Contraception

[msaenz]

Natural Family Planning has the word "natural" in it -- but that doesn't make it so. What do you think "natural" means in this context anyway? [/font]

Why is a condom more of an obstacle than NFP? Because NFP is statistically less effective? If the goal isn't to be effective, why bother at all? Why not just "leave it up to God" and not try and avoid the procreative aspect by any means?

In my attempt to answer your questions I have found excerpts from the following letter by the Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Colorado. It’s entitled Of Human Life- A pastoral letter to the people of God of northern Colorado on the truth and meaning of married love.

12. But why can't a married couple simply choose the unitive aspect of marriage and temporarily block or even permanently prevent its procreative nature? The answer is as simple and radical as the Gospel itself. When spouses give themselves honestly and entirely to each other, as the nature of married love implies and even demands, that must include their whole selves -- and the most intimate, powerful part of each person is his or her fertility. Contraception not only denies this fertility and attacks procreation; in doing so, it necessarily damages unity as well. It is the equivalent of spouses saying: "I'll give you all I am -- except my fertility; I'll accept all you are -- except your fertility." This withholding of self inevitably works to isolate and divide the spouses, and unravel the holy friendship between them . . . maybe not immediately and overtly, but deeply, and in the long run often fatally for the marriage.

13. This is why the Church is not against "artificial" contraception. She is against all contraception. The notion of "artificial" has nothing to do with the issue. In fact, it tends to confuse discussion by implying that the debate is about a mechanical intrusion into the body's organic system. It is not. The Church has no problem with science appropriately intervening to heal or enhance bodily health. Rather, the Church teaches that all contraception is morally wrong; and not only wrong, but seriously wrong. The covenant which husband and wife enter at marriage requires that all intercourse remain open to the transmission of new life. This is what becoming "one flesh" implies: complete self-giving, without reservation or exception, just as Christ withheld nothing of Himself from His bride, the Church, by dying for her on the cross. Any intentional interference with the procreative nature of intercourse necessarily involves spouses' withholding themselves from each other and from God, who is their partner in sacramental love. In effect, they steal something infinitely precious -- themselves -- from each other and from their Creator.

14. And this is why natural family planning (NFP) differs not merely in style but in moral substance from contraception as a means of regulating family size. NFP is not contraception. Rather, it is a method of fertility awareness and appreciation. It is an entirely different approach to regulating birth. NFP does nothing to attack fertility, withhold the gift of oneself from one's spouse, or block the procreative nature of intercourse. The marriage covenant requires that each act of intercourse be fully an act of self-giving, and therefore open to the possibility of new life. But when, for good reasons, a husband and wife limit their intercourse to the wife's natural periods of infertility during a month, they are simply observing a cycle which God Himself created in the woman. They are not subverting it. And so they are living within the law of God's love.

15. There are, of course, many wonderful benefits to the practice of NFP. The wife preserves herself from intrusive chemicals or devices and remains true to her natural cycle. The husband shares in the planning and responsibility for NFP. Both learn a greater degree of self-mastery and a deeper respect for each other. It's true that NFP involves sacrifices and periodic abstinence from intercourse. It can, at times, be a difficult road. But so can any serious Christian life, whether ordained, consecrated, single or married. Moreover, the experience of tens of thousands of couples has shown that, when lived prayerfully and unselfishly, NFP deepens and enriches marriage and results in greater intimacy -- and greater joy. In the Old Testament, God told our first parents to be fruitful and multiply (Gn 1:28). He told us to choose life (Dt 30:19). He sent His son, Jesus, to bring us life abundantly (Jn 10:10) and to remind us that His yoke is light (Mt 11:30).

Also, I would like to add that NFP has a 98-99% effectiveness rate when practiced properly. Yet, pregnancies do occur. I was practicing NFP correctly (or so I thought) when I ended up pregnant with my first child Michael.

 

[beechy]

14. And this is why natural family planning (NFP) differs not merely in style but in moral substance from contraception as a means of regulating family size. NFP is not contraception. Rather, it is a method of fertility awareness and appreciation. It is an entirely different approach to regulating birth. NFP does nothing to attack fertility, withhold the gift of oneself from one's spouse, or block the procreative nature of intercourse. The marriage covenant requires that each act of intercourse be fully an act of self-giving, and therefore open to the possibility of new life. But when, for good reasons, a husband and wife limit their intercourse to the wife's natural periods of infertility during a month, they are simply observing a cycle which God Himself created in the woman. They are not subverting it. And so they are living within the law of God's love.

How is purposefully having sex at a time when you think a woman isn't fertile not a direct effort to "block the procreative nature of intercourse?" That's EXACTLY what it is. Why would you care about the fertility cycle unless you were trying to time sex in such a way as to effect your potentiality for procreation? In the case of NFP, in such a way as to avoid pregnancy?

Yes, a couple practicing NFP is "observing a cycle God Himself created" . . . but that's not all they're doing. After observing that cycle, they use that observation as a basis for acting in a way that they hope will prevent pregnancy. When you're using a condom, aren't you observing the biology God Himself created, in which sperm must meet egg in order to effect a pregnancy? And then acting in a way that you hope will prevent pregnancy given your knowledge and observation of how conception works? Remember, it is no answer to say that condoms, e.g., are different because they are an "artificial" mechanism. The letter you excerpted said expressly that: ". . . the Church is not against 'artificial' contraception. She is against all contraception. The notion of 'artificial' has nothing to do with the issue. In fact, it tends to confuse discussion by implying that the debate is about a mechanical intrusion into the body's organic system. It is not.""

15. There are, of course, many wonderful benefits to the practice of NFP. The wife preserves herself from intrusive chemicals or devices and remains true to her natural cycle. The husband shares in the planning and responsibility for NFP. Both learn a greater degree of self-mastery and a deeper respect for each other. It's true that NFP involves sacrifices and periodic abstinence from intercourse. It can, at times, be a difficult road. But so can any serious Christian life, whether ordained, consecrated, single or married. Moreover, the experience of tens of thousands of couples has shown that, when lived prayerfully and unselfishly, NFP deepens and enriches marriage and results in greater intimacy -- and greater joy. In the Old Testament, God told our first parents to be fruitful and multiply (Gn 1:28). He told us to choose life (Dt 30:19). He sent His son, Jesus, to bring us life abundantly (Jn 10:10) and to remind us that His yoke is light (Mt 11:30).

So some people claim other types of benefits from NFP. Great. That doesn't speak to other types of contraception.

Also, I would like to add that NFP has a 98-99% effectiveness rate when practiced properly. Yet, pregnancies do occur. I was practicing NFP correctly (or so I thought) when I ended up pregnant with my first child Michael.

Condoms have a "typical use" failure rate of 14-15%. They have a "perfect use" failure rate of 5%.

 

[theywhosowintears]

Why is it that before the 1930 Lambeth Conference all Christian denominations considered artificial contraceptives NOT to be morally permissable? Why did things change?

Contraceptives have changed.

A condom for example, does not kill or end life (under a christian view that life begins at conception).

I would support the use of prevenative contraception but could not condone the use of any form of contraception after conception.

We know that God knits us together in our mothers womb...

We know that He uses sperm and an egg to physically form us, both of these are require to join and become one flesh (brain spark...married people really do become one flesh...that was obvious but I just got it on a whole new level)

Witout both parts there can be no conception and no forming of a new life. So basically I am saying preventing your self from having a child is fine, aborting a life is the point where we should draw the line.

Peace

 

[msaenz]

Couples who use Natural Family Planning never remove the procreative aspect from the marital act because it goes hand-in-hand with the unitive aspect of the marital act…that’s the way God intended it to be. On the other hand, couples who contracept reduce sex to merely a pleasure-seeking sexual experience that is devoid of any true commitment and uniqueness which is present in a God-centered marriage. The reason there is no true commitment or uniqueness is because there is no “fruit” or possibility of a “fruit” from this union.

What is the difference between a couple who lives together (and not married) having sexual relations and a married couple who chooses to contracept? NONE. If there is no openness to life during sexual relations, the contracepting married couple and the couple that is fornicating are simply seeking sexual pleasure! What makes the marital act within marriage different? THE OPENNESS TO LIFE EVERY TIME THE MARITAL ACT IS PERFORMED!

 

[invisible trousers]

Couples who use Natural Family Planning never remove the procreative aspect from the marital act because it goes hand-in-hand with the unitive aspect of the marital act…that’s the way God intended it to be.

Any time any method is used to avoid contraception it is removing the procreative aspect. "Because I say so" doesn't cut it here.

On the other hand, couples who contracept reduce sex to merely a pleasure-seeking sexual experience that is devoid of any true commitment and uniqueness which is present in a God-centered marriage.

You do have scripture to back this up, right? I'm not sure where yall come from but pleasure-seeking sexual experiences are not always devoid of any true commitment and uniqueness.

The reason there is no true commitment or uniqueness is because there is no “fruit” or possibility of a “fruit” from this union.

The intention and result of contraceptives is the same no matter what method you chose. Once again, "because I say so" doesn't cut it.

What is the difference between a couple who lives together (and not married) having sexual relations and a married couple who chooses to contracept? NONE

This means that every married couple who uses any method of contraception (ie the large large large majority) is exactly the same as a non-married couple. What terrible logic.

If there is no openness to life during sexual relations, the contracepting married couple and the couple that is fornicating are simply seeking sexual pleasure!

Now we get to the crux of the issue: shame. Sexual pleasure is bad. You should be ashamed of your genitals and sexual feelings. Sexual organs should only be used for procreation and nothing else.

What makes the marital act within marriage different? THE OPENNESS TO LIFE EVERY TIME THE MARITAL ACT IS PERFORMED!

Not really, since couples who aren't married seem to be able to have kids as easily as married couples.

 

[beechy]

Couples who use Natural Family Planning never remove the procreative aspect from the marital act because it goes hand-in-hand with the unitive aspect of the marital act…that’s the way God intended it to be.

What do you mean, "because it goes hand-in-hand with the unitive aspect of the marital act"?

If you're having sex only at times you don't think the woman as fertile, you're having sex in a way that you hope will mean that she doesn't get pregnant. So you're not having sex for procreative purposes, but for "unity" and probably pleasure.

If you're having sex with a condom, you're having sex in a way that you hope will mean the woman doesn't get pregnant. So you're not having sex for procreative purposes, but for "unity" and probably pleasure.

What is the difference????? Why isn't sex with a condom just as much about unity as sex during infertile periods?

On the other hand, couples who contracept reduce sex to merely a pleasure-seeking sexual experience that is devoid of any true commitment and uniqueness which is present in a God-centered marriage. The reason there is no true commitment or uniqueness is because there is no “fruit” or possibility of a “fruit” from this union.

Condoms have a greater failure rate than you claim NFP has. Why is sex with a condom between a married couple devoid of true commitment? Why is sex during periods when they think the women is infertile a reflection of a greater commitment?

What is the difference between a couple who lives together (and not married) having sexual relations and a married couple who chooses to contracept? NONE. If there is no openness to life during sexual relations, the contracepting married couple and the couple that is fornicating are simply seeking sexual pleasure! What makes the marital act within marriage different? THE OPENNESS TO LIFE EVERY TIME THE MARITAL ACT IS PERFORMED!

But NFP is an attempt to prevent pregnancy! Why do you advocate NFP at all??? Why not just have sex whenever, and "leave it up to God"? Don't you think it's sinful to try to time sex in such a way as to avoid God's blessings? If we're talking about possibility of life in terms of respective failure rates, it's probably less sinful to use a condom, actually, since condoms are 95% effective if used perfectly, and you claim that NFP is 98-99% effective (see your earlier post).

 

[msaenz]

Any time any method is used to avoid contraception it is removing the procreative aspect. "Because I say so" doesn't cut it here.


You do have scripture to back this up, right? I'm not sure where yall come from but pleasure-seeking sexual experiences are not always devoid of any true commitment and uniqueness.

This means that every married couple who uses any method of contraception (ie the large large large majority) is exactly the same as a non-married couple. What terrible logic.

Now we get to the crux of the issue: shame. Sexual pleasure is bad. You should be ashamed of your genitals and sexual feelings. Sexual organs should only be used for procreation and nothing else.

Not really, since couples who aren't married seem to be able to have kids as easily as married couples.

The following excerpt is taken from an article called Birth Control and it can be found in the Catholic Answers website. It answers your questions and gives you some scriptures:

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

Scripture

Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the sperm on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the sperm, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of sperm outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that sperm may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)

 

[God Child]

I think contraception is wrong... to above

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Why is it that before the 1930 Lambeth Conference all Christian denominations considered artificial contraceptives NOT to be morally permissable? Why did things change?

To my knowledge most Christian denominations prior to the Lambeth Conference put out no authoratative statements-either for or against-birth control.

Care to provide primary authoratative sources to back up your assumptions?

Diane

 

[lismore]

as the times change so does society, and so do church values for the most part...

Thats true! But God's values never change.

 

[lismore]

The following excerpt is taken from an article called Birth Control and it can be found in the Catholic Answers website. It answers your questions and gives you some scriptures:

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

Scripture

Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the sperm on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the sperm, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of sperm outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that sperm may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)

Hi there

This is one of the best posts on this issue I have yet heard

Why did Jacob have 12 sons when contraceptions were available?

God Bless

Lismore

 

[lismore]

A condom for example, does not kill or end life (under a christian view that life begins at conception).


Peace

Well not all Christians believe this!

Some believe we dont all do what we like but follow God's will. Interrupting God's process for procreation purely for the purpose of sexual, physical gratification is not a Godly attitude.

Children are a gift from God- if you dont want them then dont start the process!

 

[invisible trousers]

None of that can be justified by scripture. There is nothing in the bible that says we are not allowed to have sex for fun.

Claiming that couples are somehow able to undermine God's plans regarding procreation is absolutely preposterous.

 

[beechy]

Well not all Christians believe this!

Some believe we dont all do what we like but follow God's will. Interrupting God's process for procreation purely for the purpose of sexual, physical gratification is not a Godly attitude.

Children are a gift from God- if you dont want them then dont start the process!

How about you, lismore, do you think Natural Family Planning is ok?

 

[ACADEMIC]

The piece which seemed to end this thread is based upon a view of Onan' sin which proves the opposite the author is saying it does.

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the sperm on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism"....

In actual fact, this is way off. Let's look at the Biblical passage mentioned above.

Deu 25:6 "It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that (8)his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
Deu 25:7 "(9)But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.'
Deu 25:8 "Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, 'I do not desire to take her,'
Deu 25:9 (10)then his brother's wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and (11)spit in his face; and she shall declare, 'Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.'
Deu 25:10 "In Israel his name shall be called, 'The house of him whose sandal is removed.'

In this instance, the person never took the woman as his Levirite wife. That was a shameful thing, according to the passage.

Onan, however, did take her. He attempted to avoid this shame while shamming that he had taken her to fullfill his duty. His motives were wicked so his act was.

The Onan passage says nothing of contraception as part of prudent family planning.

 

[lalala]

Why is it that before the 1930 Lambeth Conference all Christian denominations considered artificial contraceptives NOT to be morally permissable? Why did things change?

why is it before Galileo came along, it was widely believed within the church that the earth did not move? Why did things change?

 

[OD3]

The Pill I have found to be the best form of contraception. What a wonderful invention. It is statistically more safe than a condom.(of course it does not protect against STD's, just pregancy).

But if you are with someone you love, its great because you dont have to worry about falling pregnant, even if you dont use a condom. There is still the chance of falling pregnant. But its not likely.

 

[ACADEMIC]

Obviously, the Christian position is that the only one you should be with is the woman you are married to, not just "someone you love".

But that is for another thread.

 

[ACADEMIC]

The views of the Protestant reformers are unreliable on the issue of sex and modern contraception, because they were heavily influenced by not just the Bible but Neo-Platonic mysticism (otherworldliness) and Aristolean teleologism (measuring all things only by their result), philosophies they inherited from their Catholic predecessors such as Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. Keep in mind that all of these men rejected Song of Solomon as a description of passionate sexual expression within marriage.

Moreover, Christians have a long history of technophobia as evident by rejection of things ranging from buttons to airplanes ("if God meant for man to fly he would have given him wings")

Reformers' own mantra, ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda ("reformed and always reforming" ), is evidence that the church should not cystalize its position on the matter at some point in the past.

 

[Chajara]

As far as I'm concerned, having the money to raise your children isn't enough. I intend on putting mine through college so they don't have to go into massive amounts of debt or work two jobs in order to pay for it.

I cannot imagine doing that for 10 kids. I simply take a different view on contraception: I'm going to take responsibility for what I can handle. If God decides "Now wait, I think this would be a better idea." then the contraception will fail. Simple as that.