Would it be sin?!?

[DeaconDean]

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would think this is an argument?

I really do want you to answer this question, please.

Why are you equating pregnancy and fertility which are gifts of God, with illness and disease?

We have illness and diseases, and we even die physically in this life due to original sin, it's a consequence of OS that our Lord chose to leave us with.

Our Lord in his generosity has given us many cures to many illnesses over the ages but eliminating His gift of pregnancy and fertility isn't one of them. That comes from man, not God.

Again, how are you equating B/C and surgery with 'cures' to a disease?

Fertility and pregnancy isn't a diseases. They are not part of our original sin, they are gifts from God and you want to equate them with sin, death and illness? Why?

We shouldn't be treating them like an illness that needs a cure.

I know you haven't been open to any of what Theresa and myself have been saying, but think about for one minute. You are treating the natural beautiful gift we call pregnancy and fertility as if it's the enemy.

Yes, due to OS we have to deal with medical complications that will put a woman at risk but we, especially Christians have to find ways to minimize the medial complications with out compromising the integrity of the gift God gave to us.

NFP has so far been our best solution to a women's dilemma. It respects the martial act, it respects a women, it respects God's gift of life and fertility.

This is what good Stewardship of the gifts God gave us is. It's what having dominion over everything means. To keep in tact the good and to treat the bad.

We are treat the condition that puts a woman at risk. We do not attack the gift of God which is pregnancy and fertility.

Try to think about this, this argument we are 'treating' pregnancy and fertility as if it were a disease, IS the same mentality the abortionist have. They treat the gift of a child as if it's the problem, as if it's the culprit, as if it is what needs to be attacked so a woman can "live."

I pray you will go to the Lord with this in prayer and not just shrug off what we have to say because I do feel this is a very important issue.

Let me also ask you, the couple in Arkansas who have 16 children... they aren't catholic, they are bible only Christians, they believe the bible does not support ABC and sterilization. What do you make of them?

Let me just say this friend. You have your Catholic beliefs and I have my Baptist beliefs. I keep reading this over and over again. Catholic teachings, Catholic teachings, Catholic teachings. Not everybody is Catholic my friend, so your teachings are not for every body. I respect them, but they are not mine. You think that the command by God to "go, replentish the land" is still in effect. Well my friend, man has long since replentished the land. Some people don't want children. Some people aren't meant to have children. And because they seek ways to keep from having children, they are being disobedient to God? Whether it be surgery or through B/C shots or pills, they are in the wrong according to the Catholic teachings that I'm reading in this thread. Either use the rhythm method, or be faced with half a dozen children that are not wanted nor can be cared for properly. Now that is what I'm getting from the flow of this thread. Chemicals or surgury to prevent unwanted pregnacies is unnatural according to what I hear from Catholics. It would be a logical conclusion that if chemicals and surgury to prevent pregnancy are grounds for excommunication from "the church" since it changes

the way he designed our body to work,

then going to the doctor for curing of any type of ailment is exactly the same thing. Since doctors use chemicals and surgury to cure us of all manner of dieseases, wouldn't this fall into the same category?

You also said:

Our Lord in his generosity has given us many cures to many illnesses over the ages but eliminating His gift of pregnancy and fertility isn't one of them.

Seems to me that I remember only one cure that God gave, and that was for leporsy.

You also said:

I know you haven't been open to any of what Theresa and myself have been saying, but think about for one minute. You are treating the natural beautiful gift we call pregnancy and fertility as if it's the enemy.

I'm not treating it as an enemy, but you are essentially saying to everybody that B/C (even inserting B/C devices under the skin) and vasectomy which requires surgury, wrong. Who and what and where does the Bible say we have all have a family of six, twelve, or twenty children? If I remember correctly, did not Abraham have only ONE son through Sarah?

All I'm saying is that if your church teaches you that B/C of any kind is wrong, thats fine with me, but to force everybody into accepting what your denomination teaches, isn't going to happen.

You have your beliefs based on your churches teachings, fine, God Bless you in your convictions. But they aren't mine, and I refuse to believe that because I or anyone else who chooses to have only a set number of children, whether it be one or five, and stop at that, and to use other means to prevent unwanted pregnancies, are condemned, I refuse to believe it. That we are not being

good Stewardship of the gifts God gave us

is wrong in my opinion. To me, a person who seeks B/C pills, or IUD devices, or vascetomies to prevent unwanted pregancies are being responsible. To me there is no difference between going to a doctor for cure for ailments and seeking ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If you can not go to the doctor to seek ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies because of

powerful chemicals and surgery

And it changing

the way he designed our body to work

Then in my opinion, you can't go to the doctor for cures to the cold, flu, or any other ailment such as common to man because:

powerful chemicals and surgery

change

the way he designed our body to work

Period

You can't have both ways.

I love ya, and I respect your convictions and beliefs. But can't you see that not everybody is going to accept the Catholic POV? Just like not eveybody is not going yo accpet my POV.

And since I'm so wrong, I'm going to save you and everybody else the trouble of answering me back, I will not post in this thread anymore. You will not have to worry about what this BAPTIST has to say again!

Now I've said what I wanted to say, let me finish by saying this, you have your beliefs, I have mine. God Bless you in your convictions.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[thereselittleflower]

DD, what we are talking about is what was the universal CHRISTIAN teaching in ALL Churches until 1930 . .. that means for 1900 years ALL Chrisitan Churches taught contraception was FORBIDDEN . .



You can make all the "Catholic, Catholic, Catholic" rants you want, but you cannot get away from the fact that ALL Christian Churches FORBADE contraception for 1900 years . .



Why is the Catholic Church the ONLY Church still holding to this teaching that ALL Christian Churches held to for 1900 years?



.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Show me book, chapter and verse where the Bible explicitly states that abortion is wrong. Also provide the same for the Trinity.

The Bible verses are there, it is just convenient for you to follow modern secular anti-life morality than Traditional Christian morality.

Really? How arrogant and judgmental of you to say that!

If the verses are there, saying Birth Control is sin, why don't you tell me what they are?


As for the sin of abortion, here are a couple verses for you to chew on:
Exodus 21:22-24 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder."

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Logical Fallacy RED HERRING

Comparing apples and oranges.

No valid comparison thus no valid argumentation.

Saving a life, ensuring the safe and healthy delivery of a child is an apple. ..

Deliberate artificial sterilization of the sexual act is an orange.

No valid comparison . ..

Also, Ad hominem . .attack the person.

Poisoning the well . . .


Lots of invalid logically fallacious argumentation going on here in an attempt to discredit the person and their argumentation without ever once validly dealing with the actual substance of the argument against artificial contraception.




More Red Herring

More Ad Hominem

More Poisoning the Well..

Logically fallacious argumentation.

Nothing more .. .




More Red Herring

More Ad Hominem

More Poisoning the Well..

Logically fallacious argumentation.

Nothing more .. .



Adding another logical fallacy . . STRAWMAN.


The issue is not Birth Control . .

The issue is the use of artificial contraception which sterilizes the sexual act God created to be fertile and to allow a couple to complete their being made in the image of God to create New Life.

There has been no valid argumentation against the real issue . . only such false STRAWMAN arguments.




RED HERRING

IGNORES FACTS IN EVIDENCE

Truth is offensive . . that is unavoidable.



Yes, for the simple reason we do not engage in artificial contraception which sterilizes the actual sexual act.

Deliberately sterilizing the sexual act to prevent conception, ie New Life from being created, is an abomination to God. It is a crime against God and nature.

Truth is offensive to those whom reject the truth.

Shooting the messenger is a logical fallacy.



Not at all.


.

Nice. When you have your logic, and LACK of Bible-based morality exposed, you simply say, "Red Herring! Ad Hominem!"


If you're going to lecture me about "trusting God" then I'm throwing it back at you. WHY DO YOU ONLY "TRUST GOD" WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING PREGNANT? Why not trust God when it comes to the time of delivery? Why not stay home, and trust God to provide for you a safe birth? But you're NOT doing that, are you?


The TRUTH is that you're NOT trusting God at all. You're willing to get pregnant, repeatedly, because you trust MODERN MEDICINE - the performing of c-sections, etc.

The ONLY way I'll take seriously what you say about "trusting God" is if you did NOT repeatedly have c-sections. Why? Because if you had lived 500 years ago, you would have died long ago - as a result of repeatedly getting pregnant. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT'S WHAT GOD IS LEADING YOU TO DO?


This whole argument is absurd.

If you are going to follow the teachings of a Church - ie, man-made traditions - that's your choice. But don't wrongly equate the teachings of the Catholic Church with what God says. (Need I remind you of some of the many flagrantly immoral and un-biblical teachings of the Catholic Church and Papacy?) And don't be so arrogant as to think you can sit in judgment of other people who don't ascribe to the man-made teachings you ascribe to.

I'm going to choose to follow what the Bible says.

 

[Benedicta00]

Let me just say this friend. You have your Catholic beliefs and I have my Baptist beliefs. I keep reading this over and over again. Catholic teachings, Catholic teachings, Catholic teachings. Not everybody is Catholic my friend, so your teachings are not for every body. I respect them, but they are not mine. You think that the command by God to "go, replentish the land" is still in effect. Well my friend, man has long since replentished the land. Some people don't want children. Some people aren't meant to have children. And because they seek ways to keep from having children, they are being disobedient to God? Whether it be surgery or through B/C shots or pills, they are in the wrong according to the Catholic teachings that I'm reading in this thread. Either use the rhythm method, or be faced with half a dozen children that are not wanted nor can be cared for properly. Now that is what I'm getting from the flow of this thread. Chemicals or surgury to prevent unwanted pregnacies is unnatural according to what I hear from Catholics. It would be a logical conclusion that if chemicals and surgury to prevent pregnancy are grounds for excommunication from "the church" since it changes

Nothing you have said here is factual And if people do not want kids then don't have sex because kids and sex do go together as God has mandated it that way.

This is what we are referring to as a sinful mentality because you see, having children is all a part of what sex is, it's procreation not just a thrill.

You know good and well man had no biblical basis for removing all together procreation from intercourse.

And the pills, shots, implants are abotifacients. the pill is lesser of one but one none the less.
Now we are in the area of objective facts and not Catholic teaching.

And the Church does not change- protestants have changed because Luther wasn't for contraception.

And have you not noticed the non Catholic input in this thread who are in agreement- ABC is ascripural?

You can stand behind this ascriptural secularized mind set if you want and say God gave us a blessing when 'he' gave us contraceptives but I, and many non Catholics disagree.

And why do you paint such an ugly picture of large families? This is bias, is what this is, against large families.

I find that offensive, really.

Have you ever seen the Duggar's? If anyone ever saw this family I don't know how they could ever find fault with large family. This family through having a large family has learned truly what living the Christian life is. ad it's totally beautiful.

In my heart I believe God gave us this family and has has put enough attention on them so the rest of us can see that large families are possible and what he really wants from marriage.

Not 16 kids for everyone, it's not a numbers game but their example of their love, self sacrifice, reliance on him, the way they take responsibility for raising all their kids in a loving home and the total self giving of one to the other. This is our example and they are not even Catholic!

then going to the doctor for curing of any type of ailment is exactly the same thing. Since doctors use chemicals and surgury to cure us of all manner of dieseases, wouldn't this fall into the same category?

Since when is fertility an aliment? Search the OT and you'll see it's considered a gift of God.

You also said:



Seems to me that I remember only one cure that God gave, and that was for leporsy.

You are comparing fertility to leprosy?

You really don't see the hostile attitude towards what is a gift? Do you?

You also said:



I'm not treating it as an enemy, but you are essentially saying to everybody that B/C (even inserting B/C devices under the skin) and vasectomy which requires surgury, wrong. Who and what and where does the Bible say we have all have a family of six, twelve, or twenty children? If I remember correctly, did not Abraham have only ONE son through Sarah?

There is the discrimination against large families again. And you need to deal with facts, those forms of ABC are abortifants not just contraceptives.

All I'm saying is that if your church teaches you that B/C of any kind is wrong, thats fine with me, but to force everybody into accepting what your denomination teaches, isn't going to happen.

So I take you do not protest at abortion mills? This is the argument that keeps abortion legal- we can't push our beliefs on other people.

You have your beliefs based on your churches teachings, fine,

Don't ignore... non Catholics also agree it's biblical.

God Bless you in your convictions. But they aren't mine, and I refuse to believe that because I or anyone else who chooses to have only a set number of children, whether it be one or five, and stop at that, and to use other means to prevent unwanted pregnancies, are condemned, I refuse to believe it. That we are not being

Unwanted vrs grave reason to not have, are world apart and why unwanted is wrong.

What it be so pitiful if we changed our hearts and wanted children even if we couldn't have them?

The anti baby mentality is what is a sin. Not, you not having 12 yourself.

If you never had one- but you were OPEN then you would be better off if you had 10 that you never really wanted.

and I'm sad to see that this anti baby mentality is not only prevalent in secularized society.

is wrong in my opinion. To me, a person who seeks B/C pills, or IUD devices, or vascetomies to prevent unwanted pregancies are being responsible. To me there is no difference between going to a doctor for cure for ailments and seeking ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If you can not go to the doctor to seek ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies because of

Oh wow, unwanted. there it is right there. It's the anti baby mentality not being open to life and removing it from the act. that is SOOO ascriptural.

And it changing



Then in my opinion, you can't go to the doctor for cures to the cold, flu, or any other ailment such as common to man because:

Fertility is not something that needs a cure. infertility is.

You can't have both ways.

NO, you can't. you can not use medicine to destroy the human body that is in working order.

I love ya, and I respect your convictions and beliefs. But can't you see that not everybody is going to accept the Catholic POV? Just like not eveybody is not going yo accpet my POV

.

But it's not just the Catholic point of view. It's also the non catholic point of view as well.

Why is everyone who is opposed to fertility claiming this is only the Church's belief?

No one is being honest- 5 non catholics chimed to say they believe contraception is against scripture.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

I believe that if a person firmly believed that if they had another child, it would starve, then they should practice moderation in their sexual desire.

What if a person knew they would absolutely die during child-birth? Should that person/couple keep from getting pregnant?

 

[ParsonJefferson]

And so the topic is avoided . . the first scriptural proof we presented. . . just dismissed. . . like that . . out of hand. . . .

Let's discuss the topic of Onan's Sin for a moment...

Read Genesis 38 - and read it without the man-made traditions of the RCC heaped on it.

Onan's sin was NOT - as the RCC has WRONGLY asserted - masturbation.

Onan's sin was simply that he refused to fulfill his God-ordained duty to provide the wife of his death brother a child.

This has NOTHING to do with Birth Control. It has NOTHING to do with masturbation. It has EVERYTHING to do with denying his dead brother an heir.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

DD, what we are talking about is what was the universal CHRISTIAN teaching in ALL Churches until 1930 . .. that means for 1900 years ALL Chrisitan Churches taught contraception was FORBIDDEN . .



You can make all the "Catholic, Catholic, Catholic" rants you want, but you cannot get away from the fact that ALL Christian Churches FORBADE contraception for 1900 years . .



Why is the Catholic Church the ONLY Church still holding to this teaching that ALL Christian Churches held to for 1900 years?



.

I know for a FACT that you are absolutely wrong in the assertion that ALL churches held the ant-Birth Control until 1930.

That is absolutely, 100% factually incorrect.

Sorry, but you're just flat-out wrong about this.

 

[Benedicta00]

What if a person knew they would absolutely die during child-birth? Should that person/couple keep from getting pregnant?

no one can know that- no one but God

 

[ParsonJefferson]

no one can know that- no one but God

Then why did you opt for c-sections? Since you're so FOR "everything natural" in regards to procreation, shouldn't you have stayed home and done the "natural" thing, trust God to take care of you and the babies?

That's NOT trusting God. That's trusting modern medicine...

And thus, another of the fallacies exposed.

 

[Benedicta00]

Some seem to not understand the difference between saving a life and sterilizing God's life giving, creative gift to man, allowing man to create life in the image of God.


.

bump.

 

[Uphill Battle]

And so the topic is avoided . . the first scriptural proof we presented. . . just dismissed. . . like that . . out of hand. . . .

No, not dismissed. Read, and understood to be different. Therefore little logical point for me and Lotar to butt heads over. Just because someone doesn't agree with your position, doesn't mean the are out of hand dismissing evidence. it has been considered.

that right there is a perfect example of situational ethics.
Situational ethics is where one's ethics change with the situation.
The Catholic Church does not change its ethics depending on the situation. All other Christian groups do . . .
The question is really, does God prefer sin to starvation . . .
Situational ethics says yes . . . .
The Catholic Church says no. . . .
In fact, the scriptures denounces putting one's belly over what is right . . look at Esau who sold his birthright for food .. .

I fail to see how you can look at the RCC position, and state they do not have situational ethics in regards to birth control. If you can't see the hypocracy of the RCC regarding birth control, so be it, nobody can help you see it.

According to whom? Someone sitting in a comfortable chair who lives in a society in which comfort and pleasure take precedence over right and wrong? Where situational ethics runs rampant, who argues for making people more comfortable even if it means they engage in sin that is abhorent to God to do so?
Fertility is not the problem here . . sin is . . sterilization is not going to fix the problem of sin that has led to such situations developing in areas of the world . . it is only going to compound sin with sin . .

According to whom? Are you really going to assert that there is not want and hunger worldwide?
You're right, sterilization won't fix sin. It however, has not been demonstrated to be sin.

This situational ethics argument would argue that the end justifies the means .. .

Such an argument is fundamentally anti-Christian.

Then it would appear that the RCC holds some fundamentally anti-Christian views.

And so rather than send in food, the answer is to send in contraceptives . . .
No answer has been forthcoming in this thread yet to the obvious problem already exposed once . .
How does one get contraceptives into those who supposedly need them if one can't get food into them?
If one can get food into them, why does one suppose they need to get contraceptives into them?
Totally illogical and nonsensical line of argumentation -

See, you are misrepresenting what I said. where did I advocate a program to send birth control to 3rd world countries as opposed to food?

all this line of argumentation is nothing more than one huge Logical Fallacy:


APPEAL TO EMOTION:

Description of Appeal to Emotion​

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.
​

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html​

Other logical fallacies also apply in relation to this one above.

True, if I stated "Birth control MUST be used because people are starving. I did no such thing. I asked if avoiding the "sin" of contraception is preferable to starvation, hunger, want, death. I did not attempt to prove the necessity of BC with emotional appeal. Sorry, you got this one wrong.

Not at all. There is no command to come together excpet in prayer or fasting, otherwise, we would never be able to work or participate in any other activity.

1st Corinthians 7:3-5
[SIZE=-1]The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another [/SIZE][SIZE=-1][or to put it more bluntly, as the Greek actually does and as we read in the King James Version, "Defraud ye not one the other"] except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:3-5 RSV)[/SIZE]

look, there it is!
[/quote=TLF]
Logical fallacy the conclusion does not follow .. non sequitor.[/quote]
Non sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow." The term may refer to:

• Non sequitur (absurdism), comment which is humorously absurd or has no relation to the comment it follows; a statement so foolish, or illogical that can not be responded to (e.g. "Hot enough for you?")

misused this one too.

This is nothing more than an attempt to turn an argument made against contraception, as contraception views children as a burden at the time one is contracepting (otherwise, one would not be contracepting), on its head and misapply it to those who reject contraception.
That is the argument used by abortion activists . . no child an unwated child . .abort an unwanted child.
The contraceptivists say no child an unwanted child . .contracept the unwanted child. . .
However, in opposition to the two above responses, we see this:
NFP activists say no child an unwanted child .. Lord, if it be thy will, we will welcome a child with open hearts and arms.

equating those who do not believe BC to be sin with abortionists, is both false, and offensive.

However, your NFP position you are stating is fallicious, they are attempting to avoid pregnancy, hence, if they get pregnant, at the outset, the child was unwanted.


not going to bother with the rest.

 

[Benedicta00]

No where is it stated that getting tubes tied either male of female is sin.. Abortion is sin for it is killing a child that God forms in the womb.. God said to multiply.. He didn't say how many we were to multiply with.. If you quiver is full at one or if it is full at 7 then so be it.. For every child that we have is a gift from the Lord.. This is a matter of faith. If you feel it is sin to be sterilized then to you to do so would be sin for the bible tells us that to do anything without faith is sin..

I love the way you have subjectinized sin and reduced to it a matter of personal truth.

 

[Benedicta00]

They are sinful for the same reason: they produce infertility.

Infertility is an unfortunate lamentable state, and that so many seek it in our culture today shows the depth of depravity that we have sunk to.

NO truer words.

 

[sunlover1]

Adding another logical fallacy . . STRAWMAN.


The issue is not Birth Control . .

The issue is the use of artificial contraception which sterilizes the sexual act God created to be fertile and to allow a couple to complete their being made in the image of God to create New Life.

The issue is indeed birth control, or controlling when and when not to give birth or if to give birth at all.
Abstinence too stops God's ability to "complete their being made in the image of God to create new life".

Either way, it's taking control of when or if to have children.

Letting God be the Lord of all, would be having faith in Him to open or shut the womb, as He wills

1 Samuel 1:6
6 And her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret, because the LORD had shut up her womb.

Genesis 29:31
31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

 

[Benedicta00]

Yeah, okay.

And again, I'll ask the same thing our Catholic friends are unable to answer: Is there a Book, Chapter and Verse - from the Bible - saying that birth control is sin?

If not, you need to apologize for speaking for God where He has not spoken.

is there a book, chapter, verse, saying you can practice abortifant type contraceptives and mutilate your organs in order to put a stop to the fertility God gave to you?

 

[Benedicta00]

The issue is indeed birth control, or controlling when and when not to give birth or if to give birth at all.
Abstinence too stops God's ability to "complete their being made in the image of God to create new life".

Either way, it's taking control of when or if to have children.

Letting God be the Lord of all, would be having faith in Him to open or shut the womb, as He wills

1 Samuel 1:6
6 And her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret, because the LORD had shut up her womb.

Genesis 29:31
31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

No one said we can't be responsible we just have to do things in a moral way. Surgery and abortifants are immoral.

 

[thesearenotthecatholicsyouarelookingfor]

Oh, this is just going in circles.

Look, Catholicism teaches that contraception is wrong. But the bottom line is that you're not sinning every time you do something wrong. Circumstances and intent are taken into account. Catholic teaching does that with just about every other situation. It's okay to have a war if not having a war is going to harm innocent. It's okay to skip Mass if it's the middle of a blizzard and going might cause your family to freeze. It's okay to eat normally on Good Friday if you're diabetic. It's okay to shoot a guy if he's trying to shoot your sister.

Sometimes a person is in a situation where none of their options are desirable. So you pick the one that's the least harmful, or that harms the fewest people. And sometimes that means using contraception. Now, people might disagree on what exactly constitutes a justifiable circumstance, but circumstances that reduce culpability certainly exist, and to act, for the sake of argument, like they don't, is to abuse rhetoric.

 

[Benedicta00]

Not having children is not anything like killing a child.. They aren't even thought of let alone not born.. This just doesn't even make common sense..

It does when you use a "contraceptive" that aborts a baby that has already been conceived.

There is a back up mechanism in most of the pills and in all of the shots and implant (and IUD is sticky only an abortifant all the time) that will cause the lining of the uterus to harden so if a baby is convinced your body will be hostile towards it and abort it.

It's called spontaneous abortion and the pill known as the "mini pill" or "low dose" has this ability and it's a fact and not a opinion and the shot- is more an abortifant, less than a contraceptive and the implants- 2 years it will work as a contraceptive and the last three- strictly as an abortifant.

And if you decide to go with a high does contraceptive pill then your cancer risk increases.

If you stay on any kind of chemical contraceptive (and I use the term losely) your chances of cancer increase.

Yes, this stuff is definitely "Of God."

If you go with enough chemicals to stop ovulation- you have really serious prevalent heath risks to women so you have to go with the low dose but you do not have any where near a good enough effective contraception rate so the does was lowered and a hormone that dries up the lining of the utrus was added to abort any children if they are conceived.

 

[Benedicta00]

Oh, this is just going in circles.

Look, Catholicism teaches that contraception is wrong. But the bottom line is that you're not sinning every time you do something wrong. Circumstances and intent are taken into account. Catholic teaching does that with just about every other situation. It's okay to have a war if not having a war is going to harm innocent. It's okay to skip Mass if it's the middle of a blizzard and going might cause your family to freeze. It's okay to eat normally on Good Friday if you're diabetic. It's okay to shoot a guy if he's trying to shoot your sister.

Sometimes a person is in a situation where none of their options are desirable. So you pick the one that's the least harmful, or that harms the fewest people. And sometimes that means using contraception. Now, people might disagree on what exactly constitutes a justifiable circumstance, but circumstances that reduce culpability certainly exist, and to act, for the sake of argument, like they don't, is to abuse rhetoric.

But we have to separate the abortifant types from non abortifant types. there are those here who see nothing wrong with abortifant types of ABC and that is sin.