The HHS Birth Control Mandate and Abortifacients

I have great respect and admiration for our synodical president Rev. Matthew Harrison's bold defense of our religious liberties.  It is my prayer that Pastor Harrison will now be just as bold and fearless in the further communications I hope he will address to the pastors and churches of the Missouri Synod about the abortifacient nature of all hormonal, chemical, and IUD methods of birth control.

Education on this abortifacient issue was the very purpose of the 2004 synodical resolution to which the LCM Sanctity of Human Life Committee published its 2009 report "Resolution 6-10: Guidance on Contraceptive Methods"  - a report issued when Rev. Harrison was director of LCMS World Relief and Human Care.

Res. 6-10 as passed in synod convention called on the Board for Human Care Ministries to “review the various birth control products” and clarify which act sometimes or all the time as “abortifacients” – products that may destroy an embryo or prevent its implantation in the uterine wall. The resolution, adopted 955-52, noted that some products are mislabeled as contraceptives. Delegates asked that the board make this information available to pastors and members of LCMS congregations. The Board for Human Care Ministries charged the Sanctity of Human Life Committee with this task. This is a unique opportunity to draw attention to this report according to its intended purpose, and I fervently pray that this opportunity is not missed.

I ask you to join me in both urging President Harrison, and praying to our Heavenly Father, that in an effort to lead this ongoing discussion, President Harrison will now make further official statements to encourage the pastors and churches of our beloved synod to take this wonderful opportunity to collectively educate their congregations with the Sanctity of Human Life Committee's report on abortifacients, so that the full extent of the pro-life issue not remain hidden beneath the important religious liberty discussion which makes this such a unique opportunity.

Lord, in your mercy, hear our prayer.


Marianne Karth said...

I have recently come to a new realization: those who allow for a couple to make their own decision (rather than leaving it in the Lord’s hands), regarding how many children to have, seem to draw the conclusion that if you have any children at all, then that may be considered “fruitful” in adherence to the Lord’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” Or they may make the observation that if the marriage is in some other way “fruitful,” then that will also meet the criteria.

Yet, it seems clear to me that, if one does a thorough analysis of Scripture, one would draw other conclusions. First of all, the “be fruitful and multiply” command is directly linked to bearing offspring. Secondly, if one looks at the definition of fruitful, it connotes abundance and profusion—not merely replacement of oneself (Gen. 35:11; Gen. 48:4). Certainly, it would not be counted against those who left it in the Lord’s hands but bore few or no children—it is up to Him as to how He blesses (in certain situations, we know that He has chosen to bless abundantly: “And I will make you exceedingly fruitful…” Gen. 17:6). Finally, it is clearly a command, with accompanying blessings (provisions), to be fruitful and multiply. This is brought up by the Lord numerous times and does not appear to be an area which Scripture is silent on and therefore could not be considered an area in which the conscience should not be bound.

Does God care about how we live our lives? In other words, does it make any difference to Him about how we live? And, if so, what guidelines does He give us for living? Can we be mature enough to figure out that we can choose to please God and not be doing it under the law (because we have to)? Can we allow Him to increase in us the desire to know Him (listen to Him, seek Him) and to walk in His ways (obey Him)?

If that is all so, then can we ask ourselves: What did God truly mean when He said, “Be fruitful and multiply”?

Marianne Karth, November 2, 2002 (revised July 14, 2003)


Children of Jerry and Marianne Karth 9
potential grandchildren 9x9= 81
potential great-grandchildren 81x9= 729
potential great-great-grandchildren 729x9= 6561
pot. great-great-great-grandchildren 6561x9= 59,049

potential descendants of Jerry and Marianne by the last listed generation = 66,429


children 2
grandchildren 2x2= 4
great-grandchildren 4x2= 8
great-great-grandchildren 8x2= 16
great-great-great-grandchildren 16x2= 32

potential descendants of a couple, who are adders, by the last listed generation = 62

Erich Heidenreich, DDS said...

In actuality, your 2 "adders" don't produce 62 descendants. The spouses have to come from somewhere. If everyone had two children, without other factors this would produce zero population growth because each couple only replaces themselves. Due to infant mortality and other factors, the actual "replacement level fertility" is estimated to be 2.1 children per woman.

GL said...

A better look at "Adders".

Let's begin with 1000 individuals in generation 1 and assume, for argument sake, that there are 500 males and 500 females. Assuming that the 500 couples procreate 2 children each, generation 2 will also have 1000 individuals. However, we know for various reasons that a few of those will not reproduce, that's why in developed countries, the replacement fertility rate is 2.1. Assuming that 998 of them reproduce (i.e., 99.8%) and have 2 children on average, generation 2 will really have only 998 individuals, but again, not everyone will, so, based on our assumption, generation 3 has 996 and, continuing forward, generation 4 has 994, generation 5 has 992, and so forth.

So Generations are as follow:

1 = 1000
2 = 998
3 = 996
4 = 994
5 = 992

What is obvious is that 2 children per couple results in a declining population because not all individuals born will reproduce. A society which does this is made up (on average) of subtractors, not adders.