As a Catholic, I believe that artificial contraception is morally unacceptable. There are several reasons why I hold this belief, but I can get to those as time goes by.
My question is: how do most Protestants and evangelicals feel about the issue? In other words, why do you find it acceptable (assuming some of you do - I recognize that not all Protestants practice birth control)?
"I�m not sure if you know this or not, but contraceptives function by either preventing ovulation, or by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman�s uterus. This means that in many instances, artificial contraceptives have the potential to work as abortificients."
This would only apply to hormonal birth control (pill, shot, patch) and the IUD. Barrier methods, such as a cervical cap, don't have the potential to work as abortificants.
And if you're really trusting God with the timing of your children, then why even hold off on sex during the fertile time of a woman's cycle (which is MORE than a week! And can be difficult to determine in a woman with an irregular cycle!)? Abstinence IS a form of birth control.
What if the woman has a genetic condition that could be passed to the baby and is cautious about procreating because of that? Or... what if she's on a Cat C, D, or X medication that could affect the baby negatively? I think it's not so black and white when you fear that your own body (your genetic material or a medication coursing through your veins) could harm or even abort a developing baby.
Thanks for the thoughtful, and conscientious response. You�re right, only hormonal contraceptives have the potential to function as an abortificient. I should have been more specific.
You ask, �And if you're really trusting God with the timing of your children, then why even hold off on sex during the fertile time of a woman's cycle (which is MORE than a week! And can be difficult to determine in a woman with an irregular cycle!)?�
Under most circumstances, you wouldn�t. That was my point in an earlier post: namely, that having children is a natural outgrowth of the marriage covenant. Bringing a couple together in love and having children is quite literally what marriage is all about.
However, grave circumstances can arise in which the spacing of births is sometimes necessary. These are rare, and aberrant situations though. Under such circumstances, births may be spaced, but only via natural means (means that do not stand in opposition to God�s natural laws).
As for the fertility period being �more� than a week, I disagree. Peak fertility begins two days prior to ovulation, and continues one day after. Sperm can live inside a woman for roughly five days. The fertility window is roughly one week.
There are also natural means to help regulate an irregular cycle. The Paul VI Institute has invested an incredible amount of time and resources toward developing these technologies.
You also mention, �Abstinence IS a form of birth control.�
Agreed. And under the aforementioned circumstances, it is a licit means of spacing births.
You ask, �What if the woman has a genetic condition that could be passed to the baby and is cautious about procreating because of that?�
Those sorts of things are always possible, even among healthy spouses. We don�t prevent one evil though � the evil of genetic disease � by committing another evil (using artificial birth control). Two wrongs don�t ever make a right.
�Or... what if she's on a Cat C, D, or X medication that could affect the baby negatively?�
Then perhaps she isn�t called to the vocation of marriage. We do live in a fallen world, where some people are too ill to enter into a marriage covenant.
�I think it's not so black and white when you fear that your own body (your genetic material or a medication coursing through your veins) could harm or even abort a developing baby.�
Again, these possibilities always exist. But we don�t attempt to cure genetic diseases, or other diseases, through illicit means.
Hey John, thank you for providing me with some great facts, insights and knowledge. You are one thoughtful and informed brother. Your stats about success rates for marriages in fact through me for a loop because I definitely did not know that.
Since I was not blessed to experience the sacrament of marriage during my child bearing years I don't know how I would have dealt with the issue. I would, of course :applause:, like to think that I would have handled it in accord with God's desires for me and my spouse.
I don't want to start the debate as to when life begins but to my way of thinking abortion is specifically prohibited by God's word. I believe there is a commandment that speaks to it directly. Thou shalt not kill.
You have raised my level of thought and knowledge and I want to thank you again. I am truly being enlightened by your thought process. Thanks bro, Peach
I am going to stick my neck out here.I am on anti-seizure meds.It does cause birth defects and cause other issues.
I was advised not to have childern of my own. Yes, the father too can cause birth defects.I do support some controls on this issue. Your brother in Christ,Dennis
You know, most common asthma medications are Cat C... And even if a woman is on a Cat B asthma drug, asthma can worsen during pregnancy and she might have to go on a Cat C drug... And I don't think there are any Cat A asthma drugs. So, I suppose you think that any woman who has asthma should not get married?
Thanks for the kind words, and thanks be to God if you�ve managed to learn anything from someone as ignorant as me! I�m just grateful to have the opportunity to share a little different vision of matrimony than the one with which we�re commonly presented.
There certainly seems to be a correlation between the use of natural methods for spacing births, and the greater success of marriages.
As for abortion, I think the prohibition can be deduced from the fifth commandment, but I�m not sure it�s directly stated. For instance, penalties for causing an abortion in the Old Testament were not as severe as those for causing the death of child or adult. The New Testament is absolutely silent on the matter.
It's nice that we can discuss these sorts of things amiably; in a spirit of respect and mutual understanding. I've enjoyed it.
You ask, �So, I suppose you think that any woman who has asthma should not get married?�
You�ll forgive me for asking, but why I do have the feeling that this entire conversation somehow goads you? You have to understand that it�s not my intent to pick a fight on here with anyone.
Like I said to Peach, I just want to share what I think is a really beautiful vision of love and sexuality. I don�t know about you, but the notion of a man and woman who are willing to love each other wholly, holding nothing back; including their potentialities to create new life, is incredible sublime to me. Who wouldn�t want to be loved like that?
I think that�s the kind of love God calls us to. In fact, I think we best �image� God when we show that kind of love for one another in the bonds of matrimony. Think about it: our outward, physical sexuality, with all the joyous, selfless, and creative love it displays, makes manifest something of the inward, spiritual life of the Holy Trinity.
Regrettably, I think our society, and its materialistic, hedonistic attitudes, have influenced our thinking about sexuality. Contraception is the outgrowth of this mindset.
To answer your question, I wouldn�t begin to say who can and can�t get married. All I will say is that we can�t solve the evils of asthma with the evils of contraception. Again, two wrongs don�t make a right.
Although many Catholics differ on several issues with protestants, as a protestant I completely agree with you on the issue of contraception. While God ordained it as means of expressing affection with a spouse, I chielfly believe that he created it so that man and woman would be fruitful and multiply.
Thanks for offering your perspective. I think the Catholic view is slightly more inclusive than that - God creates sex not only for procreative reasons, but also, and I would argue first and foremost, for the good of the spouses.
