HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME


image

Baptist Pastor at Southwestern Says Use of Birth Control Pills is Murder

Orginally published on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 7:10 AM
by Todd Rhoades


WFAA.com is reporting: "A Southern Baptist leader and teacher has a message for women: Taking birth control pills is "murder" and a "sin." The opinion of Dr. Thomas White is reverberating around Baptist circles. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth shapes the Baptist pastors of tomorrow, determining the future of the church. That's why Dr. White's sermon earlier this month is getting so much attention. Dr. White is a mentor at the seminary, charged with helping future pastors make the right decisions. But earlier this month, a repentant Dr. White addressed those students.

He confessed that he and his wife had employed birth control pill years earlier. "The reason that we did it was my own selfishness," he said. "I wanted kids, but I wanted kids — not in God's timing, but in my timing." Dr. White now condemns the use of birth control pills, saying, "It's murder of a life." Dr. White condemns the practice because although the pill is supposed to work by preventing the release of an egg, it can also prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall...

“Some of you are involved in that exact same sin,” Dr. White said.

Oh my.

You can read more here...

You can watch White’s sermon here...

What do you think?


This post has been viewed 922 times so far.


  There are 23 Comments:

  • Posted by

    I would assume that the Dr. himself is free from sin since he pointing out the “sin” of others?

    Give me a break, put your stone down Doc, the church has made enough rules and regulations that keep people from God, we don’t need anymore!!

    Thanks for the post Todd.

  • Posted by John Cheatham

    I’ve heard this perspective before. Some birth control pills do that, so he is accurate. Not all do, but in many pills, one of the secondary mechanisms of contraception is “endometrial effects that prevent implantation of an embryo in the uterus” (wikipedia.org). This happens very rarely, but it is a secondary mechanism of many birth control pills (combined estrogen and progestin oral contraceptives). An embryo is a fertilized egg, so many (including myself) believe that is a child.

    Side note to Shane: He’s not just pointing out the sin of others, but his own past sin which he was confessing. He believes this to be beneficial since many have no idea about this mechanism of oral contraceptives.

    Check out this book for more in depth reading: Köstenberger, Andreas J. and David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004. ISBN 1581345801

  • Posted by Brian L.

    This reasoning helped us come to the conclusion that we didn’t want to use the pill, either.

    Not to mention the increased risk of breast cancer, especially in those who have a family history of it.

    I agree with John - he’s not throwing stones.  He’s sharing his conviction and how that conviction affected him as well.

  • Posted by

    I understand what he is saying and where he is coming from.

    Why does he just not say then, this is my personal conviction on this issue instead of calling it a sin, that is the difference I believe.

    Paul said in 1 Corinthians-I have no command from the Lord on this issue but I give you my opinion (1 Cor 8:25).  I am sure we have a dealt with things in our past that we have changed our views/stances on, however when we change our mind/belief that does not make it a sin in someone elses life.  There is a huge difference between your opinion and what the Word of God calls a sin.  I have no issue with him sharing his conviction, just don’t call it sin when the bible is silent in this area.

  • Posted by John Cheatham

    Logically, if it’s a sin to commit murder and the child would survive without the use of the pill and doesn’t because of the pill, then taking the pill in that circumstance is a sin. There’s nothing wrong with calling sin “sin.” He’s trying to educate people on what these pills do, so that less children will be killed. I don’t know how he said it, only how it was reported by WFAA, so I don’t know if he said it in a loving way or not. When I get time, I want to check out his message. I was very surprised when I learned about this in my seminary education. We’d definitely have to check the context to see what he said exactly.

  • Posted by

    shane:

    “I have no issue with him sharing his conviction, just don’t call it sin when the bible is silent in this area.”

    Many forms of birth control contain abortifacients--that is, drugs that do not make the sperm and egg cease from joining, but instead cause the fertilized cell to be aborted and discharged from the woman’s body.  We know, genetically, through modern science, that at the moment of conception where sperm and egg join that a new, unique human being has been created.  So, anything that artificially causes that creation to be destroyed or deprived of physiological needs is killing it.

    The usual definition of artificially ending someone’s life prematurely is, “murder.” This is clearly a sin, and where the minister would be correct in making such a statement.

    Now, if the birth control does not impact the fertilized egg, and instead prohibits sperm and egg from joining, I’ve got no problems with anything there, and that would be something for each individual Christian to consider and prove for themselves.

    --
    CS

  • Posted by Becky Knight

    The clinical definition of a pregnancy is when the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall and the hormonal loop is established. If contraception prevents an egg from implanting, it is still pregnancy prevention, not pregnancy termination.

  • Posted by

    From what I am understanding, the Dr. was/is talking about Birth Control pills and that is what I have responded to specifically, sorry for any mis-understanding.  And as Becky has just stated-BC pills prevent pregnancy, they do not terminate a pregnancy.  Please do not confuse abortion, which is murder and taking a BC pill which simply prevents pregnancy.  Like CS said, the sperm and the egg joining “together” is when life begins, not before. 

    Again I have NO problem with anyone stating their convictions, please do not make it sin issue when in this case it is NOT there.

    Great opinions though, and I enjoy hearing everyone’s views.
    peace

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    The Catholic Church has taken this stance for decades, so have others. It is nothing new.

    But not all forms of birth control pills act this way…

  • Posted by

    My wife and i do not use birth control either, for the same reason.
    now i have a vasectomy…

    I did a lot research on this, and “the pill” or ORTHOTRICYCLENE is meant to prevent the egg from releasing…
    When I tried to ask if it worked as an abortifacient (a substance or device, like an IUD that keeps the fertilized egg from attatching to the uterine wall), no one can answer, or will answer.
    It’s not a sin to explain how the birth control works.... if we say that life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong, than we have to be consistent..... if we take a pill or insert a device that kills a fertilized egg, than is that NOT the same thing as an abortion?
    with “The Pill”, the issue is that the doctor’s and information that I researched could not tell me what impact the medication would have on the uterine wall, or on a fertilized egg if one WAS released…

    i would rather play it safe than sorry, and KNOW that no child conceived by my wife and I would be at risk of death at my own hand…
    if you do not define life at conception but rather at implantation, as many do, than your convictions will be different, but i would encourage you to at least research this for yourself.... rather than slam a man who is trying to present the church with truth and fact.... look at the facts and the truth, and THEN make up your mind about it.

  • Posted by

    You said:
    The clinical definition of a pregnancy is when the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall and the hormonal loop is established. If contraception prevents an egg from implanting, it is still pregnancy prevention, not pregnancy termination.
    ---

    that’s the definition of “pregnancy” not the definition of LIFE… most of us believe that life begins at conception, not implantation…

    there have also been questions raised about that medical definition, and its origin.... some say the medical societies that determined that definition were influenced politically to make the statement.

  • Posted by Peter Hamm

    Some would even say that the medical community believed for centuries (or perhaps millennia) that life begins at conception, and the people who decided that it didn’t were not physicians or scientists, but lawyers.

  • Posted by

    I got a vasectomy 11 years ago, and I kid you not, when my senior pastor and his wife found out I was “reprimanded” for “destroying the temple of God”.  They went on to tell me that by doing so that I was taking God out of the picture in Him blessing us with how many children he had planned for us, etc etc etc…

    Not to change the subject but, have I sinned in getting a vasectomy?

    by the way I am no longer a part of that church smile

  • Posted by Brian L.

    Shane,

    I don’t think you sinned in getting vasectomy.

    One of my concerns lies on the other end of the spectrum - spitting out children because they feel that to limit the number of children in the family is sinful.

    Some people are having children when it is dangerous for both the woman and the child.  The probability of having children with Down Syndrome increases every year after age 35 of the mother.  Issues for the mother begin to creep in as well.

    Someone challenged my wife and I (we have five kiddos, BTW) by saying (pardon the paraphrase - it was a number of years ago), “So are you using birth control or are you going to let the Lord give you as many babies as He wants?” We just smiled and walked away.

    We use birth control, though not the pill or IUD.  We choose to prevent conception, not just implantation, because as mentioned by others above, the CLINICAL definition of pregnancy might be implantation, but I don’t think that’s a Scriptural definition.  And since I’ll be facing God and not the AMA or a heavenly OB-GYN, I’ll go with what I think is the Scriptural position.

  • Posted by

    Brian,

    Great insight and views, appreciate it!

    My wife and I have 4 children, 2 biological and 2 girls we adopted when they were babies now 7 & 6.  Of course we are so blessed to have our kids and are so greatful that God put those 2 baby girls in our lives as well they truly are God’s blessings!  We are still contacted by the agencies we went through to adopt if we would be interested in “another one” as they call it.  There are literally thousands of kids waiting to be adopted throughout our country alone and sadly many of them will not be and will grow up in foster care being passed along from family to family and being discarded when that family can no longer handle them.  Where is the “outrage” from the church on this and why don’t all these “christians” who are in a fit over the pill/birth control doing something about our countries adoption issues and adopting one of these children from a biological parent who chose not to use birth control?  Please don’t use money for an excuse either, it cost my wife and I $50k to adopt our two girls right here from the US, one from Georgia and the other from North Carolina and we went through Christian adoption agencies.  We did not have $50k, yet God provided off my $23k a year pastoral pay and my wife staying at home with our other 2.

    peace

  • Posted by Brian L.

    Hey Shane, we’re foster parents, so we see the pain caused by the bad choices of the parents.  We were hoping to adopt one of our foster children, but a relative stepped up and got to do so.  Maybe in the future!

    I think you and I would agree that the issue goes far beyond contraception.  It goes to helping people see what actually causes babies - and it ain’t the water!

    Tying in with the “have all the babies God gives you,” I wonder how these folks react when teens get pregnant.  Was that God giving the baby to the teen?  I think it was the God-ordained function of the human body - act out the reproductive function, you’re going to get babies.  Pretty simple.

    This is why I disagree with those who feel that pregnancy and birth are “miracles” as they are so often termed.  A miracle is God’s supernatural moving to either suspend or nullify one of the natural process He has put into place.  Pregnancy is a natural process, not a miracle.  A virgin pregnancy (Mary, for example) is a miracle.  A pregnancy in an old, barren woman (Sarah) is a miracle.  There can and are miracles associated with particular pregnancies - such as keeping a child from birth defects, protecting a baby when the mother has been assaulted or abused her own body, etc.

    The base issue we’re discussing here is how to help people make choices that keep pregnancy from happening.

    Sorry for the long-winded response!

    BTW, adoption is pretty much free for those who choose to be licensed foster parents, and what expenses they do incur can sometimes be reimbursed by the state.  And with so many kids in the foster care system, I agree with you Shane, that the Church needs to get on the stick to help these children find loving, Christian families who will display the love of Jesus to a child who feels ignored, neglected, and rejected by the ones who should love them the most.

  • Posted by

    Among the things that make me stop and go, “hmmmm” is that the same individuals who denounce birth control pills on hypotheticals instead of legitimate medical research will also endorse variations of the rhythm method in spite of the clear Biblical teaching that intimate marital relations are to be withheld only for short durations for the purpose of prayer and fasting. 

    Since my oldest child was conceived over 26 years ago while using the pill , based on anecdotal evidence, I don’t accept that the pill at normal prescribed dosage is an abortifacant.

  • Posted by

    an IUD is an abortifacient, and i have several friends that had several babies each using IUD’s....

    just because you had a baby with the pill doesn’t justify it. you were blessed.

    as for the “as many babies as you want"…
    I have four, and my wife was getting sick after each pregnancy (thyroid problems)…
    i felt it would be best to get my vasectomy.
    did it limit God? maybe… but i prayed about it, and felt a peace about it....

    i don’t think the rhythm method is a violation of the “except for prayer and fasting” come on.. that’s awfully literal… do you have sex everyday? with the rhythm, your abstaining maybe three to five days… which is what about the normal frequency anyway. and what if you just fasted and prayed during that time? there ya go. problem solved.....  and most of us that are denouncing “the pill” are not denouncing all birth control… i used a condom for years, despite some people saying I was committing “the sin of Onan"… and i got a vasectomy, which is pretty much the same thing....  we’re speaking against the pill, because the research that’s out there does NOT say whether orthotricyclene functions as an abortifacient....

  • Posted by

    Before I comment I would like to give a few of my credentials.  I was a Director for a Care-Net Pregnancy Center in New Mexico.  I oversaw the day to day operations, training of volunteers, and saw clients.  I am also a mother of seven children.  The first was a “crisis pregnancy” when I was 17. Six of my children are living and one died in utero at 11 weeks.  I have also written numerous papers on abortion, its effects, as well as abstinence education for our teens.There are few who could call themselves more passionate about the unborn than myself. 

    There are two types of pills.  One has a single hormone and these pills only prevent implantation but do not prevent ovulation.  It is usually only prescribe to nursing mothers to prevent pregnancy.  To this type of pill, the above argument can be made.  The second is the most common form of BCP and it has both estrogen and progesterone.  These pills prevent ovulation as well maintain a regular cycle.  The argument here is the POTENTIAL of breakthrough ovulation and failure to implant.  While the pill can make the uterine lining less favorable for implantation, it is does not necessarily always make it so.  In fact, this situation is less likely to happen than an early miscarriage by a non-BCP user.  Secondly, many things in a woman’s life can make the uterine lining unfavorable, such as over the counter medicines, alcohol, hormonal imbalance, vigorous excercise etc.  In these cases a fertilized egg in a non-BCP user would also not implant and would result in an early miscarriage.  The woman would most likely not even know she had a fertilized egg and would have her normal cycle.

    So then the argument is do we condemn all activity that could POTENTIALLY harm a fertilized egg that was not planned?  Of course not.  But when it comes to BCPs there are many who unilaterally condemn their use.  Many women, such as myself, have hormonal imbalances, that render the rhythm method useless.  I do not use BCPs because of these imbalances.  While the follow on article states in an email Dr. White does not condemn other forms of birth control, he did not make this clear in the message. In fact, his comment about wanting kids but not in God’s timing would lead one to conclude he is against all forms of birth control.

    Sometimes pregnancy is the consequence of reckless behavior.  I lost a good friend who subscribed to the theory that all BC is living outside of God’s will.  She paid with her life for this belief when her uterus ruptured on her 8th baby.  The baby also died.  To tell women that using BCPs is a sin is also reckless and hurtful.  I also think that with all the information out there, that a sermon was no place to have this discussion.  It is too complicated of a science matter to have in a 30 minute sermon. 

    One last note.  Even the National Right to Life organization, the largest Pro-Life organization in the US, takes no stand on birth control.

  • Posted by

    One of the potential futures seen by some liberals is where because of the chance that the pill may cause the loss of a fertilised egg; that the pill and some other forms of birth control may be outlawed by an imbalanced conservative judiciary.
    The discussion here, and the original sermon itself, lend credence to these fears.  If there were ever a constitutional amendment which stated that life began at conception, then forms of BC which prevent implantation would constitute murder.  If life was defined as beginning at implantation, then all forms of stem-cell research would be permissable.  Neither definition of the beginning of life match biblical accounts though.  Very complicated - definately above my pay grade.

  • I didn’t get how can it be termed as a murder before the actual beginning of creation of a babie’s life.

  • This is strange. My request includes the word eggs, but I was expecting receipt of other information.
    But okay, we will read it.

  • The pill can not be considered murder. We live in the modern world. Therefore, mortality and fertility must be controlled. All the more so in underdeveloped countries.

  • Page 1 of 1 pages

Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: