Your view on birth control?

[pegatha]

Michael Savage is a radio talk show host and author, known for his strongly voiced conservative opinions, his outspoken criticism of other media personalities (such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly), his refusal to toady to either political party, and his somewhat pessimistic attitude about the current state of American culture and politics. He's the one who originally coined such phrases as "compassionate conservatism," "borders, language, culture" (a list of those American attributes that are under direct attack), and "liberalism is a mental disorder."

 

[Blessed be His Name]

I fail to see how you can murder someone who doesn't exist yet. Besides, God can easily work around a condom if He wants a child badly enough (not that it's my preference to use them). No latex sleeve can stand between Him and His purposes.

Nor can a huge metal vacuum if you want to look at it that way.

 

[Ave Maria]

Alas...sometimes Midol or other pain relievers just don't cut it . Aleve and Tylenol Arthritis (650 mg of relief per tablet!!) at least make it tolerable.

I do most of the items on the list on a regular basis (other than taking a daily vitamin, much to my mom's chagrin!)...my husband and I DO choose mutually to abstain for those five days a month, because quite frankly, I am not up to it...and he is not really thrilled at the prospect during that time, either...

I just sometimes miss the good old days, when I took the pill and didn't even have to worry about pain relief - it was a nonissue, because there was no pain (and it only lasted 3 days!).

Incidentally, endometriosis and other causes of painful cramps is another reason why some doctors prescribe birth control pills. What do you all think about people taking it for NON-birth-control purposes? I know several women who have had them prescribed for those reasons (many of them unmarried and not sexually active!).

I have no idea. I'd have to see what the Church says about it before I could say anything. Have you asked your doctor if you could take some tylenol with codeine or something of that sort to alleviate the pain that you have?

 

[Sketcher]

Nor can a huge metal vacuum if you want to look at it that way.

But that fails to address my first point, which is you can't murder someone who doesn't exist. A fertilized egg is someone who exists. Without that, you have no life, therefore you can't take a life.

 

[Ave Maria]

But that fails to address my first point, which is you can't murder someone who doesn't exist. A fertilized egg is someone who exists. Without that, you have no life, therefore you can't take a life.

Yes, and if a fertilised egg is someone who exists (which it is), then what right do we have to use "birth control" methods that can murder that special someone?

 

[pegatha]

Incidentally, endometriosis and other causes of painful cramps is another reason why some doctors prescribe birth control pills. What do you all think about people taking it for NON-birth-control purposes? I know several women who have had them prescribed for those reasons (many of them unmarried and not sexually active!).

There are plenty of medicines other than b/c that would cause serious birth defects or death to an unborn child, but no one would deny those medicines to a woman who isn't even sexually active. If b/c pills alleviate her suffering, and if there isn't a risk of conception/abortion, then I'd say go ahead. For that woman, the pills are a real blessing. I can't think of any Scriptural reason to deny them to her.

 

[Sketcher]

Yes, and if a fertilised egg is someone who exists (which it is), then what right do we have to use "birth control" methods that can murder that special someone?

We don't, that's why I only believe in condoms and natural family planning.

 

[Blessed be His Name]

I am not saying that this is the whole reason why birth control is sinful, but it is deffinitely something to think about. You now how people say that even children can often know if something is right or wrong because we naturally have something in us that tells us? Well, when I was about 11 my assistant pastor's daughter got a blood clot from taking birth control pills. When I heard that I was like, WHAT? They actually use BC and think it's okay. I always assumed that everyone who was a Christian believed it was wrong, but I had a rude awakening.

 

[Sketcher]

Was that for hormonal problems or actual birth control?

 

[rebel_conservative]

we should not/can not take away the procreative aspect of sex. that is what secular society has done in the past 50 years, look where that has ended up??? sex is not just a physical act. it is emotional and spiritual. we should not follow our own desires or the way of the world. even if there is no unequivocal condemnation of birth control, there is certainly no Biblical support for using it. we should keep sex the way God intended, as part of a loving married life; an emotional, physical and spiritual pleasure that is open to conception, so I do not agree with artificial birth control methods.

(btw, if someone is taking the 'contraceptive' pill for medical reasons, then it is not "birth control" so is not a problem)

 

[Sketcher]

we should keep sex the way God intended, as part of a loving married life; an emotional, physical and spiritual pleasure that is open to conception, so I do not agree with artificial birth control methods.

But what if, within marraige, the two people have every intention of keeping the emotional, spiritual, and every other aspect of sex but the finances are tight? They'd have every intention of bonding completely, as God intended rather than just treating it like some cheap thrill. The only difference would be they literally cannot afford to support a baby.

 

[Blessed be His Name]

Was that for hormonal problems or actual birth control?

Actual BC.

 

[pegatha]

even if there is no unequivocal condemnation of birth control, there is certainly no Biblical support for using it.

I disagree. I believe the Bible hints that natural means were used to space out the births of childlen in Old Testament days.

On a couple of occasions, Scripture speaks of women who were nursing their children, and who didn't conceive again until after the children were weaned. I don't know how long women breastfed their babies in those days, but in other low-tech, agrarian societies, nursing can continue for quite a while, even two or three years. I don't think it's a stretch to assume the same was true in those days.

Medically speaking, it's known that breastfeeding a baby every four hours or so can suppress the mother's ovulation. It's almost as if God has designed a woman's body with a built-in birth regulator. Nowadays, women who breastfeed usually only do so for a few weeks or months. In addition, most new moms make it a top priority to get their babies to sleep through the night as soon as possible, which means that even mothers who breastfeed don't do so frequently enough to suppress ovulation. So in our society, we've pretty much lost the secondary use of breastfeeding as a form of family planning. Instead, we've replaced it with chemical or barrier methods to accomplish pretty much the same thing.

If I'm understanding Scripture correctly on this, then it makes sense to me that Christian married couples should be free to make their own decisions concerning any method that prevents conception.

 

[rebel_conservative]

I disagree. I believe the Bible hints that natural means were used to space out the births of childlen in Old Testament days.

On a couple of occasions, Scripture speaks of women who were nursing their children, and who didn't conceive again until after the children were weaned. I don't know how long women breastfed their babies in those days, but in other low-tech, agrarian societies, nursing can continue for quite a while, even two or three years. I don't think it's a stretch to assume the same was true in those days.

Medically speaking, it's known that breastfeeding a baby every four hours or so can suppress the mother's ovulation. It's almost as if God has designed a woman's body with a built-in birth regulator. Nowadays, women who breastfeed usually only do so for a few weeks or months. In addition, most new moms make it a top priority to get their babies to sleep through the night as soon as possible, which means that even mothers who breastfeed don't do so frequently enough to suppress ovulation. So in our society, we've pretty much lost the secondary use of breastfeeding as a form of family planning. Instead, we've replaced it with chemical or barrier methods to accomplish pretty much the same thing.

If I'm understanding Scripture correctly on this, then it makes sense to me that Christian married couples should be free to make their own decisions concerning any method that prevents conception.

(emphasis added)

 

[pegatha]

"Natural means"... (emphasis added)

But we routinely use technology to replace natural means when necessary. We use ventilators when someone can't breathe naturally, we perform surgery when someone can't heal naturally, we replace natural bones or joints with those made of metal or synthetic fibers, we use antibiotics when the natural immune system proves inadequate... why should family planning be the one situation that God allows "naturally" but not with technological assistance?

 

[Ave Maria]

I disagree. I believe the Bible hints that natural means were used to space out the births of childlen in Old Testament days.

On a couple of occasions, Scripture speaks of women who were nursing their children, and who didn't conceive again until after the children were weaned. I don't know how long women breastfed their babies in those days, but in other low-tech, agrarian societies, nursing can continue for quite a while, even two or three years. I don't think it's a stretch to assume the same was true in those days.

Medically speaking, it's known that breastfeeding a baby every four hours or so can suppress the mother's ovulation. It's almost as if God has designed a woman's body with a built-in birth regulator. Nowadays, women who breastfeed usually only do so for a few weeks or months. In addition, most new moms make it a top priority to get their babies to sleep through the night as soon as possible, which means that even mothers who breastfeed don't do so frequently enough to suppress ovulation. So in our society, we've pretty much lost the secondary use of breastfeeding as a form of family planning. Instead, we've replaced it with chemical or barrier methods to accomplish pretty much the same thing.

If I'm understanding Scripture correctly on this, then it makes sense to me that Christian married couples should be free to make their own decisions concerning any method that prevents conception.

Nice post but I disagree that we should be able to use any method that prevents conception. God designed sex to be both a procreative and unitive act for the married couple. To take away the procreative aspect is to turn sex into something unnatural and not what it is designed for.

 

[pegatha]

To take away the procreative aspect is to turn sex into something unnatural and not what it is designed for.

Well, taken to is logical conclusion, that would mean that sex with a spouse who was infertile due to illness or accident, or with a post-menopausal wife, would be unnatural. It would also mean that someone known to be infertile couldn't contract a Scripturally valid marriage. I hate sounding nitpicky or combative, but I'm really not following your logic.

Of course, if you really believe that contraception is wrong, then you'd be wrong to use it. That's your decision to make, and if your goal is to honor God, then I certainly have no quarrel with you. There's nothing wrong with having seven or ten or fourteen children (didn't Susannah Wesley have 20 or 21?) if you have the resources to support them. But if you lack the money to provide necessities or the stamina to love & discipline consistently, then it's irresponsible to keep having more when there are simple and affordable ways to limit the number. As I've already explained, I see precedent in Scripture for spacing out the births of children, precedent that doesn't require periodic abstinence or denying your spouse. If someone else reads the same passages and comes to a different conclusion, that's fine. But the anti-contraception arguments I've seen so far lack any solid Scriptural foundation, which (for me) is the deciding factor.

 

[jangnim]

What is your view on birth control? Please vote and tell us in here or explain why you voted the way you did.

From a stand point of a man, father, grandfather, and husband, here is my 2 cents.

It seems highly illogical that God would have us be stupid about children. In the modern world, the idea of unrestrained reproduction is personal suicide. With costs per child at an ever increasing spiral, it seems more likely, if only from a stewardship point of view, we need to control the number of children we have.

Personally I have accepted much criticism in this regard, but honestly, I don't think Jesus wants us to be stupid.

 

[bubblegirl23]

There are other ways to be intimate without intercourse. Maybe that's an answer for those not ready for children who disagree with contraceptives.

 

[Ave Maria]

There are other ways to be intimate without intercourse. Maybe that's an answer for those not ready for children who disagree with contraceptives.

True. However, I believe that all sexual acts should end with the possibility of procreation.