress the argument of abortion-on-demand.

“I saw this, and I was blown away by it,” said Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio program Thursday afternoon. “For anybody in the mainstream media to openly admit that life begins at conception” defies arguments that an unborn child is only “tissue mass.”

Researchers released a separate video of the zinc spark taking place in a mammalian egg more than a year ago:

The paper, which is entitled “The Zinc Spark is an Inorganic Signature of Human Egg Activation,” was published by Scientific Reports on April 26.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook