Is Birth Control Sin?

[porcupine]

Treasures from Heaven

If wives were bearing gold nuggets, would any Christian be practicing birth control?

No, most Christians have no problem receiving those things God calls blessings.

Look at the blessings in just a single verse, Deuteronomy 28:11: “And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee.” (KJV)

I don’t know even one Christian who would have difficulty receiving the following from that list:

1. Plenteous in goods,
2. Plenteous in the fruit of thy cattle,
3. Plenteous in the fruit of thy ground, and
4. Plenteous in land.

However, they suddenly turn pale at the mention of “fruit of the body” (read: children), but this blessing is not limited to this scripture. Let’s look at another verse:

Psalms 127:3: “Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” (KJV)

Why is it that out of all these, there is only one blessing that today’s Christian seems to be willing to limit or forgo? When was the last time you heard of someone asking God not to give him more goods or money or lands?

Doesn’t that signal something to you?

Perhaps there is an Enemy who has convinced Christians that they don’t want children. When God planned to bring Moses on the scene, there arose a spiritual attempt to stop him before he started. (Exodus 1) When Jesus was born, again there was a demonic attempt to stop Him. (Matthew 2)

When I first got saved and ran up against these verses, I said, “Well, if children are a blessing and a reward from God, then I want as many of those as I can get!” While I had formerly liked the idea of a large family, these words sealed it. I could not (and cannot) image anyone in their right mind saying “no” to God’s blessings and rewards.

“Thou shalt . . .”

The ancient Jewish rabbis used to call it the First Mishna (commandment).

Genesis 1:27-28: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .” (KJV)


The very first commandment given by God was to be fruitful and multiply and “fill” the earth. The command is never withdrawn.

Certainly the average American Christian couple with their 1.7 children haven’t even come close to filling their own houses, much less filling the earth.

The command is repeated to Noah (Genesis 8: 17) after the flood – and thus to all his descendants.

I believe that the fact that everything God touched “teemed” with life and was commanded to be fruitful and multiply, that we get a good look at God’s mindset about how much “life” – especially life in His image – He wants around.

The Purpose of Sex

Hang on to your hats, because some of you are not going to like this. While this subject could use a complete treatment of its own, it has specific applicability here.

As with the First Mishna, I derive a lot of my understanding of God’s thinking by looking at how it was “in the beginning.” I got this idea from the way that Jesus handled the issue of divorce. (Mark 10: 5-9)

Reading the entirety of the account of the creation of Eve, there are only two things God focuses on – unity (become one flesh) and procreation (be fruitful and multiply). Both of these references involve sexual intercourse. In the New Testament, Paul states that one who would have sex with a harlot has “become one” with her. (1 Corintians 6: 16)

These indicate God’s purpose for sex. “Pleasure” is not even mentioned.

At this point, I fear I must digress because someone is bound to think that I am opposed to sex being pleasurable. Far from it. I only state that nowhere in Scripture can it be seen that pleasure is a purpose of sex. I often say, tongue in cheek, that mankind is so corrupt and lazy that if God had not made sex pleasurable, humanity would have been extinguished in two generations.

The best illustration of what I mean when I say that pleasure is not a purpose is food. The purpose of food is life-giving nourishment. That purpose could easily be filled by some kind of enriched porridge. In fact, if God was as anti-pleasure as some make Him out to be, He would have made all food taste the same. However, our great God has provided us with nearly infinite possibilities of wonderful tastes.

What would you say, though, to someone who ate only for the taste, then purged himself afterwards? What would you say to someone who insisted on eating things that did not nourish the body (perhaps, plastic) and nothing else?

This person would be a pervert as much as a homosexual who abuses his sexuality for improper pleasures.

Deliberately barren sex is the same kind of violation of the nature of the sex act. While no one says that sex is limited to procreation, when one seeks to limit procreation during sex, an integral part is left out.

The same would be true if you left out the unity of the sex act. This would be true of forcing your spouse to have sex. This also is perversion.

It would seem to me that any sex should not only be between one husband and his one wife (as it was in the beginning), it should also reflect the two apparent purposes of God in sex – unity and procreation. That is, no completed sex act between husband and wife should deliberately limit or exclude either purpose.

Warfare

Psalms 127:4-5: “As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”(KJV)

Consider that God likened children to arrows used as weapons of war. Why?

In biblical times, a soldier with a sword was charged with holding the ground on which he stood. A sword is not a good weapon to use to advance on the battlefield. The usual method was for the swordsman to hold the ground and for the archers, standing behind the lines, to let loose a flurry of arrows ahead of the line making it possible for the swordsman then to advance.

We are in a war. We, with the Word of God, are able to stand our ground, but what of the future? Will our gains be for naught when we die off? Not if we raise up arrows in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and launch them into that future to carry on the work and advance the Kingdom.

Does this sound like something that Satan would like to stop? Wouldn’t he prefer that we are “conformed to this world” in our belief that children are a burden? I would venture to say so. While Satan’s children openly kill their babies, Christians, under the same reasoning either kill them unawares through abortifacient birth control or “limit” their families – thus limiting their ability to continue the war against Satan.
Stewardship

If there is one common refrain I hear from Christians when I tell them about the biblical evidence against birth control, it is summed up in the word “stewardship.” The basic argument is this: “We have a duty to exercise proper stewardship over our households so that we can properly raise the children we have balanced with all our needs, our ministries, and the resources God has given to us.”

Let us examine the central “stewardship” teaching of the Bible – Matt 25: 14-30. Here we see the lord distributing to the servants those talents that they are to administer.

The most glaring error that this story shows in the traditional “stewardship” argument is that it is the Lord, not the steward, Who decides what is placed into the servant’s hands. There is no complaint from the first steward that he might not be able to handle five talents and would prefer only three. Such an admission would likely get him tossed.

Then we see the servant with one talent. Maybe he thought the one talent was too much. The way he treated it, he may well as not had it in the first place.

You see, we are in a relationship with a great King. He alone decides what capabilities we have. He alone knows the future. He alone knows whether it is important to His plan that you have one child or ten. He alone knows whether you can “afford” them.

So what if you have five kids whom you cannot afford to send through college? Is college so necessary to His plan for them? What soothsayer revealed this future knowledge to you?

Is your doctor saying your pregnancy is risky? Are they saying another pregnancy could kill you? It is your Lord, Whom you trust, Who knows. Was He surprised when Rachel died in bearing Benjamin? Was not Benjamin crucial to God’s plan?

What about a pregnancy that could cause some deformity in your child? Does this prospect daunt God? Does He have no plan for a child who is handicapped? As to “protecting” the child from possible injury, which injury is greater, living with a handicap and being able to serve God or being “protected” out of existence? This is like the pro-aborts who say that having an abortion was “what was best for the child.”

No amount of human reasoning or wisdom can replace His omniscience. God’s plans are inscrutable to the human mind. They encompass more than the blip of time we inhabit.

No. We have no competence in being stewards over who is and is not born. If we did, then we could decide which abortions were warranted. Life and death are in God’s hands alone.

We are not competent to know the future.

Closing

My intention here is not to condemn people for sinning in using birth control. My hope is that Christians will revisit the matter. The whole Church (all denominations) opposed all birth control up until 1930. They had good reasons. Do we know them? Have we considered them – or have we just surrendered blindly to the cultural myopia of the Whig Theory of History?

I can only hope that some of what I have written will get the ball rolling.

Should you come to the conclusion that birth control is sin, that may be dealt with by confession and repentance. (1 John 1: 9)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Orthodox Judaism frowns on contraception. It is not generally permitted unless there is some overriding health concern (i.e. pregnancy would place the mother's mental or physical health and/or life at risk); non-barrier methods are acceptable in such cases (barrier methods are not). An orthodox Jewish couple wishing to use birth control, for whatever reason, would have to ask their LOR (Local Orthodox Rabbi) for a ruling. There are grounds for leniency (vis-a-vis a ruling on whether or not a given couple may use birth control) in cases unrelated to maternal health if the LOR is satisfied that the couple are committed to having children and/or if they already have children and wish/need to space births (or if having additional children would place undue hardship on the family). Since sexual relations outside of marriage is prohibited in (orthodox) Judaism, the use of birth control by unmarried individuals is not an issue. (The flipside of this is that orthodox Judaism has always encouraged early marriage.)

Porcupine, I'm afraid that you may have misrepresented the traditional (i.e. orthodox) view of sex. See the thread I started on just that topic: http://www.christianforums.com/t53072. I'll cite one brief excerpt:

Orthodox Judaism takes a very positive view of both procreational and recreational sexual relations between a husband and wife, in the context of a loving marriage and as per the Torah's laws on "family purity." Lemme explain.

From Exodus 21:10, our Sages teach that a Jewish husband owes his wife three things: food, clothing & sexual relations. Indeed, the Jewish view of sex is that it is the wife's right & the husband's obligation to meet that right and NOT the other way 'round. Our Sages teach that when a husband & wife unite in the act of love, the Divine Presence rests upon them. Recreational sex can, and should be, one of the ways that a husband & wife become closer to each other (figuratively; the literal is obvious) & deepen their mutual love and respect for each other (the respect part is crucial). Thus, it is a positive Torah precept even for a couple which cannot bring their own biological children into the world (i.e., one or both partners are infertile, or the wife is post-menopausal, etc.) to have sexual relations (such as described above) on a regular basis. The positive Torah precept to procreate is something else.

Be well!

ssv

 

[porcupine]

Thanks for the info. I knew about the Jewish view of the husband's obligation and the recreational aspects of sex. However, the Orthodox Jewish practice TODAY is not the way it has been in the past. My sources indicate that all sexual activity was to be open to procreation because of the first Mishna.

 

[Blissman]

Treasures from Heaven

If wives were bearing gold nuggets, would any Christian be practicing birth control?

Yes, because birth control is not about men dominating a woman's ability to reproduce. Birth control is about babies, and Hedonism. The decision to use birth control is made by both sexes.

No, most Christians have no problem receiving those things God calls blessings.

Look at the blessings in just a single verse, Deuteronomy 28:11: “And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee.” (KJV)

I don’t know even one Christian who would have difficulty receiving the following from that list:

Aside from food and shelter, the "plenetous in goods" has to do with greed. Most people are greedy.


1. Plenteous in goods,
2. Plenteous in the fruit of thy cattle,
3. Plenteous in the fruit of thy ground, and
4. Plenteous in land.

However, they suddenly turn pale at the mention of “fruit of the body” (read: children),

An interesting question might be: Is the fruit of the body limited to reproduction? Is pleasure (from sex) a fruit of the body?

but this blessing is not limited to this scripture. Let’s look at another verse:

Psalms 127:3: “Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” (KJV)

Why is it that out of all these, there is only one blessing that today’s Christian seems to be willing to limit or forgo? When was the last time you heard of someone asking God not to give him more goods or money or lands?

Doesn’t that signal something to you?

Perhaps there is an Enemy who has convinced Christians that they don’t want children. When God planned to bring Moses on the scene, there arose a spiritual attempt to stop him before he started. (Exodus 1) When Jesus was born, again there was a demonic attempt to stop Him. (Matthew 2)

When I first got saved and ran up against these verses, I said, “Well, if children are a blessing and a reward from God, then I want as many of those as I can get!” While I had formerly liked the idea of a large family, these words sealed it.

I could not (and cannot) image anyone in their right mind saying “no” to God’s blessings and rewards.

I can. It's called food. It's called shelter. It's called clothing. It costs a lot of money to raise a child. If you cannot afford to pay for it, all of your children will suffer.

I seriously doubt that you could convince a married, or an unmarried couple to listen to you telling them what they may and may not do in their bedroom.



“Thou shalt . . .”

The ancient Jewish rabbis used to call it the First Mishna (commandment).

Genesis 1:27-28: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .” (KJV)


The very first commandment given by God was to be fruitful and multiply and “fill” the earth. The command is never withdrawn.

Certainly the average American Christian couple with their 1.7 children haven’t even come close to filling their own houses, much less filling the earth.

The command is repeated to Noah (Genesis 8: 17) after the flood – and thus to all his descendants.

I believe that the fact that everything God touched “teemed” with life and was commanded to be fruitful and multiply, that we get a good look at God’s mindset about how much “life” – especially life in His image – He wants around.

The Purpose of Sex

Hang on to your hats, because some of you are not going to like this. While this subject could use a complete treatment of its own, it has specific applicability here.

As with the First Mishna, I derive a lot of my understanding of God’s thinking by looking at how it was “in the beginning.” I got this idea from the way that Jesus handled the issue of divorce. (Mark 10: 5-9)

Reading the entirety of the account of the creation of Eve, there are only two things God focuses on – unity (become one flesh) and procreation (be fruitful and multiply). Both of these references involve sexual intercourse. In the New Testament, Paul states that one who would have sex with a harlot has “become one” with her. (1 Corintians 6: 16)

These indicate God’s purpose for sex. “Pleasure” is not even mentioned.

At this point, I fear I must digress because someone is bound to think that I am opposed to sex being pleasurable. Far from it. I only state that nowhere in Scripture can it be seen that pleasure is a purpose of sex. I often say, tongue in cheek, that mankind is so corrupt and lazy that if God had not made sex pleasurable, humanity would have been extinguished in two generations.

The best illustration of what I mean when I say that pleasure is not a purpose is food. The purpose of food is life-giving nourishment. That purpose could easily be filled by some kind of enriched porridge. In fact, if God was as anti-pleasure as some make Him out to be, He would have made all food taste the same. However, our great God has provided us with nearly infinite possibilities of wonderful tastes.

What would you say, though, to someone who ate only for the taste, then purged himself afterwards? What would you say to someone who insisted on eating things that did not nourish the body (perhaps, plastic) and nothing else?

This person would be a pervert as much as a homosexual who abuses his sexuality for improper pleasures.

Deliberately barren sex is the same kind of violation of the nature of the sex act. While no one says that sex is limited to procreation, when one seeks to limit procreation during sex, an integral part is left out.

The same would be true if you left out the unity of the sex act. This would be true of forcing your spouse to have sex. This also is perversion.

It would seem to me that any sex should not only be between one husband and his one wife (as it was in the beginning), it should also reflect the two apparent purposes of God in sex – unity and procreation. That is, no completed sex act between husband and wife should deliberately limit or exclude either purpose.

Warfare

Psalms 127:4-5: “As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”(KJV)

Consider that God likened children to arrows used as weapons of war. Why?

In biblical times, a soldier with a sword was charged with holding the ground on which he stood. A sword is not a good weapon to use to advance on the battlefield. The usual method was for the swordsman to hold the ground and for the archers, standing behind the lines, to let loose a flurry of arrows ahead of the line making it possible for the swordsman then to advance.

We are in a war. We, with the Word of God, are able to stand our ground, but what of the future? Will our gains be for naught when we die off? Not if we raise up arrows in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and launch them into that future to carry on the work and advance the Kingdom.

Does this sound like something that Satan would like to stop? Wouldn’t he prefer that we are “conformed to this world” in our belief that children are a burden? I would venture to say so. While Satan’s children openly kill their babies, Christians, under the same reasoning either kill them unawares through abortifacient birth control or “limit” their families – thus limiting their ability to continue the war against Satan.
Stewardship

If there is one common refrain I hear from Christians when I tell them about the biblical evidence against birth control, it is summed up in the word “stewardship.” The basic argument is this: “We have a duty to exercise proper stewardship over our households so that we can properly raise the children we have balanced with all our needs, our ministries, and the resources God has given to us.”

Let us examine the central “stewardship” teaching of the Bible – Matt 25: 14-30. Here we see the lord distributing to the servants those talents that they are to administer.

The most glaring error that this story shows in the traditional “stewardship” argument is that it is the Lord, not the steward, Who decides what is placed into the servant’s hands. There is no complaint from the first steward that he might not be able to handle five talents and would prefer only three. Such an admission would likely get him tossed.

Then we see the servant with one talent. Maybe he thought the one talent was too much. The way he treated it, he may well as not had it in the first place.

You see, we are in a relationship with a great King. He alone decides what capabilities we have. He alone knows the future. He alone knows whether it is important to His plan that you have one child or ten. He alone knows whether you can “afford” them.

So what if you have five kids whom you cannot afford to send through college? Is college so necessary to His plan for them? What soothsayer revealed this future knowledge to you?

Is your doctor saying your pregnancy is risky? Are they saying another pregnancy could kill you? It is your Lord, Whom you trust, Who knows. Was He surprised when Rachel died in bearing Benjamin? Was not Benjamin crucial to God’s plan?

What about a pregnancy that could cause some deformity in your child? Does this prospect daunt God? Does He have no plan for a child who is handicapped? As to “protecting” the child from possible injury, which injury is greater, living with a handicap and being able to serve God or being “protected” out of existence? This is like the pro-aborts who say that having an abortion was “what was best for the child.”

No amount of human reasoning or wisdom can replace His omniscience. God’s plans are inscrutable to the human mind. They encompass more than the blip of time we inhabit.

No. We have no competence in being stewards over who is and is not born. If we did, then we could decide which abortions were warranted. Life and death are in God’s hands alone.

We are not competent to know the future.

Closing

My intention here is not to condemn people for sinning in using birth control. My hope is that Christians will revisit the matter. The whole Church (all denominations) opposed all birth control up until 1930. They had good reasons. Do we know them? Have we considered them – or have we just surrendered blindly to the cultural myopia of the Whig Theory of History?

I can only hope that some of what I have written will get the ball rolling.

Should you come to the conclusion that birth control is sin, that may be dealt with by confession and repentance. (1 John 1: 9)[/QUOTE]
When abortion may be moral in the biblical sense: Sometimes there is a medical reason where, if a pregnancy were to continue it, would likely cause
the death of both the mother and the child. If by perfoming an abortion you save one life instead of loosing two lives, then in that case, it would seem that abortion is moral. It isn't possible for man to know when it is so that an abortion would save one life. Would you put an M.D. on trial for making a judgement call and he was wrong? I know of a case where a young girl became pregnant at an early age. She was afraid to tell her parents because she was afraid of her parents (who were very strict about sex). She became suicidal, and tried to kill herself. They performed an abortion on her (it was her wish) because they were afraid that even with therapy, she may attempt suicide due to her pregnancy. I wouldn't know how to judge that - maybe they were right.

I find one flaw in your argument: It is too simple. Life, birth control, and abortion is far more complicated. I don't see how you can pass judgements on people unless you know all of the facts. The Lord knows all of the facts. This leaves us with a dilemma. As we don't know all of the facts, what are we supposed to do about the actions of others? That is not an easy question to answer. It is easy to answer this: You control the way that you conduct your life. Choose.

BTW, what would you propose to do about birth control in other faiths? What about birth control and abortions other countries?

Do you really want to do something about it? Help eliminate poverty, starvation, a lack of medicine, housing, and clean drinking water, so that parents and their children die because they cannot eat.
Do something about it. Because you can.

"To save a life is to save the world entire" - the Talmud see the brit (the covenant).

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Porcupine, I must correct you on two counts:

The ancient Jewish rabbis used to call it the First Mishna (commandment).

The positive precept to procreate is the first precept (positive or negative) in the Torah. The translation of precept is mitzvah, not mishnah. For a list of all 613 precepts, see http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm. (The Mishnah is something else entirely.)

However, the Orthodox Jewish practice TODAY is not the way it has been in the past. My sources indicate that all sexual activity was to be open to procreation because of the first Mishna.

This is incorrect. That the first precept concerns procreation does not[i/] preclude sexual intercourse between husband & wife from from fulfilling other purposes as well. This has always been the normative, traditional Jewish view; the modern Orthodox Jewish view of sex is not an innovation. What "sources" to the contrary are you referring to?

Be well!

ssv

 

[Blissman]

First of all, there are people claiming to know THE Truth, and for that matter the correct interpretation of the scriptures. This is disturbing, because, in fact no one speaks for The Lord. As what frequently happens when people claim to know THE TRUTH is that they become self-rightous and think that everyone else is 'The Hell wrong and will burn in hell if their OPINION differs from that of mine'. Chill out please, and respect others.

 

[porcupine]

Hi all!

Porcupine, I must correct you on two counts:



The positive precept to procreate is the first precept (positive or negative) in the Torah. The translation of precept is mitzvah, not mishnah. For a list of all 613 precepts, see http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm. (The Mishnah is something else entirely.)



This is incorrect. That the first precept concerns procreation does not[i/] preclude sexual intercourse between husband & wife from from fulfilling other purposes as well. This has always been the normative, traditional Jewish view; the modern Orthodox Jewish view of sex is not an innovation. What "sources" to the contrary are you referring to?

Be well!

ssv

Thanks for the correction on Mishna/Mitzva. I was crossing the two. My reading on this issue was quite a while ago so I cannot lay my hands on my source materials anymore. There was no denial in my piece that sex had other purposes, though. However, the older tradition was that it be left open to procreation at all times. In modern times, we have fallen into the If-We-CAN-Do-It-We-MUST-Do-It Syndrome. Since various forms of BC are possible today where they weren't before, we feel compelled to make use of them. Even the modern Orthodox have fallen into this. But notice your first post how they require counseling with the local rabbi and that the decision is not one where the couples simply decides, nor where all reasons are acceptable. This should signal you that, even in modern times, BC is considered a very serious step. That being so, imagine how it was viewed in earlier times. In addition, I wonder if a lot of rabbis are aware that both the chemical BC available and the IUD are abortifacient.

 

[feral]

I do not understand how anyone in good conscience could say that birth control was sinful. There are thousands of unwanted children *not just babies folks!* who are languishing in foster homes waiting to be adopted. There are thousands of abortions being performed. There are also teenagers and women of all ages and status who either cannot afford a baby or don't want a baby but are pregnant. Birth control at least prevents some of this. Telling people that it is a sin is crazy.

 

[porcupine]

First of all, there are people claiming to know THE Truth, and for that matter the correct interpretation of the scriptures. This is disturbing, because, in fact no one speaks for The Lord. As what frequently happens when people claim to know THE TRUTH is that they become self-rightous and think that everyone else is 'The Hell wrong and will burn in hell if their OPINION differs from that of mine'. Chill out please, and respect others.

One thing I have learned about people here at ChristianForums is that they do not bother to actually read someone's ideas before blathering out opposition. In the first place, I was addressing Christians. In the second place, I did not claim THE truth or concemn anyone. In fact, something you, Blissman, went off in your blissful ignorance of my comments in the original post, to wit:

My intention here is not to condemn people for sinning in using birth control. My hope is that Christians will revisit the matter. The whole Church (all denominations) opposed all birth control up until 1930. They had good reasons. Do we know them? Have we considered them – or have we just surrendered blindly to the cultural myopia of the Whig Theory of History?

I can only hope that some of what I have written will get the ball rolling.

Should you come to the conclusion that birth control is sin, that may be dealt with by confession and repentance. (1 John 1: 9)

 

[porcupine]

I do not understand how anyone in good conscience could say that birth control was sinful. There are thousands of unwanted children *not just babies folks!* who are languishing in foster homes waiting to be adopted. There are thousands of abortions being performed. There are also teenagers and women of all ages and status who either cannot afford a baby or don't want a baby but are pregnant. Birth control at least prevents some of this. Telling people that it is a sin is crazy.

I am asserting that BC may be unbiblical and possibly sinful. The post was obviousl aimed at Christians for their consideration.

You might not know this but the Pill (all forms) as well as the IUD are abortifacient, so those forms of BC are already excluded for Christians.

 

[Nathan David]

So what if a husband and wife have two kids and they are not financially prepared to care for another one at this time? Should they abstain from sex altogether?

 

[Dancn4him]

Thank you for your posting this! I to do not believe in man made birth control, for many reasons. Mostly because the pill messed up my cycle,and it is nearly imposible for me to conceve.I have yet to do so even on meds! My thought process at the time was to not have kids during our first 3 years of our marrige. I am now 35,and still no children! We are turning to adoption after I finish college. (I still believe God will belss us to conceve someday!)

My father Make my mother get an abortion. He said its the baby or me! My mom had us 2 kids,and no job or education. So she did what she thought what was right, in order to feed us,and keep a home for us! She regrets doing it! Crys to this day! Even though she is born again, it still is a sore spot! I miss my sister,"Joy"! (Yes, we found out the sex by the doctors mastake.)I hope to see her someday in heaven! There is a missing piece of my heart living in heaven with her!

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Porcupine, you posted:

However, the older tradition was that it be left open to procreation at all times.

Actually, there is a very old discussion in the rabbinical literature (in the Mishnah, which was codified in the late second century CE) about what women & under what conditions may use an inter-uterine device in order to prevent pregnancy. In fact, it is the discussion I am referring to that has formed the basis of traditional, normative Jewish law on the subject of contraception (to this day).

You posted:

Since various forms of BC are possible today where they weren't before, we feel compelled to make use of them.

Our Sages are not crafting new Jewish law in order to accomodate new contraceptive methods, rather they are seeing where these new methods may (or may not) fit into existing traditions/frameworks.

But notice your first post how they require counseling with the local rabbi and that the decision is not one where the couples simply decides, nor where all reasons are acceptable. This should signal you that, even in modern times, BC is considered a very serious step.

But even in earlier, even ancient, times a couple with a question pn sexual matters would go to their rabbi for a ruling. The notion of a Jew asking his/her rabbi for advice, or a ruling, on some moral/ethical question, or what Jewish law says on some particular matter, goes back to the Tanakh itself.

In addition, I wonder if a lot of rabbis are aware that both the chemical BC available and the IUD are abortifacient.

Oh, they're aware of it. See http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1255885&highlight=abortion#post1255885 for an orthodox Jewish perspective on abortion.

Be well!

ssv

 

[porcupine]

So what if a husband and wife have two kids and they are not financially prepared to care for another one at this time? Should they abstain from sex altogether?

Assuming that the couple are believers (to whom this article was addressed), they would do what they always should do -- trust God with their finances. Yeah, I know how that sounds, but my wife and I had six and could never afford a new child -- until it arrived. Then we always seemed to have everything we needed. (It also has to do with one's voluntary choices of where the line between need and want is located.) I could point you to many such testimonies. Often we think we cannot afford another child because we have priorities that are out of place.

 

[Nathan David]

Assuming that the couple are believers (to whom this article was addressed), they would do what they always should do -- trust God with their finances. Yeah, I know how that sounds, but my wife and I had six and could never afford a new child -- until it arrived. Then we always seemed to have everything we needed. (It also has to do with one's voluntary choices of where the line between need and want is located.) I could point you to many such testimonies. Often we think we cannot afford another child because we have priorities that are out of place.

That sounds dangerous. And the millions of unwanted, abandoned, neglected, and abused children in this country suggest that trusting God at the expense of your own judgement does not always work.

 

[Nathan David]

You might not know this but the Pill (all forms) as well as the IUD are abortifacient, so those forms of BC are already excluded for Christians.

That's not true. What did God say about lying?

 

[porcupine]

That sounds dangerous. And the millions of unwanted, abandoned, neglected, and abused children in this country suggest that trusting God at the expense of your own judgement does not always work.

I suppose to a non-believer the idea of trusting God sounds dangerous. However, God knows the future and we don't, so I think His judgment is better than ours when it comes to deciding whether we will have the resources in the future for another child.

 

[porcupine]

That's not true. What did God say about lying?

Please check the PDR under the Pill's various brands and look for "Mechanisms." All currently used forms of the Pill have three mechanisms:

1. Stopping ovulation,
2. Thickening the mucous plug,
3. Making the uterine wall hostile to implantation.

The first two are not abortifacient, the third is since the conception has already occurred. It is unknown what percentage of the time each of these occurrs.

The IUD irritates the wall of the uterus making it hostile to implantation. That is its only mechanism.

For more info, contact epm.org and see the booklet on "Does the Pill Cause Abortion" written by a skeptic who researched the issue and interviewed people at the pharmaceutical companies.

I know what God says about lying. That is why I don't lie and allow people to think the Pill is a true contra-ceptive.

 

[Nathan David]

So all those fertilized eggs that fail to implant for natural reasons are human beings? Do you hold funerals for all of them? How would you even know? I think you're confusing conception with fertilization.

 

[sioleabha]

So all those fertilized eggs that fail to implant for natural reasons are human beings? Do you hold funerals for all of them? How would you even know? I think you're confusing conception with fertilization.

I have to ask, what is the difference? I mean, I know the biological difference, but there is a point where you no longer need to intervene for a baby to occur. That's at conception. It won't ALWAYS result in a child, but there's nothing else you need to do to cause a baby. IMHO, that's when life begins.

But I was under the impression that if you are on the Pill and not having a period, it meant you weren't ovulating. Is that not correct? If you aren't ovulating, then it's not abortifacient. It's just not conceiving. It might as well be having sex during one of those appropriate times of the month.

To the OP, do you consider it sinful to time your sexual activity so that it does not coincide with ovulation? I'm sorry if you covered it, I may have missed that.

This is actually a subject of personal interest to me, because I have four children and want to hold off on having more until we are able to buy a house. I want to have enough bedrooms for all of my children. But when considering an IUD, I couldn't decide if it was wrong to conceive a child and then not allow implantation. On the Pill, I never have a period, so I thought it meant I wasn't ovulating, which I don't have a problem with.

BTW, I do not think that it is "dangerous" to simply trust God to give you the resources to take care of your children. I sort of doubt that the parents of "the millions of unwanted, abandoned, neglected, and abused children in this country" were trusting in God to take care of them. Most people in this country rely on themselves more than on God. That I find dangerous.

God provides!