Contraception

[gengwall]

This has been discussed a number of times in other places, but I would like to renew the debate here. I have several reasons for thinking this is a good forum to do so.

First, many in the secular community feel that there is a anti-contraception movement in the Christian church and that this movement is a grave threat. Although I think this exaggerated, those very same people are prevalent here and certainly have an ax to grind. Therefore, the existence and influence of this movement are a fair subtopic here as well.

Second, it certainly is an ethical and moral issue. Depending on the turth about contraception, pretty much half of the Christian church one way or another is wrong. In fact, I suspect that very few issues in the church have as much polarity (especially between leadership and congregants). So, the debate needs to happen and Ethics and Morality seems the place for it to take place.

Third, not much is known, at least by me, of how other religious systems view the issue. I am very curious how Jews, Muslims, and any other religions feel about contraception and what their justifications for those stances are.

So, let us begin.

I will start with my view. I believe that, although the bible says that children are a blessing and although God has charged us to "be fruitful and multiply", that those axioms are general to humankind and not directed at each specific couple. Furthermore, there is no direct, or IMO, even indirect condemnation of contraception in the bible (I'm sure we'll get to Onan eventually where we can flush this out). Without a direct prohibition and without a direct command, I believe God leaves it up to individual couples how to best manage their families.

Now, I suspect that my athiest friends will share this view. In fact, they may wonder why there is any question at all or why the bible should even have anything to do with it. I don't wish to cut them out of the debate, but I would prefer to concentrate on biblical and other religious justifications for moral and ethical positions. So, please join in as you see fit. But please refrain from dismissing our religious biases and arguments since it is exactly those things I wish to expose and scrutinize in this thread. In other words, depending on the religion, that religion's documents are to be treated with respect and authority at least for those within that community.

An example, if Muslims want to flush out the issue within their community, I accept that the Koran is their source of truth and I will not dismiss that source of truth for them. They may have at it within their community and I would only interject if I was curious or wanted clarification on their interpretation of their sacred texts. I expect the same level of respect for the bible or any other sacred texts. If you think this is all nonsense, feel free to say so but then please move on to other issues. We will accept that you think we are making 'much ado about nothing'.

 

[Lynden1000]

AFAIK, the Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that considers the use of artificial contraception a sin. To me, the debate isn't really about contraception, per se, but about whether Jesus really did grant the Church, and the office of the papacy, the authority to make moral pronouncements. If he did, then it doesn't really matter whether we can find any good reasons, scriptural or otherwise, for deeming contraception a sin. All that matters is that the Church, as jesus' earthly representative, has said that it is.

It's a "who has the authority..." issue.

 

[fuzzymel]

Hmm well I am childfree and got called a swine and was basically told that sex with my husband was not loving and only for self pleasure.

These people really need to get a life and stop focusing on other peoples sex lives.

If someone does not want to use contraception then thats their choice but they should not demand everyone else copy.

 

[beechy]

I posted my thoughts on this issue a while back in the Christians Only section of the forum. Here they are:

"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.

[another CF member] 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."

 

[elsbeth]

Just my opinion: It's very hypocritical for anyone to say we should let God be in control over conception if they don't let God have control over EVERYTHING ELSE. Why single out this one issue.
Second point: We have to admit, if we are at all honest, that most people do NOT give God absolute control over who they marry/have sex with. If they did, there would not be the huge divorce rate and unfaithfulness rate that exists.
So I say again, why should we single out this one issue and make such a big deal of it?

 

[christalee4]

In the United States, the history of contraception was traditionally seen as a moral issue, in that it was seen to artificially interfere with God's purpose for the sex act. Sexuality for the pleasure itself was seen as immoral, as were other sexual acts that did not result in potential insemination. Once medical science flourished and brought us knowledge about the human body, contraception, after it was legalized, was seen more of a health issue; women were not in danger of becoming pregnant multiple times and thus were less likely to die in childbirth, women were able to space out their pregnancies, and indeed were free to enjoy sex without worrying about becoming pregnant.

The abortion issue, IMO, has re-galvanized some in the fundamentalist crowd to also oppose contraception, as they see a link between contraception, abortion and sexual immorality. No doubt the small but growing "quiverfull" community was also a reaction against the perception that contraception was against God's will.

Here's a fairly article on the issue that features different opinions on the issue:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19644

A country's stance on abortion usually also pretty much determines its laws on contraception. Here is a detailed link to see what other countries and regions legislate in terms of abortion and contraception provision.

http://www.cbctrust.com/history_law_religion.php#6

 

[gengwall]

AFAIK, the Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that considers the use of artificial contraception a sin. To me, the debate isn't really about contraception, per se, but about whether Jesus really did grant the Church, and the office of the papacy, the authority to make moral pronouncements. If he did, then it doesn't really matter whether we can find any good reasons, scriptural or otherwise, for deeming contraception a sin. All that matters is that the Church, as jesus' earthly representative, has said that it is.

It's a "who has the authority..." issue.

Yes, but do they not still base their "judgements" on scirpture? I was under the assumption that they still hold the Onan incident as a scriptural condemnation of contraception. I might be wrong though.

 

[ElvisFan42]

I will start with my view. I believe that, although the bible says that children are a blessing and although God has charged us to "be fruitful and multiply", that those axioms are general to humankind and not directed at each specific couple. Furthermore, there is no direct, or IMO, even indirect condemnation of contraception in the bible (I'm sure we'll get to Onan eventually where we can flush this out). Without a direct prohibition and without a direct command, I believe God leaves it up to individual couples how to best manage their families.

I believe that's a great belief. I also believe that if you think contraception is a sin, you have the right to not use any, just don't tell me I can't.

 

[katautumn]

Catholics are not the only Christian sect that condemns the use of artificial contraception, even though it is the only mainstream Christian denomination that universally condemns it. You will find such a broad spectrum of convictions and opinions in the Christian community. The usually fall into a few categories and are not exclusive to any one Christian sect:

1. All forms of birth control are acceptable so long as the couple agrees upon it.
2. Hormonal contraceptives are not acceptable, but barrier methods and Natural Family Planning are acceptable.
3. Natural Family Planning (abstaining from intercourse duirng ovulation) is acceptable, but hormonal and barrier methods are not.
4. No form of birth control is acceptable, including NFP. Most people who adopt this viewpoint are part of the quiverfull movement. Quiverfull families have a strong faith that God will not give them any more children than they can handle and welcome each pregnancy. They make no attempts to prevent pregnancy and just enjoy regular intercourse with their spouse. If pregnancy is the result, they accept it. If pregnancy is not the result, then they still accept it.

Personally, I don't know if there is such a thing as an immoral contraceptive device.

 

[TooCurious]

I don't really see how the Onan story, interpreted strictly, can be taken as a condemnation of contraception (or masturbation, for that matter, which is the other topic in which it arises). I've read over that story a couple of times, and I've always understood Onan's sin to be his refusal to impregnate his brother's wife, because that child would be treated as his brother's and not his own, according to the customs of their culture. In other words, his refusal to give his brother a child, rather than the act of wasting seed, was the sin, as I understood it. Thoughts?

 

[ElvisFan42]

I don't really see how the Onan story, interpreted strictly, can be taken as a condemnation of contraception (or masturbation, for that matter, which is the other topic in which it arises). I've read over that story a couple of times, and I've always understood Onan's sin to be his refusal to impregnate his brother's wife, because that child would be treated as his brother's and not his own, according to the customs of their culture. In other words, his refusal to give his brother a child, rather than the act of wasting seed, was the sin, as I understood it. Thoughts?

You're right, it isn't about either. What you've witnessed is people twisting the Bible for thier own means.

 

[gengwall]

"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.

...

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.

Excellent thoughts and thank you. I want to add some to the selected comments above.

I, too, think that the command in Genesis 1:28 (if it even is a command which is grammatically debateable) applies to the human race in general, and not to each specific marriage. I see several very troubling paradoxes if it indeed applies to the individual marriages and I would be interested in how the other side would solve these.

The "set up to fail" paradox. If "be fruitful and multiply" is a command for every marriage, and if God is the opener and closer of wombs, then God purposely sets up some marriages to fail His command by closing the wombs of the women. Indeed, anyone who is infertile has been set up to sin by God if this command applies to them.

The "not quite good enough" paradox. If we take seriously the "multiply" component in the command, then each set of parents (and that could be 2 or more in ancient marriages) must produce at least one more offspring than the total parents in the family. To fail to produce enough to multiply the race is to fail the command even is there are children in the family. A review of scripture reveals quite an impressive list of families who have "come up short". Just a short list:

Isaac & Rebekah
Joseph & Asenath
Dan & his wife
Moses & Zipporah
Elimelech & Naomi
Boaz & Ruth
Zachariah & Elizabeth

If it is a sin to not increase the population than why is the sin of these families not exposed? Why no condemnation for their failure to "multiply"?

The "called to serve" paradox. Although the marital relationships of Jesus' disciples are not detailed in the bible, it is certain that some, maybe most, possibly all, were married. Most commentators also believe that it is virtually impossible that Paul was not married due to his position in the religious hierarchy. The fact that he speaks of singleness later is due to the gifts received at his conversion. So, if the purpose of marriage is to procreate, how could Jesus call these men out of their God commanded duty? Did Jesus lead these men into sin by taking them away from their wives?

Dilema's such as these abound both in scripture and in the here and now if we interpret Genesis 1:28 to be a literal command meant for every set of parents.

 

[gengwall]

I don't really see how the Onan story, interpreted strictly, can be taken as a condemnation of contraception (or masturbation, for that matter, which is the other topic in which it arises). I've read over that story a couple of times, and I've always understood Onan's sin to be his refusal to impregnate his brother's wife, because that child would be treated as his brother's and not his own, according to the customs of their culture. In other words, his refusal to give his brother a child, rather than the act of wasting seed, was the sin, as I understood it. Thoughts?

It's a little trickier than that. Onan did have a way out which would have brought him humiliation only, and not death. He could have openly refused to marry Tamar. Instead, he did something far, far worse. By pretending to fulfill his duty to the public while covertly refusing behind closed doors, he mocked the law, and therefore mocked God, defrauded his brother, and beared false witness to the community. It was for these far greater sins that his punishment was so severe.

My conclusion about the Onan incident is that the means he employed to accomplish his sin are irrelevant. The ends don't condemn the means. There are many ways in which he could have accomplished his deceit that in and of themselves are perfectly fine. It is not the action that is sinful but the outcome. Onan was killed for fraud, idolatry, covetessness, lying, and figuratively giving God the finger. How he went about doing that is beside the point.

 

[katautumn]

Gengwall did an excellent job explaining how Onan's sin went beyond what most people interpret to be the "spilling of seed".

Interestingly enough, that passage isn't typically what the Catholic Church bases its stance about birth control on. The Catholic church's position on birth control is that is removes a fundamental aspect of human sexuality - which is the reproductive aspect. In essence, the Catholic Church believes that when a married couple come together intimately, they should be open to the possibility of pregnancy. Artificial birth control almost completely removes that potential. In Genesis, it speaks about how God opens and closes the womb. This is the basis on which many Christians, not just the Catholic church, consider birth control to be a sinful override of God's will.

 

[ebia]

If we take seriously the "multiply" component in the command, then each set of parents (and that could be 2 or more in ancient marriages) must produce at least one more offspring than the total parents in the family.

I suppose you could take it literally, but get around the problem by noting that it doesn't say what to multiply by:
Don't want children - multiply by 0
Want one child - multiply by 1/2
Want two children - multiply by 1
etc.

On the other hand, we could say that the authors of Genesis would probably only have recognised whole-number multipliers of two or more. So perhaps all families with less than 4 children, and all families with an odd number of children, are sinning.

 

[ebia]

Gengwall did an excellent job explaining how Onan's sin went beyond what most people interpret to be the "spilling of seed".

Interestingly enough, that passage isn't typically what the Catholic Church bases its stance about birth control on. The Catholic church's position on birth control is that is removes a fundamental aspect of human sexuality - which is the reproductive aspect. In essence, the Catholic Church believes that when a married couple come together intimately, they should be open to the possibility of pregnancy. Artificial birth control almost completely removes that potential. In Genesis, it speaks about how God opens and closes the womb. This is the basis on which many Christians, not just the Catholic church, consider birth control to be a sinful override of God's will.

The bit I don't get is why this applies in this particular case and not generally. We don't have a problem with people taking preventative measures against other undisired consquences of their actions. We don't say "wearing a hat removes a fundamental aspect of going out in the sun - ie sunstoke. Wearing a hat is a sinful overriding of God's will to make you ill if he wants to". What basis could there be other than an Ad-hoc ruling from Vatican City for applying it here and nowhere else.

A cynical view is that the ruling is a product of a church run solely by unmarried, celibate, old men who don't like the idea of people having sex for pleasure.

 

[gengwall]

Gengwall did an excellent job explaining how Onan's sin went beyond what most people interpret to be the "spilling of seed".

Interestingly enough, that passage isn't typically what the Catholic Church bases its stance about birth control on. The Catholic church's position on birth control is that is removes a fundamental aspect of human sexuality - which is the reproductive aspect. In essence, the Catholic Church believes that when a married couple come together intimately, they should be open to the possibility of pregnancy. Artificial birth control almost completely removes that potential. In Genesis, it speaks about how God opens and closes the womb. This is the basis on which many Christians, not just the Catholic church, consider birth control to be a sinful override of God's will.

Thanks Kat. That's very interesting. Of course, we could turn the Catholic Church's position on it's head I think. I believe such a position squelches the other fundimental aspects of human seuxality - pleasure, emotional bonding, relationship building. Having such a singular focus on procreation reduces sex to an almost heartless duty. Certainly not what God had in mind.

 

[Lynden1000]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, the Catholic Church doesn't really need to explain why artificial contraception is sinful. All that matters is that this is (according to their theology) what God has proclaimed through the vehicle of the Church.

For example, had i been an ancient Hebrew, I might have had no clue why Moses was telling me some act was sinful, but my inability to understand is irrelevent. All that matters is that God proclaimed it as such, using Moses as his agent. Likewise, the disciples might not have understood why Jesus declared this or that good or bad; but it was understood that he had the authority to speak on behalf of God, and that's all that mattered.

*You* are unable to understand these things. That's why God has gifted the Church with the ability and authority to make these decisions.

 

[gengwall]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, the Catholic Church doesn't really need to explain why artificial contraception is sinful. All that matters is that this is (according to their theology) what God has proclaimed through the vehicle of the Church.

For example, had i been an ancient Hebrew, I might have had no clue why Moses was telling me some act was sinful, but my inability to understand is irrelevent. All that matters is that God proclaimed it as such, using Moses as his agent. Likewise, the disciples might not have understood why Jesus declared this or that good or bad; but it was understood that he had the authority to speak on behalf of God, and that's all that mattered.

*You* are unable to understand these things. That's why God has gifted the Church with the ability and authority to make these decisions.

Of course, the error in this is obvious. Anytime anyone in leadership gets a moral (or immoral) burr in thier saddle, they can dictate such morality on the masses without having to support it scripturally. One can think of any number of ridiculous propositions which are clearly NOT forbidden but which could be declared forbidden simply because the church says so.

Let's see, I can't resist at least one. The Pope in his infallible wisdom has determined through much prayer and deep study of the Word that writing your name in the snow while peeing outside is an immoral afront to God.

The other obvious error is that Moses', Jesus', and the epistle writer's God given moral instructions are the very thing that make up the scriptures. We can take what they say as God's truth because it is God breathed and God authored. That can not be said of any extra-biblical teaching. The bible, not man, is my only source for truth.

Of course, you knew that because you were just playing devil's advocate. Actually, come to think of it, you were playing God's advocate by using the church's own argument to expose their error. Bravo.

 

[Abiel]

Just wanted to say, I think contraception is fantastic. I thnk reliable contraceptiion has been on of the most significant blessings of the last century- responsible for huge improvements in women's health and well-being throughout the world.