Contraception

[Aibrean]

Of course I already do what you suggest.

 

[sunlover1]

Of course I already do what you suggest.

Oops, that was supposed to be for cubinity.. Sorry.


WTG on doing all that btw, I try but... fail week after week.
I did it for a year and ended up a size 4.. but havent been
able to do it in a long time.. Rough diet for sure.
(In THIS society anyhow)

 

[Aibrean]

Since I started I lost 20 lbs and I've been maintaining.

 

[sunlover1]

Since I started I lost 20 lbs and I've been maintaining.

Awesome... I dont own a scale but can tell you i went down
3 sizes!
I did it for a year or more and then ... dunno.
I'm thinking that maybe I should have "cheated" once in a while..
I hope you can stick with that healthy lifestyle.
Nothing tastes as good as it feels to be thin either lol.

 

[max1120]

The fact of the matter is that family planing is necessary and it is practical. For a couple to have more children than they can afford to raise comfortably is wrong and will deprive the children of proper care and education. The reality is that people want to have sex, they want to have it spontaneously. One poster suggested "abstaining" and called it "natural". The fact is that sex is natural, abstaining is unnatural. People should not be punished by not being allowed to have sex simply because they are too poor to afford more children. Birth control has been the greatest blessing to poor families. Today they have opportunities that were unimagined a generation or two ago. To take that away from them would be unforgivable and cruel to the extreme. The church needs to stop poking its nose in other peoples private life and start being more concerned with its own morality. What about the tens possibly hundreds or thousands of little children who have been molested by the Roman Catholic church, perhaps they should be more concerned with the sex lives of their priest and less with sex lives of ordinary people who only want to make sure that the children they bring into this world will have as many of the opportunities and advantages as possible.

 

[patricius79]

The fact of the matter is that family planing is necessary and it is practical. For a couple to have more children than they can afford to raise comfortably is wrong and will deprive the children of proper care and education.

I agree that family planning is necessary. it is good thing to have a faithful, reasonable concern for one's bodily health--including that of the spouse, and for one's children

The reality is that people want to have sex, they want to have it spontaneously. One poster suggested "abstaining" and called it "natural". The fact is that sex is natural, abstaining is unnatural..

every couple abstains from sex at times, even when on the Pill. NFP encourages this natural self-restraint and also encourages openness to new life

it also strongly correlates with non-divorce. and it correlates with more romance and sex. it makes sense since there can be no true romance without respect and self control or without giving one's body fully

 

[max1120]

I agree that family planning is necessary. it is good thing to have a faithful, reasonable concern for one's bodily health--including that of the spouse, and for one's children




every couple abstains from sex at times, even when on the Pill. NFP encourages this natural self-restraint and also encourages openness to new life

Human beings should be allowed to enjoy there sexuality to its fullest potential. This is natural and not something others have the right to regulate. The time or place where a couple choose to have sex is a personal decision, not one for the church to attempt to legislate.
it also strongly correlates with non-divorce.

Divorce is also a human right. If we are no longer happy living together we have the right to seperate and find our happiness elsewhere. What about those in abusive marriages? Should a woman remain with a man or suffer the rest of her life simply because she made a poor choice of a husband, perhaps at an early age? What about a woman and her children who find themselves in a marriage with a husband who is a compulsive gamber, drug addict, gambler, violent criminal...ect, should they forever be trapped in such a loveless marriage, without a realistic hope of any happiness? Are they somehow forever band from having sex? Are we going to now punish the vicitim of such brutality and strip her of the right to future happiness with a man who will respect her and treat her with dignety and love? How cruel and heartless such a belief system must be to condem others to such a fate!!!


and it correlates with more romance and sex.

My girlfriend and I have lots of romance and incredible sex!!! She uses the pill to avoid pregnancy. She is also going to attend medical school, so children and marriage will wait for later.

it makes sense since there can be no true romance without respect

We do respect one another. She is one of the smartest people I know, her grades are actually higher than mine ( well a little bit anyway). I know she will be a gifted physican and has a lot to offer the world. I know that I would want nothing to stand between her and the profession she has been called to and the patients she will one day treat and cure. That is true respect. I do agree there can be no true romance in a relationship where the two parties do not respect one another. That is one of my points regarding divorce, how can two people who do not repect one another, much less love one another have any marital happiness? Especially if one of the parties has no intention of changing or working to overcome their problems?




and self control or without giving one's body fully

You loose me here completly. We do practice self control, we don't just have sex without protection and without birth control. That is an act of love and concern for one another. The other is simply following some rule that someonelse has imposed upon you, perhaps not in your best interest.

 

[patricius79]

[
Human beings should be allowed to enjoy there sexuality to its fullest potential. This is natural and not something others have the right to regulate.

I don't think the Bible teaches that couples have the right to contracept, if that's what you mean.

contraception seems unnatural to me, not natural

The time or place where a couple choose to have sex is a personal decision, not one for the church to attempt to legislate.

the Biblical Church does not tell couples when to have sex or when not to have sex--within marriage, that is.

Divorce is also a human right. If we are no longer happy living together we have the right to seperate and find our happiness elsewhere.

I'm not sure where you are coming from, max.

I can't agree that divorce itself is a good thing, though I see legal divorce as a good thing when warranted

What about those in abusive marriages? Should a woman remain with a man or suffer the rest of her life simply because she made a poor choice of a husband, perhaps at an early age? What about a woman and her children who find themselves in a marriage with a husband who is a compulsive gamber, drug addict, gambler, violent criminal...ect, should they forever be trapped in such a loveless marriage, without a realistic hope of any happiness? Are they somehow forever band from having sex? Are we going to now punish the vicitim of such brutality and strip her of the right to future happiness with a man who will respect her and treat her with dignety and love? How cruel and heartless such a belief system must be to condem others to such a fate!!!

this thread isn't about divorce. I quite agree that a person may need to separate or that a legal marriage may be declared null due to such factors as you seem to be mentioning

I only brought up divorce because of its connection with contraceptio

My girlfriend and I have lots of romance and incredible sex!!! She uses the pill to avoid pregnancy. She is also going to attend medical school, so children and marriage will wait for later

.

I think that such relationships break down unless there is true healing and moral growth

I think that the teachings of the Catholic Church help such growth

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

contraception seems unnatural to me, not natural

I can appreciate your point, which is just one reason why your defense and support of contraceptive sex (as long as the method used is the one your denomination currently teaches) is so puzzling.

the Biblical Church does not tell couples when to have sex or when not to have sex--within marriage, that is.

I agree, although one denomination (yours) holds classes (sometimes REQUIRING attendance at such) to show them how to have contraceptive sex. "More sex than otherwise" but implementing it's method for how to do so and not conceive (which I agree, is quite unnatural).

this thread isn't about divorce.

It's you that keeps bringing up divorce...






.

 

[patricius79]

I can appreciate your point,

once one sees that contracepted sex is "unnatural", they might also see that the "unnatural" sex referred to in Rom 1:26,27 might include contraception.

and when the Church which is the only historic source of the N.T. Canon also teaches that contraception is gravely immoral, that also might give someone pause and help them toward conversion which we all need. moreever one cannot dogmatically efend contraception without insisting on sentences not in Scripture



going deeper in meditating on the doctrine of the Trinity, which is about the complete gift of self, I know for certain that contraception is wrong, since it is contrary to the full gift of one's natural bodily state.

which is just one reason why your defense and support of contraceptive sex

sometimes people assume that sex during the infertile period is contracepted sex. but of course the infertile period is natural and God-given, and Scripture doesn't teach that contraception is okay, or that NFP is wrong.

moreover, the morality of an act is not determined merely by intention. so a person could have a contraceptive attitude when having sex during the infertile period. but that doesn't make the sex itself immoral/contracepted. one hasn't done anything to the act itself to obstruct procreation

clearly taking the Pill and trying to avoid pregnancy are different. the Pill is even abortifacient, like all hormonal contraceptives. and its not difficult for me to see that there is somethign perverse and anti-sexual about [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into a condom--however much our licentious and insensitive secular world tells us otherwise

(as long as the method used is the one your denomination currently teaches) is so puzzling.

the Bible doesn't teach that there are various legitimate "denominations" all on an equal footing as to doctrine or discipline. nor that the Catholic Church is only one denomination among many. I don't think that the Apostolic, Catholic Church is a denomination.

I know it is true that no historic person in the first millenium approximates any of the various Protestant groups or reformers as to Scriptural interpretations (oral traditions). and none of the ECFs said contraception is anything other than gravely immoral

Though it is true that the reformers all condemned contraception, as did the Protestant denominations unanimously until, as I understand it, the eugenicists and sexual libertarians helped change the Protestant consensus in the sexual cultural turmoil in and around the 1960s.

there are however Protestant Evangelicals and others returning to the Christian perspective on this issue

the fact that all the Pro-contraceptive arguments go beyond Scripture and violate Sola Scriptura is also added logical evidence for the Catholic faith

 

[bbbbbbb]

[/font]there are however Protestant Evangelicals and others returning to the Christian perspective on this issue

And the "Christian perspective" on this issue is one that advocates contraceptive sexual practices such as NFP?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And the "Christian perspective" on this issue is one that advocates contraceptive sexual practices such as NFP?

I'd like to see documentation that Christians universally once supported contraceptive sex such as NFP...




.

 

[patricius79]

And the "Christian perspective" on this issue is one that advocates contraceptive sexual practices such as NFP?

the Bible doesn't teach that using fertility awareness to achive or avoid pregnancy is contracepted sex or morally equivalent to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into a condom, e.g.

so in order to make that argument one would have to deny Sola Scriptura apparently, as well as beg the question: "why is abstaining from sex during the fertile period morally equivalent to having sex with a condom?"

it seems rather different to me since with NFP one always has one's sexual desire to encourage openness to life. whereas with contracepted sex there is a too easy way around that

also, are you concerned about the aborfacient effects of the Pill? or why do you think the Reformers so strongly condemned contraception, saying that it was worse than adultery or incest (Luther)?

if NFP is morally equivalent to contraception it seems to have a funny way of showing it, since it--in contrast to contracepted sex--correlates with very different things, does it not? and if contraception is good, then I suppose it would at least correlate with more reports of romance, happinness, and sex

also, aren't we overly concerned with avoiding procreation in our times? what is the point of sex if we are not fully open to the other and thus to new life from God?

 

[cubinity]

Cool update related to this topic.
My wife has been using birth control pills for the last five years.
She took her last pill at the end of May.
I just came home to her for the first time since the end of May (away on business).
She had a box of condoms sitting on the nightstand.
We intend to begin trying for pregnancy in September, which is why she stopped the pills.
As far as I know, none of the choices we have made in the last five years of marriage have been in conflict with the will of God.

 

[patricius79]

Cool update related to this topic.
My wife has been using birth control pills for the last five years.
She took her last pill at the end of May.
I just came home to her for the first time since the end of May (away on business).
She had a box of condoms sitting on the nightstand.
We intend to begin trying for pregnancy in September, which is why she stopped the pills.
As far as I know, none of the choices we have made in the last five years of marriage have been in conflict with the will of God.

would you agree that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient?

 

[cubinity]

would you agree that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient?

My simple answer, in case you are not one to read entire posts, is NO.

That is certainly a meaningful question that my wife and I have had to wrestle with as a family. We have concluded, based on our worldview, that while one effect of taking a hormonal contraceptive is that, unknown to us, an egg may be fertilized before being passed, our use of hormonal contraceptive does not equate to abortion.

Some insight into our conclusion comes down to our personal views of what, exactly, constitutes a human life, and also is influenced by our understanding of ethics, intention, and culpability.

Because our legal system has, at this time, chosen to leave it up to the medical community to determine when an entity of replicating cells becomes human, and our religious community has chosen to disregard that legal decision and define for themselves when an entity of replicating cells becomes a human, we felt as though it was being treated as a subjective issue, and thus took it upon ourselves to define when an entity of replicating cells became human. I don't really want to get into this particular point at this time, but I will say that we decided on something later than fertilization, and earlier than birth.

As far as ethics go, we have made, and continue to make, many choices that will influence the health and survival of our children. For example, our exposure to transmitted radiation may increase our risk of miscarriage, but no one is currently calling everyday exposure to transmitted radiation an abortifacient, and calling women who live near cell phone towers or microwaves or wireless routers sinners for doing so. The reasoning behind not condemning one's proximity to cell phone towers and microwaves and wireless internet played heavily into our decision not to condemn ourselves over the potential risks of the hormonal contraceptives she was taking.

In terms of our understanding of ethics: We ascribe to Kantian and utilitarian ethics, and determined no clear conflict of ethical interest in taking the hormonal contraceptives we were taking.

In terms of intention, we were not intending to ever pass a fertilized egg, and so the passing of one fell under our understanding of a miscarriage, not an abortion.

In terms of culpability, we determined that we were no more responsible for the miscarriage caused by the use of hormonal contraceptives than we were responsible for a miscarriage inadvertently caused by our wireless router, cell phone use, or microwave.

For the record, though, our use of hormonal contraceptives never, to our knowledge, resulted in the passing of a fertilized egg. Neither did our use of cell phones, microwaves or wireless internet, for that matter. If our behavior did in fact result in such, we feel content with our decisions for the aforementioned reasons.

 

[Rick Otto]

While I agree with cubinity's thoughts & handling of the issue, the whole thing makes me wonder about the nature of identity & experience. There are no pain receptor sites in a fertilized egg, and I have to wonder what sense of identity or concsciousness (of the kind we associate with human life) a fertilized egg might have.
R.D.Laing in his book "The Voice of Experience" talks about cellular memory & how our identities include (on that level) 'memory' of having been both a sperm & an egg.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

if NFP is morally equivalent to contraception

Contraceptive sex is contraceptive sex - no matter what name you apply to it.

It MUST be the "moral equivalent" since it is contraception.

The modern RCC Birth Control/Family Planning method has the GOAL of being contraceptive and the MEANS of being contraceptive - thus in both senses, it is contraceptive. If you have a moral problem with that, I understand. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand your discomfort and disapproval.

aren't we overly concerned with avoiding procreation in our times?

IF you think we are, consider this: There is only one denomination on that planet that promotes contraceptive sex, even holding classes is how to have "more sex than otherwise" but to do it "contraceptively" - at times, even REQUIRING and MANDATING couples to learn this contraceptive method for having sex. NO OTHER DENOMINATION ON THE PLANET does the same.






.

 

[patricius79]

My simple answer, in case you are not one to read entire posts, is NO.

That is certainly a meaningful question that my wife and I have had to wrestle with as a family. We have concluded, based on our worldview, that while one effect of taking a hormonal contraceptive is that, unknown to us, an egg may be fertilized before being passed, our use of hormonal contraceptive does not equate to abortion.

Some insight into our conclusion comes down to our personal views of what, exactly, constitutes a human life, and also is influenced by our understanding of ethics, intention, and culpability.

Because our legal system has, at this time, chosen to leave it up to the medical community to determine when an entity of replicating cells becomes human, and our religious community has chosen to disregard that legal decision and define for themselves when an entity of replicating cells becomes a human, we felt as though it was being treated as a subjective issue, and thus took it upon ourselves to define when an entity of replicating cells became human. I don't really want to get into this particular point at this time, but I will say that we decided on something later than fertilization, and earlier than birth.

As far as ethics go, we have made, and continue to make, many choices that will influence the health and survival of our children. For example, our exposure to transmitted radiation may increase our risk of miscarriage, but no one is currently calling everyday exposure to transmitted radiation an abortifacient, and calling women who live near cell phone towers or microwaves or wireless routers sinners for doing so. The reasoning behind not condemning one's proximity to cell phone towers and microwaves and wireless internet played heavily into our decision not to condemn ourselves over the potential risks of the hormonal contraceptives she was taking.

In terms of our understanding of ethics: We ascribe to Kantian and utilitarian ethics, and determined no clear conflict of ethical interest in taking the hormonal contraceptives we were taking.

In terms of intention, we were not intending to ever pass a fertilized egg, and so the passing of one fell under our understanding of a miscarriage, not an abortion.

In terms of culpability, we determined that we were no more responsible for the miscarriage caused by the use of hormonal contraceptives than we were responsible for a miscarriage inadvertently caused by our wireless router, cell phone use, or microwave.
.

I can't agree that life begins sometime after conception, though I affirm everything good about your intentions in these matters.

I do agree that the abortifacient potential of the Pill does not prove, in itself, that Christian teaching about contraception is true

and you are quite correct in thinking that an act can have a gravely negative effect without being intrinsically wrong. (principle of the double effect)

however prudence requires that when an effect can be so negative--the death of a child--one must not commit the act that causes that effect without grave reason

I don't think there is ever a reason to deliberately not give one's natural fertility to the other in the marital act

 

[cubinity]

I can't agree that life begins sometime after conception, though I affirm everything good about your intentions in these matters.

I do agree that the abortifacient potential of the Pill does not prove, in itself, that Christian teaching about contraception is true

and you are quite correct in thinking that an act can have a gravely negative effect without being intrinsically wrong. (principle of the double effect)

however prudence requires that when an effect can be so negative--the death of a child--one must not commit the act that causes that effect without grave reason

I don't think there is ever a reason to deliberately not give one's natural fertility to the other in the marital act

As far as your affirmation, thanks. As far as your disagreement, it appears to me that you and I see the facts in a fundamentally different way, and are thus responding to very different premises, so not likely to agree on the conclusions.