Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[geebob]

Quite the contrary. The Catholic view sees marital sexual relations as good. No one is stopping one from enjoying it. But it does have the possible consequence of children. And this you must be open to.

The value that the catholic church is denying is precisely what I described, INTRINSIC VALUE. You deny the value of sexual intercourse apart from procreation or (or oddly, the intension of procreation which I still find inconsistent with the value of sexual intercourse with couples who unable to concieve). Thus it’s value is not intrinsic. But this is ironically against experience and nature where sexuality can consistently be a bonding experience that is not immeadiately nor necessarily related to procreation.

That is true. But that should be up to God to decide not to you.

It was up to God to make us stewards of our bodies and so we are. It was up to God who made sexual intercourse with a degree of independence from procreation, and so it is not wrong for it to lack reproduction nor the intent given couples who cannot have children.

yes. it is up to God.

That’s not even in the least bit similar. When we say one should be open to life, we mean that it should be open to life where life is possible.

Many artificial forms of contraception leave open the possibility life. Does NFP via breast feeding even leave open the possibility of pregnancy? (I really don’t know). Even if one does use contraception that was 100 percent effective, they could still be open to life by not using it all the time. And the example nevertheless demonstrates that sexual intercourse has value apart from reproduction, that does not depend on it’s reproductive function and is thus not a sin.

That is a stupid argument

I have found people here so far uncommonly gentlemanly for internet discussions. I have a feeling I won’t be discussing things with you for long.

you are implying that infertile people should not even think of getting married because they are not open to life.

Not me. I don’t have a problem with contraception. I was drawing out the bad implications of the anti-contraception view.

You see there is a major difference there altogether. The selfishness of wanting pleasure at all times and not wanting the possible result of a child.

I just explained that the difference isn’t there. Many artificial forms of contraception ARE NOT 100 percent effective and very well leave one open to the possibility for life.

And again, we are back to the infertile couples who have that liberty of having pleasure all the time (heaven forbid, that pleasure should have God given intrinsic value) and are not in any realistic way open to producing a child.

from me:
and he didn’t make it necessarily and intrinsically connected with actual reproduction.

from you:
Yes He did. Read the Bible.

No he didn’t. learn basic biology. Infertile couples cannot reproduce but they have sex, thus sex is not necessarily connected with actual reproduction, and menopausal couples, couples with infertile men, couples where the woman has had a hysterectomy.

And to add yet another example, with couples where the woman is already pregnant, sex has absolutely no reproductive value.

According to His pleasure

and you missed the reinforced point. reproduction is not necessary to sex. Bonding is accept when it is done sinfully outside of a monogamous relationship.

And there you got it. We can abstain from sex. God has not problem with that. God actually recommended it (if you read Paul).

And there, you don’t have it, you weren’t tracking the discussion and you missed the point that I was addressing.

Sex’s value is not just for the "intense’ bonding experience.

Never said it was. Only that it is the necessary aspect.

Yes we are but we are not God so should not usurp the prerogative of deciding who will and will not be born.

We already can by abstaining from sex. The idea that any sexual experience has some specific yet to be created individual correspond to it is an unsupported speculation.

Take this absurd stand for exampe " I am against abortion but pro contraception".

I don’t see the absurdity. And I couldn’t tell that your example highlighted one.

There was no ambiguity. A straight translation exhibits no ambguity. It is only the liberal translation that does.

That could be. I can’t take your word for it though.

The translations I consulted were not liberal. If translating it in the way you said makes it liberal, that says more about your judgement than what actually would constitute a liberal translation.

Having checked a few translations, there is less doubt in my mind about what the sin of Onan was.

What we are saying is what you are doing to stop that act from bringing life is the sin.

You can abstain and that prevents life. Clearly it’s the sex that makes the difference.

Otherwise it is just lust and self gratification.

contraception doesn’t prevent mutual gratification. And again, there is no difference in the intention here when using contraception vs. sex between infertile couples, and couples who are already pregnant. There is no openness to life in the sex act (since one is already on the way).

Ironically (though without addressing the topic), Paul says the cure for lust is sex within marriage. Thus lust within a marriage is just a category error.

 

[mark_a]

The new perspective on Paul brings greater understanding to Paul’s faith/works dichotomy and it resulted from digging deep into ancient Judaism.

Oh, I meant in reference to the subject of the thread.

I also think of a movement called open theism which makes us aware of the greek influence on theology, criticizes it on key grounds with regard to God’s personhood even though many proponents of the open view note that greek philosophy did have it’s advantages.

That Greek Luke sure opened a can of worms, didn’t he?

 

[benedictus2]

The value that the catholic church is denying is precisely what I described, INTRINSIC VALUE. You deny the value of sexual intercourse apart from procreation

Okay a Duh is in order here. The INTRINSIC VALUE of marital intercourse IS procreation. God did not say go and have sex to your heart’s content. He said go and multiply. Everywhere in the Bible children are considered blessings from God.

Sex was not given by God for pleasure’s sex. God made the act of pro-creation pleasurable because the creative act is a participation in God’s creative act.

or (or oddly, the intension of procreation which I still find inconsistent with the value of sexual intercourse with couples who unable to concieve).

Only because you have a disordered view of the intrinsic value of sex which is not Christian or Biblical in any way.

Thus it’s value is not intrinsic.

Again because you do not even know what intrinsic value means. Intrinsic value of something is that end for which it was created for. God did not create sex for pleasure’s sake but so that we may participate in His grand act of creation, of bringing eternal souls into existence.

But this is ironically against experience and nature where sexuality can consistently be a bonding experience that is not immeadiately nor necessarily related to procreation.

It CAN be a bonding experience but that is not what it was intentioned for.
Other loving acts serve the same purpose.

It was up to God to make us stewards of our bodies and so we are. It was up to God who made sexual intercourse with a degree of independence from procreation.

Please tell me where in the Bible it says that intercourse is to be divorced from pro-creation.
/quote] and so it is not wrong for it to lack reproduction
And that is true. And He already built that lack into the woman’s cycle.

nor the intent given couples who cannot have children.

And again that is true. But the not having children in this case was God’s prerogative.

As I said before, this is all about letting God be God. Artificial contraception is the refusal of that.

yes. it is up to God.

So it should be. But artificial contraception says it is not up to God but up to this trinity called I/Me/Myself.

Christ came to de-throne that trinity. But oh how tightly we cling to the scepter and the crown.

 

[geebob]

Okay a Duh is in order here. The INTRINSIC VALUE of marital intercourse IS procreation.

Thus there is no point for infertile or pregnant couples to have sex. Follow the logic. Maybe you just don’t know what intrinsic means?

God did not say go and have sex to your heart’s content.

weak argument from silence. And the fact is that scripture celebrates sex without reference to procreation. Song of Solomon comes to mind. Proverbs 5:9 is quite carnal.

He said go and multiply.

Mission accomplished, and the earth is plenty full.

Everywhere in the Bible children are considered blessings from God.

No one suggested otherwise.

from me:

nor the intent given couples who cannot have children.

from you:
And again that is true. But the not having children in this case was God’s prerogative.

You again are not tracking the discussion and now it is just circular. What does the legitimacy of sexual intercourse for infertile couples show (and pregnant ones)? It shows that procreation is NOT intrinsic to sex. Otherwise, it isn’t legitimate.

As I said before, this is all about letting God be God. Artificial contraception is the refusal of that.

Yes, let God be God. God made us stewards of our bodies. God made sexuality an intense bonding experience. God most certainly did not make procreation intrinsic to sex if infertile couples and pregnant couples can have sex without sin, if it is of value to them. Artifiical contraception is an extension of our stewardship.

But artificial contraception says it is not up to God but up to this trinity called I/Me/Myself.

no, there’s no use for artificial conception for the self alone. This is not the discussion on masterbation. Sex involves a couple, modeling the triune unity, modeling the triune God who freely choose to create, thus is necessarily a self contained loving community, but contingently a creator.

 

[geebob]

My scripture reference had the wrong vs. It’s proverbs 5:15-20

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You again are not tracking the discussion and now it is just circular. What does the legitimacy of sexual intercourse for infertile couples show (and pregnant ones)? It shows that procreation is NOT intrinsic to sex. Otherwise, it isn’t legitimate.

.

Not true we have at least two cases in the bible where women past the child barring years in Sarah and Elizabeth both barren did in there old age become pregant, By Gods will, so it shows that by being open to it and even the infertile couple may become fertile.

 

[geebob]

Not true we have at least two cases in the bible where women past the child barring years in Sarah and Elizabeth both barren did in there old age become pregant, By Gods will, so it shows that by being open to it and even the infertile couple may become fertile.

That really isn’t a realistic expectation. I’m not saying that it won’t happen. And who’s not open to a miracle? But no, infertile couples do not have sex to have children. They are not open to life and that is not sinful. I’m open to winning a million dollar sweepstakes, but not really. I don’t realistically expect it and a miraculous conception is vastly less likely.

And if God wants a couple to have a child miraculously, artificial contraception isn’t going to stop him anyway.

And regardless, sex with pregnant couples is not sex with the openness to new life. The life is already in progress, this purpose has been fulfilled, thus if it is a necessary purpose. So the miracle contingency, as extremely unlikely as it is isn’t even relevant in that case.

 

[geebob]

And if God wants a couple to have a child miraculously, artificial contraception isn’t going to stop him anyway.

Case in point, I recall a few years ago seeing one of those news shows (20/20 or 60 minutes) where they featured a couple where the man had HIV and a girl knew about it but fell in love with him anyway. They got married. One time their condom broke. She didn’t get HIV but she got pregnant anyway.

 

[mark_a]

One time their condom broke. She didn’t get HIV but she got pregnant anyway.

I don’t get this at all.

Does HIV make a man sterile?

Is heterosexual sex as likely as infect a partner as gay sex?

 

[mark_a]

But no, infertile couples do not have sex to have children. They are not open to life and that is not sinful.

Thousands of infertile couples pray for children and get them.

And regardless, sex with pregnant couples is not sex with the openness to new life.

“Pregnant couples” are about as open to life as they can be when they choose not to abort.

 

[samiam1611]

I agree with much of what geebob has said. (I am not Catholic, just throwing my personal opinion in here.) Particularly good arguments include

And if God wants a couple to have a child miraculously, artificial contraception isn’t going to stop him anyway.

and

God made us stewards of our bodies. God made sexuality an intense bonding experience. God most certainly did not make procreation intrinsic to sex if infertile couples and pregnant couples can have sex without sin, if it is of value to them. Artifiical contraception is an extension of our stewardship.

I started a thread that is related to this. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=543136 I’m going paraphrase a little bit of it here. This particular part does not explicitly relate to ABC though so technically it’s a little off topic of the OP, but it is on topic to the back and forth you all have been having about the procreative vs unitive purposes of sex.
“Each marital act signifies, embodies, and renews the original and enduring marital covenant between husband and wife.”
[In reference to NFP] How does completely abstaining from not only intercourse, but all sexually pleasing acts, embody the marital covenant, but that giving one’s body for the unitive act alone does not at least contribute to (even if it isn’t the embodiment of) the love that God brings to a couple?
From Theology of the Body: (on the use of ABC)
“The language of the body that is meant to express self-gift becomes mixed with another message, a contrary message—namely, the refusal to give oneself entirely.”
I disagree with that sentence, but pretending I do agree:
I don’t see how denying one’s partner the gift of their body because it is a fertile time of the woman’s cycle is preferable to using contraception. (Especially since it is when she has the most desire to unite!) Isn’t better to give MOST of one’s self than NONE of one’s self? It seems to me that NFP is in fact SUGGESTING that you refuse to give oneself - partially or entirely!
…So to bring it back around to this thread: Given that the Catholic Church contradicts itself by condoning refusal to give one’s self entirely [by my interpretation], they shouldn’t object to other methods of contraception that also inhibit giving one’s self entirely. The marital act most certainly is a great expression of love, and as long as both partners are on the same page regarding preventing pregnancy, they should be allowed to express it whenever the heck they want without being restricted by desire to prevent pregnancy. Again, since the refusal to give one’s self AT ALL is not sinning even though the marital act embodies and furthers the marriage covenant, the Church should not object to PARTIALLY giving one’s self.
*

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=543136

 

[samiam1611]

“Pregnant couples” are about as open to life as they can be when they choose not to abort.

A pregnant couple is, in general, open to life but “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.” The woman does not ovulate when she’s pregnant, so no additional lives can be formed for the time being. Since sex is still allowed while pregnant (or infertile) this allowance is inconsistent with the Church’s own teachings. Either let the unitive purpose suffice, as they do with pregnant and infertile couples…or don’t - but enough already with these arbitrary rules!

 

[geebob]

Thousands of infertile couples pray for children and get them.

They perhaps weren’t that infertile. There’s degrees to everything.

And what if they don’t pray. What if they don’t expect children because they have come to know the bodies that God gave them. There just is no basis here to judge them sinners.

“Pregnant couples” are about as open to life as they can be when they choose not to abort.

And that is completely irrelevant to pregnant couples having sex. They are not having sex to bring forth new life. They are not open to new life with respect to sex in that context. And there is no sin in that.

Samiam, good points.

 

[vickimonica]

Spacing out pregnancies is preventing children.

No their not. It’s only when you use them contraception that morality creeps in.

True but it is not THE MOST important.

So there are no other ways to express your love except to have sex?

Again, so there is no other way to express your love except to have sex?

But you doubt it right? Maybe He will give you too many you can’t handle so you better take matters into your own hands because you can’t trust God to mess the number of children up…

But then if you can’t trust God with that, can you really trust God at all?

Which is not suppose to contravene the Divine Reason.

Well duh, you employ the conraceptive device because your intention, that being to avoid a pesky human being from coming from this “expression of love”

How is that so considering that you are actually abstaining from sex? You are actually making a sacrifice on those times when the woman is infertile which happens to be God cycle?

True. That is why NFP is not to be used as contraception without grave reason - say the wife is ill.

But there is a major difference because when you employ ABC, you are actually you go ahead with the sexual gratification at what ever time suits you and you put a barrier to God.

I’ve asked this of another poster before. If NFP is truly the same as ABC then how can you are not going by NFP?

Give that a throrugj thinking.

Actually it is the most enlightened, most reasonable stand.

All Christians until 1930 have all condemned contraception.

And I wouldn’t invoke the “enlightenment” period because so much bad philosophy came out of that one too. A lot of very un Christian philosophies.

The only true enlightenment is the enlightenment that comes from God.

Didn’t you say you were a Christian?

Benedictus2 - How many children do you have? (If you are married). I would guess that you have had one child every 11 months since you have been married, correct?

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2 - How many children do you have? (If you are married). I would guess that you have had one child every 11 months since you have been married, correct?

Vickimonica, you obviouly have got no grasp of what logical thinking is.

This post of yours falls into the fallacy called ad hominem.

What has got my state of life got to do with the validity of what I write?

If a cretin walks into a room saying that water is composed of H2O, would you say that his statement is not valid because he is a cretin?

Apropos to this, St Paul had no business giving advice about the marital life considering he was single and celibate .

And for that matter, neither does Jesus.

 

[benedictus2]

Thus there is no point for infertile or pregnant couples to have sex. Follow the logic. Maybe you just don’t know what intrinsic means?

Maybe you just don’t know what intrinsic means. The intrinsic value of anything if what God designed a thing for.

Since some people are born deaf, therefore the intrinsic value of ears is not hearing?

weak argument from silence.

Hardly an argument from silence considering there is copious citations for pro-creation.

And the fact is that scripture celebrates sex without reference to procreation. Song of Solomon comes to mind. Proverbs 5:9 is quite carnal.

And it is, but where does it say that this celebration of sex is supposed to exclude pro-creation? On the contrary, there are heaps of verses that say that the celebration of sex is for procreation.

Mission accomplished, and the earth is plenty full.

Which is not for you to decide. Only God decides when the earth is full. You are not God and you are not the creator. But I am not surprised that you say this since it seems you have decided you are god.

No one suggested otherwise.

It seems you do as there seems to be this great aversion to an increase of this blessing. The way people are insistent on artificial contraception, it seems children are a curse rather a blessing.
Don’t we all want God to bless us abundantly?

You again are not tracking the discussion and now it is just circular. What does the legitimacy of sexual intercourse for infertile couples show (and pregnant ones)?

You are the one who is not tracking the discussion. That infertile couples cannot have children was God’s choice for them. You are missing the obvious fact that even for fertile couples, marital intercourse does not always result in children.
The whole point being that sex should be open to God’s action of brining forth human life from that union if and when He so wishes.

It shows that procreation is NOT intrinsic to sex. Otherwise, it isn’t legitimate.

So therefore walking is not intrinsic to legs because there are people who are born without it?

Or another thing, those born with brain damage or does that mean because they were born this way it means that the intrinsic purpose of the brain is for thinking?

Furthermore, and this is where your argument fails compellingly, if the intrinsic value of sex is for pleasure, then there is no need to limit this to married couples or to heterosexual couples. If pleasure is what it is for, then homosexuality, bestiality and every abominable deed related to sexuality (even paedophilia) may be permissible so long as pleasure is derived.

Yes, let God be God. God made us stewards of our bodies. God made sexuality an intense bonding experience.

For the purpose of pro-creation when He so decides. When you decide when children will be born you geebob is being god, plain and simple.

God most certainly did not make procreation intrinsic to sex

Read the Bible. He most certainly did. He made pro-creation pleasurable and not pleasure pro-creationable.

if infertile couples and pregnant couples can have sex without sin, if it is of value to them.

Yes it is. And that they cannot have children is left to God. Any which way you look at it, artificially stopping the possible result of intercourse means you declare yourself to be god and so decides who will and will not be brought into being.

Artifiical contraception is an extension of our stewardship.

Downright lie that the devil has whispered and you have bought.
Artificial contraception means you are geebob declares himself god.

Stewardship of your body is looking after your body not stopping the creation of another body. With that statement you are making the child sound like an evil that you must protect yourself from.

] Sex involves a couple, modeling the triune unity, modeling the triune

Divorced from the openness to life it isn’t. It models the self and the devil whose only capacity is to destroy not to create.

God who freely choose to create, thus is necessarily a self contained loving community, but contingently a creator.

That is the most idiotic statement about God you can make.
God is not contingent on anything or anyone.
A contingent god is no God at all.
No wonder you do not follow the true God with regard your sex life. To you He is no God at all. Just another contingent being.

 

[benedictus2]

They perhaps weren’t that infertile. There’s degrees to everything.

Said like a true unbeliever. Sarah was probably not infertile, or Elizabeth or any other people in the Bible.

I am beginning to understand more and more the kind of god you have in your head.

 

[vickimonica]

Vickimonica, you obviouly have got no grasp of what logical thinking is.

This post of yours falls into the fallacy called ad hominem.

What has got my state of life got to do with the validity of what I write?

If a cretin walks into a room saying that water is composed of H2O, would you say that his statement is not valid because he is a cretin?

Apropos to this, St Paul had no business giving advice about the marital life considering he was single and celibate .

And for that matter, neither does Jesus.

Considering the fact that you will not answer my question, you just did. i gather that you do not “practice what you preach”…

 

[benedictus2]

Considering the fact that you will not answer my question, you just did. i gather that you do not “practice what you preach”…

So therefore if I am a priest I cannot tell you that artificial contraception is evil because I do not have children?

So therefore Pope Paul the VI had no business writing the encyclical Humanae Vitae?

Vickimonica, please use the grey cells a bit. It is tiresome.

A single person like me must be wrong about everything regarding the married life then considering I am not married.

And to take your line of thinking further, we have no business telling paedophiles what they are doing is wrong because after all we are not in the same manner inclined.

Should I keep going on so you will begin to grasp how illogical you are?

 

[vickimonica]

So therefore if I am a priest I cannot tell you that artificial contraception is evil because I do not have children?

So therefore Pope Paul the VI had no business writing the encyclical Humanae Vitae?

Vickimonica, please use the grey cells a bit. It is tiresome.

A single person like me must be wrong about everything regarding the married life then considering I am not married.

And to take your line of thinking further, we have no business telling paedophiles what they are doing is wrong because after all we are not in the same manner inclined.

Should I keep going on so you will begin to grasp how illogical you are?

Thank you very much for answering my question. You are not married. Once you have a baby or 2 , or 3, you may not be so quick to JUDGE other women who do not wish to have more. You really should proof read before you hit the ole Submit button. Your posts are full of misspellings and quite difficult to understand “grammer wise” Ba Bye!!!