Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter ScapularDude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benedictus2 said:
By the way, you forgot to address the point of the analogy.

Suppose you had not mutilated yourself and are using only the pills and condom.

Suppose that in spite of these two you still became pregnant every time.

What happens to your “I’m pro contraception but not pro abortion?”
Click to expand...
 
Oh, if I became pregnant every time, I would have abortion after abortion. How many are you allowed to have 50, 60? 👍
 
vickimonica said:
Keep um comin’. I’m printing them all to share!!👍
Click to expand...
Thank you. I do hope you would.

And please do print a copy of Humanae Vitae as well and maybe get the class to weigh your view against that of Pope Paul VI.

And please don’t forget to tell them that until the Lambeth Conference in 1930 every single Christian denomination was one with the Catholic Church in this belief.

By the way, I hope you are honest enough to print your post as well where you explicitly go against the teaching of the Catholic Church and yet claim to be teaching for the Church :rolleyes:.

You can tell them that you are right so the Church must be wrong. Therefore if the Church is wrong about this one there is a chance she could be about everything else.:rolleyes:

And please,please, please, please don’t forget to print post 664 and put the same hypothetical to them. 😃
 
vickimonica said:
Oh, if I became pregnant every time, I would have abortion after abortion. How many are you allowed to have 50, 60? 👍
Click to expand...
Ha! You may try to lighten this up but you have just prove my point.

You are pro-abortion in spite of your earlier protestations to the contrary. 😃
 
onenow1 said:
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 ?:hmmm:

Peace
🙂
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. First of all, the last time I saw the statistics, NFP was MORE SUCCESSFUL than condoms for preventing pregnancy. This is probably due to operator error on the part of the condom users. Also, there are many fairly common conditions that can cause a woman’s cycle to change, thus producing a “whoops” baby for the NFPs. We are not all clockwork. Some of us have cycles that vary from three weeks one month to five weeks the next. Yes, it is normal.

Condom use absolutely does not mean that the condom-user supports abortion. Although I’ve been open to a good explanation, I still don’t understand what is wrong with the use of condoms. I will say that if one person wants a child, though, then this is elevated to a much more complicated level. This is also most likely when I would be willing to side with the Church and the concept of being open to creating new life within a marriage.

I do not support all other forms of birth control, however. I really didn’t understand what was so wrong with them until I went into healthcare - I did ultrasound for five years with my first year working in a gynecology office. It was very eye-opening.

IUDs are basically abortions. They prevent an embryo from implanting. Birth control pills - basically hormone therapy - are listed as a possible cause of every abnormal gynecological condition, of which there are many. Since the body is a temple, the use of birth control pills for, well, birth control, is greatly sinful. The same goes with other methods of birth control using hormone therapy, such as the Mirena IUD, which does double duty.

Now, I know that some of you look at birth control pills as nothing but evil, but you must also understand that they are hormone therapy. The use of hormones is dangerous, but there are women who have abnormal hormones, and birth control pills help regulate the hormones for many of these women. They are a necessary treatment for a serious condition. Not all women on birth control pills are on them for the birth control.

I also learned how bad fertility treatments are. Not only did the women often become nut-jobs, placing stress on their marriages, but they put themselves at a much higher risk for ovarian cancer - an aggressive cancer. Again, this goes along with harming your body, a temple, something I believe is a sin.

Regarding the statement about embryos not being alive, biologists would strongly disagree. Biologists have defined seven characteristics of life that all organisms MUST posses (this includes potential), and embryos have them all.
 
benedictus2 said:
Oh yes I do. But only because you’ve spilled on this forum what’s inside them. 🙂
Click to expand...
Are you married? How many years? How many children do you have? I am assuming that you have had one child for EACH 11 months that you have been married…👍
 
benedictus2 said:
By the way, you forgot to address the point of the analogy.

Suppose you had not mutilated yourself and are using only the pills and condom.

Suppose that in spite of these two you still became pregnant every time.

What happens to your “I’m pro contraception but not pro abortion?”
Click to expand...
Yes, they mutilated me. They cut me in half in the middle of a field and tied my tubes with chicken wire. Oh, are you married? How many years? How many children? I am assuming that you have had one child for every eleven months that you have been married…😛
 
Some methods of NFP I find less open to life than birth control pills

For example I have irregular cycles (among other issues) and was told that for NFP it would be best to wait for ovulation and only have sex the week after confirmed ovulation … ummmm that is in NO way open to life… it wont happen ha!
I would have a higher chance of getting pregnant taking birth control pills than I would ONLY having sex 7 days after I ovulate every month.
 
I got pregnant with my son on birth control… of course this has only happened once so I wouldn’t say its a huge fail rate and it could have been my error -
but if you are having sex (in most cases) you are open to life…
 
vickimonica said:
Trust me, I will NOT have to abort. I have had a Tubal Ligation, and would do it again in a HEARTBEAT… Oh, and thanks for the kind, loving Cristian words… 👍
Click to expand...
I am getting hopelessly confused. How is this not thwarting God’s will just as much as a condom?

james
 
God made women the way they are, with the cyclic periods of fertility and less fertility. I believe that is part of how NFP is not thwarting God’s will.

Peace,
Phil
 
ESMDHokie77 said:
God made women the way they are, with the cyclic periods of fertility and less fertility. I believe that is part of how NFP is not thwarting God’s will.
Click to expand...
Thanks for mentioning that. That does sound reasonable. I’m not sure I agree with it fully because sin has a lot to do with knowledge and intention. But I will think about this one. I also question how one can “thwart God” in any realistic sense of the word. If you use NFP one time your intent to avoid having a child is the same as if you use a condom one time. But you are right about one thing: there is one tiny difference–NFP puts a restriction on you so that there are a limited number of times you can have sex, and makes you follow a schedule.

Also if you look at the history of the Church in this regard, you will see that the rules have changed over time. NFP wasn’t originally allowed. Even abstinence in marriage to avoid having children is wrong. The question gets even hairier when you consider there are times when it’s impossible to have a child. Anyone who has been married and has kids knows this, but it’s often overlooked by others: you can’t get pregnant again while you’re pregnant. Yet the “no sex just for fun” rules still apply.

I totally understand and agree with the spirit of what the Church teaches–that marriage and sex is at least in part (large part) for the purpose of procreation and families. I think any marriage should be open to life. The only thing I have a problem with is how this is micro-managed to mean certain types of birth control are “artificial” and other types are ok.

Maybe the Church is just afraid that opening the door to barrier contraceptives will mean people will just hear, “it’s ok to use condoms” and then disregard the spirit of the teaching which is “be open to having children.”

Anyone who thinks NFP is wrong is at the very least self-consistent, IMO.
 
copperblade said:
Thanks for mentioning that. That does sound reasonable. I’m not sure I agree with it fully because sin has a lot to do with knowledge and intention. But I will think about this one. I also question how one can “thwart God” in any realistic sense of the word. If you use NFP one time your intent to avoid having a child is the same as if you use a condom one time. But you are right about one thing: there is one tiny difference–NFP puts a restriction on you so that there are a limited number of times you can have sex, and makes you follow a schedule.

Also if you look at the history of the Church in this regard, you will see that the rules have changed over time. NFP wasn’t originally allowed. Even abstinence in marriage to avoid having children is wrong. The question gets even hairier when you consider there are times when it’s impossible to have a child. Anyone who has been married and has kids knows this, but it’s often overlooked by others: you can’t get pregnant again while you’re pregnant. Yet the “no sex just for fun” rules still apply.

I totally understand and agree with the spirit of what the Church teaches–that marriage and sex is at least in part (large part) for the purpose of procreation and families. I think any marriage should be open to life. The only thing I have a problem with is how this is micro-managed to mean certain types of birth control are “artificial” and other types are ok.

Maybe the Church is just afraid that opening the door to barrier contraceptives will mean people will just hear, “it’s ok to use condoms” and then disregard the spirit of the teaching which is “be open to having children.”

Anyone who thinks NFP is wrong is at the very least self-consistent, IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. The positions I understand are: both NFP and condoms in marriage are wrong or both of them in marriage are OK. I believe that is how extremely traditional Catholics tend to argue, with them concluding both are wrong of course. I don’t see a logical difference between the ‘rightness’ of either one other than, the Church says so. NFP strikes me as a compromise between not allowing any form of birth control at all, and allowing various man-made contraceptives.

I do understand a compromise position for the man’s or woman’s health or some other dire strait. My mother had toxic shock with multiple organ failure and could have died during her 7th pregnancy, and she had a stillbirth anyway. My parents were being careless and just not thinking about birth control. In those situations (my mother’s previous pregnancies had been awful and dangerous) I can see a compromise. But not the way many Catholics tend to use it which is, we don’t want kids (this month, or at this time) for various reasons.

I personally think parents should plan their family size as they see fit. I’m talking about consistency in the Catholic position, as I see it.
 
vickimonica said:
Yes, they mutilated me. They cut me in half in the middle of a field and tied my tubes with chicken wire. Oh, are you married? How many years? How many children? I am assuming that you have had one child for every eleven months that you have been married…😛
Click to expand...
And there in display is a profound absence of reason.

Stick to the argument.

Either it is evil or it is not. That it is difficult to adhere to makes no difference. The way of true Christianity is difficult.

And the fact that you have not addressed the points I raise shows that you know that I am right. A Christian cannot avoid the force of the truth. But one can insist on the lie and that is one’s prerogative.

Attempts at levity will not obscure the lie.
 
Di_bear said:
IUDs are basically abortions.
Click to expand...
That is grossly inaccurate. Mirena IUD works one or more than one of 3 ways. Mirena is a method of delivering a hormone that is also found in many birth control pills. In this way, Mirena has therapeutic purposes such as therapy for menorrhagia (heavy periods). But this hormone, among other things, reduces the frequency of ovulation, thereby reducing the likelihood of a sperm encountering an egg. Clearly, that is not in any way a form of abortion.
The second way Mirena may work is changing the cervical mucus. Cervical mucus changes throughout the cycle; sometimes (during the fertile time) it is especially well suited for the travel of sperm through the cervix to the uterus. By changing the cervical mucus, the sperm are less likely to make it through. Also not abortion.
The third way Mirena may work I will concede has a little in common with abortion in that, if the first two methods fail, an egg could get fertilized, but Mirena prevents it from implanting in the uterus bc it thins the uterine lining. This is not technically killing it but the effect* is* similar to abortion that the egg was fertilized but is prevented from growing. The presence of a foreign object is not good news for an embryo either.
Non-hormonal IUD’s, which are made out of copper, are spermicidal and ovicidal. Sperm and eggs are not embryos, therefore killing one or the other or both before the egg is fertilized is not abortion.
 
samiam, your third reason states that it kills a fertilized egg, … that is killing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top