BIRTH CONTROL OF ANY SORT TAKES LIFE

[Meowzltov]

I don't mean to be contrary, but salt has been "proven"
to raise blood pressure, and to lower it over the last
20 years.

You must not have read my entire post. I specifically stated that this isn't 100% accurate. However, it is the BEST way to determine the truth.

As far as the scientific studies changing their results, they don't actually change so much as doing the studies a different way sheds a different light on it. Science always follows wherever the evidence leads. A true scientist is not attached to any particular result -- should new evidence come in that overturns previous results, he is excited at the new findings. We should be as well.

 

[Meowzltov]

And then what, abstinence?

PERIODIC abstinence. And lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) using attachment parenting to keep hormone levels sky high: that's good for about two years after giving birth.

 

[Meowzltov]

That's a valid point for scientists who define
life beginning at conception. This would
allow for some forms of birth control and
not for others.

People do have differing opinions on when
life begins, and more opinions on when
we can interfere with natural conception
events, and when we cannot.

Some insist on no unnatural interference
and some even consider the "rhythm
method" to be interfering with God plans.

Few agree on all these points.

You are right to point this out. A barrier method like a condom prevents conception. Other methods like the mini-pill or a progesteron-estrogen combination pill uses abortion as a back up method if conception still occurs. The IUD is an outright abortifacient.

 

[Strong in Him]

People who consider life is at conception.

But we're talking pre conception; that birth control, which prevents conception taking place, is taking a life.

I asked how that was possible. I don't see that it is. It's preventing life from starting, (assuming the contraception works) not deliberately ending one that has already begun.

 

[Philip_B]

One of the theological, ethical and pastoral realities that confront us at the edges include determining at which point we would understand the life of a person to have begun, and interestingly we have a range of problems at the other end determining at what point we determine a person is dead.

The difficulty for the hard fast rules is that we are dealing with real people. I do however suspect that which prevents a zygote from forming (the haploid infusion of two gametes in utero) can not be construed as taking a life, unless you are going to invest in a theology of intention, which again I think is an area where it becomes profoundly difficult to establish boundaries.

I am not being difficult, I just believe that this is a very difficult area.

 

[dysert]

I'm not sure if we're to take the OP seriously or not. After all, the "arguments" provided are nonsensical. There is no Scripture to back up what is being said. Furthermore, sperm and egg cells only contain 23 chromosomes each, whereas a human being's cells contain 46 chromosomes. Preventing fertilization is clearly not the same as aborting a fertilized egg, and preventing fertilization is not taking a life, since neither sperm nor egg is life in and of itself.

 

[dysert]

I would not equate artificial birth control with abortion. However, it still is wrong because it violates the three necessary pillars of God's plan for sex: marital bonding, pleasure, and openness to procreation.

Are these three "pillars" a Catholic teaching? I don't recall reading anything about them in Scripture.

 

[EmmaCat]

I practiced not having sex and being very careful not to allow any boy near me when I had my reproductive organs. I got cancer, those organs were taken away, got married later.

It's called "abstinence" and it has everything to do with self-control and self-discipline and yes, it's a form of birth control.

It has everything to do with morality self-respect and one should control sexual desires until one is married.

So, when I was 16 and practiced abstinence, had my reproductive organs, I took life?

From whom?

Just asking.

All good things
Emmy

 

[SkyWriting]

But we're talking pre conception; that birth control, which prevents conception taking place, is taking a life.

I asked how that was possible. I don't see that it is. It's preventing life from starting, (assuming the contraception works) not deliberately ending one that has already begun.

The difference is scientific vs moral.
If sex is intended for procreation
then sex with the intent to stop
what God had intended would
be killing God's plan, even if you
are technically correct that some
forms of birth control stop the process
before conception. But not all do.

 

[Meowzltov]

But we're talking pre conception; that birth control, which prevents conception taking place, is taking a life.

What about those methods of birth control that cause an inability for the embryo to implant POST conception, such as the IUD or hormone based contraceptives that include progesterone such as the Pill, etc. ?

 

[Meowzltov]

Are these three "pillars" a Catholic teaching? I don't recall reading anything about them in Scripture.

Yes, they are Catholic.

They are reasoned from Scripture.

• Marital Bonding: And a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife.
• Pleasure: Love your neighbor as yourself.
• Openness to children: Be fruitful and multiply.

For a fuller argument for these, read Humanae Vitae.

 

[Hank77]

What about those methods of birth control that cause an inability for the embryo to implant POST conception, such as the IUD or hormone based contraceptives that include progesterone such as the Pill, etc. ?

Don't you mean Can cause?

 

[Hank77]

PERIODIC abstinence. And lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) using attachment parenting to keep hormone levels sky high: that's good for about two years after giving birth.

That's something for the two years, though not very reliable, but combined with abstinence, it worked for you. I'm glad it did, but it doesn't work for everyone, such as my mom and a few Catholics I know that have gotten pregnant anyway.

 

[Founder]

One of the theological, ethical and pastoral realities that confront us at the edges include determining at which point we would understand the life of a person to have begun, and interestingly we have a range of problems at the other end determining at what point we determine a person is dead.

The difficulty for the hard fast rules is that we are dealing with real people. I do however suspect that which prevents a zygote from forming (the haploid infusion of two gametes in utero) can not be construed as taking a life, unless you are going to invest in a theology of intention, which again I think is an area where it becomes profoundly difficult to establish boundaries.

I am not being difficult, I just believe that this is a very difficult area.

Your post is self serving and overly wordy to obscure the subject. Life does NOT begin at Conception but sometime earlier. God said He knew us all from the Foundations of the Earth. Intention is everything in God's book. The baby is just as dead if killed before Conception, after conception or at any other time in its life. You can feel the selfish self serving motive in the replies to this. I go by what the Bible says, not what preachers say, or the Pope says, and the Bible says many places that life begins before conception. If you put any two living things of opposite sex in proximity to each other you are going to get babies. If you put barriers in place you are not going to get any babies. That is killing in my mind. I've done it. I've repented it and I'm in God's grace. No repentance no Salvation. To stubbornly refuse to repent is a sure trip to down below. Everyone has the right to be wrong. NOTE: For thousands of years the Church has taught the Birth Control was Murder, while just since 1930 has this idea that life begins at conception been accepted.

 

[Founder]

I don't think that is true. Abortion takes like, other forms of birth control stop life from happening. There is a big difference. There would be a lot of unwanted children and more abject poverty if we didn't have some form of birth control.

Oh, it's OK to kill children because some of them might starve or live in poverty. For shame. There is no difference between Abortion and Birth Control except that Birth Control is much worse than abortion in many many ways.

 

[Philip_B]

Your post is self serving and overly wordy to obscure the subject.

I take it from this that you disagree, which is you prerogative. That does not make my position anything like what you suggest. You tell us that the Bible says in many places that life begins before conception. Could you please provide some reference/s for the claim so that we may consider it.

Also, I am not certain that the Church taught that Birth Control was murder for thousands of years, as far as I am aware it has really only become a real issue in the last century, once technology was developed to facilitate it and people wanted to use it.

If you put any two living things of opposite sex in proximity to each other you are going to get babies.

I am not completely convinced that I need to accept this statement as a blanket truth in it's current form.

 

[Founder]

You can say anything you want. Be my guest. But that doesn't mean it is true, biblical, or pleasing to God. That is a risk you must take. I know what I believe and what I have researched and concluded. Upon reading your post, I don't think that anything I say will change your mind. I suggest you search for and read my hundreds of posts on this subject, on this forum, but as for now I can't see where I can help you. You can also search for and read my thousands of essays on this subject and many others on the Internet. As for quotes from the bible, you do your own research there to your satisfaction. I don't need to or intend to do your work for you.

 

[Philip_B]

Why Science Can’t Say When a Baby’s Life Begins

Beginning of human personhood - Wikipedia

These two articles perhaps discuss some of the issues coming from a scientific or philosophical standpoint.

Genesis 2:7
Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and the man became a living being.​

This is perhaps the clearest example I can find in scripture that comes to mind that may indicate a Biblical understanding of the start of a human life. My inclination is to think that this may well, accompanied by Luke's account of the visit of Mary to her kinswoman Elizabeth be why so much stress has laid historically on what was termed the quickening being the first perceptible separate movement of the child within the mothers womb.

 

[Strong in Him]

What about those methods of birth control that cause an inability for the embryo to implant POST conception, such as the IUD or hormone based contraceptives that include progesterone such as the Pill, etc. ?

If you're saying that sometimes fertilisation DOES occur but the embryo is actually prevented from developing into a foetus; I wasn't aware that this was the case.
My view is still the same; that preventing a life from beginning is not the same as deliberately terminating one that has already begun. I have known, and heard of, women having abortions because they don't want to be pregnant, or want a child. Sorry, but how is taking a pill to have a baby poisoned, or expelling it from the womb as bad as taking a responsible decision not to get pregnant in the first place?

 

[Strong in Him]

Your post is self serving and overly wordy to obscure the subject. Life does NOT begin at Conception but sometime earlier. God said He knew us all from the Foundations of the Earth.

Sorry, I shouldn't jump in on someone else's discussion but I wanted to reply to this.

God knew us from the foundations of the earth - yes, of course; God knows all things. That doesn't mean that we existed from before the foundations of the earth.

Intention is everything in God's book. The baby is just as dead if killed before Conception, after conception or at any other time in its life.

So where does God say this?
And why are women designed to release thousands of eggs each month, which will mostly, or all, be wasted if fertilisation doesn't occur? Supposing, like me, she has periods for 15 years before getting married; are you saying that they, and I, were responsible for the deaths of thousands of babies?

You can feel the selfish self serving motive in the replies to this.

Well, to me, having unprotected sex, then having an abortion because you didn't want a child, is more self-serving, and irresponsible, than using birth control.

I go by what the Bible says,

I'm not aware that the Bible teaches on this.
In Bible times, having children was seen as a sign of prosperity and favour with God. There were women who couldn't have children, and some of them cried out to God and were given them - miraculously, in some cases. But I'm not aware that they had contraception in those days, nor that the Bible legislates for/against using it.

If you put any two living things of opposite sex in proximity to each other you are going to get babies.

Not necessarily. If you strip them naked and force them to get into the same bed together, you MAY get babies; depending on whether or not intercourse takes place and the woman becomes pregnant. It's not guaranteed; some couples try for a child for months, even years, without success.

If you put barriers in place you are not going to get any babies.

Again, not necessarily. Sickness, or some medications, may stop the pill from working, and other forms of contraception may fail.

That is killing in my mind.

Ah. "In my mind" is not quite the same as "the Bible says".

I've done it. I've repented it and I'm in God's grace. No repentance no Salvation. To stubbornly refuse to repent is a sure trip to down below.

Please tell me you're not saying that a person will go to hell unless they repent of using contraception?
If you are; that is not correct.