Would it be sin?!?

[thereselittleflower]

You've been reading the "con" only sheets, I'd wager.

Ahh no . . .

Try Drug Digest and the PDR . .


.

 

[Benedicta00]

You've been reading the "con" only sheets, I'd wager.

No. read all of the packaging for yourself. It says, "will cause changes to the uterus so pregnancy is less likely to occur"

What do you think that means? pregnancy does not occur in the uterus.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

I don't know what kind your on so i can not speak, but mine don't have the potential to cause spontaneous abortions.

And I do think that's something to brag about. that and it poses absolutely no risk to my health. No other ABC on the planet can make that claim.

And it's free to use, costs me nothing to use it. So yes, based on that- NFP is far superior. IMHO.

And based on the fact that I do NOT run the risk of getting my wife pregnant when we're in our 50s - which could kill her, or result in a child with birth defects - I'd say MY form of birth control is FAR superior to yours.

But I find it interesting that you, a Catholic, admit that you use birth control - something that has been ritualistically condemned by the Catholic Church.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Here is some information from the Early Church of the 1st century:

The noted Jesuit catechist Fr. John A. Hardon, in his essay "Contraception: Fatal to the Faith and to Eternal Life," wrote:​

In the Roman Empire of the first century of the Christian era, contraception was universally approved and practiced by the people.... In the language of the day, contraceptive practice was referred to as "using magic" and "using drugs." It was in this sense that the first century Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [Didiche] warns Christians in four successive precepts: "You shall not use magic." "You shall not use drugs." "You shall not procure abortion." "You shall not destroy an unborn child."​

"The sequence of those prohibitions is significant," Father Hardon continues. "We know from the record of those times that women would first try some magical rites or use sorcery to avoid conception. If this failed, they would take one or another of then known seventeen medically approved contraceptives. If a woman still became pregnant, she would try to abort. And if even this failed, she and her male partner could always resort to infanticide, which was approved by Roman law."

"Christians were warned not to follow the example of their pagan contemporaries, who walked in darkness and the shadow of death," Father Hardon concludes. "Christians were absolutely forbidden to practice contraception, which leads to abortion, which leads to infanticide."


http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/7636

​

so, contraception is sorcery and witchcraft.... wow. just wow.....

 

[Benedicta00]

you would use the bible to prove your point about it being ok to use those products, but then omit the fact that we are not commanded that every sex act between man and wife should possibly result in life?!? that's some excellent pick and choose!

But where does the bible ever give you permission to either sterilize yourself for the sole purpose of not having children or to take chemicals that will seriously change the way God made your body work?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Ahh no . . .

Try Drug Digest and the PDR . .


.

look. Each study will either lean to the pro, or con of a topic. If you read, and except, only the ones that support your view, you will wave it around in the air. However, I have read a great deal of studies stating that abortificant properties are NOT as cut and dried as they would make it out. I really wish I could find the studies that showed which were and which were not... Lost it some time ago.

 

[Benedicta00]

so, contraception is sorcery and witchcraft.... wow. just wow.....

In the OT it was. It was used to control. isn't that what witchcraft is, uphill? a form of controlling?

 

[ParsonJefferson]

so, contraception is sorcery and witchcraft.... wow. just wow.....

It is if, by calling it that, you can buttress an illogical and unbiblical argument.

Never-mind that the article was referring to 1. Witchcraft/Magic 2. Drugs. 3. Abortion.


I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting to find out where, in the Bible, we're told that contraception/birth control is a sin. I'd think that'd be an easy one to find.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

But where does the bible ever give you permission to either sterilize yourself for the sole purpose of not having children or to take chemicals that will seriously change the way God made your body work?

I presume this is your way of admitting that the Bible does NOT say it's a sin to use birth control.

 

[Uphill Battle]

But where does the bible ever give you permission to either sterilize yourself for the sole purpose of not having children or to take chemicals that will seriously change the way God made your body work?

does it have to?

For instance, where does the bible give you permission to remove wisdom teeth? God made you with them, but most people have them pulled out. Where does the bible give permission for a great deal that we do? nowhere. God indicated clearly what he condemned. The other things he left up for discernment. Now I have absolutely no qualms for birth control being sin....for you. You believe it is, so therefore, for you it would be. Don't burden others with your perceptions however, as there is no clear biblical command not to prevent pregnancy. Seriously, It seems to me that the RCC would rather people live in abject poverty, than to prevent pregnancy. A great deal of birth control is for the selfish reason that they cannot afford another child. My, how selfish!

 

[thereselittleflower]

You've been reading the "con" only sheets, I'd wager.

look. Each study will either lean to the pro, or con of a topic. If you read, and except, only the ones that support your view, you will wave it around in the air. However, I have read a great deal of studies stating that abortificant properties are NOT as cut and dried as they would make it out. I really wish I could find the studies that showed which were and which were not... Lost it some time ago.

I guess it is you who are going to other's notes rather than to the source itself . . .

Hmmm. . . .


Have you ever read the PDR? It containes information not contained in the inserts that come with the packaging . . . Most of the drug companies didn't want it to be common knowledge . . .


.

 

[Uphill Battle]

In the OT it was. It was used to control. isn't that what witchcraft is, uphill? a form of controlling?

no. It is not just "controlling."

 

[Benedicta00]

no. It is not just "controlling."

putting a spell on another is a way of trying to control them.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I guess it is you who are going to other's notes rather than to the source itself . . .

Hmmm. . . .


Have you ever read the PDR? It containes information not contained in the inserts that come with the packaging . . . Most of the drug companies didn't want it to be common knowledge . . .


.

I've done extensive research on the matter. The vast amount of research states that it is unlikely that MOST forms of birth control are abortificant.

But that isn't the real issue, is it? If it were merely that, then condoms would be A ok... No, it's because justification needs to be found to condemn it, to match up with the contraception-is-sin ideology.

 

[Uphill Battle]

putting a spell on another is a way of trying to control them.

right. But that isn't the reasoning that witchcraft is condemned, now is it?

 

[Benedicta00]

does it have to?

For instance, where does the bible give you permission to remove wisdom teeth? God made you with them, but most people have them pulled out. Where does the bible give permission for a great deal that we do? nowhere. God indicated clearly what he condemned. The other things he left up for discernment. Now I have absolutely no qualms for birth control being sin....for you. You believe it is, so therefore, for you it would be. Don't burden others with your perceptions however, as there is no clear biblical command not to prevent pregnancy. Seriously, It seems to me that the RCC would rather people live in abject poverty, than to prevent pregnancy. A great deal of birth control is for the selfish reason that they cannot afford another child. My, how selfish!

When it pertains to mutilating your body with surgeries and chemicals. it does!

Where do you get the right to take what God designed, the human body and change to suit your lifestyle?

 

[Uphill Battle]

When it pertains to mutilating your body with surgeries and chemicals. it does!

Where do you get the right to take what God designed, the human body and change to suit your lifestyle?

I'll remember to tell the bipolar person not to take the drugs, as it alters their brain chemistry. I'll remember to tell the morbidly obese person who had stomach stapling. I'll remember to tell the person who takes any medication to alter body state, regardless of reasoning.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Well folks, since this argument is pointless, I'm going to bed - and am hopefully going to engage in some "marital sodomy".

Meanwhile, when I log on at some time in the near future, I would LOVE to find that somebody has provided Bible verses that clearly condemn birth control.

I'd also LOVE to find out when the RCC changed its mind about birth control so that NFP is acceptable - and why.

But I'm not going to lose any sleep over waiting for either...

 

[Uphill Battle]

dupe post.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I still see that nobody has truly addressed the OP, or at least, my post shortly after. Is God more concerned with procreation that risking pain, and death? I know that NFP has been forwarded, but it is approximately 70% effective... hardly the answer, as the risk is still great.