In praise of vasectomies
Posted by: marv in marriage, human sexuality, birth control on
Oct 30, 2008
A Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor has compared a form of birth control to murder. He's wrong on so many levels.
Thomas White, who teaches systematic theology at the Fort Worth school preached about birth control in a seminary chapel service this fall. (Here is a link to the story on our website.)
White told seminary students use of birth-control pills is “wrong,” “not correct according to Scripture” and, in some cases, “murder of a life.” The "murder" happens when the pill prevents a fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus seven days after the sperm and egg unite. “The seventh day is seven days too long, and it’s murder of a life,” he declared. “When the egg and the sperm meet, you have life."
Life and soul
Granted, many of us believe life begins at conception. But people of goodwill and faithful intent disagree on when that moment occurs. Is it when the sperm fertilizes the egg? Or is it when the ovum implants into the uterus wall, where it can sustain nourishment and grow?
White said the single fertilized, un-implanted egg has a soul and is a person. He has every right to believe that. Millions do. But to use language like "murder" to describe prevention of implantation oversteps the professor's bounds. (Ironically, as he acknowledges, he didn't become convicted of this belief until after pregnancy no longer was inconvenient in his marriage.)
Abortion is one of the most divisive issues—maybe the most divisive issue—in America. We don't need Baptist seminary professors calling all women who use the pill murderers.
More birth control sinning
But, unfortunately, White didn't stop there. He compared birth control to lack of faith in God, noting: “Folks, you are not in control of your destinies—God is. And the sooner we recognize that we are sinning when we say, ‘I am going to control every aspect of my family’ and we’re not giving control to God, we don’t trust him, we don’t believe that he knows better than we do—we think we know more than God does ...."
That's an awfully cock-sure approach to the will of God. Sometimes, God wants us to take responsibility for ourselves and for the outcomes of our actions and possible actions. To follow White's logic, pedestrians should run across expressways and drivers should ignore traffic lights, because if God wants them to get across the road, they will.
Besides theological arrogance and illogic, White reflects poor pastoral leadership, and maybe even misogyny, plus disregard for stewardship of the earth.
A woman's story ...
A friend and mother of three sent me a poignant e-mail after she read the story. She wrote, in part, "The simple fact is that if we hadn't used birth control, or if (her husband) had not had a vasectomy, then I have no doubt I would have had children every year from the time we got married until almost the present day, or I would have died because my body just broke down. We were just that fertile."
So, White claims this good and godly faithful Christian woman sinned rather than bear children year after year. His assertion ignores the real physical burden on women of bearing large numbers of children. It is insensitive to the yearning for intimacy that God built into human sexuality. And by implicitly affirming that U.S. Christian couples produce large families, it affirms crippling dissipation of the earth's resources, since American families already consume a disproportionate share of food, water and energy.
Get a vasectomy
Still, I'm ironically glad White brought this up. It provides me with an opportunity to affirm the best long-term solution to birth control—the vasectomy.
For too long, too many men have placed the burden of contraception on women. The pill often presents detrimental side-effects, which only women bear. When a condom breaks, then the woman has to bear another baby. And you know what they call couples who practice the rhythm method. Parents.
Husband, if you and your wife have had all the children you intend to have and you're still of child-bearing age, do your part. Get a vasectomy. It's a whole lot easier on your body than the pill is on your wife's. And you're no less a man just because you no longer can get a woman pregnant. In fact, most women probably would say you're more of a man for owning up to your responsiblity.
Don't believe me? Ask your wife.
Subscribe to this comment's feedwritten by Achilles, November 01, 2008
There is a problem with birth control in a wider sense though on at least two different fronts. One is that by lowering the cost (broadly defined) of engaging in extra-marital sex, then we should expect to see more casual, extra marital sex, and that is what we do see. Abortion, which is primarily used as ex post birth control, compounds this problem. Needless to say, sex outside of marriage is not something that we want to encourage on biblical grounds as well as for practical reasons--STD's, emotional damage to the participants in the form of higher rates of depression especially among females, loosening marital bonds, out of wedlock pregnancies.
Second, greater use of birth control has dramatically lowered the birth rates for the native populations of developed countries--U.S.,
Europe, Japan, South Korea, to near the vanishing point. It is very possible that entire nationalities will go extinct or approach extinction in Europe over the next one-hundred years. It is a grave mistake to believe that the world is overpopulated. The problem of overpopulation is not so much an issue of sheer numbers but of Third World populations growing faster than the economic means of supporting them. First World countries' native populations are not expanding but shrinking dramatically. This "birth dearth" will create conditions in Europe much more severe than the Black Death inflicted on the social and economic development of Europe. In fact, Europe may very well come to an end. The United States' situation is just as bleak.
While these unintended consequences of birth control do not entail that birth control should be banned or not practiced by morally sensitive married couples, it does mean that we should re-examine very carefully unexamined assumptions surrounding these issues.
written by jim2703, November 03, 2008
That is not to say that the theological principles of the Church are not well thought out. There is extreme logical consistency in their dogma. If the willfull prevention of a birth is wrong, then the willfull prevention of a pregnancy is just as wrong. Many couples with children are horrified by the thought that one of their children could have been aborted. They give little thought to the reality that by practicing birth control they have prevented the birth of several more children just as wonderful as the ones they have. The Catholic Church did give that a lot of thought, and the result is a sanction against the prevention of a pregnancy. The iron logic of the Church's appoach to this issue leads to some very extreme dictates. In cases where the mother's life is endangered by a pregnancy or during birth, the lives of mother and fetus are considered equal and that it is up to God to decide if one or both are to live or die. This iron logic does not take into account other children in the family who need their mother or the love of a husband for his wife. This seems both cruel and inhumane, but logic is logic.
Southern Baptists need to return to the position they held for so many years. That position was that abortion on demand is wrong, but there are situations where it should be allowed. Those include the life or health of the mother, rape and incest. Authorities need to extend mercy when it is needed. Blind adherence to iron logic can have devastating consequences.
written by Achilles, November 03, 2008
Your characterization of the pro-life position as based on the "iron logic" of the following line of thinking is false: "If the willfull prevention of a birth is wrong, then the willfull prevention of a pregnancy is just as wrong." There is a big difference between actively killing an existing human being and preventing a child from being conceived. I am not in the process of conceiving a child right now as I write these remarks, but that is hardly on the same moral level as going out of my house and killing the first child that I see. Abortion is the same morally as the latter scenario. I would agree that abortion can be a necessary evil if the mother's life or health (in a serious way, not as courts have defined 'health') is jeopardized by a pregnancy. The principle that allows for abortion in these cases is self-defense. I would also agree that if the woman did not consent to sex, then she bears no responsibility for the life of the child.
As I said in my previous comments on the sermon by Dr. White, there needs to be a careful consideration of birth control due to a number of factors, but I would agree that Dr. White's characterization of using the birth control pill as "murder" is a gross overstatement. Incidentally, my previous comments do not show up on my screen with Marv's article now no matter how I access it.
Incidentally, I do not see my remarks that I posted earlier on Marv's editorial no matter how I access this page.
written by marv, November 03, 2008
written by jim2703, November 03, 2008
I don't think I was setting up a straw man. I don't agree with the Catholic position on birth control. I was simply pointing out that the Catholic prohibition of non natural birth control is a part of a logical continuum that begins with a potential human life and prohibits any interference with that potential becoming a reality.
written by Achilles, November 03, 2008
Even though I do see rationality and consistency as goods, I do appreciate the existentialist emphasis on paradox and apparent incoherence as an individual faces a real life situation. Perhaps, that is part of what you were getting at in your post that I may have misunderstood. I do not think that particular aspect of Christian life is at stake in the theoretical consideration of whether or when abortion might be justified and when it might not be. For the people involved in a real life case, the girl or woman, the father, the parents, an unexpected pregnancy can certainly affect any or all involved in a way as disorienting psychologically and existentially as anything Roquentin encountered in Sartre's *Nausea.* So, I would agree that the theological and philosophical positions that we have hammered out purely on rational grounds must not prevent us from encountering people who are thrown into horrible moral dilemmas with compassion as we refuse to reduce their personal struggles to a mere formula.
I have to say that I do see in many "fundamentalists" a mindset that is inflexible, obtuse, and lacking in an appreciation of where another (or even themselves) might be in a particular moment as a fallen individual thrown into an all too human predicament. Those of us who take the Bible as historically, philosophically, and existentially compelling must guard against reducing a person's struggle to a simple set of propositions. You are correct, I am sorry to say, in recognizing this bone-headed tendency in many Evangelical Christians who are sincerely trying to follow the principles that God gave us to live by. There needs to be some pragmatic, flexible common sense along with an appreciation for the absurd introduced into their habits of thought to offset their overly programmatic, legalistic tendencies.
I have seen this tendency come out in situations that fall short of an episode in a Sartre novel. For example, I was exercising at Wicker Gym at First Baptist Church of Dallas just a couple of weeks ago when they closed at their normal closing time of 8 p.m. I normally leave right on time. This night, though, they had a basketball game going that would require at least one of the monitors to remain well past the normal closing time. I had about five minutes to go on the cross-country ski machine when one of the monitors started turning off all of the equipment and told me to leave. I asked if I could finish, and he said no emphatically. I asked if the Gym was closing and would be locked up. He would not answer the question directly. But the basketball game was going to keep at least one of them there past the closing time. That appeal to a bit of flexibility in allowing me to finish fell on deaf ears. I asked the other monitor as I was going out the door about the situation. I asked him why I could not finish even though the entire Gym would remain open. He responded by quoting me the contract that I had signed respecting the hours of operation. He finally admitted that it would have been reasonable for me to have finished, but that was too late for me to want to remain in such an environment. I could go on with other seemingly trivial examples of such a mindset, but these encounters can poison people against Christianity. We need to correct this defect as soon as possible.
Was your friend breastfeeding and worrying about the return of fertility? An international team of fertility experts has published the findings years ago but so many couples don't know--but the knowledge is available. Our creator didn't punish us with our fertility - indeed, it is very good. The people are so willing to share with you: Creighton, Couple to Couple League, Billings - in the U.S. and SERENA in Canada. Natural Family Planning makes room for God in the equation.