“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.”

Ps. 127:3

“…let them have dominion…”

Gen. 1:26

“unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim…”  “Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well;”

Gen. 46:20; 49:22

.

.

Subsections

Is “Be fruitful & multiply” a Command?
When Life Begins

.

.

Order of Contents

Contraception  6
Birth Control Pill  3
.     Side Effects  4
Permanent Sterilization  1
History  8+
Biblio  1

.

.

On Avoiding or Preventing Conception, or using Contraceptives

Articles

2000’s

Peman, Matt – ‘Does the Bible Permit Birth Control?’ [Yes]  (2006) at Desiring God

Perman says “John Piper and most of the pastors on staff [at their church] believe that non-abortive forms of birth control are permissible.”  He helpfully argues natural family planning need not be preferred to contraceptives, and responds to three objections:

1. Are not children a gift from the Lord?
2. God ought to determine the size of our family
3. Birth control is a lack of faith in God

Grisanti, Michael A. – ‘Birth Control & the Christian: Recent Discussion & Basic Suggestions’  in Masters Seminary Journal, 23/1 (Spring 2012), pp. 85–112

Andy Naselli has called this the “best overall” treatment of the issue out of 18 leading Christian writings. Grisanti is a professor of Old Testament at The Master’s Seminary.

This article is a very good, objective, footnoted, overview survey of the history of the topic, of the various positions, arguments and the methods of birth control (including morally acceptable vs. not).  He gives an overview of the debate whether “the pill” is an abortifacient.  He leaves the matter of preventing conception to “Biblical wisdom” and gives helpful Scriptural principles for guidance.

“…the Bible never provides an implicit or explicit condemnation of birth control.  Does the Bible condone or endorse birth control anywhere?  There are no biblical passages that model or encourage birth control.”- p. 109

Hollinger, Dennis P. – ‘The Ethics of Contraception: A Theological Assessment’  in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 56/4 (2013), pp. 683–96

This is very good and argues for the lawfulness of contraceptives.  Hollinger gives a historical overview of contraception and then analyzes these main arguments against contraceptives:

1. Biblical arguments
2. Guilt by association
3. Nature of sex

Hollinger then gives a “theological rational for contraception,” including these principles:

1. Divine providence, nature, and human stewardship
2. Multiple ends or purposes of sex

Hollinger: “…we can embrace contraception, not to justify our self-centeredness or sexual appetites, but rather to properly carry out our role as human creatures appointed as God’s viceroys on this earth.  With the framework of stewardship in nature and the multiple purposes of sex, contraception can be employed for the glory of God, as long as the methods employed do not destroy life or harm the mother, child or the relationship.

The issue at stake here is not just what couples do with regards to contraceptive methods.  It is also how we think about the issue.  Thinking shaped by an understanding of stewardship in relation to nature, and by a commitment to the multiple purposes of sex in which they are held together, allows us to employ contraceptives, not as a means of autonomous control, but as a stewardship for God’s glory, the building-up of the church and service to the human race.” – p. 696

Barth, Paul – ‘Contraception,’ pt. 1 (Abortifacients, Health Risks, Societal Factors), 2 (Dominion, Purposes of Marriage), 3 (Barrenness, Elderly, Natural Family Planning), 4 (Onanism)  (2015)  at Purely Presbyerian

Barth is an esteemed, quality reformed writer, however, these articles are not recommended, but are here for reference as embodying one of the best (qualified) cases against taking actions seeking to prevent conception (even Natural Family Planning).

.

Response to Barth by Travis Fentiman

To only respond to a few things due to the importance of the issue, in twelve points, Barth states in pt. 4:

 “…we will summarize the argument:

Premise 1: … The purposes of marriage are threefold (WCF 24.2):

1) The mutual help of husband and wife (Gen. 2:18);
2) The increase of mankind/procreation (Gen. 1:28), and of the Church with an holy seed (Mal. 2:15);
3) Preventing of uncleanness (1 Cor. 7:2 & 9).

Premise 2: Any act against any of the purposes of marriage is necessarily sinful.

Conclusion: Contraception acts against purpose 2 and is therefore sinful.”

(1) Barth changes what Westminster says a bit when he references it.  Significantly, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) does not speak of “procreation,” but rather that marriage is “for,” amongst other things, “the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue…” (24.2)  It does not say that marriage was instituted so every married couple should have a legitimate issue, but that “mankind” would (which it does), and that mankind would “increase” by means of marriage (which it has).  The Westminster Confession was a consensus document, allowing and encompassing in this case a breadth of many differing views,¹ in great contrast to the strictures that Romanists had long traditionally placed on the purposes of marriage and moral acts within it.

¹ Westminster’s wording even allows for a view common to some in the Early Church, such as Ambrose, Jerome and many Christian Ascetics, who:

“…believed that the time for procreation lay in the past when the earth still needed to be filled with people [but it was no longer a relevantly obliging command]…” David Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy & Heresy in Ancient Christianity (OUP, 2007), p. 34

Yet Barth regularly uses the term “procreation” such that actions are not to intentially deviate from the couple conceiving in every circumstance.  If such was a strict purpose of marriage for every intercourse of sex, it is inexplicable why in the normal, natural, married state, sex at certain times is incapable of producing children, such as in pregnancy and after menopause (which sex Barth allows for as moral on other grounds).  Clearly the Author of nature did not intend procreation to be essential to every sexual intercourse.

(2) Nor is an act apart from or without one of those purposes of marriage necessarily an act against those purposes of marriage, precisely because positive obligations need not (and cannot) be done in every circumstance, as Westminster Larger Catechism #99 rightly states (which principles were previously long current through Christian history):

“5. That what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what He commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.”

Not every act of “preventing life” is an act “of cruelty,” as Greg Price, quoted by Barth in pt. 3, premises, especially when the life does not exist.

(3) A Christian married couple, say, temporarily using natural family planning, condoms, etc. may be doing this for their mutual help and have fulfilled, or will fulfill (at least in intention if not actually due to incapability) the purpose of procreating and increasing “the Chuch with an holy seed.”¹  If a couple fulfills marriage’s larger purposes in their larger ongoing actions, not every particular action needs to go to procreating more, especially when such would go against “the mutual help of husband and wife.”  Yes, that is true (see responses seven and eleven below).  Some general purposes of marriage, in some circumstances, outweigh and subordinate others, or recede in priority and give way to others.

¹ Note, however, even here, marriage “was ordained for…  the increase of…  the Church with an holy seed,” which marriage does do, though not necessarily through every particular couple or each of their specific acts (especially as some couples cannot have kids).

(4) Barth states, speaking of Onan (Gen. 38):

“he exchanged ‘the natural use of the woman’ (Rom. 1:27) for an unnatural spilling of his seed.  His case is relevant to all married couples because the Bible assumes that procreation is a natural result and fundamental purpose of marriage.”

Not every action (even acute ones) against a (possibly very significant) lesser natural design or purpose, for a greater good, is necessarily sinful (Mt. 18:8).  God said that we have dominion (unto good purposes) over the natural, material world (Gen. 1:26).  In mowing one’s lawn, one is cutting against the natural design of grass growing, and we may do this for our own benefit and pleasure.  We can cut our hair and fingernails, despite their natural tendency for growing long, for the same reasons.  Approved instances in everyday life are numberless and cannot be avoided by the person that tries (because acting in this manner is in your nature).  Yet these sorts of things are very different in quality, substance and weight than “men leaving the natural use of the woman” in homosexuality, spoken of in Rom. 1:27, which Barth quoted and used above.

(5) Barth approvingly quotes the mid-1600’s reformed divine Edward Leigh in pt. 3 as saying:

“There is an inordinateness in lust in regard of the end, when a man’s desires of that way tend not to the lawful ends of procreation…  but alone to the pleasure of the action…”

If sex with contraceptives for the lawful purpose of the pleasure of the action (Prov. 5:19) be inordinate in some way, it need not be inherently a sinful kind or degree of inordinateness.  It is sure that Solomon’s “desires” (or the intention of the worker, finis operantis) for his wife in his Song were “alone to the pleasure of the action” and did not “tend…  to the lawful ends of procreation,” as there is no mention of procreation or the hope of it in the book, though there is a lot said about pleasure (to put it mildly).  This Song has been set forth by God as a godly example for husbands and wives.¹

¹ Even the allegorical reading of the Song generally assumes the moral lawfulness of its material (allegorical interpreters are not on near-every-verse talking about the desire of Christ to bear children through his Church).  Where that moral compatibility is challenged, is one of the weakest and hardest to substantiate aspects of the arguments of some for the allegory-only view of the Song.  See ‘On the Interpretation of the Song of Solomon’ (RBO).

(6) Barth is not taking into account that conception (Gen. 3:16; Lev. 15:18), as well as every natural thing and design in this universe has been cursed and affected by Adam’s disobedience, and is to that extent not necessarily a moral standard for us.  The frequency by which men desire sex and the ease by which women may conceive is not necessarily the healthy standard of upright nature (as women will tell you with respect to men).  How is it that Noah, closer to that primeval state, who lived for centuries, only had three sons (Gen. 6:10), even for the many years (possibly 120, Gen. 6:3) he was married and building the ark (Gen. 6:18), and for the centuries he lived after the flood (Gen. 9:28-29; 10:1, 32; 1 Chron. 1:4-24)?  Breastfeeding by nature suppresses ovulation; but a woman who has a physical deficiency with breastfeeding ought to get pregnant every year?

(7) Pregnancy year after year without adequate rest can make women, and does make a significant percent of American women, significantly unhealthy (which is a significant reason why this topic is so important).  Such women often incur:

– Nutritional deficiencies (inclusive of anemia, calcium depletion affecting bone density, folate depletion increasing risk of neural tube defects in the next baby, iodine depletion affecting thyroid function and fetal neurological development, vitamin D depletion affecting mood, etc.)

– Metabolic stress, chronic fatigue

– Obesity, pelvic floor weakness (risk of prolapse, incontinence, chronic pelvic pain), diastasis recti, back and hip instability (due to lax ligaments not resolved from previous pregnancy)

– Mental health problems including postpartum depression or anxiety, burnout, chronic sleep deprivation and stress dysregulation

– Increased risk for complications in the next pregnancy, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, placental problems (especially after C-sections) and maternal hypertension disorders (including preeclampsia)

Professional health organizations often recommend at least a year and a half between birth and the next conception for optimal maternal and infant health, “…for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” (Lk. 16:8)

Barth allows abstinence for “Mercy…  such as…  for the time after the woman has given birth and cannot safely have intercourse” which would “tend to the destruction of life (WLC 136)”.  Yet, as with many such proponents out there, while acute health problems (where intercourse cannot be had “safely”) may be accommodated, yet general unhealthiness, which often causes acute medical crises (amongst other things), is not accommodated and an accommodation for such is often looked upon as “sinful”.

(8) In addition, there are limits to (not to mention best uses of) our time, energy and resources, Ps. 90:10, 12; Eccl. 8:6, Eph. 5:15-16, including with regard to how many children we can disciple in the way of Christ well (Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 3:4, which ought to be a priority), rather than the rule being how many children may be produced by our desires, made inordinate by God’s curse (Gal. 5:24; Eph. 2:3; 4:22; Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:22; 3:6; Tit. 2:12; 3:3; 1 Pet. 1:14; 2:11; 4:2).  Even natural, ordinate, godly affections, combined with the chance of circumstances (Eccl. 9:11), are not a person’s rule for how many children ought to be born, especially apart from or against reason,¹ reason being a fundamental constituent and purpose of our rational souls (the soul being even more basic than marriage itself).  “The plans of the diligent lead surely to abundance, but everyone who is hasty comes only to poverty.” (Prov. 21:5)

¹ See ‘Scripture Upholds Nature’s Light & Law & Right Reason’.

(9) The case of Onan (Gen. 38, the most explicit Biblical example that such persons use for their position) was sinful for being against Levirate marriage, not necessarily because he ejaculated on the ground.

(10) It may be thought: What can more clearly be a natural design than that the penis ought to ejaculate into the vagina? (even though men involuntarily do otherwise in nocturnal emissions by nature, Lev. 15:16-17; Dt. 23:10-11, whether this be an effect of the curse or not).  Is every alternative, deviation or obstruction from ejaculation into the vagina an unnatural sin?  If this were true, many selective breeding practices of animals, practiced from antiquity, would be sinful.

It may be responded: But animals are not rational beings and hence cannot sin, making such practices not sinful.  This dodges the issue.  Larger Catechism #99 rightly says: “That under one sin…  all of the same kind are forbidden…  together with all the causes, means, occasions…  thereof…”  The humans doing such selective animal breeding are the principal authors thereof and hence would be acting sinfully, on such premises, in doing things contrary to nature.

(11) Take the case where pregnancy would very likely significantly harm or kill the mother, and possibly the baby.  Barth is for herein abstaining out of mercy (pt. 3).  Yet this situation could last for decades, where both partners burn for sexual gratification.

This is something marriage is supposed to relieve by one of its fundamental purposes (1 Cor. 7:9; WCF 24.2); hence abstaining here goes against a fundamental purpose of marriage.  Any sexual gratification, with the need of culminating it (in contrast to it remaining perpetually unrelieved, which is against nature), would go against the teleology of the penis ejaculating unhindered in the vagina, and hence ought to be abstained from.

It is not only common sense, but sound ethics, in this situation, to avoid the greatest harm and fulfill the highest good attainable, though partial,¹ in sexually gratifying each other (especially for love, intimacy’s sake and the mutual help of each other) though it end not in unhindered vaginal ejaculation.  Fulfilling the purpose as far as one safely may is not necessarily contrary to the purpose.

¹ On this see ‘On the Ethical Principle of Avoiding the Greater Material or Miserable Evil’, Fentiman, ‘Lesser of Two Evils’ & ‘Highest Good Realistically Attainable’ in ‘Theses on the Ethics of Civil Voting…’, ‘Some Impure Worship may be (and even must be) Lawfully, Personally Performed in Some Circumstances for the Inherent Good in it & for Higher, Good Reasons’ and Fentiman, ‘Extended Editor’s Introduction Defending the Lawfulness of Partial-Conformity in Worship & Church Government (including under Civil Impositions) from Scripture, Westminster & the Scottish Indulgence Controversy…’ in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025).

(12) It is noted Barth shows evident reliance through references on Greg Price and Charles Provan, neither of which are sure guides in ethics.

.

Fentiman, Travis – ‘Using Contraceptives may be in Accord with Natural Law & Scripture: a Response to Feser’  (RBO, 2025)

Edward Feser is a popular Roman Catholic professor of philosophy and an Analytical Thomist, who has made a forcible, chapter long argument (worthy of a professional philosopher) that using contraceptives is immoral.

Fentiman delves into natural law in arguing the opposite, with 13 counter-arguments to Feser’s main argument.  One counter-example (amongst many others) Fentiman uses against Feser’s syllogism is choosing to use artificial pain relievers: they contra-act an essential (and very important) end of one’s natural faculty for the greater good of the flourishing of the person, as nearly everyone (rightly) accepts.  Here are some of Fentiman’s summary conclusions:

“(1)…  Even if conception be contravened in certain instances, this is not necessarily contra-acting the design of one’s faculty and intention for procreation generally.

(2) Numerous counter-examples prove Feser’s syllogism invalid, including counter-acting chosen bodily functions for some greater good.
…

(4) Feser’s (right) allowance for destroying and surgically removing one’s organs for a higher good, from the greater to the lesser, allows contra-acting them in the realization of their natural ends, which hence is not inherently wrong.

(5) Sexual pleasure is directly subordinate to marital unity, which unity is more foundational than procreation, per the Word; hence sexual pleasure need not always be subordinate to conception or procreation.  This ought to be recognized, and is by most, from nature’s light.
…

(7) Conception and all relating to it, including its rate, was cursed by God for man’s sin, and is so far not a standard to us…

(8) Human flourishing is a greater and more foundational natural, teleological purpose and good than sex organs and contra-acting them in some way.  Hence, so contra-acting, which is not inherently wrong, is right when it results in greater human flourishing, which could not occur (or would not best occur) except through this means…
…

(10) Aiming at a higher good and partially fulfilling it so far as one morally can (though it necessarily involve a partial counter-acting of an essential, facultative end) is good and is not an immoral deficiency.

(11) God has provided through nature both natural and artificial contraceptive means, which most of history has recognized (whether giving Him thanks for it or not, Rom. 1:21).  God set Adam in the garden to improve even pure-nature itself.

(12) The further principles inherent in reality, as elucidated in this article, go much further to synthesizing and explaining the ethical balance of the gradations of our variegated circumstances in common life, which is much preferable, that one’s ethics reflect reality, in contrast to the anti-contraception view, which herein is seen to be extreme, and thus distorted and unnatural.

(13) Feser’s syllogism, while true for God, yet, it appears, cannot account for: (1) how simultaneous natural and positive laws differently bear upon man, (2) temptation or (3) self-denial, (4) including with respect to our Christ.”

.

Booklet

2000’s

Kayser, Phillip – ‘Conception Control: Avoiding Antinomianism & Legalism’  (2017)

This appears to be the best and most in-depth, Biblical treatment available.  Kayser, who defines life as starting at conception, argues against those who argue for no conception-control at all.  While affirming that children and large families are blessings from the Lord, yet certain forms of preventing conception (such as condoms, etc.), for certain reasons and in certain degrees, are morally lawful.  Kayser is of the opinion that the birth control “pill” is an abortifacient and therefore immoral; on the contrary, see the webpage section below.

“Others…  wondered if they were in sin for not having as many children as was physically possible despite overwhelming health issues…  Some have wondered if it was wrong to have sexual relations after menopause, when conception was no longer possible, having heard that ‘wasting seed’ was a sin.  Others have had the same pangs of conscience with regard to sexual relations during pregnancy.”

“In terms of justifying the word ‘control,’ I want to explain the importance of avoiding passivity.  Dominion involves stewardship, study, exploration, managing, planning, rationing, apportioning, starting work, resting from work, categorizing, improving, and using this creation to God’s glory.  Man was not to be passive in relationship to his environment, his family, his time, future, or any other aspect of creation.  Indeed, to passively allow creation to order itself is the opposite of the dominion mandate.”

“…the burden of proof for sin is on those who call conception control sin.  NCC [No-Conception-Control] advocates often try to reverse the burden of proof and ask, “Where does the Bible justify the use of conception control?”…  the Bible gives individuals and families maximum liberty (whatever is not forbidden is allowed).”

“The Onan passage (Gen. 38) is often marshaled as evidence that God does indeed forbid conception control (the spilling of seed without the purpose of conception).  Certainly this passage opposes selfishness in the use of conception control and it also illustrates six concrete laws that were broken by Onan.  However, neither the Onan example nor the law of God show our BLCC [Biblically Limited Conception Control] practices to be in sin.”

“The following conception control methods were widely used in the ancient world during the very centuries in which the Bible was being written:

Lactation, rhythm/mucus/natural planning, coitus interruptus, barrier, ovulation suppression, and spermicide.  Less well known was female sterilization, but Hippocrates knew of it.  Unfortunately, herbal abortifacients were common throughout the known world, and believers did all they could to make such unethical birth control methods illegal.

We will demonstrate that God’s law clearly spoke against all abortifacients.  The ancient Jews [e.g. in the Talmud] also had extensive discussions of when conception control was allowed and when it was not allowed.  So even though it is clear that Jews opposed masturbation, permanent sterilization, or any medications that damaged the body or the fetus, those same Jews used both barrier and spermicidal methods of birth control and did not consider it to have violated the Scripture.

So there is no basis for the common argument that birth control was not available or known in the ancient world.  Virtually every form of birth control that is being used today had equivalents in the ancient world.^“

“…God claimed in Genesis 49:22, ‘Joseph is a fruitful bough,’ though Joseph only had two children at this point…  A farmer would desire far more olives than would be produced in the year spoken of in Isaiah 17:6, yet God speaks of the ‘four or five’ olives on a branch as still being a ‘fruitful branch.’  The point is that there is some flexibility in the concept of fruitfulness…”

“The same command of fruitfulness that was given to man was also given to the land (Gen. 1:11-12; Psalm 107:37; Ezek. 36:29) and was called a blessing (Deut. 7:13; Ezek. 36:19).  Is failing to make the land be fruitful every year a “despising of God’s blessings” or a violation of His Dominion Command?  Obviously not.  The land has been fruitful for six years, and taking a year off (spacing) in no way violates the command.  If spacing crops does not violate the identical command to be fruitful and multiply, I fail to see how spacing children (whether by six months, 12 months, or more) violates that command.  This is using the analogy of Scripture to understand the command to be fruitful and multiply…

the [Levitical] law allowed the land to rest one year in seven…  If the woman ‘who has many children has become feeble’ (1 Sam. 2:5), it might be time to let her strengthen…  the burden of proof is upon those who say spacing babies is a sin…  is it sinful to take days off beyond the Sabbath day in our yearly schedules?…  What makes giving a very productive wife some rest from child-bearing a sin?  Could this not justify spacing babies by one year or more to provide for the wife’s strength and health, and/or to save up money to be able to pay for the delivery costs of the next baby?  Could it not be used to postpone having a child while the wife’s health was in jeopardy?  If a woman was having chemotherapy for cancer, the chemo would endanger the baby’s life. This would certainly be a good time to exercise conception control.”

“God’s curse to the woman was in part, ‘I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception’ (Gen. 3:16).  Just as every other aspect of creation entered into a curse, so too did conception.  To ignore the impact of the fall upon procreation is to miss critical changes that have come about that can make conception a sorrow rather than a blessing (things like cancer, high blood pressure, being worn out from running after five children under the age of six, changes to the function of lactation, etc.)…  Physiology shows that perfect bodies were designed by God to suppress ovulation as long as there was breastfeeding (up to three years).  The Fall has impacted many bodies to override this normal God-given function.”

“Indeed, there are almost as many Scriptures that speak of the curse of many children (Gen. 3:16; Eccl. 6:3; Is. 49:19-21; Deut. 28:18-19; Ezek. 5:7-8 [KJV]; Jer. 15:9; Job 27:13-15; Luke 23:29) as there are that speak of the blessings of having many children (Gen. 17:2,20; 22:17; 26:24; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4; Ex. 32:13; Deut. 7:14; Ps. 17:14; 113:9; 127:1-5; 128:1-6; Prov. 17:6; 1 Tim. 5:14).  The fall has brought about circumstances that certainly lead to great difficulties – so great that the Scripture no longer speaks of those many children as always being a blessing.”

“what do we make of Christ’s statement that ‘there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake…’ (Mt. 19:12)?…  To say that it is a sin to turn down an opportunity to receive the blessing of children is cherry picking Scriptures…  If trying to get every blessing of children that we possibly can is a mandate, then shouldn’t we be marrying our girls as soon as puberty hits?  Why hold off?”

“Jesus didn’t seem to think that he could disciple more than twelve [disciples] in depth, and this might have a bearing on how many a given parent can adequately raise in the fear and nurture of the Lord.”

“whereas having forty-two children (as one poverty stricken family had) might be considered by God to be poor stewardship since they simply were not able to feed and clothe those children?  When Scripture insists that “if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8)…  It might be wise for such a person to heed the admonition in Proverbs 24:27, which commands us to make financial provision for our family before we build or expand our family.”

“Some NCC people insist that the sexual act should never be separated from the purpose of procreation…  I have asked some if they stop having sex when their wives are pregnant, and they admit that they do not…  I asked one NCC advocate if he continued to have sex after menopause.  He said that he did…  The question really boils down to whether it is ever OK to have sex when you know that the sexual union will not result in a pregnancy.”

“Rain is a blessing when it comes in season and in the right quantity.  Rain becomes a judgment when it comes out of season or in overwhelming quantities.”

.

.

On the Birth Control Pill & Hormonal Contraceptives in General

Order of

Intro
Article  1
Booklet  1

.

Intro to the Ethics of the Birth Control Pill

.

Travis Fentiman
12-2025

.

Is the Pill an Abortifacient?

The first concern to be addressed with the birth control pill and hormonal contraceptives in general (not just oral ones), is whether they cause abortions.  Hormonal contraceptives work in two ways:

(1) by inhibiting the ovulation of the female egg most of the time, and

(2) by thickening the cervical mucus so that around 80-90% of sperm travelling through it do not reach the egg.

These two things do not affect what happens after conception.

A third way has been frequently mentioned by both makers of hormonal contraceptives (who have an interest in the matter) and the medical literature, namely in (3) thinning and shriveling the lining of the uterus so that it is less able to facilitate the implantation of the newly-fertilized egg.  If life begins at conception, this may be considered to be a voluntary, abortive effect.

This third mechanism has been documented from the older medical literature and analyzed at large in pastor Randy Alcorn’s popular booklet, Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions (1997), convincing many that “The Pill” is unethical to use.

.

Intro to the Medical Evidence

What is less known is the subsequent article from 1999 by four pro-life OBGYNs who define life as beginning from conception: Crocket, Harrison, DeCook, Hersh, ‘Hormone Contraceptives: Controversies & Clarifications’ (1999).  After “a thorough review of the available medical literature,” they conclude, “there is no direct evidence in the literature to support the third proposed method of action.”

While the uterine lining is thinned due to hormonal contraceptives, making it in theory less hospitable to the implantation of the fertilized egg, yet a study had fourteen women receive very large doses of DepoProvera (one of the most potent hormonal contraceptives) by injection.  They were then induced to ovulate (with Clomid and HCG).  All fourteen conceived and had normal pregnancies.¹  According to the OBGYNs (p. 3):

“This suggests that once ovulation has occurred, the [known] burst of natural estrogen and progesterone from the corpus luteum simply override even the most potent hormone contraceptive, producing a receptive endometrium, and resulting in a normal implantation and ongoing pregnancy.”

¹ J. Zanartu, ‘Long term contraceptive effect of injectable progestogens: Inhibition and reestablishment of fertility’ (Abstract)  in International Journal of Fertility, vol. 13, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 1968), pp. 415-26

This natural burst of estrogen and progesterone at ovulation preparing the uterine lining increases pre-ovulation levels of the same ten to twenty-fold during the six days before implantation, according to a textbook of gynecology and a study¹ cited by the OBGYNs.  This bodily effect, independent of the uterine lining, though not sustaining the same strength, lasts for 8 to 10 weeks after ovulation, when the developed placenta re-assumes the burden of producing these hormones to support the growing pregnancy.²

¹ Speroff, Glass & Kase, Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology & Infertility, 5th ed. (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1994) [e.g. p. 194]; Brenner, Mishell, Stanczyk, Goebelsmann, ‘Serum levels of d-norgestrel, luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, estradiol, and progesterone in women during and following ingestion of combination oral contraceptives containing dl-norgestrel’ (Abstract) in American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 129(2) (Sept 1977), pp. 129-33

² Crocket, Harrison, DeCook, Hersh, ‘Hormone Contraceptives’, p. 2

The OBGYNs provide much more medical, scientific research that in persons using hormonal contraceptives, “we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient.”  Summary and highlight-quotes from the article appear below their article in the “Article” section below this Intro.

Alcorn’s booklet and this article by four OBGYNs, despite their older dates, appear to remain the most indepth treatments of the issue, as (1) the article involved a comprehensive review of the medical literature to that date, (2) later literature does not appear to go beyond the data in these resources, and (3) as the issue, being so highly specific, needs a targeted study of its own done before direct evidence will be available to illuminate the exact biological processes further.  If readers become aware of further notable, more recent research, please notify the webmaster through ‘Suggest Improvements’.

.

FRCNA & Christian Medical Organizations

In 2011 a committee of the Free Reformed Churches of North America (FRCNA), inclusive of three doctors, examined Alcorn’s booklet, the studies he used, the OBGYNs’ article, other material, and recommended reading the OBGYNs’ “well referenced” article.  Their report concluded:

“…we could not find support for such a conclusion [that “the pill” causes abortions]…  we no longer believe Randy Alcorn’s book to be a reliable source of information.”

“He provided false information about the ectopic to intrauterine ratio, including references to support his conclusions but none of the references supported his conclusions.  He relied significantly on comments about how people thought the pill works without showing that these comments were any more than assumptions.  He suggests the possibility of very high numbers of breakthrough ovulations without providing any significant study evidence.  Many of the references in his book appear to be various forms of commentary rather than studies that provide proof for his claims.

For someone who claims to be interested in searching out the truth about this issue we find it surprising that he does not mention the evidence that points to the hormone effects being different in an ovulatory cycle than in a cycle where no egg is produced.  Randy Alcorn seems to have a biased approach that has not provided some important evidence.”

“We were concerned that the same message was not coming from other Christian organizations that are involved in issues of family planning and counseling, such as, Focus on the Family, The Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA) and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG).  These organizations each conclude that our current scientific knowledge does not establish a definitive causal link, but neither is there data to deny a possible post conception effect of combined birth control pills.”

“We sought guidance from the list of ‘experts’ that we compiled as resources for our consistories [sessions] when dealing with difficult ethical issues.  None of these ‘experts’ took the stand of Randy Alcorn.”

“…we found no conclusive evidence that the combined birth control pill prevents implantation of the new life.  Neither is there any conclusive evidence that the combined birth control pill may not occasionally prevent implantation.  There is a reasonable argument, guided by evidence, that the hostile endometrium theory likely is not true when there is a breakthrough ovulation.  There is no good evidence of an increase in ectopic to intrauterine pregnancy ratio in women taking the combined birth control pill.”

“…because there appears to be an increased ectopic to intrauterine pregnancy ratio in women using the mini pill (progesterone only) or an intra-uterine device (IUD), it is recommended that they be avoided.”

Michael A. Grisanti has provided a helpful, further medical survey of both sides of this issue, mainly revolving around the material of Alcorn and the OBGYNs, on pp. 96-101 of his article, ‘Birth Control & the Christian’ (MSJ, 23/1, Spring 2012).

.

Relative Risks

If the hostile endometrium theory is valid (which is not granted), how often would persons on the pill have fertilized eggs that do not implant into the uterine wall (for reasons related to the pill and not naturally occuring, baseline factors)?  While that is difficult to estimate according to proponents, Alcorn reaches the possible numbers of 5 times out of 330 suppressed ovulations for a woman of average sexual activity from puberty to menopause (taking into account many relevant factors).  “If the same woman took the pill for only ten years, she might have one or two abortions…”¹  This rate of miscarriage due to being on the pill² comes down to a chance of 1.5% per monthly cycle.

¹ Alcorn, Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?, pp. 101-2

² Some take the pill for significant health reasons deemed necessary apart from the issue of pregnancy.

These numbers, “without…  any significant study evidence,” are said to be “very high” by the FRCNA committee.  Nonetheless, such a chance and rate is still rather small considering that (1) naturally occuring rates of non-implantation are very much higher,¹ and (2) persons who may be against the pill, but are unhealthy, may be causing many more voluntary miscarriages (or abortions) than those on the pill, by voluntarily eating unhealthy, not exercising, running into fertility issues (even without observable effects or knowing it), etc.²

¹ The OBGYNs: “A recent study by specialists in reproductive technology found, with genetic sampling of morphologically normal embryos, that 24 of 50 had chromosomal abnormalities, and would likely not survive. (79)  Gift procedures, introducing multiple viable eggs, along with good sperm, into the fallopian tube at the optimum time, with optimum endometrium, only yield a 30% success rate.  30% of failed fertilization is due to faulty sperm.  There are evidently many naturally occurring reasons for preimplantation loss.” – p. 8

² The American Center for Disease Control says (2025) 16.3% of American, married women have impaired fecundity.  “76.83% of women with infertility had elevated BMI, of whom 39.56% were obese and 37.27% were overweight.” Amoah, Adageba, Appiah, et al., ‘Obesity and overweight and associated factors among women with infertility…’ Sci Rep 15, 6163 (2025).  “Obese women had 62% higher odds of infertility…  compared to non-obese women of reproductive age (20-44 years). ” Al-Lami, Taha, Jalloul, Salih, ‘Obesity in Infertile Women, a Cross-Sectional Study of the United States…’ Reprod Sci. 2022 May; 29(5):1449-1456

This is not to guilt and shame people, rather it is to illuminate the more fundamental ethical issue that the contested rate is low enough (assuming the theory true) to be able to be rendered insignificant to the concern of persons who may legitimately have many other higher priorities in life to be attentive to.  Grisanti, summarizing other writers on the topic, helpfully suggests a risk–benefit ratio (pp. 100-101):

“we do not quarantine all pregnant women even though we know that certain viral infections can have a devastating or fatal affect on human embryos.  Auto accidents are probably riskier to human life than these OCPs [oral contraceptive pills] (statistically).”

You may have to eat right, exercise regularly, lose weight, reduce stress, get outside more, sleep well, get away from unhealthy environmental factors (that are all around us), not drive and quarantine,¹ all perpetually, before one has ethical ground to be concerned about miscarriages on the pill and to take active measures to avoid such.

¹ Yet, as seen during the COVID pandemic of 2020-2022, strict quarantining is undoubtedly worse on pregnant mothers’ health, and that of the baby, than receiving greater benefits by not quarantining and accepting tolerable risks.

.

When Human Life Begins

Also, take into consideration the dominant view of Reformed theology in the second half of the 1600’s, during her classical era, that human, personal life (and the soul) begins not at conception, but at around roughly 42 days afterwards when the heart begins to beat, limbs and distinctive human features of the embryo begin to appear and the fetus has its first movements.  Around the same time sensations may first be able to be felt due to the progressing developments of the neurological system and brain waves have first been detected (the fetus then being in principle capable of the first movements of rationality and hence of a rational soul).  This viewpoint is consistent with the Scriptural data, arises from it (and the light of nature), is philosophically sound and consists with the Westminster standards (numerous of her divines held and taught this viewpoint).¹

¹ Fentiman, ‘On Westminster & the Timing of Ensoulment’.

For an introduction to this reformed view, see:

Travis Fentiman, 2. ‘The Time of Ensoulment & of the Hypostatic Union’  in ‘An Introduction to Peter van Mastricht on Christ’s Human Nature as Non-Personal, the Time of Ensoulment in the Womb…’  (RBO, 2024), pp. 10-16

and the RBO webpage ‘On the Timing of Ensoulment in the Womb…’ generally.

This understanding of human nature (held long through Church history and the ancient world) distinguishes human seed from human persons and recognizes that the beginnings of potential human life, which will result in human life under normal, natural conditions, is a good thing in itself.  Hence the ending of such potential human life ought to be avoided, and willful abortions before ensoulment are condemned, yet not as murder (Ex. 21:22-23 translated by John Wycliff).

The implications for using hormonal contraception is that the ending of preimplantation-embryos due to a hostile endometrium (if such ever occurs on the pill) ought to be reasonably avoided and not facilitated except there be sufficiently greater reason, yet the weight of non-implantation is not the same as a baby with an eternal soul dying.

.

Pill Side Effects

Note that beyond the abortifacient issue, there are other significant health side effects and risks from using hormonal contraceptives which ought to be looked into, carefully weighed, and which may make their use not desirable, not wise or wrong.  Who would have thought making one’s body think it is perpetually pregnant, without progressing in the (non-existent) pregnancy, might be in some way contrary to the natural course of our bodies and may incur some unintended, not so beneficial consequences?

79% of users getting (consciously observed) undesirable side effects (within a short time) is a rather unprecedentedly high number for a medication for people who are not sick.  See our section on ‘Side Effects of Oral Contraceptives’ below.  Given the very small rate of non-implantation claimed for the pill, it may be likely the pill’s side effects are more of an ethical concern than whether it is an abortifacient.

.

Choosing whether to go on the Pill

Given the pill’s common side effects, how ought one to determine whether to use it or not?  First, “commit your way to the Lord; [and] trust in Him.” (Ps. 37:5, ESV)  Ask for and trust his help, guidance and blessing.  Use other available helps to you, such as asking persons who have been on the pill and those who have chosen not to be, etc.  When you consider the ethical factors together for your situation, evaluating the weight of the reasoned risks and drawbacks in comparison to legitimate, properly balanced benefits, you will be able to make a sound decision.

Hormonal contraceptives (as all things) should only be used or not used with right reasons, for right times, in right circumstances, in accord with the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word (WCF 1.6), to the best of our ability, in love to the Lord and others (Mt. 22:37-40).  If you yet agonize over the difficulty of making a decision, for further help see ‘Peace of Conscience’ under the section below, ‘That Permanent Sterilization, Tying One’s Tubes or a Vasectomy may be Morally Lawful’.

.

Article

1900’s

Four Pro-Life OBGYNs (Crocket, Harrison, DeCook, Hersh) – ‘Hormone Contraceptives: Controversies & Clarifications’  (1999)  17 pp.  This article was later printed in eds. Kilner, Cunningham, Hager, The Reproductive Revolution: a Christian Appraisal of Reproductive Technologies, Sexuality & the Family  (Eerdmans, 2000).

“Most hormone contraceptives are noted to work by 3 methods
of action:

1) Primarily, they inhibit ovulation by suppression of the pituitary/ovarian axis, mediated through suppression of gonadotrophin releasing hormone from the hypothalamus.

2) Secondarily, they inhibit transport of sperm through the cervix by thickening the cervical mucous.

3) They cause changes in the uterine lining (endometrium) which have historically been assumed to decrease the possibility of implantation, should fertilization occur. This presumption is commonly known as the “hostile endometrium” theory.

A thorough review of the medical literature uncovers ample data to support the first two methods of action, which are contraceptive actions…  However, there is no direct evidence in the literature to support the third proposed method of action.” – p. 1

“Closer scrutiny of the medical literature, however, reveals that the scientists are all simply agreeing that the “pill” produces a thinner, less glandular, less vascular lining.  We also agree.” – p. 1

“On the contrary, the existing evidence indicates that “on pill” conceptions are handled by the reproductive system with the same results seen with “off pill” conceptions, with the exception of increased ectopic rates seen with POPs [progestin only pills] and Norplant [an implant].”- p. 1

“In the extensive literature we have reviewed, no writer has addressed this very significant question: In a menstrual cycle on the “pill” in which ovulation occurs, what is the histology of the endometrium six days after ovulation (the time of implantation)?  Certainly the hormone milieu and endometrial histology will be different from a menstrual cycle on the “pill” in which ovulation does not occur (i.e.,the typical atrophic, or “hostile,” endometrium).  The FSH-LH-estradiol surge the day before ovulation, and the resulting corpus luteum formation, with its ten to twentyfold estradiol and progesterone output, should produce significant changes in the endometrium. In a normal menstrual cycle, on the day of ovulation the uterine lining (proliferative endometrium) is not receptive to implantation.  Seven days of follicle and corpus luteum hormone output transform it to “receptive.”

The same follicle and corpus luteum hormone output, when ovulation occurs in a “pill” cycle, should have a similar salutary effect on the pill-primed endometrium.  It is highly probable that the so-called “hostile to implantation” endometrium– heralded (without proof) from the beginning by the “pill” producing companies, echoed (without investigation) by 2 generations of scientific writers, and now adopted (as a scientific fact) by some sincere prolife advocates– simply does not exist six days after ovulation in a pill cycle.  What is currently known about the endometrial response to corpus luteum hormones suggests this conclusion.  Research regarding endometrial histology on the sixth day after escape ovulation in “on pill” cycles would add useful information to the current Discussion.

One study (51) mentions 14 women who had been given very large doses (200 to 800 mg) of DepoProvera, one of the most potent of the hormone contraceptives. Administration of Clomid and HCG to these patients induced ovulation, and all 14 conceived and had normal pregnancies. This suggests that once ovulation has occurred, the burst of natural estrogen and progesterone from the corpus luteum simply override even the most potent hormone contraceptive, producing a receptive endometrium, and resulting in a normal implantation and ongoing pregnancy.” – pp. 2-3

“Our own review of the literature has shown this increased ectopic rate to be true of progestin only pills (POPs) and Norplant.  However, we have found absolutely no data in the literature that supports an increased ectopic to intrauterine pregnancy ratio for women using combined oral contraceptives
(COCs) or Depoprovera.” – p. 3

“In order to classify COCs [combined oral contraceptives] as an abortifacient, several things must exist:

1) Conceptions must occur.

2) The abortive effect must be present with proper use as prescribed.

3) Loss of these conceptions must exceed the base-line loss for populations not using this substance, or be shown to occur due solely to the medication itself, and not other known factors.

4) The abortive effect should be consistent and reproducible by multiple independent observers.

There are no studies that we are aware of regarding combined oral contraceptives or Depoprovera that demonstrate
numbers 2, 3, or 4.” – pp. 2-3

“The ectopic pregnancy rate with POPs may be between 6% to 10% of unintended pregnancies (6). (In the general population, ectopic pregnancies constitute 2% of all pregnancies.)” – p. 3

“Norplant has an increased EP/IUP ratio, estimated at 3 to 5 times the per pregnancy ectopic rate seen in the general non-contracepted population… Between 6% to 10% of unintended pregnancies on Norplant and POPs may be ectopic.” – p. 4

“The injectable DepoProvera (DMPA)…  The literature regarding this injectable suggests its effectiveness is based on extremely low ovulation rates…  By the time ovulation is able to occur, serum MPA is at such low levels (O.1 ng/ml) that it has little effect on the endometrium, and the ovary is producing normal preovulatory levels of estradiol…  Thus there is no evidence that DMPA produces even a theoretical risk of abortion by “hostile endometrium”…

Several small pharmacokinetic studies utilizing progesterone levels as a major indicator of ovulation have shown a zero ovulation rate 3 months after IM injection of 150 mg of DMPA… There is no evidence that DMPA causes an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy.”

“Ninety nine per cent of American women using hormone contraception use COCs…  The contraceptive efficacy of these hormones is derived primarily from the actions of progestins in suppressing ovulation and thickening cervical mucus…  In fact, an ideal endometrium does not seem to be necessary for successful implantation, as is evidenced by ectopic pregnancies which may implant in the tubes, endocervical canal, on the ovaries, or on the surface of any intraabdominal organ, including bowel or even major blood vessels…

Conceptions do occur, at times, on COCs. We know this, because like all methods of contraception other than abstinence, there is a measurable pregnancy rate.” – p. 6

“13,000 cycles of compliant COC use results in 15.5 ovulations, and one ongoing pregnancy. The basic question in the entire “pill” controversy is, “What happened to the other l4.5 eggs?” Were they the victim of an “inhospitable endometrium”(whose existence in an ovulatory cycle is very questionable), or can they be accounted for in other ways?

Available data indicate that 10 to 15% of our population is infertile… This leaves 13.5 eggs available… apply the normal human fecundity table of 25% per cycle (the fecundity table requires optimum conditions: normal fertility in the man and woman, and correct timing of coitus). (28) We would expect 3.3 pregnancies, IF the cervical mucus is favorable, the viable sperm are present, and the timing is right [leaving about 10 eggs]…

cervical mucus factors block sperm 80 to 90% of the time in non-ovulatory studies. If adequate numbers of viable sperm can get free and make it to the waiting egg within the 36 hour receptivity window just 33% of the time [due to overriding ovulatory hormones], one egg might be fertilized to become an ongoing pregnancy [leaving 3.3 relevant eggs]. We don’t know about the sperm and timing, and the cervical mucus is probably not optimum.

If one of these 3.3 remaining eggs is fertilized and thrives, this equals the known ongoing pregnancy rate seen in compliant COC users: One per 1,000 woman years (13,000 cycles) of use.

The fate of the l5.5 eggs can also be considered from other
available data. Again, the 10 to 15% infertility rate leaves 13.5 eggs available for possible fertilization. Recent critically reviewed data indicates that from fertilization to 6 weeks, spontaneous pregnancy wastage is 73%. (26, 27) This leaves 3.5 eggs available for fertilization and ongoing pregnancy. As above, considering mucus, sperm, and timing factors, one egg might be fertilized to become an ongoing pregnancy. This again equals the known pregnancy rate on compliant COC usage: per 1,000 woman years (13,000 cycles) of use.” – pp. 7-8

“A recent study by specialists in reproductive technology found, with genetic sampling of morphologically normal embryos, that 24 of 50 had chromosomal abnormalities, and would likely not survive. (79) Gift procedures, introducing multiple viable eggs, along with good sperm, into the fallopian tube at the optimum time, with optimum endometrium, only yield a 30% success rate. 30% of failed fertilization is due to faulty sperm. There are evidently many naturally occurring reasons for preimplantation loss.” – p. 8

“…there is no need to postulate a pill-induced preimplantation abortion phenomenon to explain why 15.5 eggs produce one ongoing pregnancy. Known and natural causes can account for the numbers.” – p. 8

“Therefore, at this time, there is no direct evidence that shows that combined oral contraceptives are an independent risk factor for ectopic pregnancy when conception occurs. Given the medical community’s long history of experience with COCs, there is no evidence that COCs are an etiologic risk factor for ectopic pregnancy.” – pp. 9-10

“Conclusion: Given the above, there is no evidence that shows that the endometrial changes produced by COCs contribute to failure of implantation of conceptions, nor is there evidence that COCs cause an increased per pregnancy ratio of Ectopics.” – p. 10

“…if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality [of hormone contraception], we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient.” – p. 10

.

Booklet

1900’s

Alcorn, Randy – Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? [Yes]  (1997)  197 pp.

This booklet is dated and not recommended, but is here for reference.  See the Intro and article by the four OBGYNs above as to why its main theses are not substantiated and are likely wrong.

.

.

On Side Effects of Oral Contraceptives

Articles

2000’s

NIH, National Cancer Institute – ‘Oral Contraceptives & Cancer Risk’ (2018)

“…risks of breast and cervical cancers are increased in women who use oral contraceptives, whereas the risks of endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal cancers are reduced.”

Karpowicz, Mączka, Skoczylas, Pacocha et al. – ‘The Most Common Side Effects, Concerns & Discontinuation Patterns of Oral Contraceptive Pills among Polish Women: a Cross-Sectional Study’  in Journal of Family Reproducive Health, 18(3) (Sept, 2024), pp. 170-79

“Out of 1699 respondents…  Seventy-nine percent of all OCPs [oral contraceptive pills] users experienced adverse effects while 9% reported having concerns about safety and potential adverse effects.  Decreased libido and weight gain were the most significant reasons for ceasing hormonal contraception…  The occurrence of anxiety depended on age and education.”

“The most frequent side effects included respectively: mood swings (58.4%), decreased libido (51.1%), depressed mood (41.9%), headaches, irritability, breast enlargement and weight gain…  Flatulence, vaginal dryness, bleedings, feeling of heaviness and increased appetite also proved to be relevant as they were mentioned by about 25–30% of all participants.”

“…positive effects were also observed by 97.1% of women.  The most common positive effects reported by the respondents were: regular bleeding (74.1%), less painful bleeding (65.4%), reduction of stress related to fear of unwanted pregnancy (64.6%), less heavy bleeding (61.2%), improvement of the complexion/skin condition (43.7%) and reduction of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) (29.3%).”

“The main factors that led to the cessation of OCPs were unacceptable side effects (45.3%), change or willingness to change the method of contraception (18.2%), occurrence of health contraindications (10.7%), trying to get pregnant (9.4%) and loss of sexual partner (5.6%).”

“…the least tolerable symptoms were psychological ones: loss of libido (30.8% of women experiencing any adverse effects), mood swings (20.7%) and depressed mood (15.1%)…  Conditions such as vaginal infections and inter-monthly bleeding or spotting were also occasionally reported.”

Abrams, Zara – ‘How birth control pills affect the brain: Research on cognition, stress responses, and health impacts helps women make informed reproductive health decisions’  in Monitor on Psychology, vol. 56, no. 3 (Apr/May 2025), p. 50 ff.

“A large and robust literature shows that sex hormones, including estrogen and progesterone, have widespread effects throughout the body and brain, far beyond sex and pregnancy. They play a role in nearly all the body’s systems, influencing everything from cardiovascular and immune function to emotion regulation, executive function, and appetite.”

“Amid growing evidence that links birth control pills with changes in stress responses, cognition, libido, and mood—including an increased risk for depression in adulthood if taken during adolescence…”

“That suggests there may be a long-term effect of these synthetic hormones on the way the brain develops during adolescence…”

“A leading theory is that the increased risk for depression stems from an altered stress response among birth control pill users. Studies indicate that women on the pill have a blunted cortisol response: In acute stress tasks, they have a slow rise and a gradual fall of cortisol rather than the classic spike that signifies a healthy stress response. Despite the cortisol differences, these women report feeling at least as much stress as non–pill takers…

women on the pill also tend to show differences in their inflammatory stress response, which occurs just before the cortisol spike.”

“The group collected brain scans from a woman for 30 consecutive days during a natural menstrual cycle, finding fluctuations in the volume of her hippocampus that correlated with changes in progesterone…  We then collected scans while she was on the birth control pill and saw no volume differences across the 30 days we scanned her. That suggests that the pill’s control of her hormone levels was quashing the natural fluctuations of the brain…”

“Pill use may also alter spatial reasoning [in an improved way]…”

[This effect seems beneficial to a growing pregnant woman who needs to adapt to her environment, although what energy resources and capacities may be being drained to accomplish this remains unknown.]

“When women stop using the pill, most find that their cycles regularize and sex drive rebounds within about 3 months.”

“In a survey of 188 patients…  83% reported that their doctor did not mention potential psychological side effects during contraception counseling…”

“Women also reported having their complaints dismissed by their providers, being discouraged from switching to a different form of birth control, or feeling that their providers were playing a “guessing game” about which pill would have the fewest side effects.  That’s due in part to rushed provider visits, but it is also due in part to a dearth of research that can inform nuanced decision-making about contraception…”

.

Book

2000’s

Hill, Sarah E. – This is your Brain on Birth Control: the surprising science of women, hormones, and the law of unintended consequences  (Avery, 2019)  320 pp.

Hill is an “evolutionary psychologist” but has lots of medical data on the effects of the pill on the brain.

.

.

That Permanent Sterilization, Tying One’s Tubes or a Vasectomy may be Morally Lawful

.

Travis Fentiman
12-2025

.

Stating the Question

The question here treated is whether a married person with children can ever uprightly, voluntarily, physically alter one’s body (with relative safety) such that one will likely never be able to bear children? and if so, in what circumstances or for what reasons?

The question is not about single persons doing this for the Kingdom of God’s sake.  That answer Jesus made rather clear: such spiritually gifted and called persons may, Mt. 19:12.  Nor is the question whether married persons without kids may do so.  That is very similar to the Medieval practice of married persons without kids mutually vowing to remain abstinent their entire lives, which the Medievals and the reformed after them often commented on (many of the former were for it; many of the latter, though not all, were against it).

Rather the issue here is mainly about fertile married couples who might choose a (normally) permanent surgical option for the purpose of not having more children.  Reasons for the affirmative will be briefly laid out and argued.

.

Premises

If one recognizes and accepts numerous of the premises in the material above on this page, it goes a long way toward becoming comfortable with an affirmative answer:

– Preventing conception is not killing a person and it may be done for lawful and good, sufficient practical reasons in many circumstances.

– The notions that one must have as many kids as possible or that one cannot limit how many kids one has, given one’s circumstances, are not credible.¹

¹ On “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28; 9:1), see Is “Be fruitful & multiply” a Command?

– How many kids one has, one’s history, economic status, financial status, health, age, personal callings, personal factors, along with risks to future children to be born and other factors may be legitimate, alone or in their combination, for recognizing and deciding it is best not to have more kids.

.

Playing God

To clear the way, one of the most common objections to permanently ending one’s capacity to have kids is the claim this is “to play God”.  It is often said to be against trusting God for the kids that may come to us, as well as for trusting Him for how many we should have, as children are gifts from the Lord (Ps. 127:3).

The notions of playing God and trusting God might be, and have been, objected to medical intervention and surgeries altogether:¹ One should let nature take its course, even with diseases and pain management, and not play God with trying to conserve or regain our health or comfort.

¹ For the corrective, see ‘On the Use of Medicine & Doctors’.

More specifically to the issue: If human influence in having children be playing God, then it is playing God for two people to decide to marry, sexually come together and bring forth a child.  If seeking to have no more children be playing God, then it would seem (1) seeking to prevent conception and (2) Natural Family Planning are likewise degrees of the same.  Yet that these two things are lawful, see Fentiman’s Response to Paul Barth above.

Playing God, however, properly refers to only doing, or trying to do, things that only God can do.  While such surgical procedures can be (and often are) abused by persons doing them in insufficiently justifying circumstances or for wrong reasons, yet no one involved is trying to do something only God can do.

.

Artificial Interventions

Nonetheless, it may yet be maintained such surgeries, of modern origin, are wrong so far as they disrupt or remove a very natural process by highly artificial, invasive means.  The disrupting of a natural process or organ (besides what has been said in Fentiman’s Response to Barth above) will be further addressed below.  As to the procedure’s artificiality, it only having come about in modern times:

If man be permitted to rationally influence conceiving at all, and that through natural means, as a rational being, he may influence it through artificially constructed means, so far as this potential to conceive of and construct artifical means for his good purposes (whenever circumstances or advances come to allow him to do so) has been placed in his nature by God.  That man can do so, with significant benefit and a responsible management of low risk, is a moral sanction of the action, by God’s will expressed through natural law.

This is proved in that such actions are good and we are to “do good” (Eccl. 3:12; Ps. 34:14; 37:3; Lk. 6:35; Heb. 13:16; 1 Pet. 3:11).  Jesus asked in part, “Is it lawful to do good…?” (Mk. 3:4)  That an action is good is sufficient reason to do it; so Scripture evidences: “My son, eat thou honey, because it is good.” (Prov. 24:13; 1 Cor. 7:26)  In fact, “to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.” (Jm. 4:17)

.

Are such Surgeries Sinful?
& Preventing Potential, Eternal Good

Another way one might play god is by going against his will.  Yet if something is against God’s will, it is sinful.  But adaptations of created material for good reasons, with good, beneficial effects, that don’t do harm, are good and sanctioned by God (1 Tim. 4:4-5).  This does not change if it is a tolerable procedure with minimal risk, willingly undertaken.

It may be responded: There is harm done, and that more than the good obtained, so far as eternal souls are prevented from coming into being.  It is denied that prevention of potential goods necessarily outweighs such an action.  Preventing the potential good of eternal souls coming into being is advised by Scripture in Jesus sanctioning some persons becoming eunuchs for the kingdom of God (Mt. 19:12).  Paul wished all persons were single like himself (1 Cor. 7:7) and advised fathers, in some circumstances (1 Cor. 7:26), to keep their daughters unmarried (1 Cor. 7:25-40).

It may be said that work for the kingdom of God, involving saving other eternal souls, is far different than whatever natural benefits come from such elective, inhibitory surgeries.  That is a striking admission, that evangelism may outweigh having more kids (as will be relevant in further sections below).  However, Paul did not have evangelism in view with respect to unmarried daughters, but rather that they “may attend upon the Lord without distraction.” (1 Cor. 7:35)

.

Preventing Eternal Souls for
Natural Reasons

In Jer. 16:1-4 God tells Jeremiah to refrain from bearing eternal souls into existence, not for spiritual reasons:

“Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters in this place.  For thus saith the Lord concerning the sons and concerning the daughters that are born in this place…  They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine…” (vv. 2-4)

While God supernaturally told Jeremiah what would happen in the future, yet God’s prohibition to him was for the reason of natural law, that it wasn’t worth it, as the children would die a grievous death.  Hence, if a person knows future children will most likely die a grievous death, possibly by famine (or take Paul’s justifying circumstances and reason in 1 Cor. 7:26, “this is good for the present distress”), not only does one have liberty not to have kids, but one, in Jeremiah’s example, ought not to have kids, as the children’s lives may be worse than if they had never been born (cf. Lam. 4:9; Mt. 18:6; Mk. 14:21).  There are reasons for promoting persons preventing conception who live in fundamentally, acutely inhumane circumstances, as long as those circumstances remain.

Preventing potential goods, even eternal souls, per Jer. 16:1-4, is not the same as murdering actual persons in existence (which is a sin).

It is acknowledged such a severe life for a child is far different than the case of the average person getting a vasectomy.  Yet that natural limitations relevant to many persons considering a vasectomy may yet justify this action, will be shown further below.

.

Trusting God

Deciding not to have more children, from what has already been seen, is not necessarily contrary to trusting God (if Jeremiah was to trust God).  Rather, the two may be consistent with each other, God being over all responsible human action.  We ought to trust God while using every lawful, responsible means fitted to the use of good, desirable ends (Prov. 16:9; 21:31; Acts 27:24, 31; 1 Cor. 15:10; Phil. 2:12-13; 1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Thess. 3:10-12), even with medicine (Isa. 38:21; Lk. 10:34; 1 Tim. 5:23).  Neh. 4:9 says with respect adversaries:

“we made our prayer unto our God, and set a watch against them day and night…”

One may trust God through the means of doing his will in acting according to reason,¹ reason being given of God by nature and a revelation of his will² (Ps. 36:9; Prov. 8:14-16, 20; 14:8; 19:2; 20:27; Isa. 1:18; Job 32:8; Rom. 12:2; Acts 17:2-3; Jn. 1:9; Eph. 5:13; Phil. 1:9-10; Jm. 4:17).  To act wholly without reason, or against right reason, in pretense of trusting God, is but to tempt and provoke Him (Ps. 91:11-12; Mt. 4:5-7; WCF 20.2).  Nor is leaving this matter wholly to circumstance and chance (Eccl. 9:11) necessarily virtuous.³

¹ See ‘Scripture Upholds Nature’s Light & Law & Right Reason’.

² This is not to deny other modes whereby God signifies his will.

³ See point (8) of Fentiman’s Response to Barth.

As to children being gifts from the Lord (Ps. 127:3), they are so (usually) through natural and human, rational means, as God is the author of all good received (Mt. 19:17; 1 Tim. 4:4-5).  Just as one might responsibly and prudently delay marriage (Ruth 3:12-13, 18; 4:1-13), and hence conception, till one can sufficiently support the divine gift of kids coming along, in a healthy, beneficial context (Lk. 14:28), so one might choose not to bear more kids, the gifts and inheritance of YHWH, if one cannot sufficiently provide them a prudently healthy and beneficial context.  Rain in season is a good gift from God (Gen. 8:22; Acts 14:17), yet too much of it in flooding is not¹ (cf. Prov. 25:16, 27; see also point (7) of Fentiman’s Response to Barth).  Eating food is a blessing (Acts 14:17), but eating as much as one possibly can is not (Dt. 21:20; Prov. 23:21; 25:16, 27).

¹ So Phil Kayser, Conception Control: Avoiding Antinomianism & Legalism (Biblical Blueprints, 2017),  Appendix, ‘Objections…’

.

Very Large Families in Church History

Often put forward is the truth that God has remarkably blessed the world through some of the last children of very large families in Church history who became great spiritual leaders, the benefit of such families outweighing the difficulties that may attend raising them.  One would not want to prevent that.

Be it clear that large (say 6 kids or more) or very large families (say ten kids or more) may be a great blessing in many ways and overall, and ought to be had by those called to it.  However, as Phil Kayser notes:

“…there are almost as many Scriptures that speak of the curse of many children (Gen. 3:16; Eccl. 6:3; Is. 49:19-21; Deut. 28:18-19; Eze. 5:7-8 [KJV]; Jer. 15:9; Job 27:13-15; Luke 23:29 [also Prov. 17:25]) as there are that speak of the blessings of having many children (Gen. 17:2, 20; 22:17; 26:24; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4; Ex. 32:13; Deut. 7:14; Ps. 17:14; 113:9; 127:1-5; 128:1-6; Prov. 17:6; 1 Tim. 5:14).” Conception Control, ch. 6, ‘Other Scriptural Support’

God’s merciful blessing (sometimes extraordinarily) of human actions is no rule that such human actions are wholly approved by Him, nor is having large families a guarantee that God will so bless them in the way described (which has a lot more to do with an extraordinary amount of spiritual grace being given than blessings arising naturally from the family).

.

Sociology

In Post-Reformation Britain, from where some of those stories derive, large families were desirable for a number of natural reasons, namely in having a high mortality rate of children and adults, the need for manual labor, etc. not to mention they did not have as much knowledge or convenient measures for regulating births (which often their circumstances called out for).  Population levels capped according to limitations of natural resouces and tended to predictably cycle with years (or decades) of bad weather, disease, war, and other hardships.  The higher the population, the more died when the hardships, in some predictable, cyclical fashion, came on.  If one might not make it through winter due to not having enough food, the more children one has, the more will die; the less one has, the more will live.

On the other hand, if a married couple (1) is set in a prospering economy, (2) has circumstances adaptive to and comfortable for many kids, (3) there are natural needs for many kids (such as on a farm), and (4) the parents have a positive mindset about having many kids, such as in the generation of American Baby Boomers after World War II, these natural tendencies are going to have a natural, predictable effect on the number of kids persons have and the larger population.  If, say, decades after this generation, (1) the economy is not so prospering, (2) circumstances are not so adaptive to and comfortable for having many kids, (3) there are not so many natural needs for many kids, or to such a degree (possibly in city life), and (4), hence parents do not have so optimistic a view of (or such abilities for) having so many kids, these natural tendencies will bear a predictable effect on how many kids persons on average have and the overall population, and that by, and in accord with, nature and its laws.

.

“Ask the Beasts & they will Teach you”

One can relegate such sociology to persons not living and making choices in accord with the Bible (though Scripture and reformed theology upholds the light and laws of nature),¹ yet even many farm animals, not by conscious choice, in drought and other incommodious circumstances, by the wisdom of God through nature, have less young in their litters,² this conducing to their current and prospective circumstances.  “But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you…  Who…  does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?” (Job 12:7-9)

¹ Scripture Upholds Nature’s Light & Law & Reason

² Malnutrition does not seem to wholly account for this: Such animals could plausibly have just as many young nonetheless with greater malnourishment, like some humans, but they don’t.  In situations where animals in droughts, etc. are sufficiently watered and fed by humans, it is true they may have as many babies as normal, but that factors into their conducive and nutritive circumstances, to which their young may be expected to be beneficiaries.

Significantly malnourished or unhealthy humans will begin to decline in fertility, as God in his wisdom by nature prevents humans from bearing children when they, who are not so wise, would not.  Such a natural guard on the extreme limit involving sickly parents and babies is not the standard for human procreation, but rather human rationality is to improve nature, as God set unfallen Adam in the garden to tend and improve the garden and told, or allowed (see: Is “Be fruitful & multiply” a Command?) him to take dominion of the world for his good uses.

.

A Spiritual Argument

To turn from clearing the way to more positive arguments: A spiritual principle from the greater to the lesser is relevant to our question of not having more kids:

If a single person can choose to wholly forgo marriage, and thus forgo child bearing and rearing, for a spiritual interest in more directly promoting the Kingdom of God (Mt. 19:12) and serving the Lord more directly without as much earthly responsibility and distraction (1 Cor. 7:25-40, especially vv. 32-35):

This seems to imply the lesser, that a married couple may limit how many children they have so as to be able to devote more of their time, energy and resources for the Kingdom of God, without adding to their earthly responsibilities and distractions.

May your decisions not solely be for natural reasons, but be inclusive of higher spiritual ones as well.¹

¹ To further consider some of these things, see the material at ‘On Celibacy’.

The Medieval issue of married persons vowing abstinence (that they “may attend upon the Lord without distraction,” 1 Cor. 7:35) is not the same.  Those persons would have to live together, without coming together, perpetually, against all the inclinations of nature, this being truly against the fundamental purpose and privilege in marriage of a conjoined life and enjoying one another’s bodies (1 Cor. 7:1-5; Song of Songs).  Having a few kids already in marriage, as Joseph had two in Egypt and is labeled by the Holy Spirit as “a fruitful bough” (Gen. 49:22), can fulfill the purpose of child bearing in marriage without necessarily needing more; and getting a (normally) irreversible procedure done allows the good of regular, marital sexual activity.  The two cases are very different: one is much more unnatural than the other.¹

¹ That something being unnatural in some way and degree is not ipso facto therein unlawful, see points 4-5 & 11 of Fentiman’s Response to Barth.

.

Surgery & What Justifies it

If it is mutually recognized and decided that not having more children is best, the only remaining question is how one may lawfully accomplish this best.  Condoms are inconvenient and may fail; the pill may be a significant expense and have health repurcussions, especially in the long term.  The most effective, cost effective and convenient means to ensure not having more kids may be surgery.  A male vasectomy in America typically costs less, is less invasive, less risky, requires less recovery and is easier to get done than the wife getting her tubes tied.

Is it right to get a surgery, and permanently alter one’s body for such a purpose?  Jesus said:

“Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.” (Mt. 18:8)

Jesus’s argument hinges on the self-determining right, by nature’s light, of a person over their own body unto good purposes.  Specifically, He argues that cutting off the lesser member or organ is justified when “it is better,” or it “is profitable” (Mt. 5:30), for the greater, whole person (Josh. 7:12-13; Rom. 9:3; 1 Cor. 5:5-7; Eph. 4:16).  That lower animal functions of humans are to serve their higher, rational purposes was standard fare in Christian Medieval philosophy.

When and in what circumstances can (and ought) such a procedure be done morally?  Taking into account the risk of error and a permanent decision thereabout in such an important matter, yet nonetheless, such a procedure is moral when it is done in accord with nature’s light, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word (WCF 1.6), including when it is legitimately profitable and better to do so (Gen. 29:19; 1 Sam. 15:22; Ps. 37:16; 63:3; 84:10; 118:8-9; 119:72; Prov. 3:14; 8:11, 19; 12:9; 15:16-17; 16:8; 16:16, 19, 32; 17:1; 19:1; 19:22; 21:9, 19; 25:7, 24; 27:5; 27:10; 28:6; Eccl. 2:24; 3:12; 4:6, 9, 13; 5:5; 7:1, 3, 5, 8; 8:15; 9:4, 16, 18; Song 1:2; 4:10; Isa. 56:5; Eze. 36:11; Dan. 1:15; Hos. 2:7; Mt. 18:6; Lk. 5:39; 1 Cor. 7:9, 38; 1 Cor. 9:15; 11:17; 14:26, 40; 1 Pet. 3:17; 2 Pet. 2:21).  To specify a bit further: Such a procedure is moral when it can be done lawfully and is for the greatest good,¹ including for the glory of God, our welfare and that of others (Mt. 22:37-40).

¹ See ‘On Doing the Greater Good when Possible’.

.

A Case of Conscience:
Eternal Souls

The thought may yet linger: But are not eternal souls we hope to share Heaven with (by God’s grace, through the means of grace) worth the extra effort to bear more children longer?  If a couple is gifted and called for this, then definitely: Yes.

Yet this is nowhere prescribed for all in Scripture (and would be an unbearable yoke to many if it were, Acts 15:10).  Scripture allows liberty for the contrary, to those who are not so gifted or called,¹ and contains directive principles which run counter to this notion.  Scripture speaks of eunuchs, daughters and the apostle Paul (who would have all to be like himself), who could serve God’s spiritual Kingdom and eternal souls best in this life by not having children or further children.²

¹ The very lack of gifts and an evident call may be a revealing that this is not God’s will for the couple.

² To further consider some of these things, see the material at ‘On Celibacy’.

By natural law and Christian prudence, the greater good may not be in bringing into existence more eternal souls, but in caring for ourselves and discipling the children we do have, as needed and as is most profitable in our circumstances.  One ought not to sin in order to attain even eternal good, nor may we have confidence God will bless the means of grace to the salvation of further children if we move forward in a way of sin.

Even spiritual endeavors have natural limits:¹ At some point one has to retire from a day’s evangelism.  The crowds of people walk on with no one to tell them of the Savior?  This is God, in his sovereignty passing them over, through us following natural law, which is also God’s will revealed to us.  We may be content with the natural and spiritual goods, and children, God has given us (Ps. 16:5-6), without anxiety about going beyond our means.  The Lord dwindling and removing our means is an indicator of his desire not to bring more of his beloved people into the universe for eternity through us.

¹ See ‘On Hyper-Spirituality’.

But to those to whom further eternal souls of children mean more than investing in God’s kingdom and people in other ways, and you have the means for this, have children as long as you are so called, looking unto Jesus (Heb. 12:2), and don’t look back.  Your children, Lord willing in his grace, will be eternally thankful, and you will be wonderfully blessed for your extra efforts through eternity.

.

Peace of Conscience

To unduly agonize over whether our circumstances are right, what is the better good, are we so gifted and called, or did we make the best decision, is against your highest good and the Lord’s kindness (Jon. 4:11).  Hear the care in Jesus’s voice: “Thou art careful and troubled about many things.” (Lk. 10:41)  A timely, sufficiently weighed and conveniently made decision, despite that it may err to some degree this way or that, is for your highest good.

You can’t know all the factors, reflect their exact proportion or know the future.  You can at best be content with faithfully approximating such as you are able.  For that, and the rest (which is the chief of it), you need God.  Hear Him: “I will be your God.” (Jer. 30:22)  Consider, if you can, what that entails.  Not only will He take care of the rest, but He will work your ignorance, errors, mistakes, blunders, weaknesses, sins, and worse, where you’ve led others astray to break his commandments, to your eternal good and that of all believers, as well as and chiefly unto his eternal glory forever (Rom. 8:28).  He will be God: “for I am God, and there is none else.” (Isa. 45:22)

Our Lord is no hard master (Mt. 25:24); his commandments are easy and light, not burdensome; they give rest to the soul (Mt. 11:29-30; 1 Jn. 5:3).  Find that rest.  He is merciful, kind and full of blessing to those who serve Him with a ready heart:

“The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands…” Ex. 34:6-7

“I the Lord thy God am…  showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” Ex. 20:5-6

Hear the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostle’s prayer to you: “Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.” (Rom. 15:13)

.

.

History

All of History

Books

1900’s

Himes, Norman E. – Medical History of Contraception  (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co., 1936)  490 pp.  ToC

Green, Shirley – The Curious History of Contraception  (Ebury Press, 1971)  203 pp.  ToC

McLaren, Angus – A History of Contraception: from Antiquity to the Present Day  (Blackwell, 1990)  270 pp.  ToC

Riddle, John M. – Eve’s Herbs: a History of Contraception & Abortion in the West  (Harvard University Press, 1997)  330 pp.  ToC

.

2000’s

Collier, Aine – The Humble Little Condom: A History  (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007)  350 pp.  ToC

.

Ancient History

James, Peter & Nick Thorpe – ‘Contraceptives’  in Ancient Inventions  (Ballantine Books, 1994), pp. 185-92

“…the method traditionally used by Cherokee women, who believed that chewing and swallowing the roots of the spotted cowbane plant over four days would make them sterile…

research…  has shown that some of the oral contraceptives discovered by Amerindians are effective.  Laboratory tests on rats have demonstrated, for example, that both stoneseed, which was taken as an infusion of ‘desert tea’ by Shoshone women, and the powdered Paraguayan weed that was drunk with water by the women of the Matto Grosso reduce fertility considerably.

Investigation of the traditional herbal remedies of the Amerindians played a key role in inspiring the modern search for reliable oral contraceptives.” – p. 190

.

America

Book

Gordon, Linda – The Moral Property of Women: a History of Birth Control Politics in America  (Penguin Books, 1990)  430 pp.  ToC

.

Jewish

Book

Feldman, David M. – Birth Control in Jewish Law  (1968; Schocken Books, 1974)  315 pp.  ToC

“The oral contraceptive principle has its basis in the Talmud as a potion or ‘cup of roots,’ the kos shel ikkarin.  The ‘roots’ in that potion may refer to its herbal ingredients (the modern progesterone pill makes use of roots of the Mexican yam), and the mixture, in varying compositions, had many purposes…

The kos shel ikkarin itself could, in a different dosage or composition, cause fertility rather than sterility, or could cure certain ailments [pointing to its hormonal nature].  An inquiry concerning the wife’s right to drink a potion that would help her become pregnant (sam l’hit-abber) was addressed to the eminent R. Solomon ben Adret of the thirteenth century.” – p. 235

.

Roman Catholic Church

Book

Noonan, Jr., John T. – Contraception: a History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians & Canonists  (Harvard Univ. Press, 1966)  535 pp.  ToC

This covers the whole of post-NT history.

.

.

Bibliography

Article

2000’s

Naselli, Andy – ‘Should Christians Use Contraceptives?’  (2014)  18 references with some links

The references are to the writings of reputable, contemporary Church leaders, scholars and theologians.

.

.

.

“As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.  Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”

Ps. 127:4-5

“But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.  Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you…  But I would have you without carefulness.  He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife…  The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.  And this I speak for your own profit…  for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.”

1 Cor. 28-35

“…there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.  He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

Mt. 19:12

.

.

.

Related Pages

Ethics

On Bioethics & Medical Ethics

On the Timing of Ensoulment in the Womb, including with respect to Christ’s Incarnation & Gestation

On In Vitro Fertilization

On Abortion

Family

Marriage

On Eating & Drinking Blood, & Marital Relations During Menstruation

Neo-Calvinism

Natural Law

Philosophy

Metaphysics

The Sufficiency of Scripture

On Man’s Original State in Righteousness

Origin of the Soul

Original Sin

Christian Living

On the History of Religion & Science, & on the Mosaic Physics