As a Christian do you support birth control?

[LifeMaiden]

As a Christian, do you support artificial birth control, or not? Why or why not?

* By artificial birth control I mean everything except for the natural rhthym method*

[lions mane]

im not a christian, but yes, i think they would support, they dont want their young kids to become parents at a young age, and they dont believe in abortion (which is something that is great and has saved many people) but then again i dont know, cause they believe that know one should be sexually active unless your married or so..........

come on people its the 21st century ;) :cool:

[Solya]

When it comes to sex before marriage, I think it is mainly a good thing that they invented artificial birth control. :) Fact is that many young people are sexually active and not all of them can take care of a child... so in that way I suppose that the birth control does work.

I am in doubt about taking the pill. Not because I'm planning on having sex, but because my period is often very heavy and usually makes me so sick that I can't do the things I should do. Right now I'm more against it than for it, really, because I feel that I shouldn't feed my body these hormones. I've always been pretty much against medicine when it comes to this and I just don't want to mess around with nature too much.

For myself, I do support birth control in a sense. I guess it is just safer that way when you're not married and I think that it is a great thing for people who don't want children or who simply can't afford to have children at this point in time.

[LifeMaiden]

I have chosen to remain child-free ( as opposed to childless, which implies a family has tried to have children and could not) so my options for birth control at least for now are hahaha celibacy :D

[Queen Swanwhite]

I have nothing against birth control. I think it is up to the mother and/or father to use condoms etc. It's not killing because nothing is made to kill. ;)

[Wendygirljp]

I have always found the definition of the "Rhythm system" of birth conrol rather accurate.

Couples who practice the rhythm system of birth control are called "parents".

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Yeah, a great joke. Really, really ignorant, but a real knee-slapper.

For anyone who's interested in actually learning about Natural Family Planning, you can check out some information here (http://www.bygpub.com/natural/natural-family-planning.htm).

The only "problem" with NFP, at least to the modern mind, is that it requires a little bit of restraint on the part of the couple. Temporary. For a little while. But to the modern mentality, accustomed as it is to immediate gratification of all desires, that one small requirement represents an almost insurmountable obstacle. Restraint? Oh, no! Better by far to get some sort of surgery, or expect the woman to take artificial hormones that have who-knows-what short and long-term effects on her system. Much better than having to restrain ourselves.

[LifeMaiden]

You want to know the biggest irony, POTW? When I practiced the rhythm method ( natural family planning) ....I actually never got pregnant. My husband and I were together two years *( dating, plus marriage) and I did not get pregnant ONCE. Another boyfriend I dated, I also used this method, and I did not get pregnant ONCE.

And the four times I did? GUESS WHAT?????????? I used artificial means! :eek:


I do not believe in taking regulatory hormonal pills or hormone birth control of ANY type, because of the side effects, depression, blood clots, links to breast cancer and ovarian cancer, and the general miseries of being a woman make it hard enough for me as it is not to have my hormones messed with pills.


Here's a bigger irony. I used the natural family planning when I WAS NOT IN MY RELIGIOUS STAGE. And yet it worked, perfectly. I didn't want to get pregnant and followed that method, without using any other form of birth control.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Wow. Very, very interesting.

Of all the injustices consequent to the "sexual revolution", this is certainly one of the most annoying to me: the woman is expected to bear the burden of the contraceptive technique, so the man can have his fun and avoid consequences. Obviously, I don't know first hand, but I've heard that hormone pills can really knock out a woman's system - cause bloating, nausea, just feeling "off" (I'm sure someone else could say it better than I) - plus the uncertain long-term effects. I mean, this is hormone therapy, folks! Therapy like this for other matters such as developmental abnormalities is handled with the utmost caution and under a doctor's constant supervision. Edicrinologists are the first to admit that even the most careful and delicate hormone treatments are, by comparison to the body's own wondrous hormonal balancing, like trying to create spun glass sculptures with a bulldozer. Yet women are expected to take a constant regimen of these things!? Geesh - don't get me started.

Regarding the topic of this thread - I could say much, but right now I'll restrict it to this: one of the best educations in this topic which I received was found in C.S. Lewis' book That Hideous Strength. It's so quick and so subtle that it can slip by you without noticing. Read carefully to see how Merlin reacts when he first meets Jane Studdock, and what he says to Ransom about her. Read it carefully, especially in light of Ransom's earlier answer to Merlin regarding Sulva. It's bone-chilling. Interestingly, my wife and I were both hit right between the eyes by that same passage years before we even met. Thus, when the question of birth control arose between us, we just looked at each other, said "usages of Sulva", and that settled the matter. As a consequence, we now have six wonderful children, some of whom are having children of their own, and I cannot imagine the world without any one of them.

[LifeMaiden]

Wow. Very, very interesting.

Of all the injustices consequent to the "sexual revolution", this is certainly one of the most annoying to me: the woman is expected to bear the burden of the contraceptive technique, so the man can have his fun and avoid consequences. Obviously, I don't know first hand, but I've heard that hormone pills can really knock out a woman's system - cause bloating, nausea, just feeling "off" (I'm sure someone else could say it better than I) - plus the uncertain long-term effects. I mean, this is hormone therapy, folks! Therapy like this for other matters such as developmental abnormalities is handled with the utmost caution and under a doctor's constant supervision. Edicrinologists are the first to admit that even the most careful and delicate hormone treatments are, by comparison to the body's own wondrous hormonal balancing, like trying to create spun glass sculptures with a bulldozer. Yet women are expected to take a constant regimen of these things!? Geesh - don't get me started.

Regarding the topic of this thread - I could say much, but right now I'll restrict it to this: one of the best educations in this topic which I received was found in C.S. Lewis' book That Hideous Strength. It's so quick and so subtle that it can slip by you without noticing. Read carefully to see how Merlin reacts when he first meets Jane Studdock, and what he says to Ransom about her. Read it carefully, especially in light of Ransom's earlier answer to Merlin regarding Sulva. It's bone-chilling. Interestingly, my wife and I were both hit right between the eyes by that same passage years before we even met. Thus, when the question of birth control arose between us, we just looked at each other, said "usages of Sulva", and that settled the matter. As a consequence, we now have six wonderful children, some of whom are having children of their own, and I cannot imagine the world without any one of them.



There is, by the way, a male hormone pill being tested now that should be out in about 5 years on the market which pretty much makes a man shoot blanks if you know what I mean :rolleyes: . But for the most part yes, birth control is the responsibility of a woman, even when it comes to condoms...most of the time, a woman brings em. So much for liberated, huh?

[EveningStar]

I don't know, Ice Maiden. The fact that women have to beat men away with bats while the men wait in vain for desperate women to please PLEASE attack says something rather pitiable about the male gender. :rolleyes:

[echoscot]

I wish you had put an "I don't know" button, because I really don't. Both sides of the argument have very good points.

[Wendygirljp]

PrinceotWest - Ignorant? Not according to the American Medical Association, not according to Lancet, and the Japan Ministry of Health and Welfare.

Effectiveness -

Rhythm - has typical use failure rates as high as 25% per year

Surgical sterilization and intrauterine devices (IUDs) both have failure rates of less than 1% per year.

Typical use failure rates of hormonal contraceptives are as high as 8% per year.

Condoms and cervical barriers such as the diaphragm have similar typical use failure rates (15.0% and 16%, respectively)

Withdrawal method typical use failure rate is 27%.

If you do not like my "humor" based on the organizations mentioned above, please feel free to bring it up to them, not to get petty, yet again, because you choose to go on outmoded "urban legends" or some other source of information which apparently is not respected in western medicine.

By the way, when did sarcasm become a quality of Christian ethics? Is it really something your own teacher would approve of? If it was not sarcasm, please explain yourself a bit clearer so it does not appear to be such.

P.S. Maybe you may want to read your site you referenced a little closer. Their comment, not mine, was ""Rhythm methods are not effective.""

[Wendygirljp]

echoscot -

This may come as a surprise to you, but as to your last post, I agree completely. An "I don't know" choice would be a good idea. I am happy to see you state how "both sides have very good points." It is true. That is why I do not state whether I agree or not on the issue of abortion, because I, too, really do NOT KNOW!

[Wendygirljp]

EveningStar,

I agree - the human male seems to be a bit hormonally challenged. "Not enough blood to run both heads simultaneously", is what a minister friend of mine used to say.

And why is it the "macho male" is so afraid of having a vasectomy? So much for being the "king of the hill" when it comes to area of some forms of responsibility. It is not like they are that expensive, and some government medical programs for the poor in the U.S. even pay/(maybe now, paid) for them.

[EveningStar]

"Not enough blood to run both heads simultaneously"Since when did we confuse "Family Planning" with "Family Friendly"? I'm just bracing myself for the first person that wants to imply how they fine-tuned their technique and then I'm going to go on a rampage of locking, deleting and warning.

There are only two family friendly answers to this question...yes you do support it or no you do not. There will be no in-depth discussions on how, when, how often, or how many, no linking to sites that go into that. Period.

[inkspot]

PoTW, I have long noted the passage in THS about the usages of Sulva -- Merlin was implying even the rhythm method was wrong, was he not, because Jane and mark had conspired not to have the baby God intended for them? So you are saying (forgive me if this is too personal, but you brought up your own experience), you and your wife do not practice that method, either? This has led me to wonder ... in all seriousness, whether it doesn't become a burden on one or the other of you to perform because, well, God may be intending to make the baby He wants for you at that season, and you are dragging your feet? Or did I misinterpret what you (and Merlin) said altogether?

I do not have this choice, as I have never been able to conceive (a great heartache to me, but not to my husband who does not want any more children!). I would say be very careful with the pil, because of the possible side effects.

[EveningStar]

If this discussion requires the kids to be put to bed and the door shut, please do it in PM's. The kids on this forum can't be put to bed and there is no door to shut.

Common sense please. I don't want Timmy asking his mom what the rhythm method is.

[Ephinie]

My reply to this thread has got to be, "I don't know." I do support birth control in general, epecially when it involves young married couples who are not ready to have children yet. In the case of unmarried people, I support that form of birth control known as abstinence - it works every time! The reason I have to put I don't know for the answer to this thread is because various methods have been mentioned, and I know little to nothing about most of these methods.

Also, thank you to Evening Star for continuing to be so concerned about keeping the rating of this website appropriate for family-friendliness... even though it's a subject I'm somewhat interested in and would have liked to see what posters had to say in regard to particulars.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

PrinceotWest - Ignorant? Not according to the American Medical Association, not according to Lancet, and the Japan Ministry of Health and Welfare.


Which explains why Japan is rapidly losing people. They're not letting any new kids be born :eek:

[LifeMaiden]

Which explains why Japan is rapidly losing people. They're not letting any new kids be born :eek:


They also have an incredibly high population...Tokyo has 33 million people, and Japan has a population of over HALF the USA, with most of these people concentrated on the eastern side of the islands, in an area much less spacious than the state of California.

[LifeMaiden]

I wish you had put an "I don't know" button, because I really don't. Both sides of the argument have very good points.


I didn't create that poll because I didn't know how to do it. So there should be an I DONT KNOW answer in there between YES and NO. POTW or one of the other moderators can change it.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

They also have an incredibly high population...Tokyo has 33 million people, and Japan has a population of over HALF the USA, with most of these people concentrated on the eastern side of the islands, in an area much less spacious than the state of California.
In 2002, the majority of Japanese people were 15-64 in age. Here are the exact statistics:
15-64 years: 67.5% (male 43,027,320; female 42,586,112)*
Now if the people still condsidered in the fertility range (15-45) use contraception and abortion at a high rate, as they seem to be doing, there will be fewer and fewer people IN the fertility range. And this is really a vicious cylce, because the fertile people don't have many children, so those few children have even fewer children, and the elderly grow and die, and there are still no fertile people to concieve.
*Histoycentral.com, Japan article.

[Jood]

I think birthcontrol is a great idea. When I get married (if I do) I don't want to have a bunch of children right off the bat. I'd like to have some alone time with my husband first. I know it's supposedly bad for you, but I can believe God won't let me get any horrible side affects from it.

[arwenelizabeth]

PrinceotWest - Ignorant? Not according to the American Medical Association, not according to Lancet, and the Japan Ministry of Health and Welfare.

Effectiveness -

Rhythm - has typical use failure rates as high as 25% per year

Surgical sterilization and intrauterine devices (IUDs) both have failure rates of less than 1% per year.

Typical use failure rates of hormonal contraceptives are as high as 8% per year.

Condoms and cervical barriers such as the diaphragm have similar typical use failure rates (15.0% and 16%, respectively)

Withdrawal method typical use failure rate is 27%.

P.S. Maybe you may want to read your site you referenced a little closer. Their comment, not mine, was ""Rhythm methods are not effective.""
Okay, ES, I'm going to try really hard to stay family-friendly here, and I hope I don't get deleted. Feel free to edit me if necessary. :)

Wendygirl has raised an important issue and I want to address it. The primary problem here is not that she and POTW disagree about the effectiveness of the method in question, it's that they're talking about two different things.

As someone who has both studied and used NFP extensively in my own life, I can tell you that it is not the same thing as "the rhythm method." NFP, when used properly (and IM attested to this with her own experience) has a percent success rate in the high 90s. The rhythm method, which is much cruder and involves simply counting days, has a success rate around what Wendygirl quoted above.

But the fact is that hardly anyone uses that method anymore. It is outdated and it doesn't work. People who choose, for whatever reason, not to use artificial birth control use NFP - and it does work, because it's very well-designed.

What happens is that NFP supporters say "try this natural method" and then people who haven't been exposed to it or don't have all the information (or sometimes people who have ulterior motives and would rather not have it widely known that there's a natural method which works, but I believe Wendygirl is in the prior category) say "that's the rhythm method, and it doesn't work" and then people who know that NFP works because they've used it get all defensive and no one steps in to point out that there is no real argument, just a failure to define terms properly.

So WG, when you say "that method doesn't work well" you're entirely right, but POTW is also right when he says that there are natural methods that do work. Can we all get along now? :D

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Since when did we confuse "Family Planning" with "Family Friendly"? I'm just bracing myself for the first person that wants to imply how they fine-tuned their technique and then I'm going to go on a rampage of locking, deleting and warning.

There are only two family friendly answers to this question...yes you do support it or no you do not. There will be no in-depth discussions on how, when, how often, or how many, no linking to sites that go into that. Period.Much as I love a robust discussion and think this a worthwhile topic, I have to agree with you on this, Magister. The interesting irony is that Lewis' Interplanetary Trilogy itself, though never improper, is definitely a "PG" work (and in the case of Strength, "PG-13") for reasons of mature subject matter in the most literal sense. But this is a Narnia forum, and we have to live under those constraints.

One question I have, and this would be specifically to married or intend-to-be-married Christians who want to follow God's direction for their lives: if you would submit your lives to God's will in other matters, such as where you lived, what you did, and who you married - why would you not submit to His will in regard to how many children you had, and when He chose to send them? I have heard couples speak of their wholehearted devotion to God and willingness to accept anything He sends them in other areas of their lives, but when it came to children they began to hem and haw and talk about prudence and common sense. Why not trust Him with this area as well?

[Lady Eve]

I believe that birth control can be a good thing, even though I myself would never use it. I find it better for someone to use birth control than go and get pregnant, yet be too poor to afford the child and end up having to give it away. I also agree with PotW though about letting God send children into your life when he feels it is right. Not everyone in the world is going to go along with that concept though so overall I think that birth-control is a good choice for those who don't want to run the risk of having children. ~Eve

[Solya]

I will probably submit myself to God's will when it comes to children. :) I cannot speak for my future husband, of course, but I do want to have children and I feel that it is in fact one of my purposes in life to guide children towards adulthood in the best way possible. I think God will choose to send children to us only when we are -- in God's eyes -- ready to have them... I personally trust in God for this because I know that I'm being prepared now for a reason. If I will not have children myself I will still work with other people's children and help them grow.

I also don't feel like adding any hormones to my body. I'm good in the way it is... with all the pain that sometimes comes with it... because I know that this is my way of signalling that I am healthy and able to bear children. Sometimes, I'd find a birth control pill pretty handy but then I realise that I will only take it because I won't have any problems then. I think that actually taking hormones like this will make me more selfish, in a sense. It doesn't mean that I'm against birth control. But I will probably never be able to take a pill and stop myself from working in tune with nature. I am meant to work in tune with it and not against it in such a fashion.

[Mar]

ummm i want to say something...but im to dumb!!

[arwenelizabeth]

ummm i want to say something...but im to dumb!!
Mar, I'm sure that's not true! :)

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

Mar, I'm sure that's not true! :)
^What she said.

[Mar]

Mar, I'm sure that's not true! :)
ahh i know you! well not really but...

umm but yeah it is..i dont want to talk about it!

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Hey, y'all, reading over this thread (because EveningStar mentioned it in the "Who Wants to Make Out With Me?" thread), I find it a poor testimony that no Scripture (though Hideous Strength has been referenced, which is *almost*... OK, I won't say that... :D ) has been quoted by those of us who claim to be Christians.

I think the key Scripture in this matter is 1 Corinthians 7:3-7, which says,

"3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."
(Taken from Biblegateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:3-7;&version=31;))

Now, as a young, un-married guy who has to battle with his hormones & the desires of the flesh daily, I can definitely relate to what PotW is saying about the problem our society has with "instant gratification" (i.e., we lack patience). And, as a Christian, I know I'm *supposed* to wait (really good book on this topic: Every Young Man's Battle).

So, to those who are saying that contraceptives (of any sort) are OK for people who are not married, I cannot disagree more.

To those who say that patience & self-control are needed, I cannot agree more.

Does that make my position clear?

Also, thanks for the NFP link, PotW; that will come in handy once I'm married.

...Maybe later I'll come on here & take on some of the points made by the "pro-contraceptive" group.

[Sunrise]

So, to those who are saying that contraceptives (of any sort) are OK for people who are not married, I cannot disagree more.
.

While I understand your point, and agree with the spirit of it, I have to say this is impractical.

Not everyone lives by Judeo-Christian morality (not to insult other religions by omission, but I am ignorant of the sexual mores taught under other faiths). I heartily wish this were not the case, but when a lot of professed Christians don't even live by the "abstinence-until-marriage" standard, we can hardly expect non-Christians to subject themselves to it, even though a few do. For those who don't, isn't it better that they take steps to prevent pregnancy, rather than winding up in abortion clinics when it happens?

As far as married Christians who practice birth control, I'm not sure what I think. While I agree we can trust God to send children in His timing, couldn't an extreme version of this be somewhat akin to the Christian Scientist who eschews ALL medical intervention because whatever happens to you physically is God's will? I look at people like Andrea Yates, whose life is now a tragedy - let alone her children's brief sojourn here - that could have possibly been prevented if her husband and she had heeded doctors' warnings that it would be psychologically dangerous for her to continue having children. Granted, this is an extreme example, but still.

I have a lot of appreciation for the beauty of the philosophy behind NFP. It takes a great deal of mutual respect and understanding from both husband and wife. Yet it is a form of contraception when you get right down to it, so why is it ethically different from other methods?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Just as a historical note: until the early 20th century, all Christian traditions without exception opposed birth control. It is a mistake to think of birth control as a modern invention. The only "new" method introduced in the 20th century was hormonal treatments; all other methods have been known for centuries. Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformational traditions all condemned any form of birth control as interfering with God's clear plan for married couples. It wasn't until the Lambeth Conference in London in 1930 that the Anglican Church admitted that artificial contraception was permissible for married couples (interesting the things that tradition takes the lead in). This was seen by other Christian traditions as an aberrant departure from Biblical Christianity.

For an interesting perspective on this, try reading the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html), with special attention to section 17. See if the encyclical's prediction of what would happen if artificial contraception became widespread has not become rather common. You don't have to be Catholic to take a look at this perspective (which, by the way, was not drawn up by the Pope alone; he consulted with a panel of doctors, theologians, and married couples.)

[Wendygirljp]

Elf of the Grey Havens

You posted, "Which explains why Japan is rapidly losing people. They're not letting any new kids be born "

Who is not letting any new kids be born? The government? Who?

Again, until about 5 years ago, the birth control pill was not available to the general population in Japan, so NO, it was not because someone was not letting "new kids be born."

The reason why the population of Japan is going down is because, since the economy is doing so well, the younger generation of gentlemen and ladies are not getting married until they are in their thirties, staying in professional positions, and creating children as the generations before. Many, in fact, say they stay single longer because they "want to be like Americans", to have many "things" and not worry about getting married so quickly. Nobody is stopping anyone from having children.

Maybe you were thinking of China?

In your next post, you wrote, "Now if the people still condsidered in the fertility range (15-45) use contraception and abortion at a high rate, as they seem to be doing, there will be fewer and fewer people IN the fertility range. And this is really a vicious cylce, because the fertile people don't have many children, so those few children have even fewer children, and the elderly grow and die, and there are still no fertile people to concieve."

Where are your numbers on the number of people using contraception and abortion at a high rate, as you are assuming. Not all cultures act in the same as ones you may be familiar with. Are you saying Japanese are, in essence, "sex crazy" and using a lot of contraception and abortions? I beg to differ. Maybe you should learn about how the Japanese culture acts before making such claims as such. There is something called "family honor" which keeps the young adults who are unmarried from having sex as much as some western countercultures.

Your fallacious claims are like saying that the true Geisha were prostitutes. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Check the culture before making such statements.

To save space,

IceMaiden,

Your numbers were "fairly close". The Tokyo region, which includes Kanagawa, Saitama and a number of other prefectures, the population is at, by last count, approximately 35,327,000. Tokyo proper, however, is at 8,483,050. The area of the state of California is 155,959 square miles, whereas the state of Japan is at 145,882. While it is crowded, it is not quite at the point of Charlton Heston's "Soylent Green" (tongue in cheek attempt of humor).

We also have the oldest average living people in the world, another issue to be considered, if one wants to keep perspective.

[LifeMaiden]

This is one of the most interesting and engaging topics I've read here in a long time, showing the many varied points of view that Christians have about a very important subject/topic. This represents the macrocosm of society as I've experienced it. In the days when very little birth control was used, or we have seen that in the past, families were much, much larger. In fact in 1800, the average family had 7 children, and now, of course, it's probably between 1 and 2 kids. Most families I know in my neighborhood have anywhere from 1 to 3 children, max. One family has four.


Now when I went to school, both grammar, middle and high school, the vast majority of Catholics I knew ( I'd say at least 60% or more ) I know were pro-choice. A higher amount ( more like 80%) supported birth control. But there were some who did not. In my old neighborhood where I grew up, our next door neighbors attended the same school I did, and they did not believe in abortion or birth control, period. Their three children ( girls) each had 5 children. There WAS one lady at my church who had TEN children, and then opted to get her tubes tied, which I thought was odd, because if she really didn't believe in birth control, why would you opt for THE most extreme form, which is sterilization?!


I might have gone to a very liberal Marianist Catholic church and school. I mentioned that most of the students at my high school were definitely NOT abstaining and there was almost a joke at the public schools around the area that the Catholic girls were the ones to chase, because they were the most accessible. It seemed to me that the stricter parents were about this kind of thing, it backfired, and some of those kids were wild. I mean literally wild. It was strange. I had lost my faith basically in high school, and yet I remained chaste much longer than most of the girls I knew who went to church every Sunday.

[LifeMaiden]

Just as a historical note: until the early 20th century, all Christian traditions without exception opposed birth control. It is a mistake to think of birth control as a modern invention. The only "new" method introduced in the 20th century was hormonal treatments; all other methods have been known for centuries. Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformational traditions all condemned any form of birth control as interfering with God's clear plan for married couples. It wasn't until the Lambeth Conference in London in 1930 that the Anglican Church admitted that artificial contraception was permissible for married couples (interesting the things that tradition takes the lead in). This was seen by other Christian traditions as an aberrant departure from Biblical Christianity.

For an interesting perspective on this, try reading the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html), with special attention to section 17. See if the encyclical's prediction of what would happen if artificial contraception became widespread has not become rather common. You don't have to be Catholic to take a look at this perspective (which, by the way, was not drawn up by the Pope alone; he consulted with a panel of doctors, theologians, and married couples.)


In theory, birth control was opposed. In reality, birth control was practiced more often than one might think though with not as much success of course, for as long as people have existed. As you stated, POTW, birth control is not a new thing...except for the pill and other hormonal forms. Barrier methods, and other methods I won't mention here on this forum, were practiced more often than one might think by wives in early times, especially during the Victorian Era.


Apparently my grandparents on both sides believed in being very fruitful and multiplying a lot...seeing that my mother's mother had 18 births and 15 survived out of those...and my dad's mother and father, due to multiple marriages, had 10. My great grandfather, the Baptist minister from Japan, had 10 as well.

[inkspot]

I have a lot of appreciation for the beauty of the philosophy behind NFP. It takes a great deal of mutual respect and understanding from both husband and wife. Yet it is a form of contraception when you get right down to it, so why is it ethically different from other methods?
Does anyone have an answer for this? It was rather what I was asking in my awkwardly worded previous post. Why is the natural contraception idea better than the artificial one, if artificial is safe? I know we have reservations about the pill because of the hormones and safety issues, but there are other artificual methods. Why would the natural one be more godly than the artificial? If it is just an issue of trusting God to give you what's needed, then you can trust Him every time and not worry about NFP, either, I would think.

I do not have an opinion, I am just trying to understand both sides.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

Elf of the Grey Havens

You posted, "Which explains why Japan is rapidly losing people. They're not letting any new kids be born "

Who is not letting any new kids be born? The government? Who?
I was speaking of the general public. As you mention later, having kids is not their first priority.


Again, until about 5 years ago, the birth control pill was not available to the general population in Japan, so NO, it was not because someone was not letting "new kids be born."

The reason why the population of Japan is going down is because, since the economy is doing so well, the younger generation of gentlemen and ladies are not getting married until they are in their thirties, staying in professional positions, and creating children as the generations before. Many, in fact, say they stay single longer because they "want to be like Americans", to have many "things" and not worry about getting married so quickly. Nobody is stopping anyone from having children.

They're stopping themselves. As mentioned before, the hormonal treatments are not the only versions of birth control, so it makes little difference.

Maybe you were thinking of China?

In your next post, you wrote, "Now if the people still condsidered in the fertility range (15-45) use contraception and abortion at a high rate, as they seem to be doing, there will be fewer and fewer people IN the fertility range. And this is really a vicious cylce, because the fertile people don't have many children, so those few children have even fewer children, and the elderly grow and die, and there are still no fertile people to concieve."

Where are your numbers on the number of people using contraception and abortion at a high rate, as you are assuming. Not all cultures act in the same as ones you may be familiar with. Are you saying Japanese are, in essence, "sex crazy" and using a lot of contraception and abortions? I beg to differ. Maybe you should learn about how the Japanese culture acts before making such claims as such. There is something called "family honor" which keeps the young adults who are unmarried from having sex as much as some western countercultures.

Here (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=18710) are my abortion numbers, and since so many "minor" girls are having abortions, so much for honor, eh? I have no answer to the question about contraception numbers, all I know is that they seem to be high.

[LifeMaiden]

You see I had a feeling, though of course reading this some years back...that Japan's abortion rate was quite high. There are the facts right there.


I find it strange that in a country such as Japan, which is very much Shinto and Buddhist, and less than 2% Christian, that they would not have the birth control pill there. Why did it take so long to reach Japan, one of the world's most industrialized and modern nations?

[LifeMaiden]

Does anyone have an answer for this? It was rather what I was asking in my awkwardly worded previous post. Why is the natural contraception idea better than the artificial one, if artificial is safe? I know we have reservations about the pill because of the hormones and safety issues, but there are other artificual methods. Why would the natural one be more godly than the artificial? If it is just an issue of trusting God to give you what's needed, then you can trust Him every time and not worry about NFP, either, I would think.

I do not have an opinion, I am just trying to understand both sides.



What you said right there Inky..." Why is the natural one more godly than the artificial one?" is the same question I have. If natural family planning ALSO prevents a pregnancy, then why is that considered okay?

[Wendygirljp]

Elf of the Grey Havens

Thank you for your input on information. It was an interesting read. Sadly, these numbers conflict with what the state records state. I am not saying YOU are wrong, but look at the source. It is not exactly what one would call an objective reference, is it?

You stated, regarding the cultural issue, "They're stopping themselves. As mentioned before, the hormonal treatments are not the only versions of birth control, so it makes little difference." Yes, there are many forms of birth control, and one of the strongest in Japan is abstaining.

Again, you make a comment of "so much for honor, eh?" You may be condemning/insulting what you do not understand, as many do. Please be careful, for someday, you may learn you were wrong about what you assumed. I speak from experience on this point.

[Wendygirljp]

Elf

Another issue, regarding the numbers - even if they WERE accurate, which government records say are not, compare it to the dominantly Christian culture of the United States.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005099.html

The good news is that, as you will see, the number of abortions are decreasing. I think that should be applauded. Even so, 1,221,585 abortions in the last record? Divide that in half, since Japan has roughly half the population of the U.S., the numbers you referenced are lower than that, rather dramatically.

Yes, the number may have "doubled", but if the number is low, so what? Yes, it is of concern, but like the divorce rate of Japan. One religious writing I read mentioned how immoral Japan was because, in the past 50 years, the divorce rate had DOUBLED! Yes, it did, too! It went from about 5% of all the marriages to 10%. Terminology of someone attempting to put a bias on an issue must be watched carefully.

[arwenelizabeth]

Does anyone have an answer for this? It was rather what I was asking in my awkwardly worded previous post. Why is the natural contraception idea better than the artificial one, if artificial is safe? I know we have reservations about the pill because of the hormones and safety issues, but there are other artificual methods. Why would the natural one be more godly than the artificial? If it is just an issue of trusting God to give you what's needed, then you can trust Him every time and not worry about NFP, either, I would think.

I do not have an opinion, I am just trying to understand both sides.
I don't have time to post a long answer here, so I hope it's okay if I just post a couple of links. I actually had a discussion about this exact topic on my blog a couple of months ago, and one of my friends also picked up the topic on hers.

Here (http://katecousino.blogspot.com/2005/11/kates-100-jargon-free-explanation-of.html) is her explanation of the basic difference between NFP and other forms of birth control. (That link is fairly but not extremely family-friendly, so hopefully I won't incur the Magister's wrath by posting it . :) )

And here (http://ennorath.typepad.com/arwens_blog/2005/11/on_nfp_quickly.html) is my own somewhat convoluted explanation of Catholic teaching on the proper use of NFP.

People often respond dubiously to the Catholic Church's condoning of NFP use, because they (like some of you) don't see a difference between NFP and artificial birth control. It's important to note that there is a good reason for this, because NFP can be used as contraception - the Catholic teaching requires more of the couple than that they simply avoid artificial birth control. There's more about that in the second link I posted.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

WG, when you say Sadly, these numbers conflict with what the state records state., are you referring to the 14/1000 number you referenced earlier? Because if you were, you must have missed my point about the abortion rate,which is the number of abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age (as explained on the table you linked to in the abortion thread). The 14 figure is the number of abortions, and the 1000 is the number of women between 15 and 44.

If we assume that's accurate, then look at the figures provided by the Japanese census bureau at http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/kokusei/2000/sokuhou/hyodai.htm, we see that there were about 24,595,700 women in that age range in Japan in the 2000 census. If we take that figure and multiply it by the 14 figure from the abortion rate statistic, then we end up with 344,340 - which is just about the number that Elf provided. So, based on figures that you and the Japanese census bureau provided, it looks like the source he quoted was probably pretty accurate.

I realize it's hard to come to grips with just how widespread abortion is in a culture. I routinely ask groups over here how many abortions they think are performed in the U.S. every year, and I get guesses from 50,000 to 200,000. When they hear it's 1.5 million, they're astonished. We catch up with the Holocaust about every 10 years.

(I realize this would be better put over in the abortion thread, but this is where it came up.)

[LifeMaiden]

I don't have time to post a long answer here, so I hope it's okay if I just post a couple of links. I actually had a discussion about this exact topic on my blog a couple of months ago, and one of my friends also picked up the topic on hers.

Here (http://katecousino.blogspot.com/2005/11/kates-100-jargon-free-explanation-of.html) is her explanation of the basic difference between NFP and other forms of birth control. (That link is fairly but not extremely family-friendly, so hopefully I won't incur the Magister's wrath by posting it . :) )

And here (http://ennorath.typepad.com/arwens_blog/2005/11/on_nfp_quickly.html) is my own somewhat convoluted explanation of Catholic teaching on the proper use of NFP.

People often respond dubiously to the Catholic Church's condoning of NFP use, because they (like some of you) don't see a difference between NFP and artificial birth control. It's important to note that there is a good reason for this, because NFP can be used as contraception - the Catholic teaching requires more of the couple than that they simply avoid artificial birth control. There's more about that in the second link I posted.


I continue to hold my stance that NFP worked, and strangely, artificial birth control did not for me. I just think I cursed myself somehow. As I said not ONCE did NFP ( I mistakingly confused that with the rhthym method...GEE can't I spell that word right?!)


But I must ask people who hold the views of natural family planning and of course the Church's opposition to birth control what is to be done in overcrowded primarily Catholic-influenced countries like the Phillipines? What would be the solution to a poor country which is already overburdened with many people and birth control as a role there?

[arwenelizabeth]

I continue to hold my stance that NFP worked, and strangely, artificial birth control did not for me. I just think I cursed myself somehow. As I said not ONCE did NFP ( I mistakingly confused that with the rhthym method...GEE can't I spell that word right?!)


But I must ask people who hold the views of natural family planning and of course the Church's opposition to birth control what is to be done in overcrowded primarily Catholic-influenced countries like the Phillipines? What would be the solution to a poor country which is already overburdened with many people and birth control as a role there?
Oddly enough, IM, that's a situation for which NFP is an excellent solution. Perhaps you've heard about Mother Teresa teaching it to impoverished, illiterate women in India, and it working amazingly well for them. We in the West are used to thinking of artificial birth control as the best and most reliable option because that's what we've been taught, but the truth is (and your experience is not a fluke) that NFP, when used properly, is just as reliable.

And in fact, I'd say that NFP is a far better solution than artificial birth control for countries like the Philippines, for two reasons. First of all, it doesn't require anything except the appropriate knowledge in order to use - whereas with other forms of birth control, you have to obtain some sort of physical object - pills or other things - in order to achieve the desired effect. And although we in the US are very used to such things being readily available, this is not necessarily true everywhere. I'd say that NFP, as a birth control method, is much more likely to actually be used on a regular basis by people in places like the Philippines.

The second reason is that, as you pointed out, the Philippines is a country with a Catholic heritage. It's very easy for us Westerners to assume that birth control is the natural and even ethical choice for people living in overcrowding and poverty, but I'd guess that you'd have a much harder time convincing many of the Catholic Filipinos to use artificial birth control - and forcing them to do so would certainly be unethical. On the other hand, periodic abstinence (which is what NFP is) as a form of child spacing has long been considered morally acceptable for and by Catholics, so convincing Catholic Filipinos to learn NFP and employ it would be a much easier task. Again, for this reason I'd say it's much more likely to be used consistently and by a large number of people than artificial bc.

One more thing, though. It's very common for us in the US and other westernized countries to buy into the overpopulation hype, and to assume that what those poor impoverished overcrowded third-world people need to solve all their problems is just to have fewer children. (I'm not saying you're making this assumption, IM, I just know it's a quite common one.) I'd say, from both a moral and a cultural point of view, that that's a very arrogant assumption. I'd also encourage you to get both sides of the story - the overpopulation hysteria that the mainstream media puts out there is just one viewpoint. The Population Research Institute (http://www.pop.org/) (which is a pro-life organization) tells the other half.

[lions mane]

of course i support birth control!

its a noible and wise thing beyond its time!

sorry, i was just bored and felt like speaking very wise! :o

but yeah, birth control is a great thing!

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

Gabe, I hate to ask you this, but are you Christian? And what makes birth control so great? The fact that you can engage in sexual activity without the risk of having a child?

[lions mane]

uhmm....... im not addressing the person who asked me the question cause i have to say it "i have no respect for them!" (they said i was their one enemy on this forum and i dont even know the kid! :D :eek: :rolleyes: isnt that funny?!)

but yes that is one of the reasons why its great, plus it keeps a lot of young girls not having to carry babies around or taking care of them, and its good for the babies cause some of their young mothers probly wont be able to take care of them the right way. and no! i am not christian! ;)

[echoscot]

Elf, what does your name being in red mean? is that like Super Moderator biggie size package?

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

To echoscot: No it means I'm like a little moderator, with not as many powers.
To Gabe's personal comment: I'm sorry, but I don't fratrenize with people who insult my friends, so I guess you could consider yourself my adversary.
To Gabe's other comment: But why are teens having sex in the first place? Why are you having sex if you're not ready to carry a baby? And this is not a rehtorical question, I want an answer.

[lions mane]

yes, cause your freinds are so innocent and never say anything huh? :cool: :rolleyes: thats great!

and how old are you? like 11? you dont know that much about sex so you shouldnt be talking to anyone about it, and im not trying to say im like a big expert or anything but what teens do is their business and theyre old enough to make their own decisions about these kinds of things. ;)

[echoscot]

Okay, so you are like the Kid's Meal size moderator? Anyway, In case Gabe doesn't answer, I might have some insight. Although I don't agree with his position, I think someone might construe your question to imply that the only reason a couiple should have sex is to procreate. And, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is the Catholic position on sexual relations. However many non-Catholics, Protestant as well as Non-Christian view sex as something more than just procreative activity. That being said, if someone believes they are old enough to handle having sex, they should be prepared to handle the responiblities that come with it. Not look for escapes. Both the man and the woman. I am trying to keep this "family friendly", if it is kept within the confines of marriage, as God instituted it, a lot of these problems of abortion and birth control and what not could be avoided.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

I don't think my age really matters in this case. And what teens do is their own business, huh? So if a teen wants to kill someone, even if it's on private property, aforementioned teen can? Simply because it's his business? There's a fine line between autonomy and anarchy.

[echoscot]

yes, cause your freinds are so innocent and never say anything huh? :cool: :rolleyes: thats great!

and how old are you? like 11? you dont know that much about sex so you shouldnt be talking to anyone about it, and im not trying to say im like a big expert or anything but what teens do is their business and theyre old enough to make their own decisions about these kinds of things. ;)

Wow, I don't know how old elf is, but I am 42 and have been a teen-ager and know FROM EXPERIENCE, that teen-agers often are not old enough or mature enough to make their own decisions. They only think they are. They lack greatly in experience to solve problems and deal with responsibility. I realize there are exceptions to this, and that I have made a very general comment. But I think the perception you expressed is way off the mark there.

[Aslan'sFriend410]

I definitely support abstinence and purity until you marry, but after that I think BC is an option. I think it's fine for couples to want to plan for their family and when/if they want children. I think BC is a much better option than having an unwanted child and aborting it.

[lions mane]

ok, you guys are taking this way out of proportion, when it comes to killing someone of course that is never ok, but when it comes to certain things a teen is old enough and mature enough to handel their own. when it comes to sex, a lot of the time they are ready, whether theyre in a long 2 year relationship or whether theyre at a party. they still think about the consequences and if they decide to go through with it then, it is their business and that's why i say that birth control is great. teens should be having fun (youre only a teen once in your life, and that's the time to have that fun) without birth control there would be way more teen mothers and way more babies who have bad parents for the fact that they are inexperienced at raising a child. now would you guys rather have teens being normal or would you guys rather have a lot of babies not being taken care of right by their young inexperienced mothers?

[lions mane]

I definitely support abstinence and purity until you marry, but after that I think BC is an option. I think it's fine for couples to want to plan for their family and when/if they want children. I think BC is a much better option than having an unwanted child and aborting it.
very (very) well said.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

ok, you guys are taking this way out of proportion, when it comes to killing someone of course that is never ok, but when it comes to certain things a teen is old enough and mature enough to handel their own. when it comes to sex, a lot of the time they are ready, whether theyre in a long 2 year relationship or whether theyre at a party. they still think about the consequences and if they decide to go through with it then, it is their business and that's why i say that birth control is great. teens should be having fun (youre only a teen once in your life, and that's the time to have that fun) without birth control there would be way more teen mothers and way more babies who have bad parents for the fact that they are inexperienced at raising a child. now would you guys rather have teens being normal or would you guys rather have a lot of babies not being taken care of right by their young inexperienced mothers?
I'm shocked and apalled that the idea of "teen normal fun" consits of having sex at parties, especially since I'm a teen, albiet a young one. All birth control allows someone to do, in my opinion, is practice immoral acts guilt-free. I am not opposed to married couples using NFP, but for teens to use birth control just so they can go out and practice lewd acts outrages me.

[lions mane]

I'm shocked and apalled that the idea of "teen normal fun" consits of having sex at parties, especially since I'm a teen, albiet a young one. All birth control allows someone to do, in my opinion, is practice immoral acts guilt-free. I am not opposed to married couples using NFP, but for teens to use birth control just so they can go out and practice lewd acts outrages me.
wow! well, youre still young so you dont know. ;)

great to see that your buttons are very easily pushed. :cool:

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

wow! well, youre still young so you dont know. ;)

great to see that your buttons are very easily pushed. :cool:
I consider my strict moral sense my one emotional weakness. And I don't know what? I know more about what things like the pill actually do to the body, I'll wager. You could know too, if you would just read this whole thread.

[EveningStar]

Let me weigh in here.

There are some people...many of them good and tolerant and kindly people as I think Kelson to be...who feel that sex is a powerful force that like all powerful forces should be used only for good and carefully.

Much as I must exercise responsibility and good judgment when I drive my car through a school zone.

[Adanedhel]

Heavens Yes! I'm A Protestant and I do not feel bad going to buy a condom or any other method of contraceptive. (Taken from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life") You have to love "Every Sperm is Sacred"!

[lions mane]

my work here is done, i have proven my point to the best of my abilities. ;) :cool:

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

my work here is done, i have proven my point to the best of my abilities. ;) :cool:
And if you don't mind me asking, what exactly have you proven? That the particular teenagers you know are blatantly immoral? Or that you're trying to rationalize some sin you may have commited with inane arguments of "everyone else does it"?

[lions mane]

elf, you just dont like me for some reason, im not quite sure why but its making me laugh for the fact that i dont know you. ive only seen you around on the forum a few times before. so its obvious youre going to disagree ith everything i have to say. ;)

sorry that not eveyrone can be GOD like you (since you are so perfect and all) but teens have sex, and unprotected or "birth control" sex, so isnt it better that they have protection? or do you just hate the world for everyone having sex and being so unperfect?

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

teens have sex, and unprotected or "birth control" sex, so isnt it better that they have protection? or do you just hate the world for everyone having sex and being so unperfect?
Ignoring the rest of your post, this is the only part that I found even mildly interesting. And all I have to say to it is: The world is not perfect, nor am I. But I will not go down. I will not be beaten down and succumb to the worldly desires which rule our planet. I will fight for morality to the end of my days, even if it means scorn and ridicule. And I will not simply accept the idea that teens have sex, so give it up. I don't care if I'm blinding myself, but I intend to change the premarital sex rate, and thereby the birth control rate. In the meantime, what God sends should be accepted, not fought.

[lions mane]

Ignoring the rest of your post, this is the only part that I found even mildly interesting. And all I have to say to it is: The world is not perfect, nor am I. But I will not go down. I will not be beaten down and succumb to the worldly desires which rule our planet. I will fight for morality to the end of my days, even if it means scorn and ridicule. And I will not simply accept the idea that teens have sex, so give it up. I don't care if I'm blinding myself, but I intend to change the premarital sex rate, and thereby the birth control rate. In the meantime, what God sends should be accepted, not fought.
ouch! :D :rolleyes: and this rudeness is coming from a mod?! HAHAHA!

[~RG Lover~]

i support it, i dont know how many friends of mine might be parents if it wasnt evented. lol.

[Ephinie]

Out of curiosity, how old are you, Lions mane?

[LifeMaiden]

wow! well, youre still young so you dont know. ;)

great to see that your buttons are very easily pushed. :cool:

Ok you guys knock it off. This is supposed to be an in-depth discussion here. Respect each other's opinions even if you choose to disagree.

I can totally see where Elf is coming from, because I understand that point of view. I don't necessarily agree with it, because we know even Christian teenagers and young people are engaging in premarital 'activities.' Birth control isn't there to necessarily encourage promiscuity, although I can see where people might have that point of view..." Hand them birth control pills or condoms..and let them go at it they'll be safe from disease/pregnancy/etc." Married couples and couples engaged in long-term relationships use it so they won't have unwanted children. And I don't believe in having kids if you don't want them and they aren't planned. Our society has become too promiscuous in my opinion, and I'm no prude. I don't think it's too much to ask or stress abstinence.

[Paravel25]

I've been thinking about this since I saw this thread and I've read everyone's thoughts so far. For me, I do believe in abstinence until marriage. I haven't found the guy I would want that intimacy with yet anyway and I do find it difficult to understand how people treat it so casually. The thing is I'm not sure I want to have kids or at least not more than 2, but then I think about what God might want for me and so I am praying about it. If I married, the NFP is what I think I would do, because I do not trust the artificial birth control and the side effects. And I do feel like artificial birth control is still too much humans trying to control the natural processes of our bodies, which I don't like. I think artificial birth control is definitely a band-aid, not the cure to the problem of teen-births, children in poverty, overpopulation, etc.

I don't pretend to know every individual situation, but it does seem that we might want to take a look at what compromising moral standards on this subject has really got us as this point.

[Wendygirljp]

Elf -

"Why are you having sex if you're not ready to carry a baby? And this is not a rehtorical question, I want an answer."

One simple word - hormones

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

I've been thinking about this since I saw this thread and I've read everyone's thoughts so far. For me, I do believe in abstinence until marriage. I haven't found the guy I would want that intimacy with yet anyway and I do find it difficult to understand how people treat it so casually. The thing is I'm not sure I want to have kids or at least not more than 2, but then I think about what God might want for me and so I am praying about it. If I married, the NFP is what I think I would do, because I do not trust the artificial birth control and the side effects. And I do feel like artificial birth control is still too much humans trying to control the natural processes of our bodies, which I don't like. I think artificial birth control is definitely a band-aid, not the cure to the problem of teen-births, children in poverty, overpopulation, etc.

I don't pretend to know every individual situation, but it does seem that we might want to take a look at what compromising moral standards on this subject has really got us as this point.
Thank you! You put it so well.

[Paravel25]

Thank you! You put it so well.

Thanks :).


Wendygirljp- That's true about hormones, but I think it wouldn't be such a problem if teens and society in general wasn't exposed to movies, music, tv, and books that promote a promiscous lifestyle.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Wendygirljp- That's true about hormones, but I think it wouldn't be such a problem if teens and society in general wasn't exposed to movies, music, tv, and books that promote a promiscous lifestyle.


I contend that it must be the teens who are taught (as children) how to control themselves--bad influences are bound to come; you can't shut yourself (or your children) up in a room, and try to ignore all the problems of the world, thereby hoping to remain untainted by evil. Instead, you must face it head-on, and fight against it.

[LifeMaiden]

How would you deal with the overpopulation then in impoverished countries where people are starving without birth control, I wonder? A lot of these third world countries are conservative morally and most women just happen to have a lot of kids in their marriages.

[Paravel25]

I contend that it must be the teens who are taught (as children) how to control themselves--bad influences are bound to come; you can't shut yourself (or your children) up in a room, and try to ignore all the problems of the world, thereby hoping to remain untainted by evil. Instead, you must face it head-on, and fight against it.

I don't disagree with any of this, but my point was more about society wondering why we have high rates of teen pregnancy when in fact we tolerate media that promotes a promiscuous lifestyle. Parents indeed need to teach their children self-control and values. But the proverb "it takes a village to raise a child" is true too, IMO.

How would you deal with the overpopulation then in impoverished countries where people are starving without birth control, I wonder? A lot of these third world countries are conservative morally and most women just happen to have a lot of kids in their marriages.

You are right, I was referring more to Western countries as far as morality is concerned, because third world countries are not exposed to as much media. But, NFP could work in those countries, as many are opposed to artificial birth control. Of course, there are some cultures that are opposed to any attempt to limit pregnancies, but I would hope the possibility of a better standard of living for themselves and their children would make more open to NFP.

[Wendygirljp]

Paravel25

You said, "Wendygirljp- That's true about hormones, but I think it wouldn't be such a problem if teens and society in general wasn't exposed to movies, music, tv, and books that promote a promiscous lifestyle."

I agree that there is more involved than "just hormones". I do not believe, however, that it is about movies, music, television and books, though.

I believe, personally, that it is a social "awareness" which is built through relationship with family which is the first step to create a "moral" society. Not only do I believe that having a closely connected family union make for fewer "teen pregnancies", but it also lowers the crime rate, divorce rate, and many other issues.

The nuclear family is, again, I believe, a detriment to society, as lessons are not passed down through the generations. The "bad ideas" are multiplying, and the wisdom is diminishing.

I also believe that the "extended family" concept is important as well, not only from a "threat" standpoint that everyone knows you so you better make sure you don't do anything wrong so you don't get in trouble, but from a point that many care about you, and you care about many, which makes one want to NOT do something which would shame or hurt those he or she loves.

Again, my ¥2 worth.

[Narborg]

Yes, not abotion, but birth contols. We need to let people have freedon to chose the way they live as much as possible, we cant contol non christans with own own morals. we shouls set an example so that they will canme to Christ, but we should never foace our beliffs on them

[Paravel25]

I agree that there is more involved than "just hormones". I do not believe, however, that it is about movies, music, television and books, though.

I believe, personally, that it is a social "awareness" which is built through relationship with family which is the first step to create a "moral" society. Not only do I believe that having a closely connected family union make for fewer "teen pregnancies", but it also lowers the crime rate, divorce rate, and many other issues.

The nuclear family is, again, I believe, a detriment to society, as lessons are not passed down through the generations. The "bad ideas" are multiplying, and the wisdom is diminishing.

I also believe that the "extended family" concept is important as well, not only from a "threat" standpoint that everyone knows you so you better make sure you don't do anything wrong so you don't get in trouble, but from a point that many care about you, and you care about many, which makes one want to NOT do something which would shame or hurt those he or she loves.

Again, my ¥2 worth.

I guess I look at it through the viewpoint that until more people look around them at what society is producing in the form of media and think "hey, is this what we really want to produce?", then it will be difficult outside of Christian or other households that have strong values, to change society. Media is too powerful to be ignored as one source of the problem with family values.

I agree about the importance of family, immediate and extended, as that is the foundation of society. I think we have the same viewpoint, but I am approaching it from the end result of the deterioration of the family and you are approaching it from the beginning.

[LifeMaiden]

Even before I redisovered my faith I felt there was far too much sexy stuff in the media, and teens/young people are eaisly influenced by what they see on tv and the movies, and by their peers. They need more positive influences than to see Britney Spears jumping around practically naked in videos. Don't get me wrong. I am far from being a prude since I'm in a business where it's my job to make people feel good and be fit and have strong bodies. I admire the human form. But our society seems so at large with the amount of sex we see in the media.

As the most industrialized nation we have the highest teen pregnancy and abortion rates. There must be something done about this, clearly. More positive influences are needed for teens. Sometimes I think young girls especially want to grow up too quickly...they wear makeup and street slutty clothing at such a young age...like at 12. Why grow up so fast? Enjoy being a kid as long as you can.

Thankfully I do see billboards advertising abstinence and commericals on the radio that say CHOOSE TO WAIT.

[LifeMaiden]

Yes, not abotion, but birth contols. We need to let people have freedon to chose the way they live as much as possible, we cant contol non christans with own own morals. we shouls set an example so that they will canme to Christ, but we should never foace our beliffs on them


Narborg what is it like over there in New Zealand in terms of laws about abortion and the accessibility to birth control? I always saw New Zealand as a very liberal country...it was ahead of the US in letting women vote, for example...I think women got the vote in NZ in 1896, and there's currently a woman prime minister?

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

As opposed to some European ad campaign that if I remember correctly, contained the slogan "screw abstinence"

[LifeMaiden]

As opposed to some European ad campaign that if I remember correctly, contained the slogan "screw abstinence"


Well that's not very encouraging. :(

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

Yeah, it was horrible.

[Narborg]

Narborg what is it like over there in New Zealand in terms of laws about abortion and the accessibility to birth control? I always saw New Zealand as a very liberal country...it was ahead of the US in letting women vote, for example...I think women got the vote in NZ in 1896, and there's currently a woman prime minister?


Yes, New zealand is very libral. We were the 1st county in the world to give women the vote in 1893. The aborton law in NZ is therictlly ralatvie tight, but in pratice its very esey to get an aborton.

[Wendygirljp]

Paravel25

You stated, "I am approaching it from the end result of the deterioration of the family and you are approaching it from the beginning."

I do not understand what you are saying here, unless you are saying I am looking at it from the "cause" and you are looking at it from the "effect".

Personally, the media industry only produces what sells. If it did not sell, they would not produce it. Rather simplistic, but true. They are a business. It is like the news media. As a former newscaster (among many other things), accuracy in reporting the news is not always as important as what will sell - hence, the lack of understanding of different political, philosophical and religious thinkings. Air the spectacular, instead of the proper perspective. "Town's Crime Rate Triples in One Year!" - Sounds terrible, until you hear that in a particular town, there was, in one year, only one crime commited, and the next year three.

I am looking forward to your clarification and ways to alleviate the situation.

[Paravel25]

Paravel25

You stated, "I am approaching it from the end result of the deterioration of the family and you are approaching it from the beginning."

I do not understand what you are saying here, unless you are saying I am looking at it from the "cause" and you are looking at it from the "effect".

That is what I am saying. At this point, you can't only look at cause (lack of family values), you have to look at the effects (the lack of values in media) and try to work for change there as well, because it's circular.


Personally, the media industry only produces what sells. If it did not sell, they would not produce it. Rather simplistic, but true. They are a business. It is like the news media. As a former newscaster (among many other things), accuracy in reporting the news is not always as important as what will sell - hence, the lack of understanding of different political, philosophical and religious thinkings. Air the spectacular, instead of the proper perspective. "Town's Crime Rate Triples in One Year!" - Sounds terrible, until you hear that in a particular town, there was, in one year, only one crime commited, and the next year three.

I am looking forward to your clarification and ways to alleviate the situation.

It's true that the media produces what sells, but it doesn't absolve them from any blame in the situation, IMO. They are a part of society and as such their lives are affected (often negatively) by what society consumes from them, even as they make a profit. No matter what our profession, we all have an impact on society and in turn, we will all be affected by society.

One of the reasons abstinence "doesn't sell", is because it is usually shown (if at all) as the abnormal or unmodern choice, while promiscuity is shown as normal and even glamorous.

As to what to do: It would be nice to see more Christians/people who want to see a better quality of media actively involved in the movie, television, news, and music industries. As IceMaiden said, teens in particular need more positive influences in the media. I can't remember the thread in this forum where we talked about a topic related to this, but Walden Media is a perfect example of people who wanted to see more family/education oriented films taking action.

[Wendygirljp]

Paravel25,

Nice response. Thank you.

I happen to agree with you, that it is a cycle which is, sadly, feeding on itself. The good news is that, imho, the cycle is changing again. It has been, in fact, for the past 50 or so years, and is continuing to build momentum. It is not just Christians or the Christian community which is creating this change, either, I do not believe. It is a rather esoteric "conspiracy" (defined as "the act of breathing together", not the negative term) of the spiritual side of sentiency, which is making this change slowly. It is a pattern I have been seeing for quite a while now. To me, it is amazing.

I do believe there are some groups who are making better media products. Many of the television shows I have seen from the U.S., for example, have great moral strengths to them, I believe. Programs like Joan of Arcadia, C.S.I., Law and Order, etc., I think, are great showing that there are answers, consequences to actions, etc. That is far superior to the likes of Howdy Doody, not that he was all that bad.

I believe it is like one of my acquaintances in the U.S. who said, "What you happen to see causes influence on you to believe that what it is you see is all there is." A police officer, for example, may see the world as "going down the toilet" because he or she is always focused on the "hostility and crime" of the society, and not seeing so much of the "good stuff" of life. (What a job to have - to be hated by almost everyone and not appreciated, and all a cop wants to do, originally, is to help others.)

Again, thank you for your input. My apologies if I rambled on too much.

[EveningStar]

Just a note...third world countries traditionally had an enormous infant mortality rate. There was pressure for people to reproduce often in order to ensure when they got old there would be at least a couple of kids left that would help them in their old age.

Medicine merely shifted the cause of infant mortality from childhood diseases to starvation. That's what happens when disease is priority one but the resulting social ramifications are treated as a second or third class issue.

Thousands of children die of hunger every day, many victims of short-sighted well-meaning efforts to save the world.

[arwenelizabeth]

How would you deal with the overpopulation then in impoverished countries where people are starving without birth control, I wonder? A lot of these third world countries are conservative morally and most women just happen to have a lot of kids in their marriages.
IceMaiden, I didn't see you respond to my response when you asked this question before in regard to countries like the Philippines, and now I'm thinking maybe you just didn't see it. :) Things sort of erupted on this thread right after I posted it. Did you see it? It's post #48 on the thread, right here (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=519029&postcount=48).

[Wendygirljp]

Evening Star

I commend you on your perception of the situations in the world. Many people, when they see the situation, they treat the situation as if it were the cause. It is much like the perspective of where the water from the tap comes from. The child sees it coming from the wall. The adult can see that it comes from a water source and even possibly the effect of the water cycle with the atmosphere, i.e. precipitation.

Please be careful. People may not understand your insight into the various cause and effect situations as you do. With the lack of understanding, sometimes, comes miscommunication and even hostility. Look at how people look at the bodily function called a fever. Most people you ask will say it is a "bad" thing. My personal perspective is that fever is one of the better medicines around - and it is free. It is the body attempting to rid itself of a disease by making the environment "uncomfortable" for the invading body. Amazing stuff!

Thank you, again, for your input. Great stuff!

[The Half-Blood Prince]

No way. I think that preventing a life from coming into existence is just as selfish and cruel as taking one away after conception.

[LifeMaiden]

No way. I think that preventing a life from coming into existence is just as selfish and cruel as taking one away after conception.

Any Christians here care to address that? It's 'cruel' to prevent a life from coming into the world, Fawkes? How cruel it is that third world countries which lack access to birth control having starving, impoverished people in them, who are dying everyday, having their lives made miserable by disease and war in those respective countries? It's equally as cruel to have no access to birth control in countries where the populations cannot keep up with their respective economies. The prevention of 'life' might seem cruel to you, as abortion itself, but let's not forget the inherent cruelties that afflict nations which are impoverished and do not have access to the luxuries of excessive food that we do here in this country.

[Paravel25]

I believe it is like one of my acquaintances in the U.S. who said, "What you happen to see causes influence on you to believe that what it is you see is all there is." A police officer, for example, may see the world as "going down the toilet" because he or she is always focused on the "hostility and crime" of the society, and not seeing so much of the "good stuff" of life. (What a job to have - to be hated by almost everyone and not appreciated, and all a cop wants to do, originally, is to help others.)

Again, thank you for your input. My apologies if I rambled on too much.

No, you are not rambling :). I've enjoyed reading your responses and everyone elses thoughts on this subject as well. It's been a great discussion so far and I've learned quite a bit. I agree that focusing on the positive things in society is important as well. I often feel discouraged from watching news programs because of the slanted and negative presentation (especially of world affairs, the middle east). But I'm sure there are tales of people behaving with compassion and honor as well even in such a hostile environment, but we don't hear them very often from the media and that is true here at home too.

[LifeMaiden]

Oddly enough, IM, that's a situation for which NFP is an excellent solution. Perhaps you've heard about Mother Teresa teaching it to impoverished, illiterate women in India, and it working amazingly well for them. We in the West are used to thinking of artificial birth control as the best and most reliable option because that's what we've been taught, but the truth is (and your experience is not a fluke) that NFP, when used properly, is just as reliable.

And in fact, I'd say that NFP is a far better solution than artificial birth control for countries like the Philippines, for two reasons. First of all, it doesn't require anything except the appropriate knowledge in order to use - whereas with other forms of birth control, you have to obtain some sort of physical object - pills or other things - in order to achieve the desired effect. And although we in the US are very used to such things being readily available, this is not necessarily true everywhere. I'd say that NFP, as a birth control method, is much more likely to actually be used on a regular basis by people in places like the Philippines.

The second reason is that, as you pointed out, the Philippines is a country with a Catholic heritage. It's very easy for us Westerners to assume that birth control is the natural and even ethical choice for people living in overcrowding and poverty, but I'd guess that you'd have a much harder time convincing many of the Catholic Filipinos to use artificial birth control - and forcing them to do so would certainly be unethical. On the other hand, periodic abstinence (which is what NFP is) as a form of child spacing has long been considered morally acceptable for and by Catholics, so convincing Catholic Filipinos to learn NFP and employ it would be a much easier task. Again, for this reason I'd say it's much more likely to be used consistently and by a large number of people than artificial bc.

One more thing, though. It's very common for us in the US and other westernized countries to buy into the overpopulation hype, and to assume that what those poor impoverished overcrowded third-world people need to solve all their problems is just to have fewer children. (I'm not saying you're making this assumption, IM, I just know it's a quite common one.) I'd say, from both a moral and a cultural point of view, that that's a very arrogant assumption. I'd also encourage you to get both sides of the story - the overpopulation hysteria that the mainstream media puts out there is just one viewpoint. The Population Research Institute (http://www.pop.org/) (which is a pro-life organization) tells the other half.


ArwenE,


No, I didn't see this post...I must have missed it somehow.


I have to say that I disagree with you A, quite strongly regarding overpopulation. How do we know, for example, that BOTH sides are not biased in light of their stance on birth control and or abortion? We don't. It's amazing how many different 'facts' and 'statistics' are quoted, for example, when we discussed abortion numbers and the whole 'back alley' abortion deaths ( pre Roe vs Wade).

We know that Pro-Choice groups came up with their own numbers that were supposedly 'fact' and Pro-Life groups came up with a different set of numbers, claiming that the back alley abortion deaths were highly exaggerated. So whose, and which, of those statistics are true and accurate?


I'd like to think there's a middle ground. I believe that overpopulation ( all you need to do is look at the population density of countries, for example, such as the Phillipines, in large cities)is a MAJOR and SERIOUS problem in many countries where their GNP and incomes are EXTREMELY LOW. High populations of people would not be a problem if the majority of people in those respective countries had higher incomes/wages, and a better sustaining economy. When the average income of a family is only 220 dollars a month but they have an average size three times that of the US family, then there's a real problem.( Yeah, I took EPA..economic and political analysis LOL)


When 75% of the people live in poverty, the solution may NOT necessarily be to have 'less kids', but, when that many live in poverty seems connected to having too many children and not enough income, there needs to be something done with educating people when it comes to some kind of family planning. A redistibution of wealth would be a great solution, but it isn't realistic. In countries that are typically very poor, the rich are rich, and don't seem to care about the majority of whom are suffering. That's one area that could be addressed. Not having 'less kids', but finding ways to increase the GNP and wealth of these poor nations, and Third World Countries.


Part of the problem is that as I stated, no matter what another 'member' here might say....many Christians ( of all denominations) are not against birth control, whether it is artifical contraception or family planning. In heavily Catholic countries like the Phillipines and Mexico, where dire poverty and starvation are real concerns, I think programs that advocate Natural Family Planning are a NECESSITY.



And to those of you who believe that 'preventing life from coming into the world' is 'just as cruel as abortion' should understand this: far more cruel than even using NFP is the cruelty of starvation, disease, poverty without end, and living in garbage dumps. Which is crueler? To advocate something the Church clearly says is within its doctrines to use, such as NFP, or to allow life to be born endlessly ( 10, 12, 15 children, hey keep having more, why not??) in a world which is harshly unwelcoming to these new lives?


I'd advocate NFP as a less expensive and more cost effective way of demonstrating some kind of birth control method. Pills, foams, jellies, condoms...are all costly, where as having members of the church, for example, volunteer to bring this knowledge of NFP is far less expensive.


And yet, ArwenE, there are some people who would say that NFP is every bit as sinful as abortion, and every bit as 'cruel' because technically they both 'prevent life'. I am not an expert on Catholic doctrine when it comes to this, so I'll let you and your dad address that issue.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Any Christians here care to address that? It's 'cruel' to prevent a life from coming into the world, Fawkes? How cruel it is that third world countries which lack access to birth control having starving, impoverished people in them, who are dying everyday, having their lives made miserable by disease and war in those respective countries? It's equally as cruel to have no access to birth control in countries where the populations cannot keep up with their respective economies. The prevention of 'life' might seem cruel to you, as abortion itself, but let's not forget the inherent cruelties that afflict nations which are impoverished and do not have access to the luxuries of excessive food that we do here in this country.
I think, looking at the polls, most of the Christians here would definitely agree with me.

[Rock On]

Any Christians here care to address that? It's 'cruel' to prevent a life from coming into the world, Fawkes? How cruel it is that third world countries which lack access to birth control having starving, impoverished people in them, who are dying everyday, having their lives made miserable by disease and war in those respective countries? It's equally as cruel to have no access to birth control in countries where the populations cannot keep up with their respective economies. The prevention of 'life' might seem cruel to you, as abortion itself, but let's not forget the inherent cruelties that afflict nations which are impoverished and do not have access to the luxuries of excessive food that we do here in this country.
wait, so what youre really defending is people's satisfaction when it comes to sex. i cant see another reason. Tell me why birth control would matter to them otherwise.

[LifeMaiden]

No, I'm defending the principle that using birth control is not evil, and that the preventing of a life by using a Church-approved method such as NFP is not the same thing as aborting a life in the womb.

[Rock On]

No, I'm defending the principle that using birth control is not evil, and that the preventing of a life by using a Church-approved method such as NFP is not the same thing as aborting a life in the womb.
But then wats the point of this discussion? Why are you defending birth control? It's not evil cause it lets people have sex whenever they want without getting "in trouble" for it? which in this case is having life.

[Sunrise]

Rock On, you seem to believe that the only reason people don't want children is so that they can live selfish lives with no responsibility while they gratify their every sexual whim.

Has it occurred to you that people have other reasons?

Some women have health problems that would make it dangerous for them to have children.

Some people are in dire financial situations that make them question whether they could properly care for children.

Some people have so many kids already that they literally cannot afford another - whether the issue is money or available space.

My own grandmother had ten kids - she had to get special permission from their parish bishop to have a hysterectomy after that, because the doctors told her that her body was too worn out for another baby, and it could kill her. After ten children, would you accuse her of being selfish for ending her ability to conceive? Clearly the church authorities would disagree with you - she got the permission. No one in the church told my grandparents they should just end their sexual relations.

You seem to have a very negative attitude toward sex in general - treating it as though it were an evil necessary for reproduction. Why all the hostility? Nobody here would disagree that our culture has turned it into a serious problem, but that doesn't mean it is evil in and of itself.

And in case you aren't aware of it, the Natural Family Planning method many people here have mentioned (and which the Catholic Church approves of) DOES involve abstaining from relations for a certain period of time - so no, it is not about gratifying your sexual desires without getting "into trouble" (which incidentally is an expression that hasn't been used by anyone here. Nobody has equated getting pregnant with getting into trouble - except you). It requires self-control.

I hope I used enough small words for you in this post.

[Rock On]

Rock On, you seem to believe that the only reason people don't want children is so that they can live selfish lives with no responsibility while they gratify their every sexual whim.

Has it occurred to you that people have other reasons?

Some women have health problems that would make it dangerous for them to have children.

Some people are in dire financial situations that make them question whether they could properly care for children.

Some people have so many kids already that they literally cannot afford another - whether the issue is money or available space.

My own grandmother had ten kids - she had to get special permission from their parish bishop to have a hysterectomy after that, because the doctors told her that her body was too worn out for another baby, and it could kill her. After ten children, would you accuse her of being selfish for ending her ability to conceive? Clearly the church authorities would disagree with you - she got the permission. No one in the church told my grandparents they should just end their sexual relations.

You seem to have a very negative attitude toward sex in general - treating it as though it were an evil necessary for reproduction. Why all the hostility? Nobody here would disagree that our culture has turned it into a serious problem, but that doesn't mean it is evil in and of itself.

And in case you aren't aware of it, the Natural Family Planning method many people here have mentioned (and which the Catholic Church approves of) DOES involve abstaining from relations for a certain period of time - so no, it is not about gratifying your sexual desires without getting "into trouble" (which incidentally is an expression that hasn't been used by anyone here. Nobody has equated getting pregnant with getting into trouble - except you). It requires self-control.

I hope I used enough small words for you in this post.
I still have a problem with this whole thing. If people are in financial problems, or if a woman has health problems, and if they don't want another kid--what's the answer? they don't have sex!!! the answer is SO SIMPLE, and each example you give just reinforces it more. you haven't given me a "for instance" that really backs up what you believe.

The point of sex is to transmit life. Answer me this: did God create artificial birth control pills? Did God create condoms? Were they laid out on this earth for us? do you think God intended for human beings to bring artificial things into something so special? Please answer me that question, cause I would really like to know.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I just found a very interesting article online:

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

Yes contraception is condemned. But not as bad as abortion.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Yes contraception is condemned. But not as bad as abortion.
In whose opinion?

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

Once again, in the opinion of the Vatican. Contraception is simply refusing one of God's gifts, whereas abortion actually kills one of His sons or daughters.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Once again, in the opinion of the Vatican. Contraception is simply refusing one of God's gifts, whereas abortion actually kills one of His sons or daughters.
Yeah, I know, but in this case I'm gonna have to disagree with the Vatican.

[arwenelizabeth]

Yeah, I know, but in this case I'm gonna have to disagree with the Vatican.
Okay, CJS, but on what grounds? If you're going to take a position like "contraception is morally just as bad as abortion" you have to support it somehow. Otherwise you're just spouting off, and there's no reason for us to take you seriously. So give us something; support your position concretely, or else don't get mad when we write you off.

[Sunrise]

The point of sex is to transmit life. Answer me this: did God create artificial birth control pills? Did God create condoms? Were they laid out on this earth for us? do you think God intended for human beings to bring artificial things into something so special? Please answer me that question, cause I would really like to know.

Of course God did not create artificial contraception devices. Neither did he create automobiles, air conditioning, or medical technology, but I bet you use or have benefitted from those things.

I agree that sex and procreation is something special and sacred and that it is possible that God does not intend for it to be tampered with artificially. That's why I was speaking specifically about natural family planning - which involves NOTHING artificial. All it involves is abstaining from sex during a woman's fertile period.

Why do you say the point of sex is to transmit life? Surely, this is one of its purposes, but why need it be the only point? I would contend that sex is also a Godly expression of love and tenderness between a married couple. If you want biblical proof of that, I refer you to Song of Solomon, along with the passages from Paul that I mentioned in the abortion thread (which you ignored, preferring simply to dismiss my argument on the basis that I used big words.) Sex was created by God as part of the relationship between a man and his wife. If its ONLY purpose was to procreate, God could have made us like the animals, only having a drive to mate while we were actually fertile, so that every sex act would result in a conception. The fact that He did NOT indicates that for human beings, it has other purposes.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Of course God did not create artificial contraception devices. Neither did he create automobiles, air conditioning, or medical technology, but I bet you use or have benefitted from those things.

I agree that sex and procreation is something special and sacred and that it is possible that God does not intend for it to be tampered with artificially. That's why I was speaking specifically about natural family planning - which involves NOTHING artificial. All it involves is abstaining from sex during a woman's fertile period.

Why do you say the point of sex is to transmit life? Surely, this is one of its purposes, but why need it be the only point? I would contend that sex is also a Godly expression of love and tenderness between a married couple. If you want biblical proof of that, I refer you to Song of Solomon, along with the passages from Paul that I mentioned in the abortion thread (which you ignored, preferring simply to dismiss my argument on the basis that I used big words.) Sex was created by God as part of the relationship between a man and his wife. If its ONLY purpose was to procreate, God could have made us like the animals, only having a drive to mate while we were actually fertile, so that every sex act would result in a conception. The fact that He did NOT indicates that for human beings, it has other purposes.
Right, but then what's to debate? All I'm saying is that artificiality shouldn't come into sex. I think we can all agree with natural family planning, it's just common sense.

Another aspect of sex is definitely for a couple to become closer and extend their love (how can that possibly be debated?)--but then what are you saying as far as birth control goes? You just told me you didn't think the artificiality of it was intended by God. So then should a couple choose not to transmit life so they can show each other love?

[Sunrise]

Right, but then what's to debate? All I'm saying is that artificiality shouldn't come into sex. I think we can all agree with natural family planning, it's just common sense.

Ah, but what you and Rock On have seemed to suggest throughout the debate is that ANY type of contraceptive measure, EVEN natural, was wrong because it prevented life. Have I misunderstood you?

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Ah, but what you and Rock On have seemed to suggest throughout the debate is that ANY type of contraceptive measure, EVEN natural, was wrong because it prevented life. Have I misunderstood you?
What? Where did I suggest that? I'd like to see it.

But what about the other half of the post?

[Sunrise]

How about this:

No way. I think that preventing a life from coming into existence is just as selfish and cruel as taking one away after conception.

This indicated to me that you don't agree with ANY form of contraception, even natural. After all, if a married couple abstains from sex during the woman's fertile period, they are deliberately choosing not to conceive, i.e. preventing a life. Rock On has seemed even more dogmatic in this view, considering he's come right out and said he disagrees with the Vatican on this point. If I am mistaken in my understanding of where you guys have been coming from, then I apologize, but I don't think I'm the only one! In which case you perhaps just needed to explain yourselves a bit better.

As far as the second statement (it wasn't there when I posted last, sorry), thank you for conceding the point. I am not Catholic, and I don't necessarily hold to the view that artificial contraceptives are evil - I was simply stating the possibility of your point and working from there. However, if we're still talking about natural family planning, I would say that there is no need for a couple to "choose not to transmit life so they can show each other love." During a woman's infertile period, there's no choice involved - the couple will not get pregnant no matter how much sexual activity they engage in during that time. Would you say that somehow it is wrong for them to be having relations during a time when they know conception is impossible? They've already chosen to abstain during the fertile days - so the choice has been made, and the two things (reproducing/expressing love) don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[Wendygirljp]

Rock On
You posted, "The point of sex is to transmit life. Answer me this: did God create artificial birth control pills? Did God create condoms? Were they laid out on this earth for us? do you think God intended for human beings to bring artificial things into something so special? Please answer me that question, cause I would really like to know."

Sometimes, the sexual act is to communicate love between partners as it is the most intimate action two can take, according to many. It is not just the act of transmitting life, a.k.a. having babies, imho.

As to your point of God leaving "us" artificial means of birth control, please answer me this. Does your mother or father always make your meals for you, even when you are in your 60s? Are there not certain acts, situations, conditions where you must take action on your own, as an adult? Your perspective reminds me of one of my students - 60 years old at the time - who was angry at his wife because, even though she was at the store, buying groceries for him, was not there at home to make his afternoon tea. Yes, she usually made his tea, but why should he have to depend on her to do everything for him? When I asked him why he was so upset, it eventually got around to the point of his true answer - "I don't know how to make tea!" (My rude comment to him was "Go home and ask your wife to teach you how to make tea, and stop being angry at her. It was not her fault." But then again, I am rather terrible, when I am in my "teaching mode".

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Rock On
You posted, "The point of sex is to transmit life. Answer me this: did God create artificial birth control pills? Did God create condoms? Were they laid out on this earth for us? do you think God intended for human beings to bring artificial things into something so special? Please answer me that question, cause I would really like to know."

Sometimes, the sexual act is to communicate love between partners as it is the most intimate action two can take, according to many. It is not just the act of transmitting life, a.k.a. having babies, imho.

As to your point of God leaving "us" artificial means of birth control, please answer me this. Does your mother or father always make your meals for you, even when you are in your 60s? Are there not certain acts, situations, conditions where you must take action on your own, as an adult? Your perspective reminds me of one of my students - 60 years old at the time - who was angry at his wife because, even though she was at the store, buying groceries for him, was not there at home to make his afternoon tea. Yes, she usually made his tea, but why should he have to depend on her to do everything for him? When I asked him why he was so upset, it eventually got around to the point of his true answer - "I don't know how to make tea!" (My rude comment to him was "Go home and ask your wife to teach you how to make tea, and stop being angry at her. It was not her fault." But then again, I am rather terrible, when I am in my "teaching mode".
Uhh...hasn't that been answered already? Rock On and I agree on this same point, I think you can find our response on the previous page.

[Rock On]

Okay, CJS, but on what grounds? If you're going to take a position like "contraception is morally just as bad as abortion" you have to support it somehow. Otherwise you're just spouting off, and there's no reason for us to take you seriously. So give us something; support your position concretely, or else don't get mad when we write you off.
I hate it when people like you say stuff like that! it's so annoying! just cause cjs has his own opinions and defends what he feels and stuff doesnt mean you have to get into posts like that that get nobody anywhere! he doesn't agree with you, but he doesnt tell you that youre spouting off or that you cant be taken seriously! god, it gets me so mad. does something need to be supported on a written document or something someone else believes to make it "concrete" for you?? come on, answer that! id like to hear what you have to say.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

Can I not support it with what I feel is morally right? Is there a need for more than that? In my opinion that's my support for this argument. When did I get mad when you "wrote me off"? :confused:
Ok, I think we've had this problem before. People who simply state their opinions, without backing them up, tend to get in the way of honest discussion on these threads.

[Asphodel]

Okay, CJS, but on what grounds? If you're going to take a position like "contraception is morally just as bad as abortion" you have to support it somehow. Otherwise you're just spouting off, and there's no reason for us to take you seriously. So give us something; support your position concretely, or else don't get mad when we write you off.
*panicked* Oh no, someone disagrees with the Vatican!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[The Half-Blood Prince]

How about this:



This indicated to me that you don't agree with ANY form of contraception, even natural. After all, if a married couple abstains from sex during the woman's fertile period, they are deliberately choosing not to conceive, i.e. preventing a life. Rock On has seemed even more dogmatic in this view, considering he's come right out and said he disagrees with the Vatican on this point. If I am mistaken in my understanding of where you guys have been coming from, then I apologize, but I don't think I'm the only one! In which case you perhaps just needed to explain yourselves a bit better.

As far as the second statement (it wasn't there when I posted last, sorry), thank you for conceding the point. I am not Catholic, and I don't necessarily hold to the view that artificial contraceptives are evil - I was simply stating the possibility of your point and working from there. However, if we're still talking about natural family planning, I would say that there is no need for a couple to "choose not to transmit life so they can show each other love." During a woman's infertile period, there's no choice involved - the couple will not get pregnant no matter how much sexual activity they engage in during that time. Would you say that somehow it is wrong for them to be having relations during a time when they know conception is impossible? They've already chosen to abstain during the fertile days - so the choice has been made, and the two things (reproducing/expressing love) don't have to be mutually exclusive.
But natural family planning isn't preventing life from coming into existence because there was no intent in the first place to have life! I think it's completely fine if a couple chooses not to have children, but if they use artificial means to keep it at bay, then I completely disagree. Sorry if my ideas came off a bit muddled. That's not what I meant at all.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Ok, I think we've had this problem before. People who simply state their opinions, without backing them up, tend to get in the way of honest discussion on these threads.
Problem, huh? That's great to hear. The church does not think it is right to use artificial means to keep life at bay, but they do not believe it is as bad as abortion. I feel otherwise. Sorry if it doesn't seem honest to you.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

I'm fine if you present your opinion, just try to back it up! :eek:

[Rock On]

Yeah, youngest mod sure says a lot for that one. elf or whatever, you are so narrow-minded its not even funny.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

*Cough* Keep that kind of talking to PMs.

And honestly, can't narrow-mindedness be a good thing? For instance, let's say I think YOU'RE narrow-minded because you think murder is bad! Yeesh, man, how dare you tell others what to do? It's their business, they can murder who they want! It's up to the murdered's family to serve justice!

[Lookintoforever]

Yeah, youngest mod sure says a lot for that one. elf or whatever, you are so narrow-minded its not even funny.

keep in mind all debates are friendly....

[LifeMaiden]

I hate it when people like you say stuff like that! it's so annoying! just cause cjs has his own opinions and defends what he feels and stuff doesnt mean you have to get into posts like that that get nobody anywhere! he doesn't agree with you, but he doesnt tell you that youre spouting off or that you cant be taken seriously! god, it gets me so mad. does something need to be supported on a written document or something someone else believes to make it "concrete" for you?? come on, answer that! id like to hear what you have to say.


Okay so CaptJ, you and Rock On believe that

1. Just because the Church says that contraception and abortion are along two morally different lines, you and Rock On believe the Church is wrong, and that the use of contraception and abortion are EQUALLY SINFUL.

2. You and RockOn will honestly never use condoms, never have sex before marriage, and only be with one woman, the one you marry, never use birth control, ever, and have as many kids as God would permit. Do you realize that a woman can have children until she's 55 or older?


Good luck on that...if you have 20 kids, be sure you can afford a couple of buses to bring them to school.

[LifeMaiden]

*Cough* Keep that kind of talking to PMs.

And honestly, can't narrow-mindedness be a good thing? For instance, let's say I think YOU'RE narrow-minded because you think murder is bad! Yeesh, man, how dare you tell others what to do? It's their business, they can murder who they want! It's up to the murdered's family to serve justice!

Cough cough. Well it's like this...you know, a woman gets raped and a man thinks he's entitled to do that because she wears a 'see through dress.' And then the man sees a bank and decides to rob it, that's okay too, because the bank has a glass 'see through door.'

[Rock On]

Okay so CaptJ, you and Rock On believe that

1. Just because the Church says that contraception and abortion are along two morally different lines, you and Rock On believe the Church is wrong, and that the use of contraception and abortion are EQUALLY SINFUL.

2. You and RockOn will honestly never use condoms, never have sex before marriage, and only be with one woman, the one you marry, never use birth control, ever, and have as many kids as God would permit. Do you realize that a woman can have children until she's 55 or older?


Good luck on that...if you have 20 kids, be sure you can afford a couple of buses to bring them to school.
look where believing against that's gotten you.

[LifeMaiden]

look where believing against that's gotten you.


Yes, indeed, Rock On. It's bought me closer to God than I ever thought could be possible in my life, so much in fact, that I've become pro-life, am planning to attend a spiritual retreat, and am considering becoming a nun, thus having a career in the religious vocation. It's gotten me quite far, in fact.


You know, with your statements, you arenot making yourself any more Christian than your self-righteousness leads you to believe you are. You're one of those arrogant know-it-all 'I'm always right' types whose way of thinking leaves no room for prayer, forgiveness, or an open mind. I feel nothing but sympathy for you, and pray that you'll find it in your heart to be more like Christ, be less judgemental, accusational, and find peace within yourself. I know I'm on my way there. I hope you are too. When Christians like yourself stop acting like Christ and less like a secular judge of other people's characters and past wrongdoings, that's when I feel you'll find peace with yourself. But you've got a long, long ways to go.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Why do you all even respond to Rock On? Just ignore him when he says stuff like that. All he does is make a fool out of himself.

[LifeMaiden]

Because I was in the mood to respond in a non angry way :D

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

This thread has a nasty tone, starting on the first page. And with so many mods participating, it's odd that the fighting has continued.

Birth control can be used for purposes other than not getting pregnant. It is often prescribed for women who are hormonally imbalanced or have irregular cycles.

But using birth control in order to not get pregnant is nothing more than an auto-abort system. Birth control does not stop the fertilization. Birth control does not stop the egg from implanting in the uterine wall. Birth control just forces the monthly cycle to happen in spite of a pregnancy. It is abortion in stealth mode.

[inkspot]

Yah, I agree with HPPG, this thread has taken on a nasty tone, and I am going to say Rock On's sharp tongue is reponsible for a lot of it. Rock On and anyone else who thinks it's appropriate to attack another narniafan ("look where that attitude's gotten you!" - "you're so narrow-minded"), you had better reign it in. That's not how we do things here. I'll ban ya for it next time, 'k?

I would like CJS and Rock On to explain why natural family planning (which limits the number of children God can gift you with) is better than artificial contraception, which also limits the number of children God can gift you with. What is the difference? If anything, the NFP foils God's plans to give you children even worse, because there's no possible way to conceive, but the articificial could fail, and thus God could slip one by you ...

[arwenelizabeth]

Birth control can be used for purposes other than not getting pregnant. It is often prescribed for women who are hormonally imbalanced or have irregular cycles.
Your first point is absolutely true, HPPG - birth control pills are used as hormone therapy in people who are not even sexually active. But I don't think anyone has a moral problem with that (although some people do have questions about the medical effects of such therapy on a woman's body); we're specifically concerned with birth control when used as contraception.

You're welcome to join in on the discussion about that! :)

[LifeMaiden]

Well, I probably respond just as sharply when I feel I'm being attacked, which is why I went back about three times to edit my posts LOL and make sure they weren't mean or anything.


MOST pro-lifers I know at least support the idea of birth control, artificial or otherwise, as an instrument in the prevention of abortion, as well as abstinence. Why should there be abortion if one prevents pregnancy to begin with? I'll agree that birth control, easily accessible in stores and through your doctor, of course, can also be used as a tool to have sex and not worry about the consquences. Hormonal birth control, for example, which I don't take and will never take, does not, however, protect against STDs. Amazingly, natural family planning can have just a high rate of success, if not higher, than artifical birth control. ( I can testify to that!)


However here's a question for everyone. What is, in your opinion, the reason WHY our nation has such a high teen pregnancy and abortion rate, and yet we have birth control everywhere? What accounts for this? What are some of the solutions to educating people about the consequences of careless or casual sex? And why as a nation have to use promiscuous ads, videos, and movies to sell them?

[Ephinie]

However here's a question for everyone. What is, in your opinion, the reason WHY our nation has such a high teen pregnancy and abortion rate, and yet we have birth control everywhere? What accounts for this? What are some of the solutions to educating people about the consequences of careless or casual sex? And why as a nation have to use promiscuous ads, videos, and movies to sell them?Well... the problem is that teenagers are having sex, and they shouldn't be. I don't think that having birth control available to teenagers will ever make a bit of difference in pregnancy (and therefore abortion) rates. Why? Because teenagers are irresponsible. They can't be trusted to use it right, because they cannot understand the importance of it. A typical teenage mindset is, "It can't happen to me." That goes for pregnancy as well as any other consequence of actions. So teenagers, much more so than adults, are going to forget to take their pills... figure they'll be fine without a condom as long as it's only one time... or just plain screw up on how they are using whatever method they are using.

Also, when teenagers have sex, it is a "crime of opportunity." They can't just sit there and get it on whenever they want to. They have to sneak around, hide it from their parents, find places they can be alone. Most teens don't live on their own, they live with their parents and often in families with other children. They've gotta take what they can get when they can get it, which makes their sexual activity sporatic. So, in addition to not being competent enough to use birth control properly, they are also at the mercy of outside circumstances. Adult women have more control over how and when they engage in sexual activity, which means they can regulate it better.

So birth control will never be effective for teenagers. The only way teen pregnancies will be reduced is if teenagers stop having sex. Somehow, I am doubtful that will happen any time soon...

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

we're specifically concerned with birth control when used as contraception.

You're welcome to join in on the discussion about that! :)
And I did. Thank you for noticing.

I don't think that having birth control available to teenagers will ever make a bit of difference in pregnancy (and therefore abortion) rates. Why? Because teenagers are irresponsible. They can't be trusted to use it right, because they cannot understand the importance of it.
That is a pretty gloomy view of teenagers, and I think it's wrong. Being a teenager myself, I can confidently say that the problem is parents and stigmas more than anything else. When Planned Parenthood made birth control available to teenage women, the number of unwanted pregnancies dropped. That is a direct consequence of availability. Teenagers understand the importance of birth control and pregnancy very well. We're told from Junior High that pregnancy makes kids drop out of school and work at Burger King. The problem is that there is a stereotype attached to people who use birth control: they are having sex. That is wrong, and the main reason why I mentioned that birth control is used for other important medical purposes. Teenagers aren't irresponsible. They are afraid of what other people will think.

Another problem is that most teenagers don't plan to have sex. It's not like going to see a movie where you plan what time to meet and what movie to see and buy some candy before-hand to smuggle into the theater. It is usually spontaneous, which is why things like condoms aren't used enough. If you carry a condom around in your purse for a long time "just in case" something happens and you need it, and someone else finds it, they wil label you something bad and make assumptions that are hurtful. I've seen it happen.

It is more about appearances than responsibility.

The only way teen pregnancies will be reduced is if teenagers stop having sex.
That's one way, but not the only way. The other way would be for society to stop labelling women who take birth control and stop judging people who carry condoms. But that isn't likely to happen because our society loves to judge people.

[Solya]

However here's a question for everyone. What is, in your opinion, the reason WHY our nation has such a high teen pregnancy and abortion rate, and yet we have birth control everywhere? What accounts for this? What are some of the solutions to educating people about the consequences of careless or casual sex? And why as a nation have to use promiscuous ads, videos, and movies to sell them?

I'm not someone who lives in your country, but I'm going to answer it anyway. :) In my country, I think that a lot of young people are scared of going to the doctor to ask for the pill and a lot of them are also scared of stepping into a shop and buying condoms. Still I know one girl who got pregnant (and had an abortion) because her only method of protection was the pill which didn't work when she got sick. Many youngsters here don't use the double protection of pill and condom, and as a result things tend to get a bit messed-up from time to time and I guess that also causes pregnancy in some cases.

Also, parents and other people have a lot to do with why teenagers don't use birth control enough. :) I'm not one to go behind the back of my Mum and so I'd tell her if I wanted to use the pill... but she already specifically stated that me using it would only be to prevent the stomachache I suffer from once a month rather than giving me the "go on"-signal so I could have sex. My parents expect of me not to have sex before I get married (and I must say that I do plan on agreeing with them somewhat) and I guess it is the same for many other young girls. When you're very young, that does limit your chances of taking the pill for another reason than a heavy menstruation a lot. The same can be said for buying condoms and everything. :)

And I also feel that there are some guys who don't tend to take responsibility in matters like that at all. I lost count of the number of times when girls told me that they had to take care of everything in the matter of birth control. I think that there's very little attention paid to that in the adverts of the government and stuff. Birth control is something you should take care of together and, sadly, that is not always the case.

So, why are young people still having sex? I can only say this for my own country but I guess it applies a lot to other countries as well. They have sex because they're curious to experience what that's like. In magazines that are meant for teenage girls you're absolutely bombarded with sexual stuff, so naturally you get curious and want to experience it too. :) Some of them also have sex sheerly out of peer pressure... I guess that's an important factor too... because when I was still in school, people used to laugh at me for the fact that I'd never kissed a guy before... I can see the same thing happen in the matter of sexual stuff. *shrugs*

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Yah, I agree with HPPG, this thread has taken on a nasty tone, and I am going to say Rock On's sharp tongue is reponsible for a lot of it. Rock On and anyone else who thinks it's appropriate to attack another narniafan ("look where that attitude's gotten you!" - "you're so narrow-minded"), you had better reign it in. That's not how we do things here. I'll ban ya for it next time, 'k?

I would like CJS and Rock On to explain why natural family planning (which limits the number of children God can gift you with) is better than artificial contraception, which also limits the number of children God can gift you with. What is the difference? If anything, the NFP foils God's plans to give you children even worse, because there's no possible way to conceive, but the articificial could fail, and thus God could slip one by you ...
Because natural family planning is natural. There is nothing artificial involved. I've said before that I don't think there's anything wrong with someone going through life without having children at all.

[LifeMaiden]

Because natural family planning is natural. There is nothing artificial involved. I've said before that I don't think there's anything wrong with someone going through life without having children at all.


Well especially if a person is planning to be a nun or priest :D

[SuperSnoop]

[QUOTE=IceMaiden]As a Christian, do you support artificial birth control, or not? Why or why not?

i don't know what that is!

[*IOWW the Iasc*]

I haven't decided yet. ( Wow, everyones opinions are pretty split, eh? 15, 14, 13.)

[LifeMaiden]

[QUOTE=IceMaiden]As a Christian, do you support artificial birth control, or not? Why or why not?

i don't know what that is!


Artifical birth control are hormonal, such as Depo Provera, birth control pills, and any other contraceptive method ( condoms, foams, jellies, diaphragm, the Dalkon Shield) OTHER than natural family planning.

[Emily_Cullen]

I haven't decided I am not old enough :o

[the freak sisters]

I dont know exactly what that is but ummm if they are against abortion and against parents before marrige, and stuff like that, I wouldnt mind.

[Sunrise]

But using birth control in order to not get pregnant is nothing more than an auto-abort system. Birth control does not stop the fertilization. Birth control does not stop the egg from implanting in the uterine wall. Birth control just forces the monthly cycle to happen in spite of a pregnancy. It is abortion in stealth mode.

This is only partly true, HPPG. It applies to hormonal methods of birth control (the pill, IUDs, depo-provera, etc.) but not to barrier methods (condoms, spermicides, diaphrams) which really DO prevent fertilization, although their success rate, as has been noted, is iffy at best.

So, I know what you're saying, but let's be specific.

[LifeMaiden]

Abortion in 'stealth mode'...that's an interesting statement. :) I've never heard it worded that way.

[inkspot]

Because natural family planning is natural. There is nothing artificial involved. I've said before that I don't think there's anything wrong with someone going through life without having children at all.
Yah, I know it's natural, but why does that make artificial methods sinful? There are organic foods, and there are foods with added hormones and chemicals/fertilizers -- do you eat only the natural ones because the others are sinful? There are natural methods of childbirth, and then there are ones assisted by medicine. Do you think it is sinful to have drugs during childbirth? There are homeopathic (natural) ways to treat disease, and then there are drug therapies and treatments -- are the "artificial" medicines sinful? This is what I am trying to figure out -- not which is natural, I know this, but why the artificial ones are deemed sinful in your thought, when the end result is the same?

Can you enlighten me?

HPPG, you said earlier when Planned Parenthood started making bc available to teenagers, the teen pregnancy rate went down, but do you have some documentation for this, and can you explain what has happened since? Right now bc is still available to teens, and teens still are having babies or abortions.

[Paravel25]

Yah, I know it's natural, but why does that make artificial methods sinful? There are organic foods, and there are foods with added hormones and chemicals/fertilizers -- do you eat only the natural ones because the others are sinful? There are natural methods of childbirth, and then there are ones assisted by medicine. Do you think it is sinful to have drugs during childbirth? There are homeopathic (natural) ways to treat disease, and then there are drug therapies and treatments -- are the "artificial" medicines sinful? This is what I am trying to figure out -- not which is natural, I know this, but why the artificial ones are deemed sinful in your thought, when the end result is the same?

Can you enlighten me?

I cannot speak for CaptainJackSparrow or others, but I do prefer natural medicines, foods, and natural family planning to anything artificial. I would not say, however, that artificial birth control is necessarily sinful itself (because I know some women use the pill for other heath related reasons), so it's more that I am concerned about unmarried people using artificial birth control in the place of abstinence.

I think again it raises a question about humans trying so hard to control our world, so that we can do what we want, but we're not perfect, so our solutions are not either. I don't worry about something completely natural, as long as I know the facts about allergy/interaction, I can trust in what God has put on the earth for us. I don't feel that same confidence about anything produced by humans in a laboratory.

Look at prescription drugs and all the awful side effects or the thread in this forum on artificial sweetners. We're always assured that these things are safe, but then years later we find out differently.

[inkspot]

I totally agree with that -- I thought CJS was saying artificial birth control was more than harmful, it was sinful, the same thing as an abortion. I was trying to figure out why he thought that.

[LifeMaiden]

Wow, I must be really slow because previously I had thought that CJS DIDN'T support natural family planning. Whoa. I really put myself at risk for carpal tunnel syndrome LOL posting so fiercely about it. :D


You can see there that everyone seems evenly divided on this issue...with about one third for artificial birth control, one third against it, and one third undecided. I am assuming the majority of the voters are Christian.


For me, I just think there's so much about hormonal birth control that we do not yet know about, and I don't want to take a chance and find out that the extra estrogen is giving me cancer or whatever, or blood clots and other risk factors. It's almost 'too convenient' like the rest of things in our society. And if you look at the fine print on birth control that is hormonal, it's like the rest of medications " Will prevent pregnancy BUT...may cause strokes, blood clots, depression, acne, death..."

[Solya]

For me, I just think there's so much about hormonal birth control that we do not yet know about, and I don't want to take a chance and find out that the extra estrogen is giving me cancer or whatever, or blood clots and other risk factors. It's almost 'too convenient' like the rest of things in our society. And if you look at the fine print on birth control that is hormonal, it's like the rest of medications " Will prevent pregnancy BUT...may cause strokes, blood clots, depression, acne, death..."

Yes, which is why I will hopefully never take it. :eek: I read an article in a magazine some time ago about the various things you can use for birth control and they all sounded pretty scary to me. I also read something about the various birth control pills a doctor can prescribe and basically I decided at that very moment that I would never allow such junk into my body. The thing with those pills is that you have to take them every day (right?) and so you get your daily dose of extra hormones through that as well... I don't think that's healthy or natural if you take it for years on end...

[Ephinie]

Well, I think that for me... once I get married (if that ever happens), I'll give the NFP a try. If it fails, then oh well, cause I'll be married! Until then, I still think abstinence is the best form of birth control.

If I am not married by the time I'm like 35 or something, I am going to seriously look into adoption. I really love children, and I can't imagine going through life without ever having one.

[LifeMaiden]

Having kids was never my thing, and I don't understand why it's evem a big dealif a woman chooses to ne child-free.

[Solya]

I really love children, and I can't imagine going through life without ever having one.

It's exactly the same for me. I have been toying with the idea that I want to have children someday for as long as I can remember, and for me my life here wouldn't be complete without it. I have had problems understanding why someone would choose not to have children... but I do accept that decision not to have them just as much as I accept a decision to get children.

[Ephinie]

Having kids was never my thing, and I don't understand why it's evem a big dealif a woman chooses to ne child-free.Well I don't think it's a big deal if someone chooses not to have any. They aren't everyone's thing. I just can't imagine myself never having any.

[LifeMaiden]

I was being facetious, Eph :)

I think having your own kids is great, but adopting one is equally as great, because you're giving a child a family in which to be loved and wanted. I don't know if anyone remembers me posting this, but about 50 years ago, when my mother was very young and naive, she was with a man whom she thought was going to marry her. She ended up getting pregnant, the guy was actually married (with a wife and kids in another state) and while she could have opted for an abortion ( back alley or not) she decided to go to a Catholic home ( though she was not Catholic) for 'unwed mothers', and give birth to a son, a half-brother whom I've never met.

He would be about 49 now, half-caucasian, and somewhere out there, a family adopted him and gave him a home that I pray was as loving and wonderful as mine. I've thought about searching for him, but the Catholic home is no longer there, and I don't want to disrupt his life in any way.

[Ephinie]

It occurs to me...

The existence of my brother makes a pretty strong argument in favor of birth contorl.

[echoscot]

It occurs to me...

The existence of my brother makes a pretty strong argument in favor of birth contorl.
Is that sarcasm?

[Ephinie]

Is that sarcasm?For the most part, yes.

[onlymystory]

that's funny. my brother makes the same argument. And he usually wins.

[LifeMaiden]

You guys are too much LOL. Eph I always wanted a brother. You want to toss him my way? :D


You know, as an only child, I'm really grateful that my grandparents and greatgrandparents didn't use or have any birth control. I think they just liked being fruitful and multiplying. Their family roots are so deeply entrenched in the ground that I don't feel bad for never having wanted kids. When you have like 88 first cousins and 34 second cousins, you don't feel the need to add more to the family.

[Ephinie]

If you want him, you can have him. He's looking to move out.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Yah, I know it's natural, but why does that make artificial methods sinful? There are organic foods, and there are foods with added hormones and chemicals/fertilizers -- do you eat only the natural ones because the others are sinful? There are natural methods of childbirth, and then there are ones assisted by medicine. Do you think it is sinful to have drugs during childbirth? There are homeopathic (natural) ways to treat disease, and then there are drug therapies and treatments -- are the "artificial" medicines sinful? This is what I am trying to figure out -- not which is natural, I know this, but why the artificial ones are deemed sinful in your thought, when the end result is the same?

Can you enlighten me?

HPPG, you said earlier when Planned Parenthood started making bc available to teenagers, the teen pregnancy rate went down, but do you have some documentation for this, and can you explain what has happened since? Right now bc is still available to teens, and teens still are having babies or abortions.
In my opinion, artificial birth control demeans sex as God intended it. I think people use it simply for pleasure, which, to me, isn't the way it was meant to be. The organic/inorganic food metaphor isn't the same in this case. Natural family planning is choosing to wait for a time when the mother wishes to have a child. She is not using artificial means to stop this from happening to have sex.

[Malacandra]

But using birth control in order to not get pregnant is nothing more than an auto-abort system. Birth control does not stop the fertilization. Birth control does not stop the egg from implanting in the uterine wall. Birth control just forces the monthly cycle to happen in spite of a pregnancy. It is abortion in stealth mode.

Um, no. The regular pill tweaks the woman's hormone balance to stop her ovulating, by putting her in the same hormonal state as if she were pregnant. One of the main reasons why there's been a female contraceptive pill for years, and not a male one, is that there is already a natural set of circumstances in which a woman can be infertile: when she is already pregnant. That makes it a lot easier to come up with an artificial method to achieve the same result. There isn't a similar method to apply to men, who are designed to be fertile from puberty until death.

The so-called "morning after" pill, on the other hand, does work to keep a fertilized ovum from implanting.

There are a whole raft of contraceptive measures available to women, and in practice only two to men, one of which significantly decreases his enjoyment and the other of which involves surgery that is largely irreversible. It figures we'd cry out on how hard-done-by women are. :rolleyes:

In my opinion, artificial birth control demeans sex as God intended it. I think people use it simply for pleasure, which, to me, isn't the way it was meant to be.

*shrug* Seems the quote from Song of Solomon and the Epistles haven't had much impact on you, then.

[inkspot]

In my opinion, artificial birth control demeans sex as God intended it. I think people use it simply for pleasure, which, to me, isn't the way it was meant to be. The organic/inorganic food metaphor isn't the same in this case. Natural family planning is choosing to wait for a time when the mother wishes to have a child. She is not using artificial means to stop this from happening to have sex.
With NFP the couple is also using sex for pleasure without desiring a baby as the result. And as IM has testified, NFP used correctly is much more effective than artificial birth control for some people. So, while the people having sex for pleasure using NFP have very little chance of conceiving a child, those doing the same thing with atificial birth control have a greater chance, despite the artificial means. If God wants either of these sets of couples to have a child, He can give them one, whether they intended to make one or not.

Thus it seems to me, there is no moral difference between the two methods. If your objection to birth control is that it allows humans to have sex without reproduction (for pleasure) it seems you should find both NFP and artificial means equally sinful.

[Danny]

Birth control is "sinful"?

Well I'm sorry, but that's just a little bit to "medieval" for my taste.
If the Catholic Church was decent enough to adapt to the time we're living in and come down of it's medieval high horse and permit the use of contraception, there wouldn't be half as much hunger, starvation and over-population in the missionary swamped countries of Africa.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Wow - first time I've ever heard a country referred to as "missionary-swamped"!

Danny, your response is a predictable result of the Malthusian training you've received, and as incorrect as Malthus was. What starvation there is in Africa is not due to "overpopulation". Africa grows plenty enough food to feed itself - in fact, many nations are food exporters. Where there is starvation, is is most often a tactic of war, where one tribe or military group cuts off the food source in order to starve out an enemy. The infamous Ethiopian famine of about a decade ago was such a circumstance. It was ultimately due neither to overpopulation nor to drought (which was the common excuse), but to a tribe that wanted to starve out an entire region and cut off their food supply by military force.

Another cause of hunger and sickness in Africa is social and economic inequity - in short, thugs coming to power and robbing the people. Political corruption is a terrible scourge, and is responsible for far more hunger than population levels.

The fact is, the UNFPA has been forcibly introducing widespread contraception programs in all these nations for a generation now, including coerced abortions. The problems which you falsely attribute to overpopulation are still there, but now they have a new one: widespread AIDS. Seems that giving people the impression that they could engage in sex without consequences had some undesireable side effects.

[inkspot]

Thank you, PoTW! That is what I would have said, myself. If you look at places like Sudan where people are dying from starvation and dropping from malnutritioun, it is from years of their own government making war on them -- not from overpopulation! Corruption, violence and greed are the reasons so many Africans are poor and hungry.

[TimmyofOz]

I remember when my ex and I were trying to have a baby. And sence she had such a bad fertility problem that we were going to have to do those methods to get her pregnant that would have resulted in the production of several embryos. I remember feeling terrible about this, but my ex had to have a baby so I kept my mouth shout. It ended up not working out any how because my ex-wife's problems where so bad that it was impossible for her to ovulate no matter how much hormones you put in her. But the whole thing put a lot of stress on our marriage. I wanted children but not at any cost. Fertiliy problems cause so much stress because having that baby is more important than the marriage itself. I got so tired of trying to have a baby, because I know my ex care more about getting a baby than keeping our marriage strong. It just stank. :(

[inkspot]

Adoption is a great alternative for anyone with fertility problems, especially if you are happy to have a baby who doesn't maybe look exactly like you and what not. I agree, Tim, it would be tough to consider fertility treatments which meant lots of embryos lost in the hope of getting one to "take." Sounds like you are better off without your ex.

[LifeMaiden]

Many fertility treatments can cause serious hormonal problems as well as multiple embryos...you hear about couples having 4 or 5 babies at a time. Not that that's a bad thing but man, you'd better be prepared to have the finances and the emotional support to deal with a multiple birth like that.

Adoption is a brave choice...to me, the person who has actually 'given birth' is NOT the 'true' mother ( albeit the birth mother)...this person has chosen to give up the baby, and the couple who adopts and raises the child or children...those are who the real parents are. But some women I guess absolutely HAVE to have their own and give birth. I wonder how msst Christians feel about surrogate parents or egg donors and such.

[inkspot]

Bah -- not as a Christian necessarily, but just as a prude or old-fashioned person or something, I think surrogacy and egg-donors and stuff like that is ... dangerous. Adopting a baby who needs a home is one thing, but creating a baby in someone else's womb or with someone else's fertile bits, and then planning to keep it as your own -- to me it opens up the door to complications, like buying and selling babies, which is wrong, wrong, wrong, in my opinion.

No offense to anyone who has had a surrogate and a great experience; I know it does happen, and I am happy for you. But in other cases the surrogates can change their minds and decide to keep the baby (who could blame them?), or want money, or something, and then there's just heartache. I don't like the idea.

[TimmyofOz]

Adoption is great, But the process is also very stressful especially after failed fertility treatments. In many ways adoption is not the same as having your own baby. You need to revaluate your goals when you adopt. Like you said inspot, you need to look at it on what is the need ot the children that need to be adopted and not just to fill your needs from a failure to have your own children. I wanted to look at all options, and mybe start with foster. My ex made it clear she wanted a perfect match. After all the stress of the fertility treatments we were no longer on the same page. And with all her other medical problems she had, I just felt she was in no condition to raise a child, let alone get through the adoption process for the kind of baby she wanted. It looks like I was right unfortunally. The last I heard is unless some back surgery goes well she may lose her ablity to walk.

[inkspot]

See, I kind of don't understand the business of trying to adopt a perfect match for your family. You cannot guarantee your own biological children will look like you, so why bother with that when adopting? My thinking has been (and I try this out on my hard-hearted husband all the time!), we have lots of love to give a baby, and loving any baby of my own would fulfill that maternal instinct in me, so the gender and race of the baby don't make any difference ... our own biological baby might be easier and cheaper to come up with initially, but any baby in need would be fine with me.

It's not as if, when you adopt a baby, you are going to fool the child into believing he is a biological child of yours, so what's the difference about his physical appearance?

[LifeMaiden]

Bah -- not as a Christian necessarily, but just as a prude or old-fashioned person or something, I think surrogacy and egg-donors and stuff like that is ... dangerous. Adopting a baby who needs a home is one thing, but creating a baby in someone else's womb or with someone else's fertile bits, and then planning to keep it as your own -- to me it opens up the door to complications, like buying and selling babies, which is wrong, wrong, wrong, in my opinion.

No offense to anyone who has had a surrogate and a great experience; I know it does happen, and I am happy for you. But in other cases the surrogates can change their minds and decide to keep the baby (who could blame them?), or want money, or something, and then there's just heartache. I don't like the idea.



There are a lot of ethical matters to consider when it comes to surrogacy and egg donors. I personally think there's something really cold about some of our techniques to create life. Did you know that there are people who want to create this perfect child, and for these couples, finding an egg donor who is exceptionally smart and good-looking is a top priority? I have this nightmarish vision of BRAVE NEW WORLD when it comes to selecting babies in such a manner. Some egg donors who are, for example, genetically gifted with great looks or a high IQ and good health are selling their eggs 'to the highest bidder'.

I cannot be the one to judge someone who decides to have a child in such a manner, but I also believe that there is something strangely detached and cold when you attempt to 'genetically select' your child. Why not let God just do that? And when it comes to adopting, why would you want to adopt a child who looks like you or your race when you're most likely going to tell them they're adopted anyways? I'm all for adopting the child who needs a home the most...regardless of whether they're black, white, asian, or purple or green. I could care less whether that child is Asian like myself or has dark hair and eyes.


With surrogacy and egg donation, again, there are serious ethical and health matters to consider. I read about the hormonal treatments that egg donors have to go through...and there's just no way I'd ever submit myself to that. The sad thing is, people always want 'their own' child and if one cannot conceive naturally, then that person resorts to artifical means, such as test tubes, egg and sperm donations. But there are so many children out there already born who are in dire need of good homes.

[Ephinie]

I guess I can understand, to a degree, the need and desire for someone to have "their own" child. There is a certain aspect of "immortality" to having children... passing down a part of yourself to the next generation. You cannot live forever, but your genes can be passed on... and on... and on... So you're family can continue. A part of yourself can continue. In that respect, I can understand why people want their own child in that way. However, I think that taking this too far shows a lack of respect for human life in general. There comes a point when playing around with all of that stuff just becomes too much. Also, there ARE so many children who need good homes. Ignoring those children while trying to create your own child at any cost and by any means is just... plain... selfish.

As for selecting a child for adoption who physically looks like you, well, that doesn't make any sense to me, either. As everyone has pointed out already, most people are going to tell their children that they are adopted. I would be far more concerned with the child's personality. Are they someone you like and can get along with well? You can't generally tell this if you're adopting a baby. But then, you can't tell what your child's personality is going to be like if you're giving birth to one of your own, either. It's not something you can predict at a young age. Thus, whether your child is adopted or genetically yours, it is up to God what child you get.

[inkspot]

At this point, it comes down to the matter of why you want the child. If it is to fulfill something in your ego, then of course, you will want the best designer child you can make ... because she's you're trophy child.

But if you want a family to fulfill the instinct to be parents and provide a loving home for someone who can be instructed by your experience and nurtured by your love, then I don't think you care whether the child looks like you or is the sharpest Crayon in the box. She's just the baby you love.

If it's a matter of buying the best baby you can get, there is a term for that: slavery. Children aren't supposed to be bought and sold.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I remember reading an article once where a woman stated that when she got to a certain age, she wanted to have a child because she "didn't want to deny herself that experience." I remember thinking, "Please, lady, have pity on the poor kid and deny yourself the experience!" Having a child so you can have a toy, or a trophy, or a life experience, is a terrible reason to have a child. Children are gifts to be received with deep gratitude, cherished with awe, and raised with self-sacrificing love. No child born deserves anything less.

[LifeMaiden]

I remember reading an article once where a woman stated that when she got to a certain age, she wanted to have a child because she "didn't want to deny herself that experience." I remember thinking, "Please, lady, have pity on the poor kid and deny yourself the experience!" Having a child so you can have a toy, or a trophy, or a life experience, is a terrible reason to have a child. Children are gifts to be received with deep gratitude, cherished with awe, and raised with self-sacrificing love. No child born deserves anything less.


And that's what I don't understand about people who can't respect MY decision to not have kids. I've heard everything there could be heard about that from " people who don't want kids are not well-adjusted, don't have their priorities straight, are selfish..." you name it. But to me, having children IS a choice, and there are far too many who have made the choice to have kids and cannot care for them, or do not care for them.

[LifeMaiden]

Adoption is great, But the process is also very stressful especially after failed fertility treatments. In many ways adoption is not the same as having your own baby. You need to revaluate your goals when you adopt. Like you said inspot, you need to look at it on what is the need ot the children that need to be adopted and not just to fill your needs from a failure to have your own children. I wanted to look at all options, and mybe start with foster. My ex made it clear she wanted a perfect match. After all the stress of the fertility treatments we were no longer on the same page. And with all her other medical problems she had, I just felt she was in no condition to raise a child, let alone get through the adoption process for the kind of baby she wanted. It looks like I was right unfortunally. The last I heard is unless some back surgery goes well she may lose her ablity to walk.


Why would you have to re-evaluate your goals when you adopt? To me foster care is kind of like passing a child from one place to another. I had a friend who was in 13 * COUNT...13* foster homes before she was 16...and in one, she was raped, in another, she was beaten, and she was never adopted. She was treated very nicely in one home, but merely sent to another later on. Her group home had older kids in it that made it a potentially dangerous situation for her to be in. Fostering a child is only giving them a temporary home, and they may get put in another home which is far less than what you can give them permanently. Wanting a perfect match is senseless to me...unless you planned not to tell the child that he or she was adopted

[inkspot]

The world needs good foster homes! Sadly, some children can't be adopted because their parents haven't relinquished their rights or are working toward getting their children back so the state does not terminate their rights, but in the meantime, the children need some place safe to stay. Fostering is a true ministry to children in need. But as IM points out, it should also be a real commitment to foster the child as long as you are needed.

But as a proving ground for adoption, fostering wouldn't be exactly right. You aren't "trying out" the various children to see which one fits with you, because some of them will not even be eligible for adoption. I have friends who fostered, and they had a little girl from the time she was 3 months until 3 years, and of course they wanted to adopt her -- her mother's rights had finally be terminated, so the proceedings began. Then her father turned up from out of nowhere. He had gotten off drugs, and got his life back together. This began a two-year process of his jumping through hopes to show he had a safe home for her and was a good parent, and her being re-introduced to him and transitioning from her foster home to her new home. Of course it was desireable for the baby to be with her biological father, but it was heart-breaking for my friends.

[Ephinie]

I've often thought that I might want to try being a foster parent after I'm finished with my master's degree. This past year of my life has shown me that I am capable of financially supporting not just myself, but other people as well. I've been providing complete support to both myself and my younger brother, as well as the majority of support to a deadbeat roommate who I only recently was able to get rid of. Now I am also going to school on top of that, and I'm doing all right. In the absence of school, I would have plenty of time to devote to a child, as well as the financial resources.

So it's occurred to me, why not put this to good use? I don't think I would qualify, though, because I'm single. I'm probably also too young, but I might not be by the time I graduate! Anyways, it's something to think about and mull over for a while - a long while. I don't graduate until 2008 or 2009, so right now it's just a fleeting thought of something that I might do some day.

[LifeMaiden]

I've often thought that I might want to try being a foster parent after I'm finished with my master's degree. This past year of my life has shown me that I am capable of financially supporting not just myself, but other people as well. I've been providing complete support to both myself and my younger brother, as well as the majority of support to a deadbeat roommate who I only recently was able to get rid of. Now I am also going to school on top of that, and I'm doing all right. In the absence of school, I would have plenty of time to devote to a child, as well as the financial resources.

So it's occurred to me, why not put this to good use? I don't think I would qualify, though, because I'm single. I'm probably also too young, but I might not be by the time I graduate! Anyways, it's something to think about and mull over for a while - a long while. I don't graduate until 2008 or 2009, so right now it's just a fleeting thought of something that I might do some day.


You are just too good to be true Eph. I can't believe a roommate who would take advantage of your good nature!! Well, at least you got rid of that person.

Sadly I think there are single people like yourself who would make fantastic foster parents rather than couples who often just try to get as much money out of the state as possible. I'm not sure about policies regarding single women or men being foster parents.

I didn't mean to imply that I felt the entirety of the foster care system was 'bad' and that every foster child was abused, but sadly, the system is SOOO overworked. Social workers simply have so little spare time, and system is overloaded with kids who cannot be adopted due to circumstances and behavioral problems. It's truly sad.


For me, it would just be so hard to live with a foster child and love them only to either have to give them back to the parent or parents, or have them put in another home if something were to happen to myself. I would come to think of that child as my own daughter or son.


On a much happier note, a very good male friend of mine was one of SIX foster children, all of whom his mother adopted. She was one of the few black families in the city she lived in to be available literally AROUND THE CLOCK for any child, black or white, in need of a home. And she and her husband were not well off...he was a janitor and she worked full time in the house caring for her children. She had no biological children of her own. But my friend estimated that when he was formally adopted at age six, over the next ten years, she had at least fifty ( count that) foster children in her care. He told me that she never failed to provide love and support to those children, especially the black children, who needed a family the most.

[Ephinie]

See... I think it's really unfortunate that so many kids who are in foster care end up worse off than if they had just been left in their home. Obviously, no system can be perfect; but ideally, a foster home should be a safe haven for children who need one for as long as they need one. I agree that it would be hard to not become too attached to the child, and it would be heartbreaking when it comes time to give the child back to its real parents... But you have to look at foster care as a ministry. The goal is to, first of all, protect children; and secondly, it is to put families back together.

Of course there are also stories like the one you told, IM, which is very encouraging. There really ARE good people out there who are not just doing it for the money. And why anyone would be a foster parent just to get extra money is beyond me. My understanding was that the state doesn't actually pay you that much per child, so you're going to end up spending more on the care and maintanence of the child than what you are receiving. So it really would not make sense at all as a business venture.

[LifeMaiden]

Wow we need a thread for this alone :).

Unfortunately a lot of the foster children I have known through the years, and there have been several, for the most part, were not reunited with their parents because their parents were either dead, completely unable to care for them ( severely abusive or on drugs) and in prison for long periods of time. These are primarily women that I met through another line of work, which seemed to have a great deal of women who had been through the foster care system. They had children themselves and told me that they NEVER wanted their own kids to go through what they had been through at foster homes.

So the good news there is...they wanted to be better parents. Most of their own parents were in prison for drugs and other offenses, or dead. One of the sweetest girls I knew had a mother in prison for murder, and she had no idea who her dad was. She also had five other sisters and brothers from five seperate men who were fostered out, and she told me she had no idea where they were, but that she wanted to find them and bring the siblings together.


Some of the girls mentioned to me that their foster parents were using the money received from the state for anything BUT caring for their foster children. In fact here in Reno, there was a case ( and this is EXTREME, mind you) where the woman had five foster kids, received about 650 a month for each child, and yet, the children were starving. One of the teenagers only weighed about 65 pounds. The money was spent on beer, drugs, and her two REAL kids!



This is where I completely DO NOT understand people who tell me I'm selfish or that I don't have maternal instincts because I don't want children. Now, that makes no sense to me. Here are people who have kids of their own who through whatever selfish reasons, because of drug use or acts of selfishness, can't care for their kids. Here there are some foster parents who claim to want these kids, and then fail to care for them. What is the sense in that? To me that's the ultimate selfishness...to have kids, not care for them, or put yourself first before your children.

[inkspot]

IM, you are wise not to have children if you do not want them. Too many people do that, and the children are of course miserable.

Ephinie, single people can indeed be foster parents, and they would prefer if a single person was to do it, that she be a woman. You would make a wonderful foster parent, and you have the right attitude: although it would break your heart to give the child back to their parents, you would have done the best possible thing in providing a safe haven, and putting the child's needs ahead of your own vulnerability to heartbreak.

If anyone is interested in fostering and would like to meet the kind of kids in your area who you might be helping -- or if you would like to give a week of your time to helping abused, neglected or abandoned children, check out the Christian organization Royal Family Kids' Camps. If there is one in your area, you could volunteer for a week in the summer and make a real difference for children in the system.

www.rfkc.org

Each camp is church-based, but I am sure if you contacted the one in your area, they would be glad to have you aboard. You do have to go through a pretty comprehensive background check.

[TimmyofOz]

IM, it is hard for me to say why you need to go into adoption with other goals than having you own children. Obviously in having your own child it is a gift from God and he is your child. In adoption the child is already here and often you are competing with other possible parents for that child. If you think about it, it is different. It is sad because of my ex-wife's fertility problems I never had a child and now I am too old to try for another family. I do feel if my ex and I would have stayed together we would have eventally had adopted. In fact this last year would have been a great time to have done it. I always believed in doing thing in God's timing, yet I feel bad because I didn't feel the time was right when my ex wanted to adopt.

[inkspot]

I don't think guys are ever too old to be fathers, Timmy. God may still have a family in store for you!
:)

[Wild Rose]

No..........................

[LifeMaiden]

I don't think guys are ever too old to be fathers, Timmy. God may still have a family in store for you!
:)


I agree with you 100% there about fathers! My dad was nearly 40 when he and my mother had me...and my grandfathers were both 57 and 60 when they had children with their wives ( no, the wives weren't that old as them LOL).

[Sir Godfrey]

I support birth control, because it allows a husband and a wife to love each other without having a baby all of a sudden Don't get me wrong I love kids, but I think newly weds should for at least a year use it. Although my brother and his wife used it and now they have a baby, her name is Anna, proof that God is in control and if if your suppose to have baby, you will have one. So if it works I say use it and when your ready to have a child then stop using it.

[The First Joke]

i don't like kids. i babysite for the money. kids are small and they poop too much. diapers gross me out. but... i do not support birth constrol because it gets in the way of God's plan for everybody. i don't think that it is as bad as an abortion, but the potential kid in there could cure the common cold or something. i think any time you mess with God, its not good.

[LifeMaiden]

i don't like kids. i babysite for the money. kids are small and they poop too much. diapers gross me out. but... i do not support birth constrol because it gets in the way of God's plan for everybody. i don't think that it is as bad as an abortion, but the potential kid in there could cure the common cold or something. i think any time you mess with God, its not good.



Well at least you're honest. " They poop too much" that cracked me up :D . I don't want kids either, but it isn't that I dislike them...it's more of the idea that I'm giving up my independence, which I will never do.

[Sir Godfrey]

I have indeed considered Celibacy and never having kids. Not because I don't like them. but being a traveler and desiring to see the world would make it tuff on the kids and plus I just want to be a lone Knight who can rush in battle without having to worry about the wife adn kids at home. My heart is truly double-sided on the matter.

[Ephinie]

I think it'll be a while before I have any kids... maybe even years. I do want to have them, though.

LM makes a good point about the fact that having kids means you have to give up your independence... However, you can get your independence back again after they're grown and out of the house. That's usually about 18-21 years per kid. Yes, it's a long time... I know.

[The First Joke]

its ture! they poop tons! and i don't wan't to change diapers or give up independence. but whatever god has in store for me...

[Sir Godfrey]

I think it'll be a while before I have any kids... maybe even years. I do want to have them, though.

LM makes a good point about the fact that having kids means you have to give up your independence... However, you can get your independence back again after they're grown and out of the house. That's usually about 18-21 years per kid. Yes, it's a long time... I know.

I can't afford to give up all that freedom!, Therefore I shall seek a wife who doesn'tr want kids for a while. Then again it would be awsome to name my three sons; Godfrey, Caspian, and Gaberiel. Hm the desistions. I'll be the lone knight instead.

[Ephinie]

I can't afford to give up all that freedom!, Therefore I shall seek a wife who doesn'tr want kids for a while. Then again it would be awsome to name my three sons; Godfrey, Caspian, and Gaberiel. Hm the desistions. I'll be the lone knight instead.This may be bad and a bit obsessive, but I already know exactly what my children will be named if I have them. (Provided the potential father isn't difficult about it).

[Sir Godfrey]

This may be bad and a bit obsessive, but I already know exactly what my children will be named if I have them. (Provided the potential father isn't difficult about it).

Really, cool well you can see my three sons names above.

[LifeMaiden]

Well at least you won't have to worry about fighting over names when the kids are born. One thing I can't stand are when celebrities name their weird names. Who the heck would want to be called Rumor, for example, which is the name of Demi Moore's daughter?

[The First Joke]

its rumer, and then scout, and then talullah (sp?). ick. name your child normal names for pete's sake!

[Son of Adam]

Yes, I believe in the use of birth control devices with the exception of abortion and the Morning After pill. However, I do have one big restriction to that and that is that whatever method is used is between married couples only. As I do not advocate sex before marriage and adultery is an absolute no-no, birth control is only for married couples to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Here's a question for devout Christians, one I heard best stated by an evangelical gentleman who happened to be a judge. If you're going to really turn your life over to God, and let Him decide questions like where you live, who you're going to marry, and what you're going to do with your life, then why withhold the vital question of how many children you're going to have and when? If you're going to say to God, "I'm Your instrument, use me as You will", then why draw an arbitrary line and say, "as long as it doesn't involve more than two children"?

[inkspot]

You mean, why use natural family planning, or any method at all, PoTW?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Even in Catholic teaching, the use of NFP is supposed to be used by a couple for "grave cause" and after prayer and seeking the will of God. What the Church is trying to get at, and which many devout Christians of all traditions supposedly seek, is that we should accept what the Lord has for us without imposing conditions on His will. I've met many devout Evangelical Christians who wished nothing more that to totally entrust their lives to God's will, and would shrink back from imposing any conditions or qualifications on His direction. They were willing to go anywhere, do anything - whatever He wanted, they would completely accept and totally obey.

Except in this area.

Even when it came to marriage, they would be willing to entrust themselves to God's willl, but when it came to children, they suddenly began spouting the "wisdom" of the world. "One must be prudent", they'd say. "No reason to be foolish when it comes to children." Even marriage preparation books written by devout Evangelicals, books that were sound in every other way, would have chapters devoted to contraception, and treat the issue as not a question of "if", but "which, and for how long". It seemed that the idea of entrusting your life to God and taking what He had for you extended right to the border of the issue of family size, but went no further. It also seemed that these books had no knowledge of history, least of all that all Christian traditions had unanimously opposed contraception (it isn't a new concept) until the infamous Lambeth Conference of 1930, when the Anglican Church came out in support of it.

But my main point is this: if a couple is going to entrust their lives and marriage to God's care and accept His direction no matter where it may lead, why start dictating to Him on this matter?

[LifeMaiden]

Here's a question for devout Christians, one I heard best stated by an evangelical gentleman who happened to be a judge. If you're going to really turn your life over to God, and let Him decide questions like where you live, who you're going to marry, and what you're going to do with your life, then why withhold the vital question of how many children you're going to have and when? If you're going to say to God, "I'm Your instrument, use me as You will", then why draw an arbitrary line and say, "as long as it doesn't involve more than two children"?


It also all depends on one's finances. If you're broke, there would be no point to having 16 kids. I don't believe in having children one cannot afford, that's for sure. My grandparents had no access to birth control obviously ( those are the ones who had 16 kids LOL) and no information about NFP because they were Buddhist. They did have a huge farm, however, and back then, having many children was actually very beneficial to those who owned farms. The sons usually stayed on to take over the farm or at least help out.


Now this morning after pill...we haven't discussed this much here, but I feel it's the same pretty much as the abortion pill...you're just taking it as 'emergency contraception' , and it basically just prevents pregnancy in the first few days, I believe. It's kind of like a 'very early few days RU 486.'

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, extreme poverty would be one of those grave causes. However, not to forget that God does provide when we walk in obedience to His plan. My wife and I got married between my first and second year in college, and were dead convinced that God wanted us to just have children and trust Him to provide. We had our first one between my second and third year and our second one in the spring of my fourth year. All we had by way of income was my VA college benefits and income from my work study job. Fiscal insanity, some would say, it it's certainly true those were lean years. However, God pulled us through somehow, and our sons-in-law are now extremely grateful that we trusted Him enough to have our daughters when we did.

The point is, there's no formula. God may lead one couple differently than another. But our culture's attitude idea of what constitutes "ready for children" is very different from God's idea.

[broken.]

Even in Catholic teaching, the use of NFP is supposed to be used by a couple for "grave cause" and after prayer and seeking the will of God. What the Church is trying to get at, and which many devout Christians of all traditions supposedly seek, is that we should accept what the Lord has for us without imposing conditions on His will. I've met many devout Evangelical Christians who wished nothing more that to totally entrust their lives to God's will, and would shrink back from imposing any conditions or qualifications on His direction. They were willing to go anywhere, do anything - whatever He wanted, they would completely accept and totally obey.

Except in this area.

Even when it came to marriage, they would be willing to entrust themselves to God's willl, but when it came to children, they suddenly began spouting the "wisdom" of the world. "One must be prudent", they'd say. "No reason to be foolish when it comes to children." Even marriage preparation books written by devout Evangelicals, books that were sound in every other way, would have chapters devoted to contraception, and treat the issue as not a question of "if", but "which, and for how long". It seemed that the idea of entrusting your life to God and taking what He had for you extended right to the border of the issue of family size, but went no further. It also seemed that these books had no knowledge of history, least of all that all Christian traditions had unanimously opposed contraception (it isn't a new concept) until the infamous Lambeth Conference of 1930, when the Anglican Church came out in support of it.

But my main point is this: if a couple is going to entrust their lives and marriage to God's care and accept His direction no matter where it may lead, why start dictating to Him on this matter?

My fear with this line of thinking is that there will be some people who take it to the extreme and take absolutely no responsiblity for thier actions, thus putting themselves in a bad situation (not enough finances to support the children, etc.)

[Aravis Kenobi]

I think (I voted I don't know) I and my husband would have to pray about it before we got married (I meant in talking about family and stuff when we're engaged) then decided what God wants us to do. Now, when I get married, I don't want to get pregnant three months afterward, I'd want to wait a while. Maybe a year or so. It would be up to myself and my (future) husband to decide if that was the route we should go.

[LifeMaiden]

Well, extreme poverty would be one of those grave causes. However, not to forget that God does provide when we walk in obedience to His plan. My wife and I got married between my first and second year in college, and were dead convinced that God wanted us to just have children and trust Him to provide. We had our first one between my second and third year and our second one in the spring of my fourth year. All we had by way of income was my VA college benefits and income from my work study job. Fiscal insanity, some would say, it it's certainly true those were lean years. However, God pulled us through somehow, and our sons-in-law are now extremely grateful that we trusted Him enough to have our daughters when we did.

The point is, there's no formula. God may lead one couple differently than another. But our culture's attitude idea of what constitutes "ready for children" is very different from God's idea.


By some tokens though, are you saying that if one decides not to have children, the decision is unnatural and against God's plan? Most people are going to have a certain number of children not according to what they can
'afford' anyways ( by that, wealthy people would have a dozen or more) but what they want. I do not want children. Are you saying this is against what God would want me to do?

[inkspot]

Nah, cuz you're not married, Michelle, so of course, God would not want you to have children, ideally. His ideal was Adam and Eve together, raising babies.

One thing I liked when I read all about Catholicism (among many things I liked) was this idea that children are that important, and when a couple marries, they should expect to have children. Refusal to be open to having a baby with your spouse is grounds for an annullment! And this applies to all ages of people. Interesting, eh?

But I assumed NFP was the contraceptive of choice, not just a method to be employed only in grave need. I cannot see, though, how using the sense God gave you regarding when and how many children to have is actually a lack of faith. My great-grandma had a baby every year for 13 years and died at age 47, a broken, used-up old lady. I don't think this was God's plan ... I think her husband was just a mean old guy who always got his way with her and she had the misfortune to be terribly fertile.

If you say, "Why not trust God to give you ever how many children you should have..." and practice no family planning as a testament to your faith in God -- wouldn't you also have to say then that it's a lack of faith to save any money, and you should give it all away trusting that God will provide for you, or it's a lack of faith to lock your door at night, and you should trust God won't let any evil befall you?

For some people called to that lifestyle (as you and your wife felt called, PoTW), I can see it -- the same way some saints are called to vows of poverty, etc. But I cannot see all people choosing the same way, nor do I see God commanding it.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

By some tokens though, are you saying that if one decides not to have children, the decision is unnatural and against God's plan? Most people are going to have a certain number of children not according to what they can 'afford' anyways ( by that, wealthy people would have a dozen or more) but what they want. I do not want children. Are you saying this is against what God would want me to do?To echo Ink's statement - not in the least. It all has to do with one's calling in life. As Ink pointed out, LM, you're single, so it would obviously be inappropriate for you to have children. As long as God is calling you to be single, He's clearly not calling you to have children.

But for a married couple who takes on the vocation (calling) of marriage, part of that is being open to accepting children from God. But this also presumes a lot of other things, some of which only the couple can know. One is recognizing that the gift of sexuality has both unitive and procreative purpose. Another is that a critical role of each marriage partner is to sacrifice for the other one, not to impose one's will on the partner for any reason. Another thing is what constitutes grave cause for avoiding children. One family might be able to have 13 children in 13 years and they'd all be a blessing; another family might struggle to feed six. It is the couple who answers to God alone for their decisions.

There is an aspect of this that run right athwart modern social attitudes. One is that marriage is a vocation, wherein the couple undertakes to lay down their lives for each other and both to the service of God. This somtimes means undertaking difficult and unrewarding (in this life) tasks. A truly Christian marriage does not buy into the popular perception that marriage is primarily for the fulfillment of the partners. Some partial fulfillment may be a side effect of Christian marriage (no wise Christian ever expects complete fulfillment from anything on this earth), but struggle, loss, alienation, and pain are to be expected as part of the burden of Christian marriage. If I'm walking into marriage expecting my partner to meet my needs, then I'm not seeing marriage as Christ would have me see it. For me, marriage is first and foremost a service opportunity, a chance to lay down my life.

How does this relate to children? Because the most common reason I hear for not being open to more children than the social norm boils down to not wanting a particular lifestyle cramped. (By the way, I'm not talking here about what I've heard in this thread, which has been a thoughtful and well-considered discussion. I'm talking about out there on the streets.) Because children are expensive and time-consuming, and because people don't want to have to sacrifice their new-car-lease-every-two-years, or their annual Vegas trip, or their second home up north, or whatever, they turn their back on having more than the minimal number of children - or any children at all. Typically this takes the form of contraception, but I know of at least one case where the husband forced his wife to abort their third child because he only wanted two children (that family is now destroyed.) The high and difficult calling of sacrificial marriage as Christ defined it is a serious matter, as is the acceptance of the blessing of children. But when it works, it is one of the most powerful things on earth.

[Sir Godfrey]

I think (I voted I don't know) I and my husband would have to pray about it before we got married (I meant in talking about family and stuff when we're engaged) then decided what God wants us to do. Now, when I get married, I don't want to get pregnant three months afterward, I'd want to wait a while. Maybe a year or so. It would be up to myself and my (future) husband to decide if that was the route we should go.

Awsome, so would I. I think timing is everything and that it should be left up to God. The only problem is that I don't think my future wife will agree on my sons names: Godfrey, Anakin, Caspian and Gaberiel :o .

[LifeMaiden]

To echo Ink's statement - not in the least. It all has to do with one's calling in life. As Ink pointed out, LM, you're single, so it would obviously be inappropriate for you to have children. As long as God is calling you to be single, He's clearly not calling you to have children.

But for a married couple who takes on the vocation (calling) of marriage, part of that is being open to accepting children from God. But this also presumes a lot of other things, some of which only the couple can know. One is recognizing that the gift of sexuality has both unitive and procreative purpose. Another is that a critical role of each marriage partner is to sacrifice for the other one, not to impose one's will on the partner for any reason. Another thing is what constitutes grave cause for avoiding children. One family might be able to have 13 children in 13 years and they'd all be a blessing; another family might struggle to feed six. It is the couple who answers to God alone for their decisions.

There is an aspect of this that run right athwart modern social attitudes. One is that marriage is a vocation, wherein the couple undertakes to lay down their lives for each other and both to the service of God. This somtimes means undertaking difficult and unrewarding (in this life) tasks. A truly Christian marriage does not buy into the popular perception that marriage is primarily for the fulfillment of the partners. Some partial fulfillment may be a side effect of Christian marriage (no wise Christian ever expects complete fulfillment from anything on this earth), but struggle, loss, alienation, and pain are to be expected as part of the burden of Christian marriage. If I'm walking into marriage expecting my partner to meet my needs, then I'm not seeing marriage as Christ would have me see it. For me, marriage is first and foremost a service opportunity, a chance to lay down my life.

How does this relate to children? Because the most common reason I hear for not being open to more children than the social norm boils down to not wanting a particular lifestyle cramped. (By the way, I'm not talking here about what I've heard in this thread, which has been a thoughtful and well-considered discussion. I'm talking about out there on the streets.) Because children are expensive and time-consuming, and because people don't want to have to sacrifice their new-car-lease-every-two-years, or their annual Vegas trip, or their second home up north, or whatever, they turn their back on having more than the minimal number of children - or any children at all. Typically this takes the form of contraception, but I know of at least one case where the husband forced his wife to abort their third child because he only wanted two children (that family is now destroyed.) The high and difficult calling of sacrificial marriage as Christ defined it is a serious matter, as is the acceptance of the blessing of children. But when it works, it is one of the most powerful things on earth.


It's not always a case of having to take out the new car lease, the new home or the trips...the truth is, we know there are a lot of people who have children THEY SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD, and guess who pays the taxes for the overworked welfare system, the unwanted/selfishly thrown away kids in foster care, etc. There are plenty of people who simply do NOT have the financial means at their fingertips to have as 'many children as God wants them to have or intends for them to have.' I'm sorry, but this is one area I strongly disagree with you, POTW. It would simply not be practical for me to have 'as many children as God would want.' Let's say since I was married at age 26, and had a kid every year, then I'd have 12 by now, and at one or so every year ( because a woman can have kids up to age 55 before menopause sets in) then by that token, I'd have about 28 kids. No way. Absolutely no way. And even one child for me is out of the question.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Awsome, so would I. I think timing is everything and that it should be left up to God. The only problem is that I don't think my future wife will agree on my sons names: Godfrey, Anakin, Caspian and Gaberiel :o .

Marry a big Narnia fan. :p I kind of want to name at least one of my kids something like Arwen, Aravis, something from Narnia or LOTR.

[arwenelizabeth]

It's not always a case of having to take out the new car lease, the new home or the trips...the truth is, we know there are a lot of people who have children THEY SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD, and guess who pays the taxes for the overworked welfare system, the unwanted/selfishly thrown away kids in foster care, etc. There are plenty of people who simply do NOT have the financial means at their fingertips to have as 'many children as God wants them to have or intends for them to have.' I'm sorry, but this is one area I strongly disagree with you, POTW. It would simply not be practical for me to have 'as many children as God would want.' Let's say since I was married at age 26, and had a kid every year, then I'd have 12 by now, and at one or so every year ( because a woman can have kids up to age 55 before menopause sets in) then by that token, I'd have about 28 kids. No way. Absolutely no way. And even one child for me is out of the question.
I think you're assuming, LM, that "as many children as God wants them to have or intends for them to have" is the same thing as "as many children as they can possibly physically have". But that's not true, and that's not what POTW meant by it.

If we believe that God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful, then it's safe to assume that His will for us is perfect, far better than anything we could design ourselves. And that assumption changes the nature of the whole decision-making process: it's no longer about making decisions as much as it is about discerning them - praying to understand what God's will is in a certain situation and praying for the strength to obey it even when it's hard.

By discernment, each couple can reach decisions about whether/when to use NFP to avoid children, and be answerable only to God for those decisions. And, as my dad pointed out, it's different for each couple. My pastor once told a story of a family he knew who decided to have only one child, which was absolutely the right decision for them - because their one child was disabled to the extent that he required round-the-clock care, which they felt called to provide themselves.

Families in extremely tight financial circumstances or with physical/psychological/emotional needs that require a lot of resources might decide that God is calling them to keep their families similarly small. And that would be completely okay.

Under no circumstances would POTW, or I, or any other Catholic who understood the teaching properly, say to someone, "As a Christian, you are required to have as many children as you possibly can," because it's simply not true. God, and no one else, is responsible for designing our families; we, and no one else, are responsible for discovering and following his design. I don't think that's such an unreasonable thing.

(On a sidenote, I do know many families who do decide just to let the children come as they come - and they don't end up with nearly as many as you're estimating! Children can come one-per-year under certain circumstances, but it's not the way nature designed it; even the children of an exceptionally fertile couple, as long as the mother is nursing, will generally come at least 1.5 years apart. And your chances of getting hit by a meteor are much higher than your chances of having a child a year until age 55, since fertility starts decreasing significantly around age 37 and keeps going down after that. These women who you hear about in the news, giving birth in their fifties, didn't conceive without assistance, I promise. :) )

[LifeMaiden]

You know what always saddens me though? When couples try and try to have children and cannot, for whatever reason. I know couples, even those in my own family, who have spent their entire savings on fertility treatments to no avail!


I was being semi-sarcastic when I said " have as many children as you are able to" because on the television once, there was a couple from South America who had 34 children. And the world record is 69. :) I think...you know...if I had that many kids, I totally would understand how the old woman in the shoe felt ;)

[Sir Godfrey]

Marry a big Narnia fan. :p I kind of want to name at least one of my kids something like Arwen, Aravis, something from Narnia or LOTR.

I plan on marrying a huge Narnia fan, a mild Star Wars fan and a devoted Christian.

[inkspot]

By discernment, each couple can reach decisions about whether/when to use NFP to avoid children, and be answerable only to God for those decisions. And, as my dad pointed out, it's different for each couple.

Like LM, I thought PoTW was saying NFP should only be used in gravest circumstances; now I see your saying what he meant was, it should be used judiciously as you evaluate your circumstances and wait to hear from God. This makes way more sense to me than only using NFP if you are poverty-stricken, burdened with physical or emotional problems, or caring for an invalid.

[arwenelizabeth]

Like LM, I thought PoTW was saying NFP should only be used in gravest circumstances; now I see your saying what he meant was, it should be used judiciously as you evaluate your circumstances and wait to hear from God. This makes way more sense to me than only using NFP if you are poverty-stricken, burdened with physical or emotional problems, or caring for an invalid.
This is an exact quote from Humanae Vitae (link here (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm)) on the topic:
"In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth." (HV 10) (my emphasis added)

The thing is, since this document was promulgated the phrase "for grave motives" has never really been clarified by the Magisterium. It really is a matter of individual discernment. The general understanding among theologians (at least the good ones I'm familiar with) is that a couple considering the questions of whether or when to avoid children should try to be as generous as possible, but there's really no way to judge what that means for someone else.

Some things clearly constitute grave reason to avoid conception; for example, a spouse struggling with a serious illness. Some things clearly do not constitute grave reason; for example, the desire to time a pregnancy around a vacation. But there are many gray areas. For instance, when my husband and I got married we were both undergraduates and had virtually no income; we discerned that this was a circumstance under which we were justified in using NFP to avoid conception (my parents, in a similar circumstance, made a different decision, and I'm glad they did or I wouldn't exist :) ). A year later my husband graduated and got a job, and we discerned that although I was still in school, that did not constitute grave reason for us, and we stopped the NFP use. (We then proceeded to struggle with unexplained infertility for 2.5 years, but that's a different story.) For some people, like my parents, the relatively tight financial situation wouldn't constitute grave reason, even though it did for us; for other people, the education of both spouses would be a grave reason, even though it wasn't for us. That's why discernment is so important.

I think it's good that "grave" is the word used, if it makes people think hard about their reasons. In my opinion, it's always better to err on the side of generosity in this matter. The creation of a new soul can sometimes take place under tragic or difficult circumstances, but that doesn't change the fact that the existence of a new person is always and invariably a blessing, whether or not the people responsible for the child realize it at the time.

[inkspot]

Thanks, AE. This helps.

Yah, the Humanae Vitae mentions "the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth" -- it seems clear this means you can responsibly and joyfully accept all the kids you can handle and God graciously gives you, or you can avoid for now or forever any new birth as God leads you. This sounds like they expect you to be smart, and seek wisdom, and not be irresponsible.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I'm tempted just to let AE do the explaining here, since she's the trained theologian. But to confirm, if anyone was hearing me say something like, "God wants every couple to have as many children as they're physically able to have", then I wasn't being clear enough. The question of how many children to have, and how they should be spaced, is a very private matter between the couple and God.

That being said, I was attempting to give some antidote to the prevalent modern western mentality that is so ubiquitous that many people don't even realize they have it. The idea that a couple would say something like, "Well, then, it's set - we'll get married. Now, how about kids - do we even want any?" indicates just how far things have gone. In God's economy, marriage and openness to children go hand in hand - if you have one, you should have the other. If every Christian couple gets to the point where they say, "Since God is calling us to marriage, we presume He's also calling us to be open to the ministry of parenthood", then great strides will have been made. The question of whether (God does not give every couple, even willing ones, the gift of children), and when, and how often, is up to them and God.

[arwenelizabeth]

That being said, I was attempting to give some antidote to the prevalent modern western mentality that is so ubiquitous that many people don't even realize they have it. The idea that a couple would say something like, "Well, then, it's set - we'll get married. Now, how about kids - do we even want any?" indicates just how far things have gone. In God's economy, marriage and openness to children go hand in hand - if you have one, you should have the other. If every Christian couple gets to the point where they say, "Since God is calling us to marriage, we presume He's also calling us to be open to the ministry of parenthood", then great strides will have been made. The question of whether (God does not give every couple, even willing ones, the gift of children), and when, and how often, is up to them and God.
I agree completely!

I want to add to what I said before. Discernment is very important and it's key for each couple to seek out God's will for their own family. But I think it's impossible to do right unless you begin by being countercultural.

Marriage, and specifically the act of marital union which results in conception, is by nature fruitful. That's the way God created it, and the way it's been understood throughout human history. Children are a natural product of marriage.

But with contraceptives, the child-making aspect can be artificially removed the act, and with the rise of contraceptive use the attitudes of the culture changed as well: people started viewing conception as an unintended and unwanted result, rather than as a natural and good result, of the marital union. (I know that in many cases it takes place outside of marriage, unfortunately, but I'll continue to use the term "marital union" anyway because it's the standard theological one, and besides it's delightfully euphemistic and should keep the conversation family-friendly. :) )

It seems to me that if we're going to be really serious about building our families God's way, we must begin by seeing children the way God sees them, instead of the way the culture sees them. Every new soul is unique and beautiful creation by God, intended in his Providence to spend eternity in Heaven with him. He said to Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful and multiply," because he loves his creatures and wants as many of them to live eternally with him as possible. When you realize that, it's hard to think of a new child the way our culture does: at worst, as an overwhelming burden; at best, as a blessing in moderation only.

And yes, of course we are called to be prudent. It's not good stewardship to have more children than you are capable of providing for. (Although I think it's also important to keep in mind that our American standards of what is adequate provision are a little skewed.) But it seems to me that we should begin by understanding that big families - with many children to grow up into strong and loving servants of God - are a good thing, instead of assuming as our culture does that a big family means nothing but hardship for all those involved. It's a completely different starting point from the usual one, and I think it makes a huge difference in the discernment process.

[fan_of_movie]

I'm a Christian, so I say that I do not support birth control. It's a mortal sin and it had been said by priests.

[LifeMaiden]

I'm a Christian, so I say that I do not support birth control. It's a mortal sin and it had been said by priests.


Wow...I had no idea birth control was considered a mortal sin...I knew the Catholic Church frowned on it, but not to that degree. Still, it is very interesting to see that this thread shows how divided even Christians are upon the topic of birth control. Half support it, half do not, and still some are undecided. I think this really reflects the way the majority of Christians feel in the US.

[Son of Adam]

Not to disrespect any Catholics here as I am not anti-Catholic by any stretch of the imagination, but the use of birth control is not a mortal sin. A mortal sin implies that one could or does lose their salvation by using it.

Jesus said there was only one sin that not forgiveable and that is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Now there are basically two theologies concerning what that means, but I believe it to mean that when one rejects Christ totally they are rejecting the Holy Spirit and His ministry. Rejection of Christ as Saviour is the one sin that at judgement day cannot be forgiven. For it is too late then.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

As a small theological aside, there's a difference between a mortal sin (i.e. one that can, if done under the proper conditions, cast out saving grace) and an unforgiveable sin (one that cannot be forgiven). The definition of artificial birth control as a mortal sin means that if a couple who are Christian and possess saving grace choose, knowingly and willfully, to artificially contracept, they are engaging in deliberate rebellion against God, which will drive that saving grace from their souls and put them in peril. If they were to repent and cease the practice, they could regain that saving grace, but the consequences of their actions would remain in the sense that any children that God might have sent them may not now be born (Lewis dealt with this question explicitly in That Hideous Strength, in Merlin's comment about Jane Studdock when he first meets her.)

[Parthian King]

I have a colleague, a theologian and the dean of a Protestant seminary. He is working on a text in Christian mission whose basic thesis is that the unfiying thread of the entirety of Scripture is salvation history--God's mission to redeem fallen creation and specifically humanity. One of the corollary truths that has "mugged" him in the process is the centrality of procreation in the plan of God for humanity. Matthew 28 (aka "The Great Commission") is literarily and theologically grounded in Genesis 1:27-28--God's first command which is simultaneously a blessing, i.e., go and fill the earth. In other words, procreation and Christian mission are thematically linked in Scripture.

My friend himself has been reasonably fruitful, at least by modern standards, with three children. But he has still be hit, and I with him, with a general conviction about the sins of our age. The difficulty here for many, I think, is that not having children has become a sort of corporate, systemic evil, even as it is perpetuated on a case by case basis through the decisions of individuals. By systemic, I mean that as a society we have gotten to the point where children are inconvenient, too time consuming, too emotionally taxing, and too expensive--or so we think. That prevailing thought is killing off whole societies as surely as if living people were shot dead in a war.

Now, who would be happy about that? God, or the enemy of our souls?

[inkspot]

OK, I have directed the abortion thread here, because PK posted this link there:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15701301/site/newsweek/

my question pertains to this link, but is not pertinent to abortion. First, may I say, these people have a lot of children!

Now, if they eschew even natural family planning, what I want to know is: how do they know when God is directing them to make babies or when it is just their own desire for baby-making? And what if one partner feels God wants to give them another baby so they better get started, and one partner feels that she is too tired right now ...? This seems to me to be just as fraught with peril as working together for some form of natural family planning.

[Ephinie]

OK, I have directed the abortion thread here, because PK posted this link there:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15701301/site/newsweek/

my question pertains to this link, but is not pertinent to abortion. First, may I say, these people have a lot of children!

Now, if they eschew even natural family planning, what I want to know is: how do they know when God is directing them to make babies or when it is just their own desire for baby-making? And what if one partner feels God wants to give them another baby so they better get started, and one partner feels that she is too tired right now ...? This seems to me to be just as fraught with peril as working together for some form of natural family planning.That's a good question. I don't think anyone on our board is part of the quiverfull movement, though, so I'm not sure how we could get an answer to that.