Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Contraception and the beginning of life (part 2)

So here's my response to yesterday's ethical dilemma but here's the heart of my response...(slightly edited version)
"A nice easy question for me. We went through the same issue not long after we were married and so we spent quiet some time looking into it. I talked with a few Christian doctors and got their opinion and I was pointed in the direction of the work by Professor John Guillebaud, who is a leading expert on the subject and helpfully also a believer.

In the end, because there was no medical clarity on the issue from Christian doctors about when they thought life began, we went for what we considered the safest option. It seems that there are several methods of contraception which are fully effective pre-fertilisation (we use cerazette) so I think they can be safely used without worry. I think not only are the chances incredibly small that something post-fertilisation would happen if used responsibly and having done all we can, to trust God with the rest. I don't think we are at risk of aborting and so we're ethically and theologically happy with our choice of contraception. But we did have to switch it because the first one we were on didn't offer that same confidence and the risks of it acting post fertilisation was much higher.

As to when life begins, if I could give the definitive answer on that, I'd be a very famous man. Personally I think its probably at fertilisation, it seems to make the most sense which is why we switched type of pill. Although I think currently medical science makes a better argument for life beginning at implantation, science changes and new discoveries are being formed, which is why I think the first and earliest option is the safest."
I referred her to this article by Professor John Guillebaud writing in the Christian Medical Journal


Blue, with a hint of amber on 12 November 2008 at 13:25 said...

which is why I think the first and earliest option is the safest

I can definitely see the sense in a safety first option.

But how would you qualify that belief with the fact that 30-50% of all fertilised eggs are passed naturally through the system during the menstural process?

Does each fertilised egg have a soul? In which case do 30%-50% of all souls ever created by God never get implanted in the womb, let alone born?

How does that work with the populations of heaven and hell?

Genuine questions. That is the point of blockage for me when looking at it.

Phil on 12 November 2008 at 14:09 said...

Who knows? Perhaps it's implantation - as I said I think there's better medical arguments for thinking life begins then, so choosing a contraception that works prior to implantation is important otherwise you'd definitely have to conclude it has an abortive affect on life. Those contraceptions that work pre-implantation are effective because they principally effect fertilisation so you're covered either way. And as I don't really know for sure when life begins the most effective method which works at the earliest possible stage seems to me to be the best and safest option.

As for souls, I think we should be careful because we apply a form of logic to it and to be honest we just don't know.

Whatever your conclusion it's possible that heaven is going to be populated by millions that were never born (God's justice for all those aborted lives possibly?) so what's a few billion people more for the creator of the universe. It's not like heaven is going to run out of space!!

Post a Comment

Recent posts