Science in Christian Perspective
A Protestant Affirmation on the Control of Human Reproduction*
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL SOCIETY
Responses by Claude Stipe, Richard H. Bube, Earl J. Reeves and Russell L. Mixter
From: JASA 22 (June 1970): 46-47.
INTRODUCTION
The Document entitled "A Protestant Affirmation on the Control
of Human Reproduction"
emerged as the written consensus of twenty-five evangelical scholars
who participated
in an interdenominational consultation known as "A Protestant Symposium on
the Control of Human Reproduction." The Symposium convened from August 27
to 31, 1968. The consultation was interdisciplinary. Scholars in
theology, medicine,
law and sociology deliberated together during the greater part of the sessions.
Unidisciplinary committees on theology and medicine also functioned
independently
and drafted sections of the Affirmation for submission to the final
plenary sessions.
The theological committee wrote Part 1, Theological Basis. The
medical committee
prepared Part II, Principles of the Christian Physician and Part Ill.
Guidelines
to, Professional Practice. All these parts were adopted in plenary session with
minor modifications resulting in part from sociological and legal
considerations.
A development worthy of mention was the remarkable agreement between
the Theological
Basis and the Principles of the Christian Physician when each part was drafted
independently by two of the major disciplines represented at the
Symposium. Rather
than merge Part I and Part II, it was decided to leave each intact as
a subsection
of the Affirmation in order to emphasize the extent of agreement which had been
achieved.
This document does not claim to be "The Protestant
view..., but is "A Protestant Affirmation... The
scholars at the symposium represented the conservative or evangelical position
within Protestantism. While there was considerable diversity in denominational
background and professional discipline among the authors of the
Affirmation, they
shared a common acceptance of the Bible as the final authority on
moral issues.
A PROTESTANT AFFIRMATION
I. THEOLOGICAL BASIS
Prologue
We affirm that ultimate values come from God through biblical revelation rather
than from the human situation alone. For some questions the Scriptures provide
specific answers. For example, the Bible affirms that marriage is sacred, and
prohibits sexual intercourse outside that relationship. On other
issues the Bible
speaks primarily through principles such as the sacredness and value of human
life, and the need to act in love for God and man. Where specific answers are
lacking Christians acting under the authority of Scripture may differ from one
another in the conclusions they reach because different weight may be given to
different principles.
The Christian is obligated to understand as fully as possible the problems that
confront him and to enunciate clearly the biblical principles
underlying his efforts
to resolve them. He recognizes that the will of God may become known to him more fully through discussion and interaction with men of
like faith. Therefore, while a symposium can provide information and direction
it cannot speak with binding authority in any instance. Each man is ultimately
responsible before God for his own actions and he cannot relinquish
this responsibility
to others no matter how qualified they may appear to be.
The Character of Sexual Intercourse as a Means of Procreation and as
an Expression
of Fellowship in Married Love.
Sexual intercourse is a gift of God and is to be expressed and experienced only
within the marriage relationship. In this act husband and wife become
one flesh.
Marriage is ennobled by God and is likened in Scripture to the union
between Christ
and His Church. Coitus includes the purposes of companionship and fulfillment,
as well as procreation. Any marriage which does not seek to fulfill
all of these
sexual functions constitutes an incomplete relationship. The Bible teaches that
procreation is one purpose of marriage and considers children to be an evidence
of God's blessing. The Biblical norm is productivity for all of
nature, including
man. It gives the sense not of a static balance but of a dynamic and abundant
creation.
Procreation, however, is not the sole purpose of the sexual relationship even
as coitus is not the sole component of the marriage relationship. God intended
sexual intercourse to be continued and to be enjoyed even if
procreation is impossible.
Therefore procreation need not be the immediate intent of husband and wife in
the sex act. Coitus may be simply the expression of love and a mutual
fulfillment
of normal desires.
The Prevention of Conception
Because of the Christian's high view of the sexual relationship, contraception
often presents complicated ethical questions. This is true whether
the individual
employs so-called natural means (coitus interruptus and rhythm), or
methods made
possible by medical science.
The Bible does not expressly prohibit contraception but it does set
forth certain
abiding principles such as the sanctity of life, the command to multiply, and
the mutual obligation of husband and wife to satisfy each other's
sexual needs.
The prevention of conception is not in itself forbidden or sinful providing the
reasons for it are in harmony with the total revelation of God for
married life.
Disease, psychological debility, the number of children already in the family,
and financial capability are among the factors determining whether
pregnancy should
be prevented. The method of preventing pregnancy is not so much a religious as
a scientific and medical question to be determined in consultation with one's
physician. Of all the methods of contraception, sterilization presents the most
difficult decision because it impairs the creative activity God has
given to man
and is usually irreversible. Yet there may be times when a Christian may allow
himself (or herself) to be sterilized for compelling reasons which
outweigh these.
Induced Abortion, the Fetus and Human Responsibility'
Abortion confronts the Christian with the most perplexing questions of all: Is
induced abortion permissible
and if so, under what conditions? If it is permissible in some instances is the
act of intervention still sinful? Can abortion then be justified by
the principle
of tragic moral choice in which a lesser evil is chosen to avoid a greater one?
As to whether or not the performance of an induced abortion is always sinful we
are not agreed, but about the necessity and permissibility for it under certain
circumstances we are in accord.
The Christian physician who is asked to perform an abortion will seek
to discover
the will of God in this as in every other area of his life. He needs
divine guidance
for himself in his practice and for counseling his patients. The physician, in
making a decision regarding abortion, should take into account the
following principles:
1) The human fetus is not merely a mass of cells or an organic growth. At the most, it is an actual human life or at the least, a potential and developing human life. For this reason the physician with a regard for the value and sacredness of human fife will exercise great caution in advising an abortion.
2) The Christian physician will advise induced abortion only to safeguard greater values sanctioned by Scripture. These values should include individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility.
From the moment of birth, the infant is a human being with all the rights which Scripture accords to all human beings; therefore infanticide under any circumstances must be condemned.
Christian Conscience, Natural Law and Legal Authority
The Scriptures inform us that all men are bound by God's moral law.
To this fact,
the universal phenomenon of conscience beers witness. Because of sin, men are
severely limited in their ability to perceive the content of this
law. Apart from
the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit, men tend to equate it with the
mores of their particular culture. Nor do we believe that ethical judgments can
be used on the situation alone. While the individual must consider the circumstances present in each situation, his
ethical decision should be controlled by Biblical principles.
The fallenness of human nature requires the guidance of laws. Such laws are for
the benefit of society and should be administered in recognition of
the authority
of God as the Supreme law giver. Harmful pressures easily result from
the codification
of law in a way that is either too authoritarian or too permissive.
The Christian maintains that in avoiding legalism on the one hand and license
on the other, the prescriptions of legal codes should not be permitted to usurp
the authority of the Christian conscience informed by Scripture.
II. PRINCIPLES OF THE CHRISTIAN PHYSICIAN IN THE CONTROL OF HUMAN
REPRODUCTION
The rendering of guidance is basic to a physician's concern and effective work.
This may well result in the confession to the patient or colleagues of his view
of life as a Christian. In the realm of the control of human reproduction, his
view of Christian life is reflected in the following Biblical principles:
Sanctity of Family Life
1) The sanctity of marriage as a God-given institution.
It is lifelong and secure in love. Husband and wife live for each other end in
God's service.
2) Children are God's gift, born into the love and security
of family for nurture and training.
Responsibility, Fulfillment, Self-discipline and Divine Grace in
Sexual Relationship.
1) The sexual relationship is a good gift from God to
mankind, but this, as all of God's good gifts, has been marred by the effects
of sin on human thought, will and action. The forgiveness and the grace of God
are a constant human need.
2) Sexual intercourse is rightly confined
to marriage.
Therefore, fornication, adultery and prostitution with
3) Sexual intercourse is to be undertaken with understanding and consideration
of one marriage partner for the other.
Preservation of God-Given Life
1) It is the duty of physicians to preserve human life and the integrity of the
human body.
2) Physicians are called upon to maintain and restore the health of the whole
man.
Mitigation of the Effects of Evil
1) We live in a world pervaded by evil. Human relationships become distorted;
unwanted children are born into the world; genetic defects are not uncommon and
harmful social conditions abound. Therefore, it is the duty of Christians to be
compassionate to individuals and to seek responsibility to mitigate the effects
of evil when possible, in accordance with the above principles.
2) When principles conflict, the preservation of fetal life or the integrity of
the human body may have to be abandoned in order to maintain full and
secure family
life.
III. GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE2
The Prevention of Conception
The Symposium on the Control of Human Reproduction affirms the role
of the physician
in the support of the integrity of the family. The partners in marriage should
have the privilege of determining the number of children they wish to have in
their family. The physician should cooperate by providing counselling, taking
into consideration both medical and moral factors. It is recognized
that at times
permanent sterilization, either male or female, may be indicated.
If contraception is indicated, the physician should assist in
selecting the best
available method for this purpose. Although better and simpler
contraceptive techniques
are expected to be developed in the foreseeable future, in some countries, the
intrauterine device (I.U.D.) is expected to be the contraceptive
method of choice
for some time.
The single person seeking contraceptive advice requires concerned counselling
by the physician. If he provides contraceptive agents, he participates in the
intent of their use.
Induced (Therapeutic) Abortion
The sanctity of life must be considered when the question of abortion
is raised.
At whatever stage of gestation one considers the developing embryo or fetus to
be human, even at birth, the potential great value of the developing
intra-uterine
life cannot be denied. There may, however, be compelling reasons why abortion
must be considered under certain circumstances. Each case should be considered
individually, taking into account the various factors involved and
using Christian
principles of ethics. Suitable cases for abortion would
fall within the scope of the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists
Statement on Therapeutic Abortion. However, we believe that
sociological pressures
that justify abortion rarely occur in isolation. We do not construe
the A.C.O.G.
Statement as an endorsement of abortion for convenience only, or on demand.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement on
Therapeutic
Abortion
Termination of pregnancy by therapeutic abortion is, a medical
procedure. It must
be performed only in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on
Accreditation
of Hospitals and by a licensed physician qualified to perform such
operations.
Therapeutic abortion is permitted only with the informed consent of the patient
and her husband, or herself if unmarried, or of her nearest relative it she is
under the age of consent. No patient should be compelled to undergo,
or s physician
to perform, a therapeutic abortion it either has ethical, religious
or any other
objections to it.
A consultative opinion must be obtained from at least two licensed physicians
other than the one who is to perform the procedure. This opinion should state
that the procedure is medically indicated. The consultants may act separately
or as a special committee. One consultant should be a qualified
obstetrician-gynecologist
and one should have special competence in the medical area in which the medical
indications for the procedure reside.
Therapeutic abortion may be performed for the following established
medical indications:
1. When continuation of the pregnancy may threaten the life of the
woman or seriously
impair her health. In determining whether or not there is such risk to health,
account may be taken of the patient's total environment, actual or reasonably
foreseeable.
2. When pregnancy has resulted from rape or incest: in this
case the same medical criteria should be employed in evaluation of the patient.
3. When continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in
the birth of a child with grave physical deformities or mental retardation.
Approved by the Executive Board, May, 1968.
Changes in the state laws on therapeutic abortion that will permit honesty in
the application of established criteria and the principles enunciated in this
statement should be encouraged. Provisions should be included to
protect the physician
from legal action or medical liability should he refuse to perform
the operation
because he finds a particular abortion to be against his moral standards.
Fetal Indications for Prevention of Conception and for Therapeutic
Abortion with
Specific Reference to Genetic Considerations.
Much human suffering can be alleviated by preventing the birth of
children where
there is a predictable high risk of genetic disease or abnormality.
This appears
to be a proper Christian objective.
An accurate diagnosis of genetic detect and statement of risk for
subsequent pregnancies
can often be based on examination of a single affected child.
(Multiple abnormalities
in a family are not essential to establish indications for
intervention.) In some
conditions a significant risk can be determined prior to the production of any
children, through
evaluation of the family history and laboratory tests. The assistance
of a consultant
who is a specialist in human genetics is required.
When a genetic problem is encountered the physician should point out
the implications
for subsequent pregnancies. The parents should be helped to
understand the medical,
emotional, and financial problems involved in rearing a child with a congenital
disease. The shortterm consequences of contraception and sterilization should
be explored. The family may wish to consider other factors, and the
decision concerning
additional pregnancies should be left to the parents. If
contraception is attempted
but fails, the risk of severe defect in the child might constitute a
fetal indication
for abortion. The couple may prefer voluntary sterilization for husband or wife
(the choice depending on the specitc case). We find that principles of care for
the individual and society on which we have agreed to be in accord
with generally
accepted precepts of sound clinical genetics.
When an affected individual is not mentally competent to make
decisions for himself,
the genetic problems should be made clear to the guardian or guardians. In such
circumstances, involuntary sterilization could be considered upon the request
and express permission of the guardians.
The Christian in an Over-Populated World
The control of human reproduction demands the attention of Christians from the
standpoint of the desperate needs not only of individuals and families but also
of nations and people. This Affirmation acknowledges the need for the
discriminating
involvement of Christian people in programs of population control at home and
abroad, so that the services or counsel rendered may conform both
professionally
and ethically with the principles embodied in this Affirmation. It is
emphasized,
however, that participation in programs of population control should
be in response
to requests for help from the states or communities involved.
FOOTNOTES
1. Unless otherwise specified, when the word "abortion"
without qualification
is used in the text, induced abortion and not spontaneous abortion is intended.
In addition, unless otherwise specified, the word fetus is used in reference to
the developing life from the time of conception until birth.
2. The physician must always be the captain of the health-care team. Therefore,
specific reference is made to him in this section. Nevertheless,
these guidelines
apply in general to other members of the team. The underlying principles also
apply to practitioners of other professions who assist families in
making decisions.
SOME THEOLOGICAL ISSUES
Claude E. Stipe
Associate Professor of Anthropology Marquette University
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
From: JASA 22 (June 1970): 47-48.
My few comments and questions will be restricted
to some statements included in the section of Theological Basis. Although a statement of this type must of necessity he very general,
such generality often obscures important issues.
Is Sin Ever Permissible?
I am disturbed with the possible implications of the statement
"As to whether
or not the performance of an induced abortion is always sinful we are
not agreed,
but about the necessity and permissibility for it under certain circumstances
we are in accord." Would those who believe that abortion is always sinful
also maintain that sin may be both necessary and permissible? Is sin
ever permissible
from Cod's perspective? Are acts per se sinful, regardless of motivation?
How Is Will of God Determined?
It is also stated that the Christian physician who is asked to
perform an abortion
will seek to discover the will of Cod, not only for his own decision, but also
in order to counsel his patients. How would the physician determine the will of
Cod in any specific instance? If one physician decides that it is not the will
of Cod for him to perform an abortion in a particular case and another physician feels free to perform it, what then is the
will of Cod for the family in question?
Abortion vs. Infanticide
Although there is not complete agreement, a fetus is considered to be, "at
the most ... an actual human life or at the least, a potential and developing
human life." Why then do all agree that abortion is permissible in certain
circumstances, but that "infanticide under any circumstances
must be condemned?"
Is a pre-natal "actual human life" that different from one
after birth?
Why is a human being accorded "all the rights which Scripture accords to
all human beings" (unfortunately these rights are not
identified) immediately
after birth, but not before it? Why is it "Christian" to
abort the fetus
of a potentially normal person but sinful to kill a newly born infant
who is too
retarded mentally to ever he able to experience those "rights?"
Induced abortion is to be advised only to safeguard "greater
values sanctioned
by Scripture," among which are "individual health, family
welfare, and
social responsibility." How does one determine that these latter
values are
greater than the life of a fetus? If they are, then why do they all
suddenly become
subordinate to the life of an infant? On what basis is the hierarchy of values
changed when the "human being" is born into the world, as opposed to
his existence before that event?
Conscience
The universal phenomenon of conscience is said to bear witness to the fact that
all men are bound by God's moral law. It would he more correct to say that the
existence of conscience
hears witness to the importance of cultural training. It is a human
characteristic
to feel "guilty" for having acted in ways contrary to one's cultural
perscriptions. To state that "apart from the guidance of Scripture and the
Holy Spirit, men tend to equate it [natural law] with the mores of
their particular
culture," fails to recognize that all Christians equate God's
law (or will)
with their own cultural mores. Not only does "Christian conscience"
differ from one culture to another, but also from one American
Christian sub-culture
to another. As a result, different groups are convinced that it is "God's
will for Christians to act (or to abstain from acting) in certain ways, while
the issue is irrelevant to other Christian groups. "Under the guidance of
the Holy Spirit" people arrive at opposite conclusions, for
example, whether
or not the possible impairment of the
mother's health makes abortion permissible. Which of these
conclusions is in accord
with natural law? In a culture in which the "sanctity of human life"
is not emphasized as strongly as in ours, infanticide might well he considered
necessary for the health and welfare of those family members who
already are struggling
to stay alive on an insufficient amount of food.
I certainly appreciate the effort of theologians to attempt a
Christian statement
on this important issue. Possibly a major problem is that they have attempted
to base it on Scripture without overtly recognizing that many of the
values expressed
in the statement are actually part of their cultural training, which are then
often "validated" by "guidance" from the Scripture and the
Holy Spirit.
ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS
Richard H. Bube
Professor of Materials Science and
Electrical Engineering
Stanford University Stanford,
California 94305
From: JASA 22 (June 1970): 49-51
All life is a marvel; only human life is considered sacred. We do not hesitate
to kill cows for food, although in other parts of the world this is
unthinkable.
Animals who are friends to man, such as dogs and cats, are afforded a position
of greater value at least in our culture, presumably because of their
association
with human life. Much of one's attitude is culturedetermined. The
Christian community
has consistently upheld the sanctity of human life in a unique way, in spite of
those inconsistent records of the church's commendation of killing in support
of itself. But the question is, "What is human life?"
Defining Human
Webster's dictionary says that "human" means "characteristic of
man." Of "man" the dictionary says, "art individual of the
highest type of animal existing or known to have existed, differing from other
high types of animals, esp. in his extraordinary mental development." To
be human then is to exercise the faculties made possible by this extraordinary
mental development. It is this development that makes possihle
insight, rational
thinking, conscience, hope, Codconsciousness, awe, reverence, appreciation for
beauty, self-consciousness and the desire for understanding, to name
just a few.
A chimpanzee is not human. Yet a one-year old chimpanzee displays
more "human-like"
characteristics than a one-year old infant. It is recognized that the one-year
old infant has the potentiality to become human, whereas the
chimpanzee does not.
We give to the child the value placed upon an individual who will in the normal
course of events exhibit the qualities of humanity; he is a potential human. We
withhold from the chimpanzee the value placed upon a potential human, because
in the normal course of events
it is impossible for him to exhibit the qualities of humanity at any time. The
value we attribute to the life of the infant, or to the unborn fetus,
is an imputed
value, held in expectation of what the fetus or the infant can become.
A very old person who is the victim of advanced senility may live in
the condition
of an unthinking creature. He exhibits none of the human qualities associated
with extraordinary mental development. The same could he said of a person who
has suffered grave and permanent brain damage. His mental faculties have ceased
to function; in a real sense they are dead. The value we attribute to such an
elderly victim of senility or to the victim of brain damage is an
imputed value,
held in memory of what the elderly or injured person once was. He
once was' human;
his humanity can be remembered.
What shall we say of the creature born into the world with grave brain damage?
It has no potential for humanity; it has no past of humanity. If we define it
as human, we are saying in effect that any creature born of a human being is a
human being. What is the meaning of such an affirmation?
In an exact sense of the word, neither the fetus nor the senile is human. (We
shall not press the other variations mentioned above further at this time.) If
we are to contemplate ending the existence of the fetus, we must consistently
consider ending the existence of the senile. In fact, the life of the fetus may
he regarded as having the far greater value; it represents the potentiality for
human development. The life of the senile is virtually at an end;
only the memory
of his humanity remains.
The Soul
These considerations are closely connected to the question, "When does the
unique spiritual quality of man (soul) come into being?" This question can
be coupled with a second similar to it, "When does the unique
spiritual quality
of man pass out of existence (either end, or undergo transformation)?"
The question, "When does a man's soul come into being?"
cannot be answered.
It is in the class of meaningless questions. It incorrectly assumes that a time can be set for the event under inquiry, and that a man's soul
has a certain
timeless identity independent of his body. These two assumptions are discussed
in what follows.
To make it possible to set a time for the coming into existence of
soul, it would
be necessary that there be two well-defined states: the soul-less and
the soul-full.
This use of the word "soul" cannot be related to the world as it is.
Every living creature possesses aspects of those attributes we associate with
the concept of "soul." A cat has "sour': a cat's "soul.' A
dog has "sour': a dog's "soul." By this we mean simply that the
characteristics associated with soul in terms of a description of life on the
"spiritual" level are at least partially present also in
cats and dogs.
They are not identical with "human souls", however, for the
entire being
(physical, biological, psychological etc.) of a cat or dog falls short of the
capabilities and potentialities of the entire being of a man. The soul of any
creature is commensurate with the total development of that creature. Thus the
fetus has a "fetus' sour' and a senile man has a "senile soul."
But language becomes meaningless if these "souls" are identified with
the "human soul." The quality we call "soul" is
not an either-or
situation. We can maintain properly that there is "soul" present from
conception to death, but if so we then have to ask ourselves what it is we have
really affirmed. We can watch as the "fetus' soul" develops into the
"human soul," but we cannot ask when the human soul came.
We can watch
as the "human soul" degrades into the "senile soul;" can we
ask when the human soul went?
Continuity of "I"
What is meant when we speak of "I," as though the 'I" of today
is the same as the "I" of a decade ago or of a decade hence? What is
there in common between the child of five and the man of fifty? Is the man, who
in his wisdom would avoid the sins of the child, still guilty for the youthful
misdemeanors? Is the child, who in his naivete is not capable of the crimes of
the man, still guilty for the sins he may one day commit? Take away the tie of
memory, and what identity is left between the man and the boy? Does a victim of
amnesia respond to a movie of himself in childhood in any other way except that
of indifferent non-recognition? There is only one common link between the man
and the boy: they are both the embodiment of a specific biological life system
at two different times during its life. Whether they are necessarily both the
embodiment of the same psychological or spiritual life system is not so easily
decided. If the man develops from the boy in the normal course of
events, memory
affirms the common root.
But suppose that something happened to that boy in the course of his
life: a severe
accident that affected the working of his brain and altered his personality. In
what sense is the link of continuous personality now present? Is the
"I"
before the accident the same as the "I" after the accident? Or shall
we say that the "I" before the accident died, and that the
"I"
after the accident was born at that time? But then we would have two
personalities,
two "I's", evidenced by embodiment in a single life system, and even
our definition given above to link a person at two stages of life would prove
deficient.
In some sense the experience of Christian conversion can be related to these considerations. The event of
regeneration is pictured
as a creative act of God, a second birth, whereby a new element to
the "I"
is brought into being (e.g., Romans 71:15-32). The "I"
after conversion
is not the same as the "I" before conversion; the latter has been and
is being in some sense put to death, while the former is newly born. Conversion
not only saves a man's soul, it also changes it.
Summary
What is the point of this discussion? Two conclusions may be made. (1) Issues
in the area of Christian ethics, whether in abortion, euthanasia or
mental illness,
cannot be resolved on the assumption of a changeless identity that
exists partially
or completely independently of the physical, biological and
psychological "body"
of this life and then passes away from the body upon death. Nor can
they be resolved
by assuming that distinctions can be made between soulless and soul-full states
of living existence. (2) Any concept of a soul-identity that
transcends the specific
physical embodiment at a given time and condition must be attributed
to a creative
act of God beyond the experiences of life in this world. If a "soul"
is to exist after the death of the body-in particular in the
"interval"
between an individual's death and the resurrection (if it is
meaningful to speak
of such an "interval") -it must be a "soul" newly created
by God, since the soul that we see, experience and deal with in this
life is intimately
and indissolubly related to the health and life of the body.
AN EVANGELICAL POSITION ON BIRTH CONTROL
Earl J. Reeves
Department of Political Science
University of Missouri
St. Louis,
Missouri
Reprinted Irons Birth Control and the Christian, W. 0. Spitser and C.
L. Saylor,
Editors, Tyndale House, Wheaton. Illinois (1969) Pp. 192-194.
From: JASA 22 (June 1970): 50-51.
Abstention
In seeking to formulate an evangelical position on birth control it
may he helpful
to group the various methods into three basic categories-abstention,
prevention,
and abortion. Abstention, which includes late marriage, periodic abstention (or
rhythm), and celibacy, has traditionally been regarded as an acceptable method
for Roman Catholics. But in general, abstention is a highly unreliable method
for restraining the population explosion. Late marriage may limit the number of
child-bearing opportunities if it is accompanied by pre-marital abstinence. But
given the strength of the sex drive, it may simply increase the temptation for
pre-marital intercourse and result in an increase in illegitimate
children. Likewise,
celibacy if accompanied by sexual abstinence removes some units from
the population
production line. But the number of such persons is far too small to
make any significant change in the rate of population increase.
Within the marriage relationship complete abstention from intercourse
is not only
unnatural but contrary to Paul's warning in I Corinthians 7:5 that husbands and
wives should be careful not to deny one another the sexual rights of marriage
lest they he tempted into unfaithfulness. And even the practice of
periodic abstention,
while perhaps better than no family planning at all, is both unreliable and for
many people unpleasant. The precise counting of days and keeping of charts that
is required to give any hope of success would seem to most observers, including
many Roman Catholics, to he so cumbersome and mechanical as to destroy much of
the normal enjoyment of the sexual act.
Contraception
Therefore, the evangelical Christian would probably not regard abstinence as a
very realistic or even particularly desirable method of birth control. This is
especially true in view of the improvements which have been made in mechanical
and chemical contraception. If one accepts the general Protestant
viewpoint that
the creation of one flesh through the sexual relationship is both natural and
desirable even when procreation is not the basic purpose, then there
would appear
to be no particular moral or religious basis to prevent the
evangelical Christian
from using any of the generally accepted means of preventing conception. Even
coitus interruptus, though it may be rejected on aesthetic grounds or regarded
as an unpleasant interruption of a natural process, would not seem to
be morally
objectionable. In contrast to Roman Catholic teaching, for example, the sin of
Onan is best understood as resulting not from the use of coitus interruptus but
from his disobedience to Cod's direct commandment to raise up seed in
his brother's
name. And the sin would have been just as great if he had abstained
from the sex
relationship completely.
In general there would appear to be no Scriptural reason to deny a
married couple
the right to use any of the standard mechanical or chemical methods
of preventing
pregnancy. Even the question of the possibility of destroying life by
destroying
a fertilized egg through an IUD or a pill seems likely to he dismissed by most
evangelicals as a highly theoretical and legalistic controversy.
Even the development of a "morning after" pill would seem
to be a real
boon for mankind and therefore, should he welcomed rather than condemned. The
fact that it could be taken after intercourse would permit a tailoring of the
use of the pill to the requirements of specific individual patterns, especially
for those who have intercourse rarely or irregularly. It would
eliminate the necessity
for taking a regular cycle of pills and might provide a method that
could be exported
most easily to the underdeveloped areas where population control is
most desperately
needed. It would also be a far more acceptable solution to the
problem of pregnancies
resulting from rape than that provided by abortion.
Abortion
It is in fact this last category of population control through
abortion (defined
as destruction of the embryo or fetus after conception has occurred)
that represents
the most difficult moral challenge. There is a strong movement both internationally and in the United States toward legalized
abortion for certain cases, particularly where the mother's life is endangered
by the pregnancy or for victims of rape. The American Medical Women's
Association,
for example, in their convention in November 1966 joined with the
American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Law Institute in
urging limited
legalized abortion. They note that there are an estimated one million abortions
performed in the United States each year and few of them are
performed under sanitary
medical conditions. Therefore, they recommend that licensed hospitals
be permitted
to provide abortions in cases where there is substantial danger to the mother's
mental or physical health, where there is strong probability that the
child will
be born with severe mental or physical abnormality, or where the pregnancy is
the result of rape or incest. The State of Colorado has adopted a law
which permits
abortion, and serious consideration is currently being given to similar moves
in several other state legislatures. Where they are designed to provide careful
medical and legal controls, such laws may be desirable if they are used only in
extreme emergencies. In general, however, abortion should not be considered as
a significant device for limiting population and its widespread use
for that purpose
represents a very callous disregard for human life.
OTHER LITERATURE
R. L. Mixter
Professor of Zoology Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois 60187
From: JASA 22 (June 1970): 52-53.
The Journal has commented on the problems mentioned in A Protestant Affirmation on the Control of
Human Reproduction in several issues.
The March 1962 Journal
discussed the population
problem as it was presented at the 1961 convention at Houghton
College and agreed
in most respects with the present Affirmation. But a note of disagreement with
the use of the "command to multiply" occurred in the Dec. 1966 issue
where Ivan Howard of Asbury Seminary declared, "It is significant that the
command to populate the earth was given only twice, and each time when it was
without inhabitants." I conclude one is not now ordered by
Scripture to have
children, although I consider it a privilege to have them.
A pessimistic note is sounded on the future of the population-food problem. In
the review of William and Paul Paddock's book Famine-1975! America's Decision:
Who Will Survive? this paragraph by Wilbur Bullock is significant, "In a
carefully documented presentation, they demonstrate that the
population-food collision
is inevitable. None of the methods now in use or under consideration,
individually
or collectively, are capable of controlling world population in the
near future.
Due to the impossibility of an immediate increase in agricultural production, in proportion to the population
increase, the
hungry nations of today will inevitably be the starving nations of
the next decade.
There is no hope to avert this disaster. Synthetic foods,
hydroponics, desalinization,
the ocean, fertilizers, plant breeding, irrigation, land reform,
government support,
private enterprise, or any "unknown" panacea cannot
possibly contribute
enough in time. Neither can the developed nations avert the disaster. Only the
United States will be able to provide any help, and our resources are totally
inadequate to feed the world of 1975."
The former book review editor, Marlin Kreider, in
reviewing J. C. Monsma's hook, Religion and Birth
Control, summed up this symposium of Protestant physicians in these
words, "The
general points of at least partial agreement among the Protestant
physicians could
be stated as follows: "Contraception control is not contrary to
the 'Natural
law'; abortion (therapeutic) is justified only if the mother's life
is threatened;
sterilization (generally of the woman) may be justified for a number of reasons
if it will contribute to the health and happiness of the family;
artificial insemination
of semen from the husband may be acceptable but there is a serious
question about
semen from other, even unidentified, males. A section on natural
childbirth presented
divergent viewpoints."
Many of you have seen the excellent issue of Christianity Today, Nov. 8, 1968,
on Contraception and Abortion. I note the differing views as to when
life begins
and consider its analysis necessary in deciding on when abortion is
permissible.
This affirmation and its expansion in the volume on The Control of
Human Reproduction
from Tyndale House are commended to each thoughtful Christian who counsels on
this important matter.