Would it be sin?!?

[IamAdopted]

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..

 

[Uphill Battle]

That is the level of proof that has been required of us.

no, it's not. Some MENTION of any kind of sinlessness in Mary, and we'd ahve something to talk about.

It is not completely mute. To suggest so is to ignore the actual scriptures which reveal the scriptural evidence against contraception.

Examples were given, yet dismissed out of hand . . I doubt the actual verses were even read, let alone any honest attempt made to see how our POV is supported in them.

They were fairly read. however, to support your assertion that the verses are a directive to multiply as much as possible, then why is not every catholic couple pumping out children as fast as possible? Why are they allowed to use NFP? that would be sinful, if the command to multiply was so specific that you were to shoot out kids rapid fire. This is not the case, it is not practiced, so apparently the command doesn't mean what you say it means.

Thou shalt not kill is fairly explicit. It means thou shalt not murder.
It does not have to identify all ways someone can be murdered . . .if it falls within this explicit denouncment of murder, then it is explict about abortion as well as being murdered by knife, gun, etc . .
It does not include death by accident or self defense or in cases of war.
This is comparing apples and oranges . . The evidence above is explicit evidence to one who accepts that developing babies are living human beings.

right. Which is why I vehmently oppose abortion. This speaks nothing of contraception, however.

The type of evidence for the Holy Spirit I have required is not anywhere near so explicit, in fact, it goes far the other direction.
To require that we provide evidence from scripture that is at the same level of this command re: murder as evidence of the scriptural stance against abortion is still a double standard.
No such evidence at that level exists for the 3 beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit. . ..

I have to disagree with you completely on this. The trinity, although not called the trinity, is very evident in scripture.

It is not that one disagrees, but in how they do so . . .


.

It's a shame they don't have a shrugging smiley face.

What are we supposed to do? Sit back and have you attempt to steamroll people with your beliefs? I would hazard that if you are so easily offended, then perhaps discussion and debate is the wrong forum for you? I never said anything offensive. I challenged positions, I challenged knowledge. If that is offensive, then you should stick to discussing things with people who agree with you only. there is nothing more I can do on the matter. Forgive any perceived offence, there is no intent, I simply disagree strongly with your position, and with good reason.

 

[Benedicta00]

Now THIS is VERY interesting! And quite telling!

You used ARTIFICIAL MEANS TO STAY ALIVE!

A C-Section is ABSOLUTELY UN-NATURAL!

How DARE you? Don't you trust God to provide for you?

How come it's okay to rely on medical technology AFTER you get pregnant - and would DIE without it - but you won't use medical technology to not get pregnant?

If you're going to claim you trust God, then TRUST GOD! Don't be so selective about how and when you trust God!


This is complete and total hypocrisy. Wow!

This is ridiculous. i never against using a medical professional when you have a medical need.

Maybe I'm missing something here and instead of you trying to poke holes in our beliefs that Theresa and I have explained rather eloquently, you may want to point me to the source, I don't know..like the bible that tells us fertile is a disease that needs to be treated.

You must have glaceed over the part of my personal story where after I survived my doctor told me I can not/should not have any more kids.

I came this close to getting my uterus removed and I didn't object to that because if it's broken then it needs to be fixed.

But he didn't remove it and I don't know to this day why he didn't, but I went on to have 3 other kids complication free, after HE told me I shouldn't have any more at all.

So the moral of the stroy is, trust in God, not in ourselves.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

This is ridiculous. i never against using a medical professional when you have a medical need.

Maybe I'm missing something here and instead of you trying to poke holes in our beliefs that Theresa and I have explained rather eloquently, you may want to point me to the source, I don't know..like the bible that tells us fertile is a disease that needs to be treated.

You must have glaceed over the part of my personal story where after I survived my doctor told me I can not/should not have any more kids.

I came this close to getting my uterus removed and I didn't object to that because if it's broken then it needs to be fixed.

But he didn't remove it and I don't know to this day why he didn't, but I went on to have 3 other kids complication free, after HE told me I shouldn't have any more at all.

So the moral of the stroy is, trust in God, not in ourselves.

IF you trust God to take care of you - as you have said to me - then WHY are you going to the hospital to have c-sections? IF God wants you to have kids, then surely He is going to allow you to have them naturally, right?

Or do you only trust God when it comes to GETTING pregnant?

You either trust God or you don't, right?

The REAL moral of this story is that you are "picking and choosing" when you will, and when you will not, trust God.

YOU are the ones claiming that Birth Control is sin - even though the Bible simply does NOT say that. YOU are the ones (at least Theresa) using the sordid phrase "marital sodomy" because of the claim that "sterilized sex" is un-natural, yet you have NO problem engaging in the un-natural practice of c-sections. YOU are the ones that are saying that YOUR form of Birth Control is acceptable, but other forms of Birth Control are sinful.


It appears to me that all the sanctimonious finger-pointing at people who choose to use a "non-Catholic approved" form of Birth Control is rather faulty. It's a non sequitur.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.

What level of evidence are you requiring?

Explicit?

Or Implicit?



We have given numerous verses already on the order of implicit evidence.


If you are requiring Explicit evidence, then you are simply engaging in the same logical fallacy UB has been doing for pages . . . . DOUBLE STANDARD.

And so, such a requirement is logically invalid on its face,.


Please read through the thread.


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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..

The Early Church VEHEMENTLY disagreed with you . . .

I guess we should believe you know better than they what is right Christian belief on the matter, we should believe you instead of those closest to the apostles?

Isn't amazing how Christianity missed this for an entire 1900 years until the Anglican Church caved into pressure from secular humanism and began to permit it, starting a chain reaction?

.

wow. . Christianity had it wrong for 1900 years if we are to believe you are right . .


Isn't that rather amazing???!!!


.


.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The Early Church VEHEMENTLY disagreed with you . . .

I guess we should believe you know better than they what is right Christian belief on the matter, we should believe you instead of those closest to the apostles?

Isn't amazing how Christianity missed this for an entire 1900 years until the Anglican Church caved into pressure from secular humanism and began to permit it, starting a chain reaction?

.

wow. . Christianity had it wrong for 1900 years if we are to believe you are right . .


Isn't that rather amazing???!!!


.


.

btw... double standard logical fallacy is not what you are saying it is.

Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.

1. Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
2. Example: Those rules don't apply to me since since I am older than you.

but hey, if we are going to point out logical fallacy, how about this one for this post?

Appeal to tradition, also known as appeal to common practice or argumentum ad antiquitatem or false induction is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind. Essentially: "This is right because we've always done it this way."
This argument makes basically two assumptions:

• The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. This might be actually false: the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.

Examples:

• "Our society has always ridden horses. It would be foolish to start driving cars."

 

[MrsJoy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsJoy
[/b]
a brother here is referring to a fellow christian.

This is not possible since Jesus was not addressing "christians" at the time. Since there were no born again christians at the time.

I'm sorry if you don't realize this, but the church was well in place at the time this passage was written.
in fact, it was under much persecution.
1Jo 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels [of compassion] from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
also, John makes it quite clear earlier in this chapter who he is addressing:
1How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a]we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsJoy
[/b]
there is a big difference between helping those in need and going against Godly principles for ministry.

Godly principles of ministry? True religion is giving to the widows and orphans in their need. Which principle aren't we following?

We are ministering to the poor, and living the Gospel example doing so.

taking care of the poor does not fall into the catagory of employing them to minster to God's children while leading them in worship of Him.
nowhere did I say we should not help him.
I said that he should not be taking part in a ministry.

 

[thereselittleflower]

no, it's not. Some MENTION of any kind of sinlessness in Mary, and we'd ahve something to talk about.

Another STRAWMAN and ignoring facts in evidence.

They were fairly read. however, to support your assertion that the verses are a directive to multiply as much as possible, then why is not every catholic couple pumping out children as fast as possible? Why are they allowed to use NFP?

Asked and answered.

that would be sinful, if the command to multiply was so specific that you were to shoot out kids rapid fire.

Another Strawman

not the case, it is not practiced, so apparently the command doesn't mean what you say it means.

The result of the Strawman.

Invalid conclusions. . . .

Originally Posted by TLF
Thou shalt not kill is fairly explicit. It means thou shalt not murder.
It does not have to identify all ways someone can be murdered . . .if it falls within this explicit denouncment of murder, then it is explict about abortion as well as being murdered by knife, gun, etc . .
It does not include death by accident or self defense or in cases of war.
This is comparing apples and oranges . . The evidence above is explicit evidence to one who accepts that developing babies are living human beings.​

right. Which is why I vehmently oppose abortion. This speaks nothing of contraception, however.

And so we have an example of the level of evidence being required which is explicit [/B]evidence, in contradiction to the claim at the beginning of the post.

I have to disagree with you completely on this. The trinity, although not called the trinity, is very evident in scripture.

Again, furthering the development of the Strawman started earlier, ignoring facts in evidence.

The arguments based on these logical fallacies are logically invalid on their face.

No attempt has been made to validly engage the actual argument . . . that of the lack of explicit evidence for those 3 beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit and how this demonstrates the double standard we are being held to.

So we continue going round and round in logically invalid circles . . .

It's a shame they don't have a shrugging smiley face.

And so we have evidence of a lack of concern for validly engaging in logical, rational discussion which is respectful of another's position.

What are we supposed to do? Sit back and have you attempt to steamroll people with your beliefs? I would hazard that if you are so easily offended, then perhaps discussion and debate is the wrong forum for you? I never said anything offensive.

that is a matter of opinion. I dare say that others disagree with this as well.

I challenged positions, I challenged knowledge.

No valid challenges of a reasonable, rational nature have been forthcoming.

Reasonable, rational challenges do not use arguments that repeatedly engage in logical fallacies such as strawmen, or ignoring facts in evidence, or assuming facts in evidence or engaging in ad hominem and poisoning the well.

Such arguments are not in any way shape or form valid challenges.

If that is offensive, then you should stick to discussing things with people who agree with you only. there is nothing more I can do on the matter. Forgive any perceived offence, there is no intent, I simply disagree strongly with your position, and with good reason.

It is appreciated that intent has been shared, however, no good reason has been demonsrated . . only logical fallacies .. . .


.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

What level of evidence are you requiring?

Explicit?

Or Implicit?

We have given numerous verses already on the order of implicit evidence.

If you are requiring Explicit evidence, then you are simply engaging in the same logical fallacy UB has been doing for pages . . . . DOUBLE STANDARD.

And so, such a requirement is logically invalid on its face,.

Please read through the thread..

I've read it - and what you gave was a bunch of verses that had NOTHING to do with Birth Control.

I am fully aware that the Catholic Church teaches that Birth Control is sin - and you believe it, even though you practice Birth Control.

But the Bible simply does NOT say that Birth Control is sin. In fact, the Bible says nothing of the sort. NOTHING.

So you're welcome to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. I'm going to follow the teachings of the Bible.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Another STRAWMAN and ignoring facts in evidence.
Asked and answered.

Another Strawman
The result of the Strawman.
Invalid conclusions. . . .

Is it really? If the explicit command is to be fruitful and multiply, then there is no number attatched to it, it stands to reason that you should continue popping out kids at as fast a rate as possible. If you are following the command explicitly.

And so we have an example of the level of evidence being required which is explicit [/b]evidence, in contradiction to the claim at the beginning of the post.

Sorry, abortion is not an EXPLICIT command. The command is don't kill. Don't murder. The INFERRED command is abortion is wrong, because killing is wrong. An explicit command would state "abortion is wrong."

No attempt has been made to validly engage the actual argument . . . that of the lack of explicit evidence for those 3 beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit.

I think it's been fairly demonstrated.

And so we have evidence of a lack of concern for validly engaging in logical, rational discussion which is respectful of another's position.

and how do you infer that? I shrug because no matter what is said, you will believe that you are using superior logic, all who disagree are illogical (despite your constant overuse and MISuse of logical fallacies) and that anyone who dares challange your position is "attacking" ad hominum or some such. (of course, pointing the finger and yelling sinner, sinner! isn't attacking the person... trying to establish the opponent as supporting sin from the outset. What was that about poisoning the well?)

No valid challenges of a reasonable, rational nature have been forthcoming.

that is a matter of opinion. I dare say that others disagree with this as well.

It is appreciated that intent has been shared, however, no good reason has been demonsrated . . only logical fallacies .. . .

that is a matter of opinion. I dare say that others disagree with this as well. (see.... I can do it too!)

What is it going to take for you to bury the hatchet?

 

[Lotar]

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.

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.

 

[Uphill Battle]

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.

although you are right, to state that we must have explicit command is invalid, SOME mention of it being a sin to prevent pregnancy should be evident.

Onan isn't it, and with the being fruitful and multiplying, it doesn't give a limit to follow. I'm at a quandry to find a scriptural reference where it can be strongly inferred that it is sinful to use contraception. (and if so, why NFP is not, seeing as its primary function is to avoid pregancy.)

 

[Lotar]

although you are right, to state that we must have explicit command is invalid, SOME mention of it being a sin to prevent pregnancy should be evident.

Onan isn't it, and with the being fruitful and multiplying, it doesn't give a limit to follow.

I think Onan is, but beside that, there specifically shouldn't be a limit to follow; each couple should leave their fertility to God, and it is up to Him as to how many children He will bless them with. There is sin in distaining the gifts of God.

I'm at a quandry to find a scriptural reference where it can be strongly inferred that it is sinful to use contraception. (and if so, why NFP is not, seeing as its primary function is to avoid pregancy.)

The difference with NFP is that it is not having your cake and eating it too. NFP is an ascetic act of denying yourself the pleasures of the conjugal act, if you want to deny the fruit of it. Still, it is the lower way, allowed for human weakeness and (in the Orthodox Church) is only allowed under certain circumstances.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think Onan is, but beside that, there specifically shouldn't be a limit to follow; each couple should leave their fertility to God, and it is up to Him as to how many children He will bless them with. There is sin in distaining the gifts of God.



The difference with NFP is that it is not having your cake and eating it too. NFP is an ascetic act of denying yourself the pleasures of the conjugal act, if you want to deny the fruit of it. Still, it is the lower way, allowed for human weakeness and (in the Orthodox Church) is only allowed under certain circumstances.

Which brings me back to the purpose of the thread.

We can debate Onan, I doubt we will agree.

However, it seems that the RCC and Orthodox are practacing situational ethics in regards to NFP. If there is a GOOD reason for NFP, or any form of birth control, it isn't considered sin, but if it doesn't have the stamp of approval, it is sin.

Again, do you think God would prefer starvation to sterilization?

You don't have to go to third world countries to find hunger, there are plenty of families who have less than enough to eat here. Adding children would be far from a blessing. I have no argument with the idea that they are hungry due to the greed of our nations, but the family is powerless to change that, yet are expected that they should be open to as many kids as natural relations without any NFP or otherwise will produce.

Citing strict abstinence to avoid pregnancy doesn't cut it either, it violates our command to come together except in prayer in fasting, in so doing preventing temptation.

Also, the notion of children being brought in to this world being viewed as burden rather than blessing makes me shudder. Someone practices NFP, and ends up pregnant, AGAIN, despite their best efforts. No child should be unwanted, IMHO, yet that is what getting pregnant while using NFP would make the child. (although this is not accusing that the child would not be loved. It's just stating that the initial reaction, and underlying current would be OOPS!)

 

[thereselittleflower]

IF you trust God to take care of you - as you have said to me - then WHY are you going to the hospital to have c-sections? IF God wants you to have kids, then surely He is going to allow you to have them naturally, right?

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.

Or do you only trust God when it comes to GETTING pregnant?

You either trust God or you don't, right?

More Red Herring

More Ad Hominem

More Poisoning the Well..

Logically fallacious argumentation.

Nothing more .. .

The REAL moral of this story is that you are "picking and choosing" when you will, and when you will not, trust God.

More Red Herring

More Ad Hominem

More Poisoning the Well..

Logically fallacious argumentation.

Nothing more .. .

YOU are the ones claiming that Birth Control is sin - even though the Bible simply does NOT say that.

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.

YOU are the ones (at least Theresa) using the sordid phrase "marital sodomy" because of the claim that "sterilized sex" is un-natural, yet you have NO problem engaging in the un-natural practice of c-sections.

RED HERRING

IGNORES FACTS IN EVIDENCE

Truth is offensive . . that is unavoidable.

YOU are the ones that are saying that YOUR form of Birth Control is acceptable, but other forms of Birth Control are sinful.

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.

It appears to me that all the sanctimonious finger-pointing at people who choose to use a "non-Catholic approved" form of Birth Control is rather faulty. It's a non sequitur.

Not at all.


.

 

[Lotar]

Which brings me back to the purpose of the thread.

We can debate Onan, I doubt we will agree.

However, it seems that the RCC and Orthodox are practacing situational ethics in regards to NFP. If there is a GOOD reason for NFP, or any form of birth control, it isn't considered sin, but if it doesn't have the stamp of approval, it is sin.

Again, do you think God would prefer starvation to sterilization?

You don't have to go to third world countries to find hunger, there are plenty of families who have less than enough to eat here. Adding children would be far from a blessing. I have no argument with the idea that they are hungry due to the greed of our nations, but the family is powerless to change that, yet are expected that they should be open to as many kids as natural relations without any NFP or otherwise will produce.

Citing strict abstinence to avoid pregnancy doesn't cut it either, it violates our command to come together except in prayer in fasting, in so doing preventing temptation.

Also, the notion of children being brought in to this world being viewed as burden rather than blessing makes me shudder. Someone practices NFP, and ends up pregnant, AGAIN, despite their best efforts. No child should be unwanted, IMHO, yet that is what getting pregnant while using NFP would make the child. (although this is not accusing that the child would not be loved. It's just stating that the initial reaction, and underlying current would be OOPS!)

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.

I believe however that, as Christ says, He will not give us more than we can handle. Though economically, having these children may not make sense, their being here may facilitate the salvation of some or many, and that it their true purpose here.

To note more thorougly, NFP is a condecention to human weakness, in the same way that divorce is. It is not good, but sometimes it is permitted so that the weak will not fall away.

Now, if you were to know the ins and outs of NFP, you would see that an intergral part of its practice is the incorporation of prayer and fasting. Also, in order for it to be practiced, both partners (and their priest) must constent to it. Which, in and of itself, sets it apart from how contraception is in large part practiced today.

While NFP is in essence birth control, it does so through ascetic practice, not through unnaturally seperating the procreative purpose from the pleasures of sexual union.

 

[Uphill Battle]

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.

I believe however that, as Christ says, He will not give us more than we can handle. Though economically, having these children may not make sense, their being here may facilitate the salvation of some or many, and that it their true purpose here.

To note more thorougly, NFP is a condecention to human weakness, in the same way that divorce is. It is not good, but sometimes it is permitted so that the weak will not fall away.

Now, if you were to know the ins and outs of NFP, you would see that an intergral part of its practice is the incorporation of prayer and fasting. Also, in order for it to be practiced, both partners (and their priest) must constent to it. Which, in and of itself, sets it apart from how contraception is in large part practiced today.

While NFP is in essence birth control, it does so through ascetic practice, not through unnaturally seperating the procreative purpose from the pleasures of sexual union.

Thanks for your perspective.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Which brings me back to the purpose of the thread.

We can debate Onan, I doubt we will agree.

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

However, it seems that the RCC and Orthodox are practacing situational ethics in regards to NFP. If there is a GOOD reason for NFP, or any form of birth control, it isn't considered sin, but if it doesn't have the stamp of approval, it is sin.

Again, do you think God would prefer starvation to sterilization?

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 .. .

You don't have to go to third world countries to find hunger, there are plenty of families who have less than enough to eat here. Adding children would be far from a blessing.

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 . .

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

Such an argument is fundamentally anti-Christian.

I have no argument with the idea that they are hungry due to the greed of our nations, but the family is powerless to change that, yet are expected that they should be open to as many kids as natural relations without any NFP or otherwise will produce.

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 -

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.

Citing strict abstinence to avoid pregnancy doesn't cut it either, it violates our command to come together except in prayer in fasting, in so doing preventing temptation.

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.

Also, the notion of children being brought in to this world being viewed as burden rather than blessing makes me shudder. Someone practices NFP, and ends up pregnant, AGAIN, despite their best efforts.

Logical fallacy the conclusion does not follow .. non sequitor.

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.

No child should be unwanted,

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.

IMHO, yet that is what getting pregnant while using NFP would make the child.

Logical Fallacy . . ignores facts in evidence. Assumes facts not in evidence.

In fact, it is what getting pregnant while using contraception would make the child - unwanted.

(although this is not accusing that the child would not be loved. It's just stating that the initial reaction, and underlying current would be OOPS!)

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It is merely the response of the using contraception that is being projected onto the NFP user . . .

It is how the one using contraception would react . . .



.

 

[icedtea]

My gynocologist has a chart in the office which claims the pill is 99.9% effective.
He pretty much said you can't get pregnant on the pill, if taken regularly.
How many have gotten pregnant on it?
I see what both sides are saying here.
Let me say the protestant churches I have been in (non denom and assemblies, foursquare,) are totally against abortion but they are for contraception. One woman had 3 children and got her tubes tied.
One I went to church with had 12, another 7, the last at 42.