Watch this video and stop using birth control pills...

One reader of this blog is a pharmacist in a western state who's struggling over whether to continue to dispense birth control pills from his pharmacy (he owns it). One of the methods birth controls pills work is by preventing the fertilized ovum from implanting himself on the wall of the uterus. Twenty-five years ago, a pharmacist showed me this truth matter-of-factly stated in his continuing education curriculum. So please pray for the pharmacist, that he will honor God and begin to refuse to take part in the murder of these unborn babies.

Another pharmacist I know, when faced with the growth in the use of ECPs (and if you don't know what those are, shame on you; they're the growth curve of the baby murdering business right now) changed his mind about when human life begins. Of course, like all life, human life begins at conception--the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm. But to silence consciences, decades ago the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed their definition of conception, decreeing that from that point on human life would no longer begin at conception, but rather at the point in time when the fertilized ovum successfully implants himself on the uterine wall.

A pharmacist I used to consider a friend and brother saw ACOG one and raised them ten. A couple of years ago he changed his definition of the beginning of human life and now he has no problem fulfilling prescriptions for ECPs. But get this: he went further than ACOG. They say it's a human life at implantation, but he's decided it's not a human life until several weeks later. Maybe fourteen or twenty-one days--who knows?

Until then he thinks this living man bearing the Image of God isn't really living...

And it isn't really a man. It's a fungus. Bacteria. An acorn. A rock. Or then again, maybe it's living, but only a monkey or a moose or a snake?

If you think I shouldn't deride him, consider that he's constantly an accessory to murder while serving as an elder, and that many consider him a very pious and godly man.

I don't.

We've become so very callous that we are incapable of truth in our outward parts, not to mention our inward parts.

What do you think of this glorious video of these precious babies as God Almighty, their loving Heavenly Father, knits them together in their mother's womb? Would it really be that difficult for us to confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ by taking up our cross and following Him? Would it really be impossible for us to take a step of real faith and stop taking or selling the pill?

Forget opposing surgical abortions. We'll never be able to stop them until followers of Jesus Christ repent of our murderous involvment in ECPs and birth control pills.

Have you ever noticed how Psalm 139 is never read through to the very end?

For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.

How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand. When I awake, I am still with You.

O that You would slay the wicked, O God; Depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed. For they speak against You wickedly, And Your enemies take Your name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate You, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; And see if there be any hurtful way in me, And lead me in the everlasting way. (Psalms 139:13-24)

(TB, w/thanks to several loved ones)


That pharmacist needs to let others make their own choices.

And material in a CEU course if hardly a reliable research source. If you are concerned whether birth control pills cause abortion, do some reading from objective, informed, educated scientists. But a CEU course? Not persuasive.

We don't take guns away from people--they make their own choices of how to use them. Birth control is much the same.

Unless you are God, you cannot really know when life begins. We all have our different views--God made us all different.

Are the Bayley brothers also against gun ownership? Guns also cause murder.

Comparison to guns is ridiculous. Guns MAY harm, they MAY kill (or murder), or they MAY even provide food for hunger. Birth control pills, by design, are exclusively meant to prohibit all possibility of life.

@ Peter S.

To say that scientists can be objective, and yet to say, "Unless you are God, you cannot really know when life begins. We all have our different views--God made us all different," is trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you are willing to admit the existence of objective truth, then it follows that the moment when life begins is an objective truth that can be discovered. Refusing to admit that it begins at conception creates a rather absurd standard for life. If our humanity or personhood is dependent on time, then killing a 4 year-old would be less heinous that killing a 20 year-old, yet this is plainly not the case.

Also, concerning firearms, if the comparison is carried to its conclusion, then we should also ban all blunt or pointy objects, or even our bare hands. Like Sandy said, a firearm has many purposes and uses, where birth control pills have only one. Firearms, blunt objects, et al, are tools whose use is dependent on the will of their user. Not so for birth control.

Guns have virtuous uses. Not so the birth control implements under discussion.

See, Peter, the thing about CME is that, well:

1) it is meant to educate.

2) it must be approved to be eligible for reimbursement - and no one spends their own money on unaccredited CME nor is any emigre going to pay for you to attend m

3) any outfit that does not provide accurate info is t going to last.

All that is aside from the fact that the effects of OCP, ECP any any other hormonal form of birth control are very well established a d all over the literature.

The pharmacist, as all healthcare professionals, has the responsibility to follow his conscience.

As to when life begins? Well, that is at the moment of conception. It cannot be otherwise.

Did you even watch the video?

Great video. Good points about the effects of BCPs and ECPs. Thank you.

Of the most conservative denominations, which ones desire to protect the least of these from homicide by a written prohibition against all forms of abortion and abortifacients (e.g., IUD, BCPs, ECPs, RU486)?

>> which ones desire to protect the least of these


What is your reason for asking this question? Are you "just curious"? I hope that you are not trying to use the American church's lethargy as proof that there's nothing at stake here.

"The pharmacist, as all healthcare professionals, has the responsibility to follow his conscience. "

I'd go one better -- the pharmacist, like all people, has the responsibility to follow his conscience. No one really believes that people are obligated to "let people choose" when that means "I facilitate their commission of moral evil." Do we sell grenades to terrorists to let them choose what to do with them?

And you know, the gun parallel isn't so bad, if it's understood in really parallel fashion to this situation. If someone is morally opposed to the use of guns, by all means, he should refuse to sell them. No one's trying to take away the right of people not to run gun shops, are they?

I'm sorry for the last, I know y'all don't like pseudonymns. I thought I had my real name saved on this site.

>>Of the most conservative denominations, which ones desire to protect the least of these from homicide...

None of them--not even the Roman Catholic Church which, although officially on record as opposing birth control, has very few members who don't use it and almost every one of its politicians trot out the murderous canard popularized by their pater familia, Teddy Kennedy: "Although I'm personally opposed to abortion..."

My own PCA presbytery approved a man's examination who, on the floor, took an exception to the Larger Catechism's declaration that the Sixth Commandment forbids "the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life..." His exception was that he didn't believe it was necessary to feed or hydrate someone who was unresponsive and bed bound, yet not terminally ill. At the next presbytery meeting, one of the churches appealed the decision and, under threat of General Assembly review, eventually the presbytery got the man to withdraw his exception. That's one of the most conservative national organizations of Presbyterians.

I'm sure even the Christian Medical and Dental Society doesn't oppose the Pill. The lives of Christians--especially highly educated and wealthy Presbyterians--are built on the Pill and its benefits (the separation of the unitive and procreative purposes of intimacy, and very few children), so imagine how such men would approach the morality of the Pill.


No problem Ms. Dunsworth! I've just wasted a lot of words answering anonymous commenters in the past who turned out not to be seeking the truth. I'm glad I was wrong this time!

So it's clear that certain forms of birth control are blatant sin and there is no liberty of conscience, but it's not so clear that children of believers should be baptized and there is wide latitude (i.e. ClearNote Non-denom's statement on baptism)? The foibles of cultural Christianity over against confessional Christianity once again.

Yes, Norm, clearly there is an underlying inconsistency when time and mode of baptism are matters of freedom, while murder isn't.

Talk about majoring in the minors.


The logic goes like this: parents should be free to kill their babies in the womb because the Westminster Standards don't speak of any Biblical prohibition against killing babies in the womb. Nor do the Standards declare whether the life in the womb is a human life protected by the Sixth Commandment; nor even how and when the Imago Dei is imprinted on this womb-thing. Whole lotta lack of clarity and there must never be clarity where the Standards are silent.

On the other hand, the Standards do make clear the Biblical obligation to baptize newborn Covenant children, so that word is law. Whether it would be permissible to kill the thing before it's baptized, though; that's unclear. And always, clarity in an area the Standards haven't spoken to is a lack of moral imagination and almost the worst sin imaginable.


* * *

By the way, the man or woman who signed his or her name "Norm" above lied in order to make their comment. Baylyblog requires a valid e-mail address and they used a fake one. And, good readers, do you know that when people comment who give indications of being sympathetic to the Escondido-confessional/R2K backwater, I can almost count on them using false e-mail addresses and/or names. I've checked on them a number of times as I just checked on "Norm," and what happened with Norm happens regularly.

For the record, "Norm's" IP address is from Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The PCA has transitioned from being "the fastest growing denomination in America" to "in decline" (Dr. Bryan Chapell, "2010 PCA Strategic Plan,"

With steroids (e.g., BCP, ECP) in the vast majority of Christian medicine cabinets, is there any wonder that the PCA is "in decline"? Not only are they inadvertently killing their young, but when taken cumulatively, the entire PCA to boot.

Nature whispers "multiply or die." However, Margaret Sanger plied the Christians with The Pill and won. Now, without multiplying families or massive conversions rivaling those in the 1st Century, denominational decline may be irreversible.

I have two comments to make.

First, I recently finished reading a book "Why Pro-Life?" by Randy Alcorn. I have been Pro-Choice in the past, but God had thankfully already changed my heart and I was Pro-Life for biblical reasons before reading the book. Since I keep finding myself in the same debate over and over again I read the book to help me better understand my own position (I highly recommend this book to people from both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" positions). The really fascinating thing about this book, to me, is that the way Mr. Alcorn writes his book, you wouldn't have to be a Christian to see and understand the pro-life argument. He spends two chapters on the "when does life begin?" topic and here I quote one part:

"The newly fertilized egg contains a staggering amount of genetic information, sufficient to control the individual's growth and development for his entire lifetime. A single thread of DNA from a human cell contains information equivalent to a library of one thousand volumes. The cells of the new individual divide and multiple rapidly, resulting in phenomenal growth. There's growth because there's life. Long before a woman knows she's pregnant there is within her a living, growing human being...
At conception the unborn doesn't appear human to us who are used to judging humanity by appearance. Nevertheless, in the objective scientific sense he is every bit as human as any older child or adult. He looks like a human being ought to at his stage of development."

The fetus, at conception, isn't more or less human than my two-year old daughter or my 80-year old grandma -- he or she is just at an earlier stage of development. As soon as the egg is no longer an "egg" and the sperm is no longer a "sperm," but instead a newly formed zygote containing this genetic code for growth, scientifically it is human. If you do not halt the 'growth' a baby outside the womb will result. If you halt the 'growth' that is underway, then you clearly terminate a human life. In other words, you murder a human.

Second, and this is more of a question, would you condone other types of birth control, i.e. condoms and "natural family planning?" It sounds like you are opposed specifically to the Pill in this post because you have been told that it prevents a fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall (I did not know this fact about the Pill so this is amazing, thank you). But, would you say that if you prevent the eggs from ever being fertilized in the first place (i.e. by use of a condom or by withdrawing from the activity that causes fertilization all together), then it is okay?

Last night 40 Days for Life revealed Planned Parenthood's plans to start having telemed abortions where a Dr.can view an ultrasound from a remote location to determine if a baby is less than 63 days old. Then, if the mother decides to abort, push a button which opens a drawer giving her the drugs to abort her baby. They plan to start this in Iowa and spread it across the nation. Drugs to keep your baby from implanting just after conception or drugs to starve the baby and induce labor at 63 days after conception. Is there a major difference except that in the first case the mom didn't ever know she was pregnant? We may have lost children this way being ignorant about the effects of birth control early in our marriage.

>> And always, clarity in an area the Standards haven't spoken to is...almost the worst sin imaginable.

The argument that presbyters may not teach any doctrine with authority unless it has already been spoken to in a creed or confession is so upside down anyway. How is a creed or confession ever conceived or born except that men deny and teach against a scriptural doctrine and faithful presbyters argue and teach against the error, sometimes for centuries, and *eventually* councils are convened to set forth the true doctrine in creeds and confessions.

Imagine all the Arian bishops telling Athanasius, "Stop trying to silence us with *your interpretation* (of the Trinity), we both acknowledge the Apostles' Creed." What, the Nicene Creed had to have already magically appeared anticipating the Arian errors before Athanasius could preach the truth with authority? No, but it was the faithful preaching and teaching of men like Athanasius that led to the Nicene Creed.

This philosophy of can't-teach-with-authority-unless-it's-already-in-a-creed is so dangerous for the sheep. It makes it so pastors can only ever guard against the devil's past lies, never his present ones.

>>The argument that presbyters may not teach any doctrine with authority unless it has already been spoken to in a creed or confession is so upside down anyway.

I would think "thou shalt not murder" in the Ten Commandments would be sufficient teaching authority.

>>>For the record, "Norm's" IP address is from Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Hmmm. Steve Zrimec lives in GR...

I wonder if "Norm" knows Steve Zrimec...

I wonder if "Norm" is in the same room Steve Zrimec now...

I wonder if "Norm" is in the same room as Steve Zrimec even when Steve is alone...

Just wondering, of course.

To clarify, the erroneous post was "pentamom," not "anon." I use pentamom online in places where pseudonyms are allowed, so it came up automatically.

Let's put aside for the moment the question of whether any birth control is permissible under any circumstances and consider the following:

What if you take an ECP with the intent to prevent fertilization but accidentally prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo? Is that murder?

Does anyone know the odds that a death will actually result from the use of an ECP?

Oops on an oops then. :)

Do you have five little ones? We have four aged seven and under. What a precious blessing they are, and how cozy it is when we're all snuggled on the sofa for Bible and story time of an evening. I'm sure we could fit some more into the snuggle too if the Lord so blesses.

Anne, do you have a link for this article? I haven't found it on the 40 Days for Life website. Thanks!

Do the odds actually matter? Or the intent?
Let's say a doctor has been prescribing an antibiotic to fight infection -- and later a discovery is made that this particular antibiotic can cause death. Has the doctor murdered his previous patients whom he prescribed the antibiotic, not knowing it caused death? No, I think that would be a true accident.
However, if the doctor continues to prescribe the antibiotic that can cause death, knowing that it causes death (at whatever odds) would it be murder? Or would it be that he accidentally killed someone while trying to prevent an infection? In our legal system, the "intent" would only determines what degree of murder it would be, not whether it was murder or not.

If you accidentally kill a jogger, she's dead. That this was a homicide -- the killing of a person -- may mean you're innocent. Or you may have not yielded a sufficient distance from her. Nevertheless, this jogger's still dead.

Likewise for the ECP and BCP (and other abortifacients). They have a deadly mode per their package inserts. Just because the FDA redefined when "pregnancy" (instead of defining when life) begins doesn't mean these millions of tiny persons are not slaughtered. (The FDA considers one pregnant when an embryo attaches to the uterus.) Ignorance of these knowable facts may not provide much defense. And these tiny persons are still dead regardless of one's ultimate culpability.

Jessica W: I heard it on their telecast on Monday night but according to my email they have a recording of her testimony on Her is Sue a former Planned Parenthood director. The recording was just posted today.

"Norm" said previously:

"So it's clear that certain forms of birth control are blatant sin and there is no liberty of conscience, but it's not so clear that children of believers should be baptized and there is wide latitude (i.e. ClearNote Non-denom's statement on baptism)? The foibles of cultural Christianity over against confessional Christianity once again."

Now Steve Zrimec shares the same sentiment at Darryl Hart's appropriately named blog:

"Norm" and Steve are located around Grand Rapids...both share the same sentiment on paedobaptism...both are familiar with Clear Note church and both share the same sentiment about the same subject related to the same man and church on different blogs. Coinky-dinks...gotta love 'em.

The only difference I can find between the two is that Steve Zrimec is banned from the Baylyblog for lying while "Norm" isn't.

Thank you and the Baylys for calling out wicked people who lie about their names. I don't understand why Bible-believing Christians would make up false e-mails or lie about their names in the first place. The Apostle Paul didn't pretend to be "Norm" when he wrote his letters...

Not anymore! They are 10 to 20. The ways in which they are blessings only increase as they grow. :-)

I did have four seven and under, a long time ago. :-)

I'm a little late in commenting on this, but look at this beautiful child -

and remember that the overwhelming majority of downs syndrome babies are murdered as soon as the parents get the "bad" news. Is there anyone here who would think this child (and any other child) is anything other than a blessing?

May God bring true repentance and may our little ones be protected from the moment of conception.



I just saw that posted on FB. What a delightful little girls. The doctors telling her patents what she would and would not bd able to do reminded me of Bob Kaplowiyz's story.



I'm not familiar with Bob Kaplowiiyz. Is he too someone born with Down's Syndrome?


Sorry for the typo - Kaplowitz.

That's where you can read a bit about him. He was born with cerebral palsy.


Oh yes. I did read about him when that was originally posted, but forgot his name. Thank you for the link to remind me of him and how he has enriched the body of Christ in so many ways.



Add new comment