Contraception

[praying]

Procreation happened because God ordained it.

Yes I realize that, I did not state otherwise.

God has never indicated that He created sex for reasons other than for procreation and unity/bonding between spouses. Pleasure is a motivating factor and gift from God, but it is not the purpose of sex.

Again I did not state that God created sex for pleasure though the fact that there is pleasure is indicative of that but rather I said people have always had sex for pleasure.

 

[invisible trousers]

Normally one does not have to tell people in poorer parts of the world to be fruitful and multiply. They are quite willing to do that since that IS their social security.

So then I would assume their social security also includes overpopulation, malnutrition, and death from easily curable diseases. Contraceptive use is a great way to start solving the many of problems of the 3rd world.

I don't need scripture to always tell me when something is right or wrong.

I won't disagree about your own beliefs, but to argue that a church should implement a bad policy with absolutely no scriptual basis is ludicrous.

Tradition also helps. Sexual intercourse's primary purpose has always been procreation. That should tell you something about contraception.

Argumentative fallacy: appeal to tradition. Even then, that doesn't tell me a single thing about contraceptives.

Nowhere does Scripture say that everything we need to know is in Scripture. Nor is everything explicitly stated in one liners in Scripture. Like, it doesn't say any where that drive by shootings are a bad thing. But we can conclude such from Jesus' teachings. If you look for everything to be neatly packaged in Scriptural one-liners, you are selling Christ short.

I'm not looking for neatly-packaged one liners, I'm looking for valid scriptual basis that says we shouldn't use contraceptives. So far nobody here has been able to show any scripture even related to it. Using unsound theology to justify a policy is much worse than selling Christ short.

What is unhealthy to to renew your marriage vows in intercourse but to tell a lie with your body by refusing to be open to life. St. Paul tells us in Ephesians that marriage is an image of Christ and the Church. Christ held nothing back from the Church. He loved her with His body until the death. He held nothing back. To make an image of this love in the act of intercourse but to withhold through contraception mocks the gift of Christ to His Church.

I think you're really stretching it here. You haven't shown any scriptual basis for your belief, and then are applying it to something completely unrelated. Using contraceptives isn't telling a lie with your body, but instead is common sense. It's very unrealistic and irresponsible to demand that humans have a kid every time they have sex. A poor couple shouldn't be punished because they enjoy having sex.

On a somewhat related note, does this mean that infertile couples shouldn't have sex? They're never going to have kids, so every time they have sex they're mocking Christ, correct?

 

[porcupine]

A poor couple shouldn't be punished because they enjoy having sex.

Interesting. Why would you consider something God says is an unqualified blessing as a punishment?

 

[invisible trousers]

I follow your kids = blessing idea, but is it from a different passage (Psalm 128) than the one above? From what I see it looks like it says anyone who fears the Lord is blessed, independent of having kids or not.

I say it because kids cost money. A lot of money. I think you might have a little better perspective on that than me though It makes more sense that God would bless a couple with children (or the couple decides to not use contraceptives) once they have settled down, gotten better jobs or whatever and are able to provide a better environment for raising kids.

 

[holyorders]

Again I did not state that God created sex for pleasure though the fact that there is pleasure is indicative of that but rather I said people have always had sex for pleasure.

Birth Control has been around for a very short span of time. Sex was naturally controlled beforehand without birth-control. Its what is known as temperance and abstaining. Sex was never as popular as it is today anyway, nowadays it has been perverted into pleasure seeking, even within marriage.

 

[porcupine]

I follow your kids = blessing idea, but is it from a different passage (Psalm 128) than the one above? From what I see it looks like it says anyone who fears the Lord is blessed, independent of having kids or not.

That may be true, but children are called a blessing in a number of places. It is equated with being blessed with wealth.

I say it because kids cost money. A lot of money. I think you might have a little better perspective on that than me though It makes more sense that God would bless a couple with children (or the couple decides to not use contraceptives) once they have settled down, gotten better jobs or whatever and are able to provide a better environment for raising kids.

Kids cost a lot less than you think -- especially if you don't have a lot of preconceived ideas about the child "needing" a lot of stuff he doesn't really need. My wife and I raised six. We used no brith control. I did not have any "better job" until I needed it and God provided. My wife's job was always the "better job" -- MOTHER.

So you think God would not give a child to someone who is not ready? Does the couple decide when they are ready or does God? Your problem is that you think the couple knows enough to know if they are ready while God, Who controls the Universe, does not. The fact is the moment you think you are financially stable and you go get pregnant, your financial security can collapse. Show me in the Bible where this "better environment for raising kids" is described. I can show you -- Genesis, where it says, "They two shall be one flesh" then God says, "Be fruitful and multiply." The ingredients are clear -- God, a man and his wife, and children.

 

[holyorders]

We cannot forget either that naturally the odds of the sperm and egg meeting is not nearly as great as most people think. Fertility, of course, has a lot to do with it.

 

[bliz]

Birth Control has been around for a very short span of time. Sex was naturally controlled beforehand without birth-control. Its what is known as temperance and abstaining.

AKA - birth control! Anythig that is done to prevent or minimize the chances of a child being conceived is birth control. The distinction between using a condom (which have been around in one form or another since 1000 BC, BTW) and charting one's ovulation and then abstaining, is non existant. Both acts are intended to so that egg and sperm do not meet.

Sex was never as popular as it is today anyway, nowadays it has been perverted into pleasure seeking, even within marriage.

Have you read the Bible? Sex outside of marriage is nothing new! Sex has always been a very popular activity! Every generation thinks that they invented sex, and all of it's perversions.

 

[praying]

Sex was never as popular as it is today

Sex was always popular, the difference today, you know about it; it isn't hush-hush as it used to be.

anyway, nowadays it has been perverted into pleasure seeking, even within marriage.

Is there a problem with a married couple seeking sexual pleasure? Really God did not make sex pleasurable for us only to say well only do it if you want kids because people interpet the Bible's "be fruitful and multiply" to mean everytime you have sex make sure you are trying to make a baby. IMO that is a bold leaping assumption.

 

[porcupine]

Sex was always popular, the difference today, you know about it; it isn't hush-hush as it used to be.

There can be a problem where sex is not taught as what it should be and it was too much of a secret. Of course, in an agricultural society, sex is part of life. The kids see the cattle and horses doing it. Yet, sex was still considered private between a man an his wife. That was approapriate. When you have Christian leaders on TV talking about having vibrators in the bedside table, that is WAY too much "openness." There is a part that SHOULD be hush-hush.

Is there a problem with a married couple seeking sexual pleasure? Really God did not make sex pleasurable for us only to say well only do it if you want kids because people interpet the Bible's "be fruitful and multiply" to mean everytime you have sex make sure you are trying to make a baby. IMO that is a bold leaping assumption.

The PURPOSE of sex is unity and procreation -- both being equally important. Pleasure is a side-effect and one worth paying some attnetion to. However, if sex were NOT pleasurable for one or the other, would that negate the need for it or the command to not abstain? No. There is a lot more going on there than pleasure.

The problem is that we make pleasure the PRIORITY, rather than the wonderful additional blessing that it should be. A good illustration is food. The PURPOSE of food is nutrition. That could be easily accomplished with the right kind of porridge. That is not how God designed it. If you simply look at the vast variety of nutritious things God created for our PLEASURE in eating -- not to mention the multitude of ways those things can be prepared.

However, when you divorce the nutrition from the eating, there is perversion of God's blessing. If you eat, then make yourself vomit as the Romans did, that is a perversion of God's good gift. If you decide you like eating only plastic, you will starve and that, too is a perversion.

So it is with sex. There are LOTS of ways to enjoy sex, but to serve God's stated PURPOSES of unity and procreation, certain things must occur. To deliberately prevent conception by means of any kind perverts those purposes. To engage in sex in such a way that there is no unity (masturbation) also perverts it. (BTW, the purpose of unity still exists long after the physical ability to bear children disappears -- but then, Sarah thought that was all over, too.)

 

[beechy]

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.

But I think that having children responsibly, with some thought and prayer ahead of the decision is a great idea.

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 am able to provide for them. I'm not saying my life has to be perfect before I start a family, but since I have 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 think I'll be able to do that better with 3 kids than I would with 13. But that's just me. Maybe you'd 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 what God was saying there was along the lines of: God loves human beings and wants them to procreate in order to that the species of His creation may flourish and enjoy this great big Earth He created for them to live in? 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?

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 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.

 

[Filia Mariae]

I'm not looking for neatly-packaged one liners, I'm looking for valid scriptual basis that says we shouldn't use contraceptives. So far nobody here has been able to show any scripture even related to it. Using unsound theology to justify a policy is much worse than selling Christ short.



I think you're really stretching it here. You haven't shown any scriptual basis for your belief, and then are applying it to something completely unrelated. Using contraceptives isn't telling a lie with your body, but instead is common sense. It's very unrealistic and irresponsible to demand that humans have a kid every time they have sex. A poor couple shouldn't be punished because they enjoy having sex.

On a somewhat related note, does this mean that infertile couples shouldn't have sex? They're never going to have kids, so every time they have sex they're mocking Christ, correct?

Trousers,

Every one of your objections and questions is answered in this short article. Rather than cutting and pasting from it, here's the link:

http://www.christopherwest.com/article4.asp


Pax Christi

 

[beechy]

Trousers,

Every one of your objections and questions is answered in this short article. Rather than cutting and pasting from it, here's the link:

http://www.christopherwest.com/article4.asp


Pax Christi

This article sets forth a summary of the teachings and philosophy of the Catholic Church which mirrors (has perhaps informed?) many of the anti-contraceptive views I've seen on this board. Indeed, some posters like porcupine advocate an even more extreme position. According to porcupine, God won't give you more than you can handle, which means that if you get pregnant God will help you provide financially for your child:

However unlikely the scenario you describe, I will try to answer the question: Since it is God who blesses you with children, He will also make provision to care for them. Thousands will attest that God always provided when more children came. I am one who will testify that God is faithful. Where is your faith?

The Christopher West article, OTOH, views such a suggestion as an improper "test" of God:

"So, does respect for 'incarnate love' imply that couples are to leave the number of children they have entirely to 'chance'? No. In calling couples to a responsible love, the Church calls them also to a responsible parenthood . . . A couple struggling to provide for their existing children should likewise not put God to the test. Today, knowledge of the fertility cycle is part of God’s providence. Thus, couples who make responsible use of that knowledge to avoid pregnancy are trusting in God’s providence. They, no less than a couple 'who prudently and generously decide to have a large family,' are practicing responsible parenthood."

In any case, the West article says it is ok to avoid getting pregnant if you're doing so for the right reasons, but goes on to make a distinction between "natural family planning" (basically, abstaining during certain parts of a woman's cycle), and contraception like condoms. The distinction is made by criticizing the pro-conception argument that abstention and contraception are the same because they have the same "end" (i.e., prevented pregnancy), as containing the same logical fallacy as likening miscarriage to abortion. The difference, according to West, is that "[Natural family planning or miscarriage] is an 'act of God.' In [the case of contraceptives or abortion] man takes the powers of life into his own hands and makes himself like God." West cites Genesis 3:5 in support. Genesis 3:5 is the verse where the serpent tells Eve she'll be ok if she eats the forbidden fruit because all it will do is open her eyes so that she, like God, will know the difference between good and evil. I fail to see how this passage supports the idea that using contraception would be making onself like God any more than abstention would.

Moreover, the miscarriage vs. abortion analogy is materially distinguishable (indeed, I think it actually helps illustrate how not different abstention and contraceptive use are). Miscarriage and abortion both end a life already in existence. In a miscarriage, the fetus may be miscarried whether its parents wanted that to happen or not. A fetus that is aborted, however, has been aborted because someone chose to abort it, and it otherwise may have lived. I think it is that active choice to end a life which brings humankind into the picture (rather than making it just an "act of God," as a one might view a miscarriage to be).

Abstention and contraception, on the other hand, both prevent pregnancy from ever occurring -- that is, they both disrupt the potential for life, not life itself. In one case, that potentiality is disrupted by a couple actively choosing not to have sex, thereby not letting any sperm near the egg. In the other case, the potentiality is disrupted by the couple choosing to have sex with a latex barrier . . . which doesn't let any sperm near the egg. What's the difference? That one is an "act of God" and the other isn't as the West article suggests? How? They both involve a couples' choice not to let sperm near the egg. The only difference is the method: latex (which allows for the sex part to happen) vs. no latex (which requires that the sex part not happen). Is the problem that condoms don't grow on trees or whatever so they're not "naturally" occurring "acts of God"?

Making arguments hinged on the potentiality for life are difficult because there's no logical difference for the well being of the "not-yet-created-embryo" when you're not having sex and when you're having sex with a condom on. The "not-yet-created-embryo" is not going to be hurt any more or any less by either method ...

 

[praying]

The PURPOSE of sex is unity and procreation -- both being equally important. Pleasure is a side-effect and one worth paying some attnetion to. However, if sex were NOT pleasurable for one or the other, would that negate the need for it or the command to not abstain? No. There is a lot more going on there than pleasure.

I would say the purpose of sex is unity, procreation AND pleasure. Pleasure is not a side effect. It can be the difference between a mutual satisfying relationship or not, the difference between actually wanting to have sex or not. Pleasure is a major factor in the sex act, not a side effect. How could you have unity without pleasure?

The problem is that we make pleasure the PRIORITY, rather than the wonderful additional blessing that it should be.

Sex serves different purposes at different times, sometimes it is pure pleasure, sometimes it renewal and unity and at other times probably the leaet amount of times it is for procreation (unless of course you are really trying hard to get pregnant).

To engage in sex in such a way that there is no unity (masturbation) also perverts it.

Welll that is a subject for another thread.

 

[porcupine]

I would say the purpose of sex is unity, procreation AND pleasure. Pleasure is not a side effect. It can be the difference between a mutual satisfying relationship or not, the difference between actually wanting to have sex or not. Pleasure is a major factor in the sex act, not a side effect. How could you have unity without pleasure?

Maybe you don't know this but many people simply do not enjoy sex at all. It is a chore. Sometimes this is a purely physical problem. What would you say to people like this? That they are missing the purpose of sex?

I also wonder if you would care to provide some Scripture that indicates pleasure is a PURPOSE of sex.

 

[praying]

Maybe you don't know this but many people simply do not enjoy sex at all. It is a chore. Sometimes this is a purely physical problem. What would you say to people like this? That they are missing the purpose of sex?

Yes I realize this and no I wouldn't say they are missing ONE of the purposes of sex.

I also wonder if you would care to provide some Scripture that indicates pleasure is a PURPOSE of sex.

1 Corinthians 7:9
But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[porcupine]

Yes I realize this and no I wouldn't say they are missing ONE of the purposes of sex.

1 Corinthians 7:9
But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

That isn't quite on the money. It just says if you can't control yourself, get married. That doesn't make pleasure a purpose.

 

[invisible trousers]

It shows pleasure is a purpose. It would be safe to say that if you have a burning passion for someone, you'd like to have sex with them, right? I think it's fairly obvious in that situation that you wish to have sex with them to enjoy physical pleasure, not to create children.

If God had not intended for sex to be pleasurable, he would have made it so getting pleasure from it would be impossible under any situation. Since sex can be very pleasurable, I think it's safe to say one pleasure is one of the purposes for it. Likewise, since procreation can happen during sex, procreation is a purpose as well.

Maybe you don't know this but many people simply do not enjoy sex at all. It is a chore. Sometimes this is a purely physical problem. What would you say to people like this? That they are missing the purpose of sex?

Inasmuch as someone having sex only for pleasure is missing the purpose too.

 

[praying]

That isn't quite on the money. It just says if you can't control yourself, get married. That doesn't make pleasure a purpose.

It is exactly on the money it says get married and have sex. Paul was not referring to people burning with passion to create children.

 

[msaenz]

As a Catholic I would have to say "no' to contraception or another means by which a man or woman is sterilized to prevent a pregnancy. WHY? Here's what the Catholic Catechism says:

A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which " is on the side of life" teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life." This particular doctrine...is based on the inseparable connection established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
(CC2366)

And later it simply states:
The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. (Here I would like to clarify that the Church allows the regulations of births through NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING). Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). (CC 2399)