What can I say to these people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob_Bobber0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bob_Bobber0

Guest
“contraception only woeks when GOD allows it to work. To say it’s wrong or right is up to God because, he is in control. The most effective crontraceptive is only 98% and that is if it doesn’t break, come off or have a hole in it. please correct me if I’m wrong but if GOD wants you to jave a baby it’s GOING to happen. -Z-”

These people are saying well it doesn’t matter if I use contraception because if God wants me to have a child he will.

What can I say to refute thsi arguement?
 
you might refer them to Gal 6:7 - God is not mocked

By using artificial birth control we are doing so in order to defy God and use sex only for pleasure. Holy Scripture condemns this in both OT and NT.

My question to them is, if they trust implicitly in the Lord then they would not see the need for any artificial birth control at all, but if they wish to work with the Lord then they would learn how to plan their families naturally…
 
then they say it is responsible to use contraception. ugh an endliess cycle.
 
Therefore, if God doesnt want you to have a baby, no amount of unprotected sex will make one, riiight?

🙂

Easy one.
 
It’s almost like taunting Him - “Here, I dare you to give me a baby because I’m going to do everything in my power to stop you.”
 
Bob_Bobber0 said:
“contraception only woeks when GOD allows it to work. To say it’s wrong or right is up to God because, he is in control. The most effective crontraceptive is only 98% and that is if it doesn’t break, come off or have a hole in it. please correct me if I’m wrong but if GOD wants you to jave a baby it’s GOING to happen. -Z-”

These people are saying well it doesn’t matter if I use contraception because if God wants me to have a child he will.

What can I say to refute thsi arguement?

If the couple is married, you can point them to the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexuality for married people. If the couple isn’t married, you can tell them that it is illicit according to Canon Law for Catholics to have sex of any sort outside of marriage.
 
protestants don’t buy anything the catholic church says so we cannot make the arguement “well the catholic church says so…”

it doesn’t work with them, it has to be proven with logic and natural law, something that is universally excepted.

Any other responses?
 
40.png
Bob_Bobber0:
then they say it is responsible to use contraception. ugh an endliess cycle.
responsible to whom? Why are they using contraception in the first place? It is not being responsible to God for God gave us a commandment that told us to be fruitful and multiply. If they are not being responsible to God then they are enslaved to being ‘responsible’ to themselves, and their own ideas and needs for pleasure.
 
How do I address the question that “if” a man and woman are contracepting for legit reasons, i.e. they cannot possible raise kids do to some legit problem. why is it wrong to physically contracept.

Again it must be explained in reasons that do not make any reference to the teaching of the church because they do not buy it, and must be applicable.

Thanks for help guys.
 
I seem to be posting this response twice a day. Your interlocutors believe in God. Are they Christians? Because if they are Christians (especially if they are “Bible Christians”), they might respond to a scriptural presentation on natural law. I paste this in my response on another thread:

The Catholic position on contraception (as opposed to abstinence) derives from the fundamental understanding of the dignity of the human person as being greater than his animal nature, animated by a spark of the divine. The Church has always taught that the marital embrace is a holy act; it is where a man and a woman cooperate with God in creation. We are pro-creators.

Non-Catholics often “require” a scriptural argument or may feel that something is not specifically laid out in Scripture, it is up for grabs. But the case against contraception *does *have strong scriptural support.

In the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul mounts the “natural law” argument. Even the barbarians, he says, have no excuse for failing to heed the law written on the human heart – the law which does not require special divine revelation. Thus, Paul equates unnatural sexual relations with idolatry. Although he specifies homosexual acts here, he uses the term “unnatural relations.” Contraception is, inarguably, unnatural. (Duh!)

Romans, Chapter I (RSV – Protestant edition – emphasis added):

14] I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish:

15] so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
. . .

17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”
18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19] For what can be known about God is plain to them i.e., the Greeks and Barbarians], because God has shown it to them.
20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
 
Yes, God can over-ride our attempts to thwart Him (the story of Jonah comes to mind), but by willfully attempting to thwart Him, we have sinned.

Scott
 
what is an arguement that can be presented on their terms, a common ground that is accepted by both protestants and catholics that can be understood and applied?
 
40.png
Bob_Bobber0:
what is an arguement that can be presented on their terms, a common ground that is accepted by both protestants and catholics that can be understood and applied?
So Bob, these people are Protestants? Did you read my post based on chapter 1 of Romans?
 
roge-o,

And I quoted you, haven’t gotten any responses as of yet.

I think a main issue here is to define exactly what we teach is wrong.

Some of them think that we teach that not having enough kids is wrong, or think that limiting the number of kids you have is wrong.

It is important to explain to them that the means are what make all the difference in this case.

Explain to them that NFP can be used immorally as wel, if used for selfish reasons.

And then bring it to terms with scripture references and natural law arguements. I am trying to develope this by compiling everyone’s imput and researching and stuff.

Thanks for the help so far, keep em coming, more scripture better.

Also if anyone can explain to me how Onen’s sin is seen as contraception, because they take it as Onen refusing to give an heir to his brother, they don’t see the contracepting as the sin in that case. Can someone explain this?

Thanks again.
 
40.png
Bob_Bobber0:
Also if anyone can explain to me how Onen’s sin is seen as contraception, because they take it as Onen refusing to give an heir to his brother, they don’t see the contracepting as the sin in that case. Can someone explain this?

Thanks again.
Onan’s sin is not contraception, but it is an unnatural sexual act done for the purpose of thwarting the natural God-given purpose of sexual relations. The sexual menu for Catholics is limited to a natural human act that is open to life, between one man and one woman, who are married to one another until death.
 
ok, thanks for the clarification. I’ll do some more research.
 
40.png
Bob_Bobber0:
what is an arguement that can be presented on their terms, a common ground that is accepted by both protestants and catholics that can be understood and applied?
If they accept the truth that 1) human life begins at the moment of conception and 2) abortion is murder, them you might get them to look at the abortive effects of “The Pill”, Depo-Provera, IUD’s, and “morning after pills”.

With regard to “the pill” being “98% effective” in “preventing pregnancy” I would point out the following:
There are 60 million women worldwide “on the pill.”
Breakthrough ovulation occurs between 2 to 10 percent of these women cycles. That means that inspite of taking the Pill (which is intended to prevent ovulation) ovulation occurs 14.4 to 72 million times per year.
60 million women
x 12 cycles per year
= 720 million cycles
720 million cycles
x 2 to 10 % breakthrough ovulation (0.02-0.1)
= 14.4 to 72 million cycles (with ovulation)
The overall conception rate for sexually active couples is 25 percent.
If ovulation occurs 14.4 to 72 million times per year among the 60 million women worldwide on the pill then you would expect 3.6 to 18 million pregnancies to occur inspite of the Pill’s suppression of ovulation.
14.4 to 72 million cycles (with ovulation)
x 25% overall conception rate (0.25)
= 3.6 to 18 million expected pregnancies
But the Pill has a “failure rate” of less than 1 percent. That means among the 60 million women on the Pill less than 600,000 get pregnant within the year.
What has happened to the other 3 to 17.4 million pregancies we would expect given the Pill’s known rate of breakthrough ovulation?
60 million women
x 1% “failure rate” for The Pill (0.01)
= 600,000 pregnancies
3,600,000 to 18,000,000 expected pregnancies
  • 600,000 pregnancies due to Pill’s failure rate
    = 3 to 17.4 million expected pregnancies unaccounted for.
The answer is that the Pill’s effectiveness in preventing pregnancy does not rely totally on its ability to suppress ovulation. The Pill also alters the lining of the uterus such that if ovulation occurs - and when conception occurs - the fertilized egg is prevented from attaching to the mother’s womb (the process of nidation) and is instead aborted, silently without even the mother’s knowing.
(continued)
 
If someone wants to verify the information above, I wrote the following in 1994…(some of the phone numbers may need to be updated)…
…my sources of information used when writing the post on the Pill’s abortifacient effects…
From the Physician’s Desk Reference (the PDR) under “Mechanism of Action” for any oral contraceptive there is listed the “inhibition of nidation”.
Nidation is the process of a fertilized egg attaching to the lining of the uterus. It’s inhibition is thus the “silent abortion” I was writing about.
From Facts and Comparisons (F&C)
(any U.S. pharmacy will have a copy) under the section for oral contraceptives you will find the “failure rate” of less than 1% for OC’s.
The “conception rate” for sexually active couples employing no means of birth control is listed as 89% (F&C) - the “overall conception rate” of 25% is from John Kippley (1986) whose information may be obtained from “The Couple to Couple League” (CCL). My contact was Paul Weckenbrock @ 1-513-471-2000.
CCL has a book “Birth Control and Christian Discipleship” which has a section called “the mathematics of abortion” (if my memory serves me correctly) and that section is basically what I’ve drawn on for the article I posted on CIN.
In 1994 I had called the Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. @ 1-908-218-6000 and a “Drug Information Specialist” verified that breakthrough ovulation can be expected to occur “2 or 3% of cycles”. CCL quotes “The Textbook of Contraception” which states the 2 to 10% rate for breakthrough ovulation.
Organon, the manufacturer of Desogen (an OC), sent me a copy of a research paper entitled:
“Effects of seven low dose combined oral contraceptives on ovarian function, measured by ultrasound examination and peripheral endocrine parameters” by Dr N. van der Vange and others.
It documents absolute proof of breakthrough ovulation for 4.7% of cycles. Looking at the data you realize that the number could be larger as the study documents more cycles which “were highly suspected of being ovulatory, based on the 3 parameters measured” - The phone number I called in 1994 is no longer in service but if you can go to a pharmacy with a copy of Facts and Comparisons, there’s a section in the front of the book which lists the phone numbers for the various drug manufacturers and Organon should be listed. They will either fax or mail a copy of this study if asked for.
Another source of information is “Pharmacists for Life” @ 1-800-227-8359
The following are articles that address the abortive effects of all artificial contraceptive methods (the barrier methods must be addressed using Scripture and Natural Law arguments):

“Birth Control” Pills cause early Abortions
prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?
a condensation by Randy Alcorn
epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html

The Pill: Abortifacient or Contraceptive? A Literature Review
cin.org/life/pillabor.html

Hope this helps

Keep the Faith
jmt
 
40.png
Magicsilence:
Therefore, if God doesnt want you to have a baby, no amount of unprotected sex will make one, riiight?

🙂

Easy one.
Exactly. Apparently God can make a baby anytime He wants, but can’t prevent a baby anytime He wants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top