"Am I, or Am I Not.... Pregnant?!"
No, I am not asking this question for myself. Look at my profile; I am a male, and I understand the great improbabilities of a person of my chromosomal make-up actually conceiving a child. I am asking this question on behalf of parents who may be a little confused over this issue. Some people may laugh at this remark and wonder, "Is any woman really in doubt about whether or not she is pregnant?" The answer is "Absolutely Yes." Some of you might want to simplify this question and answer it by telling these women to go buy a pregnancy test or go to their physician and get a blood test and stop tormenting themselves with a question that can be easily answered with available diagnostic techniques. It is true, this has not always been such a difficult question to answer. There once was a time when it was obvious whether or not a woman was pregnant. The characteristic "Absent Period," morning sickness, abnormal food cravings, fainting spells due to gestational orthostatic hypotension (sudden drop in blood pressure upon standing up from a seated position during pregnancy), and if these were not enough, the swollen abdomen was usually an obvious give-away. But for those who were still left in the dark in spite of these clues, there is no denying the pains of actual child birth. However, gone are the days of "obvious" signs of pregnancy. Gone are the days of even going and getting a blood test, or picking up a pregnancy test at the nearest drug store for determining whether or not a woman is pregnant. In spite of all of our advanced biotechnologies which are professed to the layman by the medical and scientific community as being "elucidating," it seems that the answer to this question is still "eluding" many.
So, now that some of us are thoroughly confused; why am I saying this? Well, believe it or not, the question in my heading is actually a very insightful one. At one point in history it would have been seen as the question of knaves and children, but now it is a query that belongs to many highly intelligent men and women. In large part it is due to a change in modern medicine and reproductive biology which breeds this kind of confusion. It is a change that has taken over the scientific community with a silence that is deafening. This change has occurred without notice by most of the general public, and the scientific community has been anything but forthcoming with it's shift. This silent morphing of the scientific community is what I like to call, "The Mute-ation of the Biological Sciences." This silence is characteristic of a movement that has been cementing itself in the minds of many scientific and medical practitioners for about 40 years. The scientific and medical communities think that the average American has no ability to discern the meaning of scientific experimentation and discovery. "The masses cannot be trusted," is the theme of many professionals in these fields. The biological sciences, probably more so than any other field, has become a field of "specialists" and "experts." This broadening of the gap between the "experts" and the "layman" is beginning to look more and more like a case of the "blind leading the blind." But all of the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the so called "experts." When it comes to scientific inquiry the average American has put their brains on the shelf and have accepted, without hesitation, every word from the mouth of self-deified "experts." What If I were to tell you that it is this change which has led to a real confusion over the topic in my heading? This is something of the measure of the great insanity that has become the characteristic of post-modern man. We cannot any longer understand in clear terms what a person, especially in the medical and scientific communities, means when they speak of "pregnancy." There is an old saying of protestant ministers which describes perfectly the situation in which many women find themselves today. It goes like this; "When there is a mist in the pulpit, there will be a fog in the pew." The troubling question of my heading is a product of the great confusion in the medical and scientific community over this once very simple issue. It is a confusion which permeates many other important issues; ranging from Embryonic Stem Cell Research to ART (assisted reproductive technology) to the use of birth control.
How, exactly, has this definition changed? It used to be that when a doctor told a woman she was pregnant there was no confusion over what was intended. There was clear, definite communication. This is because there was no ambiguity in the terms that he used. They were both speaking the same language. Likewise, when a doctor told a woman that she was not pregnant, his meaning was clear. The woman did not walk away in a mental haze wondering what the doctor had just said. For many it was painfully obvious. But now, If a woman were to be told by her physician that she was not pregnant, it would be a legitimate response for her to question what the doctor really meant. Why is this? It is because the medical and scientific community and the average man or woman are, in many cases,no longer speaking the same language. There is no longer an agreement between the doctor and his patient or the scientist and the public concerning what it means to be pregnant. Formerly, when a doctor said that a woman was pregnant he meant, and was understood to mean, that there was a baby (in whatever developmental stage it was in) inside of her. (For now I am going to put aside the fact that there is equal confusion over what constitutes an ovum, a blastocyst, and an embryo, as well as the ways in which these differ from one another). But, now, suddenly, when many physicians tell a woman she is pregnant they are no longer meaning that she has a BABY inside of her. What they mean is that a fertilized egg has implanted in the uterine wall. What does this mean? Well for starters it means that what once was considered to be a pregnant woman is no longer considered to be a pregnant woman. In other words, a woman does not become pregnant until the fertilized egg (the baby) has implanted in the endometrial lining of the uterus. She may have a "fertilized egg" or an "ovum" for almost 72 hours (sometimes longer)migrating down her fallopian tubes, but she is not pregnant (according to the new definition) until the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall. Some may now see this question for what it really is; it is the other side of the coin of the "when does life begin" issue. When viewed from this perspective, it cannot be denied that a shift has taken place in our scientific and medical communities. I am not here going to debate the issue of the evidence for or against any particular view of this topic. However, what I hope to do, is to help unsuspecting people who have already made up their minds concerning the "when does life begin" dilemma, to see through some shifts in the medical and scientific community, or at least to motivate them to think about these things in a more informed manner.
For most of orthodox Christianity life is believed to begin at conception ( When an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm). This is at the heart of the embryonic stem cell research debate. But many Christians do not realize that this is practically the same issue that is at stake when we think about "chemical" birth-control. This was the same conclusion to which the members of the President's Council on Bioethics came as they debated this topic among themselves. This council is made up of the leading scientists, doctors and theologians of our time, many of whom are in favor of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. They too recognize that if one is to oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for research because they are "babies" and not just "inchoate clusters of cells" then he/she must also oppose the use of all known "chemical birth control." This may sound shocking to some Christian men and women who are currently using "the pill" or "the patch" or "the shot" or "the implant" in hopes of avoiding "pregnancy." Many Christians use "chemical" birth control because they believe it will keep them from getting "pregnant." However, this is not a realistic hope, at least not using the "traditional" rather than the "new" definition of pregnancy. All known chemical birth control agents (except spermicides) act in 3 ways. The first way is by changing the chemical make-up of the vaginal mucosa which impedes sperm motility, thereby decreasing the probability of egg fertilization. The second way is by "tricking" the body into thinking that it is already pregnant by mimicking the elevated concentration of serum hormones that occurs during pregnancy , and therefore reducing the likelihood of ovulation. The third way that these chemical birth-control medications act is by making the endometrial lining of the uterine wall inhospitable to a "fertilized egg" (a baby) if one should exist, resulting in spontaneous abortion. Calling these chemical birth-control agents contraceptives is a misnomer because all non-spermicidal chemical birth-control agents are abortifacient as well. It is this third action which is the troubling one. It has been estimated that every woman who has consistently taken birth control, and who has had sex an average of 1 time per week, will have aborted at lest 1 fetus every 3-5 years(Some more, some less). Some people may argue that this third action is most unlikely because the other 2 are about 95% effective in preventing conception. This is completely accurate and has been factored into the estimated number of spontaneous abortions in the statement above. It is the 5% in which these first 2 actions fail to prevent conception that leads to the spontaneous abortion of nascent life.
Some men and women may feel like they have been misled by the scientific community after reading this. I wish I was able to disagree with you, however, I cannot. You might have gone to your physician in an attempt to be responsible parents and simply asked, "What can I take to keep from getting pregnant?" Maybe your doctor then gave you a prescription and you have thought nothing about it since. I hope this essay changes that. Unknown to many Christians the scientific community has already begun to answer some of these moral questions for us, but they are hiding their answers behind the scenes. They have in some cases, such as our topic here, already moved ahead on the basis of their own definitions and have covered their tracks by using "old" and "familiar" terms, but only after evacuating their old and familiar meanings. Someone might ask, "are you saying that the use of chemical birth-control is wrong?!" I hope this is the question that many are asking themselves right now. The answer is, "Yes, for now." What I mean by that is, that the current chemical birth control agents are not permissible for use by Christians as a means to avoid "pregnancy." However, there may be future discoveries which may avoid the aspects of current medicines which make them unbiblical for use as contraceptives. The broader question of "is birth-control, in general right or wrong" is beyond the scope of this essay which is only intended to address the issue of non-spermicidal chemical birth-control agents.
No, I am not asking this question for myself. Look at my profile; I am a male, and I understand the great improbabilities of a person of my chromosomal make-up actually conceiving a child. I am asking this question on behalf of parents who may be a little confused over this issue. Some people may laugh at this remark and wonder, "Is any woman really in doubt about whether or not she is pregnant?" The answer is "Absolutely Yes." Some of you might want to simplify this question and answer it by telling these women to go buy a pregnancy test or go to their physician and get a blood test and stop tormenting themselves with a question that can be easily answered with available diagnostic techniques. It is true, this has not always been such a difficult question to answer. There once was a time when it was obvious whether or not a woman was pregnant. The characteristic "Absent Period," morning sickness, abnormal food cravings, fainting spells due to gestational orthostatic hypotension (sudden drop in blood pressure upon standing up from a seated position during pregnancy), and if these were not enough, the swollen abdomen was usually an obvious give-away. But for those who were still left in the dark in spite of these clues, there is no denying the pains of actual child birth. However, gone are the days of "obvious" signs of pregnancy. Gone are the days of even going and getting a blood test, or picking up a pregnancy test at the nearest drug store for determining whether or not a woman is pregnant. In spite of all of our advanced biotechnologies which are professed to the layman by the medical and scientific community as being "elucidating," it seems that the answer to this question is still "eluding" many.
So, now that some of us are thoroughly confused; why am I saying this? Well, believe it or not, the question in my heading is actually a very insightful one. At one point in history it would have been seen as the question of knaves and children, but now it is a query that belongs to many highly intelligent men and women. In large part it is due to a change in modern medicine and reproductive biology which breeds this kind of confusion. It is a change that has taken over the scientific community with a silence that is deafening. This change has occurred without notice by most of the general public, and the scientific community has been anything but forthcoming with it's shift. This silent morphing of the scientific community is what I like to call, "The Mute-ation of the Biological Sciences." This silence is characteristic of a movement that has been cementing itself in the minds of many scientific and medical practitioners for about 40 years. The scientific and medical communities think that the average American has no ability to discern the meaning of scientific experimentation and discovery. "The masses cannot be trusted," is the theme of many professionals in these fields. The biological sciences, probably more so than any other field, has become a field of "specialists" and "experts." This broadening of the gap between the "experts" and the "layman" is beginning to look more and more like a case of the "blind leading the blind." But all of the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the so called "experts." When it comes to scientific inquiry the average American has put their brains on the shelf and have accepted, without hesitation, every word from the mouth of self-deified "experts." What If I were to tell you that it is this change which has led to a real confusion over the topic in my heading? This is something of the measure of the great insanity that has become the characteristic of post-modern man. We cannot any longer understand in clear terms what a person, especially in the medical and scientific communities, means when they speak of "pregnancy." There is an old saying of protestant ministers which describes perfectly the situation in which many women find themselves today. It goes like this; "When there is a mist in the pulpit, there will be a fog in the pew." The troubling question of my heading is a product of the great confusion in the medical and scientific community over this once very simple issue. It is a confusion which permeates many other important issues; ranging from Embryonic Stem Cell Research to ART (assisted reproductive technology) to the use of birth control.
How, exactly, has this definition changed? It used to be that when a doctor told a woman she was pregnant there was no confusion over what was intended. There was clear, definite communication. This is because there was no ambiguity in the terms that he used. They were both speaking the same language. Likewise, when a doctor told a woman that she was not pregnant, his meaning was clear. The woman did not walk away in a mental haze wondering what the doctor had just said. For many it was painfully obvious. But now, If a woman were to be told by her physician that she was not pregnant, it would be a legitimate response for her to question what the doctor really meant. Why is this? It is because the medical and scientific community and the average man or woman are, in many cases,no longer speaking the same language. There is no longer an agreement between the doctor and his patient or the scientist and the public concerning what it means to be pregnant. Formerly, when a doctor said that a woman was pregnant he meant, and was understood to mean, that there was a baby (in whatever developmental stage it was in) inside of her. (For now I am going to put aside the fact that there is equal confusion over what constitutes an ovum, a blastocyst, and an embryo, as well as the ways in which these differ from one another). But, now, suddenly, when many physicians tell a woman she is pregnant they are no longer meaning that she has a BABY inside of her. What they mean is that a fertilized egg has implanted in the uterine wall. What does this mean? Well for starters it means that what once was considered to be a pregnant woman is no longer considered to be a pregnant woman. In other words, a woman does not become pregnant until the fertilized egg (the baby) has implanted in the endometrial lining of the uterus. She may have a "fertilized egg" or an "ovum" for almost 72 hours (sometimes longer)migrating down her fallopian tubes, but she is not pregnant (according to the new definition) until the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall. Some may now see this question for what it really is; it is the other side of the coin of the "when does life begin" issue. When viewed from this perspective, it cannot be denied that a shift has taken place in our scientific and medical communities. I am not here going to debate the issue of the evidence for or against any particular view of this topic. However, what I hope to do, is to help unsuspecting people who have already made up their minds concerning the "when does life begin" dilemma, to see through some shifts in the medical and scientific community, or at least to motivate them to think about these things in a more informed manner.
For most of orthodox Christianity life is believed to begin at conception ( When an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm). This is at the heart of the embryonic stem cell research debate. But many Christians do not realize that this is practically the same issue that is at stake when we think about "chemical" birth-control. This was the same conclusion to which the members of the President's Council on Bioethics came as they debated this topic among themselves. This council is made up of the leading scientists, doctors and theologians of our time, many of whom are in favor of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. They too recognize that if one is to oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for research because they are "babies" and not just "inchoate clusters of cells" then he/she must also oppose the use of all known "chemical birth control." This may sound shocking to some Christian men and women who are currently using "the pill" or "the patch" or "the shot" or "the implant" in hopes of avoiding "pregnancy." Many Christians use "chemical" birth control because they believe it will keep them from getting "pregnant." However, this is not a realistic hope, at least not using the "traditional" rather than the "new" definition of pregnancy. All known chemical birth control agents (except spermicides) act in 3 ways. The first way is by changing the chemical make-up of the vaginal mucosa which impedes sperm motility, thereby decreasing the probability of egg fertilization. The second way is by "tricking" the body into thinking that it is already pregnant by mimicking the elevated concentration of serum hormones that occurs during pregnancy , and therefore reducing the likelihood of ovulation. The third way that these chemical birth-control medications act is by making the endometrial lining of the uterine wall inhospitable to a "fertilized egg" (a baby) if one should exist, resulting in spontaneous abortion. Calling these chemical birth-control agents contraceptives is a misnomer because all non-spermicidal chemical birth-control agents are abortifacient as well. It is this third action which is the troubling one. It has been estimated that every woman who has consistently taken birth control, and who has had sex an average of 1 time per week, will have aborted at lest 1 fetus every 3-5 years(Some more, some less). Some people may argue that this third action is most unlikely because the other 2 are about 95% effective in preventing conception. This is completely accurate and has been factored into the estimated number of spontaneous abortions in the statement above. It is the 5% in which these first 2 actions fail to prevent conception that leads to the spontaneous abortion of nascent life.
Some men and women may feel like they have been misled by the scientific community after reading this. I wish I was able to disagree with you, however, I cannot. You might have gone to your physician in an attempt to be responsible parents and simply asked, "What can I take to keep from getting pregnant?" Maybe your doctor then gave you a prescription and you have thought nothing about it since. I hope this essay changes that. Unknown to many Christians the scientific community has already begun to answer some of these moral questions for us, but they are hiding their answers behind the scenes. They have in some cases, such as our topic here, already moved ahead on the basis of their own definitions and have covered their tracks by using "old" and "familiar" terms, but only after evacuating their old and familiar meanings. Someone might ask, "are you saying that the use of chemical birth-control is wrong?!" I hope this is the question that many are asking themselves right now. The answer is, "Yes, for now." What I mean by that is, that the current chemical birth control agents are not permissible for use by Christians as a means to avoid "pregnancy." However, there may be future discoveries which may avoid the aspects of current medicines which make them unbiblical for use as contraceptives. The broader question of "is birth-control, in general right or wrong" is beyond the scope of this essay which is only intended to address the issue of non-spermicidal chemical birth-control agents.
posted by Mark Raider at 11:08 AM
2 Comments:
Hey Mark,
I really enjoyed our conversation on this topic last night. Hope you continue to post to your blog. Though it might help to bullet your points or something like that, I got a little lost there at the begining.
Keep up the good work!
Well, Mark, I think that is much needed and well put. There is an Emperor's New Clothes aspect to it all, isn't there?
Keep it up
Post a Comment
<< Home