Contraception

[ChirpChirp]

Hi there, this is my first post here

I'm new and not sure if this is the correct place to post, sorry if it's not!

I've a few questions floating around in my head and here is one of them:

I'm a medical student and I am wondering why contraception is considered wrong even once you are married. I can understand that you are not meant to use it for premarital sex, but why when married? Don't get me wrong, personally I love children and can't wait to be old enough and financially able to have some, but it is not feasible in today's world at least to never have protected sex.

Some methods in which the egg is already fertilised and is unable to implant due to the contraceptive device I don't agree with and of course abortion, but condoms and contraceptive pills in my mind seem to be ok.

From a medical point of view, if I prescribe a contraceptive pill to a girl who is already having sex and in great risk of becoming pregnant is this wrong on my part, for trying to prevent a greater wrong? Or say in treating a patient with ovarian cysts, where the contraceptive pill may be used? What if said patient is also married and therefore sexually active?

Thanks for any replies!

 

[TeenageKiddo]

Hi there, this is my first post here

I'm new and not sure if this is the correct place to post, sorry if it's not!

I've a few questions floating around in my head and here is one of them:

I'm a medical student and I am wondering why contraception is considered wrong even once you are married. I can understand that you are not meant to use it for premarital sex, but why when married? Don't get me wrong, personally I love children and can't wait to be old enough and financially able to have some, but it is not feasible in today's world at least to never have protected sex.

Some methods in which the egg is already fertilised and is unable to implant due to the contraceptive device I don't agree with and of course abortion, but condoms and contraceptive pills in my mind seem to be ok.

From a medical point of view, if I prescribe a contraceptive pill to a girl who is already having sex and in great risk of becoming pregnant is this wrong on my part, for trying to prevent a greater wrong? Or say in treating a patient with ovarian cysts, where the contraceptive pill may be used? What if said patient is also married and therefore sexually active?

Thanks for any replies!

We have free will. If your will is to use contraceptives which dont actually hurt anyone or thing (Condoms ect..) then they are not morally incorrect. Anyway if the "girl" wants the pill and you give her it that is kindness(even though its your "job") in my eyes anyway. Hope this helps.

Side note, until the egg matures into a living baby (I think after 3 or 5 months) then i believe it is wrong as it is then literally human life. Until then any harm caused is just caused to cells. Which happens everytime you drink alcohol or step into sunlight(UV radiation) so i also do not see this as morally incorrect.

 

[AfanofJesus]

Hi there, this is my first post here

I'm new and not sure if this is the correct place to post, sorry if it's not!

I've a few questions floating around in my head and here is one of them:

I'm a medical student and I am wondering why contraception is considered wrong even once you are married. I can understand that you are not meant to use it for premarital sex, but why when married? Don't get me wrong, personally I love children and can't wait to be old enough and financially able to have some, but it is not feasible in today's world at least to never have protected sex.

Some methods in which the egg is already fertilised and is unable to implant due to the contraceptive device I don't agree with and of course abortion, but condoms and contraceptive pills in my mind seem to be ok.

From a medical point of view, if I prescribe a contraceptive pill to a girl who is already having sex and in great risk of becoming pregnant is this wrong on my part, for trying to prevent a greater wrong? Or say in treating a patient with ovarian cysts, where the contraceptive pill may be used? What if said patient is also married and therefore sexually active?

Thanks for any replies!

Actually I haven't heard anyone having an opinion against contraceptives today. I have only read about it from the past. Obviously I can hardly represent those believing it's wrong in a good way - I've rarely though about this subject. I mean I could understand if people would say that condoms is bad in the way that it makes it possible for people to have vaginal sex without the risk of having a child. It opening up for sin (although I'm not sure on what standpoint I have when it comes to pre-marital sex).

Although I find it, as you yourself kind of concluded, harder to see why it's a problem with protected sex in a marriage. I mean in these times when there are way more people that what we can handle (at the moment) on earth, having unprotected sex I kind of worse in a way. I believe in a God with a greater perspective than I have, I don't expect to understand all of his ways, although somehow I think that God understand why people have protected sex in a marriage. Do you God?

I don't know if this contributed in the way you'd hope, I think we'll need to wait for someone who knows more!

 

[Classical Saxophonist]

Contraception is a sin.

 

[Barricade24]

Perhaps this link will help you out.

What does the Bible say about birth control / contraceptives? Should Christians use birth control?

I didn't even know what contrecpetion was until I checked out the article.

 

[RootedInChrist]

I believe that God created sexual intercourse to, yes strengthen the bond of husband and wife, but to also procreate. There's a reason the two are linked. When you use contraception, the act is not fully what God intended it to be and can lessen the bond intended to be made. I've recently been thinking about something. I'm not saying this is right but more a question: when you take procreation out of the equation, isn't intercourse's only cause lust? Anyways, another interesting fact that I only recently found out is that, even after the schism of the main Christian Church (Martin Luther and all that), all Christian churches still taught that intercourse was immoral. In fact, this view didn't change for 2,000 years, until the 20th century. The first church changed their view of birth control in 1930 (which I think could have been linked to the women's rights movement that had culminated not too long before). That's when it created a domino effect to all the other churches. I think this change obviously came from social pressures rather than actual biblical roots. Why else would the Christian churches oppose birth control for a solid 2,000 years?
Here's an article I found interesting on the matter:
Contraception’s Dark Fruits | Catholic Answers

 

[HarborOrange]

I am so surprised that nobody has brought up an evident verse in Genesis.

Genesis 1:28-
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Pretty sure that says to have children.

Yep, 'nuff said.

 

[ChirpChirp]

To all the people who say you should only do it for children:
1. Yes I agree that a couple should have children, but it is simply not feasible from financial, health and practical reasons to NEVER have protected sex.
2. That verse was written when there were ONLY TWO HUMAN BEINGS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!! Surely we have plenty of them now??

edit: number one for both the parent's and the children's benefit! I've heard of so many cases of parents with large families being so tired out by the time they have their youngest that it's nowhere near as well looked after as say the first and second kids

 

[ChirpChirp]

As for intercourse always being a sin......my eyes almost popped out of my head when I first read the Song of Songs....somehow I don't find myself agreeing with that. Just waiting till marriage...

 

[ChirpChirp]

Y

Side note, until the egg matures into a living baby (I think after 3 or 5 months) then i believe it is wrong as it is then literally human life. Until then any harm caused is just caused to cells. Which happens everytime you drink alcohol or step into sunlight(UV radiation) so i also do not see this as morally incorrect.

Well I guess the difference here is that the bundle of cells is programmed to turn into a baby, it can't do this instantaneously but it will become a baby nevertheless. You lose cells in your body everyday but that's just wear and tear, the bigger picture, i.e. you still remains, you still have more than enough of those cells to exist in this world. Even developing babies in utero lose cells by apoptosis - that's how you get body parts like fingers! People are born with webbed fingers when they don't lose the cells they were meant to. But if you abort the bundle of cells that's programmed to turn into another human being, you remove it from its environmeant and you destry the cells that were meant to remain so effectively you are taking away its life at a point when it is powerless to fight back.

 

[Classical Saxophonist]

To all the people who say you should only do it for children:
1. Yes I agree that a couple should have children, but it is simply not feasible from financial, health and practical reasons to NEVER have protected sex.
2. That verse was written when there were ONLY TWO HUMAN BEINGS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!! Surely we have plenty of them now??

edit: number one for both the parent's and the children's benefit! I've heard of so many cases of parents with large families being so tired out by the time they have their youngest that it's nowhere near as well looked after as say the first and second kids

Christians have always realized that contraceptives, etc were sinful. Only recently have some Christians disregarded that teaching.

 

[ChirpChirp]

Christians have always realized that contraceptives, etc were sinful. Only recently have some Christians disregarded that teaching.

Yes, but let's go back to my original question of why? I understand the ones where you're harming the baby, but the methods that prevent fertilisation? It's pretty much like not having sex in the first place, the egg and sperm cells just don't meet so no harm done to the baby. What's more sinful? Having an amount of children you can cope with or having so many that they invariably live in poverty, hunger, get involved with drugs etc....? I've seen it happen. I've also seen it happen where parents are unable to keep a job any longer and have to live off social payments :?

In the Biblical times things like hormone pills (ie the oral contraceptive) didn't exist...so I suppose any contraception methods must have been abortive, which of course is a sin...

And we're told that a wife and husband should satisfy each other, so before anyone claims that you should only ever have sex with your spouse once or twice in your entire life think of that

 

[ChirpChirp]

And nobody has really answered the medical side of my question....contraception is used to treat some diseases, for example the oral contraceptive in polycystic ovarian syndrome delays the progression of the disorder, so that enough function is saved to one day have children. One of my friends is on the oral contraceptive even though she is still a virgin. Is that a sin??

 

[Girder of Loins]

Contraception is not a sin. Marriage is no longer used by God for procreation. In fact, Paul tells us that we will be more blessed if we are celibate. Contraceptives are not a sin. Abortions are, but not contraceptives.

 

[Classical Saxophonist]

Yes, but let's go back to my original question of why? I understand the ones where you're harming the baby, but the methods that prevent fertilisation? It's pretty much like not having sex in the first place, the egg and sperm cells just don't meet so no harm done to the baby. What's more sinful? Having an amount of children you can cope with or having so many that they invariably live in poverty, hunger, get involved with drugs etc....? I've seen it happen. I've also seen it happen where parents are unable to keep a job any longer and have to live off social payments :?

In the Biblical times things like hormone pills (ie the oral contraceptive) didn't exist...so I suppose any contraception methods must have been abortive, which of course is a sin...

And we're told that a wife and husband should satisfy each other, so before anyone claims that you should only ever have sex with your spouse once or twice in your entire life think of that

Sex is supposed to be procreative and unitive.

 

[Classical Saxophonist]

Contraception is not a sin. Marriage is no longer used by God for procreation. In fact, Paul tells us that we will be more blessed if we are celibate. Contraceptives are not a sin. Abortions are, but not contraceptives.

Contraception is a sin.

 

[ChirpChirp]

Sex is supposed to be procreative and unitive.

Well if you use it to have a few children it IS procreative, and then if you use it the rest of the time to strengthen the bond between husband and wife it IS unitive.

 

[Classical Saxophonist]

Well if you use it to have a few children it IS procreative, and then if you use it the rest of the time to strengthen the bond between husband and wife it IS unitive.

It has to be procreative and unitive at the same time.

 

[ChirpChirp]

It has to be procreative and unitive at the same time.

Well then answer my other questions on how you're meant to cope.

And I don't remember any phrase in the Bible that says it always has to be both at the same time. Just as long as you don't completely exclude children. In fact, it's impossible for it to always be procreative anyway due to the nature of the menstrual cycle.

 

[Classical Saxophonist]

Well then answer my other questions on how you're meant to cope.

And I don't remember any phrase in the Bible that says it always has to be both at the same time. Just as long as you don't completely exclude children. In fact, it's impossible for it to always be procreative anyway due to the nature of the menstrual cycle.

What other question?