Scientific technologies today permit greater control of human fertility and reproduction than was formerly possible. These technologies make possible sexual intercourse with the expectation of pregnancy and childbirth greatly reduced. Christian married couples have a potential for fertility control that has created many questions with wide-ranging religious, medical, social, and political implications. Opportunities and benefits exist as a result of the new capabilities, as do challenges and drawbacks. A number of moral issues must be considered. Christians who ultimately must make their own personal choices on these issues must be informed in order to make sound decisions based on biblical principles.
Among the issues to be considered is the question of the appropriateness of human intervention in the natural biological processes of human reproduction. If any intervention is appropriate, then additional questions regarding what, when, and how must be addressed. Other related concerns include:
•likelihood of increased sexual immorality which the availability and use of birth control methods may promote;
•gender dominance issues related to the sexual privileges and prerogatives of both women and men;
•social issues, including the right of a society to encroach upon personal freedom in the interest of the society at large and the burden of economic and educational support for the disadvantaged; and
•stewardship issues related to population growth and
the use of natural resources.
A statement of moral considerations regarding birth
control must be set in the broader context of biblical teachings
about sexuality, marriage, parenthood, and the value
of children—and an understanding of the interconnectedness
between these issues. With an awareness of the diversity
of opinion within the Church, the following biblically
based principles are set forth to educate and to guide in
decision making.
1. Responsible stewardship. God created human beings
in His own image, male and female, with capacities to
think and to make decisions (Isa 1:18; Josh 24:15; Deut
30:15-20). God gave human beings dominion over the
earth (Gen 1:26, 28). This dominion requires overseeing
and caring for nature. Christian stewardship also requires
taking responsibility for human procreation. Sexuality, as
one of the aspects of human nature over which the individual
has stewardship, is to be expressed in harmony with
God’s will (Exod 20:14; Gen 39:9; Lev 20:10-21; 1 Cor
6:12-20).
2. Procreative purpose. The perpetuation of the human
family is one of God’s purposes for human sexuality
(Gen 1:28). Though it may be inferred that marriages are
generally intended to yield offspring, Scripture never presents
procreation as an obligation of every couple in order to
please God. However, divine revelation places a high value
on children and expresses the joy to be found in parenting
(Matt 19:14; Ps 127:3). Bearing and rearing children help
parents to understand God and to develop compassion, caring,
humility, and unselfishness (Ps 103:13; Luke 11:13).
3. Unifying purpose. Sexuality serves a unifying purpose
in marriage that is God-ordained and distinguishable
from the procreative purpose (Gen 2:24). Sexuality in marriage
is intended to include joy, pleasure, and delight (Eccl
9:9; Prov 5:18, 19; Song of Sol 4:16-5:1). God intends that
couples may have ongoing sexual communion apart from
procreation (1 Cor 7:3-5), a communion that forges strong
bonds and protects a marriage partner from an inappropriate
relationship with someone other than his or her spouse
(Prov 5:15-20; Song of Sol 8:6, 7). In God’s design, sexual
intimacy is not only for the purpose of conception. Scripture
does not prohibit married couples from enjoying the
delights of conjugal relations while taking measures to prevent
pregnancy.
4. Freedom to choose. In creation—and again through
the redemption of Christ—God has given human beings freedom of choice, and He asks them to use their freedom
responsibly (Gal 5:1, 13). In the divine plan, husband and
wife constitute a distinct family unit, having both the freedom
and the responsibility to share in making determinations
about their family (Gen 2:24). Married partners should
be considerate of each other in making decisions about birth
control, being willing to consider the needs of the other as
well as one’s own (Phil 2:4). For those who choose to bear
children, the procreative choice is not without limits. Several
factors must inform their choice, including the ability to
provide for the needs of children (1 Tim 5:8); the physical,
emotional, and spiritual health of the mother and other care
givers (3 John 2; 1 Cor 6:19; Phil 2:4; Eph 5:25); the social
and political circumstances into which children will be born
(Matt 24:19); and the quality of life and the global resources
available. We are stewards of God’s creation and therefore
must look beyond our own happiness and desires to consider
the needs of others (Phil 2:4).
5. Appropriate methods of birth control. Moral decision
making about the choice and use of the various birth
control agents must stem from an understanding of their
probable effects on physical and emotional health, the
manner in which the various agents operate, and the financial
expenditure involved. A variety of methods of birth
control—including barrier methods, spermicides, and sterilization—prevent
conception and are morally acceptable.
Some other birth-control methods may prevent the release
of the egg (ovulation), may prevent the union of egg and
sperm (fertilization), or may prevent attachment of the already
fertilized egg (implantation). Because of uncertainty
about how they will function in any given instance, they
may be morally suspect for people who believe that protectable
human life begins at fertilization. However, since
the majority of fertilized ova naturally fail to implant or are
lost after implantation, even when birth control methods
are not being used, hormonal methods of birth control and
IUDs, which represent a similar process, may be viewed
as morally acceptable. Abortion, the intentional termination
of an established pregnancy, is not morally acceptable for
purposes of birth control.
6. Misuse of birth control. Though the increased ability
to manage fertility and protect against sexually transmitted
disease may be useful to many married couples, birth control
can be misused. For example, those who would engage
in premarital and extramarital sexual relations may more
readily indulge in such behaviors because of the availability
of birth control methods. The use of such methods to protect
sex outside of marriage may reduce the risks of sexually
transmitted diseases and/or pregnancy. Sex outside of
marriage, however, is both harmful and immoral, whether
or not these risks have been diminished.
7. A redemptive approach. The availability of birth control
methods makes education about sexuality and
morality even more imperative. Less effort should be put forth in condemnation and more in education and redemptive
approaches that seek to allow each individual to be
persuaded by the deep movings of the Holy Spirit.
Some current examples of these methods include intrauterine
devices (IUDs), hormone pills (including the
“morning-after pill”), injections, or implants. Questions
about these methods should be referred to a medical professional.
This statement was voted during the Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee on Wednesday, September 29, 1999 in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Recommendations: Use of Mifepristone (RU486)
1. In the treatment of medical conditions, such
as cancer, for which RU486 may provide effective
therapy, the drug should be used in keeping
with relevant laws and established medical
science.
2. RU486 is also used for contraception. When
the effect of the drug is to prevent fertilization,
its use is ethically permissible. Like other oral
contraceptives, however, RU486 may sometimes
prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum.
This is ethically problematic to those who consider
this effect to be abortion.
3. When RU486 is used in legally permissible
and medically appropriate ways for the
purpose of causing abortion, the previously
adopted Seventh-day Adventist Guidelines on
Abortion should guide the practice.
This recommendation was voted by the Christian
View of Human Life Committee at Pine Springs
Ranch, California, April 10-12, 1994, and was voted
by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Administrative Committee (ADCOM), Silver Spring,
Maryland, July 26, 1994.