Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[benedictus2]

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!!!

Oh but I do think you understand my post despite the misspelling.

You are very much a relativist. So therefore you are saying that morality is dependent on one’s state of life. Evil is excusable depending on one’s situation. Irrational and dangerous.

I come from a family of 10 of which I am the 8th. My parents were very very poor but they trusted God. If they had been like you, most likely her 8 children will not be here.

Stop pretending to be a Christian if you want to shift the morality the way it suits you.

With so many people who think like you, no wonder the world is the way it is.

And by the way, I am not judging women who do not wish to have more.

I am just calling the spade the dirty shovel that it is.

Evil is evil no matter which way you look at it. That is why Christ came to call us out of it.

Your thinking says evil is not evil because you say so.

And if you have a bit of honesty, tell me which part of my post that you replied to was so misspelled that you could not understand it.

 

[ConvertHopeful]

I think you will find this two links helpful.

The first is Humanae Vitae, the Pope’s encyclical and the the second assesses it

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

goodmorals.org/smith6.htm

Yes, thank you, they were very helpful.

 

[geebob]

Benedictus, this will probably be my last post to you. I don’t have the patience for the level of maturity you’ve shown in your response highlighted by your personal attacks which appears to be an increasing theme.

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

yes I get that and the point Of proverbs 5 remains, that marriage is the place for the pleasure of sex. It is very much a central purpose.

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

It would be a good point if the analogy fit. it doesn’t. The bonding of marriage, As samiam pointed out (and this is said by catholic priests) the reenactment of the wedding vows in sexual activity (one of which is the willingness to have children, still not prohibited by ABC since people who use it do in fact go on to have children) demonstrates a huge purpose for sexual activity that goes well well beyond this one dimensional view that sex is just for procreation.

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

it was an argument from silence. You said “God did not say go and have sex to your heart’s content.” that is called an argument from silence. And nobody is arguing that procreation isn’t good or that the bible doesn’t promote it. That doesn’t change the fact that your statement is and remains an argument from silence. That doesn’t entail that this is the only purpose for sex.

BUT it is a bad argument from silence because scripture is NOT silent and DOES praise sexuality and sex… for the sake of pleasure (not pleasure in and of itself, but it is emphasized)! The emphasis on proverbs 5 is that a man should seek to be sexually satisfied with his wife, not someone elses wife. And again, song of solomon is dedicated to celebrating sexual love.

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.

Cause we can’t conclude that there are not yet enough starving people struggling for resources yet.

And regardless, if God wants us to fill it even fuller, artificial contraception isn’t going to prevent that.

And it is, but where does it say that this celebration of sex is supposed to exclude pro-creation?

Again, this is an argument from silence.

You are the one who is not tracking the discussion.

If I make a point and you respond ignoring theintended point, then you are not tracking the discussion.

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?

The blessing is also responsibility and not clearly one we are obligated with. It’s absurd to paint people with the extreme of treating kids as a curse just because they have 2, 3, or 5 and not 20, or as many as the woman’s body will produce.

You are missing the obvious fact that even for fertile couples, marital intercourse does not always result in children.

I don’t miss that point at all. I don’t see what it does for you in the slightest.

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.

Not at all. And while I note the value and the goodness of the pleasure of sex, I did not call it the intrinsic value. I have understated the intrinsic value when I called it a bonding experience. It is specifically one of the most intense and special ways that we, as creatures made in the image of God model triune love as we are made male and female in his image. This is the REAL reason why homosexuality and bestiality are abominable, because they represent a warping of that what that love is meant to model. This explains why the death penalty is proscribed for various sexual sins under the old covenant, because it is amongst the deepest afronts to the image of God.

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

Sorry, sex between infertile couples and pregnant couples is not procreation. Looks like the opposite of what you say is exactly true.

And that they cannot have children is left to God.

right. God allows sex without procreation. And it is not without value.

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.

If your view of sex is so one-dimensional, why shouldn’t your view of stewardship also be so? Stewarship entails not just a responsibility but a freedom (certainly not absolute) over that which we are stewards.

Fact is, many women ARE looking after there bodies to limit their fertility.

God is not contingent on anything or anyone.

His role as creator most certainly is contingent on his decision to create. God did not have to create us. He freely choose to. my points remain.

Divorced from the openness to life it isn’t.

oh yes, God did not have to create and there would have been nothing unGodlike in that decision. Otherwise, it is creation that is a necessary extension from God.

 

[geebob]

Here’s the scripture you seem to deny:

proverbs 5:

15 Drink water from your own cistern,
running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets,
your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone,
never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be intoxicated with her love.
20 Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife?
Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman?

At most, 18 may refer to procreation, but that is not clear at all. And it is not the emphasis at all ESPECIALLY in the context where procreation is not the concern. It is a warning to stay away from the adultress? Why? because its not right for someone to have children with her? No, that isn’t the issue at all. Why do people go to the adultress? For pleasure. And here the answer is for the man to go to his wife instead for that purpose. the problem isn’t sex for it’s own sake apart from procreation. The problem is infidelity and the solution is to be “intoxicated” with one’s own wife. This is a purpose of sex. It is undeniable. it is scripture.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus, this will probably be my last post to you. I don’t have the patience for the level of maturity you’ve shown in your response highlighted by your personal attacks which appears to be an increasing theme.

Why would stating the obvious be a personal attack?

yes I get that and the point Of proverbs 5 remains, that marriage is the place for the pleasure of sex. It is very much a central purpose.

And that is true. Marriage is the place for the pleasure of sex but if sex’s intrinsic value is just pleasure, then there is no need for marriage.
Why should there need to be marriage if the whole point of sex is just for pleasure.
Also, the point of the rest of the Bible is that it is for pro-creation. If the point of the rest of the Bible is for pro-creation then you are reading Proverbs wrong.

It would be a good point if the analogy fit. it doesn’t.

But it does. It fits perfectly. You are saying that if inability to exercise the function for which something is created is non-existent in some people, therefore that function is no longer the intrinsic value of that thing; just because some people are unable to exercise that function. Downright ludicrous.

The bonding of marriage, As samiam pointed out (and this is said by catholic priests) the reenactment of the wedding vows in sexual activity (one of which is the willingness to have children,

Quite wrong. The marital act is what seals the sacrament of marriage. It is not this “bonding” that is completion of the wedding vow but rather the act itself.

Couples go through the motions and not “bond” so therefore that “bonding” is not the intrinsic value of sex.

When you say the intrinsic value of something, it has to be the reason for which something is created. And sex was not created by God simply that we may have “bonding”.

The “willingness to have children” means the “willingness to have children” when God so decrees and not when the self so decrees.

still not prohibited by ABC since people who use it do in fact go on to have children) demonstrates a huge purpose for sexual activity that goes well well beyond this one dimensional view that sex is just for procreation.

Okay you seem to be missing the point here. A couple does not need to have children in mind every time they engage in the marital act. The whole point of the Church’s teaching is simply that when they do, they have to be open to the possibility that life might ensue and that they will not do anything to stop that.
This is not one dimensional. As a matter of fact, it is your view that is one dimensional because you see it as being entirely just for this bonding when as I have shown above, that is not what it is for.

it was an argument from silence. You said “God did not say go and have sex to your heart’s content.” that is called an argument from silence.

It isn’t. Because while I said that God did not say go and have sex to your heart’s content, I also said that heaps of times in the Bible God said to procreate and children was considered ever only as a blessing and nothing more.

And nobody is arguing that procreation isn’t good or that the bible doesn’t promote it.

If the Bible promotes it then how can it promote artificial contraception. Is the Bible going against itself.
Since God gave the positive command, then obviously the negative of it is a no no.

That doesn’t change the fact that your statement is and remains an argument from silence. That doesn’t entail that this is the only purpose for sex.

As I said it doesn’t because I also cited the very clear command from God to go and multiply. So here we have a very clear directive from God.

BUT it is a bad argument from silence because scripture is NOT silent and DOES praise sexuality and sex… for the sake of pleasure (not pleasure in and of itself, but it is emphasized)! The emphasis on proverbs 5 is that a man should seek to be sexually satisfied with his wife, not someone elses wife. And again, song of solomon is dedicated to celebrating sexual love.

Yes, but how did the Israelites understand this to mean. How did the Bible treat sex? Did the Bible treat the pleasure of sex as an end in itself? No. We saw that clearly with Onan. The Jews regarded contraception as going against God.

 

[benedictus2]

BUT it is a bad argument from silence because scripture is NOT silent and DOES praise sexuality and sex… for the sake of pleasure (not pleasure in and of itself, but it is emphasized)! The emphasis on proverbs 5 is that a man should seek to be sexually satisfied with his wife, not someone elses wife. And again, song of solomon is dedicated to celebrating sexual love.

Yes, but how did the Israelites understand this to mean. How did the Bible treat sex? Did the Bible treat the pleasure of sex as an end in itself? No. We saw that clearly with Onan. The Jews regarded contraception as going against God.

Cause we can’t conclude that there are not yet enough starving people struggling for resources yet.

Again, there’s the self again inserted in this. Did God say there is enough so stop having children? Do you think God is not powerful enough to feed the people if He so wished? Are you saying that the God who rose from the dead is incapable of that that you need to decide for Him what ought and ought not to be done.
If your argument is that there is too much people on this earth then you must say hurrah for abortion because that’s millions and millions of people not added to the starving millions.
And before you say that contraception prevents abortion that is a fat lie because those who abort are those who contracept. What the condom or pill will not stop, the suction and the knife will.

And regardless, if God wants us to fill it even fuller, artificial contraception isn’t going to prevent that.

So why contracept if that is not the point of contraception? You are contradicting yourself.

Again, this is an argument from silence.

Again it isn’t because sex was always coupled with the openness to life for the Jews.

If I make a point and you respond ignoring the intended point, then you are not tracking the discussion.

I have never ever ignored any of your points (except the last part of the previous post because my lunch time finished). But if I bracket your quote then I address it. That was the whole point I bracket your quotes.

The blessing is also responsibility and not clearly one we are obligated with.

What??!! The blessing is also a responsibility? That does not make sense.
With the blessing comes responsibility but the blessing itself is not the responsibility.
You are basically saying that if God wants to bless you, you are telling Him sorry but I don’t want your blessing.

It’s absurd to paint people with the extreme of treating kids as a curse just because they have 2, 3, or 5 and not 20, or as many as the woman’s body will produce.

What I was trying to show you there is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
You agree with me that it is a blessing and if it is a blessing then obviously one wants to be blessed abundantly and yet here you are saying you do not want any more blessings.

So what has happened? Any more blessings and it becomes a curse? Because if it remains a blessing, then why would you not want the blessing?

I don’t miss that point at all. I don’t see what it does for you in the slightest.

Huh! What does that got to do with what I wrote?

Not at all. And while I note the value and the goodness of the pleasure of sex, I did not call it the intrinsic value. I have understated the intrinsic value when I called it a bonding experience.

But as I stated above, since not all couples “bond” because of sex, the “bonding” is obviously not the intrinsic value. The bonding is not what God created sex for. Sometimes there is bonding but that is not what God gave it for. Sex is for the creation of children but He also made that creation process pleasurable with the additional value of this “bonding”.

Besides, wow can you call it bonding when by using contraception you lie with your body because that is what you do when you are unwilling to allow God to have the last say.

I have read testimonies how the “bonding” became quite sublime once the couple ditched ABC. And the reason for this is because selfishness is pushed to the side and a total self-giving takes its place.

 

[benedictus2]

It is specifically one of the most intense and special ways that we, as creatures made in the image of God model triune love as we are made male and female in his image.

As intense an experience that may be, that is not what sex was created for. We are made male and female so that we can pro-create. That is why homosexual acts are dead precisely because it is incapable of bringing life.

This is the REAL reason why homosexuality and bestiality are abominable, because they represent a warping of that what that love is meant to model.

Nope, because sex was created for pro-creation and the homosexual act cannot do that.

This explains why the death penalty is proscribed for various sexual sins under the old covenant, because it is amongst the deepest afronts to the image of God.

And in the case of Onan, it was God who struck Onan dead. There was already a prescription in Leverite law that those who do not provide a child to their brothers are to be shamed. That is all the punishment that is meted out. And yet, God struck Onan dead.
So think about that.

Sorry, sex between infertile couples and pregnant couples is not procreation. Looks like the opposite of what you say is exactly true.

Sigh! When will you ever get this? The issue is not whether pro-creation happens but on whether it was God’s decision not to let it happen.
That’s what this discussion is all about. That it has to be God’s will not yours.
His will be done, not your will.
Here’s a simple example for you. People die. That’s just the way of it. But people are supposed to die when God decides according to His will and not when you decided according to your will.

God allows sex without procreation. And it is not without value.

Because the fact that there will not be a child was ENTIRELY God’s choice. BIG DIFFERERENCE from your position where you take all possible means to stop God having a say on how many children He wants to bless you with.

If your view of sex is so one-dimensional, why shouldn’t your view of stewardship also be so?

But it is your view that is one dimensional. The geebob dimension that wants to exclude God.

Stewarship entails not just a responsibility but a freedom (certainly not absolute) over that which we are stewards.

You are right. We are given free will – to do good or to do evil. But we are commanded to do good not to do evil.

Fact is, many women ARE looking after there bodies to limit their fertility.

That is fine. Don’t have sex. God gave them the option. Use the cycle.
But when your will clashes with God’s, then the Christian bows to God’s will. Simple as that.

His role as creator most certainly is contingent on his decision to create. God did not have to create us. He freely choose to. my points remain.

And that is true. But the only way we know that He is God is because He has already created us. So therefore as Creator He is not contingent on anything but rather everything is contingent upon Him.

oh yes, God did not have to create and there would have been nothing unGodlike in that decision. Otherwise, it is creation that is a necessary extension from God.

So therefore since sex does not have to be creative the homosexual act is permissible because regardless of male or female we are still created in His image.

 

[benedictus2]

Here’s the scripture you seem to deny:

proverbs 5:

15 Drink water from your own cistern,
running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets,
your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone,
never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be intoxicated with her love.
20 Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife?
Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman?

At most, 18 may refer to procreation, but that is not clear at all. And it is not the emphasis at all ESPECIALLY in the context where procreation is not the concern. It is a warning to stay away from the adultress? Why? because its not right for someone to have children with her? No, that isn’t the issue at all. Why do people go to the adultress? For pleasure. And here the answer is for the man to go to his wife instead for that purpose. the problem isn’t sex for it’s own sake apart from procreation. The problem is infidelity and the solution is to be “intoxicated” with one’s own wife. This is a purpose of sex. It is undeniable. it is scripture.

The question is: Does God intend this to mean that one must have sex and at the same time do everything in their power to stop the consequence?

The biggest thing that you miss with my posts is that you think that I am saying that one must engage in marital sex for pro-creation’s sake alone.

I am not saying that at all and the Church is not saying that either.

What I am saying is that, if you are going to engage in the marital act, then you must let God decide if and when He will bring a child out of that union.

That is the position of the Church. The couple is to enjoy each other but that enjoyment must not involve a No to God’s will.

Artificial contraception is just that - a No to God’s will. It is a refusal to let God be God and that essentially, is what sin is.

 

[Holly3278]

So, two people are married. They want to have a family.
They have a family. They now have a couple of kids, and cannot support anymore.
And they do not want that to mean no sex ever again, they want to continue to enjoy that intimacy. And they haven’t exactly taken the purpose out of sex… Because they have three kids.

I can understand a lot of the Catholic stance on birth control, but in other ways…
In other ways, I do not get it at all, and it’s one of the stances I disagree with you guys on.
I mean, the pill I’m a little eeehhhhh on, but not condoms, when used in this situation.

I mean, I UNDERSTAND the Catholic stance when people are just using it to take the possibility of reproducing out the equation entirely… But I don’t understand it in situations like these.

Aaaaaaaand apparently I’m going to hell for this belief. Lovely.

If a Catholic has a serious situation where they can’t have more kids, they should use Natural Family Planning, not contraception.

 

[benedictus2]

If a Catholic has a serious situation where they can’t have more kids, they should use Natural Family Planning, not contraception.

Amen!

The not able to afford anymore is a bogus reason.

My parents were extremely poor when they first got married and rightly could “afford” only 1, if that.

They had 10 and every one is now a contributing member of society. My brothers and sisters care for the poor and are engaged in gainful work.

By God’s grace, they were able to put us through college through hard work and every one of us pitching in and helping with the finances once we started working.

My mother is very devout and faith filled and I am sure this is what sustained us.

God will not be outdone in generosity if we place our trust in Him.

My aunt did not want a lot of children but since contraception is a no no she fervently prayed for just one - a boy. God granted her prayer too and she only had one child.

I think taking matters into our own hands shows a lack of trust. Perhaps this is what we all need to pray for : to learn to trust that God knows what He is on about.

 

[geebob]

Why would stating the obvious be a personal attack?

I’m not the person to tell you. You won’t hear it from someone you disagree with. And I’m not one for endlessly going in circles with someone who can’t track the discussion.

I’m happy to continue this discussion, but you and I have nothing more to say of any fruitfulness to each other.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m not the person to tell you. You won’t hear it from someone you disagree with. And I’m not one for endlessly going in circles with someone who can’t track the discussion.

Oh but I can track the discussion. That I have replied point by point to everything you raised proves that. That you keep missing the main point of the argument against ABC, well I can’t help you with that. That will be something you will need to mull over by yourself. If you ponder what has been written then you will understand what I am saying and you will know that the Church is right about this stand.

Many Protestants have accepted this stand once they shifted the focus from their will to God’s will and God’s prerogative.

I’m happy to continue this discussion, but you and I have nothing more to say of any fruitfulness to each other.

On that one I think you are right.

 

[benedictus2]

Thank you. Very well put.

I suppose I must commend vickimonica for the excellent grammar and perfect spelling of her two-sentence posts.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=geebob;7707299]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.

I am not saying that they are haveing sex to have childern, but they have not done anything to try and prevent the posibility.

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

So your saying God does not respect Freewill?

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.

Yet there are case of feturnal twins that the conception happend weeks apart. so being pregnet, Though normally does stop the ovolation of women, Does not always. So again there is the Openess to life.

The whole Key is not weather or not it normally happens, or has ever happened for that matter, the key is being open to the possibility.

 

[benedictus2]

I am not saying that they are haveing sex to have childern, but they have not done anything to try and prevent the posibility.

So your saying God does not respect Freewill?

Yet there are case of feturnal twins that the conception happend weeks apart. so being pregnet, Though normally does stop the ovolation of women, Does not always. So again there is the Openess to life.

The whole Key is not weather or not it normally happens, or has ever happened for that matter, the key is being open to the possibility.

Very well said!!

 

[Calliso]

Amen!

The not able to afford anymore is a bogus reason.

My parents were extremely poor when they first got married and rightly could “afford” only 1, if that.

They had 10 and every one is now a contributing member of society. My brothers and sisters care for the poor and are engaged in gainful work.

By God’s grace, they were able to put us through college through hard work and every one of us pitching in and helping with the finances once we started working.

My mother is very devout and faith filled and I am sure this is what sustained us.

God will not be outdone in generosity if we place our trust in Him.

My aunt did not want a lot of children but since contraception is a no no she fervently prayed for just one - a boy. God granted her prayer too and she only had one child.

I think taking matters into our own hands shows a lack of trust. Perhaps this is what we all need to pray for : to learn to trust that God knows what He is on about.

I dontl think the not being to afford anymore is a bogus reason at all! Plenty of people out there really can;t afford kids. Your family managed to pull through but not all would. I mean look at all the MILLIONS of starving families out there in the world today. Should these people keep having kids despite the fact that they can;t even feed the ones they have? After all apparently according to you…not being able to afford more kids is a bogus reason…

And what about all the prayers that donlt go answered? And chances are your aunt just got lucky. Now maybe God really did directly answer her prayer but chances are she just had one kid and then decided to believe that God was directly responsible for that. I am not saying God never answers our prayers but one thing that annoys me about the whole God will answer your prayers and provide for any kids you have argument…is I can look at all those starving families at least some of which I am sure are Christians who really aren;t pulling through and say what about them? Your families faith in God I am sure helped the situation and helped them in a spiritual manner get through hardship. But their and your own hardwork I am sure had a big part in keeping your family from going under.

 

[copperblade]

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?

I think you’re more likely to get infected from anal sex than any other method. I don’t think it’s restricted to gays, although it would imply they are at higher risk.

 

[geebob]

I am not saying that they are haveing sex to have childern, but they have not done anything to try and prevent the posibility.

That’s enough to make my point. People have sex for reasons not having to do with children. In other words, it has value, it is good apart from having children. If this reason is good with the possibility of children, I see no reason why it isn’t good without the possibility of children.

And there remains no clear biblical indicator the preventing pregnancy is a sin. (accept when it is explicitely the purpose as with Onan and for the brother in-laws of widowed wives… so we aren’t talking about married couples).

So your saying God does not respect Freewill?

Can’t say I know why you’d draw that conclusion from what I said. God acts in ways where we don’t have a choice. But we still have other choices. We still have relevant choices.

Yet there are case of feturnal twins that the conception happend weeks apart. so being pregnet, Though normally does stop the ovolation of women, Does not always. So again there is the Openess to life.

Pregnancy is nine months. That does not happen through out the nine months and you better believe that pregnant couples have absolutely no expecation, no openness, no thought to the possibility of life months afterword when having sex when there is already a life on the way. And they are not sinners for it.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=

geebob;7710234]That’s enough to make my point. People have sex for reasons not having to do with children. In other words, it has value, it is good apart from having children. If this reason is good with the possibility of children, I see no reason why it isn’t good without the possibility of children.

It matters not if they are thinking about the possibility at the time. What matters is they have not taken any artifical means to try and prevent the possibility. And no one has ever denied that part of the reason for sex is to confirm and fully express the love of and hsband and wife for one another.

And there remains no clear biblical indicator the preventing pregnancy is a sin. (accept when it is explicitely the purpose as with Onan and for the brother in-laws of widowed wives… so we aren’t talking about married couples).

Show where in the Bible it says everything must be in the Bible?

Can’t say I know why you’d draw that conclusion from what I said. God acts in ways where we don’t have a choice. But we still have other choices. We still have relevant choices.

Yes, But he never removes our freedom to choice to cooperate or not with that plan.

Pregnancy is nine months. That does not happen through out the nine months and you better believe that pregnant couples have absolutely no expecation, no openness, no thought to the possibility of life months afterword when having sex when there is already a life on the way. And they are not sinners for it.

It is a very rare occurance, so much so as we can safely say it doesn’t, but that does not change the fact that it has happened. Agian the important part is that the couple have not taken any artifical means to prevent it.

 

[mark_a]

Either let the unitive purpose suffice, as they do with pregnant and infertile couples…or don’t - but enough already with these arbitrary rules!

These are not arbitrary rules. They traditional Jewish teaching that the original Christians practiced also. Even Islam, which is now on the same path as Protestantism, originally taught about the evil of contraception.