How Poor Knowledge of Hormonal Contraception Weakens the Pro-Life Position
Dean Withers’ “Surrounded” segment where he argues against the position that “abortion is immoral or not justified” highlights why pro-lifers need to become more educated on contraception.
Contraceptionists have long known that some methods can act as abortifacients, including hormonal contraception and IUDs.
Abortionists have no philosophical or moral reason to separate contraceptives and abortion.
But they have a political reason.
They know that if this connection is acknowledged, then contraceptives would be rejected by the pro-lifers along with abortion outright.
But every so often, an abortionist will say the quiet part out loud if it serves their purpose. Dean Withers does exactly that when he recognizes the IUD as an abortifacient.
Why would he tell the truth if it’s politically threatening to contraception? Because it also effectively weakens the pro-lifers stance on abortion.
Withers’ opponent, Micah, first gets in trouble when he appears unfamiliar with how an intra-uterine device (IUD) works. Micah then agrees with Withers that some women are murderers if the IUD causes an abortion. Dean then proposes that pro-lifers must believe that women using some forms of birth control should go to jail if they wish to be consistent.
See the Youtube video here at 1:34:00
Dean’s argument goes like this: You believe murder is wrong. You believe abortions are murder. You are against abortion. The IUD sometimes murders babies. But you don’t believe women using them should go to jail. Therefore, either abortions must not murder babies, or you are inconsistent in your beliefs.
Dean also uses this argument with Charlie Kirk prompting Charlie to say “that’s actually the best point that somebody made.” (at time 00:10)
This kind of argument with its lack of nuance gets pro-lifers flustered.
First let’s look at what Dean gets right.
He correctly argues that sometimes certain forms of contraception create an environment that will terminate a pregnancy process after conception. He is also right that pro-lifers have not fully thought through the implications of rejecting abortion but allowing for contraception that is sometimes abortifacient.
Here’s what Dean gets wrong.
Murder is not simply the killing of an innocent. It is the unjustified and intentional killing of an innocent. And in the context of abortion and contraception, I would also add the word “unnecessary.” If an abortion or contraceptives are not somehow medically indicated and necessary to protect the life of the mother, then the use of either is unnecessary.
The pill was the first medication to be mass prescribed which neither cures or prevents a disease. Pregnancy is not a medical disease.
Next, Dean fails to acknowledge that intentionality is important when assessing the ethics of using contraception that is potentially abortifacient.
1st degree murder must include intention and premeditation, while 3rd degree murder is characterized by recklessness or inattention. And if the unintentional killing is due to negligence versus recklessness, it’s involuntary manslaughter.
If abortion is murder, then it’s 1st degree. With potentially abortifacient contraceptives, there may be no intent to kill a child, but a child may be killed. If the IUD is murder, then for the uninformed and dis-informed, it’s probably more akin to 3rd degree. If the IUD is not murder, it’s more akin to involuntary manslaughter when it causes pre-clinical loss or miscarriage.
But pro-lifers shouldn’t want to put women in jail for using contraception, and Micah carelessly allowed this perception.
Dean also draws an arbitrary line in the sand to reflect when he believes human life should have value. He chooses some concept of 1st person subjective experience, or consciousness, hearkening back to “quickening” concepts that pre-date Roe. The “arbitrary line in the sand” argument is weak despite its ongoing use to pass legislation.
Dean’s opponent attempted to show that Dean’s argument failed the “Level of Development” prong of the classic SLED test used by pro-lifers. But it was lost on Dean because Micah allowed the “murder” language to stand for both abortion and the IUD.
The answer that he should have given Dean is the answer that so many pro-lifers are unprepared to make:
Yes, the IUD is an unacceptable method of contraception because of its abortifacient properties.
In fact, all forms of hormonal contraception are potentially abortifacient.
Despite claims of “primary” or “secondary” modes of action, all hormonal contraception was designed to have a single and sole mechanism of action: manipulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis.
It’s an endocrine disruptor. It breaks the normally functioning hormone system at the level of the hypothalamus from the top down. It has cascading effects throughout the menstruation and pregnancy process in the proliferative and luteal phase.
In other words, when conception occurs, it has not only post-fertilization effects, but also pre-fertlization effects that can lead to poor pregnancy outcomes.
Many pro-lifers don’t understand the abortifacient risk of some contraceptives. And that’s the problem.
The general public has been in the dark for decades as to what hormonal contraception is actually doing to women’s bodies and their children.
There’s a reason the pill has been called the largest and longest running uncontrolled human experiment in history.
We’ve been told we don’t have the data to answer the most important questions, and we can’t get the data for a multitude of reasons.
But we have more data now than ever thanks to decades of IVF research. And while it may be fruit of a poisonous tree, this new data may help us answer old questions surrounding the ethics and acceptability of using hormonal contraception.
Pro-lifers must be ready for arguments like the one made by Dean. That means developing a better understanding of hormonal contraception.
If not, an otherwise strong pro-life position will wither.