Is Contraception Destructive?

[Fenny the Fox]

They fail the way a chair fails. In that they generally don't. The challenge would come for the reduced chance of pregnancy. Pregnancy that God apparently wanted in the first place according to Mandy.

A failure rate of around 2% (breakage)* is hardly as low as would be liked. Though...in coupling with the pill/etc., it is certainly a good system [though still not infallible].

*This assumes that the condom is actually used correctly, 100% of the time. Which is statsitcally not the case, so the number moves upward to something like 13 or 14% failure rate on average.


My point, though, was that -even when not assuming a busybody, in-everything, all-powerful God- there still is a chance of pregnancy. And therefore the argument that contraception is somehow "taking things out of God's hands" (whatever that even means) is moot.

If we assume, as it would appear that Mandy does, that God is indeed all powerful and omnipresent, then the argument becomes a fallacy in its own right: how can we "take something out of the hands" of a being who is all powerful?

 

[razeontherock]

the argument becomes a fallacy in its own right: how can we "take something out of the hands" of a being who is all powerful?

There is no "taking" involved; God GAVE mankind dominion. We have it and cannot give it back. So the issue here still needs to be dealt with.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

There is no "taking" involved; God GAVE mankind dominion. We have it and cannot give it back. So the issue here still needs to be dealt with.

Ah, yes. But the argument I am adressing never considered the concept of dominion and free-will. And I cannot assume the concept to be a presumption of the argument because not all Christians acknowledge the presence of free-will. I have to argue against something with only what I am given, sadly.

So, considering free-will, then we have changed the argument a little. I no longer is an issue of God's control/providence, it is an issue of decision. That being the case...I am honestly in the opinion that there is no prohibition or condemnation of contraceptive use as a general rule present in the Bible. Therefore, I fail to see how using them could be considered immoral.

 

[patricius79]

What does biological function have to do with morality?

Hi Belk!

a lot. for example, it is wrong not to eat in order to support biological function. our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.

Peace of Jesus Christ!,

pat

 

[BleedingHeart]

Stop bumping this thread Patricius.

 

[patricius79]

There is no "taking" involved; God GAVE mankind dominion. We have it and cannot give it back. So the issue here still needs to be dealt with.

Hi Raze!

I agree. having the power to do something does not make it right. God has set limits on our exercise of free will, not wanting us to do anything that is destructive. I have the ability to eat nothing but pizza, or to eat on impulse--or to try to have sex on impulse, rather than wait for the right time--but not the right.

Peace of Jesus Christ,

pat

 

[OnPower]

Historically? They still do!

And no, they are not right. They are causing a great deal of pain to many, such as by increasing the rate of AIDS in many countries.

YUP

but the bible covers this. It is called marriage.

You really ought not test drive it like a car

 

[patricius79]

Originally Posted by yasic

Historically? They still do!

And no, they are not right. They are causing a great deal of pain to many, such as by increasing the rate of AIDS in many countries.
​

interestingly, studies consistently show a correlation between condom availability and HIV rates

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/condoms-as-solution-to-aids-fallacies.html

 

[Jade Margery]

Patty, pleeeease stop bumping this thread. It should have died months ago. Everything that could be said has been said--several times--on both sides. Pull the damn plug already.

 

[patricius79]

Patty, pleeeease stop bumping this thread. It should have died months ago. Everything that could be said has been said--several times--on both sides. Pull the damn plug already.

Hi Jade Margery!,

I think that is incorrect as to the everything has been said.

Christians also should be polite and respectful and not control the behavior of others.

One of the many things we haven't discussed is the incoherent character of the Protestant position--that is, the current Protestant position as opposed to the Reformed position.

First, we have the fact that there is no historic person in the first millenium that roughly shares the Protestant interpretation of the N.T., the Canon of which has no historic source but Catholic Tradition.

Second, we have the fact that the Protestant position on contraception is not stated in Scripture.

Peace of Jesus Christ,

pat

 

[BleedingHeart]

interestingly, studies consistently show a correlation between condom availability and HIV rates

Haven't we been through this already?

 

[patricius79]

Haven't we been through this already?

no.:

Dave Armstrong quotes the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University:

"There is," Green added, "a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded 'Demographic Health Surveys,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction 'technology' such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by 'compensating' or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology." ( see the full interview with Green here )
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Condoms as a Solution to AIDS?: The Fallacies and Lack of Sense Inherent in Such an Approach

 

[razeontherock]

Protestant position
current Protestant position

Reformed [Protestant] position.

Protestant interpretation

Catholic Tradition.

Second, we have the fact that the Protestant position on contraception is not stated in Scripture.

1. You want to turn this into a RC / Pr debate? In E & M?!?

2. The RC position is not stated in Scripture either. One would think reason might enter the fray at some point?

 

[Jade Margery]

1. You want to turn this into a RC / Pr debate? In E & M?!?

2. The RC position is not stated in Scripture either. One would think reason might enter the fray at some point?

One would evidently be wrong. *sigh*

 

[patricius79]

1. You want to turn this into a RC / Pr debate? In E & M?!?

not if that is against the rules. is it?

my point is that the current Protestant argument is self-contradictory/double standardized, since it is not in Scripture. (Protestants claim that the Catholic posiition is false SINCE it is not in Scripture)

one could see a suggestion in this irrationality that the historic Trinitarian Church's teaching is correct, since also we know that Christianity is a historical religion (based on historical facts, not subjective and current opinions)
//

2. The RC position is not stated in Scripture either

the Catholic Church's teaching is not explicitly stated in Scripture. nor is the N.T. Canon, etc. so again we have an incoherent/double-standardized argument against Catholic faith

One would think reason might enter the fray at some point?

exactly. what is the fundamental rationale of sex if not a complete self-gift of one's "essence" and a complete reception of the other as they are by nature?

(natural law)

Peace of the Lord Jesus Christ to You,

pat

 

[Gishin]

what is the fundamental rationale of sex if not a complete self-gift of one's "essence" and a complete reception of the other as they are by nature?

(natural law)

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

(Toad the wet sprocket)

In other words, meaningless buzz words.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

not if that is against the rules. is it?

It would be specifically off-topic and generally a General Theology debate, which are both no-nos.

 

[patricius79]

It would be specifically off-topic and generally a General Theology debate, which are both no-nos.

I get it. thank you.

 

[StThomasMore]

Of course, if the will of God is conception, such WILL happen. Heard of Mary and Joseph and the conception of Jesus?

The purpose, intent and design of the RCC's new birth control method is to have sex ("more than otherwise" Catholics insist) but contraceptively - so as to make it unlikely that conception happens. That's also why people tend to use other methods, as well.

It is impossible for NFP to be contraceptive since it does not change or alter the woman's fertility nor the reproductive capacity of either spouses. NFP does not destroy or inhibit the sexual act (separating the action from its purposes, artificially destroying sperm, or altering hormones ) in the way contraception does. The argument that choosing not to cause a baby is identical to preventing a possible baby from becoming an actuality is rooted in an invalid syllogism. According to Josiahs logic, it is identical in form to the argument that since all chickens are born from eggs, and all turkeys are born from eggs, all chickens are turkeys.

1. Play all the semantics you want. Both practices try to control reproduction. In that sense you can absolutely lump them together. One simply doesn't use artificial means.

It seems you are ignorant in the issues of family planning. No they don't. NFP is always open to the gift of life, as a woman can get pregnant both while being fertile and not being fertile. Do you have a daughter? Ever tell her to not have sex? That is a form of NFP. Ever tell your son not to have sex until he is married? That is also a form of NFP. Thats why its called natural family planning, not contraception. The 12 tribes of Israel itself was a construct of natural family planning among the patriarchs. Artificial contraception however puts a chemical impediment to the transition of life. NFP puts no impediment on this transition.

2. "Contraception pushes God out of the picture,"
So much for being all-powerful.

Seems you don't have much theological understanding of God's omnipotence, the operation of grace, or free-will.

4. If Luther is turning in his grave, it's because the Catholic church is still a powerful entity.

If Josiah wants to bring up the issues of NFP, then he needs to first fix the own lawn of his own community which is strife with divorce, allowance of homosexual and women's ordination, allowance of fornication, and rampant artificial contraception use. He stated his community has no official position on contraception, I think he should take note of that.

Last paragraph is simply trolling. Giving out divorces, as opposed to forcing two miserable people to stay together? Female priests, who probably DON'T rape little boys, and WOULDN'T be protected by the church if they did? How horrifying.

We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries." Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good Friday Sermon, 2002.


They are miserable because they do not understand the issue of sacrifice. Most marriages that are miserable are because of self centered-ness. As far as sexual abuse

Sexual Abuse of Children by Protestant Ministers