Is Getting a Vasectomy a Sin? What Does the Bible Say?

[McDLT]

My wife and I have 2 girls, and we have twins on the way. I thank God for them. We have decided that these two babies will be our last and my wife brought up vasectomy as an option.

The only thing holding me back is if this is a sin.

Does anyone know of any scripture or anything saying that this is/is not sin?

Or could i just get some peoples ideas and thoughts on it.

Thank you.

I do not know of any scripture and so far no one has given any.

I do not think it is a sin. I think God has given us common sense and God knows your heart. I believe you and your wife should pray (perhaps even fast) about it and then make your decision.

I hope you enjoy the forum and this has not turned you off of it.

 

[beechy]

My wife and I have 2 girls, and we have twins on the way. I thank God for them. We have decided that these two babies will be our last and my wife brought up vasectomy as an option.

The only thing holding me back is if this is a sin.

Does anyone know of any scripture or anything saying that this is/is not sin?

Or could i just get some peoples ideas and thoughts on it.

Thank you.

There have been lots of contraception threads on this forum, with members like porcupine firmly espousing the belief that birth control is a sin, and members like myself who feel differently. I'll post my take here. Best of luck with your decision (and the twins ):

I'm always perplexed as to how verses about marriage, the directive to Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply", and the idea that children are blessings has come to be interpreted to mean that we each need to have as many children as we can.

I think that children most certainly are blessings from God, and I agree that we need to trust God in our lives -- but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to understand and act responsibly within the world He has created. If I were to break my arm, I wouldn't sit in my living room and pray for God to heal it without heading to the emergency room to have it set. I don't think going to a doctor is a sin -- does God not want us to help ourselves and learn how we can do that in the world He has created? Your bone will grow itself back together (quite a miracle!) if you set the ends together. As long as we give credit to God, rather than the doctors who are simply working within the biological framework God created, I think we're probably ok.

Similarly, God's biology requires that a new life will be formed if an egg is penetrated by a sperm. If God didn't want us to be able to have some say in the creation of our own children, why wouldn't He just make women pregnant as He saw fit, whenever He determined that a man and his wife should have a child? Rather, he wisely gave us some measure of control over the decision to bring a new life into the world by requiring a willful act to put sperm and egg together. That's not to say that the minute we want children we can have them without God's help -- not all attempts at pregnancy are successful. That end of things is, indeed, in God's hands.

porcupine has made the point in other contraception threads that if women were bearing gold nuggets, no one would worry about getting pregnant. I find this a bit misleading in that gold nuggets are a far cry from another human life. A child is a far greater blessing, but your responsibility to her is also far weightier than it would be to a gold nugget (which one might argue we'd do best to give away to those in need). I'll take my responsibilities as a parent much more seriously with a child than I would with a nugget, and therefore will put more thought into having one.

I absolutely see children as blessings, which is why I would like to have them in a number that I can responsibly parent and at a time when I feel ready, with the grace and help of God, to provide for them. I'm not saying my life has to be perfect before I start a family, but since God gave me some control over the matter I would like to be emotionally ready and not have so many kids that it will compromise the time that each of them deserves. I want to be able to shower my little blessings with all the love and attention they deserve, and I personally think I'll be able to do that better with 3 kids than I would with 13. But that's just me. Maybe someone else would rather have 13 kids. Go for it! Thankfully, God in his infinite wisdom has provided that the egg/sperm requisite for pregnancy involves a deliberate act on the part of those involved, so you can to some degree have an influence on the timing and frequency of your pregnancies.

The Bible says be fruitful and multiply. This directive was made to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28 when they were the only two people on Earth. Doesn't it seem reasonable that God was expressing His love for human beings and desire for the species of His creation to procreate in order that we may flourish and enjoy this great big Earth He created for us to live in?

As a species, I think we've filled the Earth pretty well. Human beings now inhabit every continent on the planet, with cities, towns, villages, tribes and clans setting up camp in every climate imaginable. I don't think He meant that each and every one of us needs to do our part to personally try to "fill" the Earth by popping out as many kids as we possibly can until the Earth can't hold any more. Why in the world would we read it that way?

I say, have your children and love them with all your heart and soul because they are indeed blessings. If you want to have sex for the sole purpose of having children and want to have as many as come to you by these means, that's great (and brave!) If you want two or three kids, that's great too. God bless.

 

[beechy]

. There is no moral distinction between any methods of birth control. Using a condom is as moral as natural family planning. QUOTE]

This is the moral distinction:

The use of Birth Control removes the procreative aspect of the marital act. The procreative aspect allows for the possibility of conception to take place. Hence, the pill, the condom or the IUD (especially a vasectomy) removes that possibility.



A couple that uses Natural family planning is having NATURAL CONDOM-FREE, PILL- FREE, PATCH-FREE, SHOT-FREE SEX that is ALWAYS OPEN TO LIFE. For those who are not familiar with NFP it is the means through which a couple (not just the woman) observes the wife’s fertility cycle and through PRAYER determines when to have children. PRAYER is the key!!! If there is a serious reason for not having a child, then the couple should abstain during the fertile times.



Again, when the marital act is performed it is barrier free…just two people united in marriage giving of themselves completely….not holding anything back…not even their fertility…it’s the way God intended…



“ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body” (Genesis 2 :24)



God said to Adam and Even “be fertile and multiply” (Gen 1:28) and later he tells Noah “be fertile and multiply” (Gen 9:1 AND Gen 9:7) and he tells us today the same. His Word remains the same yesterday, today and forever! Praise be to God!

msaenz, you and I have been through this discussion in a number of other threads. I don't understand the core of your argument in your various posts on this thread, i.e., that the moral distinction between condoms, etc. and NFP is that condoms remove the procreative purpose of sex, and NFP doesn't. I'll just speak to condoms here, for simplicity's sake. Condoms have a 95% effectiveness rate when used perfectly, with a typical use failure rate of 14-15%. That leaves a 5% chance for pregnancy when used perfectly, and a 15% chance for pregnancy with typical (flawed) use. You have claimed in other threads that NFP has a 99% effectiveness rate. If you're assessing morality based on effectiveness, isn't NFP at least a 4% bigger problem than condoms, then?

Also, if NFP is morally "better" than condoms because it is supposedly less effective, then why bother using it at all? If the idea is that attempting to insert your own will with respect to pregnancy is bad, and what you should really be doing is leaving it "up to God", why not just pray and have sex as you would normally?

 

[porcupine]

There have been lots of contraception threads on this forum, with members like porcupine firmly espousing the belief that birth control is a sin, and members like myself who feel differently. I'll post my take here. Best of luck with your decision (and the twins ):

You have NEVER had me say that all birth control is a sin. I have said that all abotifacient birth contol is a sin. I have further stated why I think there is a problem for a Christian to say they trust God and use any other kind of birth control and I have argued against it, but ALWAYS said that I am not able to say absolutely that it is a sin. Stop exaggerating and get your facts straight, beechy.

 

[beechy]

You have NEVER had me say that all birth control is a sin. I have said that all abotifacient birth contol is a sin. I have further stated why I think there is a problem for a Christian to say they trust God and use any other kind of birth control and I have argued against it, but ALWAYS said that I am not able to say absolutely that it is a sin. Stop exaggerating and get your facts straight, beechy.

Excuse me if I've misrepresented your position -- I always trust you to correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't mean to exaggerate (is "sin" an overstatement, or exaggeration of something merely to be "advised against"?), and amend that sentence of my post accordingly to say: . . . there are those who advise against birth control (like porcupine and msaenz), and those who don't see it as a problem, like myself.

God bless.

 

[porcupine]

Excuse me if I've misrepresented your position -- I always trust you to correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't mean to exaggerate (is "sin" an overstatement, or exaggeration of something merely to be "advised against"?), and amend that sentence of my post accordingly to say: . . . there are those who advise against birth control (like porcupine and msaenz), and those who don't see it as a problem, like myself.

God bless.

Yes, you can trust me to do that.

The wages of sin is death.

The results of going against what I advise probably comes nowhere close to that.

 

[porcupine]

Excuse me if I've misrepresented your position -- I always trust you to correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't mean to exaggerate (is "sin" an overstatement, or exaggeration of something merely to be "advised against"?), and amend that sentence of my post accordingly to say: . . . there are those who advise against birth control (like porcupine and msaenz), and those who don't see it as a problem, like myself.

God bless.

1. "IF" you have misrepresented? Nice dodge.

2. Yes, you can trust me to do that.

3. The wages of sin is death. The results of going against what I advise probably comes nowhere close to that.

 

[beechy]

1. "IF" you have misrepresented? Nice dodge.

Not trying to dodge, juke, or spin. Just speaking casually. Chill out. *waves white flag*

 

[porcupine]

Not trying to dodge, juke, or spin. Just speaking casually. Chill out. *waves white flag*

Hey, you're the one who says you trust me to point out where you are wrong. With you, I don't take your words as "casual."

 

[beechy]

Hey, you're the one who says you trust me to point out where you are wrong. With you, I don't take your words as "casual."

Again, I'm sorry if I offended you. You'll recall that I amended my sentence in a way that I hope is a more accurate description of your views. My ostensibly offending "if" was a figure of speech, if you will. God bless. *said while wearing a casual pair of jeans and flip flops*

 

[invisible trousers]

I have followed your postings for some time now and as far as insults, you take a back seat to no one.

ice burn

I had no idea I insulted so many people. At least I'm not doing things like questioning their spirituality or determining if they're really a christian by what words they chose to capitalize.

Omnipotence does have limits. First there is the limit of sin. God cannot lie. Nor can He do foolishness like make a rock so heavy He cannot lift it.

The next category is His self-imposed limits. He will not force you into the kingdom -- even though He WANTS you (and all men) to be there. I guess He says (in your mind), "Oh!" *snap* "I guess I can't get him saved."

Yeah. Those were all implicit.

God will sometimes give you your own way if you don't want blessings. See my examples above.

Remember the last time you used this example in a thread we both posted in? Remember I said birth control is absolutely nothing like deliberately disobeying God and getting lost in the desert?

Remember when you didn't respond after that?

They're not similar situations. The "sin" of birth control is a completely man-made idea with dare I say no theological backing. Every single justification for it being a sin is from deliberately taking verses out of context and twisting them to fit the idea that birth control is bad.

 

[porcupine]

Remember the last time you used this example in a thread we both posted in? Remember I said birth control is absolutely nothing like deliberately disobeying God and getting lost in the desert?

Remember when you didn't respond after that?

They're not similar situations. The "sin" of birth control is a completely man-made idea with dare I say no theological backing. Every single justification for it being a sin is from deliberately taking verses out of context and twisting them to fit the idea that birth control is bad.

I remember not responding because it is fruitless to discuss anything with you. However, for the rest of the class, I'll answer this time:

God did not order the Israelites to go into the Promised Land. This was not disobedience to a command.

He promised the Land, then led them to the border (with MANY miracles) and told them to send scouts to check it out. What made God mad was that all the scouts, except two, came back talking fear to the people. They didn't trust that God (who had already defeated the Egyptians and others for them) to give them victory over the land. On the basis of this fear-talk, the people balked at going in. THAT was when God sentenced them to 40 years around the mountain -- until all the adults (except those two good scouts) DIED!

It was fear of the future (What if I don't have enough to send them to college?) and lack of faith in God's provision for the promise (remember that fruit of the body is a promise to the faithful) that did it -- not disobedience to a command.

I will now tell you what I told beechy -- stop exaggerating what I have said. I have NEVER said that non-abortifacient birth control is sin! I have suggested that it shows a lack of faith towards God, but I never claimed to call it sin.

 

[constance]

porcupine has made the point in other contraception threads that if women were bearing gold nuggets, no one would worry about getting pregnant. I find this a bit misleading in that gold nuggets are a far cry from another human life. A child is a far greater blessing, but your responsibility to her is also far weightier than it would be to a gold nugget (which one might argue we'd do best to give away to those in need). I'll take my responsibilities as a parent much more seriously with a child than I would with a nugget, and therefore will put more thought into having one.

I would worry about getting pregnant no matter what doo-dads were coming out of me. I chose to become sterilized not to control children, but to control pregnancy, because pregnancy=serious health complications for me. We love children, and if God chooses to bring us another (or another handful) we will gladly accept them. We may even begin to seek them out before long.

There are so many children in the world who long for parents that it is a shame that there are those who choose to ignore the parentless and bring more children into the world through a human constructed doctrine that children are God's greatest gift of love to us. Only ONE child was God's greatest gift of love to us. Jesus.

Constance