Contraception

Do Baptists have any set belief on artificial contraception?

SouthCoast said:

I do not believe that taking "the pill" is the equivalent of abortion, which is hotly debated by some. I do not understand how using a condom and using "NFP" are in any way different from one another.

Click to expand...

Is this a "I do not understand" because you don't know, or a "I do not understand" because you know the reasons but disagree with the logic or the position?

God does not want us to mindlessly procreate with no ability to provide for the children we create. If one is able to do so, I believe they would be blessed to have as many children as they physically can. If one is unable to do so, I think they would be doing a great disservice to God and to the children that they create with no means of supporting them. Our welfare system and orphanages, etc, are full of kids whose parents had no way of giving them the life God would want them to have. That doesn't mean a spoiled life, but a provided-for life.

Click to expand...

Look, look, we agree!

In other words, I think there is such a thing as God's will for us to have personal responsibility, including the responsibility to decide WHEN and IF we should procreate.

Click to expand...

My belief is only a modification of yours in two ways. First, the "when." We certainly have free will to determine when we will have children. It is the means by which we go about exercising that will that we disagree upon.

Second, we do not have the choice about whether or not to procreate. Ok, let me phrase that in another way - we can choose not to, because we have free will, but I believe that choosing not to goes against our nature. God created us to "be fruitful and multiply." Of course that is within reason, and within our own modes of provision, as you noted above.

SouthCoast said:

I understand what the belief is, I just don't understand why it is differentiated. Both NFP and condoms are birth control methods without use of chemicals with potentially abortive effects. Both, in their own way, go against nature. Denying the urge, especially during a woman's most fertile time of the month, is in its own way unnatural.

Click to expand...

I would differentiate between going against our nature, and going against nature. NFP, if it leads a couple to deny the urge, as you say, is going against our human nature because it causes us to deny something that we would like. I would argue that denying something we would like causes a person to grow in virtue and thus in holiness. So in this way, NFP is only unnatural as it causes two people to deny themselves.

I should say that the Catholic Church teaches that there are both unitive and procreative aspects to sexual intercourse - it both brings a married couple together, and allows for the possibility of new life. That said, I think you can see the problem with condoms ... it removes the procreative aspect.

The way it was explained to me, is that even most Catholics in the U.S. get tired of NFP and eventually either give up (and probably get pregnant within a few months) or resort to birth control pills.

Click to expand...

I know many faithful Catholics who use NFP, but that aside, just because some people give up and use birth control doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean they're right.

It seems that of the birth control methods available that condoms would be the *most* natural, in that they don't actually "kill" any reproductive cells, and they don't prevent a husband and wife from being intimate and being dutiful husbands and wives, right?

BTW, I'm not married at this time, so my thoughts are basically in theory. But, I did recently have a fairly serious relationship with a Catholic girl, so we had many discussions on this, as we knew that if we were to marry, it would be a real issue.

-James

Click to expand...

The destruction of reproductive cells is certainly one of the greater evils in this whole thing. Even greater is the abortions that some birth control pills cause. I actually work in a pharmacy, and in my biological studies have looked at bc pills in some detail. You know, that is the one thing that many doctors and pharmaceutical companies don't want people to know. People know that the pill prevents pregnancy, but they don't always realize HOW it does. Honestly, I don't think a lot of Christians know that either.

I'm not married either, but as you said, these are all things one needs to think about before beginning a relationship. And I don't think that a person's relationship status has an impact upon his/her beliefs - this is a matter of moral conviction, more than anything else.

kayanne said:

I don't understand the difference between "going against our nature" and "going against nature." Our nature to desire sex is part of nature--there is absolutely nothing wrong with that desire (nor with fulfilling that desire within the proper context of marriage, of course).

Click to expand...

I probably didn't do a very good job of articulating this - it's all so clear in my head! My distinction between going against our nature and going against nature:

Going against our nature: Humans are sinners. We want what we want when we want it, and often times give little consideration to the means by which we are able to get what we want. I know that Catholics call that the sin of pride, though I'm not sure if it's referred to the same way among others. (Now I am not claiming that sex between two married partners is a bad thing, or is sinful, or anything of the sort - let me say that to begin with.)

Our nature is to want what we want (in this case sex), when we want it (any time we want it), and without the natural consequences ([unwanted] pregnancy). It's all of the good and none of the bad, and in fact, on the surface it seems ideal; but a closer look reveals otherwise.

If a person recognizes God as Creator, he can see that God established the natural order and natural processes, and he recognizes too that these processes have a purpose. What can be the result of sexual intercourse? Pregnancy, a new life. I believe God ordained it that way.

Going against nature: Nature is the natural process by which a woman can become pregnant. The purpose for my distinction here was the idea that it was somehow unnatural for a couple to abstain during a woman's fertile time. That time has a purpose, to conceive a child. But because of circumstances, a couple may not wish to conceive at a particular time - that is a choice particular to our humanity, because of our free will. If a couple is not looking to conceive, they can do one of two things: abstain, or have intercourse with birth control. Either way, the outcome is the same, and that is the argument for many against NFP.

But the two aren't the same, though they achieve the same end. I once heard it described like this: A person wants money from the bank. He can either go and withdraw money from his account, or he can go and rob the bank. Both achieve the same thing, but that is not what matters... it is how he went about getting the money. The same is true here.

What do you base your statement "denying something we would like causes a person to grow in virtue and thus in holiness" upon?

Click to expand...

Experience. Though this is also consistent with Catholic teaching. How does one grow in virtue? For me it is very simple (though not easy!), by denying self. The denial of self removes pride, as any time we can't do/get something we want, our pride is wounded.

Philosophers like Aristotle have said that "action follows being." What he means is that who we are is reflected in our actions. If I am a virtuous person, I perform virtuous acts. The repetition of virtuous acts leads us into a habit of virtue. But a non-virtuous person can also perform virtuous acts to grow in virtue. Hypothetically, for example, I do not like speaking charitably, but I know that speaking charitably is a Christian virtue. By forcing myself to speak charitably, eventhough I don't want to, I am dying to myself, bashing my pride, and developing the habit of speaking charitably. After a while it isn't so difficult, and I have grown in virtue. Virtue is characteristic of a good person.

"Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authoriity over her own body, but the husband does, and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Click to expand...

What's funny is that the scripture you just cited would be some of the best proof I could find for NFP. Let me break it down a piece at a time, if I may:

"Stop depriving one another, except for agreement for a time:" It shouldn't be manipulative, thus the agreement, and should only be for a [short period of] time.

"that you may devote yourselves to prayer:" This is exactly what Catholic couples I know do during that time. (What else could they do, you're thinking!) Many people who I have heard speak of this talk about how the time spent in prayer and abstinence leaves them with a greater respect for their partner. Men talk about how they are able to respect their wives, and see it more as a partnership, as they share in the responsibility. Often times otherwise, it's either the man or the woman making (and then practicing) birth control measures.

"and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control:" Again, abstinence shouldn't be done for a long period of time, thus the "come together again." But it is Satan's temptation through a lack of self-control that really strikes me here. Is it not a lack of self-control that would compel a person to have intercourse with birth control during a fertile time? It goes back to "I want it when I want it, the way I want it." At least that's how I see it.

but I just can't figure out why caths think it's ok to abstain to delay/avoid/effect timing of pregnancy, but it's not ok to use a condom. If caths believed in NO attempts to prevent pregnancy (including no NFP) then I would see a consistent belief, but to say NFP is ok (despite I Cor 7) but condoms aren't, seems to be one of the most contradictory illogical statements I've encountered.

Click to expand...

I hope I've touched some of this already. In short:

The Catholic Church teaches of the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual intercourse. Sexual activity has those two components, and removing one makes the activity sinful.

Condoms remove the procreative aspect, as do all other means of birth control, though there are other moral issues with things such as the pill as well. NFP doesn't do this, because if a person isn't engaging in sexual activity, he/she isn't violating either aspect.

kayanne said:

I'm trying to understand what you're saying--honestly I am!!

Well, I feel I'm heading toward the line of arguing just to prove my side correct.

Click to expand...

I know you are - you really sincerely are! If you feel like this is going to lead you to an argument, I don't want this to be an occasion for sin. But I'm not at all offended by your questions. I should say that it took me a LONG time to understand this. I saw it as being exactly the same way as you see it now. Exactly the same! I would like the opportunity to clarify and expand further, but don't want to do so if it will be a source of temptation for you.

In charity and peace,
Carrie

kayanne said:

I'm so impressed with your understanding, patience, and willingness to clarify. I'm glad we've established a certain level of trust and respect with each other so that my questions aren't misconstrued.
Yes, by all means, I would love to understand this better. We can continue chatting here, or if the amount of debate would violate forum rules, we can take it to pm.
thanks, kayanne

Click to expand...

And I am impressed with your true and genuine questions. Questions like that don't bother me at all, it's the slights of comment and malicious words that bother me in other threads; I don't have patience for things like that. In fact, my undergrad was in biology education, so I am by personality and training a teacher, though I am currently enrolled in a MA-Theology program. When trying to put my students at ease about asking their questions, I told them "I went to school for four years - ask me questions and make me feel useful." While I was only half-joking, it seemed to put them at ease. Wow, how'd I get on that.

I don't expect anyone to accept NFP on faith - as I said, the Lord knows I didn't. I don't have time to respond at length now, but I will definitely be back later today to do so. That is both a promise and a threat.

Peace,
Carrie

kayanne said:

I guess I see NFP not being for the purpose of devotion to prayer, although of course couples may use that time for prayer in bed together since they can't do anything else. If a couple truly felt that God specifically called them to abstain for the purpose of extra time in prayer, it likely wouldn't just happen to occur every month during the woman's fertile time. No, the main purpose of NFP is to try to avoid pregnancy (hence the term Natural Family Planning), not to give couples extra time and devotion to prayer.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you here. NFP's purpose, as you say, is not specifically for time devoted to prayer, though that can be (and often is) a result.

The other thiing that is confusing to me is that caths say that they aren't supposed to use NFP to avoid pregnancy for just any reason--there must be a "compelling reason," or something like that. Just because a person says "I can't afford any more kids right now" doesn't mean they truly absolutely can't afford more kids--it really just means "I don't really want our budget to be any more tight than it is right now, and I'm not willing to give up our second car and the new carpet I want in order to buy diapers and baby formula at this point in my life." Or something like that, you know what I mean?

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, of course I know what you mean. And that kind of use for NFP is sinful.

If a person believes that it is supposed to be GOD who "opens and closes" the womb, then don't try to mess with it through NFP, condoms, or anything else. And if you believe God is going to cause a pregnancy whenever He wants anyway, then why does anyone practice NFP (or use any other BC)?

Click to expand...

I never argued that God would cause pregnancy whenever he wanted. God CAN do just about anything he wants, but he has given us free will and never violates our will. He allows us to make our own choices, and to act upon his love. As you know, our choices can be good or bad - virtuous or sinful. God has a plan, but he needs our cooperation. We cooperate when we make decisions that are in line with his plan. And this goes beyond NFP, or this discussion.

I think this is one issue that may always seem hypocritical to me, to say that NFP is ok to avoid pregnancy (to remove the procreative aspect) and have some control over that aspect of your life, but condoms are sinful because they remove the procreative aspect of sex.

Click to expand...

Let me try to clarify this a bit. NFP doesn't remove the procreative aspect from sex. Any time two people have sexual intercourse, there is the possibility for conception. A couple may try to prevent conception by determining a woman's fertile time and abstaining during that time. But because they are not having sex, they are not removing that aspect. Procreation is inherent to the sexual activity itself. So you can't take away an aspect from an activity that you're not participating in. Every time they do have sex, they are open to conception.

Condoms do remove the procreative aspect. Because the sexual act is made up of both the unitive and the procreative aspect, when a condom is used, the procreative aspect is removed. Every time this couple has sex, they are not open to conception.

Do you see the difference?