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)?
@Benedictus- CDFF has issues... I doubt you've been banned because I don't think you'd be able to post if you'd been banned. A lot of times, CDFF just won't pull up... I was getting a "forbidden" message on here awhile ago.
"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."
Rest assured that I haven't interpreted anything you've said here as argumentative in any way. This conversation doesn't really goad me exactly. In fact, I asked something similar a couple of weeks ago in the Biblical Q & A section (probably about 6-7 pages back in the discussion by now). I guess it's more just that it's a very personal topic for me and one that I've really grappled w/. I've struggled w/ multiple medical issues over the past couple of years and have just been doing a lot of thinking on the purpose of it all in my life and the impact that it may have on my future and my desires for marriage and family. Things have kinda fallen apart for me in the past 2 years and I struggle w/ trusting in God's sovereignty at times.
I love children and there have been times where I've been on the fence regarding the contraception issue... I think what it will come down to for me is spending a lot of time in prayer w/ my future spouse over if/when to have children and talking to the appropriate medical professionals. I don't want to limit the size of my family for shallow reasons at all. I'm not one of those types who wants to not have children so that I can pursue a career. I used to be, but not anymore.
I don't see a problem as long as the birth control doesn't terminate a conception. Only then would it be morally wrong because it would be ending a human life. Anyway...it's very much a gray area in my opinion. An "egg" is just another cell by itself. Personally, I think God would be more pleased if a couple decided to not have their own children and adopt orphans instead.
And besides...I bet this belief about "violating the natural law" is a little hypocritical when it comes to other points. If someone dies should we resuscitate them? Sounds a little like the pharisee's belief that physical ailments are brought on because of sin and shouldn't be treated because they are God's punishment for the sin.
Catholic Birth Control Stance:
"Have lots of babies so we can build more huge churches!! It's God's will for our church to be opulent instead of feeding the poor!!"
:peace::peace:
P.S. I can see why you wouldn't have a problem with having 10-12 children...you're not the one giving birth, lol!:winksmile:
I found your topic ok John.If you had been banned you would know it. they remove your profile and it says this member has been banned. You have to do something really bad for that to happen.
Thanks for taking the time to write. I enjoy some good polemics as much as the next person, so I hope you don�t mind if I indulge a bit in this post.
You write, �I don't see a problem as long as the birth control doesn't terminate a conception. Only then would it be morally wrong because it would be ending a human life.�
So you don�t see a problem with violating the clear command of scripture (Gn 1:28)? Fair enough.
�Anyway...it's very much a gray area in my opinion. An "egg" is just another cell by itself.�
Funny, but I don�t ever recall claiming that the use of artificial birth control was wrong because it caused the destruction of human reproductive cells. Rather, I claimed it was wrong because it violated God�s command, and because it ran contrary to his designs (natural law). You may want to stick with challenging my actual arguments, instead of attacking straw men.
You write, �Personally, I think God would be more pleased if a couple decided to not have their own children and adopt orphans instead.�
I�m sure God would be pleased with both options. But we can rest assured that he would be pleased with the former, since he�s said so in his word, and built it into the very structure of the natural world.
You mention, �And besides...I bet this belief about �violating the natural law� is a little hypocritical when it comes to other points. If someone dies should we resuscitate them?�
Nice try, but that�s a false analogy. Using a combination of synthetic hormones, or pieces of rubber filled with spermicidal chemicals in order to prevent the conception of a child bears no relation to using ordinary means to revive a person from a near fatal circumstance. In the latter case, you�re attempting to prevent a natural evil from taking place. In the former, you�re actually causing a moral evil.
And last but not least, "Have lots of babies so we can build more huge churches!! It's God's will for our church to be opulent instead of feeding the poor!!"
Each year, Catholic Charities alone helps 8.5 million people receive food, housing, and mental health services. One third of all hospitals in the United States are run by the Catholic Church, offering healthcare to thousands of people who can�t afford it. What�s your church done? Try getting your facts straight before spouting rhetoric.
Hi John. In response to Pixie's question concerning the woman who may be taking a medication contraindicated in pregnancy, you replied-
"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."
Are you saying that if a woman cannot or should not bear children because of the danger it may pose to the fetus secondary to meds she may be taking, that she is considered too ill to be married? That she should not marry because she will be unable to bear children?
I know a young woman who must take Coumadin. As a result, she must take certain contraceptives, as the danger of becoming pregnant not only puts her at risk for fatal hemorrhage, but also the fetus. Would you tell her she should not be married? That she made a mistake in getting married? That marriage is only for those fortunate enough to be healthy child bearing women? Just curious how you or your Church would council these women.
Thanks for taking the time to write. I should probably begin by saying that I don�t believe marriage is a right. Rather, I think it is a calling, a vocation, from God. Not everyone is called to this vocation. Sometimes, illness, whether physical or psychological, can rob us of the capacity to be fully present in a marriage covenant.
That said, I�m not about to tell a person whether they should or should not be married. What I will say is this: the use of artificial contraceptives is always illicit. For a woman taking a drug like Coumadin, there would be several options: (1) try alternative therapies, (2) use natural family planning (which is just as effective as the pill), or (3) abstain from sexual relations until such a time that the thrombophilia was brought under control.
So essentially you are saying that marriage is only for those women who can bear children, right? And those who can't bear children do not have the "capacity to be fully present in a marriage covenant", making them less of a person, less of a woman as a result, thereby they can never be called of God to this "vocation". Does your Church then look upon those who cannot bear children, but marry anyway, as being disobedient to God? Does the man then become disobedient as well for marrying the woman who cannot bear children? Are they living in sin as a result of their choice?
Sometimes the woman who is on a drug such as Coumadin does not have the luxury of the options you've listed. The risk is too high to take such a chance. And some conditions warrant lifelong anticoagulation. I seriously doubt a man can "abstain from sexual relations until such a time that the thrombophilia was brought under control", under that condition, when it is the Coumadin that keep the clot[s] from forming. :winksmile:
I�m actually *not* saying that marriage is only for women, or men, who have the capacity to bear children. It�s perfectly licit to for infertile persons to marry. In such cases, it�s the medical dysfunctions that prevent them from potentially creating new life. They aren�t actively, and artificially, doing something to prohibit their procreative capacities. This is quite a different circumstance from one in which a couple chooses to use artificial means of contraception because of illness. Do you understand the difference? In cases like these, the people aren�t less than human, nor are they acting disobediently.
Again, in situations where Coumadin would be a necessity, all I can say is that the use of artificial contraception to prohibit births would always be illicit.
Well...can't really compete with 1 billion Catholics, but for a small denomination of 15 million...we do pretty good as far as protestants go.
*"The Adventist Church operates 7,598 schools, colleges and universities, with a total enrollment of more than 1,545,000 students and approximately 80,000 teachers. It claims to operate "one of the largest church-supported educational systems in the world". In the United States it operates the largest Protestant educational system, and is second only to that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Adventist educational program is comprehensive, encompassing "mental, physical, social and above all, spiritual health" with "intellectual growth and service to humanity" as its goal. Adventists also founded ADRA, a very well respected disaster relief agency."
*"Adventists run a large number of hospitals and health-related institutions. Their largest medical school and hospital in North America is Loma Linda University and its attached Medical Center. Throughout the world, the church runs a wide network of hospitals, clinics, and sanitariums. These play a role in the church's health message and worldwide missions outreach. Adventist Health System is the largest not-for-profit, Protestant, multi-institutional healthcare system in the United States. The health system is sponsored by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and cares for over 4 million patients yearly."
*"A Blue Zone is a region of the world where people commonly live active lives past the age of 100 years. Scientists and demographers have classified these longevity hot-spots by having common healthy traits and life practices that result in higher-than-normal longevity. The name Blue zone seems to be first employed in a scientific article by a team of demographers working on centenarians in Sardinia in 2004.
Five Blue Zones have been identified:
* Sardinia, Italy: One team of demographers found a hot spot of longevity in mountain villages where men reach the age of 100 years at an amazing rate.
* The islands of Okinawa, Japan: Another team examined a group that is among the longest lived on Earth.
* Loma Linda, California: Researchers, studied a group of Seventh-day Adventists who rank among America's longevity all-stars. Residents of these three places produce a high rate of centenarians, suffer a fraction of the diseases that commonly kill people in other parts of the developed world, and enjoy more healthy years of life.
* Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica: The Nicoya Peninsula was the subject of research on a Quest Network expedition which began on January 29th, 2007.
* Icaria, Greece: The April '09 expedition to the island of Ikaria uncovered the location with the highest percentage of 90 year-olds on the planet - nearly 1 out of 3 people make it to their 90s. Furthermore, Ikarians "have about 20 percent lower rates of cancer, 50 percent lower rates of heart disease and almost no dementia"."
And as far as God's "command" goes, that was before sin entered the world. My personal belief is that I would rather help as many children as I can that are already here, than bring more into the world to suffer. But we'll see what happens. I'm also of the opinion that if God really wants someone to have kids, then there isn't much that could stop Him except total abstinence, and even that didn't work for Mary:laugh:. Anyway...show me in the bible where God says not having children is a sin and I'll change my beliefs, but as far as I know, the bible is silent about it...and I really have a bad attitude about bringing children into this krappy place. Here's a good one for you. Paul says to stay single if we want to serve God better. Does that contradict what God said about "be fruitful and multiply"?
