UPDATE
It appears I was wrong in my understanding that estrogen acts in an abortifacient manner if ovulation has already occurred. I do not fully understand the medical science behind all this, and I tried to read the article I was referred to, but I did not find it easy to comprehend. I will quote from the discussion on Facebook, and link to the article in question.
Dr. Paul didn’t say progesterone, he said estrogen. According to my research, an estrogen shot tends to inhibit ovulation and fertilization, but doesn’t seem to have any affect on implantation of an already fertilized egg. It would basically have the same effect as a woman breastfeeding an infant, although presumably would not be as strong given a single shot. Some have mistakenly assumed he was speaking about a treatment that would inhibit implantation, or even worse, would cause the shedding of an implanted embryo, but those assumptions just aren’t factually correct. Those may actually be effects of a regimen of low dosage birth control pills with estrogen and progesterone, but that’s not how the estrogen shot works. (This is particularly ironic in light of recent revelations of candidates who have cheerfully voted to fund PP dispensing birth control under Title X … )
Here is a link that discusses some of the science, from a Christian perspective: Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications
Dr. Paul didn’t handle the interview well, but I don’t believe he said anything inconsistent with a true pro-life position.
So my position is further strengthened if this is true so I’m glad of that. But I am sorry that I in any way contributed to what appears to be myth.
Original article follows unaltered…
I’ve been wanting to write about this since it first started blowing up a couple of weeks ago, but I haven’t had the time. I don’t technically have the time this morning, but I’m going to write about it anyway because I need to. I need to get my thoughts out there on this. I need to get it off my chest.
Please be aware that this topic can be sensitive. I’ll be talking about some things quite frankly so please, if you are a minor reading this post, I highly encourage you to ask your parents to read this first and let you know whether it is appropriate for you to read about this subject. I will try to keep it clean certainly, but this topic over which allegations are being presented against Ron Paul includes rape, abortion etc. So please be advised.
So with that necessary disclaimer out of the way, let’s get started.
What’s the problem?
It all starts with this video (at least that seems to be what has instigated the current trend of dropping support for Ron Paul like a hot potato). I have set the video to start at the specific time code of the views in question.
The gist of this is that Ron Paul would give a shot of estrogen to a women who comes in to an emergency room and who has just been legitimately raped. She would obviously not like for this to result in a pregnancy. She wants to know what can be done. Ron Paul says a shot of estrogen would do the trick.
The problem seems to revolve around the idea that estrogen can cause a fertilized ovum (otherwise known to Christians as a baby!) to fail to implant on the wall of the uterus. This results of course in a very early miscarriage. The idea is that to purposely cause this is not a pro-life position.
Of course I’ve seen other views espoused on this issue too. Such as that all sexual intercourse should be able to result in a pregnancy and that even in the case of rape you should not try to prevent pregnancy. This is usually in line with the view that all forms of birth control, whether abortifacient or not, are wicked and evil.
Advancements in medicine
As anyone who knows me might guess, I think the issue is much more complex and nuanced than either of those two views allow. Consider this; we have made enormous strides and advancements in the last 100 years or so (give or take) in medical science, technology, knowledge, technique, etc. I do not have a problem with this, I see this as part of the dominion mandate. I am not espousing at all the idea that our dominion over this area of life is not good or that we should go back to the dark ages of leeches and bloodletting. But I do want to point out that we wrestle with ideas and concepts that no other generation has had to before. And we have a problem as well that many of the men and women in the field of medicine are not Godly at all but wicked and evil. They do not see medicine as an area of taking dominion as prescribed by a biblical dominion mandate. Rather they see our advancements as evidence that we are in the place of God. That we may make decisions on life and death, that we may kill babies. There are lots of ethical and moral dilemmas to consider, but this seems to cause the most uproar among Christians, and I would even say rightly so. We should protect life, no matter the age, no matter the status, inside or outside the womb.
The beginning of life
Let me state for the record here and now, I firmly believe life begins at conception. Not at implantation, not when cell division occurs, but when a sperm fertilizes an ovum. This places me firmly in the perhaps stereotypical evangelical pro-life camp. But, Ron Paul has stated in the video above that he also believes unequivocally that life begins at conception. Further, in his book Abortion and Liberty, Ron Paul had this to say:
To permit abortion at one day of gestation justifies it at two days; if it’s permitted one day before three months, it’s justified one day after three months; if it is permitted at one day before ‘viability,’ a nebulous term that has no meaning, it is justified at any time. Allowing abortion at six months gestation minus one day precludes an argument against abortion two days later. Attempting such an argument is a legal joke, a medical impossibility, and a moral hoax. Just as a pregnancy of one week cannot be put aside as “insignificant,” claiming it is only a ‘touch’ of pregnancy, abortion, regardless of the reason, cannot be downplayed as only a limited and qualified disregard for human life. Disrespect for life and liberty, once planted, grows rapidly.
I think this easily shows Ron Paul’s position on the matter. Ron Paul is pro-life.
What’s Paul saying in the video then?
The gist of it is, I think, this. How can one regulate the use of estrogen? Do we regulate that a woman can’t have a shot of estrogen under these certain circumstances but can in any other? Do we outlaw estrogen? Further complicated, a pregnancy can’t be confirmed at this stage. I daresay women have done things that caused a very early abortion without realizing it. This is the approach I see Ron Paul taking.
To me the medically challenging part is this: As far as my understanding goes, the large dose of estrogen will cause a thickening of mucus that would prevent the egg from being released (ovulation). It also causes mucus thickening in the uterine walls. This could have one of two effects.
-
If estrogen is administered immediately after sexual intercourse and before ovulation has occurred, it will prevent ovulation. If ovulation does not occur, the sperm will find no egg, and fertilization (conception) will not take place.
-
If estrogen is administered after ovulation, the thickened mucus on the uterine wall will have the abortifacient result of preventing implantation.
This is why Ron Paul says this is a moral choice and not one the state should be involved in regulating. And I agree it’s a tricky issue. I also admit to not having a clear-cut answer. Though I disagree with his personally stated choice of saying he would administer the estrogen presumably without finding out more about the woman’s current state in her cycle, I do not know personally whether we should have state intervention that would prevent this. As I stated previously, on what basis would we propose such regulation? And it’s complicated by the fact that women can and do chart their cycles in such a way as to know whether they have ovulated or not, whether they are close to ovulation etc. My wife does this. She, along with our midwife, has been able to predict with a high degree of accuracy the due date of each of our three children based on when she ovulated from her charting. In the case where a woman was legitimately raped, was charting and knows that she has not yet ovulated but is close, would a shot of estrogen to prevent ovulation from occurring be morally wrong?
You see what I mean by this issue being nuanced and complex? It’s not cut and dry. I personally believe we should always err on the side of life. If there’s even the slightest doubt, then I would preserve what I believed may be the life inside the rape victims body. This is a stance that many find hard to stomach, and I know I have not been faced with this circumstance personally. But I believe that were my wife (or in the future my daughter) to be raped, God forbid such a thing would happen, but if it were to happen, and a life were to be conceived because of such a circumstance, then it would be our duty, my duty, to preserve and care for this life.
What does this mean for my voting conscience?
Ron Paul has stated on many occasions that as president, he would only support legislation that defined life as beginning at conception. He makes absolutely no exceptions. And his record over the many years he has served proves his pro-life position beyond a shadow of any doubt. He is the most pro-life candidate we have seen in a very long, long time.
After much consideration, this has not impacted my voting decision at all. I still support Ron Paul for president. I believe that when considering all the possibilities and weighing all things carefully, it is the best possible choice I could make. It is the best possible choice any Christian could make for president. Upon reflecting on this issue, I have determined that absolutely nothing has changed.
One more thing
I want to put out this final thought. I think perhaps those of us who bleed conservatism when pricked, who are as far to the right of the conventional American “conservative” as the east is from the west, those of us who for years and years and years have been on the outside looking in because the so-called conservatives in this country were just less liberal but still so, are so very used to being in the minority and on the outside that we are unconsciously uncomfortable with having a candidate get anywhere close to mainstream. Ron Paul’s surge in popularity has scared us and so our subconscious minds began looking for something wrong. And when this popped up, I think many jumped on it (again, unconsciously). It was like, “Ah HAH!, I knew it! We just can’t support those main stream candidates. They’re all the same.” This is a defeatist mentality, and one I suggest we dump immediately! Ron Paul probably isn’t even going to win this, so what do you think would happen if we actually advanced a candidate into a position where he would actually win? Let’s loose this defeatist attitude, and I mean right now!