Having Twins - Getting Counseled

  • Thread starter Thread starter javier_29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

javier_29

Guest
My wife(protestant) and I just found out that we are having twins (#4 and #5). All her friends and family are shocked and telling her to get her tubes tied because Catholic teaching is wrong. One friend even gave her an article to convince her which I hope somebody will help me debunk. Thanks in advance…It’s a bit lengthy but here it is…
We will find the answer to the birth control question when we find from the Bible the purposes of sexual relations in marriage. Soon after God had created Adam, God said, “It is not good that man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for him”. Or, in other words, God saw that Adam needed a helper to be a more complete person. (Gen 2:18)

The notion that the bearing of children is the only God-give purpose for marital relations is wrong. The Bible stresses the true purpose; that God made man and woman to complete one another and to fulfill each other’s needs. The following reading from the New Testament, I Corinthians 7:2-5, summarizes these teachings. “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence; and likewise, also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud you not one the other, except it be with the consent for a time, that Satan tempt you because of your lack of self control.” This passage very clearly teaches that the purpose of sexual relations is to fulfill the natural biological urge and thereby avoid fornication.

Thus the doctrine that the only God-give purpose for marital relations is for the purpose of having children is wrong. Opposition to birth control is based on this false assumption. Many good people who have misunderstood the teaching of the Bible on this point, have mistakenly assumed that Genesis 1:28 applies to Christians today, when it says, “Be you fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.” This, however, was, obviously, a command given to Adam and Eve, not to all mankind today. Not every command given to every individual in the Bible applies today; we are not to build an ark because Noah did, neither are we to stone adulterers because the Jews did. No Old Testament command applies today, because the Old Testament was fulfilled and replaced by the New Testament at the death of Christ. Study Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:23-25; Hebrews 9:15-17.

Those against birth control say that since the bearing of children is the only God given purpose for marital relations, it is a sin to have such sexual relations while purposely avoiding the possibility of bearing children by using birth control. God plainly teaches, in the passages mentioned, that husband and wife should fulfill one another’s sexual needs. This necessitates regular relations. God has given us the good sense to know how to accomplish this without necessarily having children.

If some precautions are not take, a couple will normally produce about one child a year. Too many children creates other problems about which the Bible speaks. The Apostle Paul says in I Timothy 5:8, “If a man provide not for those of his own house, he had denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” There are two ways a man could fail to provide for his own. One would be not to work. The other would be to generate so many children that he could not provide for their needs. If we insist that couples neither deny themselves sexually nor take precautions against conception, but simultaneously insist that the children be supported, we are (for most couples) insisting both on an impossibility and upon a contradiction of plain Bible teaching. The only alternative the opponents of birth control give mankind is either abstinence, with its pressures toward fornication, or 20 to 25 children for the average couple. The Bible denies both of these.

It is sad that many people have been caused to suffer because of an arbitrary religious conclusion that does not reflect the teaching of the Word of God. This should be an encouragement to each of us to study the Bible for ourselves; this is how God has always intended that His word be studied.
Click to expand...
 
Congratulations of your good news!

Well, this article can be summed up in one sentence, “Two thousand years of Christian tradition is wrong, the doctors of the Church are wrong, but, luckily, here I am with the REAL truth”

What are you looking for - a point by point refutation of this?
 
Among other errors, you might ask why the author substitues his teaching for Catholic teaching and then claims Catholics get in wrong? In other words he starts from an incorrect premise and then tries to tear down Church teaching.
 
With all due respect to the author, both his assumptions and conclusions steer wide of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I will try to answer as many of his “ideas” as I can. Hopefully, others will round out my response and fill in any blanks.

First, the author makes a huge assumption that having children is incompatible with fulfilling each other’s sexual needs. He assumes that spouses will only have marital relations if they can’t have kids, and if that is impossible, they will fornicate. How absurd. Let’s think about that. Before artificial birth control came on the scene, were spouses habitually neglecting their duties to each other? Why is it now that we have the technology to prevent (and terminate) pregnancies that it is, ipso facto, a good thing that you have a duty to utilize? His assumption is based on the idea that the more you have for yourself, the better off you are. That idea is completely hedonistic and self-centered. Now, does this mean that you must have children until you all starve to death? No,…more on that later.

Second, the author says that the Catholic Church says that the only purpose of sexuality is procreation. I’d ask him, show me a document that says that. You know what, he won’t be able to because the Church doesn’t say that. Admittedly, the Church says that procreation is the primary purpose, but that there are other purposes (mutual love and sanctification of spouses, tempering of concupiscence, etc…). However, the same applies to eating. Its primary purpose is nutirtion, but that does not mean that it has other benefits: fellowship, enjoyment of other’s culinary abilities, etc… Those are all goods, but they are lesser goods that should not supplant the primary good. If we have to, we eat alone. If we have to, we eat food that is not to our tastes. Why? To live. If we want the enjoyment of eating but we don’t want to face the consequences of eating (calories) and we go vomit after dinner, what do we call that? Bulemia, anorexia,…those are eating *disorders. *Disorders apply to sexuality, too. The primary purpose (procreation) should not be blocked so that you can enjoy the lesser goods. To say that the Church recognizes only one purpose of sex is a far cry from the fact that the Church recognizes many goods, but all in good order.

contd…
 
contd…

The author tries to use the Bible to justify his point, but he fails to mention the story of Onan (Genesis 38) wherein the man Onan is killed by God for spilling his seed on the ground instead of having normal relations with his brother’s widow. The punishment for a man refusing to fulfill this duty was for the widow to publically humiliate him, but not for the man to be slaughtered by God. We must assume that it was Onan’s actions, not merely his intent, that incurred God’s wrath. When a person engages in sexual conduct and prevents the action from being open to conception, then it is evil in the sight of God.

Now, the assumption that a couple must resign themselves to infinite children is also wrong. The popes have said that we must face up to our financial, emotional, spiritual, and physical limitations when deciding on how many children to have. What they have also said is that we must be generous in being open to more children (IOW, realize that bringing another soul into creation and rearing it to sainthood is the greatest good). Therefore, we have to make sure that we are not placing things like a summer home, a car for each child, college funds, exotic vacations, etc… above having children. These children have souls that will be with God in eternity. How can material luxury compare? Now, there are valid reasons for not having more children, but it is with the understanding that we will try to overcome the obstcle as best we can (example: financial hardship). Other things absolutely prevent more children (ie, menopause). For those times where the couple deems it prudent to space children, they can use Natural Family Planning because it respects the God-given cycle of the female without chemically shutting it down. It lets God have his few days of possible conception - it’s just that you choose not to act on those days. No one is forced to have sex on a particular day, but people cannot deny God His procreative perogative while enjoying the fruits of his gift.
 
This article also wrongly frames the issue as “birth control.”

News flash: The Catholic Church does not teach that is it immoral to use birth control. The Church, in fact, teaches that for just reasons we can space, plan, or avoid pregnancy-- even indefinitely.

What the Catholic Church does teach is the contraception is an immoral **means **of birth control. Periodic abstinence is not.

I suggest you visit www.omsoul.com and pick up their materials on contraception and natural family planning. And, also the book The Bible And Birth Control by Charles Provan.
 
Finally, the author attempts to bring pity into the debate, as if the people who are against birth control (ie, Catholics, John Calvin, Martin Luther, all Christians up until 1930, etc…) were innocent, oppressed victims of a tyrannical authority. This is an attempt to bolster his intellectually weak arguments with an emotional appeal.

With such a poor Biblical, philosophical, and intellectual basis for his arguments, this pamphlet you received just doesn’t stand up to the history of Christianity against the evils of birth control. How is it that the Protestants all disagreed with the Catholic Church, and each other, on so many issues, but they all agreed that birth control was intrinsically evil? How is it that anytime contraception came up in the historical church, it was always condemned? Why is it now, all of a sudden, okay?

Simple: the Protestants caved into public pressure and are now forced to justify it somehow.

If you want to read further, I suggest Sex and the Marriage Covenant and The Bible and Birth Control.

Pax.
 
By the way, congratulations on the twins! You’ll find having kids the most amazing experience of your life. May your tribe increase!

Psalm 127

3 Sons are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one’s youth.
**5 Blessed is the man **
**whose quiver is full of them. **
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.
 
One last thing…

Even Sigmund Freud, the Father of the Sexual Revolution, acknowledged the fact that the common trait among sexual disorders was that they made conception impossible. These disorders he gave the label, “perversions.”

Interesting that even Freud recognized this.
 
There are very serious medical consequesces to getting your tubes “tied.” Considering that a woman’s Fallopian tubes are the most sensitive organ in her body it can wreck havoc on her body to get them out. (I’m studying Reproductive Health in college and my professor stated “I’m pretty sure you can guess what the most sensitive organ of a man’s body is, and I’m telling you there is no way I’m going to have it cut off, tied, etc. Post Tubal Syndrome is a serious problem for women who have tubal ligations.”)

Here are just a few of the symptoms:
  1. Eptopic pregnancy
  2. Hot flashes, night sweats, chills
  3. Bouts of rapid heart beat
  4. Irritability
  5. Mood swings, sudden tears
  6. Trouble sleeping through the night
  7. Irregular periods, short cycles or longer cycles
  8. Crashing fatigue
  9. Anxiety, feeling ill at ease
  10. Feelings of dread, doom
  11. Mental confusion
  12. Disturbing memory lapses
  13. Prolapse of uterus do to rapid decrease in estrogen levels
  14. Incontinence
  15. Itchy crawly skin
  16. Sore joints
  17. Headache
  18. Gastrointestinal distress, indigestion, flatulence, gas pain, nausea
  19. Depression (This is a very common symptom.)
  20. Allergies
  21. Weight gain
  22. Hair loss or thinning
  23. Dizziness, loss of balance
  24. Changes in body odor
  25. Stabbing sensation under the skin
  26. Gum problems increased bleeding
  27. Burning tongue, change in breath odor
  28. Osteoporosis (after a few years)
  29. Stabbing pains at time of ovulation.
(I left out some of the more graphic side effects, for decency.)
 
PaulinVA ; Not necessarily a point by point refutation but I get too worked up when I try to respond to that letter especially since it is someone I know so I was just looking for some (name removed by moderator)ut from people that are on the outside and can make a more level headed response.

That letter is full of so many errors maybe I just need a starting point.

God Bless
Javier
 
One more possible argument:

Children have souls. God is the only person who can create souls. He is not going to create a soul if He does not want it to exist. God provides. Just because you don’t use birth control does NOT mean that you are going to have 20 to 25 children.
 
HannahLisa said:
One more possible argument:

Children have souls. God is the only person who can create souls. He is not going to create a soul if He does not want it to exist. God provides. Just because you don’t use birth control does NOT mean that you are going to have 20 to 25 children.
Click to expand...
Put it this way - my sister, a GP, used Natural Family Planning (one of the forms of birth control permitted by the Church) for a number of years.

Not at all because of the Catholic Church’s teaching on the matter, but because she is acutely aware of all the risks, side effects and complications of each of the artificial methods and decided they weren’t for her.

Now she has two beautiful, healthy children. Due to difficulties during the births it’s inadvisable for her to have any more. She hasn’t specifically said, but I don’t doubt she’s gone back to using NFP.

From a logical and practical standpoint it’s always a gamble to unnecessarily interfere with the natural reproductive processes of the body. If conception needs to be avoided for whatever reason, natural methods are infinitely preferable.

If you’re properly taught they’re every bit as effective too. No-one talks about the percentage of times that the pill, condoms etc, fail but the failure rate is significant and about the same as a properly-taught couple using NFP.
 
Congratulations on the double blessing of twins! 🙂 🙂
javier_29 said:
I was just looking for some (name removed by moderator)ut from people that are on the outside and can make a more level headed response.

That letter is full of so many errors maybe I just need a starting point.
Click to expand...
What that letter *doesn’t *say stands out the most to me. Children are blessings–the Bible is clear on that. When friends and family greets your family’s news about expecting twins with article and encouragement to make sure more babies don’t keep coming, they seem to miss the big picture that children are blessings from God.

Other parts that stand out as huge errors are these two points
Thus the doctrine that the only God-give purpose for marital relations is for the purpose of having children is wrong. Opposition to birth control is based on this false assumption.
Click to expand...
This mischaracterizes the Catholic opposition to contraception–we agree that bearing children is not the only purpose of marital relations. (The Catholic Church uses the terms that marital relations are both procreative and unitive.) However, that does not show any “Bibilical proof” that contraception is okay.
If some precautions are not take, a couple will normally produce about one child a year.
Click to expand...
Oh such little knowledge of the Bible! Abraham and Sarah–barren for years produced only one son in their old age. Jacob/Israel, father of the twelve sons whose descendents became the twelve tribes of Israel, had two wives and two of their servants to produce those 12 sons. Those in the Bible who trusted their families to God did not produce one child per year.

(By the way, Jacob was a twin–let’s pray your twins get along better with each other than Jacob and Esau did 😉 .)
 
Congratulations! My wife and I also had a similar surprise. We are expecting twins any day now… #5 & #6. They are girls. So 5 girls and 1 boy. As you can imagine, our boy isn’t too thrilled with more sisters.

We get some looks, and comments like we are crazy. But after a great deal of searching for the truth, we have come to accept the Catholic position. I have totally changed my perspective. My wife had to push for 3, push harder for 4. However, now I’m totally looking forward these twins! Although, I told my wife I’m gonna have to get a tee shirt that says… “I’m their Dad, NOT their Grandpa!”. I’m 45. Enjoy them!
 
LilyM said:
No-one talks about the percentage of times that the pill, condoms etc, fail but the failure rate is significant and about the same as a properly-taught couple using NFP.
Click to expand...
I thought the failure rate for ABC was higher than that of NFP…
 
Windmill has pretty well covered the response. I just want to add my congratulations to the OP and his wife.

I said that I once thought that three children would be the perfect number for the family. That’s why I ended up with twins and skipped right from 2 to 4 ;).

It’s also factually not true that ‘doing nothing’ is going to equate to a child a year. With breastfeeding, natural spacing tends to be much longer than that. But, once again, God knows what He’s doing with the system He set up … but it sure gets wonky fast when we try to impose our will with our imperfect knowledge.

Not to mention all the health risks that come w/ the various artificial means of controlling conception (and that’s without even getting into the spiritual health risks, but since these people seem convinced otherwise, it might be worthwhile to point out all the other problems w/ the artificial means).

Bottom line: God is God, and we are not–who are we to tell Him that He’s got it all wrong?

But again, congratulations to the OP and his wife. Twins are fun (mine turn 7 in a month).
 
Jeanne_dArc said:
There are very serious medical consequesces to getting your tubes “tied.” Considering that a woman’s Fallopian tubes are the most sensitive organ in her body it can wreck havoc on her body to get them out. (I’m studying Reproductive Health in college and my professor stated “I’m pretty sure you can guess what the most sensitive organ of a man’s body is, and I’m telling you there is no way I’m going to have it cut off, tied, etc. Post Tubal Syndrome is a serious problem for women who have tubal ligations.”)

Here are just a few of the symptoms:
  1. Eptopic pregnancy
  2. Hot flashes, night sweats, chills
  3. Bouts of rapid heart beat
  4. Irritability
  5. Mood swings, sudden tears
  6. Trouble sleeping through the night
  7. Irregular periods, short cycles or longer cycles
  8. Crashing fatigue
  9. Anxiety, feeling ill at ease
  10. Feelings of dread, doom
  11. Mental confusion
  12. Disturbing memory lapses
  13. Prolapse of uterus do to rapid decrease in estrogen levels
  14. Incontinence
  15. Itchy crawly skin
  16. Sore joints
  17. Headache
  18. Gastrointestinal distress, indigestion, flatulence, gas pain, nausea
  19. Depression (This is a very common symptom.)
  20. Allergies
  21. Weight gain
  22. Hair loss or thinning
  23. Dizziness, loss of balance
  24. Changes in body odor
  25. Stabbing sensation under the skin
  26. Gum problems increased bleeding
  27. Burning tongue, change in breath odor
  28. Osteoporosis (after a few years)
  29. Stabbing pains at time of ovulation.
(I left out some of the more graphic side effects, for decency.)
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but can you point out your source for the above information? Are you perhaps confusing removal of the ovaries with removal of the tubes?
 
seekerz said:
Excuse me, but can you point out your source for the above information? Are you perhaps confusing removal of the ovaries with removal of the tubes?
Click to expand...
No, I’m not confusing tubal ligations with the removal of the falopian tubes. Those symptoms are spesifically for post-tubal ligation syndrom.

It is from the textbook in Human Embryology that I’m using, which covers topics (like tubal ligations) that are related to human reproduction.

The sourse of this is the medical study: Zentralbl Gynakol 1989;111(16):1124-7.

These links also have a copy of the side-effects, including the more graphic side effects that I left out.

(WARNING THIS LINK CONTAINS PICTURES OF FALOPIAN TUBES)

tubal.org/symptoms_of_pts.htm

tubal.org/VGHPTS.htm

Here’s some more sourses (where all the side effects on the list came from):

‘No More Hysterectomies’
by Vicki Hufnagel,M.D
Published By Plume 1989
Pages 228-229 Post Tubal Ligation Syndrome

‘Once A Month The Original Premenstrual Syndrome Handbook’
By Dr. Katharina Dalton’s
Page 28.

PMS Questions and Answers
By Stephanie DeGraff Bender
M.A.Clinic Psychology
pg. 12

‘Listen To Your Body’
A Gynecologist Answers Womens Most Intimate Questions
By Neils Lauersen,M.D.
And Eileen Stukane
Page 354

The New Our Bodies, Ourselves
Complications and Negative Effects of Tubals

My Body My Decision
(What you should know about the most common female surgies)
Written By: Lindsay R. Curtis
: Glade B Curtis,M.D.
: Mary K Beard, M.D.
PAGE 257

It’s Your Body
By: Niels Lauersen M.D.
: and Steven Whitney
Page 266

Sexual Sterilization
The Couple To Couple League
P.O.Box 111184
Cincinnati,Ohio 45211-1184

Nontraumatic tubal occlusion as a new technique for female voluntary sterilization.
Author : Manuaba IB
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia.
Source : Adv Contracept, 1993 Dec, 9:4, 303-11

(I have more sourese, I just don’t have time to post them.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top