Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[mark_a]

Good morning. Thanks to the OP of this thread. This is a very interesting topic for me. This is actually the reason I joined this site, to find answers about various BC and the effects of them.

Defend your use of contraceptives? I can’t defend it. But I will tell you my situation, and hopeully reading it will help someone else. I had been using contraceptives for the past 10 yrs. Was on the pill for the first 6. Our family planning centers here don’t really give you a choice when you go in for a check up and BC appt. You either get the pill, the shot, or the patch, and recently they have started giving the IUD. Their focus is not on you or your health, they just don’t want any more unplanned pregnancies. So at the age of 16 I started on the pill. I took it for 6 years with the exception of when my husband and I had our 2 kids. Four years ago, I was encouraged to get the IUD. This wonderful little device works for 5 years, no side effects, no problems, no chance of pregnancy! That’s what I was told. And for 4 years, it worked like they said.

In early September of this year, I started having pregnancy symptoms. I called the dr several times and was told that it was just a side effect, but nonthreathening. On October 14, I had a miscarriage. When I went to the dr, they told me not to worry that the IUD had obviously done it’s job. And the dr refused to take it out because it was still good for another year. I came home in tears and told hubby what they had said, and that I didn’t want to have it any more because I did not want this to happen again. So we made an appt with a different dr to have it removed. While waiting for the appt, I was so emotional, I know that I am responsible for the death of that child. I chose to have the IUD, and as a result, a baby was killed. So I started to research different options and came across NFP. When I talked to hubby about it, he said if that’s what you want to do, we’ll do it. So with that decision made, I had the IUD took out. The dr argued with me over not accepting a prescription for another BC product. Finally, she said “You do whatever you want to do, but don’t blame me if you show up in here next month pregnant!”. I was so angry at her attitude.

That was a month ago and so far things are going great. We are charting my cycle and I think doing so brings us so much closer. NFP places the responsibilty on both of us, not just the wife. I feel so much better than I have in a long time. I think it is because I am not so full of artificial hormones. My husband says that he feels a lot closer to me now too because there is nothing between us that God didn’t intend for there to be.

So sorry for your loss. Thanks for you thoughtful post!

Best wishes!

 

[onenow1]

I believe this is pretty cut and dry from the Catholic position. NO birth control & no prostitution and no homosexuality. Although the Pope recently decided that a condom could be used in reference to the control of spreading aids, a change from his previous stance to which he was criticized and now is being criticized for taking a different stance…

The Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstance. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been,both before and after the Pope’s statements.

As always the I Gotcha Media had a ball ! Let’s extrapolate a little Jenny .

Pope Paul VI In humana vitae said it was wrong to use contraceptive period. ! 1968

Had this been accepted by all Christians, especially Catholics that have the fullness of the truth I bet the world would be a lot different today. “OH WELL” GOD HAS THE BLUEPRINT !

Peace
:manvspc:

 

[kbwall]

Artificial contraception removes the role of God to choose when life begins and instead leaves it up to man to decide.

For thousands of years everyone (protestants (for the 400 years that they have existed) and catholics alike) have agreed that it was imoral. Now the protestant community seems to think that everyone before hand was wrong.

But wouldn’t abstaining from sex also be letting man decide when life should begin? As far as I know, God isn’t making human beings out of mud anymore, and it requires a man and a woman to have sex to happen. By not having sex, the life will not come to be (that, and complete abstinence usually hurts marriages).

What about the way some people choose to only have sex when the woman is not ovulating? How is that better than condom sex?

 

[JohnnyReb]

innocente,
Christians didn’t get Aristotle’s philosophy until around the time of Aquinas like you mentioned. I know that Augustine read Aristotle’s Rhetoric, but that’s it. The Muslims had Aristotle, but Christians didn’t get Aristotle’s philosophy till the 12th or 13 century. All the early church fathers condemn birth control and were not versed in Aristotle.

You sure about that 100%? Aristotalian thinking was lost during the dark ages, but the ECFs did not live in the era of the dark ages. They lived in a region of the world where such thought was alive and well, and they would have had access to it? Christians regained such thought in the 12th century.

 

[JohnnyReb]

But wouldn’t abstaining from sex also be letting man decide when life should begin? As far as I know, God isn’t making human beings out of mud anymore, and it requires a man and a woman to have sex to happen. By not having sex, the life will not come to be (that, and complete abstinence usually hurts marriages).

What about the way some people choose to only have sex when the woman is not ovulating? How is that better than condom sex?

Yes, but they will say the difference is an act vs a non act, which seems like an arbitary distinction designed to defend their teachings.

 

[graceandglory]

The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception (pill, condom, IUD, etc) is a mortal sin.

How are you able to accept condom use, etc? Do you not see it as the seed that led to a bad tree (sexual revolution, huge pornography industry, etc)???

I can not comprehend how Protestants have such varied views on artificial contraception. This might be because I have for most of my Christian life been a Catholic.

In my protestant marriage it went like this:

Him: We can’t afford kids until I am done with school and have a good job.
Me: It’s better to marry than to burn. We can’t continue on like this because we will probably end up sinning and committing fornication. I guess we should get married and use ABC until he’s done with college.

After college:
Him: I don’t want to have a baby yet, with this woman, at this time, or ever.
Me: I will submit to my husband, no matter how grievous it is… After all, the highest calling for an evangelical wife is to submit to my husband. I will pray and ask my friends to pray.

 

[larkin31]

The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception (pill, condom, IUD, etc) is a mortal sin.

How are you able to accept condom use, etc? Do you not see it as the seed that led to a bad tree (sexual revolution, huge pornography industry, etc)???

I can not comprehend how Protestants have such varied views on artificial contraception. This might be because I have for most of my Christian life been a Catholic.

There is no scriptural prohibition on birth control of any kind.

One can still value life in highest esteem, but still try to avoid pregnancy while having sex.

NFP is the Catholic form of natural birth control when used to avoid pregnancy. Condoms just do so more effectively throughout the menstrual cycle.

 

[SteveVH]

There is no scriptural prohibition on birth control of any kind.

One can still value life in highest esteem, but still try to avoid pregnancy while having sex.

NFP is the Catholic form of natural birth control when used to avoid pregnancy. Condoms just do so more effectively throughout the menstrual cycle.

Well first of all, larkin, I don’t think there was any birth control in biblical times. For one thing, children used to be considered a blessing and the idea was to have as may descendants as possible. Birth control, even if available, would not have been sought after.
The Catholic Church follows this same line of thought. Children are a blessing, not a curse. Our society today treats pregnancy as a disease, something to be avoided. This is not the will of God.

Secondly, NFP is actually more effective than ABC. In addition, it draws the spouses closer to each other. Do you know that the divorce rate among NFP practitioners is only 2%,compared with over 50% for those who practice ABC? ABC removes the ultimate purpose of the sexual act, that being procreation. In doing so, the spouses cannot give themselves fully to each other. They are holding something back from each other and what they are holding back is the true purpose of the two becoming one flesh; children. When the purpose of sex becomes one of self seeking pleasure, rather than a complete mutual self giving, the relationship is on thin ice as evidenced by the statistics I gave you.

 

[kbwall]

How are you able to accept condom use, etc? Do you not see it as the seed that led to a bad tree (sexual revolution, huge pornography industry, etc)???

Simply because it has lead to bad things does make it bad in and of itself. Sex, if outside of a marriage, is seen as bad. Yet, within marriage, it is very good.

In his biology both male and female are necessary for human reproduction but the male provides the more significant, superior component. The male “seed” (semen) contains the “heat” which en-souls and defines the form of the offspring while the female provides the matter and incubator. Accordingly, with no egg to be fertilized contraception would be abortion and spilling “seed” would be murder - contraception, masturbation and the homosexual act would all violate nature big-time.

By this logic, every woman is comitting murder for each period she had where she wasn’t pregnant, and every man commits murder for every ejaculation (including the necessary nocturnal emissions).

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

You sure about that 100%? Aristotalian thinking was lost during the dark ages, but the ECFs did not live in the era of the dark ages. They lived in a region of the world where such thought was alive and well, and they would have had access to it? Christians regained such thought in the 12th century.

Johnny,
In the intro to Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and in several books on Aquinas I’ve read that Christians didn’t have access to Aristotle until around the 12th century. Except for the fact that Augustine said he read Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the Confessions, it makes sense because much of Christian philosophy prior to Aquinas is Platonic. Aquinas adopted Aristotle to show that he wasn’t incompatible with Christianity so I assume that Aristotelian philosophy was unknown to Christian philosophers prior to him.

That’s what I’ve read on the subject, but I thought it was strange that Augustine said he read Rhetoric. Do you know more about the church fathers having Aristotle before the dark ages? I haven’t read a lot of them, but I’ve always generally held that they were philosophically Platonic.

 

[larkin31]

Well first of all, larkin, I don’t think there was any birth control in biblical times.

Yes, there was.

For one thing, children used to be considered a blessing and the idea was to have as may descendants as possible. Birth control, even if available, would not have been sought after.
The Catholic Church follows this same line of thought. Children are a blessing, not a curse. Our society today treats pregnancy as a disease, something to be avoided. This is not the will of God.

This is a sweepingly negative characterization and is false. Children are still seen as a blessing. For you to say otherwise is strange, indeed.

Secondly, NFP is actually more effective than ABC. In addition, it draws the spouses closer to each other.

I don’t have any problem with NFP. Go for it!

Do you know that the divorce rate among NFP practitioners is only 2%,compared with over 50% for those who practice ABC?

You are not suggesting cause-effect here, are you? If so, I would like to respond directly on your logic.

ABC removes the ultimate purpose of the sexual act, that being procreation. In doing so, the spouses cannot give themselves fully to each other. They are holding something back from each other and what they are holding back is the true purpose of the two becoming one flesh; children. When the purpose of sex becomes one of self seeking pleasure, rather than a complete mutual self giving, the relationship is on thin ice as evidenced by the statistics I gave you.

1. Many forms of sex are very “giving” and “bonding”. The RCC has an overly-narrow view of human sexuality and the bonding that actual couples go through, even those who practice other methods of birth control. It’s just not true that that bonding and giving and generosity of spirit REQUIRE that there be no physical barrier to conception, particularly when NFP, as you say, can be a VERY EFFECTIVE means of preventing pregnancy. I have used it! And I agree!
2. Again, please make clear if you are claiming a cause-effect relationship between NFP and divorce rates. I would like you to be very clear about this before I respond.

 

[mark_a]

Yes, but they will say the difference is an act vs a non act, which seems like an arbitary distinction designed to defend their teachings.

And Anglican pre-1930 teachings.

 

[SteveVH]

This is a sweepingly negative characterization and is false. Children are still seen as a blessing. For you to say otherwise is strange, indeed.

Three thousand abortions, every day, in the United States alone, is all the evidence you need. Add artificial contraception and there you go.

You are not suggesting cause-effect here, are you? If so, I would like to respond directly on your logic.

Yes, I definitely am. Have at it.

 

[Bluegoat]

Johnny,
In the intro to Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and in several books on Aquinas I’ve read that Christians didn’t have access to Aristotle until around the 12th century. Except for the fact that Augustine said he read Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the Confessions, it makes sense because much of Christian philosophy prior to Aquinas is Platonic. Aquinas adopted Aristotle to show that he wasn’t incompatible with Christianity so I assume that Aristotelian philosophy was unknown to Christian philosophers prior to him.

That’s what I’ve read on the subject, but I thought it was strange that Augustine said he read Rhetoric. Do you know more about the church fathers having Aristotle before the dark ages? I haven’t read a lot of them, but I’ve always generally held that they were philosophically Platonic.

No, you’re correct. Most of Aristotle was lost to the West until they got it from the Muslims, along with the commentaries of the Muslim philosophers.

 

[mark_a]

In my protestant marriage it went like this:

Him: We can’t afford kids until I am done with school and have a good job.
Me: It’s better to marry than to burn. We can’t continue on like this because we will probably end up sinning and committing fornication. I guess we should get married and use ABC until he’s done with college.

After college:
Him: I don’t want to have a baby yet, with this woman, at this time, or ever.
Me: I will submit to my husband, no matter how grievous it is… After all, the highest calling for an evangelical wife is to submit to my husband. I will pray and ask my friends to pray.

I just don’t see how this Protestant standard is superior to the Catholic teaching that we are to be open to life.

 

[mark_a]

Simply because it has lead to bad things does make it bad in and of itself. Sex, if outside of a marriage, is seen as bad. Yet, within marriage, it is very good.

Could you please clarify the above?

By this logic, every woman is comitting murder for each period she had where she wasn’t pregnant, and every man commits murder for every ejaculation (including the necessary nocturnal emissions).

How could it be murder before conception??

 

[TEPO]

This is a sweepingly negative characterization and is false. Children are still seen as a blessing. For you to say otherwise is strange, indeed.

No it’s not… If children were seen as a true “blessing” from God, then why would anyone ever choose to deny birth? Why use contraception at all…?

The fact is that most people don’t see children as God’s blessings, they see them as a burden to their own worldly desires.

Within any marriage, sex should be performed as much as possible, without any forms of birth control including NFP. (I’m married with children by the way)

 

[Jeninky]

So sorry for your loss. Thanks for you thoughtful post!

Best wishes!

Thank you and God Bless you in all you do.

 

[kbwall]

No it’s not… If children were seen as a true “blessing” from God, then why would anyone ever choose to deny birth? Why use contraception at all…?

The fact is that most people don’t see children as God’s blessings, they see them as a burden to their own worldly desires.

Within any marriage, sex should be performed as much as possible, without any forms of birth control including NFP. (I’m married with children by the way)

Children are certainly a blessing, but you can have too much of a good thing. For instance, if a couple has so many kids that they go into poverty.

Could you please clarify the above?

I was just saying that just because the condom lead to the sexual revolution does not make it a bad thing. I was simply pointing out a flaw in logic, nothing more. There are probably other reasons why it is banned.

The church teaches that contraception isn’t to be used. I have no intention of arguing with the church, and will accept this teaching when my wedding day finally comes (and I do pray that it does some day, I’m lonely ). I simply do not understand the reasoning behind this teaching. For instance, nobody really answered me, why is NFP allowed, but condoms banned?

 

[Gregory_I]

roflol when is the last time in the USA that you saw a family of 11 or 12 on the street?!

Listen: The commandments of the Lord are not burdensome!

If he tells us to do it (procreate) it is because we CAN DO IT! He supplies our needs, and in RETURN we should be thankful and submissive to the sovreignty of his almighty will. He has established the Natural order, and we have no RIGHT to claim or business in breaking it.

THose who need to cling to their idolatrous “rights” above submitting to the Triune Lord God are far removed from him.