the Christian truth about the evil of birth control

[CatholicXian]

I am not in a position to judge specifics, but for those who "need" the Pill for medical reasons--there are other options out there--diet, lifestyle changes that make a world of difference. For someone in a marital relationship--the Pill should not be used unless both spouses are willing to abstain until the Pill is no longer necessary. Abortion is not worth it. Life is life.

While there is other options out there, none of those options are an option for my wife. So what you are saying that my wife and I should NOT be intimate with each other... EVER? LOL that's a good one.

Abortion is abortion... I know it's hard to hear it, but the Pill is an abortifacient. When you have sex while your wife is on the Pill you risk the abortion of your children. The prolife movement starts at home, and in our own bedrooms.

Let me ask you. Are you married? If so, Do you enjoy being intimate with your spouse or is it "Just for procreation and not recreation"?

As I have stated before, sex has two INSEPARABLE ends: procreation and the unity of the spouses. They are inseparable. Yes, sex has the potential to create new life with the aide of God; and yes, sex is fun/pleasurable.

So let's take this farther... Is someone who DOESN'T want to marry in sin for it, because he/she is not producing babies in our almost overpopulated world? Using your reasoning, it would be, because they are going against the "natural" flow of things.

Our world is not almost overpopulated. Not even close.

Other than that, I'm not sure what you are asking... "doesn't want to marry in sin for it"--what is "it"? Sex? I'm confused by the wording.

 

[CatholicXian]

Oh, I figured out what you were asking in the last part...

No, a person who does not want to marry is not necessarily in sin. It depends upon God's will for that person. If God has called them to be married, then they should marry rather than detract from the will of God. However, God has called some persons to consecrated celibacy (cf. Matthew 19:10-12).

 

[ebleau]

Other than that, I'm not sure what you are asking... "doesn't want to marry in sin for it"--what is "it"? Sex? I'm confused by the wording.

Let me rephrase...

He/she doesn't want to marry... are they in sin for not wanting to marry?

Less confusing?

 

[ebleau]

this is a inaccurate bit of information primarily put out by pro-abortionist. You can fit every human on earth in the state of Texas there is no "overpopulation"

While you are correct on that, you are thinking only on a "Per mile" basis. There is other aspects to think of. Food and Resources are a couple.

Just because you can fit 1,000,000 people in to a square mile, it doesn't mean it will comfortable nor productive.

 

[biblecatholic]

While you are correct on that, you are thinking only on a "Per mile" basis. There is other aspects to think of. Food and Resources are a couple.

Just because you can fit 1,000,000 people in to a square mile, it doesn't mean it will comfortable nor productive.

The problem is greed and gluttony...we the "haves" do not share with the "have not's" thus people starve have no housing and live in poverty

 

[CatholicXian]

Other than that, I'm not sure what you are asking... "doesn't want to marry in sin for it"--what is "it"? Sex? I'm confused by the wording.

Let me rephrase...

He/she doesn't want to marry... are they in sin for not wanting to marry?

Less confusing?

Yes, thank you...

No, a person who does not want to marry is not necessarily in sin. It depends upon God's will for that person. If God has called them to be married, then they should marry rather than detract from the will of God. However, God has called some persons to consecrated celibacy (cf. Matthew 19:10-12).

 

[ebleau]

Oh, I figured out what you were asking in the last part...

No, a person who does not want to marry is not necessarily in sin. It depends upon God's will for that person. If God has called them to be married, then they should marry rather than detract from the will of God. However, God has called some persons to consecrated celibacy (cf. Matthew 19:10-12).

?? That verse is not saying that God has CALLED some people to be celibate. Christ is answering The question that the Disciples had about Divorce. Disciples said afterwards, "If such is the case of man with his wife, it is better not to marry". Jesus answered that some where born eunuchs, some were made eunuchs. and some are self made eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it. He's not saying that they were called. He was saying that some had no choices in the matter and some decided that marrying was too much of a hassle or stumbling block in their service and if they can accept it then so be it.

So basically you are saying that you feel that you should marry UNLESS you are a Catholic priest...

 

[ebleau]

While you are correct on that, you are thinking only on a "Per mile" basis. There is other aspects to think of. Food and Resources are a couple.

Just because you can fit 1,000,000 people in to a square mile, it doesn't mean it will comfortable nor productive.

The problem is greed and gluttony...we the "haves" do not share with the "have not's" thus people starve have no housing and live in poverty

and that problem will NOT go away until our Lord returns.

 

[CatholicXian]

Oh, I figured out what you were asking in the last part...

No, a person who does not want to marry is not necessarily in sin. It depends upon God's will for that person. If God has called them to be married, then they should marry rather than detract from the will of God. However, God has called some persons to consecrated celibacy (cf. Matthew 19:10-12).

?? That verse is not saying that God has CALLED some people to be celibate. Christ is answering The question that the Disciples had about Divorce. Disciples said afterwards, "If such is the case of man with his wife, it is better not to marry". Jesus answered that some where born eunuchs, some were made eunuchs. and some are self made eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it. He's not saying that they were called. He was saying that some had no choices in the matter and some decided that marrying was too much of a hassle or stumbling block in their service and if they can accept it then so be it.

So basically you are saying that you feel that you should marry UNLESS you are a Catholic priest...

No. Catholic nuns are celibate and they are not married, nor are they priests.

Matthew 19: 1-12
1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2 and large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one'? 6 So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 8 He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery." * 10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." 11 But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. Or accept it. Whatever your translation says. It's the same message-- marriage is the norm, but there are those who have been given the gift of being able to stay celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven-- Being celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is something received, not the only option of frustrated men.

 

[Vic C.]

Good afternoon, ebleau. God bless you for trying to reason this out, but we're not going to change their minds. They have an inpenetratable prophylactic [ :-D } around their belief and no amount of reasoning or Biblical common sense is going to amount to anything.

It's beyond being fundamental, though I do admire their steadfastness on this issue. So we should probably allow them their right to believe what they believe, however ultraconservative it may be.

 

[biblecatholic]

around their belief and no amount of reasoning or Biblical common sense is going to amount to anything.

reason is truth, your position is opposed to reason and the bible and natural law

 

[CatholicXian]

So we should probably allow them their right to believe what they believe, however ultraconservative it may be.

I didn't think standing up for the truth that life begins at conception was "ultraconservative"? The pro-life movement is not made up of only Catholics.

 

[handy]

hmmmmm, it looks as though this thread was about to die a perfectly natural death, and here I am reviving it. Oh well!

I did say that I would read through the Humanae Vitae. I did so, and must say that there was much food for thought. The Pope offered a very Biblically grounded response to the topic. I also read through some of Mary Pride's information and the "Quiverfull" folks, specifically Rick and Jan Hess. It should be noted that Pride, the Hess' and the "Quiverfull" folks are NOT Catholic and are acutually quite a bit more conservative than the RCC is. However, they too are quite Biblically grounded in their objections to birth control.

I guess where I'm at now is this: Birth control is probably one of the most private decisions couples make. And, it's an important decision, one that necessitates couples to seek the facts. I would bet that many Protestant couples are unaware that most of the common birth control methods of today often work as abortificants, and therefore must be considered prohibited by God.

After reading all that the Pope, and the Quiverfull folks have to say, I would say that a couple would do well to read up on these opinions while they are gathering the facts concerning birth control and prayerfully consider all these things when making this important decision.

I will say this, after reading through all the very bibically grounded and scientifically factual information provided, I most certainly will see to it that my daughter and son have this information as they become teenagers along with all the other factual and Biblical information they need to have regarding godly sexuality.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Who knows, maybe you'll start reading more papal encyclicals. Lot of good stuff there. :D

 

[Vic C.]

I would bet that many Protestant couples are unaware that most of the common birth control methods of today often work as abortificants.

The idea of a contraceptive being an abortificant is what kept this topic going on for a while. While I wouldn't have used the words "most" or "often", I do agree.

I believe I restricted my vocabulary to condoms and occasionally, the pill.

He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. Or accept it. Whatever your translation says. It's the same message-- marriage is the norm, but there are those who have been given the gift of being able to stay celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven-- Being celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is something received, not the only option of frustrated men.

Oh my! This passage is in reference to eunuchs! :o Do you know what a eunuch is? :o Yeah, most of them weren't given a gift, they had their gift taken from them. How did we go from birth control to getting one's private parts removed? Never mind, I don't want to know. 8-)

Oh, for the ones who decided to put words in my mouth:

I never suggested life doesn't begin at conception. You don't know me very well and weren't reading my posts either. I never said the belief that life begins at birth was ultraconservative.

My position is based on reason and is no way opposed to Scripture or natural law. Let the ones reading all this decide that for themselves.

I am pro life, I just don't take the issue of certain forms of birth control to the same extremes. It's not a black and white issue; your church beliefs made it black and white. You have dismissed all medical options for using either a condom or using an oral like the pill; you rationalized them away. :-?

 

[CatholicXian]

vic, I apologize for misunderstanding you. Your posts in reference to ebleau did not seem to convey the same message as your last post (which is still a bit cryptic so perhaps I misunderstand you again... at least in regards to the Pill--which IS an abortifacient).

And, yes, I do know what a eunuch is. I did quote a larger portion of the passage for context... the disciples say it'd be better not to marry and Jesus responds that not everyone can receive it, but only those to whom it is given. Jesus does not condemn those who "have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" yet literally doing this was forbidden in the OT. I will have to look it up to be certain, but I think I read in a dictionary (that gives the history of words) that "eunuch" comes not from the operation, but from the function of the eunuch. I am also interested in discovering the Greek text as perhaps there is a better way to translate what is being conveyed.

It's not a black and white issue; your church beliefs made it black and white. You have dismissed all medical options for using either a condom or using an oral like the pill; you rationalized them away.

I cannot think of a medical reason to use the Pill that would also justify the potential abortion. Life is life. That's where black and white comes into play. If you understand this differently, please, enlighten me. But there is no way to guarantee that the Pill would not perform its abortifacient duties.
I will look for the article, but there was an article not too long ago about the frequency of "break-through ovulation" (i.e., when the Pill does not perform its primary function of suppressing ovulation) and it suggested that this occurs more than 5-6% of the time... which is a 5-6% more likely chance for fertilization to occur; wherein, the abortifacient functions of the Pill come into play... didn't you ever wonder why the Pill has to also thicken cervical mucus, thin the uterine lining, etc.? What would be the point if the Pill nearly always suppressed ovulation?
(and no, the article was not a Catholic--or even prolife one. it was from a medical journal... my nursing friends (who probably have it) are on vacation this week, so I will look on my computer, but if I can't find it; I can get it from one of them next week)

 

[Devekut]

*delete by Devekut*

 

[A-Christian]

Link to Humanae Vitae
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...ts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[nate]

Just wondering is it more evil to concieve children who will not be taken care of. I am dead set against abortion but preventing conception is not killing a human it is preventing a human from being formed. Sex is essential in a marriage most couples in America can not afford to have a dozen kids and even if they could afford it they mays not be parent that could handle that many kids. If birth control was practiced more many young woman would not have a cause for abortion, Please dont say that people shouldnt have sex unless you are of the very rare population that can stay unmarried then dont lie to yourself. I know that God did not condone it in one passage in Genesis and I understand that nothing much I believe is mentioned after that on the subject the apostles never touched on it I believe. nor did Jesus to get a little bit more philosophical God does form us in the womb and knows us before we are born then if we are not concieved then hence never thought of.

 

[CatholicXian]

Sex is essential in a marriage most couples in America can not afford to have a dozen kids and even if they could afford it they mays not be parent that could handle that many kids.

Who said avoiding artificial birth control methods means you have to have a dozen kids?

In America? We can probably afford a lot more than we think. Having the latest video games, designer clothes, fancy cars, and houses with all the bonuses are luxuries. You can live simply, and still provide more than enough for your children.

If birth control was practiced more many young woman would not have a cause for abortion, Please dont say that people shouldnt have sex unless you are of the very rare population that can stay unmarried then dont lie to yourself. I know that God did not condone it in one passage in Genesis and I understand that nothing much I believe is mentioned after that on the subject the apostles never touched on it I believe.

The majority of people getting abortions are not married women. And the majority of women having abortions are already using artificial contraception. So I fail to see how pretending that artificial contraception is okay would decrease the number of abortions? Artificial contraception just intensifies the ideology that babies are burdens-- fertility is something "wrong" with our bodies that we have to "fix"--so when our chosen method of "fixing" our fertility doesn't work, confused women turn to abortion.

nor did Jesus to get a little bit more philosophical God does form us in the womb and knows us before we are born then if we are not concieved then hence never thought of.

WE are not the ones with the control over whom God thinks of (thank God). And that last part is rather disturbing... are you trying to say that we can allow people not to exist because we won't give God the chance to create them in the womb?