Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[RCconvert7]

Isn’t it lucky that you live in a time when reliable contraception is available! Do you think that in the old days, people were more able to abstain?

In the “old days,” there was one HUGE downward pressure on family size that often goes unmentioned in these sorts of discussions… Infant mortality. Sure, we still have miscarriages (although they are much more common among the poor and uninsured than the middle class), but once a baby is born, the possibility of them making it into adulthood is very near to totally certain (once again, especially if one is white and insured.) In fact, the idea that people live FAR longer today than in times past is a statistical fallacy. The “average life expectancy” is skewed much older today simply because there is such a radical absence of childhood deaths. So, yes, there were small families back in the “old days,” but those two living children likely had three or four or five brothers and sisters who died in infancy.

The economics of large families is also totally different today than it was in the “old days.”.

 

[RCconvert7]

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. (Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; LW, 7, 20-21) – Martin Luther

“the voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the [human] race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.” – Martin Luther (Commentary on Genesis)

It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born . . . Moreover he [Onan] thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. (Commentary on Genesis [38])- John Calvin

These quotes clearly illustrate the medieval misunderstanding of procreation. To the medieval mind, Onanism was identical to abortion because each orgasm contained the seeds of living humans which were simply waiting to be sown in the mother’s womb. According to this idea, there was no genetic material of the mother in the child at all. “Spilling ones seed” WAS murder because the sperm were fully formed, soul-containing humans. Can these quotes really be used to argue our point today, knowing that their understanding of human fertility was so fundamentally flawed?

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Happy is the man who’s quiver is full; however quiver in that day were of various sizes from 2 to 20-30. Quivers come in the same sizes today as well; nothing new here. It is a matter of one’s belief and conscience as long as the method does not violate God’s command(s); ie murder using RU486 as an example. So if the RCC teaches that using birth control is a sin, then to the Catholic it is deemed a sin and no one should argue otherwise or ridicule them and likewise for a non-Catholic that chooses to prevent pregnancy and to plan for a family using non-murderous methods and they do so in good conscience, then no one is to argue concerning that either.

Jenny,
I was going to say something about this group earlier but I didn’t. It’s just too ironic that you were talking about full quivers! There is a group of evangelical Christians known as “Quiverfull” that opposes birth control (and NFP too). I guess I just thought it was worth mentioning

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

 

[RCconvert7]

Is it a coinsidense that our culture started to become increasingly immoral once the acceptance of contraception became acceptable to many? (I’m not saying there was never immorality, there always has been. But it is on such a larger scale than it used to be in things like divorce, kids outside marraige, infedelity, abortion, homosexuality, etc. This has always been around, but nowhere near the levels that it is in society today).

Homosexuality was FAR more prevalent in Ancient Greece and Rome than it is today. Genesis implies that EVERY man in the city of Sodom (except Lot) was a homosexual (or bisexual) gang rapist. Even San Franciso has a few straight men.

Infidelity has ALWAYS been rampant. Look at the stories of Kings and Princes and their intrigues. And the people believed them to be “Ordained by God” to lead nations. David was an adulterer. A notable minority of Popes had illegitimate children. William the Conqueror, a VERY devout Catholic and the man who united England under one King, was an illegitimate son.

Prostitution has been a FAR more acceptable profession at different times in history, even in America.

I understand where you’re trying to go with your argument, but the idea that the world has gone to hell today and the past was morally superior is based on a misreading or a non-reading of history. Human nature has always been the same as it is now.

 

[RCconvert7]

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? .

I don’t think that a cause-effect relationship can be made here, and I am an advocate of NFP. Isn’t it just as likely that the couple willing to invest the time, patience, energy, and communication necessary for NFP to work are ALREADY very committed to one another and thus would be very unlikely to get divorced no matter what form of family planning they were using? Yes, very few NFP families get divorced, but that doesn’t mean that NFP prevents divorce so much as NFP and staying together are both symptoms of a very communicative and honest relationship.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

LOL. Pirates? I’ve never linked contraception and piracy before, Nine. That’s a new one!

This thread title makes me think of pirates boarding a ship.

Yar! Prepare to defend yer use of artificial contraception! Yar!

I’m sorry, I’ll leave now.

 

[roveau]

These quotes clearly illustrate the medieval misunderstanding of procreation. To the medieval mind, Onanism was identical to abortion because each orgasm contained the seeds of living humans which were simply waiting to be sown in the mother’s womb. According to this idea, there was no genetic material of the mother in the child at all. “Spilling ones seed” WAS murder because the sperm were fully formed, soul-containing humans. Can these quotes really be used to argue our point today, knowing that their understanding of human fertility was so fundamentally flawed?

Yes, I wanted to make the same observation earlier but didn’t want to interupt my reading of the posts. The mediaeval belief was that the sperm had miniature humans in it that was deposited in the womb and grew from there. I’m pretty sure that idea originally came from the early Greek writers.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t think that a cause-effect relationship can be made here, and I am an advocate of NFP. Isn’t it just as likely that the couple willing to invest the time, patience, energy, and communication necessary for NFP to work are ALREADY very committed to one another and thus would be very unlikely to get divorced no matter what form of family planning they were using? Yes, very few NFP families get divorced, but that doesn’t mean that NFP prevents divorce so much as NFP and staying together are both symptoms of a very communicative and honest relationship.

Perhaps not. I think a long term study could be made regarding couples using ABC and NFP and see whether the hypothesis holds true or not. I am not looking but if anyone know such study it would be good to look at the result.

On the surface it stands to reason that NFP would be better than ABC for marriage couples and their marriage life. The issue of guilt and side effect on the health are directly connected to those who are on contraceptive. NFP would give the couple freedom from worrying about side effect of the pills which very often has very lethal outcome to the user. There is also less guilt or none at all about sin.

Not so with ABC. The couples would be practically living with a haunting conscience. The other downside is the question that the wife should bear the brunt of its unwanted health consequence since it should be a shared responsibility. The feeling of injustice can come into the open especially when days are bad, when the pills run out; when the wife forgets to take them and when to buy them, when there is bleed, nausea, headache, irritation, acne and obesity.

Divorce often time comes about as a result of constant exposure to a turbulent family life and the pills can be very much the cause.

 

[larkin31]

Perhaps not. I think a long term study could be made regarding couples using ABC and NFP and see whether the hypothesis holds true or not. I am not looking but if anyone know such study it would be good to look at the result.

On the surface it stands to reason that NFP would be better than ABC for marriage couples and their marriage life. The issue of guilt and side effect on the health are directly connected to those who are on contraceptive. NFP would give the couple freedom from worrying about side effect of the pills which very often has very lethal outcome to the user. There is also less guilt or none at all about sin.

Not so with ABC. The couples would be practically living with a haunting conscience. The other downside is the question that the wife should bear the brunt of its unwanted health consequence since it should be a shared responsibility. The feeling of injustice can come into the open especially when days are bad, when the pills run out; when the wife forgets to take them and when to buy them, when there is bleed, nausea, headache, irritation, acne and obesity.

Divorce often time comes about as a result of constant exposure to a turbulent family life and the pills can be very much the cause.

There are other forms of ABC. And some couples use ABC only during the most fertile time of the menstrual cycle.

 

[larkin31]

In the “old days,” there was one HUGE downward pressure on family size that often goes unmentioned in these sorts of discussions… Infant mortality. Sure, we still have miscarriages (although they are much more common among the poor and uninsured than the middle class), but once a baby is born, the possibility of them making it into adulthood is very near to totally certain (once again, especially if one is white and insured.) In fact, the idea that people live FAR longer today than in times past is a statistical fallacy. The “average life expectancy” is skewed much older today simply because there is such a radical absence of childhood deaths. So, yes, there were small families back in the “old days,” but those two living children likely had three or four or five brothers and sisters who died in infancy.

The economics of large families is also totally different today than it was in the “old days.”.

Indeed.

 

[larkin31]

I don’t think that a cause-effect relationship can be made here, and I am an advocate of NFP. Isn’t it just as likely that the couple willing to invest the time, patience, energy, and communication necessary for NFP to work are ALREADY very committed to one another and thus would be very unlikely to get divorced no matter what form of family planning they were using? Yes, very few NFP families get divorced, but that doesn’t mean that NFP prevents divorce so much as NFP and staying together are both symptoms of a very communicative and honest relationship.

Thank you for this reasoned response. Furthermore, most practicers of NFP are committed Catholics already, and committed Catholics ALSO are less likely to divorce because their faith opposes it.

 

[Sufjon]

What’s the point?

It only goes to show how prevalent its usage is.

Hi Reuben: I was wondering how belonging to a church that has a rule against condom use but using condoms anyway is any better than using condoms when you belong to a church that approves of the use of condoms. Isn’t it actually worse? One person is using condoms with the approval of their church. The belongs to a church that does not approve of condom use but uses them anyway, while maintaining that he has the moral high ground. To an outsider it looks rather curious.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[inocente]

The intention is one of the problems, NFP is entirely open in intention, and requires a different mindset. Condoms would be used with the intention of self gratification, the hope of no child. As a consequence, in some cases not all; if a condom failed, the avenue of abortion is available and may be the crux of this matter, also the answer you seek ?

I’d hope all Christians would at least agree that abortion is a sin after any natural or artificial method of contraception fails, on grounds that it makes children convenient commodity items – as you say, that way of thinking would be deeply flawed. This doesn’t make the use of contraception itself a sin, but means the method and it use must be chosen responsibly.

Your example is good whether I’m right or wrong. Sexual ethics are rarely debated across all of society, and we’ve now ended-up with a mish-mash where society just drifts around. It would be much better to get everyone, Christian or whatever, on board with a single moral code. I can dream.

 

[mark_a]

Sometimes, for sure.

But ultimately, we all die, and in no way, righteous or not, can we avoid that consequence of sin.

I’m glad that wasn’t me mentioning sin!

Again, there are serious adult ways to discuss the problems and gravity of a decision like abortion without having to bring “sin” into the conversation. You are basing your position, it seems, entirely on whether a behavior is called “a sin” or not.

 

[Izdaari]

For which Protestants is it “not even a question”?

I’ve been a member or regular attender of a good many different Protestant denominations, ranging from liberalish mainstream to conservative evangelical and pentecostal, and I cannot recall even one that taught against contraception. For me, it was never even a question. I have of course heard of the “quiver full” movement, but always dismissed them as wackos.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Yes, I wanted to make the same observation earlier but didn’t want to interupt my reading of the posts. The mediaeval belief was that the sperm had miniature humans in it that was deposited in the womb and grew from there. I’m pretty sure that idea originally came from the early Greek writers.

I was also wanting to point this out!

I understand ABC to be wrong in that it thwart’s God’s will – i.e. God is the only one to make Life vs. Death decisions, which is why abortion and certain fertility methods are also no-no’s. And obviously, murder. What I can’t understand is how capital punishment escapes this classification.

I think many people who do not object to ABC feel that God gave us the knowledge and technology by making us smart enough to figure out our biology. Probably, some people would feel that they can prayerfully decide whether they want to have more children, and if not, that it’s OK to use ABC. I am sure some people differentiate – like, they are OK with barrier methods, but not IUDs, due to the sperm-meets-egg idea…that as long as there is no conception, there is no sin.

I personally do not think it’s any of my business, nor would I judge, people who use ABC, especially if they are not Catholic.

 

[larkin31]

I’ve been a member or regular attender of a good many different Protestant denominations, ranging from liberalish mainstream to conservative evangelical and pentecostal, and I cannot recall even one that taught against contraception. For me, it was never even a question. I have of course heard of the “quiver full” movement, but always dismissed them as wackos.

This doesn’t mean that congregants don’t think about it at all when it comes to making their own personal decisions with a partner around the issue.

 

[mark_a]

I was wondering how belonging to a church that has a rule against condom use but using condoms anyway is any better than using condoms when you belong to a church that approves of the use of condoms. Isn’t it actually worse? One person is using condoms with the approval of their church. The belongs to a church that does not approve of condom use but uses them anyway, while maintaining that he has the moral high ground. To an outsider it looks rather curious.

Your friend
Sufjon

I would agree that the hipocracy of some Christians is “curious” and a turn-off. I have my own hipocracies to fix, though.

 

[mark_a]

I’ve been a member or regular attender of a good many different Protestant denominations, ranging from liberalish mainstream to conservative evangelical and pentecostal, and I cannot recall even one that taught against contraception. For me, it was never even a question. I have of course heard of the “quiver full” movement, but always dismissed them as wackos.

Here’s an opinion that calls a spade a spade, which I find admirable and refreshing.

 

[onenow1]

I’d hope all Christians would at least agree that abortion is a sin after any natural or artificial method of contraception fails, on grounds that it makes children convenient commodity items – as you say, that way of thinking would be deeply flawed. This doesn’t make the use of contraception itself a sin, but means the method and it use must be chosen responsibly.

Your example is good whether I’m right or wrong. Sexual ethics are rarely debated across all of society, and we’ve now ended-up with a mish-mash where society just drifts around. It would be much better to get everyone, Christian or whatever, on board with a single moral code. I can dream.

Letsdream and hope inocente ! Is it the ten commandments or the ten suggestions

God Bless