Weekend question 7-11/12-09
The issue of contraception is coming more and more to the forefront in the abortion debate, most recently by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s speculation to the New York Times Magazine that widespread access of the morning-after pill would render abortion obsolete.
Do you agree or disagree that the contraceptive issue is tied to the abortion issue?
Why or why not?
Do you think pro-lifers should accentuate or ignore contraception in our discussion of the sanctity of life?
Jul.11, 2009 10:00 am |
Weekend question |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Contraception is fine. The problem comes when it fails, or when someone fails to use it. If a person is having sex they need to be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy without abortion being an option. Contraception is not 100% ever.
Should it be left out of the aurguement? Yes! If it means not using it. It just us pro-lifers seem as though we are taking on too many issues at once. We need to focus on the life created being able to live. Later the focus can be put on the dangers of contraception. (I do understand that there are contraceptives that prevent the fertilized egg from implanting. I do disagree with those.) We have got to get organized and fight together.
“Do you agree or disagree that the contraceptive issue is tied to the abortion issue?”
I believe contraception is at the heart of abortion. Contraception takes away the consequences of sex. Now if one is less likely to get caught after having engaged in the sexual act, he is less likely to be swayed from engaging in said act. Thus, we are now of the mindset that we will not “get caught” or have consequences if we engage in “protected” sex. This leads to the fact that when contraception DOES fail, the problem needs to be taken care of.
Think about it; if you are using contraception, you are saying with your body that you do not want this isolated sexual act to result in new life. You have already made that decision that this sexual act will not bring new life about. So what happens if it does? Abortion. I’m not saying this is the attitude of everyone, but it makes sense to believe that those people who are getting abortions are the ones who did not want their sexual act to result in new life, which are the ones who are also likely to have used contraception because the thing that might have otherwise kept them from having sex (having a baby) is no longer an issue (because they are having “safe” sex.)
“Do you think pro-lifers should accentuate or ignore contraception in our discussion of the sanctity of life?”
Well, I’m actually not positive that it is terribly helpful to have contraception as a focus. Really, the focus needs to be on the unborn child and his/her life, emphasizing what an abortion does to the unborn. The problem is that even if my above argument is correct that contraception leads to abortion, that in and of itself does not make contraception immoral. I do believe it is immoral, but that is a whole other issue. The primary issue is that abortion kills an innocent human person, and it is the person that needs to be focused on. If someone is already pregnant, the issue of contraception is a moot point as far as that babies life is concerned. I realize that that thinking may seem a bit dissonant, but I do think that the strongest and best arguments against abortion lie with what the unborn is and not why you’re pregnant in the first place.
I personally have no problem with contraception. Although, obviously, abstinence is best and so I support that profoundly, contraception helps prevent unplanned pregnancies, which also helps reduce abortion, and also helps women.
This, by the by, does not mean “birth control” that kills, such as abortion; that’s not birth control.
As far as whether or not there are moments when contraception has a place in the debate, it really depends on what’s being argued. The focus comes down to, primarily, women and children (sorry, men). That’s only right, but when the focus is on what to do to reduce the number of abortions, then introducing contraceptives is must, really.
I love you, Vannah. Nail==hit==>head.
Justyouwait, one need not actually use contraception to be affected by the contraceptive mentality.
Children in our society are looked at as something to be tolerated at best. We are told that we should wait until 30 to dare to have a child, and even then, have only one or two.
It is considered “irresponsible” to deviate from this formula because contraception exists.
Thus children are seen as something to be avoided. This mentality leads to abortion.
What is missed in the abortion debate is that the birth control pill does cause abortions in the same manner as the morning after pill. They use the same technology.
Abortion is merely the end philosophy of contraception. It comes from the belief that sex and baby-making are separate actions when they are one and the same.
Once you believe that sex has nothing to do with baby-making, then there is nothing obviously wrong with abortion – much less sodomy, homosexuality, swinging, prostitution, pedophilia, etc. Once you reconnect baby-making with sex, it becomes more readily apparent why so many people are morally confused.
Xalisae:
Squee!
This ‘difficulty’, like many other issues does point out ‘our’ fundamental truth. We talk and talk about HUMAN rights without ever spelling-out/agreeing on what is the basic value of human life. If we low-ball our figure; then rights and being human is of little more than a yawn and it can easily be dismissed. If, however, we have an intrinsic inestimatable value, then how we function and what we do is very important too.
This all seems quite easy until you realize that the US constitution itself (as written) is a big part of the problem. It proclaims/demands our ‘equality’ and thereby conforms us to being-equal rather than calling us to become ‘the best’. Being-equal (when linked to ‘fairness’) is always the minimum. This eventually means that EQUAL HUMAN rights are of very little value.
So when a PL’er calls for HUMAN rights for unborn children, to a PC this means so little that (s)he’d wonder why the PL’er even bothered wasting-his/her-breath.
Anything an insignificant person does is also insignificant. Two groping insignificant people (having sex) is silly and so is ANY product they make … a woman’s choice is nothing because before and after an abortion, she is nothing.
[[If you are wondering what I’m saying: I’m only attempting to be logically consistent.]]
We are as well experiential-beings. So its almost like talking and talking: ‘I love you!’. It often does-hit-home until someone actually places their arms around me and gives me a long hug! We do it with trees, why not other humans?
I realize that that thinking may seem a bit dissonant, but I do think that the strongest and best arguments against abortion lie with what the unborn is and not why you’re pregnant in the first place.
I don’t think it’s dissonant at all, Bobby; I agree with almost everything you’ve written.
Abortion and artificial contraception are both symptoms of the same disease: the crippling modern mindset that sex can and should be without consequences. So though abortion is the greater evil, the two issues are very much related, and it only makes sense to fight against both of them.
BobbyB: well stated.
The incomparable Janet Smith has an interesting article about abortion and contraception:
http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm
…the casualness with which sexual unions are now entered is accompanied by a casualness and carelessness in the use of contraceptives. Studies show that the women having abortions are very knowledgeable about birth control methods; the great majority — eighty per cent — are experienced contraceptors but they display carelessness and indifference in their use of contraception for a variety of reasons.
One researcher, Kristin Luker, a pro-abortion social scientist, in a book entitled Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision not to Contracept attempted to discover why, with contraceptives so widely available, so many women, virtually all knowledgeable about contraception, had unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The conclusions of her studies suggest that it is not simple “carelessness” or “irresponsibility” that lead women to have abortions, but that frequently the pregnancies that are aborted are planned or the result of a calculated risk.
Luker argues that for these women (women who are having non-contracepted sex, but who are not intending to have babies), using contraceptives has certain “costs” and getting pregnant has certain “benefits”. The women make a calculation that the benefits of not using contraception and the benefits of a pregnancy outweigh the risks of getting pregnant and the need to have an abortion. She concurs that many women prefer “spontaneous sex” and do not like thinking of themselves as “sexually active”. She notes that some wondered whether or not they were fertile and thus did not take contraceptives. The “benefits” of a pregnancy for many women were many; pregnancy proves “that one is a woman”, or that one is fertile; it provides an excuse for “forcing a definition in the relationship”; it forces a woman’s or girl’s parents to deal with her”; it is used as a “psychological organizing technique.”
BobbyB: well stated.
The incomparable Janet Smith has a great article about abortion and contraception:
http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm
…the casualness with which sexual unions are now entered is accompanied by a casualness and carelessness in the use of contraceptives. Studies show that the women having abortions are very knowledgeable about birth control methods; the great majority — eighty per cent — are experienced contraceptors but they display carelessness and indifference in their use of contraception for a variety of reasons.
One researcher, Kristin Luker, a pro-abortion social scientist, in a book entitled Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision not to Contracept attempted to discover why, with contraceptives so widely available, so many women, virtually all knowledgeable about contraception, had unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The conclusions of her studies suggest that it is not simple “carelessness” or “irresponsibility” that lead women to have abortions, but that frequently the pregnancies that are aborted are planned or the result of a calculated risk.
Luker argues that for these women (women who are having non-contracepted sex, but who are not intending to have babies), using contraceptives has certain “costs” and getting pregnant has certain “benefits”. The women make a calculation that the benefits of not using contraception and the benefits of a pregnancy outweigh the risks of getting pregnant and the need to have an abortion. She concurs that many women prefer “spontaneous sex” and do not like thinking of themselves as “sexually active”. She notes that some wondered whether or not they were fertile and thus did not take contraceptives. The “benefits” of a pregnancy for many women were many; pregnancy proves “that one is a woman”, or that one is fertile; it provides an excuse for “forcing a definition in the relationship”; it forces a woman’s or girl’s parents to deal with her”; it is used as a “psychological organizing technique.”
Justyouwait, your Freudian typo speaks volumes . . .
” Justyouwait, your Freudian typo speaks volumes . . . ”
Nice catch, Jessie, and indeed. I know exactly what you mean. Good to have you here.
I do actually have to say that the United States is definitely not a child-happy country. Children in the U.S. are much better off than other countries due to economic factors, but that’s about it. I could go on and on and on about how we aren’t child-centered, but that would take up this entire thread.
I don’t know that birth control is to blame; I think that infanticide is partly responsible, because the notion of infanticide is that of dehumanizing and belittling others to the point that they are nothing more than property. But, honestly, there are tons, tons, tons of factors that add up and prove that we are far from a child-friendly nation.
I think that contraception develops the mindset for abortion.
And each generation of women who contracepts seems less and less willing to sacrifice for pregnancy and children.
JYW: are you older? As in 40+? Becuase if you are, then your experience is no longer the norm.
Hello, Bobby, and thank you :)
Justyouwait, I never doubted your loyalty to your husband, typo or no, and my remark had nothing to do with it. It is good to hear though.
where is the first justyouwait comment that Lauren was responding to at 12:54pm?
Thanks to the law of unintended consequences, contraceptives have made abortion more common by making unintended pregnancy more common. How? By convincing people that as long as they use the contraceptive of their choice, pregnancy won’t happen. So they have sex more often.
Yeah, the odds of any particular act of intercourse producing a baby is much smaller, but more people having sex that much more frequently will produce more babies.
So are the two linked? You bet. One causes the other.
I’d say we are a very child-oriented society Lauren.
I would disagree completely with this statement. We live in a completely narcissistic society that places very little value on the true rights of children and shows little concern for children. Instead our society focuses almost totally on the self-actualization of adults.
For example, there is little concern over what is best for children when they are adopted. Instead adoption nowadays almost entirely focuses on the “rights” adults have to adopt. And with such a focus, we see children placed in the homes of homosexual couples which research clearly demonstrates is not in the best interests of the child.
We have the encouragement of women to work outside the home and place very young children in daycare for lengthy time periods. It is not in the interest of child to be in daycare at age 18mons. But again, what we see here is the emphasis placed on the woman having a career to the detriment of the emotional and psychological well-being of her child.
The examples I’ve mentioned don’t even hit the area of abortion which many women claim as a “right” today. How has the right to abortion made our society more child-centred? How have the deaths of 1.5 million children per year made our society more children-centred?
In light of Church teaching and Fatima,
saving your soul and other souls is the ultimate importance.
See http://fatima.ageofmary.com/impurity/
my above post was directed to JustYOuWait and the first line should be in quotations.
How can our society be child-centered when we choose abortion for children with any disability, even characteristics that are not so, such as sex?
How can our society be child-centered when we hear more and more about how we should limit family size to two children?
How can our society be child-centered when children are sold as slaves in many parts of the world?
Sorry but justyouwait is the same banned commenter who continues to use different monikers. Always deleted.
I figured as much, Carla.
If it’s the same person can you tell? Does it come from the same computer? This actually makes me wonder because on the polls, when the results are revealed, it always has the location of the voters. So can you tell?
Do you agree or disagree that the contraceptive issue is tied to the abortion issue?
It’s tied to the abortion issue as long as you keep tying it to the abortion issue.
Do you think pro-lifers should accentuate or ignore contraception in our discussion of the sanctity of life?
Does it matter? Your ideas about “the sanctity of life” are way outside the American mainstream and getting farther out every day.
Most Americans understand that contraception works very well, and consider using contraception to be responsible and moral. Even 97% of Catholic women use contraception.
The capitalist and individualist culture of America discourages people from having more children than they can afford. This has nothing to do with contraception or abortion. Even if neither were available, American culture would still frown on people having “too many” children, as it always has. You’ve got a LONG way to go to get the US to the point where welfare moms & dads who have baby after baby are seen as good Americans and not as leeches and drains on society.
“Even 97% of Catholic women use contraception.”
OK, I realize that most Catholics are dissenters, but I’ve never heard the number reported this high. I’d love to see the actual paper where this statistic is taken from.
Reality, our entitlement programs are bankrupt because too few people are having enough children.
To survive, a society must have more young than old. Those “leeches” will pay for your retirement. Well, unless you’re under 50 in which case you probably supported the abortion of those who would pay for your retirement.
Bobby I don’t think the number of Catholic women using contraception is that high. It isn’t even that high within the general population.
Reality, did you read Janet Smith’s article that I linked to?
I’d be interested in your views.
Carla: I rather thought so. ;)
Lauren, it’s not me calling them leeches. I don’t care how many children people have, even if they are poor and on welfare. I don’t even care if women have children just to get food stamps, medicaid and public housing.
But you have to admit, my pro-welfare attitude is NOT shared by the vast majority of Americans. Especially not conservative Americans. The American capitalist culture wants people to have 1-3 kids and get back to work.
I wouldn’t say especially conservatives. Conservatives are much more likely to have more than 2 children than liberals.
“The American capitalist culture wants people to have 1-3 kids and get back to work. ”
If you’re saying you reject this idea, reality, then there is definitely one thing I can agree with you on.
“Does it matter? Your ideas about “the sanctity of life” are way outside the American mainstream and getting farther out every day.”
Actually I think there is a significant but small portion of the population who believe in having children and focusing on family life. We don’t see or hear from these people too often because they are down in the “trenches” living life and giving life.
I also don’t agree with this statement though:“The capitalist and individualist culture of America discourages people from having more children than they can afford.
I think you’ve got it wrong here. I think the capitalist and individualistic culture tells people that they CAN’T afford children and that life isn’t meaningful WITH children. The prevailing culture tells them that they won’t realize their potential unless they forgo childbearing and rearing.
Some people figure out that this is a big lie. They take a risk and go counter-cultural and discover that having more than 1.9 children can actually be a rewarding and life-saving endeavor.
So awesome to know families that continue to have as many children as they want(no welfare needed)simply because they LOVE children!!
Reality,
Nice dodge around the question of where your statistics come from. You never seem to back up your claims with actual studies. But, of course, if you actually DID look things up, you might actually have changed your outlook around on this issue.
“The capitalist and individualist culture of America discourages people from having more children than they can afford.”
Replace “children” with “stuff” and therein lies the problem.
Abel, American Catholic women use contraception at the same rate as American women in general. I can’t post links here, though, because it will send my comments in to moderation.
oops, I misread. Replace “discourages” with “encourages”
Seriously, though, guys, we DO need to watch ourselves. Overpopulation IS a concern, albiet not a life-threatening one at present. It can get that way, though. Let’s not go Ayn Rand capitolist with this thinking, now, but please. Our numbers are growing and the world is a much smaller place than we think.
“I can’t post links here, though, because it will send my comments in to moderation. ”
Just let me know when you post it. I’ll take it out of the pending comments and make sure it gets posted.
Reality,
Why mention Catholics at all, then?
I think you’ve got it wrong here. I think the capitalist and individualistic culture tells people that they CAN’T afford children and that life isn’t meaningful WITH children. The prevailing culture tells them that they won’t realize their potential unless they forgo childbearing and rearing.
Eh, I don’t think so. Ask any “childfree” woman, and she will tell you that American women are most definitely pressured by society to have at least two kids, but no more than that. The idea that you can’t be a real, fulfilled woman without kids is still quite prevalent in America.
Why mention Catholics at all, then?
Because the Pope says contraception is a sin. He is very clear on that.
Ask any “childfree” woman, and she will tell you that American women are most definitely pressured by society to have at least two kids, but no more than that. The idea that you can’t be a real, fulfilled woman without kids is still quite prevalent in America.
Posted by: reality at July 11, 2009 5:01 PM
I completely disagree with this. I think this is how it use to be but is not the way things are now. Younger women are simply not interested in having children or are interested in having one child as a single parent because they can’t find a willing man to marry and have a family.
Secondly, I beg to differ with Abel. We do not have any sort of overpopulation in the WEst. In fact, the problem is quite the opposite. We are a dying, non replacement society. America is the only Western country on the cusp of this problem. America has a barely replacement rate of population. Every other Western country is well below the required 2.1 children per couple needed to sustain population.
Reality,
That’s not what I meant. You said, “97% of Catholic women use contraception.” I asked where your statistics came from. You told me, in so many words, that you assumed Catholic women go in the same pot as all women statistically. I then asked why mention Catholics at all, if you just gave a statistic of women contraception use in general. I was pointing out that your statistic was inaccurate if your assumption that women of a certain creed is the same as all women in general (different lifestyles mean different mindsets).
Your answer to that–something about the pope–therefore made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Is that all pro-abortion people are good at doing? Dodging around?
I have no problem with contraception and frankly, I think it harms the movement to be anti-contraception. I don’t mean to sound like a bigot, but this seems like mostly a Catholic issue, so why should it be imposed on the general, non-Catholic public?
Phillymiss,
Actually, it is a *Christian* issue. The Bible and the founders of every major denomination are very clear on what God thinks of contraception.
The word ‘contraception’ is misleading.
Most people believe ‘contraception’ is used to prevent ‘conception’, the union of the sperm and the ova.
But most ‘contraception’ is actually an abortifacient in that it ihibits the implantation of the ovum in the uterine wall.
Whether or not women, or husbands and wives, choose to use ‘contraceptives’ (in the true meaning of the word is a matter of conscience).
Sex outside of marriage is sin. Contraception is just a way to reduce one of the consequences of sexual intercourse, but it in no way absolves one of the sin, that causes you to resort to contraception.
The ‘book’ does not give any clear guidance of which I am aware on the subject of contraception, but I am frequently ‘corrected’ in my misunderstanding of the ‘book’.
I understand and I respect those folks who have a different view on the rightness or wrongness of ‘contraception’.
Once ‘conception’ has occurred, the union of the sperm and the ova, not implantation, then the ‘book’ speaks abundantly on the subject of pre-natal human life and the personhood of the pre-natal child.
You shall not murder.
Oh, by the way, murder is also a ‘sin’.
Pro-lifers are not monolithic on these perepheral issues, nor should they be. Let your own conscience guide you and allow others the freedom to do the same.
yor bro ken
The Center of Disease Control and Prevention 2002 National Survey of Family Growth revealed that 97% of American Catholic women over age 18 have used a banned form of contraception, which is the same percentage as the general population. A 2005 nationwide poll of 2,242 U.S. adults by Harris Interactive showed that 90% of Catholics supported the use of birth control.
OK Bobby, take it out of moderation.
I love kids, my hubby loves kids, we have three….but I got my tubes tied after the third one because we really wish not to have anymore kids and for the fact that I had cancer detected down there and the tubal surgery made it to where my ovaries were saved from this cancer while almost everything else had to be taken out.
These comments are starting to make me feel like I’m a bad person for getting my tubes tied because I have now prevented my eggs from ever being fertilized with out having IVF (which I would never do anyways).
I’m just wondering if there are other pro-life people who have had their tubes tied or their husband has been ‘cut/tied’ to prevent pregnancy? Am I still considered pro-life? Are they? Where is the line drawn here?
You told me, in so many words, that you assumed Catholic women go in the same pot as all women statistically.
What? I never said that. I posted a link to my source but it went to moderation. Maybe Bobby will let it out.
angel,
Younger women are simply not interested in having children or are interested in having one child as a single parent because they can’t find a willing man to marry and have a family.
Define “younger women.” Obviously most teenagers and early twenty-somethings are not yet ready to have kids. But in the end, most of them have about two. That’s why the US fertility rate is 2.1 children per couple.
I don’t mean to sound like a bigot, but this seems like mostly a Catholic issue, so why should it be imposed on the general, non-Catholic public?
Seriously.
Paolo: What does the Bible have to say about contraception? I’m not trying to be combative, I would just like to know.
From my observations, Mennonites, Amish, and Orthodox Jews tend to have large families, but I don’t know if this is because of their religious beliefs, or because they just like having lots of kids.
AK Krystal
I consider you pro-life. You have every right to decide how many children you have and what treatment that you should take. You don’t have to let anyone make you feel guilty, especially since you care very much for other people and their rights. :)
You’re not a bad person at all! :)
I’m so sorry to hear about your health. Things are better now, right? :( I’ll keep you in my thoughts.
Reality,
I’m talking about the actual paper where this study was done; the paper that the CDC published that gave their methodology and statistics for that particular statistic. The blog post you linked to does not have a link to the CDC. It only has links and references to Catholics for a Free Choice (a complete joke when it comes to careful statistics), the New York Times (does anything need to be said about their credibility?), and 2 from wiki.
I’m not blaming you for this, reality, but I’m really getting tired of junk statistics. If someone claims something as an actual statistic, they need to have a peer reviewed paper with the statistic they cite to back it up. Statistics are throw around all the time by people who don’t understand them nor how they work. I’m looking for a paper. A serious, scholarly paper.
Not that any of it even makes the slightest bit of difference. I really don’t care if I’m the only person in the world who submits my will to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
Yes, contraception is definitely tied to the abortion issue. Those who support teaching teenagers about contraception think it will avoid pregnancy and hopefully abortion. Thirty-some years of sex education proves this wrong. Among teenagers, contraceptives have dismal failure rates and give them a very false sense of security of avoiding pregnancy, STDs, and throw them into sexual relationships they’re not emotionally mature enough to handle. It’s a lose-lose situation, yet liberals still insist on more and more sex “education” as the solution to teen pregnancy and abortions.
There is no 100% fool-proof contraceptive except for abstinence. Abortion has become a form of contraception. If it were not used that way, it may well be something that is rare, but because it’s mostly used when contraception has failed, it really can’t be separated from it.
AK Krystal,
I’d say you are pro-life if you believe abortion is wrong for any reason.
Krystal, of course you’re still pro-life.
The difference is that a pro-life person might use a nonabortive form of birth control with the understanding that if something happens, she would welcome any life created.
Pro-lifers start with a respect for life and plan their families from there. I do think that people cn use methods to paln their families without buying into a contraceptive mentality, if that makes sense.
I think the real question to ask in this regard is “am I open to a new life, even if the chances are really really slim that it will be created?”
If you answer yes, I think your views are more in line with the NFP mentality even if you’re using a different method to manage your fertility.
or should I say “abortion for any reason is wrong”??
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the “population crisis” feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a “Planetary Regime” with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.
“There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated,” wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. “It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
yor bro ken
That’s why the US fertility rate is 2.1 children per couple.
Posted by: reality at July 11, 2009 6:13 PM
as I said, the US is not the norm when it comes to family size, but there is evidence that it too, is succumbing to the one child/no child model of the “family”.
The difference for the US is the strong evangelical base in the south as well as Hispanic Catholics who are also now having fewer children.
I think a change in attitudes towards children and a less materialistic culture will result in more children.
I also think if the media would publish all the studies done on the negative side effects of contraception, fewer women would partake.
Phillymiss:
I would highly recommend you read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Birth-Control-Charles-Provan/dp/9991799834
But in brief, the quotes of Scripture that are examined by the founders of the major Protestant denominations are among the following:
Psalm 127: “Children too are a gift from the LORD, the fruit of the womb, a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children born in one’s youth. Blessed are they whose quivers are full. They will never be shamed contending with foes at the gate.” (General blessing for having many children.)
Genesis 38: “Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.” (Prohibition against coitus interruptus, masturbation, and condoms.)
Leviticus 15: “When a woman has her menstrual flow, she shall be in a state of impurity for seven days.” (Prohibiting sex during her period increases the chances of pregnancy.)
All these were taken very seriously by all Christians of all denominations. It wasn’t until the Sexual Revolution that people began to doubt that the “sin of Onan” had anything to do with contraception, condoms, or masturbation – all of which were considered a “crime against nature” and a version of sodomy.
Prior to the 50s, contraception was banned in all 50 States by the Christian culture, By the late 60s, only the Catholic Church spoke against it. But a large number of Catholics were not taught, taught falsely by their priests and bishops, or openly rebelled against this teaching which is why there is such a huge non-compliance issue. So much so that a Newsweek contributor opined that pro-abortion Obama is more Catholic than the Pope:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/205961/page/1
Vannah said:
contraception helps prevent unplanned pregnancies, which also helps reduce abortion, and also helps women.
This is simply not true.
Um. Yeah, kay–abstinence before marriage (or whenever a couple is ready for a baby), and then, after you have however many kids you want to have, get tied/cut. Simple, right? Apparently not.
Some statistics are totally made up, and you can smell it immediately.
It helps to actually go to the CDC website, to see the NSFG study mentioned above, to understand what kind of data they really collected.
Percentage of women who have ever used the specified contraceptive method, among women 15-44 who have ever had intercourse:
* Any method of contraception: 98.2%
Seems the age group of interest is from 15-44, and that it does not include ALL women, but only those who have had sexual intercourse. In addition, 16 percent of this group of women are listed as having used rhythm method.
It’s obvious from the numbers that most of the sexually active women studied by the CDC have tried more than one method.
It’s also obvious that the claim about 97% of Catholic women using contraception is utterly false. 97 percent of women are not even ‘in the game’.
Yor Bro Ken brought up the mechanisms of action of birth control hormones. Understanding their actions reveals that the FDA has allowed the pharmaceutical companies to misbrand the drugs as something which they are not: Contraceptives.
They are birth control, and may act by contraceptive or by other mechanisms including killing the human embryo early in development.
A look at the drug information for the health care provider will reveal the multiple birth control mechanisms of the pill.
Here is one example of a study showing that the morning after pill does not reduce abortion rates.
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/scotland0905.pdf
A general comment on the latest bad decision of the FDA regarding Plan B is here: http://pharmphun.blogspot.com/search?q=pill+does+not+reduce+abortions
Thus far it has Not been shown that the rest of the pills have reduced the demand for abortion either. Current observations suggest that the opposite occurs over the long term, as a result of attitudinal and behavioral changes.
Never forget that Ruth Bader Ginsberg owns this comment: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”
Thank you all, I’ve heard others tell me that if my tubes are tied I’m aborting my egg and that makes me a non-prolifer.
I have a .001 chance of getting preggo, honestly if I did get preggo I would be kissing that ground I walk on.
Abel that thinking can be correct if it is taught right.
krystal, i am a post-t.l.-op. pro-lifer and mother of two, and i am proud to be all three of those things.us you are just as legit as any other pro-lifer here.
Here is another incovienent and uncomfortable truth: American females who self identify themselves as ‘christian’ are as sexually active and aborting at the same rate as the general population of American females.
Not to leave males who identify themselves as ‘christian’ out of this equation, common sense would indicate that they are just as sexually active as their female counterparts and just as likely to ‘choose’ abortion as a way to erase their mistake.
Run, run, run. Body of Christ run to God and you will be running away from sin and from those who would entice you to join with them in their indulgences of the flesh.
yor bro ken
Paolo @ 5:44 PM from July 11th: Actually up to 1930 ALL Christians agreed that contraception was wrong. Then at some conference, one group (Episcopalians?) decided to allow contraception for certain reasons and it exploded from there.
Catholic Church has always and WILL always teach that contraception is wrong.
Phillymiss, 5:25p: I’m not Catholic and the contraceptive issue is a big deal to me. It should not be dismissed as a Catholic issue. As Liz, 7:37a, pointed out, at one time all Christian denominations considered contraception wrong. It’s just that the Catholic Church has been the standard bearer for several decades.
“It’s just that the Catholic Church has been the standard bearer for several decades.”
Thanks for the props, Jill. So happy you agree.
Thank you all, I’ve heard others tell me that if my tubes are tied I’m aborting my egg and that makes me a non-prolifer.
Huh? You cannot abort an egg! An egg is a specialized cell which is part of your body, not a separate living human being.
So whomever told you this doesn’t know their biology (or yours, for that matter) and is just being asinine.
I do not believe ‘all’ christians have ever agreed on anything except that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior.
‘Most’ christians at one time may have agreed that contraception was wrong, but I seriously doubt that ‘all’ christians ever have.
I doubt that ‘all’ christian ‘leaders’ have ever agreed on the rightness or wrongness of contraception.
When an a member of a stone age tribe in the Amazon rain forest is ‘born again’ do you think he/she has or even had an opinion on ‘contraception’?
I believe GOD has bigger fish to fry with HIS unruly people and when HE gets around to dealing with ‘contraception’ HE is fully able to speak to us individually and corporately in a manner that is greater than our inability to hear.
But, what the heck, I could be wrong. Give me chapter and verse.
yor bro ken
Well, there have always been dissenters but it is certainly true that the vast majority of Christians, whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox believed contraception was wrong until Lambert in the 30’s.
All Christian denominations plus the Catholic Church were against contraception until 1930.
In all, the Catholic Church as well as other Christian denominations condemned the use of artificial birth control until the 20th century. The first Christian denomination to approve artificial birth control was the Church of England, or the Episcopalian Church. At the August 14, 1930 Lambeth Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Church, a resolution was passed which allowed the use of methods to limit the size of families “where there is a clearly-felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood.” The “primary and obvious method” was considered “complete abstinence from intercourse … in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit”; however, other methods could also be used, namely artificial means. Bishop Brent gave an impassioned plea stating that if the resolution passed, soon artificial birth control would be allowed for any reason and the decision would give way to selfish rationalization.
It was this action that resulted in Pope Pius XI issuing the encyclical, “Casti Connubii” condemning this action and stating that anyone who used contraception committed a grave sin. Pope Pius stated, as did those who followed him, that contraception would harm women and children, lead to a general lowering of morality and destroy marriage. The fact that most people in Western society do not recognize this today demonstrates how blinding and serious this sin really is.
Hi JYW: you don’t give up so easily do you honey?
Yes, like the boston globe is a reputable source? Right?
Hi Ken
I’m sorry but you are quite wrong about the Christian Church’s teaching on contraception.
My separated Protestant brothers and sisters had at one time the tradition and teachings of the Catholic Church until the time of the reformation.These teachings have always included warnings against contraception.
1. Biblical teaching was very strongly against contraception.
The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).
Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft.
2.There is a strong Apostolic tradition against contraception:
Clement of Alexandria in 195 AD wrote against contraception in a general way.
Hippolytus of Rome wrote about how Christian women used drugs to kill their newly conceived offspring.
The First Council of Nicaea in 325 wrote against contraception.
Augustine in his Marriage and Concupiscence wrote against contraception and how it destroyed marriage.
The edict against contraception was followed by ALL Protestant reformers including Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley.
Charles D. Provan’s book, The Bible and Birth Control contains many quotes from Protestant Reformers who were against contraception as a great evil.
a. s. i. t. i. s. is BACK…….
Thanks for showing your self once again, sweetie. a
Does anyone know why the Anglican’s backed off the tradition of teaching against contraception?
What or who influenced them to change their position so drastically? Was their an influence by the eugenics movement at this time?
Phillymiss:
I would suggest getting “The Bible and Birth Control” by Charles Provan. He goes through the key Bible passages used by Protestants to show the Biblical perspective on Birth Control until the Sexual Revolution hijacked the Christian message.
The Anglican Church in 1930 simply bent to social pressure to allow contraception in some marriages for practical purposes. But it wasn’t until Alfred Kinsey in 1955 that really blew open the gates for the Sexual Revolution to take root.
That’s a great suggestion, Paolo. In fact, Phillymiss, I have the book and I would love to send it to you if you would like. This stuff is seriously worth considering. God love you.
Posted by: angel at July 12, 2009 9:17 AM
“Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it.”
—————————————————–
Angel,
I am not advocating for or against contraception.
But if that above exerpt that you referenced is true, then please give me chapters and verses from the ‘book’ that deal with contraception.
And by the way the first example of the fellow ‘spilling his seed’ on the ground is pretty weak. One reason he did not want obey his father’s instruction was that any children his sister in law Tamar birthed as a result of his sperm donation would be considered his older brothers’ and as such would cut him out of the inheritance of the first born.
Also that widow’s child is in the lineage of Jesus.
The best example I can think of as ‘biblical’ arguement is the ‘pre-law’ Genesis mandate for men to ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’. But that mandate is perpetual, just like let there be light. They both continue to govern according to GOD’s command.
Then there is the after the fall mandate:
Gen 3:16 To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. AMP
God’s expressed ‘will’ shalled accmomplish his purposes even if some men or women will not or cannot comply.
Then of course there is the example of a young Jewish maiden who was a virgin whom God chose to bear his SON.
Do you think God would have killed her if she declined the offer?
(How do we know she was HIS first choice?)
HE probably would have gone to HIS second choice or HE would have waited for her to ‘come around’ in her heart and mind, just like HE does with us when HE wants us to do the right thing.
Oh yeah, Psalm 127, the quiver full of arrows.
Blessed is the man whose quiver is full.
Not all mens and womens quiver is the same size.
There is no ‘law’ that I am aware of that forbids or requires husband and wives to reproduce, therefore unless GOD explicitly commands them to do so, they are free not to do so. God is about freedom. It was freedom that HE set us free.
But it would seem to me that generally speaking God made men to be fathers and especially made women to be mothers and not fulfilling that purpose would be dis-satisfying and/or destructive to them should they choose not to do so.
But we are all ‘bro ken’ and some of us may be so damgaged that we are fearful of taking the chance on being good parents to 2.3 children or more.
Religion demands conformity, but God delights in diversity.
Well I have rambled enough.
yor bro ken
Ken I don’t have a biblical scholarly background (maybe Bobby can help here since he’s a very intelligent and knowledgeable Catholic) but I will quote from John Kippley’s Couple to Couple website :
IS THERE A BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE CHURCH’S TEACHING AGAINST CONTRACEPTION?
Yes. The 38th chapter of Genesis tells the story of Judah, his sons, and Tamar. One of the sons, Onan, practiced the sin of contraception–withdrawal in this case–with Tamar, and the Bible tells us that God slew him because he had done an abominable thing (Gen. 38:10).
It is recognized today that Judah, Onan, and another brother were all guilty of violating an ancient Eastern brotherhood law called the law of
the Levirate. However, the punishment for violating that law was very mild and is spelled out in Deuteronomy 25:5- 10. Judah himself admitted his guilt (Gen. 38:26). It is therefore clear that the special punishment meted out to Onan was not just for the violation of the Levirate but rather for the way in which only he had sinned–his contraceptive behavior of going through the motions of the covenantal act and then “spilling his seed” (Gen. 38:9).
This interpretation is backed up by the only incident in the New Testament where immediate death is the punishment for sin–the deaths of Ananias and Saphira who went through the motions of a giving act but defrauded it of its meaning (Acts 5:1-11).
ARE THERE ANY OTHER BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO BIRTH CONTROL?
Probably yes. In the New Testament, it is possible that the Greek “pharmakeia” refers to the birth control issue. “Pharmakeia” in general
was the mixing of various potions for secret purposes, and it is known that potions were mixed in the first century A.D. to prevent or stop a
pregnancy. The typical translation as “sorcery” may not reveal all of the specific practices condemned by the New Testament. In all three of the passages in which it appears, it is in a context condemning sexual immorality; two of the three passages also condemn murder. (Gal. 5:19-26;
Rev. 9:21, 21:8). Thus it is very possible that there are three New Testament passages condemning the use of the products of “pharmakeia” for
birth control purposes.
WOULDN’T IT BE HELPFUL IF THE BIBLE CONTAINED CONDEMNATIONS OF
CONTRACEPTION THAT WERE MORE EXPLICIT AND MORE FREQUENT?
Not really. The lack of multiple references doesn’t disturb the person who has a sense of theological realism. Such a person is aware that the Bible could hardly be more explicit in its condemnation of homosexual behavior (e.g. Romans 1:26-32), but those who want to justify homosexual behavior simply dismiss the biblical texts as not relevant to today or interpret
St. Paul to mean “promiscuous” sodomy although St. Paul makes no such distinctions. Even if the Bible were filled with explicit condemnations of
abortion, sterilization, and contraception, the same approach would be used on such texts by those who wished to justify such behavior as
compatible with biblical Christianity.
Thus it is the belief of the Roman Catholic faith and of many other Christians that Jesus did not leave us with only a book subject to everyone’s personal and sometimes contradictory interpretations but also established His Church as an authoritative teacher guided by the Holy
Spirit. The constant teaching by the Church on a matter of faith and morals is called Tradition.
Now I realize that my separated Protestant brethen will disagree with the Tradition part of this statement. Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons you are Protestant and I am Catholic!
I will say however, that it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the acceptance of contraception by a mainstream religion and the subsequent legalization of contraception has enabled the sexual revolution and greatly contributed to the demise of marriage and family. Does not Matthew 7:19-20: “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know they by their fruits.
I will publish a detailed list of scripture in the following post that are/may be considered to be indirect admonishment against contraception.
bummer……… can’t post links? I went to the actual CDC site and found that they studied the women from 15 -44 who had actually had sex. 97 percent are not actually in the game, you know.
Some current visitors to the board already know that the CDC is not a comprehensive clearing house for birth control or abortion data.
Too bad, I linked to back up few statements about the birth control, and that post got FLUSHED.
So I’ll forward people to my own blog for the links when I reference my statements here. Is that OK?
Hang on, Pharmer… let me see what I can do…
OK, I found your post and put it up, Pharmer. It can be found about 12 hours ago. For whatever reason, the new spam filter tends to filter a lot of posts that happen to have a link in them, so if you (or anyone) posts a link and you don’t see your post, just let the mods know and we’ll fish it out of spam or pending comments for you.
Also, Pharmer, your link to your website seems to be broken… maybe a typo somewhere?
Here are some references to contraception from the bible. Remember these scripture support the teaching and TRADITION of the Catholic Church and the belief that contraception is in direct opposition to the will of God’s directive to be fruitful and multiply. Several are from the book Malachi that is not in most Protestant bibles.
Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 – from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful (“fertile”) and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God’s plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.
Gen. 28:3 – Isaac’s prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.
Gen. 38:8-10 – Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.
Gen. 38:11-26 – Judah, like Onan, also rejected God’s command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.
Deut. 25:7-10 – the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.
Gen. 38:9 – also, the author’s usage of the graphic word “seed,” which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan’s death.
Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 – God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. Children are blessings from God, and married couples must always be open to God’s plan for new life with every act of marital intimacy.
Lev.18:22-23;20:13 – wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity – and other religions – until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).
Lev. 21:17,20 – crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.
Deut. 23:1 – whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God’s Revelation, but the moral and natural law.
Deut. 25:11-12 – there is punishment for potential damage to the testicles, for such damage puts new life at risk. It, of course, follows that vasectomies, which are done with willful consent, are gravely contrary to the natural law.
1 Chron. 25:5 – God exalts His people by blessing them with many children. When married couples contracept, they are declaring “not your will God, but my will be done.”
Psalm 127:3-5 – children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. Married couples must always be open to God’s precious gift of life. Contraception, which shows a disregard for human life, has lead to the great evils of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.
Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 – God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse, and married couples who use contraception are putting themselves under the same curse.
Mal. 2:14 – marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.
Mal. 2:15 – What does God desire? Godly offspring. What is contraception? A deliberate act against God’s will. With contraception, a couple declares, “God may want an eternal being created with our union, but we say no.” Contraception is a grave act of selfishness.
Matt. 19:5-6 – Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, just as God is three persons, yet one. The expression of authentic marital love reintegrates our bodies and souls to God, and restores us to our original virginal state (perfect integration of body and soul) before God.
Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 – contraception prevents God’s ability to “join” together. Just as Christ’s love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial, and a husband and wife reflect this union, so a husband and wife’s love for each other must also be selfless and sacrificial. This means being open to new life.
Acts 5:1-11 – Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.
Rom.1:26-27 – sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love, or the love is a lie. The unitive and procreative elements of marital love can never be divided, or the marital love is also divided, and God is left out of the marriage.
1 Cor. 6:19-20 – the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; thus, we must glorify God in our bodies by being open to His will.
1 Cor. 7:5 – this verse supports the practice of natural family planning (“NFP”). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.
Gal. 6:7-8 – God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.
Eph. 5:25 – Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.
Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 – mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.
1 Tim. 2:15 – childbearing is considered a “work” through which women may be saved by God’s grace.
Deut. 22:13-21 – these verses also show that God condemns pre-marital intercourse. The living expression of God’s creative love is reserved for a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman.
Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 – these verses mention the word “sorcery.” The Greek word is “pharmakeia” which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills. These pharmakeia are mortally sinful. Moreover, chemical contraception does not necessarily prevent conception, but may actually kill the child in the womb after conception has occurred (by preventing the baby from attaching to the uterine wall). Contraception is a lie that has deceived millions, but the Church is holding her arms open wide to welcome back her children who have strayed from the truth.
Bobby, thanks for pulling it out, but it’s buried now, so fairly useless. I might store the links and echo on my blog later.
No visible reason why my blog link should be broken, so I guess I should look into moving the blog pretty soon.
Any recommendations on the easiest way to migrate a blog?
Found it… two periods.
Still wanna get my blog off of Google, because I think it’s being bozoed to some degree.
I am going to put forward not just the like between contraception and abortion but other sins as well.
For if making love and making babies are not one and the same act, what is wrong with the following?
– Marital sodomy
– Non-marital sex
– Extra-marital sex
– Polyandrous sex
– Heterosexual sodomy
A lot of these activities have become more and more “mainstream.” Many of these activities quickly become undesirable and even impossible once you remove birth control.
With the mainstreaming of sodomy even among heterosexuals and married couples, it becomes increasingly hazy on whether or not homosexual sodomy should even be considered immoral as well. The only seeming moral factor is a matter of “consent.”
Of which the following suddenly have become mainstream:
– Pornography
– Prostitution
– Homosexual sex
– Homosexual marriage
And increasingly, there is a larger and larger push to include younger and younger children into these categories. And in Germany, and other Western countries, it is becoming increasingly difficult to say no to polygamy, incest and statutory rape.
But as soon as you remove contraception, suddenly it becomes very clear on why all these activities are very very wrong.
Contraception is the lynch-pin for all the sexual confusion of the latter half of the 20th Century.
Justyouwait: My wife and I don’t use contraception. We only have 2 boys who are perfectly spaced 2 1/2 years apart. And we are waiting on timing our third child while we are straightening out our finances.
No contraception needed. Nor anything vulgar like coitus interruptus or sodomy. Just love, laughter, and a lot of listening. Just pure and natural sex, regulated by her cycle.
Just you wait. you are banned. Please respect the blog author, Jill Stanek and stop trying to post only to have your comments deleted. try to demonstrate that at the very least you are a mature adult :P
Paolo you are correct that many of these morally illicit behaviours are becoming more acceptable. Even pedophilia and polygamy are now heading towards acceptance.
To get back to Jill’s original question I believe that both abortion and contraception should be worked upon but not necessarily by the same people.
Prolifers should work on making abortion illegal and offering women alternatives, educating the public about human rights for unborn babies etc.
Natural family planning is more about a lifestyle and respecting women but it does dovetail nicely with the prolife effort. If society respects women in the way we are meant to be, it will obviously be more open to babies, even “surprise” babies!
Justyouwait:
Actually, we are pretty fertile. My first son was a honeymoon baby. My second son was conceived the first month my wife and I had sex at the middle of her cycle when she is most fertile.
We don’t use any pills to hijack her hormones. We don’t use barriers like condoms or diaphragms. We don’t use chemical spermicides. We don’t engage in sodomy.
We talk, laugh, cuddle, kiss, and just enjoy being friends. We work together on our children and building our dreams as partners. Only at special times do we celebrate being lovers – as husband and wife.
We just wait. That’s how God intended us to control our family size.
There is some truth in the idea behind birth control – that it is right and just for parents to responsibly grow and raise the children they are able to care for. And there is nothing wrong with this intention. It’s the means in how this is carried about that needs to be examined.
Paolo: justyouwait is a commenter who was banned from this blog for threatening people. She likes to tell us how contraception and abortion have worked for her. She routinely draws others off topic and into discussions about themselves, sometimes tricking people into revealing very intimate details. She has posted under other handles as well and as you will now notice, all her comments have been deleted on this thread. She tries to learn personal details about people and then threatens them by saying she knows who they are and that she will expose them. Please do not share intimate details on this blog or any other. The internet is not as anonymous as we would like to believe.
This person obviously continues to lurk on this site. She may also be postabortive, in which case she is in need of prayers and help.
In truth, we wanted to wait 5 years for our first child after getting married. Before we got married and charting her cycle since we were taught by our local parish, I told my wife-to-be that our wedding night would fall on a time when she would be very fertile.
I told her that we can wait until later in the month so that it wouldn’t derail our plans for the future. Some of these included moving and traveling to exotic places, building a business, and really going for something entrepreneurial.
But she said, “There is no way we are going to wait on our wedding night!” So we talked about what we would do if she did get pregnant.
And as the Lord would have it – she did get pregnant on our Honeymoon.
It derailed all our plans, and in some ways, completely negated them. But my wife and I were prepared and accepted the Lord’s decision on the matter – we changed the direction of our lives in accordance to His will and in many ways for the better.
For one, my wife’s grandfather passed away only a few months after my first son was born and he got a chance to hold his first great-grandchild before passing. For another, my parents were suffering greatly and my children were a sign of joy and hope for them. As more time progresses, I can see more and more the plan the Lord has for our lives in obedience to his will.
And it all started on our wedding night when we had the courage to say “Not our will be done, but Thine.”
As more time progresses, I can see more and more the plan the Lord has for our lives in obedience to his will.
aint that the truth! My mother had a saying, “man proposes, God disposes!”
after all, He is God!
Thanks Angel:
A bit late on my last post. But I have shared my story on many places on the Internet and there is nothing I have said where I haven’t said it before to others.
I know that the Internet is a dangerous place. I don’t disclose anything that isn’t already public record or that I haven’t dealt with in a public manner for others to hear.
I have one thing to say to you JUSTYOUWAIT: liar.
Paolo I felt you ought to be warned. It may be that this sort of stuff “tickles” her fancy.
God bless you and your wife. Your are truly blessed!
Thank you Angel.
However, I will say that it is a very difficult road. Contraception is easy.
There have been times when my wife has said to me, “I really wish we weren’t Catholic so we could just go on birth control. I just want you so much.”
And I joke, “I would rather hear you say you want me. If you were on birth control, you would say you were sick of me and that you have a headache.” :)
Paolo: well all good things require sacrifice. You are proof that not all Catholics use contraception. In fact, I don’t know any Catholics who use contraception – that is among my extended number of friends.
Angel:
You are blessed. Many of the Catholics I know are what I call butt-Catholics. “I am Catholic but…” :)
But to be charitable, when I was growing up Catholic, I never knew the Church taught against contraception. And sitting in the pew, I don’t hear much coming from the pulpit. So I don’t blame them. Most Christians are taught to be ashamed of their faith anyway and that the worst thing to be called is “extremist” or “intolerant.”
yes, I’ve never heard a homily against contraception in all my years. NEVER. not once.
In fact many of my friends did not start out not contracepting. The began married life contracepting but eventually knew something was wrong. Many were told by priests that they could contracept if their conscience told them so. How terrible. Priests were not formed properly in seminary re: moral ethics and about sexuality. How many lives and marriages were ruined due to poor advice in the confessional.
JP II has changed all of that. Change is in the wind though. More and more of the younger generation know about what is better and what is correct Catholic teaching.
I’ve given a lot of details and particulars of my life here. I have yet to see any pro-choicer throw it back at me in any sort of even remotely effective way. When you practice what you preach, and don’t hold anyone to any standards you wouldn’t first adhere to yourself, it’s hard for them to find fault with you. I tend to enjoy conversing just as much with the pro-choicers here as I do the other pro-lifers (if not moreso at times, being rather moderate myself).
“There have been times when my wife has said to me, “I really wish we weren’t Catholic so we could just go on birth control. I just want you so much.”
And I joke, “I would rather hear you say you want me. If you were on birth control, you would say you were sick of me and that you have a headache.” :)
Posted by: Paolo at July 12, 2009 2:21 PM”
Having been on birth control, and now having my tubes tied, I can safely say that I so much enjoy being able to be intimate with my husband pretty much whenever we like, and we’ve never had the “I have a headache” problem. It also made things that much easier when he was deployed and only came home on leave for maybe a month at a time in a year of being gone. If I only got to see my husband for a few weeks out of a year, and then wasn’t even able to be intimate with him without having to bring another child into the world that would’ve bankrupted our family…If I wasn’t already an atheist, I would’ve ditched any relgion barring that right then and there.
*religion barring contraception
I think you guys tend to get so involved in your own life situations that after awhile, you fail to recognize anyone else in any other circumstances outside your own little echo chamber of steady-regular-job-minimal-single-income-christianity. It gets very frustrating.
Xalisae: while your situation is very difficult, I’m betting there are Catholic couples in your situation and who practice NFP. It could be that your fertile time will be when your husband is on leave, but it won’t be like that every single time.
Once again, it is about trusting that God works all things for the best for those who love him.
As Christians this is what we believe. God is in control, not us. For an atheist, I’m just not sure what to tell you because you rely on yourself. :(
Xalisae:
Actually, both me and my wife work. My wife is starting her own business. This is why our family is smaller and we are still discerning if the Lord is even calling us to have a larger family.
So if you assume that every marriage is a cookie-cutter of one another, then maybe you should step outside your own “echo chamber” of assumptions of religious folk? :)
Xalisae: many of my friends have difficult situations. Some even have life-threatening situations.
Here’s one from a friend:
Her daughter has Lyme disease – very serious case. It was not caught in time and the cocktail of antibiotics she needs to take aren’t really working. She got married two years ago and became pregnant on her honeymoon. She was told not to have children but being Catholic, well this isn’t really possible. She has to consummate her marriage after all! Not only did she get pregnant but she got pregnant with twins!
The doctors told her to abort because they had no idea what would happen considering all the drugs she is taking and also the fact that there is some evidence that Lyme disease may be passed on to the unborn baby.
End result: babies born full term, healthy. Mom healthier than she’s been in ages.
Difficult situations are part of the human condition. We all have them and our duty is to help one another through these situations. I just don’t believe contraception and abortion are the correct answers.
BTW: how many weeks per year would your husband be on leave or come home?
Xalisae:
About the “headache” problem… I know it would be a certainty in my own marriage because I know myself. ;)
“As Christians this is what we believe. God is in control, not us. For an atheist, I’m just not sure what to tell you because you rely on yourself. :(
Posted by: angel at July 12, 2009 2:40 PM”
Yes, and thus far, I must say I’m pretty darn pleased with how my life has turned out, following all the guidlines I’ve set for myself in what I consider moral behavior even without religion since I lost mine back in high school. I haven’t killed anyone, I have 2 kids and a husband that I love dearly, stood by him and raised our family as he served our country faithfully for 5 years, and gathered school credits and varied employment off and on in this timespan, and we’re now getting ready to (finally!) settle down and finish all the wonderful things we’ve begun and actually accomplish our life goals we’ve set out to complete together. I’ve never had a more exciting time of my life. We’ve used oral contraceptives here and there (didn’t last very long because the pill doesn’t agree with me), barrier methods (didn’t last very long because he’s not a fan), and finally settled on just completing our family with our biological children and surgically altering ourselves and adopting later on in life as we become more and more financially stable to fill in family gaps as we can. I don’t think I was wrong for contracepting, it hasn’t inspired me to abortion or anyone else I know for that matter, and I think we should stress greater proper use and less vilification of the pill in order to reduce abortions. It’s not increasing abortion because by your own admission and data gathered it’s that contraception is being used improperly (whether intentional or accidental), not that it is not being used at all.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists characterizes pregnancy as begining when a fertilized ovum implants into the uterine lining. Before that point, no medicinally detectable pregnancy exists. If you cannot feel, touch, taste, hear, or see it, I’m not interested in it. I guess that’s just the kind of person I am, and kinda goes hand-in-hand with my lack of religious beliefs. If you’re going to try to get rid of contraception on the basis of hypothetical pregnancies (which, I’ve already said, NFP can do the same thing that the pill can do in regards to the hypothetical pregnancy), why not just go the extra mile and decree that everyone must copulate in their fertile time, otherwise they’re killing a baby? Either a fetus inside a woman is a person, or it is not. Evidence says it is. Either a woman is pregnant, or she is not. In the case of contraception, I’m sorry, but everything I’ve read thus far points me to “not pregnant” (just like the little pee test would indicate if a woman “pregnant” by your standards-with just a fertilized egg present-would say if she took it) in regards to the claim that “the pill causes abortions”.
Xalisae, your last paragraph really distrubs me.
You CAN fell,touch, and see a child at the moment of conception. The medical definiton of pregnancy was CHANGED in order to make the pill a “contraceptive” and not an “abortificiant.”
That child that is formed in the tubes exists as much as it does when it implants in the womb.
You can play semantics and say that you didn’t have an “abortion.” Fine. That dosen’t change the fact the pill can act in a way that ends the life of a developing human being.
Angel, I don’t even know what to say in regards to the story of your friend and all the others like her I’ve read of on this board…I just can’t imagine living your life to suit the ideals of someone else that have been given to you to live, and that’s pretty much all I can say about that. I applaud the selflessness, and hope that I can match such displays if ever confronted with a situation in which such actions would be required of me in order to do the right thing.
As far as my husband’s deployments went, it can vary anywhere from around 2 weeks to a month in the span of 12-15 months of deployment.
“Xalisae:
About the “headache” problem… I know it would be a certainty in my own marriage because I know myself. ;)
Posted by: Paolo at July 12, 2009 2:51 PM”
You sound like my husband, and that I cannot understand. He’d be a pretty sour guy if he was denied very often. :/
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists characterizes pregnancy as begining when a fertilized ovum implants into the uterine lining. Before that point, no medicinally detectable pregnancy exists.
except to say that this was done to expedite the acceptance of birth control and contraceptives.
All medical textbooks unequivocally state that life begins at conception and that this is the beginning of pregnancy. BobbyB has posted excellent sources proving this. It is a biological and medical fact.
If you wish to ignore this that is your “choice” but you are not being truthful with yourself and you are doctoring the facts to fit your lifestyle.
A baby at the zygote stage is not a “hypothetical pregnancy”. Or perhaps the best way to say this is that once conception occurs a woman has conceived and is pregnant. The next stage in the pregnancy is implantation. The step after that is birth. etc. etc…..
I’m sorry Xalisae, but I see that this is a really sore point for you and one which we will have to agree to disagree on. :)
I also think you have not given God a chance to bless you with possibilities that you might not have ever imagined. I don’t mean this in a nasty sort of way. I just mean that to me you appear to be a person who needs to be absolutely in control of every single thing in your life. You’ve got your life planned down to the very minute level, with all the i’s dotted and all the t’s crossed. To me, this must be a very difficult way to live.
As far as my husband’s deployments went, it can vary anywhere from around 2 weeks to a month in the span of 12-15 months of deployment.
I find it hard to believe that your husband gets only 2 weeks home in 12 to 15 months. This doesn’t seem right to me. It simply doesn’t seem right even from a military standpoint in terms of psychological well being and so forth. It is not my experience with a friend who has a son in the airforce as a fighter pilot.
Also I am not living up to “someone else’s ideals”. They are Catholic ideals. My Catholic faith is as much a part of me as my eye color.
X,
There is no such thing as a fertilized ovum or fertilized egg. Thought we had established that already. ZYGOTE. :)
Hi Carla,
Chris A. referred me to a website the other day.
Google: “The Endowment for Human Development”
ehd(dot)com
It has an excellent Prenatal Image Gallery.
The first image is an oocyte, and it goes on from there.
(No fertilized eggs. Only zygotes.)
Very cool!
actually it’s ehd dot org :)
I find it hard to believe that your husband gets only 2 weeks home in 12 to 15 months. This doesn’t seem right to me. It simply doesn’t seem right even from a military standpoint in terms of psychological well being and so forth. It is not my experience with a friend who has a son in the airforce as a fighter pilot.
I only have tangential experience with this, but it doesn’t sound out of the realm of possibility to me. My sister’s husband is in the Slovenian army, which is not at war, and he has very, very little time “off” during some stretches. He spent basically a solid year in Georgia just doing training to, like, upgrade his skills or something (lol it sounds like WOW or something); he had two weeks off at Christmas but that’s the only time they saw each other except for when my sister flew to Georgia to visit. When he’s not in training or deployed, he returns home every night to their apartment in Ljubljana, but when he’s deployed it can sometimes be for quite a while.
When they were setting a date for the wedding they realized that if they didn’t have it less than three months from the engagement date, they’d have to wait two years! (We all put in 150% to plan that wedding in such a hurry, given that the bride and groom were living halfway around the world for the whole 3 months of planning. My sister had never seen the venue, the flowers, the cake, etc, until her own wedding day! She bought her dress used in either Slovenia or Croatia, but that was basically the only thing she saw before the wedding.)
He graduated from West Point, as did some of my high school friends. It is definitely not out of the ordinary for his classmates or my friends to be away for a serious amount of time. He actually almost couldn’t find a second groomsman because all of his friends from school — every single one — were unavailable, some unreachable, the majority in Iraq IIRC.
My high school lab partner had the sorry luck to enlist in the army three months before 9/11, when it was still considered a fairly routine quid-pro-quo way to get some help with school. After a year in Afghanistan, he came back for a month and we went out to catch up, which was one of the saddest nights of my life; but then he got sent back and later wound up in Iraq for at least a year.
Since it has been determined that the human embryo is in chemical contact with the mother prior to implantation, we do know that the embryo exists before implantation.
This knowledge is actually quite old.
I imagine that this woman speaking of the new garbage semantics of the abortifacient ACOG, also does not believe her appendix exists because she cannot see it, feel it, etc.
This is the kind of “nonscience” we have to deal with….the same bilge which supports the embryonic stem cell (tumor production) research, and the man made global warming (now it’s cooling) hoax.
We are devolving as medical and other sciences have become infested with dogma, superstition and bogus “religion” coming from the leftists.
(This pharmacist and former research scientist is feeeeeeeeeling :-P *nauseated*.)
Alexandra: if this is the case, it’s certainly not good and not good for married people. Must be hard that’s for sure.
No wonder many of those who serve suffer so many problems with their health, marriages and so forth.
Pharmer, hope you feel better.
“actually it’s ehd dot org :)”
angel,
Thanks for catching that.
Yes, I misspoke before, it was a “zygote”, and not a “fertilized egg”. Also, what makes up a zygote pre-implantation is much more than just a “baby in zygote stage”. It’s also what will come to be partly the placenta and umbilical cord, etc. I’m sorry, but if I have engaged my vehicle in such a way as to make myself indistinguishable from it, although it might contain what once was me, I’m cetain it would be quite obvious I’ve ceased to be. In this case, I’d say that this baby in the making not yet is, considering that what you all characterize as “baby” not only is “baby”, but also future placenta, etc. And I’ve discussed this matter with a pro-life pharmacist who supports contraceptives 100% and we reached pretty much the same conclusion.
And just a quick fyi, I support stem cell research, but I feel that “global warming” is a giant hoax that is destroying America. I’m far from “liberal”.
And I’ve discussed this matter with a pro-life pharmacist who supports contraceptives 100% and we reached pretty much the same conclusion.
a prolife pharmacist who supports contraceptives. What an interesting animal!
It is true that the baby makes it’s own placenta. However this does not mean it is not a baby nor a human being. There are cells that differentiate into a specialized function in the zygote. Some become the liver, the heart and so forth. And some of those cells become the placenta. The fact is that on a cellular level this is a new human being distinguishable from the parents.
I think your “prolife” pharmacist friend is being dishonest with you, Xalisae. She would have learned in school that a baby exists from the moment of conception. But she has to believe otherwise, how would she be able to dispense Plan B or RU-486?
Also I am not living up to “someone else’s ideals”. They are Catholic ideals. My Catholic faith is as much a part of me as my eye color.
Posted by: angel at July 12, 2009 3:26 PM
It depends on how much leave a service member has saved up by the time they’ve deployed, how much they want to take, and how much they can take. By the time he’s 10 months into a 12 month deployment and you haven’t seen him a single day of it, you don’t really care that much about leave, you just want him home for good. The Army is a lot different than the Air Force, and the USMC is also a lot different than both those. The Air Force is a lot easier on deployments. They’re much shorter.
And, I was raised first Catholic then Pentacostal. As I made my way into high school, I decided it was time to stop trying to feel some sort of spiritual influence, and there wasn’t anything wrong with me because I was unable to feel the way my religious friends and family did about God and The Bible and all that other stuff. When I started Oral Communications and found that religious establishments used many propaganda techniques I was learning about in that class, I decided they had been trying to dupe me my whole life, and I was right to feel uneasy about religion this whole time, and I was vindicated for all the feelings I had had regarding religion and when I had been corrected for not feeling spiritual in a religious setting growing up, I had been the one in the right, not them. I never looked back since. All the morals and ideals I have now I either found or made myself after I ditched religion and found I had to set new guidlines for myself on my own, without the overseer’s hand leading me. It’s hard for me to imagine what it is like tailoring your life to the lines laid down in front of you by some sort of religious entity dictating what you must and must not do. However, if you feel you need this in your life to keep you right, then more power to you, and I hope you lead the life as you see fit, as upright as possible at your consideration, in the way that makes you feel like you are the best person you can be.
It’s been awhile since I’ve spoken to her, but I’m pretty sure she doesn’t dispense RU-486, and has a really big problem with people confusing the morning after pill with the abortion pill. From what I can remember, it really ticked her off to no end.
And there’s a big difference between a liver/heart/lung/etc., and a placenta. You have the former, I have the former, neither one of us has the latter. When you can’t tell the difference between the baby and the latter, to me a problem arises, as the placenta doesn’t necessarily belong exclusively to the baby, it’s shared between mother and child. What keeps abortion off-limits to me is that the placenta belongs just as much to the baby as the mother, so as much as a mother might want the placenta and baby out, the baby has an interest in keeping the placenta intact, so it must stay. Before implantation, the placenta, baby, and everything in between is indistinguishable, and attatched in no way to the mother-to-be, and the mother keeping it that way is not impeding on an already-developing baby’s development. Keeping a placenta from becoming a placenta isn’t harming anyone if it isn’t a placenta yet.
Xalisae, my head is spinning trying to follow your twisted logic.
How does a shared organ mean that a child has a right to life, but the lack of that shared organ means they can be killed?
My children are no longer physically attached to me, but I can’t kill them.
The mother keeping the baby from attaching by chemical means is most certainly infringing on the baby’s developent. If I’m responsible for my children being fed, I can’t lock the refridgerator and refuse to cook. Likewise, a mother who knowingly takes action to thin her uterine lining obstructs the child’s developement.
The only argument for hormonal contraception is that it doesn’t, in fact, work in this manner. Accepting that it results in embryotic death, but not caring, isn’t exactly pro-life.
By the time he’s 10 months into a 12 month deployment and you haven’t seen him a single day of it, you don’t really care that much about leave, you just want him home for good.
I hear ya, sister. It must be very hard. :(
It’s not so much that it’s rules to live by Xalisae. Because it isn’t really. And it’s not about a “need” either, which is a rather uncharitable way to say that Christians are needy.
It’s about what is the truth regarding our existence as human beings. What are we meant for? And what is the purpose of our life here on Earth.
It sounds to me like you were surrounded by people who were quite spiritual but because you didn’t feel this way you felt that it wasn’t real. You didn’t have that connection and therefore it didn’t seem real to you. What you fail to realize however, is that religious feelings do not make a person religious. Just because you never had those feelings, or never had that connection does not invalidate a religion. For some people belief comes easily whereas to others they must struggle with their faith, sometimes all their life.
Also this statement “. Keeping a placenta from becoming a placenta isn’t harming anyone if it isn’t a placenta yet.” is so absurd I need to comment on it as well.
Keeping the placenta from becoming a placenta is hurting the embryo who has existed for the past week. The placenta isn’t a magical organ that makes someone exist. That person has already existed for some time. She’s just continuing her development.
It’s been awhile since I’ve spoken to her, but I’m pretty sure she doesn’t dispense RU-486, and has a really big problem with people confusing the morning after pill with the abortion pill. From what I can remember, it really ticked her off to no end.
If I recall correctly, pharmacists don’t dispense RU-486 because it must be taken in the presence of a doctor.
My issue with the anti-contraception movement within the pro-life movement is that it is based on the concept that hormonal birth control causes failure to implant, when this is speculative at this point and is not unique to hormonal contraception. I’d take the whole thing more seriously if I saw a concerted anti-ibuprofen movement alongside it.
The way I see it, if the intent of hormonal contraception is to prevent ovulation, then that’s no different from the intent of ibuprofen being to stop a headache or whatever. The difference is that people see a moral dilemma in preventing ovulation. Which is fine, but I think that it’s disingenuous to say that being anti-contraception is part and parcel of being pro-life, because it’s a moral concern rather than a life concern.
Alexandra, even the perscribing information that comes with birth control includes failure to implant as a method of “contraception.”
I don’t hear many pro-lifers campaigning against diaphrams. I agree that non-abortive birth control is more a moral concern than a life concern.
And there’s a big difference between a liver/heart/lung/etc., and a placenta. You have the former, I have the former, neither one of us has the latter.
No, you once had a placenta when you were a baby and you lost it when you were born. I once had milk teeth and lost them too. There is little difference between a placenta and another organ. Both have specialized functions.
Before implantation, the placenta, baby, and everything in between is indistinguishable, and attatched in no way to the mother-to-be, and the mother keeping it that way is not impeding on an already-developing baby’s development. Keeping a placenta from becoming a placenta isn’t harming anyone if it isn’t a placenta yet.
Posted by: xalisae at July 12, 2009 6:09 PM
Ok, first off the last statement doesn’t make much sense to me. The placenta does not come first. The zygote undergoes numerous cell divisions before implantation. These cell divisions organize the zygote and prepare it for implantation. Cell populations within in the zygote already have their known destinations and functions. With time they will fulfil these. The zygote is a separate living entity that directs it’s own development.
Also FYI: pregnancy can be detected 24 to 48 hours post-conception by measuring for special hormone in the mother’s blood.
Alexandra, even the perscribing information that comes with birth control includes failure to implant as a method of “contraception.”
Here is what the “How does Yaz work” page says, at least:
“YAZ, a combination pill, contains two types of hormones, an estrogen and a progestin. Combination pills are the type of birth control pills most commonly prescribed by healthcare professionals. They work in two ways:
– The body is “tricked” into thinking it is pregnant. This prevents the release of an egg (ovulation). Without an egg to be fertilized, you can’t become pregnant.
– The cervical mucus is thickened, making it hard for sperm to travel toward the egg and fertilize it, in case an egg is released.”
Ortho Tri Cyclen does say that it also thins the uterine lining. Those are the only two names I can think to google right now. Most EC that I’ve seen says that it ‘may’ prevent implantation. From what I remember reading most recently there’s evidence that Plan B doesn’t do much of anything at all — much less after ovulation has already occurred. Of course, I think any woman should be made aware of the possibility that BC *may* affect the uterine lining, because some women will consider that a deal-breaker and some won’t.
This obviously applies only to the forms of hormonal contraception whose effect on the uterine lining is a possibility, not an intention. If the intended function of the medication is not to prevent implantation, then I don’t think it’s a life issue anymore than other drugs that may have similar unintended effects. Otherwise it seems hypocritical to only focus on the morally objectionable medications that may inhibit implantation as an unintended effect, and to ignore the morally neutral (or good) medications/actions that may similarly inhibit implantation.
Alexandra, I believe that Yaz contains different types of hormomes than traditional birth control pills. I don’t know if it has the uterine thinning properties that they do. That would be something interesting to look into.
IIRC, Progesterone only pills have the most abortificient effect.
I agree that impact on post fertilization actions should be discussed with patients. I know i was never told anything about uterine thinning by any of my doctors. I think this should apply to all potentially harmful medication.
Right now we do a good job warning women of medicines that could be harmful during pregnancy. I’m sure women would also like to know what medicines could impact implantation.
Right now we do a good job warning women of medicines that could be harmful during pregnancy. I’m sure women would also like to know what medicines could impact implantation.
I completely agree. I really do wish the pill wasn’t treated like it’s just nothing at all, but that’s mostly because I’m a hippie when it comes to medicine things (and maybe, um, cleaning my apartment; dirt’s good for you, right? builds the immune system? no one answer that). My mom took the pill for years with no real complaints (but my younger sister was conceived in that time! no complaint there though) but only my older sister has ever used it, and that’s because she has PCOS. And angel I know about that PCOS website so you don’t need to link to it; trust me when I say that I am 100% pro-natural remedies, but nothing has helped my sister like the pill has.
It really astounds me that I am one of the less “green”/healthy of my friends — I don’t use paper towels except for cat puke, I bring my own bags to the store, I use a bento box for lunch, I buy ethically raised meat, I don’t leave the water running when I’m washing dishes (seriously annoying), make my own laundry detergent, etc, but I don’t vermicompost or buy local-organic everything or stuff like that — and yet I’m the only one I know who uses environmentally-friendly, natural birth control. Same for “feminine hygiene” — not like these topics come up all the time, but when they do I always feel like such a maverick.
My rarely-needed hangover cure is McDonald’s fries (so gross but the grease is so amazing when you really need it; one dreadful early morning I had to settle for hash browns in a pre-work face-stuffing, instead, and it just wasn’t the same) and my friends will be like, “I can’t believe you put that in your body.” My four times a year fast-food habit. The lack of awareness about what birth control is seems like such a blind spot to me. I mean I take medication when I really need it, but I would have to be in some dire straits to take hormones every single day for the foreseeable future.
I’m not saying that everyone who takes BC is blind or oblivious; my sister is way smarter and more cautious than me, and she’s weighed her options carefully. But I feel like hormonal contraception is presented as some sort of physically neutral thing when obviously it can’t be. And I feel like, as with many drugs, there isn’t much communication between doctors and patients about the why’s and why not’s.
I agree with you 100%, Alexandra. May I ask what form of birth control you use? I know it’s really personal, so feel free to decline, but I’m interested in knowing what people use as alternatives to the pill when they’re in long term relationships.
Xalisae: “You sound like my husband, and that I cannot understand. He’d be a pretty sour guy if he was denied very often. :/”
Well, that’s the thing – with periodic abstinence my wife never denies me. I deny myself for her sake. I don’t initiate unless I know it is the right time – which includes her being well rested and the kids being put to bed early.
But if my wife was on the pill… Why would I ever *not* ask – everyday, if not twice a day? This puts pressure on the woman to comply or to come up with some excuse.
Belief or non-belief in a religion is not an issue. I think it is terribly practical and encourages self control – especially on the part of the man. It frees the woman from feeling the pressure of denying sex and instead puts the responsibility on the man to care for, nurture and love his woman in non-sexual ways.
Personally, it has been a very very long time since I’ve “felt God.” But if my faith was based on pure feeling than rational thought and reasoning, I would certainly have been an atheist instead. Because the hedonist in me knows nothing feels better than a guilt-free non-judging non-religion.
Lauren, I use NFP. To be honest I’d be perfectly happy to never ever be pregnant again, because it was in all seriousness some of the worst weeks of my life, which is saying something; but if I did get pregnant I’d be fine with that, and I’m sure that I would love any child of mine, though I don’t currently feel any strong desire to have children.
Paolo —
Well, that’s the thing – with periodic abstinence my wife never denies me. I deny myself for her sake. I don’t initiate unless I know it is the right time – which includes her being well rested and the kids being put to bed early.
But if my wife was on the pill… Why would I ever *not* ask – everyday, if not twice a day? This puts pressure on the woman to comply or to come up with some excuse.
I find it interesting that you only consider your wife being well-rested and no longer busy with the kids to be a factor in the NFP situation. Do women on the pill not get tired? Do women on the pill not struggle to meet various daily demands? Or are you saying that men who love women who are on the pill just implicitly don’t care about their wife’s emotions? I find that a very sad comment, and not indicative at all of the relationships of the vast majority of contracepting couples I know.
Posted by: angel at July 12, 2009 12:36
“Now I realize that my separated Protestant brethen will disagree with the Tradition part of this statement.”
“Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons you are Protestant and I am Catholic!”
“I will say however, that it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the acceptance of contraception by a mainstream religion and the subsequent legalization of contraception has enabled the sexual revolution and greatly contributed to the demise of marriage and family.”
———————————————————-
Angel,
Who do you consider to be the ‘unfortunate’ one?
Me or you?
If you and I are both members of the body of Christ and there is only one Lord, one Spirit and one body, then how are we separated?
When the Apostle Paul wrote: “Is the body of Christ divided.?” (He was not referring to the sacrements.)
I receive you on the basis of your belief in Jesus as Savior and Lord.
Our fellowhship or communion is not based on doctrine, but on HIM and what HE has done for us.
I do not worship any other god than the GOD of Abraham, Issac, Jacob. The one GOD in three persons: Father, Son/Jesus and Holy Spirit.
This is what the ‘book’ teaches.
I agree that GOD’s will for husbands and wives is to become ‘one flesh’ and an evidence of that ‘oneness’ is their children. But even infertile couples can become ‘one’. It is more about the spirit, than it is the flesh.
I agree that ‘contraceptives’ have contributed to promiscuity, but promiscuity is nothing new under the sun. Contraception does not cause promiscutiy, the Adamic nature does.
There is no biblical ‘law’ that I am aware of that demands wife and husband reproduce. The most that could be said is that GOD desires and encourages husband and wife to indulge in behavior that would lead to reproduction.
(Like I needed encouragement.)
The Onan thing in Gen 38 occurred before the law of Moses was given. (Like ‘tithing’ was practiced before the law of Moses.)
It is written in the ‘book’ that God knows the end from the beginning. It was written that the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah, the same Judah in Gen. 38.
Judah ended up accomplishing God’s will himself, though that was surely not Judah’s intention when he unknowingly canoodled with Tamar. (A father-in-law canoodling with his son’s widow surely violated some ordinance. Corinthians denounces a son canoodling wiht his mother-in-law/father’s widow.)
God chose Tamar to be the female part of that equation. Just like he chose Rahab and Mary.
It is an assumption to suggest that GOD killed a man simply because he wasted some sperm.
Women are born with a limited number of eggs, but men’s bodies continually produce sperm until they become infertile.
Maybe Tamar’s biological clock was ticking down and timing was of the essence.
The sperm cells are only viable for hours. Then they die and are eliminated. Several million more are produced to take their place. This is a continuing process.
The ‘book’ indicates the first brother died because he was wicked.
The second brother dies because he fulfills the letter of his fathers command, but rebels against the spirit of his father (and God’s) desire.
(That was also before the Ten Commandments and the promise of a long life if you honored your parents.)
Now who can blame Judah for not wanting to risk another son in this enterprise. The first two have died and perhaps the only common denominator he recognizes is canoodling with Tamar.
Even GOD only gave HIS firstborn son.
(Actually that’s not correct. God gave HIS prophets and priests before Jesus and HE continues to give HIS people who’s blood is precious in HIS sight.)
The object lesson is that GOD’s ‘word’ is HIS will and it will not return to HIM without first accomplishing that for which HE sent it to do.
It is written some where that God sets HIS ‘word’ above HIS Name.
It is not wise to rebel against GOD and refuse to comply with HIS revealed will.
Wisdom says, when in doubt, er towards obdedience, a lesson that Er failed to learn.
GOD has not stopped speaking. If you really want to know HIS will so that you can fulfill it, then ask HIM. I am confident HE will answer that sincere prayer.
It is always a wonderful thing to hear HIS voice, even when HE is issuing a rebuke. A loving father corrects HIS children.
I am not suggesting you are wrong, but rather GOD is the best judge of what HIS will is concerning you.
yor bro ken
ps: The scriptures that you referenced buttressed the idea that GOD desires HIS people to procreate, but did not corroborate the notion that ‘contraception’ is a sin.
It appeared to me that the writer began from the perspective that ‘contraception’ is wrong and then went searching for scriptures, no matter how tenuous, to support his/her hunch.
This is a temptation that is common to men/women.
Alexandra:
I was not always Catholic. From my personal experience and growth as a Catholic convert, and later as a married man, being abstinent taught me to be even more caring for my wife and be sensitive to her moods and feelings.
For me, it was these times of waiting that taught me greater patience and the virtue of self control that I did not have in my crazy days of dating and doing what everyone else was doing.
My personal experience was that I was once a unmanned whiner and complainer whenever my girlfriend would deny me sex. After my conversion, learning about NFP, and trying it as a married man, I have a wife who never tells me no – but that is because I don’t ever ask unless I know that everything is right.
Granted, there are far more virtuous people than myself who get married and use contraception. But for a wanton like me, NFP was the school that taught me everything.
Alexandra, I’m sorry to hear that your pregnancy was so hard.
kbhvac:
You will find the universal condemnation against contraception in exegesis from all Christian leaders until the 1930s. The Bible itself is not completely explicit in terms of contraception – but using self-justification you can even use the Bible to justify slavery, pedophilia, polygamy, and homosexuality if you stretch the context of Scripture and deny historical context.
My personal experience was that I was once a unmanned whiner and complainer whenever my girlfriend would deny me sex. After my conversion, learning about NFP, and trying it as a married man, I have a wife who never tells me no – but that is because I don’t ever ask unless I know that everything is right.
Fair enough, Paolo, but fortunately compassion, understanding, and empathy for the person you love are not things that only occur within the bounds of NFP-practicing relationships.
You say, “Why wouldn’t I ask for sex every day, twice a day, if my wife was on the pill?” You might as well say, “Why wouldn’t I ask for sex every day, twice a day, whenever my wife isn’t ovulating?” Or, “Why wouldn’t I ask for sex every day, twice a day, if my wife was infertile?” The thing that stops you is respect for your wife’s humanity. You couldn’t recognize this innate respect for your wife without NFP, but that doesn’t mean that such respect cannot exist outside of relationships where NFP is practiced. Plenty of people respect their spouses and partners without being biologically reminded of the need to do so. Unfortunately, plenty do not.
We’ve used hormonal birth control, NFP, and no birth control.
I’ve got to say that no birth control is by far the best. Of course, should we have another child we might have to take a serious look at NFP again due to repeat c-sections.
Alexandra:
I think that the biological reminder is a natural stop-gap and avenue of communication when sex is assumed to beget children. Once it is assumed that sex is not even related to the begetting of children, then that natural need to communicate is removed and becomes an easy slide into dehumanizing behavior.
I think that most people assume that once you propose something as true, you propose it as if it was a *monopoly* on truth. There is a lot of truth in people who choose birth control to be responsible stewards of creation and their own children. However, there is disagreement on the means in which this is accomplished.
Just because I’m Catholic and believe that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth, doesn’t mean that she has a monopoly of it. ;)
Alexandra, I’m sorry to hear that your pregnancy was so hard.
Lauren, thanks. I didn’t mean for that to sound whiny. Just honest. The thought of being pregnant is not exactly one that thrills me, but that’s life; I’d rather live it the way I am now than change it. I think it’s obvious that we don’t get any guarantees that any of this will be easy. I will probably have children at some point, and I’ll love them even though I secretly kind of wish I could just adopt kids starting at age 3 instead; and the pregnancy will be one of those things that are scattered through my past, those things that felt awful at the time but the thought of them never having happened now, in retrospect, keeps me awake at night in existential terror.
So that’s that, I guess.
Alexandra:
My wife feels the same way you do after having our two boys. This is why we are extremely conservative in using NFP.
Ken: I have one question for you: do you support contraception?
I consider myself fortunate to belong to the Catholic Church which has the fullness of truth.
kbhvac:
You will find the universal condemnation against contraception in exegesis from all Christian leaders until the 1930s. The Bible itself is not completely explicit in terms of contraception – but using self-justification you can even use the Bible to justify slavery, pedophilia, polygamy, and homosexuality if you stretch the context of Scripture and deny historical context.
Posted by: Paolo at July 12, 2009 9:49 PM
Paolo, the trouble here with Ken is that he is an evangelical Christian (I think) and unless it’s in the bible, chapter and verse, he will not accept the position as being valid. :(
As Catholics we use both scripture and tradition.
Angel:
Then he’d better be prepared to accept slavery, pedophilia and polygamy because those are not explicitly condemned in Scripture. In fact, in some places, they are actively condoned. ;)
Oh you didn’t seem whiny, don’t worry.
I have a complicated relationship with pregnancy. My pregnancies were both pretty bad (though the first much worse) but I really enjoy being pregnant.
How’s that for a paradox? I was completely miserable and worried for 9 months, but I would do it again in a heartbeat, and even be sad if I never got to experience it again.
ps: The scriptures that you referenced buttressed the idea that GOD desires HIS people to procreate, but did not corroborate the notion that ‘contraception’ is a sin.
I don’t agree.
I am not suggesting you are wrong, but rather GOD is the best judge of what HIS will is concerning you.
Exactly. But contraception does not fulfill God’s will for us and the directive God gave man to be fruitful and multiply. Children are seen as a gift of God and contraception is a refusal of that gift, usually for very selfish reasons.
I should have added my full term pregnancies to the above. I also had a miscarriage which was terrible, I definitely wouldn’t want to experience another one.
Statements from various posts are addressed as briefly as possible:
At the time of implantation, the embryo is at the stage of blastocyst, and the cells from which the body of the embryo arise are well defined and distinct from the cells which give rise to the placenta and other supportive tissue.
One can willfully maintain ignorance of the facts in order to maintain suboptimal behavior. Plenty of pharmacists avoid the information about hormonal mechanisms of birth control for this reason.
There is also a strong drive to use the faults of others to excuse one’s own bad behavior.
Plan B is interceptive, used primarily to stop implantation, and has effectiveness no greater than the withdrawal method.
Mifepristone misoprostil is used throughout the embryonic stage of development in the U.S. and later in other countries.
Each person has religion….. there is no independently functioning human being past the age of reason who doesn’t have some kind of personal religion. Look up the definitions of the word for a review. People are really confused about this.
Science is a method of studying the physical phenomena, categorizing them, deriving patterns and useful predictive info from them. Religion is distinct from science except in the confused minds of leftists. Religion is the belief system which governs the behavior of a human. It impinges on science only for regulating what an adherent person may study, in what manner and how the information may be utilized ethically.
Yaz contains drospirenone which is a different form of progestin, somewhat resembling spironolactone. It has a somewhat different side effect profile from other BC, as a result.
It should be noted that while some of the third generation OCs have laid claim to less failure to suppress ovulation (less prominent post fertilization mechanism) this has been offset by a somewhat greater likelihood of thromboembolic events. Most of these events associated with the pill go unreported, as there is little time for health professionals to fool with that paperwork. In my practice I have seen quite a bit of it, and none of the cases have been reported to the best of my knowledge.
NFP practice induces the man to be more aware of what is going on with his spouse. Cooperation between the man and woman are necessary to accomplish the purpose, so what Paolo is saying makes pretty much sense.
Correct that pharmacists do not dispense the mifepristone misoprostil regimen (still misnamed RU-486). Since the patient must be overseen by an abortionist “physician” then the drug must be dispensed only under his supervision. The same applies to the methotrexate misoprostil regimen, but there has not been good adherence to these regulations in my locality, for example. The incidence of untoward events associated with these regimens is very high. Such a situation is only acceptable medically because it involves women and not men. The standard of medical care for women is far lower than that for men.
Angel, nausea is chronic with the proliferation of anti-science in the current educational and governmental environment. It’s just disgusting to see civilization regressing needlessly. :-P :-P :-P
The Oxford English Dictionary:
Religion:
Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this.
A particular system of faith and worship.
Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.
Devotion to some principle; a strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.
Not all human beings have religion, Pharmer.
Also, I’ve received misoprostil from a pharmacy before. Not for an abortion, but still.
Human Abstract:
“Devotion to some principle; a strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.”
I have yet to meet a person that does not have this. Even the most vehemently anti-religious person I’ve met still believes that it is wrong to be a hypocrite, and it is wrong to be intolerant.
Paolo@10pm
“The natural need to communicate is removed” when you use a form of birth control other than the rythmn method? I’m sorry, but that is simply not true. Couples still communicate when they are or are not in the mood. Just as you and your wife do. Women still bleed and communicate that to their husbands. Just as your wife does. The same love and respect applied in contracepting couples. The just have an extra few days for sex every month than you do.
Minnow: “Couples still communicate when they are or are not in the mood. Just as you and your wife do. Women still bleed and communicate that to their husbands.”
I will qualify my statement: There is much less a natural inclination to communicate about pregnancy when contraceptives are used.
The possibility of pregnancy naturally spurs a lot of talk about finances, emotional support, work and career, life direction, spiritual needs, etc. There is a constant pulse check that naturally happens. The status quo is never assumed with the possibility and openness to pregnancy always in the background.
Whereas contraceptives assumes that the status quo is what is normal and expected. That everything is “in control.”
Correct, Paolo.
The atheists are the most religiously fervent of all, ascribing aspects of the Creator to the created things, or to themselves.
Their belief system certainly affects their way of living.
The default belief of the Atheist Religion is that the universes are self generated and self maintaining.
Some guys are more considerate than others:
I’m remembering one person from Hindu religious background who stated that he would not request for his lady take the pill just so that he could shoot and spray whenever he wanted.
He had concerns about the health dangers of these drugs.
At the time of implantation, the embryo is at the stage of blastocyst, and the cells from which the body of the embryo arise are well defined and distinct from the cells which give rise to the placenta and other supportive tissue.
Pharmer, I knew this but couldn’t find a website to explain this. Perhaps you can help?
It should be noted that while some of the third generation OCs have laid claim to less failure to suppress ovulation (less prominent post fertilization mechanism) this has been offset by a somewhat greater likelihood of thromboembolic events.
Do we understand why this is?
The incidence of untoward events associated with these regimens is very high. Such a situation is only acceptable medically because it involves women and not men. The standard of medical care for women is far lower than that for men.
Yup. And even more so when it involves making sure men have access to promiscuous sex.
“The natural need to communicate is removed” when you use a form of birth control other than the rythmn method? I’m sorry, but that is simply not true. Couples still communicate when they are or are not in the mood. Just as you and your wife do. Women still bleed and communicate that to their husbands. Just as your wife does. The same love and respect applied in contracepting couples. The just have an extra few days for sex every month than you do.
Posted by: Minnow at July 13, 2009 12:16 AM
I’m sorry but this is not the norm and most women KNOW it. The onus is usually on the women and the communication is not about understanding the woman’s body. It’s about whether or not she took the damn pill.
I doubt seriously whether most contraceptors have even a basic understanding of their bodies and how they function. As a former NFP teacher I can’t tell you how many times we had ex-contraceptors who had absolutely no idea of fertility symptoms and an understanding of how the woman’s body worked.
When you pop a pill, take a shot, have an IUD inserted, or slip on a condom, what need is there to understand and respect? None. The mindset is not to understand. In fact, I’d be willing to say most are not even willing to make an informed decision about contraception and do the research to learn about side-effects. They simply want something that will take away the possibility of conceiving.
Alexandra – did you have Hyperemesis Gravidarum? I don’t remember if we discussed this.
Check out Ashli McCall’s site beyondmorningsickness.com
97% figure:
I thought I had heard a similar figure somewhere before, though not in relation to Catholics. There are a couple points to make here, even if this statistic is truly representative, which it may well not be:
This is how many have used contraceptives EVER. Not how many are using them now on an ongoing basis. It includes using a condom once when she was sixteen. It includes using the birth control pill for a year before finding out how it worked. It may even include using a birth control pill for an off-label use before the woman in question was even sexually active. It says nothing about whether they regretted or repented, whether they knew it was wrong at the time, or even whether they were Catholic at the time. You can’t take this statistic and say 97% of Catholic women use contraceptives. It’s like saying that 1 in 4 women are being raped right now because one in four women are raped according to statistics.
Krystal:
It sounds like you had your tubes removed due to cancer? Not a problem even according to Catholics. And as I understand it, even if the tubal ligation was not medically necessary, it was a one-time sin, not an on-going sin (maybe two or more times: deciding to do it and going through with it). So I don’t think anyone would say you are sinning right now. And I certainly would still say you are pro-life. There are some Catholic teachings that bother me sometimes too.
Angel, read that verse from Corinthians a little closer. Abstention is permitted IN ORDER to pray (and fast). You are not permitted to abstain just so long as you also pray. Abstaining to avoid conception is not alluded to in Corinthians.
My personal opinion is that most forms of contraception (possibly all) are wrong, but not all for the same reasons. Hormonal contraception can kill, so it is always wrong, on par with abortion, and should be illegal. Barrier methods or sexual practices that prevent contraception interfere with marital closeness, and I would not want them in my marriage, nor would I counsel another Christian to use them unless their circumstances were very grave indeed. But I do not think they should be illegal. The main difference I see between barrier methods like a condom or diaphragm and sexual practices like abstention at certain times of the month or acts less likely to result in conception is that the former verges on adultery by bringing a third party into the act (even if it is a piece of rubber). Sterilization seems to me against the order of creation. We take what God has created perfectly and break it. It seems wrong to me for the same reason removing any other part of one’s body without good cause would be wrong. The same argument can be made against a pill if it was not an abortifacient (for example, men’s hormonal contraceptives)–they disrupt the way the body is supposed to work. But hormonal contraceptives stand out as more wrong–they can take a life. The rest are spiritual matters between a person and God and their spouse, so I do not see a need to regulate them (though I also don’t think they should be covered by insurance).
Chris, that’s what the doctor suggested. I’m familiar with Ashli McCall, first from her blog and later from her book — I think that was part of the wending path that eventually landed me here, where I stay against all reason, but maybe not.
Shortly after I was pregnant, a group of women told me that I could not have had HG, because HG was caused by a reaction to the hCG hormone and logically I should have experienced a decrease in symptoms if the levels of that hormone weren’t rising; I thought that if that’s the case then maybe the presence of the hormone at all was the problem. Obviously most sources say that there is no known cause for HG, but that thought has stayed with me — that if the pregnancy was not viable, but I remained ill, would it have been HG? Someone else once suggested an Rh blood…thing, but they tested Rh stuff for me so I don’t think it was that. The situation is something I’ll bring up with my doctor if I ever get pregnant again, whatever it was.
Fun times, though, that’s for sure.
Many Catholics and other Christians are appallingly Puritanical and have extremely unhealthy attitudes toward sex and pathetically unrealistic goals and expectations about marriage and the family.
The opposition to contracption is part of these unhealthy repressive attitudes toward sex. The fact remains that contraceptives have prevented an enormous number of abortions. There is absolutely no way to deny this.And saying that you should not use them because they don’t always work is like saying that you shouldn’t use seatbelts while driving because they don’t always work.
If Catholics and other religious people are opposed to contraceptives, that’s their right. But that have absolutely no right to try to make contraception illegal and deny others the right to use them. If you don’t want to use contraception, don’t.But don’t tell others that they have no right to use them.
If the US government were foolish enough to ban contraceptives, the number of abortions would only INCREASE and a black market in contraceptives would emerge.
You can’t stop the human sex urge. It’s totally unrealistic to expect people to restrict sex to marriage and procreation.
There’s absolutely no way to do this.
Yes, people should be careful and avoid irresponsible sexual indulgance, but Catholics have totally unrealistic attitudes toward sex.
And another reason why women should use contraceptives is because it might protect them from getting pregnant if god forbid, they were raped.
Robert:
“And another reason why women should use contraceptives is because it might protect them from getting pregnant if god forbid, they were raped.”
I guess society is so bad off that we have to make sure that we drug every female just in case? If this is your view of how little self control men have in our society, then I understand why you believe so much in contraception.
Personally, I don’t think that the men and women of our society are challenged enough. And we wonder why we have so much of a “victim” mentality in our society.
It’s not a repression of the urge, but giving it focus, purpose and direction. Leaving gunpowder lying around in the open is more hazardous than if it is gathered and put into a cannon and aimed at shooting for the stars. You may only hit the moon, but it is better than blowing yourself up – which is where a lot of youth today just do.
Even though I would argue that contraceptives are wrong, I would not advocate a wholesale banning of contraceptives country-wide. I think that would cause a lot more issues. But, I think that the States and Localities should be free to make those decisions on their own.
Further, I think if you did a sociological study, you will see a correlation of the number of abortions (and divorces) with the use of contraceptives. Until mainstream use of contraceptives in the 1960s, the idea of abortion was illegal and abhorrent to society. Then come 1973 with Roe v. Wade, abortions also became mainstream.
The Supreme Court in Casey v. Planned Parenthood ruled that so long as contraception is legal, so should abortion as back-up contraception, because they both are intrinsically the same act.
One of the problems I see with NFP, Paulo, is that sex is most pleasurable for a woman when she is at her most fertile time, and that is when she most wants it. Wouldn’t it be more loving to trust in God for provision for your children, whom He and He alone is capable of creating (ask anyone who has experience with infertility if they choose whether to have children)? Wouldn’t it be more loving to your wife if you could join with her when both of you wanted to express your love physically, rather than defrauding each other?
You sound like you have all the control–you and you only initiate sex, and you only do it when you know she’ll say yes, because she’s been kept waiting a good long time. Your desire for her is not based on her cycle (except that it is, because you want to avoid her fertility–but its strength doesn’t change over the course of the month). Her desire for you is strongest when she has to deny herself.
And I’m willing to bet that the “twice a day” business wouldn’t last as long as you think.
Why is it less noble for a woman to never deny her husband than for a man to deny himself (supposedly) for his wife? Are her needs less deep or less pressing? Is her pleasure less real?
And are you really denying yourself for her sake, or to avoid children?
You may feel better about the way you are denying children than you would if you used birth control. But you have a tight little nuclear family with two children “perfectly spaced.” How do you know that’s what God wants when you never give Him the opportunity to prove otherwise? How do those around you know that you are living any differently from them when your life looks the same from the outside?
Why do you value what the world values (financial success, the “perfect” family, rest and sleep) over what God values (children from Godly couples, intimacy within marriage)?
NFP is not the best way. It is not super-spiritual above the way everyone else lives (no way is). I feel it is much better to welcome children without regrets or avoidance than to sacrifice a couple’s sexual relationship–which is a very important part of the one-flesh covenant of marriage–in the name of having a perfect little family like every secular American wants.
I get so annoyed sometimes by those who claim that NFP makes them so much closer or specialler. Sex is good. God created sex for bonding and for children. Having sex only when children can’t result is still trying to separate the act from reproduction. And in one breath NFPers will talk about how successful it is and in the next how they are still allowing God free reign.
That’s somewhat like buying a box of condoms, and then poking holes in a few of them to let God work. Or you could just buy the brand most likely to break. After all, God can still give you a child if He wishes. And if He does, you won’t kill the baby. What a wonderful way to receive the good gifts of our Almighty Savior.
I do not use birth control. I haven’t used birth control since I found out how hormonal birth control worked, and I am not going back.
Many have said it before–the Bible calls debt a curse and children a blessing, yet in our culture we prevent blessings and apply for curses.
Let your own conscience guide you and allow others the freedom to do the same.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at July 11, 2009 5:53 PM
Can’t improve on that.
YCW: “Wouldn’t it be more loving to trust in God for provision for your children, whom He and He alone is capable of creating? […] Wouldn’t it be more loving to your wife if you could join with her when both of you wanted to express your love physically, rather than defrauding each other?”
I think that “defrauding” is an incorrect word. How is it defrauding to wait? It is like saying that I am “defrauding” myself of food when I am fasting or dieting. Defrauding a diet would be if I were to binge and purge. Defrauding my wife sexually would be committing sodomy. But how is waiting “defrauding” – especially when we talk about it every month?
Between the two of us, it is my wife who wants to wait for having more children. I want at least 2 more. I don’t disregard her suffering in fasting from sex during her fertile period. Because that is the time she has asked me to have the most self control and to tell her “No.” Believe me, it is very easy to just say “Yes.”
Both my wife and I have considered many other options for our family. We have also considered adopting and opening up another avenue of love and charity for God’s children. We are still open for having more children of our own as well. The question is, we don’t know the timing. Both our boys are still very young – neither have started going to school.
Currently, I am working 2 jobs. My wife is starting her own business as well from home. We are trying to make ends meet and provide for our family. And there is legitimacy in wanting to be able to provide. But I am already at the point where I am applying for more debt just to make ends meet.
As I have said before, there is truth in the idea that we are to be good stewards to Creation. Mankind was not left without the faculties of reason and understanding and God does expect us to use them.
So would it be justice for me to be so brazen? So something has to give – and if it means just a few days of the month, is it really that big a sacrifice?
I think there is a big difference between Jesus saying “Do not worry” and “Do not use your brain to reason and plan and execute on that plan to the best of your ability.”
But do not assume that I don’t want children to have the “perfect nuclear family.” If it was up to me alone, I’d have at least 2 more children with my wife and adopt many more.
“The atheists are the most religiously fervent of all, ascribing aspects of the Creator to the created things, or to themselves.
Their belief system certainly affects their way of living.”
Pharmer, I agree. When one removes God from the picture, the void must be filled by something else. The Ecoists have tricked us into thinking that mere man can control the sun and the moon and the tides.
Ecoism: Ecoism is a spiritual philosophy focused on healing the Earth. Ecoism can be interpreted as religious environmentalism. Ecoism has it’s roots in deep ecology. We focus on empowering people with the realization that they do make a difference.
– Lawrence Gann
“You can’t stop the human sex urge. It’s totally unrealistic to expect people to restrict sex to marriage and procreation.”
“There’s absolutely no way to do this. ”
“Yes, people should be careful and avoid irresponsible sexual indulgance…”
Robert, you are contradicting yourself.
There is nothing wrong with contraception as long as you go in with the mentality that if new life is created, abortion isn’t on the table. It’s like laying down a bet at a card game. You can be reasonably sure you hold the cards, but there may be times where ‘reasonably sure’ fails. In that case, you deal with the consequences of your bet.
Prettyinpink,
I like the gambling analogy when it comes to BC. The odds are much better that you’ll get pregnant on BC than gambling in Las Vegas. People still go there expecting to win something but they are so often “surprised” when they get pregnant.
LOL.
That line should read:
“The odds are much better that you’ll get pregnant on BC than WINNING WHILE gambling in Las Vegas.”
I think I’ll crawl into a hole now. :(
Robert Berger indicates that it’s healthy to kill humans early in development, on a routine basis in order to make women more available for his sexual urges.
All studies give evidence against the lie that artificial birth control prevents abortions. The actual results show that abortion demand remains steady or rises where the artificial BC is made freely available. This is due to behavior changes, and poor compliance which exists in the real world. But Berger will repeat his baseless incantation till he dies.
In Japan, abortion was legal from 1948 onward and reached appallingly high levels in the 50s, due to post war economic conditions. The rate then dropped off to well below US rates of abortion until the time the pill was legalized there in 1999. The availability of the pill is not reducing demand for abortion in Japan. This is for various reasons both similar and different from those in the U.S..
Japan Ministry of Health gives the statistics if you want to investigate.
As always, the women bear the health consequences, the lowered social status, the increased abuse and rape, from the social policies which increase Berger’s theoretical access to sex.
Repeating…. 97 percent of women, from 14 to 44 yo, are not in the game. I had better translate for the leftists… a considerable number of women are not having actual SEX, (the type that causes babies). That’s why it’s obvious that 97 percent of catholic women are not using artificial contraception, in addition to the figure on those using “rhythm” varieties.
Lefties haven’t visited the CDC site, and are quoting garbage tertiary sources, some of which I have seen.
Angel, a good embryology text is what’s really needed.
You look up blastocyst to see the level of differentiation of the tissues. It is layered, with the inner layer being the cells which give rise to the actual body of the embryo. Implantation occurs at about a week. So if you combine the info from these fertility nutz, who incidentally kill embryos, (or plenty of other sites out there)
you know that the embryo is differentiated from the supportive tissue BEFORE IMPLANTATION.
http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocystimages.htm ……. even has pics.
Oh ya, the embryology pearls spew forth spontaneously from the Pharmer because they used to actually teach REAL developmental biology to people majoring the field way back when, before science was heavily infested with Leftist superstition.
But it won’t change the minds of these peope who don’t believe in their own internal body parts when they can’t see and feel them. These lefties only sometimes believe in the existence of their lower bowel. If it’s quiet, it does not exist. But it magically APPEARS during cramps, and the production of solid, liquid or gas. It’s AMAZING. Same goes for the separate and distinct developing human during gestation!!!
They’ll always find a way to justify killing humans at the various stages of development. THey’ve also got the poorly defined “vegetative state” term, and the “futile care” term. It’s all about the money and the lifestyle.
And how about that Justice Ginsberg… ya, for abortion, it’s about RACE too.
:-P :-P :-P
Alexandra, I don’t know the details of your pregnancy, but I had a really strange hormonal situation happen during the pregnancy which ended in a miscarriage.
My levels were rising, but not quickly, and eventually began to drop. I didn’t have HG, but I did have more morning sickness with that pregnancy than any other. Most doctors say that severe morning sickness is actually evidence of a healthy pregnancy, but it obviously wasn’t in my case.
I think it might be a bit more complicated then just the rise or fall of HcG.
I wish that people would acknowledge (for once) that it’s also a matter of human nature when children want to grow in their mother’s womb before they’re born…
Because you can’t police nature…
“My rarely-needed hangover cure is McDonald’s fries”
I read that a study determined that one of the best hangover cures is bacon in a sandwich form- the bacon giving certain amino acids and the bread giving more energy. I haven’t tried it yet though :P
PIP, a friend who works in a science lab once told me something similar, except she said a hamburger. The grease, salt, and ice-cold fountain soda seem to be what matters to me, though. ;) Fortunately I don’t make a habit of drinking more than I can handle! I have never been a very exciting person in that sense, which suits me just fine.
Lauren, that sounds similar to my situation. Apparently the hcg is supposed to like double every 2-3 days until 8-10 weeks, or something, which was definitely not happening with me.
NFP is not the best way. It is not super-spiritual above the way everyone else lives (no way is). I feel it is much better to welcome children without regrets or avoidance than to sacrifice a couple’s sexual relationship–which is a very important part of the one-flesh covenant of marriage–in the name of having a perfect little family like every secular American wants.
I get so annoyed sometimes by those who claim that NFP makes them so much closer or specialler. Sex is good. God created sex for bonding and for children. Having sex only when children can’t result is still trying to separate the act from reproduction. And in one breath NFPers will talk about how successful it is and in the next how they are still allowing God free reign.
No one is sacrificing their sexual relationship to use NFP. Couples using NFP do not have sex only when they are infertile. But they may choose to do so, together. Sometimes both spouses will feel this is a sacrifice, sometimes it will be one spouse. During this time of abstinence they learn to express their love for one another in other ways that are nonsexual.
It is about understanding and respecting each others bodies, about using the intellect and the will in a meaningful way in marriage. It is about self sacrifice – putting God and your spouse first and yourself third. It is about accepting the total person in your spouse including their generative capabilities. If anyone is defrauding their spouse it is those who use contraceptives. The are pretending to give all to their spouse when in fact they are not. They are holding back something that is a very important part of themselves, and of their sexuality.
I don’t think anyone on here has said that NFP makes them better than anyone else. I believe that it is the BEST way to space children in marriage. I believe it makes me a better person, a better Catholic – relative to what I would be without using the method. Generally speaking, couples who use NFP have a divorce rate that is very low – under a few percent I think.
To be honest, I think unless you have used NFP, it is very difficult to understand what I and Paolo have written here. I have seen it all the time in my teaching of NFP. Post-contracepting couples amazed at the effect NFP has on their lives.
I would love to post a picture here that sums up exactly what contraception means in a marriage but I do not know how to do this. Can someone enlighten me?
Angel, have you ever used an IUD? I’m guessing no. It doesn’t affect your cycle: the non-hormonal IUDs, made out of copper, still allow the woman to bleed, have natural hormonal changes, have temperature ups and downs, etc, just like without an IUD. There are very, very few changes.
And Pharmer, you didn’t address my second point. I wholly disagree with your analysis of religion, but I tend to think that’s a matter that we simply won’t agree on. But you can get abortion drugs from pharmacies.
An IUD works by making the uterus inhospitable to the unborn baby which cannot implant in the uterus. And then there are the babies that get aborted a little later on and the ones that end up with the IUD in their bodies, just for fun.
No thanks. I’ve never used an IUD. It’s a form of child abuse at the least and murder at the worst as far as I’m concerned.
lol..@ the folly of the self righteous.
lol..@ the folly of the self righteous.
Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 7:09 PM
lol..@ the folly of man who thinks he is master of the world and who mocks God.
Angel, cite any of the information you just regurgitated, please. No one knows exactly how a copper IUD works, though making the uterus inhospitable to SPERM is the leading theory. The IUDs are also never stuck into the bodies of fetuses: as you continue getting your period throughout the time the IUD is in your body, missing a period and realizing you’re pregnant works just as though you don’t have an IUD. Additionally, the IUD sits just inside the uterus, flush with the muscles, and has a very very low percentage of expulsion, as well as a 99.6 percent success rate.
I research my birth control methods before using them. The IUDs available now are NOT the IUDs available in the 80s. Educate yourself.
oh I get it HA: I should “educate” myself on the latest methods for destroying unborn children. Right. I’ll get right on that, Human Abstract. :P
here’s some help for you on IUD’s and their mechanism HA:
There are many shapes and components of IUDs. The action still appears to be a “post-fertilization effect” abortive, in that they prevent a developing human being, already fertilized in the Fallopian tube, from attaching itself to the endometrium of the uterus.
“An intrauterine device (IUD) inserted into the uterus through the vagina and cervix usually interferes with implantation by causing a local inflammatory reaction. Some IUDs contain progesterone that is slowly released and interferes with the development of the endometrium so that implantation does not usually occur.” (p. 58)(Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed., Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Comp. 1998.
According to a study reported in the Dec 2002 American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (“Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: Update and estimation of postfertilization effects”, by Stanford and Mikolaczyk, v 187, n6, 1699-1708):
“The possible mechanisms of action for the IUD in humans can each be classified as occurring before or after fertilization…Hormonal evidence indicates that the IUD does not generally inhibit ovulation in humans. The majority of women who are wearing hormonally active IUDs that reduce or eleminate menstruation still have ovulatory cycles as assessed by hormonal measurement and follicular ultrasonography.
“The possible postfertilization mechanisms of action of the IUD include the following: slowing or speeding the transport of the early embryo through the fallopian tube, damage to or destruction of the early embryo before it reaches the uterus, and prevention of implantation…It is well established that IUDs cause endometrial changes, with the type of changes present dependent on the type of IUD…
“The Levonorgestrel-20 IUD (Mirena; Schering AG Pharmaceutical, Germany), developed in 1980…is highly effective to avoid clinical pregnancy, with a pregnancy rate around 0.1 per 100 woman-years. The levonorgestrel IUD has a minimal effect on the ovariam pituitary axis, and up to 85% of women are ovulatory during its use [i.e. these women still release an egg during each ovulation]. The rate of ovulation may increase with length of time that the device is worn.
“The strongest biologic effect of this IUD is local suppression of the endometrium…In addition, inflammation in the endometrium has bee demonstrated to be similar to that of inert IUDs. These endometrial effects result in decreased bleeding over time, and some women using the levonorgestrel IUD have amenorrhea [no bleeding]. However, amenorrhea does not necessarily imply that ovulation is not occurring but that it is primarily due to the endometrial effects…Cervical mucus favorable to the transport of sperm has been documented in the majority of ovulatory cycles during use of the levonorgestrel IUD.
“Overall, the consensus has been that levonorgestrel IUDs, like progesterone IUDs, act primarily by suppressing the endometrium, an effect that is likely to prevent implantation. However, endometrial effects may also result in the inhibition of sperm migration…
“In previous debates on the mechanism of action of the IUD, there was some discussion as to whether postfertilization effects were a “major” or “main” effect of the IUD. Our model illustrates clearly that, although the majority of pregnancy prevention occurs before fertilization, postfertilization effects make substantial and essential contributions to the effectiveness of all types of IUDs.
“With regard to the postfertilization effect of the IUD, it is likely that the majority of this effect occurs before the embryo enters the uterus.
“As discussed, the low recovery of ova from the uterus in IUD users, as well as the lack of hCG rise in more recent studies of IUD users, suggest that the major postfertilization effect is destruction of the early embryo in the Fallopian tube, in the same way that the major prefertilization effect is likely to be destruction of sperm and ova.
Of course, what do I know. I’m just a stupid prolifer. :(
Well, yes, Angel, but that’s not the point. : )
You’re discussing hormonal IUDs, which are an entirely different animal and work similarly to birth control pills. I wouldn’t know much about that, to be honest, as I react poorly to hormones in general and have never explored that route. The study you copy/pasted, in addition to being cropped significantly, said “possible” post-fertilization affects of the IUDs are as follows. Again: no one knows for sure. Of course, it’s up to you if you don’t want to risk it or whatever, but for those of us who don’t care, leave us to our well-researched decisions.
,,,,,,was not cropped significantly, but thank you for trying to blow it off…..
your decision was not well researched in my opinion.
Your decision is not interested learning the truth, it is interested in finding something to support your lifestyle.
BTW, the copper IUD is also discussed in this article:
“For the copper IUD, this embryocidal effect may be more a result of inflammation and direct toxicity, whereas with the progestin IUDs it may result more from inhibition of transport through the Fallopian tube, along with prevention of implantation, preventing long-term viability of the embryo…
Human Abstract: you are the typical proabort who comes on this blog and is not interested in honest discussion. You are closed minded and like others before you set the bar so high as to what science you will or will not accept that it makes any discussion with you unreasonable.
You are here to justify your choices and lifestyle. Too bad for you …. and your unborn babies…:(
You have my sympathy. Some intellectual honesty might do you good.
Well, bummer……… another post nuked, maybe for having the blastocyst link that Angel requested.
Didn’t think that one should go on my blog, so itz gone.
I have only two basis for what I believe, What GOD has revealed to me and what the ‘book’ says.
I am open to being corrected.
If anyone sets their ‘relgious tradition’ above the ‘book’ and/or above what GOD has revealed to them, then they are skating on thin ice.
Not all religious tradition is correct or good.
Not all religious tradition is false or bad.
Jesus condemned the pharisees because they set their religious traditions above God’s will.
HE went so far as to say that their religious traditions made God’s word null, void, of non-effect, impotent.
Think about that. Is your first allegiance to your ‘tradtions’ or to GOD?
I am not advocating for or against ‘contraception’.
I am not setting one ‘christian’ denomination above or below another.
I ‘AM’ saying that denominational affiliation is of no value in terms of your salvation, your membership in the body of Christ and your citizenship in the kingdom of God.
You cannot find evidence in the ‘book’, no matter what translation you prefer, to support the notion that any other membership is superior to our membership in the body of Christ.
The aposotle Paul wrote that when we receive Jesus, Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ according to HIS good pleasure and distributes spritual gifts according to HIS good pleasure.
How do you top that?
I am merely stating, and I believe the ‘book’ and Holy Spirit confirm, the only basis we have for communion and fellowship is Jesus.
If that makes me an ‘evangelical’ in your eyes it does not limit me, except in your eyes. My identity is in Jesus.
If you are familiar with the ‘book’, and I trust that you are, then passages of the new testatment will come to mind that echo what I have written. Indeed HOLY SPIRIT will bring them to your remembrance as Jesus promised.
Search the ‘book’ and ask Father God if these things be so.
If I receive you as fellow members of the body of Christ, what harm, what wrong, what sin is there in that.
If I refuse to acknowledge or make a distinction based on your chosen denominational identity, how does that harm you or reduce you in any way if I receive you as a brother or sister in Christ regardless of your denominational identity?
Did Jesus not shed HIS blood once, for all?
Are we not all partakers of that same blood?
Have I rendered a disservice to any of you in any way in the things I have written?
I have honored your conscience. Will you not honor mine?
yor bro ken
Posted by: angel at July 12, 2009 10:13 PM
Ken: I have one question for you: do you support contraception?
—————————————————
Angel,
I support honoring the conscience of another when the ‘book’ is not clear on a particular matter and when GOD has not given me specific direction concerning the matter.
Personally, for me, I never was comfortable with ‘contraceptives’. It did not seem to me to be compatible with trusting GOD as I have come to know and understand HIM and HIS ways.
But I leave it to others to hear for themselves from GOD what HE would have them do.
Abortifacients are another matter. They are designed to kill those who are, not preventing those who may yet be.
I do not smoke cigarettes. I do not advocate smoking cigarettes. I believe it is unwise, though I do not believe smoking cigarettes is a sin unless GOD reveals to me that it is a sin for ‘me’ to smoke cigarettes.
The ‘book’ says nothing about tobacco products.
Not every one who uses tobacco products contracts a deadly disease.
I would not be disappointed if tobacco use stopped tomorrow, but I would not be in favor of a law to prevent it’s use.
I consider irresponsible alcohol use much more grievious than using contraceptives.
I would not miss either, but I would not work to prohibit either.
Col 2:18-23
18 Let no one defraud you by acting as an umpire and declaring you unworthy and disqualifying you for the prize, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions [he claims] he has seen, vainly puffed up by his sensuous notions and inflated by his unspiritual thoughts and fleshly conceit,
19 And not holding fast to the Head [Jesus], from Whom the entire body [of Christ], supplied and knit together by means of its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20 If then you have died with Christ to material ways of looking at things and have escaped from the world’s crude and elemental notions and teachings of externalism, why do you live as if you still belong to the world? [Why do you submit to rules and regulations? — such as]
21 Do not handle [this], Do not taste [that], Do not even touch [them],
22 Referring to things all of which perish with being used. To do this is to follow human precepts and doctrines. [Isa 29:13.]
23 Such [practices] have indeed the outward appearance [that popularly passes] for wisdom, in promoting self-imposed rigor of devotion and delight in self-humiliation and severity of discipline of the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh (the lower nature). [Instead, they do not honor God but serve only to indulge the flesh.]
AMP
I hope that answers your question to your satisfaction.
yor bro ken
ps: Why can you not accept the fact that I am just a fellow who Jesus chose to save and that is enough for me. I accept you as one whom Jesus chose to save. That is enough for me.
“The children of the barren one shall outnumber the married one.”
It’s from a passage in Issaiah.
I believe it is referring to ‘spiritual’ chidren in the LORD as contrasted with biological children, who may or may not become believers in Jesus.
yor bro ken
Who’s more close-minded, Angel, the person who comes to a blog centered around a differing opinion, or the person who comes to a blog to get her opinion confirmed?
My contraceptive choice was well researched. Sure, there’s a possibility of post-fertilization affects. I just don’t care.
Minnow:
Birth control:
– Hijacking a woman’s hormones either causing her body to think it is pregnant or causing her body to flush out a fertilized ovum.
– Inserting a device into her uterus to create a physical block or hormonal block to prevent implantation.
– Implanting time released hormones into the woman’s body.
– Saturating the woman’s vagina with spermicidal agents.
– Wearing a latex barrier.
– Sodomy.
– Coitus interruptus.
– Invasive surgery on the woman or man’s body.
NFP:
– Waiting a couple days.
I think there are obvious differences here both in method and effect.
I find it odd that there are people who have reservations against eating meat that have been fed hormones, or foods with pesticides, but have no qualms with hijacking their own bodies natural hormones and saturating their bodies with spermicides.
Human Abstract: “I just don’t care.”
Isn’t that pretty close-hearted?
Minnow:
I never said that the intent was incorrect. The intention is to be a good steward to creation and to responsibly size one’s family according to one’s ability. And this is a good and noble intention.
It is the *means* that I think is incorrect. And it is through this means that so much attitudes and expectations on pregnancy and babies that has significantly altered our culture.
Regulating one’s diet is a good and noble thing. But we will agree that there is a difference between cutting back and dieting (which is safe and natural) and doing the following:
– Binge/purging
– Radical Stomach stapling
– Gastro-intestinal surgery
– Diet/Metabolism pills
– Anorexia/Starvation
We could say that they are all the same, couldn’t we since they all accomplish the same ends – weight loss. But again, there is nothing wrong with the noble intention of regulating one’s diet – it is the *means* in how this accomplished that is incorrect.
My contraceptive choice was well researched. Sure, there’s a possibility of post-fertilization affects. I just don’t care.
Posted by: Human Abstract at July 14, 2009 12:37 AM
this statement doesn’t make sense. Why research if you don’t care! lol
Very typical of a liberal who wants what they want and doesn’t care the cost to another. Very logical and very sad indeed. :(
Paolo the intent is the same with NFP as other forms of contractption. If one is pretending then they all are.
Posted by: Minnow at July 14, 2009 6:18 AM
no the intent in NFP is very different from the intent in contraceptives.
In NFP every act of sexual intercourse is open to life – even those occuring during the definitely infertile period or the mostly infertile period of a woman’s cycle.
In contraception, every act of sexual intercourse is closed to that possibility and is consciously reaffirmed each day when a woman takes the pill and each time a woman/man uses any form of birth control.
There is absolutely NO comparison between the two mindsets. They are completely opposite of one another.
I’m sorry Ken but I don’t support your position on contraceptives.
contraceptives are harmful to women, to marriage and to unborn babies.
I think you must look at the morality of contraception. Either you believe contraception is morally wrong or you do not.
Because Ken, I want you to understand why contraceptives are harmful and that using them is an affront to the unmatched love and generosity of God.
I really believe if you were to read some of the Catholic encyclicals on this matter you would find them most interesting.
I suggest reading the Gospel of Life (evangelium vitae) and Humanae Vitae:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
In all honesty, they are better read in book form. Many Christians find a great deal of truth in these documents.
Peace bro ken!
I wish that people would acknowledge (for once) that it’s also a matter of human nature when children want to grow in their mother’s womb before they’re born…
Because you can’t police nature…
I can’t work out what this means.
Paolo and Angel are, appropriately, on the side of the angels! Keep up the good work!
There is absolutely NO comparison between the two mindsets. They are completely opposite of one another.
angel, that is not true — a person could, conceivably, practice NFP with a mindset that is closed to the creation of new life, and a person could use condoms or whatever with a mindset that is open to the possible creation of new life.
Contraception treats the human body as something to be thwarted or gotten around; NFP treats it as something to be worked with and within. They are opposite approaches to the subject of delaying pregnancy, but not necessarily opposite mindsets. The vast majority of people who practice NFP do so with a mindset that is open to life in the sense that they would accept a child even though they are not actively seeking one, but many people who contracept do so as well. I know you can’t accept that fact, but it is true.
Angel said:
“No one is sacrificing their sexual relationship to use NFP. Couples using NFP do not have sex only when they are infertile. But they may choose to do so, together. Sometimes both spouses will feel this is a sacrifice, sometimes it will be one spouse. During this time of abstinence they learn to express their love for one another in other ways that are nonsexual.”
They are sacrificing having sex when it would be most enjoyable. And every post I’ve seen on this assumes that they have sex only when they are infertile.
“It is about understanding and respecting each others bodies, about using the intellect and the will in a meaningful way in marriage.”
So having sex doesn’t involve understanding and respecting each other?
“It is about self sacrifice – putting God and your spouse first and yourself third.”
You sure make NFP sound more righteous than sex.
“It is about accepting the total person in your spouse including their generative capabilities.”
No, it isn’t. Not when you only have sex when you think there is no possibility of a child. You are accepting all of them only when there’s no possibility of life, and when the possibility of new life exists, you are rejecting that as well as the sexual relationship.
“If anyone is defrauding their spouse it is those who use contraceptives. The are pretending to give all to their spouse when in fact they are not. They are holding back something that is a very important part of themselves, and of their sexuality.”
I’m in complete agreement… I just don’t think NFP is all that much better.
“I don’t think anyone on here has said that NFP makes them better than anyone else. I believe that it is the BEST way to space children in marriage.”
Why do you think your wisdom on child spacing is better than God’s? Do you think it is an accident that He made pregnancy nine months long, or that breastfeeding mothers are less likely to conceive? Do you think it is impossible to practice NFP with a “contraceptive mindset” or for people who use condoms to be open to the possibility of life? What if they use the condoms fully aware they might break, and believe that if the condom breaks and they conceive it will be God’s will and they will welcome a baby? That seems a whole lot like NFP to me, only without the feeling righteous about denying oneself stuff.
And I don’t use birth control, so you are not arguing against me.
“I believe it makes me a better person, a better Catholic – relative to what I would be without using the method. Generally speaking, couples who use NFP have a divorce rate that is very low – under a few percent I think.”
Again, you ignore the possibility (and existence) of not controlling one’s fertility. Why do you think that you would be a worse person and a worse Catholic if you did not control your fertility? There are Catholics who do not.
“To be honest, I think unless you have used NFP, it is very difficult to understand what I and Paolo have written here. I have seen it all the time in my teaching of NFP. Post-contracepting couples amazed at the effect NFP has on their lives.”
I tried NFP. Worst month ever. I am so happy being open to my husband, not having to deny our God-given sexuality when we want to be together. I am thrilled to have a beautiful daughter, and I am excited to be having another child, and I will be very pleased at each child God sends me. I don’t think that I need to not have sex with my husband in order to understand and respect him, or communicate with him, nor do I feel that he doesn’t respect me because he finds me attractive and wants me. There is still self-control and understanding and compromise–of course! But you can have a close relationship and good communication even while– (gasp)– having sex whenever it’s convenient and enjoyable for both of you!
If children are blessings, why is one method of trying to prevent them the best rather than welcoming them unequivocably being the best?
When I said you can’t stop the human sex urge and that people should also be careful sexually, I wasn’t contradicting myself at all.
Look at Europe. People there are free from sexually repressive attitudes for the most part, although there are still some religious extremists there. Yet abortion rates there are the lowest in the world.
Robert,
I edited your comment. You know why.
Like many topics re. abortion this one seems derailed somehow. The spacing of children (@ 2 years apart) is meant as a period where women can regain the minerals lost during pregnancy. This loss of minerals (to her child) is a natural process and such does not make the babe a ‘leach’ especially when this period is meant as a period of replenishment for the woman. [A time dedicated to rebuild her nutrient deficits will greatly lessen any ‘problems’ for future pregnancies.]
In some ancient cultures (knowing//following this link) meant that (when married) men did not engage in sex during this period – yep, for two years. Note: such abstinence means a respect for his wife AND his family. [By inference, the baby is given THE BEST chance to thrive. The sexual pleasure of the parents is a secondary concern.]
It seems odd that this discussion is all about the sex act and not at all about the baby. If adopted, such of a mindset is set towards children, then one is apt to treat the babe as a sacred/special gift rather than an offensive piece of garbage to be ‘wasted’ via abortion.
Thanks, John. Good to know.
* * *
Robert, when there’s no better argument, please, call us sexually repressed. I don’t know about abortion rates in Europe. Do you have good data on that? A few things to consider – are their reporting methods the same as ours? If they do have fewer abortions – could it be because their populations are older, therefore less fertile and/or sexually active – and not due to contraceptive use?
“I suggest reading the Gospel of Life (evangelium vitae) and Humanae Vitae.”
angel, excellent. For non-Catholics – these sources are not as daunting as their names might imply and one shouldn’t be afraid to read them because they are “Catholic”. For lighter reading, for teens, there are many great Catholic books/authors. You can “google” “Catholic books on sexuality” to find them, or go to a Catholic bookstore. Catholic churches often have small book collections in the back of church that are offered for sale, even sometimes free to the public.
angel, I researched because I want to know what contraception does to my body. I know it could possibly have post-fertilization affects. I just don’t care. To clarify, that’s what I meant.
At the stage you’re talking about, it truly is a lump of cells in every meaningful way.
Human:
Yes, a lump of cells chock full of meaning.
Robert Berger: “Look at Europe. People there are free from sexually repressive attitudes for the most part, although there are still some religious extremists there. Yet abortion rates there are the lowest in the world.”
Europe (except for the religious extremists who live there) have the lowest birth rates in the world. That is why people are calling it “Eurabia” because it will soon be an Islamic majority.
Europe also has legalized suicide. Germany has a lawsuit to allow incestuous marriage. Marital fidelity is not expected. Age of consent is very low. Sex trafficking is a major issue.
And if you slide over to poorer countries in Europe to the East, you will find that as you cross the former Berlin wall, abortion rates skyrocket.
Europe is no golden country. It is dying and will soon be replaced by Islamists.
To you, perhaps, Janet. To me, it’s just like any other clump of cells, really.
HA, no one is surprised you don’t care if your children die. We do.
But you earlier claimed that copper IUDs had no post-fertilization effects, and then when someone quoted articles stating otherwise, you first denied them, then stated you didn’t care.
If you did your research, you knew all along that there were possible post-fertilization effects, and you were just yelling “Ignorance!” to be an a**, or possibly to mislead others who might be reading.
Remember that the average pro-lifer knows a whole lot more about reproduction than the average pro-choicer. And most of us would rather not take the chance that our birth control (if we use it) will kill our children. The issue isn’t that using the pill will definitely kill a child every month–it is that sometimes, when breakthrough ovulation occurs, it could kill a child.
Unfortunately, you do have the legal right to murder your children. But if you claim to be pro-choice, you should not be against the choice of others to not kill their children. And it doesn’t make sense that you would want to hide information about how various types of birth control work. How is it “pro-choice” to lie about what a product does and get a woman to use it not knowing it may kill her children? Feel free to opine about whether a zygote is a human being, and whether his or her life is important, but assuming everyone will feel the same way as you and thus not giving the information that an IUD could result in the death of a human blastocyst is not honest or pro-choice.
If it’s okay to do that, then it’s okay for me to assume that no one needs birth control at all, or that no one would ever want to kill a developing child, and to make sure no one has information on any birth control or abortion at all.
I said I was aware of POSSIBLE post-fertility affects. Those affects are POSSIBLE, not certain.
Prove to me that the “average” pro-lifer knows more than the “average” pro-choicer. I’ve seen about equal amount of knowledge on both sides, so I would heartily disagree with that statement, particularly as you insist that post-fertilization affects would kill a child, not a fetus. If you know more, it certainly doesn’t show.
Women are informed about the affects, possible and certain, of their birth control. It’s right there in the packet they receive with the information, all they have to do is read it. Trouble is, most don’t.
Human Abstract: When a person fumigates a building without checking to see if there is is someone who may possibly be in the building, that is called “Criminal Neglect.” This is prosecuted in courts and fined or jailed for failing to be responsible in checking to see if any human beings may have been harmed or killed.
The only place you can fumigate without being charged with criminal neglect for failure to check to see if anyone may or may not be harmed is a woman’s uterus.
My uterus is inside me. It’s a part of my body. A building is outside of me. It belongs to a person, but isn’t a part of a person. There’s a significant difference. There are no other circumstances like pregnancy, and frankly I find it a bit insulting that you’re comparing a part of my body to a building.
Human Abstract: It’s just simple law.
Another example is shooting a gun.
If you know it’s a human being and you shoot and kill – it’s murder.
If you don’t know it’s a human being and you shoot and accidentally kill a human being – it’s manslaughter.
If you don’t know it’s a human being and you shoot anyway (but don’t kill a human being) – it’s criminal neglect.
The only time it is legal to shoot is if you know for *certain* it’s not a human being. Claiming ignorance is not enough when it comes to human lives – you have to know with certainty.
The fetus is a fetal *human*. The infant is a infantile *human*. When you kill a fetus, you kill a human being.
Killing an innocent human being is always wrong – it doesn’t matter where they are located, whether in a building, test tube or womb. I’m sorry if you feel insulted, but I am being frank. People are always so sensitive about eating harsh chemicals that affect their body – except if it has to do with sex.
I just came across a great website on “Gods Plan for Life, the core teachings of the Church, including Contraception.
Go to www dot godsplanforlife dot org
Replace “dot” with “.”