Would it be sin?!?

[thesearenotthecatholicsyouarelookingfor]

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.

I realize the thread has gotten away from the OP, but I would point out that a vasectomy is not an abortifant, and that's the circumstance under discussion here.

 

[TwinCrier]

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

And how do you know the future? Pregnancy is a notmal function of the body. If a woman is so sick she cannot give birth, certainly she isn't up to having sex.

"Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother's life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother's health, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby's life is never willfully destroyed because the mother's life is in danger."---- C. Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General

The "life of the mother" fallacy doesn't work for abortion so why should it work for contraception?
Like I said before, the birth control arguments parrot the abortion arguments word for word, deed for deed.

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.

If Onan didn't want to give his brother an heir, why marry his wife? Now we all know that that child would have been Onan's. It's biologically impossible for Onan to impregnant a woman with his brothers seed. This argument is so far out there.

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.

OK, prove that any church doctrine, church father, or Christian wriiting of any kind before 1930 sanctioned the use of any method of birth control. PROOF!

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.

Please tell me you are not comparing a surgery to save the life of a mother and/or her child is the same as getting fixed like a house pet! That's not even apples and oranges, it's more like apples and white wall tires.

 

[Benedicta00]

And how do you know the future? Pregnancy is a notmal function of the body. If a woman is so sick she cannot give birth, certainly she isn't up to having sex.

"Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother's life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother's health, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby's life is never willfully destroyed because the mother's life is in danger."---- C. Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General

The "life of the mother" fallacy doesn't work for abortion so why should it work for contraception?
Like I said before, the birth control arguments parrot the abortion arguments word for word, deed for deed.

If Onan didn't want to give his brother an heir, why marry his wife? Now we all know that that child would have been Onan's. It's biologically impossible for Onan to impregnant a woman with his brothers seed. This argument is so far out there.


OK, prove that any church doctrine, church father, or Christian wriiting of any kind before 1930 sanctioned the use of any method of birth control. PROOF!
Please tell me you are not comparing a surgery to save the life of a mother and/or her child is the same as getting fixed like a house pet! That's not even apples and oranges, it's more like apples and white wall tires.

Oh love this post!

and this needs to be shouted from the roof tops.

"Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother's life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother's health, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby's life is never willfully destroyed because the mother's life is in danger."---- C. Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General

The "life of the mother" fallacy doesn't work for abortion so why should it work for contraception?
Like I said before, the birth control arguments parrot the abortion arguments word for word, deed for deed.

 

[Benedicta00]

I realize the thread has gotten away from the OP, but I would point out that a vasectomy is not an abortifant, and that's the circumstance under discussion here.

I'm not the one who took it of topic. We have advocates of all kind in here.

My main gripe is the claim that Catholics believe this because we're mindless idiots of the Church.

There are non Catholics in here who claim it's biblical and they have been treated as if they are invisible.


Some honesty would be nice, that's all.

Like, abortifant types of contraception do exist and are the common place and other faiths are against ABC just as much as Catholics are and it ain't because Rome told them to be.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

NO truer words.

Inane, inapplicable words.

Somebody who doesn't understand the difference between a vasectomy and castration is NOT speaking "true" words.

 

[sunlover1]

Originally Posted by sunlover1
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.

No, TLF said that this wasn't about birth control, hence my post above.

Whether surgery, or absinance, the result is the same, NO baby, no letting God be God, taking control over reproduction.
So the result is the same, right?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'm not the one who took it of topic. We have advocates of all kind in here.

My main gripe is the claim that Catholics believe this because we're mindless idiots of the Church.

There are non Catholics in here who claim it's biblical and they have been treated as if they are invisible.


Some honesty would be nice, that's all.

Like, abortifant types of contraception do exist and are the common place and other faiths are against ABC just as much as Catholics are and it ain't because Rome told them to be.

yes. Some abortificant BC exists.

Yes, some people use it.

If this were the issue, Condoms, Diaphragms, etc... would be ok.

But they are not... Despite being non-abortificant. Hmmm.

Now it's true that some non catholics believe that BC is sinful. That's fine, I don't suppose you can assert that all protestants will believe one way or another. However, I linked to a website that shows that a large percentage of RC's use BC as well, despite what the RCC says about it. So apparently it isn't universally held in the RCC either.

Despite the fact that not all who disagree with BC are RC's, I think it would be fair to state that the roots of the disagreement lie with RCC.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

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?

Well, for starters, it's RIGHT ACROSS THE PAGE FROM WHERE IT SAYS IT'S OKAY TO WORSHIP MARY.


But I digress... and that's not the point, is it?

The bottom line is this: I am NOT claiming you are wrong to NOT practice birth control. You Catholics ARE claiming that it is wrong, sinful and "marital sodomy" to practice birth control. The burden of proof is YOURS, not mine.

Understand the difference?

YOU are setting yourself up as God and judging & condemning something God has not judged and condemned.


Where, in the Bible, does it say it's okay to drive a car to church?
- It doesn't say that, but I bet you do.
Where, in the Bible, does it say it's okay to use antibiotics?
- It doesn't say that, but I bet you do.
Where, in the Bible, does it say it's okay to get a c-section?
- It doesn't say that, but I bet you condone that!

Should I go on?

 

[sunlover1]

I'm not the one who took it of topic. We have advocates of all kind in here.

My main gripe is the claim that Catholics believe this because we're mindless idiots of the Church.

There are non Catholics in here who claim it's biblical and they have been treated as if they are invisible.


Some honesty would be nice, that's all.

Like, abortifant types of contraception do exist and are the common place and other faiths are against ABC just as much as Catholics are and it ain't because Rome told them to be.

Catholics are not mindless idiots!

This non-catholic is against abortion and abortifant types of contraception (if those are what they sound like, never heard of them before today :o )

 

[ParsonJefferson]

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.

What, exactly, do you judge to be "abortifant" forms of Birth Control?


And is not NFP a form of abortifant Birth Control, in that it allows a perfectly good egg to go to waste?

 

[ParsonJefferson]

And how do you know the future? Pregnancy is a notmal function of the body. If a woman is so sick she cannot give birth, certainly she isn't up to having sex.

"Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother's life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother's health, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby's life is never willfully destroyed because the mother's life is in danger."---- C. Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General

The "life of the mother" fallacy doesn't work for abortion so why should it work for contraception?
Like I said before, the birth control arguments parrot the abortion arguments word for word, deed for deed.

If Onan didn't want to give his brother an heir, why marry his wife? Now we all know that that child would have been Onan's. It's biologically impossible for Onan to impregnant a woman with his brothers seed. This argument is so far out there.


OK, prove that any church doctrine, church father, or Christian wriiting of any kind before 1930 sanctioned the use of any method of birth control. PROOF!
Please tell me you are not comparing a surgery to save the life of a mother and/or her child is the same as getting fixed like a house pet! That's not even apples and oranges, it's more like apples and white wall tires.

First of all, I would STRONGLY recommend you do some serious study on Genesis 38 - and the God-ordained principle of providing your brother an heir, if your brother were to die.


Beyond that, I have no idea what you're talking about in this post. Are you thinking that I am claiming that Birth Control is SIN and MARITAL SODOMY? Because I am NOT the one claiming that.

 

[Uphill Battle]

What, exactly, do you judge to be "abortifant" forms of Birth Control?


And is not NFP a form of abortifant Birth Control, in that it allows a perfectly good egg to go to waste?

I can't agree with that last bit, I'm afraid... Abortificant would meant the abortion of an already conceived child.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

I can't agree with that last bit, I'm afraid... Abortificant would meant the abortion of an already conceived child.

You're right - but I'm making a point of the absurdity of it all.

We have people here who are grasping at straws, splitting hairs, sitting in the place of God, and claiming one form of Birth Control is fine while all others are sin and marital sodomy.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of this kind of un-Christian behavior and judgment.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You're right - but I'm making a point of the absurdity of it all.

But we have people here who are grasping at straws, splitting hairs, sitting in the place of God, and claiming one form of Birth Control is fine while all others are sin and marital sodomy.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of this kind of un-Christian behavior and judgment.

to be fair, they feel the same about us. We have to try and keep this from getting personal. I personally agree that it is absurd, but they think our side of the coin is absurd too.

The blind leading the blind, no?

 

[Benedicta00]

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?

because I need an operation to get the baby out. Why do you think?

IF God wants you to have kids, then surely He is going to allow you to have them naturally, right?

God gifted us with technology and know how to use for the good, not for the immoral. sterilization is objectively immoral therefore should not be be used. C sections are not immoral, they should be used.

See the difference, finally?

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

I trust that God, no matter how may c section I have in this life, against all odds, will take care of me and whatever happens, happenes even if it's sad and tragic, I trust that this is his will and and I accept his will be done, not mine.

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

Every moment of the day and night. I didn't get fixed and now I can put it out of my mind. Instead I allowed myself to rely on God every day.

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

I disagree. The moral is, I am at risk if I have another baby. I didn't get fixed. I trust that God will handle this and so far he has.

What saddens me the most is how, since you all contracept, you can't see the blessings that God grants us.

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

It doesn't say smoking crack cocaine or nicotine is either so is there a point to this?

YOU are the ones (at least Theresa) using the sordid phrase "marital sodomy" because of the claim that "sterilized sex" is un-natural,

The question is, that you can't answer is, How isn't it? How is it anything but?

yet you have NO problem engaging in the un-natural practice of c-sections.

NO, I have a problem with it but I have no choice.

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

I'm saying if there is a grave reason one should think twice about having a child, then there is a morally acceptable way to achive that.

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.

It appears to me that if one has such a dislike for the Catholic Church, even if they were convicted by any of what we say, their dislike for the Catholic Church would override their conviction.

 

[Benedicta00]

Inane, inapplicable words.

Somebody who doesn't understand the difference between a vasectomy and castration is NOT speaking "true" words.

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 their true. How many in the OT lamented because they could not bare children and felt they were cursed by God, being punished by him?

If you had many sons, you were considered favored by God. that's an argument for large families. And if you had dughters, then you found them husbands and then you had son in laws, you were blessed.

Now, I am showing you from scripture so you can't come back anymore with how we do not have a biblical legs to stand on. We have quit a few legs that hold us up.

 

[Lotar]

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

My wife's godmother was told that 3 children and 2 miscarriages ago. God knows best.

 

[Benedicta00]

No, TLF said that this wasn't about birth control, hence my post above.

Whether surgery, or absinance, the result is the same, NO baby, no letting God be God, taking control over reproduction.
So the result is the same, right?

It's not B/c, it's spacing children.

I know you do not see the difference so I'm not pushing that with you.

Point is one way is moral and the other isn't.

That is one half of the sin of contraception, the other half is what would make it B/C and that would be our reasons for spacing.

Means and intent- means and intent. They go hand in hand.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No their true. How many in the OT lamented because they could not bare children and felt they were cursed by God, being punished by him?

If you had many sons, you were considered favored by God. that's an argument for large families. And if you had dughters, then you found them husbands and then you had son in laws, you were blessed.

Now, I am showing you from scripture so you can't come back anymore with how we do not have a biblical legs to stand on. We have quit a few legs that hold us up.

you however, are quoting Jewish tradition, not Biblical law....there IS a difference.

 

[Lotar]

You're right - but I'm making a point of the absurdity of it all.

We have people here who are grasping at straws, splitting hairs, sitting in the place of God, and claiming one form of Birth Control is fine while all others are sin and marital sodomy.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of this kind of un-Christian behavior and judgment.

That is a total misconception of what we are saying.

First, NFP is not fine, it is something allowed under certain circumstances. It is an example of "situational morality" as someone said earlier.

The point is that while not trusting God is a sin, the greater sin is the intentional sterilization of the maritial act, which is the reason of contraception. Furthermore, acting in this way is a form of sexual gluttony, in the manner of bulimia.