Poll on contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My unpopular opinion: I think that if unmarried people are going to have sex they should use contraception. Having a child outside of marriage is just being irresponsible and stupid. It happens. People do have sex. Some people act like sex is the only sin. What about people who lie or take the lords name in vain? Why do some people constantly say GD or JFC when they are angry or lie to get their own way? There are a lot worse sins than having sex. If Gods plan really is for there to be a child born than the condom will break or the pill won’t work. It happened for my half sister. The pill did not work and now she has a kid. But pill or no pill God made sure that the child was born. Condoms also prevent disease.

A lot of people will ask “Why not wait until marriage for sex?” Well, have you taken a look at society today? Or do you live under a rock and avoid society? The answer for me is I have never met anyone worth marrying.
 
Better to use a condom and not have an unwanted kid. A lot of people who have unwanted kids hate their life, stay poor forever, and end up blaming God or the church for their life problems.

I do not deny that using a condom is a sin. It is a sin. But not using condoms can lead to even greater sins, plus disease.
 
Sin is no friend of ours, my friend.

We cannot commit sin so good may come of it.
 
Contraception has a harsher element than “birth control”. Contraception is directly blocking the cycle of conception. NFP does not block or remove anything. Its regulation.

I think NFP can be considered a birth control which works with natural principles of conception and fertility, while remaining open to possible conception through the intimate act.
 
MP_Kid said:
Better to use a condom and not have an unwanted kid. A lot of people who have unwanted kids hate their life, stay poor forever, and end up blaming God or the church for their life problems.

I do not deny that using a condom is a sin. It is a sin. But not using condoms can lead to even greater sins, plus disease.
Click to expand...
While I agree it would be better to commit some sins if it avoids a greater sin, your scenario is very depressing.

These couples already have no love and are dead.

Contraception is the result of problems already present. Contraception attempts to manage, avoid or cover up these problems.

Not using condoms does not lead to greater sins. The sin is already in the heart. That may not manifest in the same way, but it is still already in the heart.
 
rcwitness said:
I think NFP can be considered a birth control which works with natural principles of conception and fertility, while remaining open to possible conception through the intimate act.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

For teh record I do consider NFP useful (well, in the form of a FAM). I think all women should know how their bodies work…that way you can often spot if something is “wrong” a lot earlier. It’s also has the double effect (unfortunately) of being a "Pandora’s Box)…you can never unlearn it…so no more ignorance, which as we all know, is bliss lol!
 
I know it is “mum” in England. She is just developing her accent so this proper received pronunciation is still a work in progress. My mom has great friends who live on a farm off the coast NE of London. They visit the States twice a year. They are currently here on Holiday. They brought my daughter a giant Sylvanian Families Hotel ( aka Calico Critters in the US). They brought it in 3 packages.
 
rcwitness said:
Contraception has a harsher element than “birth control”. Contraception is directly blocking the cycle of conception. NFP does not block or remove anything. Its regulation.

I think NFP can be considered a birth control which works with natural principles of conception and fertility, while remaining open to possible conception through the intimate act.
Click to expand...
The two terms mean exactly the same thing.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Sin is no friend of ours, my friend.

We cannot commit sin so good may come of it.
Click to expand...
While I respect the sentiment, I don’t think it really passes the “kick the tires” test. It doesn’t “run” as well as it looks - to put it another way.

There was an awful lot of lying in WW2 for the sake of saving saving the lives of more than a few Jews. “Well that’s an obvious exception!” some may cry. But it isn’t. A lie’s a lie.

That’s a pretty extreme counter-example, but the world over there are lots of men who face the “choice” of “steal or let my kids starve”. Picking “the lesser of two evils” may not be something present in a text, but boy-oh-boy is it out here in the real world. Which is probably why this question never goes away.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
40.png
rcwitness:
Contraception has a harsher element than “birth control”. Contraception is directly blocking the cycle of conception. NFP does not block or remove anything. Its regulation.

I think NFP can be considered a birth control which works with natural principles of conception and fertility, while remaining open to possible conception through the intimate act.
Click to expand...
The two terms mean exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...
Pup7 for president.

The Church forbids “artificial” contraception. That is true. As to what constitutes artifice - ladies and gentlemen start your engines…
 
Good old wikipedia:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The CDC. Methods are also contraception and birth control. Right after this definition, downloadable documents cover both artificial and natural (i.e., NFP) methods of contraception/birth control:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I could post more definitions, but in all honesty it would just be pedantic.

This isn’t “secular”. It’s medical, and as NFP is a medically developed method and wasn’t invented by the Catholic Church, it’s accurate. That’s not anti-Church in the least. The Church is in an awkward position on this subject. Calling it what it is doesn’t make it evil and it doesn’t make anyone who does so wrong. It’s borderline semantics, and it’s fine. There’s an incorrect connotation tied to the word “contraception”.
 
Last edited:
There’s not really anything to argue. The terms mean the same thing. We can choose to tie different connotations, but by definition they are equal.

On this subject, the Catholic Church I love has painted herself into a corner.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
Good old wikipedia:
The Church is in an awkward position on this subject. Calling it what it is doesn’t make it evil and it doesn’t make anyone who does so wrong. It’s borderline semantics, and it’s fine.
Click to expand...
Wow. It’s almost like the centuries old love-affair between western Christianity and the propensity to legalistically define everything turns out to not be such a great idea in hindsight. 😉
 
…and in come the Orthodox:
“Told ya so!!!” ☦️😊☦️
 
Last edited:
No need to get confrontational. I was agreeing.

Not sure what you mean by the Church has painted herself into a corner.
 
That was a response to the somewhat confrontational:
rcwitness said:
I wont argue this.
Click to expand...
NFP is contraception, but the Church almost can’t call it that, even though in reality it is.

Just waiting to get screamed at by someone, when not one thing I’ve said here goes against anything the Church says…it’s all been statement of fact.
 
Last edited:
How has the Church painted herself into a corner?

She distinguishes NFP from contraception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top