Birth Control

[chris414]

if it means anything, my experience says that each kid divides up the time available by the parents on his or her behalf. Having more does not multiple the time you have, but at some point, with some number of kids plus just one more, there will be diminishing amount of parental time available.

This is an unavoidable point... sure you may be able to care for 10 kids and do alright, but how much better would the kids hav been if there were fewer of them?

 

[bliz]

essentially my point is that BC is akin to the boat, and heliocopter.

Hmmmm.... does that make a baby akin to a flood?

Secondly, I believe it is up to the husband, the spiritual leader of the household, to decide whether or not his wife goes on birth control or not (given he's been given insight from God), because he is responsible for his household and therefore, can make the decisions for his house

So the person who will not become pregnent is to make the decision? Does God only give insight to husbands? Do Christian wives not have the Holy Spitit within them? Does GOd not talk to women? I seem to remember God sending an angel to Mary and to Joseph.

Any use of birth control should be done directly under the direction of a spiritual father to first determine if the motives are worthy and second to ensure that it is not being abused.

So my husband and I should turn the decision over to a someone who has never had sex, never been pregnent, never raised a child, doesn't have a medical degree and will not help financially support any child we might have?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Hmmmm.... does that make a baby akin to a flood?

sometimes it really seemed like that.

So the person who will not become pregnent is to make the decision?

i talked to my wife the other night about this thread and the issues. i believe i saw on her face the same look that you had when writing these words.

So my husband and I should turn the decision over to a someone who has never had sex, never been pregnent, never raised a child, doesn't have a medical degree and will not help financially support any child we might have?

well and deeply expressed.
i don't usually look at the icons for posters as i read a thread. but i found myself looking at the poster's ages and sex constantly in this (and similiar) threads. perhaps i ought to look at number of kids icons as well?

 

[TwinCrier]

This is an unavoidable point... sure you may be able to care for 10 kids and do alright, but how much better would the kids hav been if there were fewer of them?

Not much better at all for those kids that will never be. Go to any person who has what you consider too many kids and ask them which of their children they would not have if given the chance. I bet few will choose to recall a single life.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Not much better at all for those kids that will never be. Go to any person who has what you consider too many kids and ask them which of their children they would not have if given the chance. I bet few will choose to recall a single life.

ask them a slightly less biased question, for yours essentially asks them to mentally kill one of their kids, certainly not an objective measure.
ask them, if they had it to do over again, if they would have the same number of kids? nothing about getting rid of one or the other, but a hypothetical question about playing "what if".
in that case, i'll bet a lot of people would say the same kind of thing.
if i only knew then what i know now.

 

[Chie]

ask them a slightly less biased question, for yours essentially asks them to mentally kill one of their kids, certainly not an objective measure.
ask them, if they had it to do over again, if they would have the same number of kids? nothing about getting rid of one or the other, but a hypothetical question about playing "what if".
in that case, i'll bet a lot of people would say the same kind of thing.
if i only knew then what i know now.

"if i only knew then what i know now."
I thank God he don't let us know then what we know now, even though we see it all around us through others, it don't become real until we are there for ourselves.
It is a scarey thought even now to think "what if" in my life, my what if could change my life not to mention other people's lives around me to a point I might not be here today walking with the Lord.

 

[desmalia]

I have some of questions, and I'm curious to see what the answers will be. Scriptural reference (including proper context please) is encouraged here.

Is it a sin not to have as many children as you physically can?
If so, when? Only when you are married?
Should all Christians seek to marry specificially to have as many children as possible?

Is abstinance considered a sin because it means eggs and sperm are being neglected?

How is the rhythm method morally different than other forms of birth control since it's purpose is to avoid pregnancy? (Please note I'm not talking about abortion here. I don't consider that a means of birth control.)

If a couple loves each other and wants to spend their lives together, but neither wants kids, does that mean their only choices are to:
not get married,
get married and have lots of kids and just suffer through (I know people who have done this),
or get married, but never have sex?
Is there even a remote possibility that there could be other ministry oportunities for them than just raising kids?

Is the only purpose of sex to populate the earth?

If a couple cannot have children, are they sinning?

 

[TwinCrier]

Desmalia, the problem I have with those questions is there seems to be an assumption that if we don't step in and do something that there will be a steady stream of babies flowing from the uterus. Too many people today want to dictate exactly when and how many children they have. The medical establishments love that. People spend so much money either trying to prevent, achieve or terminate pregnancy, but then complain when they have to spend money on their kids. What a shame!

 

[desmalia]

Desmalia, the problem I have with those questions is there seems to be an assumption that if we don't step in and do something that there will be a steady stream of babies flowing from the uterus.

Like it or not, sometimes that is basically what happens. Sure, not always, but it's always a chance you take when you don't use birth control. I'm not saying people shouldn't have lots of babies. If they want to, great, go for it. But why should everyone have to do that no matter what?

Too many people today want to dictate exactly when and how many children they have.

Too many people want to dictate how many babies everyone else should have too.

The medical establishments love that. People spend so much money either trying to prevent, achieve or terminate pregnancy, but then complain when they have to spend money on their kids. What a shame!

I completely agree with you on this one. I'm not a supporter of zero population growth and definitely not a supporter of abortion. If people want to have big families, I fully support them in that, regardless of their financial situation. Why does that mean I should be forced to do the same as them?

 

[TwinCrier]

Like it or not, sometimes that is basically what happens. Sure, not always, but it's always a chance you take when you don't use birth control. I'm not saying people shouldn't have lots of babies. If they want to, great, go for it. But why should everyone have to do that no matter what?

Too many people want to dictate how many babies everyone else should have too.

As Christians, we have a higher calling than just "if they want to." If you really feel God doesn't want you to have a big family, I'm sure He can handle the details.

I completely agree with you on this one. I'm not a supporter of zero population growth and definitely not a supporter of abortion. If people want to have big families, I fully support them in that, regardless of their financial situation. Why does that mean I should be forced to do the same as them?

But what if birth control fails? Then abortion is all that's left. The pill and IUD create abortions. I'm not God, I don't make other peoples children so how am I forcing anyone to do anything? I'm just providing biblical and medical evidence to show why I believe what I do. I'm not responsible for anyone's sinbut my own.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The pill and IUD create abortions.

how do BC pills cause abortions?

I don't make other peoples children so how am I forcing anyone to do anything?
if everyone who believes the ideas you express here, allow the laws in a country to criminalize abortion or BC methods, then you are forcing people into other legal avenues of behavior or a now criminal behavior.
Strictly speaking, no one just posting here is doing anything, just talking. It is the consequences of actions taken because of ideas that cause other people to change their behavior.

I'm not responsible for anyone's sinbut my own.
corporate or group guilt is an interesting question. Do all Americans bear guilt for the death and destruction in Iraq? do all human beings bear the guilt of climatic change or species extinction due to human activity? do all the people in a political area bear guilt if their government executes an innocent person?
if you immediate and direct influence cause another person to sin, are you guilty of something?
good questions, what is "my own sin" really mean? only those things i knowingly and voluntarily do?

If you really feel God doesn't want you to have a big family, I'm sure He can handle the details.
why should God handle the details of someone's life? aren't people responsible for their own behavior?

 

[desmalia]

As Christians, we have a higher calling than just "if they want to." If you really feel God doesn't want you to have a big family, I'm sure He can handle the details.

Sure God can handle the details in anything. But when it's not an issue of sin, He often leaves choices to us and blesses us regardless of the decision. That can include things like career choices, when to marry, where to live, and yes, having kids. We make a choice using logic and desire to remain obedient. And then we proceed. If God decides along the way that He wants to steer us in a different direction, He does. It's up to us to accept the change of course and continue to remain obedient, even if things didn't turn out as we had exected.

But what if birth control fails? Then abortion is all that's left.

Abortion is all that's left? Perhaps you've not heard of 'raising the kid anyway', or 'giving it up for adoption'? Just because someone doesn't want to have lots of kids, do you assume that they're automatically pro-abortion?

The pill and IUD create abortions.

b/c pills do not cause abortion. They stop ovulation, which means conception does not happen. Yes IUD's and the morning after pill do use abortion as the "contraceptive" means. Depo Provera can cause that too. So I wouldn't ever promote them. (And I'm really frustrated that you keep assuming I would). But condoms and the estrogen based b/c pill don't cause abortion. So, no. Using them is not sinful. I even used Depo Provera for medical purposes when I was single. I didn't know that it caused abortions when used for b/c. But when I learned that (and a lot of other nasty things about it) I quit using it. You may find this hard to believe, but I'm very thankful that I found out about this long before I met my husband. I would have been mortified to find out I had possibly caused abortions without knowing.

I'm not God, I don't make other peoples children so how am I forcing anyone to do anything? I'm just providing biblical and medical evidence to show why I believe what I do. I'm not responsible for anyone's sinbut my own.

No one said forcing. The word we were both using was dictate. Let's not confuse the issue.
Whether you mean it that way or not, your posts come across as if you are questioning my character and consider me to perhaps be nothing more than a sin-filled wretch because I enjoy making love to my husband, but don't want that to result in babies. And I'll say it again, your doctrines are yours, not the Bible's. If you want to believe them and follow them in your life, I would never suggest you do otherwise. And if someone sees me actively sinning (ie. acting against a biblical command), then I much appreciate the correction. I think you know I'm a findamentalist and care very much about obeying God however I can. But I'm not OK with someone judging me by their own standards, especially when they claim to be doing so with the authority of God, but with no biblical basis.

 

[desmalia]

Hehe, just saw this picure. Now this is the kind of "big family that I'd love to raise:

 

[rainbowbright]

I know for a fact that the IUD does not cause an abortion. I got one (with permission from my priest) because we just had our third and fourth children and they are all under the age of 4 and we are in extreme financial hardship and since we know we are fertile, we needed a little break until we can stabalize again. I didn't want anything at all, but my husband threatened a visectomy so I had a huge talk with my ob about IUDs and she said she used to not prescribe them because she thought they were abortive, but did further research on it and found out that all they do is block the sperm from entering the filopian tubes. My doctor is very pro-life and refuses to ever terminate a pregnancy for any reason which is unusual now a days so I do trust her. However, if I do find out that the IUD is an abortive, I will march right back to my dr and get it taken out.

 

[TwinCrier]

I know for a fact that the IUD does not cause an abortion. I got one (with permission from my priest) because we just had our third and fourth children and they are all under the age of 4 and we are in extreme financial hardship and since we know we are fertile, we needed a little break until we can stabalize again. I didn't want anything at all, but my husband threatened a visectomy so I had a huge talk with my ob about IUDs and she said she used to not prescribe them because she thought they were abortive, but did further research on it and found out that all they do is block the sperm from entering the filopian tubes. My doctor is very pro-life and refuses to ever terminate a pregnancy for any reason which is unusual now a days so I do trust her. However, if I do find out that the IUD is an abortive, I will march right back to my dr and get it taken out.

That is totally wrong. An IUD makes the uterus hostile to the zygote so it cannot implant and dies. Pills sometimes prevent ovulation, but if not, they also cause abortion in the same way an IUD does.
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

 

[ebia]

As Christians, we have a higher calling than just "if they want to." If you really feel God doesn't want you to have a big family, I'm sure He can handle the details.

... by giving us means to influence the size of our family. God expects us to take responsibility for our lives, not pretend we are leaving ti all up to him (not using Birth Control is just as much a choice about family size as not - it's no more "leaving it in God's hands" than using birth control.)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That is totally wrong. An IUD makes the uterus hostile to the zygote so it cannot implant and dies. Pills sometimes prevent ovulation, but if not, they also cause abortion in the same way an IUD does.
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

This brings up several good issues.

The first is how to use science in political and religious level discussions. The issue is how to draw the lines in the ethical and moral realm, simply defining abortion as anything that stops or disturbs implantation as well as a medical procedure that takes measures to end a pregnancy is to confuse the topic and to align very different things as if this logic was scientific and not part of a moral discussion. IUD's can stop/hinder/disturb implantation, but this is not the same thing as abortion. if you wish to argue that all methods that hinder a fertilized egg from implanting and developing then say that. Not hiding behind such a loaded term as abortion to prove your point by definition. If you are against any controls that hinder fertilization, than argue with those words as well, and stop hiding behind definitions.

The second is how to understand the science at it's own level and on it's own terms. The fact is that there is a continuing scientific controversy over the exact mechanism of IUD's. There maybe several, for each kind of IUD. To tell people that their science is wrong and therefore their moral decisions, is not doing justice to the controversy that exists on the scientific level. That IUD's can stop the sperm from getting to the egg is not a discarded and wrong scientific theory but rather one under activity study.
something a few minutes spent googling would have informed anyone

IUD (intrauterine device)
Effectiveness: 97.4% -- 99.2% (varies with type of IUD)
How it works: A trained clinician inserts a small device made of plastic that may contain copper or hormones into the uterus. IUD's may prevent fertilization or implantation of the egg, by affecting the lining of the uterus, or simply as a foreign object in the uterus.

from: http://www.ppscny.org/birth_control_quick_facts.htm

i read a number of BC sites and they all referred both to hindering implantation and fertilization as a means of action for IUD's.

 

[rainbowbright]

That is totally wrong. An IUD makes the uterus hostile to the zygote so it cannot implant and dies. Pills sometimes prevent ovulation, but if not, they also cause abortion in the same way an IUD does.
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

I absolutely detest having to use birth control, but it is because my husband said we need to. But you know what, that info's good enough for me and it will take some time to convince my husband, but I know for sure we haven't had to worry about an early abortion (that would be quite a miracle at this point). Thank you for pointing out that article, now I have an excuse to get this blasted thing out.

 

[Dannager]

I absolutely detest having to use birth control, but it is because my husband said we need to. But you know what, that info's good enough for me and it will take some time to convince my husband, but I know for sure we haven't had to worry about an early abortion (that would be quite a miracle at this point). Thank you for pointing out that article, now I have an excuse to get this blasted thing out.

Sigh.

 

[desmalia]

This brings up several good issues.

The first is how to use science in political and religious level discussions. The issue is how to draw the lines in the ethical and moral realm, simply defining abortion as anything that stops or disturbs implantation as well as a medical procedure that takes measures to end a pregnancy is to confuse the topic and to align very different things as if this logic was scientific and not part of a moral discussion. IUD's can stop/hinder/disturb implantation, but this is not the same thing as abortion. if you wish to argue that all methods that hinder a fertilized egg from implanting and developing then say that. Not hiding behind such a loaded term as abortion to prove your point by definition. If you are against any controls that hinder fertilization, than argue with those words as well, and stop hiding behind definitions.

The second is how to understand the science at it's own level and on it's own terms. The fact is that there is a continuing scientific controversy over the exact mechanism of IUD's. There maybe several, for each kind of IUD. To tell people that their science is wrong and therefore their moral decisions, is not doing justice to the controversy that exists on the scientific level. That IUD's can stop the sperm from getting to the egg is not a discarded and wrong scientific theory but rather one under activity study.
something a few minutes spent googling would have informed anyone
from: http://www.ppscny.org/birth_control_quick_facts.htm

i read a number of BC sites and they all referred both to hindering implantation and fertilization as a means of action for IUD's.

This is basically a side topic on the issue, and potentially a whole other debate in itself. The question is: if an egg is fertalized, is it now a life? Or is it only a life once it is firmly attached to the uterine wall?

It's a difficult subject. I tend to lean towards believing it's a life at that earliest stage. But then many fertilized eggs don't attach to the lining for all kinds of reasons, even when no b/c is used. So do we go so far as to say that the woman is having miscarrages? It's a tough one. So for me, I couldn't use the methods that would cause the fertilized egg to be rejected, nor would I recommend it to anyone (sort of an err on the side of caution, I guess). But I can't condemn anyone for using it either, because it's just not black and white.