Conjugal union physiologically is a reproductive act. Therefore, when contraception is used, it frustrates the physiological purpose of the act.
This assumes there is only one purpose of the act.
surrendersacrifice said:
It is similar to eating food, while putting a barrier in the stomach so that the nutritive value of the food is eliminated. Those who use it, therefore, abuse their bodies.
I do not see how the analogy relates. It also assumes that there is only one benefit of the act when the Bible and science tell us otherwise.
surrendersacrifice said:
Furthermore, by going against the natural physiology, they are going against the creator of the physiology. Openness to procreation is love because it involves giving of one self.
I do not see this to be the case. The act itself is an act of love, between a man and wife who love each other. Contraception does not remove any love from the act.
surrendersacrifice said:
Therefore, contraception removes love from conjugal act; making it an act of pure pleasure and participants of it objects to derive pleasure from.It is, therefore, harmful to the love relationship between husband and wife.
Again, I do not see how contraception removes love from the act since love can be shown, and indeed must be shown, completely outside of sex. It is an attitude of the heart. And this also once again assumes that sex has only one purpose.
surrendersacrifice said:
It is therefore no surprise that after the popularization of contraception divorce took a steep rise.
While I would like to see the data that supports this, it in no way means that contraception lead to divorce due to a lack of love in the act. It could be that more people started having affairs since the risk of an unwanted pregnancy were minimized. It could also be that the popularization of contraception, which has been around for millennia as far as I know, just happened to coincide with any other number of factors, including shifting attitudes about marriage and divorce.
surrendersacrifice said:
In addition since the aim of contraception is to prevent another human being from being formed, it is an anti-human act. It, therefore, degrades the respect we have for human life.
Preventing conception is not an "anti-human act" nor does it "degrade the respect we have for human life." It can actually be necessary in some cases.
surrendersacrifice said:
This has resulted in increase in incidence of abortion, child abuse and infanticide.
Again, I would like to see data that directly correlates contraception with such things. There could be any other number of reasons that have lead to such increases.
surrendersacrifice said:
It is, therefore, no surprise that in the scriptures a contraceptive act was considered deadly in the eyes of God (Gen.38: 8-10).
We must be very careful when there are very few verses that speak on a topic. And from what I can remember, this is the only one which comes close. The result would be that one ends up putting a meaning into the verse that just isn't there to support a doctrine that isn't biblical.
It could very well be, and likely is the case, that God was angry at Onan
for not doing what was required of him as a brother-in-law as stated in the law.
Deut 25:5-10, 5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.' 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, 'I do not wish to take her,' 9 then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, 'So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.' 10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, 'The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.' (ESV)
As such, the passage in Gen 38 should not be used to support any doctrine that God is against contraception.Contraception is something the Bible never addresses.
