Stanek weekend question: Is abortion the problem?
When attending a pro-life conference several years ago I spotted an epiphanal poster, published by One More Soul. It helped me on my journey to understand that contraception is a root of abortion. Here’s the first half. Click to enlarge…
After all, contraception literally means “anti-conceive.” Behind the use of any mechanical methods to stop conception is an anti-baby mindset.
So it’s probably obvious that the use of contraception isn’t the root of abortion either. It starts with a mind hostile to the prospect of conceiving offspring.
And what is the root of that? I’ll write my own answer to that question as a comment on Sunday.
Here’s the other half of that poster, btw….
Dec.01, 2012 8:45 am |
Contraception, 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.
This is way too simplistic. People who use contraception are not “hostile to the idea of conceiving offspring.” Statistically speaking: most people use contraception at some point in their lives, and most people become parents at some point in their lives. This suggests that people use contraception as a matter of timing, so that their kids can arrive when financial conditions are ideal for raising a family. Of course, some people do use contraception simply as an enabler for unhealthy, promiscuous behavior. But others use it in a responsible way, looking to become parents at the time that would be best for them and for the child.
Note that many married couples use contraception too, so I find it hard to prescribe chastity as the cure-all.
The solution is that we need to educate people on when parenthood begins. When you’re pregnant, you are not a “mother-to-be,” and the father is not a “father-to-be.” That language needs to stop right now. Parenthood begins at conception, not at birth. Therefore, you cannot time your parenthood through abortion; you can only become the parents of a dead child. Abortion is fundamentally different from contraception. One kills; the other does not.
I fail to see how the use of contraception increases poverty and leads to poor education and poor health. That is, in fact ludicrous. As a Conservative I can assume you oppose programs like food stamps and welfare. And that you oppose universal health care. And that you oppose paying teachers a livable wage and giving money to school programs. You refuse to be part of the solution for the problems of poverty and lack of health care, or even to get out of the way of those of us who are doing something. . That is pretty much what conservatives believe, isn’t it? and you then use these issues to push your agenda, which is anti-birth control. If you cared about these problems you would do something about them or at LEAST not hinder those who are doing something about them.
I can only hope that your readers are too smart to be suckered in by your faulty reasoning and blatant attempts to promote your agenda.
Kelsey, whether contraception is used in a “responsible way,” and for “timing” or “financial conditions,” the fact remains that at the time a couple relies on contraception, they are hostile to the prospect of conceiving offspring. You may not like the word “hostile.” But the simple fact is that they don’t want a baby at that moment in time, no matter how noble you think their intentions are.
I agree with the diagrams…I would jut emphasize where the roots get their respective nutrients/growth from - the soil they are planted in… contraception is rooted in sin, while chastity is rooted in virtue. Perhaps it is time we turned the soil.
Kelsey, there is nothing simplistic about these diagrams.
Jill, I look forward to your Sunday answer.
Kelsey, the fact sometimes a flower can spring to life out of the most wretched and foul soil doesn’t mean that is the best place for flowers to grow. In other words, just because some people can use contraception responsibly and not get burned doesn’t make using contraception a wise decision, or something that should be promoted publicly….
I see contraception as no more intrinsically evil than money, alcohol, or technology. All of these things are very helpful in aiding evil if evil is already in the heart. Sin is quintessentially a matter of the heart, and to focus to heavily on the physical conduits, like any of the things mentioned above, is to get unnecessarily sidetracked.
Candidly, I don’t think there’s much difference between having sex with a condom, having sex at infertile points in the cycle, or abstaining from sex to avoid pregnancy. The physical instrumentality is different but in all three cases the desire of the heart is really the same. The goal is to not bring new life into the world
And, I really can’t agree with the idea that it is always wrong for a husband and wife to no longer desire more children. 1 Timothy 5 says that a man who does not provide for his family is worse than a non-believer. Accordingly, if a family is already struggling financially, I would be hard pressed to condemn them for not wanting another child. Yes, God can provide in strange ways, but a glance at the poverty and hunger across the world, even among Christians, shows that there are not always miracles. I also recall hearing a story about a wife who made the difficult decision to sterilize herself after having something like 15 successive miscarriages. I can’t bring myself to condemn her either.
Large families aren’t practical any longer that we are no longer an agricultural society and also don’t have extended families.
Perhaps the root of the problem is that sexual desire does not correlate with either the desire to have children or the ability to take good care of them.
It is amazing — We can all see how devastating the Contraception Culture has been to so many lives and deaths. All the divorces and adultery and pornography and abortions…. not to mention the breast cancers, blood clots and strokes.
And yet, we are so very quick to accept contraception into our own lives and relationships. Somehow, we always think that we are immune to the toxic affects that plague everyone else.
thank you for this graphic. My young niece is a newlywed…. a devout young Evangelical Christian who guarded her purity well, but already they are on chemical contraception. I’m trying to help her see that there is so much greater love to be shared by enjoying Natural Family Planning.
Yo! DeniseNoe — We need large families in order to sustain Social Security, MediCare, and to pay off the national debt that this generation has accrued.
America as we know it will not survive another 1.5 generations, if we do not start having stable marriages and kids again, three or four per family.
In other words, our Constitutionally governed America is doomed.
I have a great difficulty with this analogy because I REALLY HAVE THIS ‘THING’ FOR THE DANDELION and WHAT IT REPRESENTS: tenacity, brightness, warmth, life. I know, I know, it is shunned as just a weed, but after a long winter (-40F), this old-heart finds much joy in that very bright yellow and intense green. It may be unkempt, but it sure is welcoming. To me it says: ‘YES, WE CAN START AGAIN! WE’VE HAD IT ROUGH, BUT DEEP ROOTS WILL CONQUER EVERY TIME.
The rose is the product of very sophisticated gardening techniques. It also has those d*** THORNS (not disabled-friendly). I could not get over how incongruous it is to use the dandelion to represent DEATH-MURDER-ABORTION,
Can the agricultural society be revived?
Can the extended family be revived?
So if you use natural family planning you’re not hostile to the idea of children? What a bunch of hogwash! If you do not have sex during your fertile time you ARE hostile to the idea of more children, as much as someone who uses a condom. I seriously think pro-lifers who want to judge others on this while they use NFP are the biggest bunch of hypocrites to walk the face of this earth.
I hate the pill and would never use it again BUT when I was on the pill I had an unplanned pregnancy. I wasn’t committing adultery even while I was on the pill and the baby was my husband’s. I also didn’t run out and kill the baby who dared to be conceived. My husband and I thought this was God’s will and we had our son who is now 6 years old.
We use condoms but we are open to life that God creates. So if our condom fails and we conceive we would welcome the new life with joy.
Contraception does not come from an anti-life stance for pro-life people anymore than NFP does for Catholics.
Maybe the root is selfishness and not contraception. There can be many VALID reasons to contracept and that doesn’t mean you’re a harlot or you’re gonna kill babies. Seriously. Oversimplify much?
Contraception keeps God out of our bedrooms. It allows the man to view his mate as a means to an end. It says to our Lord I trust you in every part of my life except my fertility. It takes a perfectly functioning organ and shuts it down. All chemical contraceptives have grave side effects. The pill was the source of my husbands current sex addiction. It started because he could use me (and I do mean use me) for his own pleasure any time he wanted without worrying about pregnancy or how if I was willing to participate in the marital embrace or not. It taught him to disrespect the amazing God given gift that fertility and a women’s body is. I can only say that the pill ruined my marriage at a very early stage of our union. That was 35 years ago and we are still dealing with the results of unfettered disrespect for the way God intended our marital relations to be used-both for pleasure and our union AND for fertility. When you separate them disaster happens.
Also-the concept on the poster is what the Catholic Church as taught for 2000 years. Pope Paul Sixth predicted that when contraception became widely accepted as it did in the 60’s the effects would be widespread and disasterous. The Anglican Church was the first to fall for the line of contraception and one by one except for the Catholic Church all other religions fell and it has lead to the widespread immorality that is present in our culture and the 50% failure of most marriages. Read Humanae Vitae and see the prophetic wisdom of the Church.
Ah, here is the Runs with Premise we’re so familiar with hearing from the other side:
“As a Conservative I can assume you oppose programs like food stamps and welfare. And that you oppose universal health care. And that you oppose paying teachers a livable wage and giving money to school programs. You refuse to be part of the solution for the problems of poverty and lack of health care, or even to get out of the way of those of us who are doing something. . That is pretty much what conservatives believe, isn’t it? and you then use these issues to push your agenda, which is anti-birth control. If you cared about these problems you would do..”
1. It is a liberal fallacy that their social programs are “doing something” and that conservatives don’t care about other people. Too many forget that when you feed a man a fish he eats just one fish. Then, he puts his hand out for another one.
2. It is a fallacy that people who DON’T belong to a self-identifying group have the best notion of what that group SHOULD be doing. “If you were a real Christian, you would..” “If you really wanted to help you would…”
3. But, Runs with Premise also believes in the current goal of the insurance lobbyists and pharma companies: get and keep Americans hooked on ‘health care’ which is really not about HEALTH at all. Health care is out of control in this country and it’s not because we are sick with an insurance deficiency. I do not get headaches because I have an Aspirin Deficiency. I do not experience depression because I have a Prozac Deficiency. I don’t have trouble sleeping because I have an Ambien Deficiency. Think about that. Really think about it. Follow the money and see who will benefit from the financial situation and who will not. Think for yourself!
Children need basic dental care, fixes for broken bones, etc. They do not need offices full of bureaucrats denying them care for diseases because all that elective and non-essential birth control, abortion, and other NON-essential drugs and products are using up too much taxpayer money.
Be careful what you wished for, Runs with Premise. You may grow to detest what you got.
Jill,
These posters “hit the nail squarely on the head”…
God told humanity to be fruitful and multiply…twice…once to Adam and Eve, and again to Noah after the Flood…last I checked, He has not changed His mind…
…when we try to do things another way from God’s, people die…
I look forward to your message tomorrow.
God Bless!
So Karen, how is NFP not using your mate as a means to an end? If you are not having sex with your spouse when you’re fertile aren’t you doing the very thing you claim condom users are doing?
I don’t think sex is recreation but I think sex is for more than just procreation. Sex is powerful and that is why it shouldn’t be used to casually. Aside from baby making it binds people emotionally as well. There is nothing wrong with a man and wife wanting to have sex with each other and enjoy their marital bed. And there may be valid health or financial reasons why they don’t want to actively seek another pregnancy. That doesn’t mean they’re anti-life.
Wow – My daughter has a beautiful poem that goes right along with these posters, except it views dandelions as unwanted children, more or less the weeds Margaret Sanger talked about.
The real problem is not the seed – the problem is the soil (as in parable of the weeds (actually soils). Hardened hearts, soil that’s been salted too much. Soil with no life in it. Deliberately barren actually, and kept that way.
I’m with John McDonnell – I don’t like the dandelion use here – it reminds me of Mother Theresa “How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers.” And what child, in their innocence doesn’t pick up dandelions and blow them around?
What really should be depicted growing are sturdy family trees, because if a tree is stunted, mis-shapen and unfruitful, no more trees will grow. The tree of life is really a solid metaphor.
DeniseNoe says:
Can the agricultural society be revived?
Can the extended family be revived?
There is no need to revive agrarian society. Your first premise (that large families only belong to agrarianism) was falsely assumed, in the first place. The Baby Boom was hardly a product of agrarian culture!
But…. if society collapses entirely, then we will find a great many subsistence farming families surviving in the aftermath. I hope it does not come to that.
The extended family can be revived, if we want it. We can do anything that our forefathers did. We only need two thing, the things that the Greatest Generation had during Baby Boom: 1) A willingness to self-sacrifice, and 2) optimism in the future.
Current generations are selfish and fatalistic. We must change, or perish.
It starts with adding the word Responsibilities to our vocabulary. It should be more common than Rights.
Yes, Chastity is the answer many problems in society. Chastity is a life-long virtue which includes remaining open to life in marriage. It keeps the unitive and procreative aspect of the marital embrace intact. Without Chastity, marital love dies. Thank you for sharing these posters, Jill. God bless, Cindy
If NFP is exactly the same as using condoms, why do people get so upset about NFP in general?
Answer: It’s not the same. NFP is a method that, when used for serious reasons to postpone pregnancy, is morally licit. It is a responsible use of our fertility which does not violate the natural law.
God is the author of life. Children are a blessing. All 7 of mine are a blessing, whether they are “practical” or not. Children are not a commodity – they are a gift from a loving God. To treat them like a good – “I’d like 2 please, a boy and a girl, and hold the disabilities.” is anti-life. They are people, with eternal souls, not hamburgers.
Abortion is the fruit of the desire for sex without babies. It directly follows. Until we, as a society and as individuals, repent of that disordered desire, we will suffer with the consequences.
For the majority of our marriage, my husband and I have used NFP TO conceive. We’ve tried to time things just right in order TO conceive.
But, when our daughter was born, I wanted time to heal(physically), as I had some health issues during the pregnancy, and was recovering from a c-section. I also wanted to have time to ENJOY my baby, as I have wanted to be a mother since I was FIVE.
We used contraceptive foam for a very short period of time for those reasons. If, however, we HAD conceived during that time, we would have GLADLY welcomed the child. We were NOT “hostile” to the idea of conceiving, I needed time to heal…
simple as that.
As someone who is on the sidelines in this debate (not way up in the bleachers like Denise :) ) I think I’ll stay out of this one.
But John,
“I have a great difficulty with this analogy because I REALLY HAVE THIS ‘THING’ FOR THE DANDELION and WHAT IT REPRESENTS: tenacity, brightness, warmth, life. I know, I know, it is shunned as just a weed, but after a long winter (-40F), this old-heart finds much joy in that very bright yellow and intense green. It may be unkempt, but it sure is welcoming. To me it says: ‘YES, WE CAN START AGAIN! WE’VE HAD IT ROUGH, BUT DEEP ROOTS WILL CONQUER EVERY TIME.”
This makes me laugh (on the inside) because I was immediately reminded of my favorite comic strip. It’s one from Tiger by Bud Blake. The little brother shows his big brother Tiger a dandelion flower, and is told, “Oh, thats just a weed.” To which he replies, “Does that mean it’s not pretty?”
I cut it out twice and have looked all over the internet, but can’t find it. I’d like to put it on the cover of my facebook page. :)
So any time anyone wishes to delay something happening until a better time, they are “hostile” to it? That’s an idiosyncratic use of language.
Ah yes, everyone who uses contraception (the vast majority of the population) is “Selfish”, “Lusty”, “Materialistic”, “Individualistic”, and “Hedonistic”. Thanks for clearing that up.
Just imagine, the notion that anyone on the planet might ever want to have sex without getting pregnant at a particular time. Truly shocking and repulsive.
In “The Roots of the Problem,” I suggest you add a label stating:
“Lower EPA fuel efficiency”
In “The Cure,” I suggest this label:
“Higher EPA fuel efficiency”
I’m sure that other deep thinkers here can suggest even more causal relationships.
Kelsey wrote everything I would say, and much more politely than I would say it. Sydney M’s post was excellent as well. I love hearing how because I used condoms I obviously hated the very idea of kids and would have been cool with my wife aborting them, or something.
I don’t understand how people don’t get that not everyone is ready or able to raise a big family, not everyone wants that for their life, and people who don’t want more children can try to avoid having more kids without hating children or automatically approving of abortion if their contraception fails. Seriously. If any of you could actually discuss what problems you have with contraception without making stupid generalizations about why people use contraception, maybe people would actually listen to you.
“Contraception keeps God out of our bedrooms. It allows the man to view his mate as a means to an end.”
If that’s true, than your husband is dreadful and using you for pleasure only if you guys ever use NFP to avoid sex on your fertile periods. That makes exactly as much sense as saying a dude is using his wife because they want to contracept. It’s pretty sexist too, who says that the woman isn’t using the guy?! Haha.
I think perhaps (after reading some of the posts) that there is a basic flaw in the way scriptures are interpreted. I remember a little of my seminary training and I am still celibate (and a virgin, too like the apostle John). Jesus was celibate – but He doesn’t count, eh? My virginity is like unbroken soil to a farmer. great deal of work on my part (and even more, by God) allows a good yield. The words are: creative fidelity. My abstinance is NOT counter to God’s instruction to ‘be fruitful and multiply’. My ‘fruit’ are the joys of God’s giftedness, of intimacy and freedom; and, the joy of helping you to become His gift/ His child/ His Joy.
Prolifst I bet 1 Timothy 5:8 has been on a lot of people’s minds recently.
Prolifst you’re also right IMO that what matters most in relation to sin is what is in the heart. So each person needs to ask what is prompting them to use condoms or NFP versus not simply remaining chaste in their marriage. We should ask ourselves whether this desire/this action affect any other area of my life, and does this thinking affect me in other areas of my life? We can also ask ourselves: is the subtle difference between a condom and no-condom meaningful in some sense? Sometimes we can’t really notice the difference between two actions until we try the other action…and then once tried, sometimes we can’t imagine doing the other action ever again.
Not to be too preachy but the power of human beings to rationalize our actions is incredible (at least it has been for me)…what is the difference between one drink and two drinks…how bad is it to smoke a single cigarette, etc…?
I think the statistics on abortion bear out the fact that a majority of human beings can’t handle sexual liberty very well. Making laws that pander to the few who can handle their sexual liberty is not a good idea. Does anybody think it would be a good idea to not have laws forbidding the murder of adults?
“Sometimes we can’t really notice the difference between two actions until we try the other action…and then once tried, sometimes we can’t imagine doing the other action ever again. ”
Lol, and sometimes you try NFP or some variation of naturally spacing children and dislike it so you go back to just using condoms!
Bullocks. That’s really all I have to say about this tripe.
“I can only hope that your readers are too smart to be suckered in by your faulty reasoning and blatant attempts to promote your agenda.”
You must be new here. The only people crazier than Jill Stanek are her regular readers.
Sydney,
I don’t think the message in these posters is about judging people who do not use NFP.
IMO, it is about doing things that are more consistent with having faith in a loving God and the Natural Law. It is about re-prioritizing our values IMO. I don’t think the poster is suggesting this re-prioritizing would be easy, but only that it would be best for society.
When the whole world is insane, the sane people appear to be “crazy.”
Obama got re-elected by offering “free” food stamps and contraception…. like that’s just what America needs to get back on top.
The culture embraced contraception 50 years ago. Now we have epidemics of pornography, divorce, unplanned pregnancies, abortion, breast cancer, and STD’s.
Meanwhile, the couples who use NFP have lifelong marriages (98 times out of 100), and seem zealously crazy about sharing their secret to happiness. Perhaps the world needs more of this kind of crazy.
Tyler, the problem I have is with those who use NFP and claim that is somehow morally superior when it is STILL BIRTH CONTROL!
I live in a 2 bedroom condo. the area of the country in which I live is very expensive. How are my husband and I supposed to house more children? Should we conceive 5 children and shove them all in one bedroom?
now if my husband and I conceived we would figure out how to make it work but I don’t think that means we should actively try to conceive right now (even though I DO want more children!) But I need to take care of the ones I have right now. You don’t know my financial situation Tyler nor does any pro-lifer yet it seems there are many who would judge faithfully married folk like myself for using non-hormonal contraception to space children. Again, I would never kill a child that is conceived but somehow it is deemed immoral that my husband and I would try and prevent conception in the first place. At least preventing it with condoms. Somehow NFP is morally superior even though the end result is the same. I do not get that! Don’t understand the self-righteousness.
But no worries. My husband and I will do what works for us and our marriage and I have absolute faith in a loving God that if He really wants to bless us with another child a piece of latex will not stop him.
Jack – “LOL” is not a point.
I was trying to be fair. I wish you wouldn’t be so defensive all the time. The message in the posters is an integrated message – to simply focus on NFP – is missing the point.
Jack, how can you say that the use of contraception has been beneficial for society as a whole? I realize this is a difficult question. For one, how do we quantify the enjoyment people who use contraception experience, etc..?
Moreover, just because a direct link between an abortion culture and contraception can’t be definitively proven doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. However, there are studies that have shown that women who use contraception are more prochoice than women who do not use contraception.
Sydney M what difference do you see between NFP and contraception?
Sydney my understanding of NFP is that it is much more than a method to control births. It is a way of life and an attitude. If you focus on the end results of the activities – there is no difference, but if you focus on the means some differences start to appear.
But no worries. My husband and I will do what works for us and our marriage and I have absolute faith in a loving God that if He really wants to bless us with another child a piece of latex will not stop him.
A sincere question – if you truly believe the above statement about God – why use latex then? I am trying to be funny or offensive here. I realize this is a sensitive topic. It is a sincere question. Please don’t reply with – “why use NFP then?” – let’s leave NFP out of this for the time being and let’s just focus on why we don’t trust God completely with our fertility.
“God is the author of life. Children are a blessing. All 7 of mine are a blessing, whether they are “practical” or not. Children are not a commodity – they are a gift from a loving God. To treat them like a good – “I’d like 2 please, a boy and a girl, and hold the disabilities.” is anti-life. They are people, with eternal souls, not hamburgers.”
Seriously?! This is so offensive. I always considered my three kids to be more like pies actually. And I will confidently say that your life may be blessed with the fruit of your womb, but your comment above is completely lacking in the fruit of the Spirit.
Tyler, I could ask why use a seatbelt then. Because after all, why not just trust God COMPLETELY with your safety while driving.
I think God gave us BRAINS Tyler. I think he gave us brains to use and just because we can get pregnant doesn’t mean we always should.
I know there are differences between condoms and NFP. For the record, I would prefer to use NFP but my husband does not want to. I love the naturalness of NFP and that it is free. But I do not see any differences between the MINDSET of those who use NFP and those who use condoms. Both camps want to space births at times. So how does it matter how it is done? It is still a hostility to children is it not? It is still trying to divorce procreation from sex. If you’re refusing to have sex because you are currently fertile…well how is that a morally superior attitude to a woman who gives herself sexually to her husband anytime he wants but uses condoms? I could argue that using condoms is morally superior because the couple never withholds themselves sexually from their spouses.
“When the whole world is insane, the sane people appear to be “crazy.”
This is what every patient in every mental hospital tells himself. I’m not mad, the rest of the world is!
“I was trying to be fair. I wish you jwouldn’t be so defensive all the time. The message in the posters is an integrated message – to simply focus on NFP – is missing the point.”
I’m defensive? Maybe a bit, but I am not the only one out of us two that ever gets that way. I focus on NFP because it seems distinctly hypocritical to exempt it from the things you all accuse people who use other forms of birth control of being. Using condoms can only come from “hedonism, selfishness, individualism, lust, and materialism” (according to this poster). No matter how you are using the condoms in your marriage, you can’t possibly be coming from a place of “altruism, self-control, generosity, idealism, and focus on relationships”. However, NFP is exempted from this judgement, even though the results if it’s used (delaying or preventing conception) are exactly the same. It’s just ridiculous to me.
“Jack, how can you say that the use of the contraception has been beneficial for society as a whole? I realize this is a difficult question. For one, how do we quantify the enjoyment people who use contraception experience, etc..?”
Tyler you seem to think I think contraception is this awesome perfect thing. I don’t, I just think it depends on the individual. I think condoms was a good idea for me, considering I have two kids that I am able to care for and not five that I wouldn’t be able to properly care for, that doesn’t mean I think everyone is exactly like me and needs the same things out of life I do. That’s my beef with people pushing the NFP thing or the must have big families thing. It doesn’t work for some people no matter how much you want it to. You can’t “quantify” something that’s as individualistic as using contraceptives, I don’t think. It might be a negative for you, obviously, since you have a moral opposition to it. It’s a positive for me, or other people who are living their own lives and know how to run them better than you guys do.
“Moreover, just because a direct link between an abortion culture and contraception can’t be definitively proven doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. However, there are studies that have shown that women who use contraception are more prochoice than women who do not use contraception. ”
I think that has more to do with religion than anything. The correlation is more likely that women who don’t use contraception are more likely to also not believe in abortion, rather than women who use contraception are more likely to be cool with abortion. It still doesn’t prove a link between abortion and contraception other than certain popular religious traditions are dead set against them both.
” To treat them like a good – “I’d like 2 please, a boy and a girl, and hold the disabilities.” is anti-life.”
That’s not the attitude of plenty of people who contracept. The attitude for a lot of people is more like “well should I stop with two kids and be able to feed and house them with no help, or have another one and end up on food stamps or housing?” or even “well I have a lot of mental health problems, and another kid and all that stress might be too much right now”. It’s like you guys deliberately refuse to see that people might have really serious reasons for wanting less children, and this is why people are going to get defensive and angry about what you all say. It’s not so much that you are anti-contraception, it’s that you are constantly painting us all as selfish, immoral hedonists that think children are designer goods to be ordered when you want. It’s offensive, and inaccurate.
Tyler, I use contraception. And yet when pregnant I have refused testing for disabilities because I didn’t care whether my children had disabilities. I was prepared to love them no matter what. Abortion would never have been a consideration.
I would like more children. I am also aware of the financial pressures my husband faces providing materially for me and our 2 children.
My husband and I have a faithful, monogamous marriage. We are also both pro-life. We would welcome any life we conceive. But we are not actively seeking to conceive right now. Doesn’t mean we hate kids. Doesn’t mean we don’t wish we had more money and could have tons more kids!
The Pill and IUDs aside which we know can cause early abortions and so are definitely anti-life…..
Personally I agree with you Sydney M and others in that there’s not much difference between NFP and using a condom.
I think the issue goes much deeper… into the hearts of the man and woman. Do they value and respect human life? Or are they ok with ending a life they have created? The latter view is more problematic than using a condom or not, surely?
We have two daughters and we feel this is enough for us and I am by far the most pro-life of all my family and friends. Not wanting more children is surely not anti-life. (If we were to conceive, that child would be considered most precious and welcome of course!)
Sydney M wrote: “For the record, I would prefer to use NFP but my husband does not want to.” It may be hard for you to see the connection, but his selfishness is being fed by the use of condoms. NFP will require him to get over himself and think of someone other than himself. And, this new found virtue will carry over into other areas of your marriage. God bless you on your journey, Cindy
joan says
“When the whole world is insane, the sane people appear to be “crazy.”
This is what every patient in every mental hospital tells himself. I’m not mad, the rest of the world is!
Yes. This is what the crazy world says.
Do you read books? Your example of the lunatic in the asylum is straight out of GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy — Chapter 2: The Lunatic. (You don’t strike me as the sort of person who reads Chesterton, or books.)
But there is also the example of what happens when an insane world encounters the truth. They tend to crucify the truth-teller.
Our addiction to contraception is the cause of our widespread poverty (especially for women/single mothers), our national debt crisis, divorce rate, STD epidemic, breast cancer epidemic, pornography and degradation of women, etc….
And the best solution, offered by our re-elected president, is mandatory contraception insurance.
We offer an alternative… it is a new attitude. A new way of life. One that does not depend on government subsidies and chemical poisons.
So some of you are saying that because on that one night in a blue moon when my husband and I go to bed without a child, or two, or three, sleeping in there with us, and we have half an ounce of energy remaining to be intimate, and have not properly consulted a calendar or my bodily signals, in part because I have been breastfeeding for like six years straight, so we use a condom, we are selfish, immoral, hostile to babies, think our kids are hamburgers, and are akin in mindset to people who abort their children . ?!
These visuals are right on. The contraceptive mentality is damaging to individuals and to families, and therefore, it is damaging to society. The image should also include homosexuality as a fruit of contraception, b/c it completely separates procreation from the sexual act in people’s minds, hearts, and spirits. People, wake up, this contraceptive mentality is completely unnatural and we have all bought into it hook, line, and sinker. The government has flooded the population with contraception, moral-less sex ed, and abortion through its funding and programs, and we are left with the rotten fruit of this social experiment. This is the main reason for our soon to be coming economic and social collapse. The government’s solution? We need more of it!!
Hi Del,
I really do wish folks would read Chesterton and Tolkein rather than Ayn Rand because there wouldn’t be such intellectual smog to hide the deception. But alas, that’s not the way it is. Why I have blind folks (joan) who would swear that all-are-blind (Its the only way to be!)
No offense, but no, no, no. Jill, with all due respect, I think you have it wrong. I think *selfishness* is the root of abortion, porn, whatever. Not contraception. There have been some great comments already (Sydney M, Jack, X, etc) but i would like to ad again, the reasons that people contracept are many, and a medical device can’t be just touted as evil just because it’s often used for evil.
People have been aborting and committing sexual sins long before there was contraception, so even right there this oversimplified poster is flawed at its core.
It’s just so frustrating. There are people who use NFP for the wrong reasons, and people who use condoms/whatever for the right ones. It’s a heart issue, not an action issue.
Like Jack said, I just love being told that when I used a barrier method with my husband, whom I adore, when we are unequivocally loyal and faithful to one another, and we would welcome a child if one were to be conceived and never even consider aborting him/her, that we are basically pro-abortion adulterers and are anti-life. Lovely. That’s just great.
I am not denying a connection among sexual immorality and contraception and abortion in the world, but no one has come remotely close to showing me why people like ME and my husband of ten years should never use condoms.
Same here lifejoy. And it appears that they aren’t just saying “never use condoms,” but when you use condoms with your faithful, life-loving husband, you’re basically having an abortion. Seriously? I’m just so sick of this mindset.
I’m going to spend time with my loving, faithful, pro-life, kid-loving husband.
“Our addiction to contraception is the cause of our widespread poverty (especially for women/single mothers), our national debt crisis, divorce rate, STD epidemic, breast cancer epidemic, pornography and degradation of women, etc….”
Well, you’ve convinced me by citing such a vibrant and compelling body of credible, peer-reviewed research supporting your laughable assertions.
The studies are already out there. You can look them up for yourself, if you are academically skilled and tenacious enough to tackle them.
But you will not be persuaded by any science that contradicts your ideology. You will tell me that Planned Parenthood/Guttmacher has already “refuted” and “debunked” the peer-reviewed publications.
However — you are correct on one point: My use of the term “addiction” is personal. I don’t know of any serious researchers who speak of our habit of contraception as “addiction.” All I know is that even the slightest suggestion that we should reduce our dependence on contraception causes people like Joan to behave like a junkie who can’t get her fix.
GK Chesterton: (Propagandists) “insist on talking about Birth Control when they mean less birth and no control. “ “Normal and real birth control is called self control.”
Many of these comments make me sad. :(
The Truth is that God has a wonderful plan for each of us, and it doesn’t include contraception. Truly, it doesn’t. If you don’t believe in God, that will not mean much to you; so be it. If you do believe in God, I wish for you the joy of living God’s plan for love and sexuality. I wish I had discovered this plan about 20 years before I did, and am so grateful that God is merciful. My life is pretty wonderful despite my mistakes, but I have no doubt that God had more in store for me than I can imagine and I will not know exactly what graces and blessings I said “no” to until it is revealed at the end.
First, I’m really looking forward to hearing what Jill has to say.
Second, let’s put aside for a moment the question of the morality of NFP vs condoms and the fact that many people who would NEVER consider abortion use condoms and look at the larger picture. Is there anyone here who can seriously say that contraceptives have fueled people’s capacity for sexual immorality. Have made it possible for casual sex to be considered normal by a vast majority of people. Have diminished in many people’s minds the sacredness of sex, and reduced it to something that they DESERVE to have without the “burden” of reproduction. I’m not saying all who contracept feel this way (of course!), but can we honestly say that contraception has not fueled this idea that sex can and should be divorced from it’s reproductive capacity? What, aside from something that promises to make people sexually available at any given moment without much risk of pregnancy, could have produced a similar state of moral decay? NFP, no matter how many people may use the method with sinful intentions, could never have accomplished what contraceptives have accomplished in the realm of casual sex outside of relationships. And no matter how many people here use condoms within committed marriages, nothing can change the fact that contraceptives have wreaked havoc in society as a whole.
“I think God gave us BRAINS Tyler. I think he gave us brains to use and just because we can get pregnant doesn’t mean we always should.”
God gave us brains to interfere with healthy bodily functions?
Lrning, I appreciate your concern. I do believe in God, in fact, I love God. Very much. So does my husband. But I honestly believe that I, in fact, *am* living out God’s plan for love and sexuality. Let’s just say my husband and I have a very, very …. um… satisfying marital life, and we are fully connected not just physically, but spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually. And you know what? We use a barrier method. OMG!!! I know. But we do, and somehow, we have an absolutely wonderful, rich, vibrant marriage in which we serve God and live faithful, wonderful lives.
I’m not just buying the claptrap that NFP couples’ marriages are all unicorns and rainbows. I’m just not. I’m sure it’s great and awesome, but they’re humans and no amount of planning and researching etc. can make it a perfect marriage. My wonderful mother and father, who are Christians and have a beautiful marriage even after 25+ years, used (use?) NFP, but that does not mean they have a perfect marriage, or even a better one than my husband and I. I’m glad that NFP only is great for you, and God’s plan for you, but that doesn’t mean that my use of a barrier method negates the love and life-affirming nature of my sexual relationship with my husband.
Libertybelle, just for clarity’s sake the RC does not believe the condom (or any contraceptive device) is sinful – the Church believes using a condom to contracept is sinful. The RC doesn’t care if you decorate your house with inflated condoms, along as you don’t use them during sexual intercourse with your marriage partner.
Libertybelle, I am also curious as to why you would characterize contraceptive devices as “medical” devices – what exactly do they cure?
(The following is not directed to you LibertyBelle) For those individuals who use condoms to prevent STDs it seems that by putting their faith in a piece of latex they are a little too late to the game. Doesn’t it seem like bigger questions should be asked, like why are you sleeping with someone who has an STD or that you can’t trust, etc…
And CT, you do raise a good point, but I mentioned earlier that sexual immorality has been around longer than contraceptives.
Contraceptives might have aided it, I guess, but it’s a human nature issue.
Historically, believe it or not, we’re not in the worst immoral times ever, even though it might seem that way to Christians. We have a tendency to paint the past in nice, pretty, moral pastel colors.
Hi Tyler. :) First, yes, I know what the RC teaches. But I’m not Catholic, so, as we’ve discussed before, I’m not under Catholic authority.
Second, hahaha you really made me laugh with the mental image of decorating my house with inflated condoms…. :D
Why I said medical devices… um, I’m exhausted. I’m not sure. But then, I’m not exactly sure what contraceptives would be categorized as (and I’m talking barrier methods here, as I believe hormonal bc and iuds, et al are harmful to the body).
And I COMPLETELY agree with your last point. I do not believe condoms should just be widely used just ’cause, and that many are lied to in their supposed effectiveness in not only preventing pregnancy, but also in preventing STDs. Great point.
I am aware that you not Catholic now, LibertyBelle. If you are aware of Catholic teaching can you please present it accurately. Thank-you. Just for fairness sake. (If you tell me your Church’s teachings I will try to present them fairly too.)
Which teaching do you want me to present accurately, exactly? ANd how did I not?
“Contraceptives might have aided it, I guess, but it’s a human nature issue.”
Of course it’s a human nature issue! It’s not that people were more moral in the past. If contraception had been widespread and available in ANY time, people would have behaved exactly as they behave now. It’s not that we’re so immoral and people in the past were so moral, but that in the past people were, by necessity, unable to deny the fact that sex and reproduction go hand in hand. Contraceptives paved the way for the sin in our hearts – the lust the selfishness, etc to run unfettered. It’s not that contraceptives create this sinfulness, but they enable it where it lies and create a stronger temptation than might be there otherwise. Again I am leaving aside, for the moment, the question of the morality of contraceptive sex to focus on this bigger truth that the picture very acurately captures.
Excellent diagram. I would add “abandonment of orthodoxy” and “arrogance” to the roots as well.
LibertyBelle you said that the RC believes condoms (“medical devices”) are sinful:
“and a medical device can’t be just touted as evil just because it’s often used for evil.” December 1, 2012 at 6:25 pm
This is not accurate – it is the use of condoms during sexual intercourse that is sinful according to the RC; the condom (or contraception method) is not sinful in itself.
CT, I grasp what you’re saying, and agree somewhat. But I still think the picture oversimplifies. I really do.
Okay, okay. I sacrificed clarity for expediency.
You can’t just write off all condom/barrier method use during sexual relations between two people, even married people, just because sometimes condom/barrier use during sexual relations is used by persons with pro-abortion, anti-life, promiscuous, whatever, intentions.
Is that more accurate?
CT, how do condoms interfere with a healthy bodily function? Doesn’t NFP do the same then?
My point being that people have brains and God gives us free will and choice. We choose to buy life insurance, where to work, what to eat each day and yes, whether or not to have children at any given time. Sometimes God supersedes our free will and we conceive despite our planning not to. That doesn’t mean that planning not to conceive at any certain point is immoral or evil. By God’s own design (and what you all exploit during NFP practice) God allows for a lot of nonprocreative sex! If God wanted us to get pregnant every time we have sex He could have made it that way. But He did not. That in itself says to me that pleasurable non-procreative sex is not sin. Using condoms is not sin.
I get it that for Catholics it is against your church teachings. So be it. I wouldn’t dare to tell Catholics what to do. But to make these absurd blanket statements about how us pro-lifers who use contraception are just itching to cheat on our spouses and we want to kill babies and we’re harlots and devils and whatever else you can think of to call us…well it just isn’t true. And it makes your arguments against contraception look weak and stupid and without any merit. If you care to argue your points why you think contraception is wrong, go ahead. But first you’re going to have to accept the fact that not everyone who contracepts is promiscuous or wants to kill babies.
This whole argument reminds me of when I argue with gun control people who view all guns as evil. I argue that guns are not evil and can actually be good but guns in the hands of immoral/evil people will never be good.
LibertyBelle says:
we have an absolutely wonderful, rich, vibrant marriage in which we serve God and live faithful, wonderful lives.
I believe you and am happy for you! I’m not talking about NFP or a sure-fire “perfect” marriage. I’m talking about God’s plan for love and sexuality. It doesn’t include contraception. I can’t even begin to explain this truth in a comment box and, anyway, much has been written by far better brains than mine. I just hope that everyone that has made the decision to use contraception will continue to pray about it and be open to/listening for the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Lrning, I do appreciate your concern. But as Sydney M pointed out above, it’s entirely capable for Christians to use condoms/whatever to enjoy non-procreative sex and still fully enjoy God’s plan for love and sexuality!
I just *still* fail to see how contraception itself is the root of all these societal ills (ESPECIALLY the economic ones – for real), when the real root of the problems is human nature, selfishness, etc. Not contraception.
I have to say that this has been an interesting thread from my perspective. I feel I have learned a lot on this thread. I tried to listen more and respond less frequently. I can relate to the feelings of sadness of some my fellow Catholic posters – but unfortunately my feelings are irrelevant. So with that I would like to share what I think I have learned from the posts today – perhaps they will benefit better discussion and more understanding between those prolifers who support contraception use and those who do not.
But before I begin let me state that I don’t think any prolife person who uses contraception hates children. (I noticed that it is how we (prolifers who oppose contraception) sound to you – that we believe you hate children like Kermit Gosnell.)
Here is a list of the things that I learned about the prolifers who support contraception use (and all of them provided reasoned and well-thought out replies):
1) Prolifers who use contraceptives use it for serious reasons such as finances.
2) Prolifers who use contraceptives believe that prolifers who don’t support the use contraceptions believe they are better than prolifers who support contraception use;
3) Prolifers who use contraception believe that it takes brains to use contraception or at least as much brain power as it takes to use NFP;
4) Prolifers who support contraception use believe prolifers who oppose contraception use but who use NFP are being hypocritical;
5) Prolifers who support contraception use believe that indiciduals can decide themselves which contraception method is best for themselves and can do a better job at this than the RC can.
First, let me address point 5 above and say that most prolifers who oppose contraception due so on the grounds that contraception violates the Natural Law and not because the Roman Catholic Church says so. The Roman Catholic Church has only agreed that contraception does violate the Natural Law.
digression…LibertyBelle, no one (including the RC) has ever said that by using NFP a couple will have a perfect marriage. (If life were only that easy, none of us we be visiting a website such as this.)
People who use contraception are not “hostile to the idea of conceiving offspring.”
,elsey. What kind of contraception did you use. Was it succeptable to breakaway ovulation? How many conceptions were flushed out of your system cause ‘it wasn’t the right time’ and in your mind it was “best for the child”. Women on contraception are in in denial cause they can’t stand to face that they are conceiving and flushing pregnancies.
Sorry LibertyBelle I don’t think acknowledged your polite greeting. Thank-you and a big hello to you as well.
“1) Prolifers who use contraceptives use it for serious reasons such as finances”
Sure, among other things. Not the least of which is just not being ready for another kid at the moment.
“2) Prolifers who use contraceptives believe that prolifers who don’t support the use contraceptions believe they are better than prolifers who support contraception use;”
No. I don’t take issue with your moral opposition with it. I take issue with being painted as someone who sees kids as conveniences and products, or someone who is (lets look at the picture up there again), hedonistic, materialistic, selfish, individualistic and lustful. If you think I am like that simply for using condoms, then yeah I do think it’s a snobby and inaccurate way to view contraception users. Simply being against contraception though, that doesn’t automatically mean that you think you are better than those of us that aren’t against it.
“3) Prolifers who use contraception believe that it takes brains to use contraception or at least as much brain power as it takes to use NFP;”
Lol I have no idea what you mean. Condoms don’t take brainpower, and I don’t think most people claim they do. I don’t think sex is something I have ever put like oodles of thought into anyway lol.
“4) Prolifers who support contraception use believe prolifers who oppose contraception use but who use NFP are being hypocritical;”
You are right on this one.
“5) Prolifers who support contraception use believe that indiciduals can decide themselves which contraception method is best for themselves and can do a better job at this than the RC can.”
You got it Tyler!
:) After a simple glance at the poster, how did I know, even before I looked at the comment count, that it would exceed 50?
I have both of these posted in the hall, outside my classroom, in fact. I do respect the feelings of those who feel irked by the premise, and who react accordingly (i.e. “if contraception is bad, and if I contracept, then I must be bad, and I can’t accept that, so contraception must not be bad”–which is not at all a logical string of ideas, but that will wait for a bit)… but two principles must be examined by anyone who claims to care about truth:
1) Is contraception intrinsically evil (above and beyond the WAYS in which one might freely choose to use it), or is it not? Mere opinion–including vehement ones, decorated with indignation–simply don’t carry the day, in discussions like this; if things are true, then they should be able to be demonstrated (and not simply asserted, forcefully and colourfully). In short: we should be able to discuss principles, and not simply fling forth some version of “I’m outraged/offended/slighted by this, and I contracept, and I’m not evil (etc., etc.)!” That does nothing to further the discussion at all.
2) Is NFP intrinsically evil, or is it not?
As for the issue of “this is a Catholic thing”: well… I’d gently assert that Catholics don’t think something’s true “because the Church says so” (i.e. with the corollary that “only those under Catholic Canon law need worry about Catholic teaching”); rather, the Church teaches what She teaches BECAUSE it’s true, not the other way around. The Church has pronounced the objective evil of any artificially-contracepted sexual act of intercourse; that might be a profitable topic, rather than the idea of “I’m not Catholic, so I needn’t bother my head about it.” That’s about as coherent as saying, “I’m not a physicist, so I needn’t worry my head about the law of gravity.” If a physicist is wrong, then fine: prove it, and have done. But if not, then pleading the idea that one is “not in that jurisdiction” really doesn’t help matters.
(*sigh*) This had to happen right before Sunday, when I take a day off from the internet, didn’t it? I’ll try to poke in on Monday, as soon as I can.
You can’t just write off all condom/barrier method use during sexual relations between two people, even married people, just because sometimes condom/barrier use during sexual relations is used by persons with pro-abortion, anti-life, promiscuous, whatever, intentions.
Is that more accurate?
LibertyBelle, not to press the point, but this isn`t accurate either. The Natural Law does not write off the condom or contraception, it simply says that it is contray to or not natural to our human nature. Our human nature says that sexual acts are intended to end in procreation. To purposefully thwart that intention is contrary to nature. Perhaps an analogy will provide some illumination here. Lets compare glasses to contraception. Glasses do not thwart the purpose of our eyes to see, they facilitate it. If we were to purposefully blind people that would be contrary to natural law because the purpose of the eye is to see. Contraception is akin to blinding someone.
“ In short: we should be able to discuss principles, and not simply fling forth some version of “I’m outraged/offended/slighted by this, and I contracept, and I’m not evil (etc., etc.)!” That does nothing to further the discussion at all.”
Pssh.. I don’t really care if you guys think I’m evil or participating in an evil act. Really, I don’t. I am sure I do plenty of things you guys think are evil. I do care if people prescribe me motives I don’t actually have or accuse me of thinking things I don’t. What you are seeing is people objecting to being portrayed inaccurately. We can’t have a discussion if the side against contraception sets up a strawman and knocks it down and claims to win.
Jack, please respond to my comparison of contraception to eye glasses.
Jack, what do you think the word “evil” means?
No one is acribing motives to contraception users. In fact, a person’s motives are almost irrelevant in why the Natural Law opposes contraception. Natural Law says the action itself of contraception is laden within intentionality that contradicts the intentionality that is inherent in the act of procreation.
Okay, I will reply to your comparison:
“LibertyBelle, not to press the point, but this isn`t accurate either. The Natural Law does not write off the condom or contraception, it simply says that it is contray to or not natural to our human nature. Our human nature says that sexual acts are intended to end in procreation. To purposefully thwart that intention is contrary to nature. Perhaps an analogy will provide some illumination here. Lets compare glasses to contraception. Glasses do not thwart the purpose of our eyes to see, they facilitate it. If we were to purposefully blind people that would be contrary to natural law because the purpose of the eye is to see. Contraception is akin to blinding someone.”
I can actually buy this. I suppose contraception can be considered contrary to nature in the way you describe. But you don’t give me a reason to care about that. It might have been natural for me to knock my ex-wife up once a year when we were married, but then I would have five kids that I wouldn’t be able to take care of now that I’m single. Nature doesn’t always equal good to me. It’s also natural for humans to be omnivores but I am a vegetarian anyway! Oh no! ;)
In all seriousness, you should explain to me why I should care if I am artificially altering my fertility with a condom or a vasectomy or what have you. Humans alter nature all the time, I don’t see why fertility and sex is some special case.
“Jack, what do you think the word “evil” means?”
Hmmm, Merriam-Webster says this:
”
Definition of EVIL
1
a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2
a archaic : inferior
b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor>
c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3
a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery>
b : marked by misfortune : unlucky
Me personally, I don’t really think in terms of good and evil, it’s just not a way I naturally think. I generally have a cost-benefit analysis running in my head rather than thinking of something as “evil” or “good”. Some things I think could never be okay to do, some things I think are okay. It usually depends on the effects from them.
“No one is acribing motives to contraception users. In fact, a person’s motives are almost irrelevant in why the Natural Law opposes contraception. Natural Law says the action itself of contraception is laden within intentionality that contradicts the intentionality that is inherent in the act of procreation.”
Lol, people are ascribing motives to contraception users all over the place on this thread. You might not have, but plenty of people have. Just read the thread.
I think every woman who is on the pro-life side needs to study the way women have been treated throughout history. Women were expected to bear as many offspring as possible, regardless of cost to their physical or mental health. There is NOTHING wrong with saying you only want a certain number of children. We face an overpopulation problem currently. If everyone were to stop using contraception, I can assure you that you would not like what you see.
Women, do you want to be used as mere baby vessels? Is this really what we want?
People: please understand how easy it is to disregard any validity of an argument that concludes that some of us view children as hamburgers. Seriously, to treat people who are so passionately pro-life with such disrespect is a complete abomination, and those of you who have discussed the topic without making accusations, I thank you.
Jack, when a married couple don`t feel they can afford more children, or have other serious reasons such as health issues for not wanting more children, the solution that is consistent with the natural law is to abstain from sexual activity all together (to be chaste within the marriage) or to practice NFP. The Natural Law never said that it will allow couples to have sex anytime they desire which is problem and difficulty because, I admit, human beings want to have sex all the time. This is the mystery of our existence and the complexities of our physical relationships – our desires don`t always mesh with what our physical bodies are meant to do. We can not frustrate the inherent intentions of our physical actions without violating the natural law. We desire to be Gods, the natural law (amongst other things) reminds us that we are not.
Jack we do alter nature all the time. The reason to care is to what end do we alter nature. Do we alter nature to facilitate a human action or ability, or do we alter nature to obstruct a human action or ability. It seems that for the most part we make changes to nature in order to facilitate the proper functioning of a human ability or action. I thought the eye glasses example made it self-evident as to why a person should care about breaking the Natural Law. Perhaps if you read it again when you are a less defensive mood you might appreciate it more.
I do believe it was on the vasectomies thread where it was stated that men who get them do so so they can sleep around on their wives. I mean…come on! my brother-in-law has one because my sister had some serious health reasons to not get pregnant again after 4 children. I myself would not want my husband to get one because of special health risks from getting shipped BUT I don’t see it as a moral issues. And I can assure you that my brother is a pastor and he is faithful to his wife and loves her.
Elly, overpopulation is a myth. That said I agree with you that there are valid reasons to space pregnancies.
My husband and I are so fertile together we got pregnant with our first when we were trying not to and we got pregnant with our second the very first time we didn’t use condoms. I suspect that if we didn’t use condoms we would have a gazillion kids by now. No one knows our financial situation. I stay at home to raise my children so that strangers don’t. If we had a gazillion kids I would have to work and I don’t agree with that. We struggle to put food on the table sometimes but we’re not on welfare or relying on others. We live very simply with no debt whatsoever and if we don’t have the money we don’t get it. I buy second-hand a lot. I make my own baby food to save money and I’m nursing. So we’re not saying no to children so we can have this lavish materialistic lifestyle. Yet my husband and I want to physically connect every so often. If we conceive despite our efforts not to we will accept the baby as a gift from God and trust God to provide for the new child. But don’t see how a piece of latex used to catch semen is going against natural law.
“. We can not frustrate the inherent intentions of our physical actions without violating the natural law. We desire to be Gods, the natural law (amongst other things) reminds us that we are not. ”
Okay. But I don’t see why I should care about if I am violating a “natural law” if it’s not causing me harmful effects. Using a condom hasn’t ever hurt me, lol. Having more kids I wouldn’t be able to take care of would hurt me and them. It doesn’t make sense why I would care about violating the natural law in this case.
” Do we alter nature to facilitate a human action or ability, or do we alter nature to obstruct a human action or ability. It seems that for the most part we make changes to nature in order to facilitate the proper functioning of a human ability or action. I thought the eye glasses example made it self-evident as to why a person should care about breaking the Natural Law. Perhaps if you read it again when you are a less defensive mood you might appreciate it more. ”
No, it didn’t make it self-evident. You made an assertion, that violating the natural law to alter the nature of a functioning organ is wrong. You didn’t tell me why I should care if it isn’t hurting me, and you haven’t explained why if the alternative to breaking the natural law is worse, then why shouldn’t I go ahead and break it.
I’m not being defensive.
Jack, to repeat something Paladian said, when people say contraception is evil – that does not imply that people who use contraception are evil. Yes, when they contracepted they did an evil act but who hasn`t
Sydney you have to look at the two acts involved – sexual intercourse (procreation) and contraception. Sexual intercourse is intended to create life. Contraception is intended to stop life. The intention of the act of contraception conflicts with the intention of procreation.
That`s it – really there is not much more to it than that. The above has nothing to do with the intentions of the couple desiring to be intimate. The desire to be intimate is healthy and natural and does not conflict with the natural law. As I said to LibertyBelle, blinding oneself would be against the natural law whereas wearing eye glasses would not be. Contraception is akin to blinding oneself.
Tyler, you are oversimplifying sex. Sex isn’t ONLY intended to create life. Song of Solomon talks about the erotic desire a husband feels for his wife. See I think God wants husbands and wives to have hot, heavy, passionate sex! I don’t think there is anything sinful with the erotic desire a husband and wife can feel for each other. It is fun, it bonds them and yes, sometimes it creates children. But that isn’t its ONLY function!
Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled…it says in Hebrews.
Jack, perhaps I misunderstood your question. Now I will try to answer the why you should care if it is not harming you question. This is a more difficult question to answer. But here is my off the cuff answer – it is about being truthful to the natural law. Your contraception may not hurt you physically but it may harm what your proper relationship should be with nature and the natural law. This gets a little spiritual or mystical if you would like. Basically the Natural Law assumes/recognizes what is right and wrong. If we willfully contradict the natural law we begin to become a little prideful thinking we can do whatever we like. The Natural Law desires obedience and submission from us but not in an over-the-top way, it wants obedience in a subtle and a gentle way.
Jack your way of looking at things is not uncommon, indeed I looked at the world in that way for many years. Rationality can be thought of in two ways – instrumental rationality (humans are tool makers and therefore we can do whatever we want to nature because human beings are detached and apart from nature); or rationality can be linked to the kind of reason that discerns and receives knowledge from nature and the environment – doesn`t impose ideas on nature, but receives ideas from nature. The concept of rationality that will allow a person to understand the natural law is the one that is submissive and not dominant, the one that receives from nature rather than imposes on nature.
Paladin could probably explain this better than I could.
“4) Prolifers who support contraception use believe prolifers who oppose contraception use but who use NFP are being hypocritical”
If the case being made against contraception is that you are telling God “I just want two”, as stated by some above, then YES. Why isn’t using NFP the same as telling God “not now”?
If the case is that sex and procreation should never be separated, that is a different point – perhaps more compelling, but not the one everyone is making against contraception.
Sydney, that desire is separate from the sexual act itself. You can have the desire to be intimate with someone while not actually being intimate with that person. Indeed, a person can be sleeping with one person and desiring someone else. That is how messed up human beings are, how fallen/distorted/confused our nature truly is.
Sydney, I have already said there is nothing wrong with the sexual act itself, or desire sex in the proper context.
However, you probably just don`t want to have sex with your husband when he is around or you are able. You have no control of your sexual desires or your knowledge. You have control over your actions. Your knowledge tells you that you should not have sex with another man because you are married and you would be breaking a bond with your husband. The natural law tells you that if you are to contracept during sexual intercourse/procreation you are breaking a bond with the nature and intent of the sexual act.
By the way, it is nice to hear that you love your husband so much. We don`t often get to hear about this deep love. Thanks for sharing.
“The natural law tells you that if you are to contracept during sexual intercourseéprocreation you are breaking a bond with the nature and intent of the sexual act.”
But, Tyler, if you have sex only when you are not likely to conceive, how are you not interfering with God’s plan for why we have sex?
“But here is my off the cuff answer – it is about being truthful to the natural law. Your contraception may not hurt you physically but it may harm what your proper relationship should be with nature and the natural law. This gets a little spiritual or mystical if you would like. Basically the Natural Law assumes/recognizes what is right and wrong. If we willfully contradict the natural law we begin to become a little prideful thinking we can do whatever we like. The Natural Law desires obedience and submission from us but not in an over-the-top way, it wants obedience in a subtle and a gentle way. ”
But this is where I don’t get you. I can do whatever I want, no matter how unnatural it might be, no matter how it is against any measure of right and wrong according to this natural law. The only reason I don’t do some things is because of consequences. I’m divorced, but I don’t go sleeping around with whatever random women because I don’t want the consequences and harm that may come from that, no matter how horny or lonely I may get the risks outweigh the benefits. I simply see no point at all in a moral system that says that certain acts (like using a condom within a monogamous relationship) are wrong just because. It doesn’t make any sense for me to incorporate that, it doesn’t mean anything to me when there is no harm as far as I can tell. And I do realize that I might not be able to “get this” because I don’t believe in God, but from my understanding your God doesn’t just consider things evil just because, there is always a reason behind it. If my understanding is flawed please let me know.
Maybe a good example for what I am trying to say is getting a tattoo, I have five tattoos. Now, it’s pretty obviously unnatural for your skin to be imbedded with permanent ink, but it is wrong? And if it is wrong, why is it wrong if it’s never had any harmful effects and doesn’t screw anything up with my life?
Or more applicable for this discussion would be something like oral sex (I don’t want to be overly graphic, mods should delete if they think this is inappropriate). I hear a lot about how contracepted sex is wrong and intrinsically evil, does that also apply to sex acts that don’t end up giving a “open to life” type of thing going on? This is an honest question, I am curious. Only sex acts that could lead to pregnancy are okay by this this natural law thing?
“The concept of rationality that will allow a person to understand the natural law is the one that is submissive and not dominant, the one that receives from nature rather than imposes on nature.”
I have no idea what this really means. I don’t think that’s your fault, I just don’t understand what you are getting at.
If the case is that sex and procreation should never be separated, that is a different point – perhaps more compelling, but not the one everyone is making against contraception.
Lifejoy that is the point the Natural Law makes about sexuality. If human beings don`t get in the way, that is exactly what happens, and occurs.
As far as I am aware NFP and the Natural Law is not about discerning God`s will (and I don`t think that is what the poster meant but you would have to ask her). I don`t think Catholics or Protestants believe it is possible to discern God`s will to the level of detail or certainity on these matters. I think the verse from Isaiah comes in at this point:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
We can understand and discern the natural law, but God`s will is beyond our grasp, except for what has been revealed to us already.
“Lifejoy that is the point the Natural Law makes about sexuality. If human beings don`t get in the way, that is exactly what happens, and occurs.”
This again makes me raise the question of what constitutes getting in the way? Having sex when we are not fertile for procreation, consulting our NFP app, seems to violate the coupling of sex and babies to me as well.
Jack, perhaps this is where the differing views of human nature come in. Yes you can do what ever you want, you have that capability, a free will. But there is a limit to that free will (in many ways). For example, your free will is limited by your intellect and your physical body. Futhermore, humans don`t always will what is best for themselves – think of all the addictions human beings are prone to, and how hard it is to do the right thing (ie returning a lost wallet full of cash when you could use the money to pay your rent).
I never said using condoms were wrong just because. I said using condoms contradict the meaning of the sexual act. That is a big difference.
It is hard to discern the purpose of skin in natural law, except to provide warmth and sensation to the body. If you were to remove all of your skin that would be contrary to natural law. Getting a tattoo is most likely simple a preference for how you would like your skin to look. It may be disrespecting a more overt commandment in the Bible to respect the Temple of the Holy Spirit (the body) but that has nothing to do with the natural law.
Regarding your question about different sex acts I will let someone else with more familiarity with the natural law answer that question. But generally, my understanding of the natural law would stipulate that yes all sexual acts should be geared to procreation.
“Kelsey, whether contraception is used in a “responsible way,” and for “timing” or “financial conditions,” the fact remains that at the time a couple relies on contraception, they are hostile to the prospect of conceiving offspring. You may not like the word “hostile.” But the simple fact is that they don’t want a baby at that moment in time, no matter how noble you think their intentions are.”
At the time a couple relies on NFP, they are hostile to the prospect of conceiving offspring. The simple fact is that they don’t want a baby at that time, no matter how noble you think their intentions are.
But, Tyler, if you have sex only when you are not likely to conceive, how are you not interfering with God’s plan for why we have sex?
Lifejoy, because God planned infertile periods.
“But generally, my understanding of the natural law would stipulate that yes all sexual acts should be geared to procreation.”
Having sex during a time when you are not likely to conceive is not geared to procreation. Am I getting annoying yet?
Jack, why don`t you consider reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It does a better job than I ever could of explaining the natural law (and the Catholic faith to boot!)
Lifejoy, having sex during the infertile periods is still geared towards procreation. If conception does not take places during these times it is not the fault of the couple. They did nothing to prevent conception.
Good night folks.
I can’t take seriously any meme that lumps individualism with lust and hedonism. There is no greater institution in this country than the individual. Our strength rests upon the dreams and work of individuals. John Locke’s revolutionary emphasis on the power and value of individual rights and freedoms shaped the views of the men, such as Thomas Jefferson, who defined what it means to be “American”. Collectivism seeks to mitigate the responsibilities that individualism rests on. Freedom without responsibility isn’t sustainable, and responsibility without freedom isn’t livable.
Again, Tyler, this makes some sense, until you, and/or others, make the claim that intentionally avoiding fertile periods is (1) not interfering with using sex for procreation and (2) not an indication that a couple does not want a baby at that time.
Truth is that I was already convinced a couple years ago that family planning is not what God intended. In the same way that working 40 hours a week in front of a computer, eating candy, and putting children in daycare is not what God intended. We adapt to the realities imposed by a corrupt world. I won’t call those things sinful, but I could make a convincing case that they come from some less than desirable societal deficiencies that in turn result from individual sin.
All that said, I may need a very depressing but therapeutic trolling session on some pro-abort sites so that I can remember who my real adversaries are. For those who think they value children more profoundly than others of us, I might suggest you do the same.
Hey Jack –
My understanding as far as Catholic views on oral sex is that it is fine as foreplay but not as the “end goal.” Sex is intended to be open to procreation in action (if not necessarily in timing, since infertile periods are structured into a couple’s natural sex life) and there’s one thing that pretty much must happen for that to be the case, so anything that intentionally interferes is considered unnatural but most things leading up to that are not. This is where the “premature” questions usually come in and again, to my understanding, as long as it is not the intent of the action then no one has sinned. Of course, there are Catholics who believe oral sex is not good, or not good for their relationship, just like there are non-Catholics who believe this, which is fine. I have also at times seen some Catholic people claim that oral sex is sinful or wrong but I don’t believe they are correct, I mean I also once saw someone take it further and argue that manual stimulation is also wrong, so sometimes you will get people asserting their preferences as moral fact. But I don’t believe that oral sex is considered objectively wrong or disordered by the Church. Maybe an actual Catholic can correct me if I’m wrong. lol
Alexandra and Jack – when the “LOL” are used after talking about Catholicism it appears that you are mocking Catholicism. I know you are not. For example, I think Alexandra was using to mock herself and show some humility with self-deprecating humor.
I think you would find it disconcerting if I put ”LOL” before or after every comment I made about atheism or liberitarianism. When Catholics share their faith they are generally not trying to mock anyone. Unfortunately, many Catholics, including myself, are so used to people misunderstanding the Catholic faith and being hostile toward it that we end up reacting to the misunderstanding rather than responding to it.
Alexandra, I don’t think what you said is accurate about the Catholic faith and the natural law perspective on sexual matters, but I will let someone else explain.
Lifejoy, I am not sure which person you are referring to who said those two statements. With resepct to the second point I don’t think anybody has asserted that position. I don’t think I have. With respect to your first point I think you have to acknowledge the difference between the commission of acts and omission of acts. There are definitely sins of omission and sins of commission. However, not all acts of omission are sins or amount to violations of the natural law. Neither are all acts of omission equivalent in their error/sinfulness/transgression of the natural law. For instance, omitting to have sex during fertile periods does not amount to a transgression of the natural law while omitting to help a drowning person does. Similarly, there is a difference in kind between not having sex during the fertile period and purposefully disrupting the procreative act during that time. For example, it is not a transgression of the natural law to close your eyes (not having sex during infertile periods) in order to go to sleep, but if you were take a fork and scoop out your eyeball (using contraception) you would be violating the natural law. Closing your eye, or not seeing eye, is part of the nature of the eye. Removing your eyeball form your skull, on the otherhand, is against the natural law. So even though removing the eyeball from your skull and blinking/clsoing your eyes both prevent a person from seeing they are not equivalent acts with respect to the natural law.
“Alexandra and Jack – when the “LOL” are used after talking about Catholicism it appears that you are mocking Catholicism. I know you are not. For example, I think Alexandra was using to mock herself and show some humility with self-deprecating humor.”
I think that every single other person reading it would get the same interpretation you did, unless they were really trying to be offended.
Jack, I just thought of analogy that may help you to understand why you should be concerned about following the natural law and how not following it, can bring harm (not always, but sometimes). The natural law is like a limited government – there are a lot of areas it does not govern and therefore permits a considerable amount of freedom, but there are also certain things/actions that are governed, which are governed so that human beings and human relations can run smoothly. Failure to recognize the natural law is like anarchy – you have lots of freedom, too much, and in results in chaos.
Good morning, Tyler. I think the biggest reason I disagree with you is because I view sex as much more than just procreative. Yes, sex can lead to babies, but that is a small part of it. I also believe that recreational sex between married couples is good, necessary, and healthy. Therefore, your eye/glasses analogy fails, because I don’t believe that contraception blocks the only, sole purpose of sex. It delays one aspect of it.
Does that sum things up?
Good morning LibertyBelle
LibertyBelle – what do you mean by recreational sex?
Is recreational sex the exclusive domain of married couples?
Additionally, hopefully I haven’t been merely expressing my own view, hopefully I have been expressing the truth of the natural law – limited by human capabilities.
How small of a part of sex is the procreative element, LibertyBelle?
And I will say again – I acknowledge that there is another element to the sexual act – the unitive aspect. The natural law merely says that you can’t separate the two ends of the sexual act without devaluing the meaning of the sexual act. In the short, the sexual act always (even sex during infertile periods) involves/has these two meanings. It is simply a fact that they cannot be separated. The unitive aspect can be ignored and the procreative aspect can be masked/contracepted but both of these aspects are present in each and every sexual act nonetheless. In fact, it is kind of inappropriate to include such things as oral sex as sexual acts. From a purely biological perspective they are not sexual acts – they are merely actions that utilize the organs of sexual reproduction incorrectly.
Yes, sex can lead to babies, but that is a small part of it.
I have done a good job of staying out of this thread but I have to open my big mouth up about this one.
Ugh! Babies are no small part of sex. Babies are the reason couples bond during sex in the first place (or at least they should be bonding but we know how sex has now been so warped, marriage has been dismissed, the family has been disrespected, etc.).
Believing that babies are but a small part of sex has led us to where we now find ourselves.
Does that sum things up?
Thanks Praxedes.
Now I see that part of the miscommunication and misunderstanding of the natural law is that people no longer understand what a sexual act is. Everybody has accepted the much broader definition of the liberal sexual revolution – that many non-sexual acts can be considerd sexual acts. However, we should all know that simply because the sexual organs are involved in some activity it does not mean that activity is a sexual act. There is only one sexual act, and that is the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman – and that is a biological fact. Sorry folks that is just the way it is.
I feel old. What has happened to our society? How did everyone become so confused?
LibertyBelle says:
I view sex as much more than just procreative. Yes, sex can lead to babies, but that is a small part of it.
Do you also believe God shares this view? Not the part about sex being more than just procreative, since fertile/non-fertile periods show us this is true. But the part about the procreative aspect of sex being just a small part of God’s plan for love and sexuality.
Ugh, I was rushing before church. Okay, babies aren’t a *small* aspect of sex, but only one aspect.
And yes, I stated before, I do believe that my view is supported by the Bible. If I am proven wrong in the future, I’ll be willing to eat my words. But I honestly, truly believe that sex between married couples can be non-procreative, and that it can still fulfill God’s purpose for love and sexuality.
LibertyBelle, I apologize but I am not exactly clear what your view of sexuality is. Our fallen human nature is not what God designed. Our fallen nature is a consequence of our sin. Our distorted sexual drive does not correspond to our understanding of what is good and reasonable. He designed humans perfectly in the beginning before the fall. Our desires used to correspond to our wills, but now our members appear to have a mind of their own!
But I think very few Church’s (Protestant or Catholic) teach this anymore. Both Protestant and Churches have been infected with progressive and liberal minded Priests and Pastors. It is a real shame because then the truth about our fallen human nature does not get taught.
But I honestly, truly believe that sex between married couples can be non-procreative, and that it can still fulfill God’s purpose for love and sexuality.
I believe this too, since not every marital sexual encounter results in a pregnancy. But I do not believe that we can intentionally remove our fertility from sex and still be fulfilling God’s plan for love and sexuality. I’m curious why you believe your view is Biblical? The only incidence of sex being purposefully rendered infertile in the Bible that I can think of off the top of my head is Onan, and he paid for that with his life.
Actually, LibertyBellle, I can’t count how many times the Bible rails against fornication in both the old and the new testaments.
LRNING, Onan was killed because he defrauded his brother. He lied. He said he would raise up seed to his brother and he didn’t. He didn’t die because he ejaculated outside the woman’s body.
I found this on the subject of Onan if any are interested:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
Sydney, you subscribe to a different interpretation of the Onan story than I do. A couple of things to think about:
1) just because Onan had not yet produced an heir for his deceased brother, doesn’t mean that he never would.
2) just because Onan did not wish to produce an heir for his deceased brother, doesn’t mean that God couldn’t override Onan’s wishes and have Tamar become pregnant anyway.
3) Onan was commanded by his father to produce an heir, but according to my translation he didn’t agree to it. In fact, no words of Onan are recorded in my translation.
Jack,
I hear a lot about how contracepted sex is wrong and intrinsically evil, does that also apply to sex acts that don’t end up giving a “open to life” type of thing going on? This is an honest question, I am curious. Only sex acts that could lead to pregnancy are okay by this this natural law thing?
Careful now. You’re channeling Denise again. :)
Praxedes, thank you for that link! Very thorough.
Tyler, I sure wish this would just evopate, but it won’t. You emphisize ‘natural law’ as if these philosophic words mean: ‘law’- like a layer or the courts understand. If so, its almost an oxymoron to put ‘law’ and ‘natural’ together. The Catholic Church has not returned to the days when we have Catholic-levites. Our Truth is Jesus Himself and not tons of stupid rules.
My Faith is about intimacy IN Jesus. [That’s a big word.] It is allied with ‘one … as the Father and I are one.’ and ‘From the beginning two become one flesh.’ We humans are designed to be intimate, to become One. Remember that sex (and often its sacrificial-eunich emptiness) help humans to understand what intimacy (trust, patience, etc.) is. So how do we show this oneness? By, kissing, holding hands, my Dad used to pat my Mom on her rear… [we kids loved it, Mom would cringe].
I’ll be damned if folks believe that our faith is about intimate love, and not about nit-picking rules.
I am currently just really confused by this whole conversation lol, not the least because I had no idea who Onan was until five minutes ago. I’m just going to read and stop arguing from now on. :)
Tyler I don’t understand the catechisms when I read them, I would need someone to explain them to me or it’s basically useless for me to read them, you know?
Tyler I don’t understand the catechisms when I read them, I would need someone to explain them to me or it’s basically useless for me to read them, you know?
I disagree, Jack. I think you are a pretty sharp tack. Really sharp.
“I disagree, Jack. I think you are a pretty sharp tack. Really sharp.”
I may be sharp at some things, but in general spiritual stuff confuses me to no end. That’s why I argue about it a lot, honestly, if someone can argue me out of a position I hold I learn a lot! Maybe I just need to find a pastor or priest to argue with lol.
Should every female want a baby every year regardless of her circumstances or personality?
Is every female destined to make a GOOD mother?
Is every woman who can be a good mother to a small family also apt to be a good mother to a very large family?
Hi Denise,
‘mother’ is the ‘mother-of-all-words, to any number of Catholics. For instance some of Mary’s title’s (Jesus’ Mom) over the Centuries include: Mother of God; Mother of the Church; Mother most pure …. . Most times, I just call her ‘Mom” – I think she likes it best!
The posters amount to little more than someones personal dreamscape. I find them to be shallow and simply a reflection of their creators presuppositional thinking. It attempts to create a raft of links which simply aren’t proven. It is just propaganda using propaganda to make claims.
Such as –
“Behind the use of any mechanical methods to stop conception is an anti-baby mindset.” – if that were so then people who use ‘mechanical’ methods wouldn’t ever have children. Most do.
If using ‘mechanical’ methods to avoid conception is indicative of an ‘anti-baby mindset’ so is nfp. They both have exactly the same intent.
“It starts with a mind hostile to the prospect of conceiving offspring.” – no, it starts with a mind conceptually advanced enough to make sensible and rational decisions about when to have children. Whether it is via ‘mechanical’ means or nfp.
oh yeah, then there’s Mother Theresa …. I wonder how a frail celebate nun (who never had any sort of ‘normal’ family) could ever be favored with the name ‘Mother’
John McD – I appreciate your point about intimacy, but what have I said exactly that contradicts this idea?
The greatest physical act of intimacy a man and a woman share is through sexual intercourse.
John the Church never had Catholic levites – where did you get that notion. When were Catholics ever like levites or pharisees?
I agree that we are called to serve our partners, but no Christian is called to be a prostitute or to provide the services of a prostitute to their marriage partner. I think the kind of intimacy Jesus was talking about is of a more elevated kind than this. He would expect more of married couples, not less IMO.
John the gentleness and compassion of your comments definitely correspond with someone who has gone to a seminary.
Well my comments tell quite a different story…
You have been blessed great gift in attending seminary.
My thoughts have been expressed well by others, such as LibertyBelle at 6:25p yesterday.
I don’t think abortion is the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. (This complicates things for those of us who are invested in fighting abortion. It isn’t that simple.)
I don’t think contraception is the problem, either. It, too, is a symptom of the problem. (And for those of you who don’t think contraception is a gateway to abortion, I haven’t read one reason for contraception here that isn’t also given for abortion.)
I think the real problem is at least threefold: 1] People no longer view children as blessings the Bible they says they are, GIFTS from God. (Do Christians really believe this? No.) 2] People have bought into the overpopulation myth. 3] Our society has been overtaken by the free love mentality.
I was rereading the little book of Jude yesterday. My friend Walter Hoye had mentioned Jude 23 in a phone conversation the other night, “Save others by snatching them from the fire of hell.” He said some people don’t realize they’re in a burning building. We’re often trying to rescue people who don’t know they need to be rescued and don’t want to be rescued. They’d rather burn up. That’s terrible.
Anyway, when I reread the book I realized that it was all about the sin of “sexual freedom,” our quote of the day today. Jude wanted to write about something else, but this problem took preeminence (“I had intended to write to you about the salvation we share. But something has come up. It demands that I write to you….”).
Sexual promiscuity has always been a huge problem. As Tyler pointed out in one of his comments, the Bible is packed with warnings against its various forms.
So we’re just seeing the consequences and cover-ups of “sexual freedom” on a much grander scale today.
Yes, and it’s even seen within the confines of marriage, and I think even with some NFP users. Couples want to have sex these days by extricating one of its gifts, which also abates “freedom,” children.
“CT, how do condoms interfere with a healthy bodily function? Doesn’t NFP do the same then?”
Condoms artificially create infertile sex. The interfere with functioning reproductive systems. NFP recognizes natural, God-created periods of infertility. God made the female body naturally infertile for much of the time. It’s been stated ad nauseum (and ignored as much) that NFP does not guarantee a properly ordered sex life. Intent matters. Method matters. Both.
Jill, I love your comment.
Jill, thank-you for sharing your thoughts, I really appreciated hearing them, now I get to reflect on them.
Well, for those of use who use money to pay for things that children use and need, don’t have enough of it, and still need to maintain a sexual relationships with our spouses and significant others, children aren’t always gifts from GOD (no matter how much you love and accept them), and contraception isn’t an evil sentence to eternal burning hellfire (especially if we don’t even believe that burning hellfire exists). Welcome to the United States of America. Enjoy your stay. And your freedom. We will certainly enjoy ours.
BTW, John McD – I liked your point about Mother Teresa.
I liked a lot of the chart, and waited to read Jill’s take before commenting.
I’m in total agreement about her three points. I find it really sad that so many Christians find nothing wrong with contraception and sterilization. BTW, there is not a single Reformer who supported contraception, which was also an issue in the 1500’s. Then the Anglicans allowed it for married couples in some circumstances, but only in the 1930’s.
For people who don’t get the difference between barrier methods and NFP, it’s pretty basic. With condoms you can have sex whenever and probably not conceive. If you are avoiding pregnancy by using NFP, you don’t get to have sex whenever you want, which can be especially rough on the wife who is ovulating and has to resist her dashing husband… Not that I speak from experience… Ok I do. Lol
Reading Jude now.
Jill says: “(And for those of you who don’t think contraception is a gateway to abortion, I haven’t read one reason for contraception here that isn’t also given for abortion.)”
I agree with everything Jill said. But wait, while many of you separate NFP from barrier methods, I want to put this out there:
* I haven’t read one reason for NFP here that isn’t also given for abortion.
I am not saying NFP can’t be superior for certain other reasons, but I question why family planning in any form is not problematic.
This is mostly true, except for when In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) or artificial insemination is used necessarily to help infertile couples conceive children.
There is a problem with IVF and that is wasted (murdered) embryos that are not implanted into a womb.
LifeJoy says: I am not saying NFP can’t be superior for certain other reasons, but I question why family planning in any form is not problematic.
It may be problematic. In the last year or so I’ve started thinking that maybe family planning is the “divorce” of the Old Testament, something God tolerates due to our hardness of heart. If we truly trusted and depended on God the way we are exhorted to, why would we bother to plan our family? We’re told that God takes care of the needs of the birds and how much more will he take care of ours. Seems that if we would truly believe in this, we would not worry about having enough money, time, energy, health, etc to accept another blessing in the form of a child.
I know many people are fond of the saying “God won’t give you more than you can handle” but I’m not a fan of it. It puts the focus on us and our flawed judgement of what we can handle and leaves the abundant, unknown graces that God wishes to heap upon us out of the equation. It’s a misquote of 1 Corinthians 10:13 which states “God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it.” We look at our lives and think “no way could I handle another child” but we don’t know what God has planned for the “way out”. If we trusted, we would find out. Instead, we implement our plans and miss out on God’s plan.
“Welcome to the United States of America. Enjoy your stay. And your freedom. We will certainly enjoy ours.”
Great sentence, I wish all American mothers, fathers, and grandparents would say it to their pre-born children.
You know, I love to talk about evolution, even though I’m catholic because I’d like to think being pro-life is a biological no-brainer. A turtle could lay an egg and walk away. Humans can’t.
It can’t be a random coincidence that the most intelligent, clever species on the planet has a very long, vulnerable gestation & childhood requiring care from parents and community. Observe, and see how walking away from the responsibility to nurture conceived children damages an individual, and a family, and a community.
Lrning makes a great point. Divorce. Abandonment. Abortion. We can use many techniques to sever our family ties. Putting our children behind us is the problem. Abortion is the deadly technique, which, as pro-lifers, we seek to abolish.
“LifeJoy says: I am not saying NFP can’t be superior for certain other reasons, but I question why family planning in any form is not problematic.”
ninek says: “It may be problematic. In the last year or so I’ve started thinking that maybe family planning is the “divorce” of the Old Testament, something God tolerates due to our hardness of heart. If we truly trusted and depended on God the way we are exhorted to, why would we bother to plan our family? We’re told that God takes care of the needs of the birds and how much more will he take care of ours. Seems that if we would truly believe in this, we would not worry about having enough money, time, energy, health, etc to accept another blessing in the form of a child. ”
Thank you, ninek. Exactly my feeling. I think due to my hurry and frustration, my continued attempts to inquire about this were taken as attacks on NFP users. i apologize. I was indeed confused about this point that some bypassed with other discussions.
I am glad that God in His mercy has blessed me with three beautiful children despite me. We almost missed out on one – my thinking has completely changed now. But my husband has not gotten to that point yet. In the meantime, God has blessed me and my children greatly through my husband, so all those different blessings are difficult to reconcile in certain ways. Iwish we would have more children, but my wisdom has been acquired as I go through life. I may some day become who God wanted/wants me to be.
Hey Tyler,
I have learned that most folks do not understand my posts even though they do like the flow of words. In lieu about what Jill has written, perhaps I can use these theological concepts to fashion a entirely new way to think about ‘freedom’. It is not that you are ‘wrong’ or that this way-of-thinking is ‘contrary’ to what you have said, but it is more than a limited perspective on what freedom is. We think of freedom as ‘a choice ‘between two (or more) limited (and limiting) options’ And we have fashioned an entity called: ‘free will’ to help explain this.
There is much trouble with this. The biggest one being, that there is no brain center (region) that coorelates to such an important ‘human’ aspect – not one! The second huge dificulty lies in English American-Roman Catholic thinking (in what I referred to as: ‘ Catholic-levites’). It is the tendensy to explain (get a handle-on) the Faith … by using words, and by extension definitions and dogma. The third problem is; ‘How can freedom be limited?
Much of this is now resolved . It is an old (like thousands of years) old difficulty. People tended to file such thinking away under MYSTIC. What they really meant was: ‘I have a hard time with these thoughts, so I’ll just pretend they do not exist!’ [When was the last time that you saw St. John the Divine (never mind St. John of the Cross, a 100% mystic) quoted in ANY theological definition.] If however, ‘freedom’ is not about ‘choosing’, but about ‘extension’, then a whole new way of perceiving the universe opens.
Much was resolved through the experience of a stoke for Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor. http://www.jilltaylor.com . All our tendencies to define, catagorize, catalogue, slice-and-dice, package, sort, our-sense of independence, etc. comes from a wee tiny, 2-ounce part of our brain’s left hemisphere. And guess what: it is part of our Speech Conrol Center. Its very important, eh ‘TO WIN the abortion debates’? We believe falsely, that the decision to kill, is not about suicide vs LIFE.
Dr. Taylor’s experience after the stroke meant that her left-brain functions stopped and her abilities to annalize/perceive shifted to the way/truth of her right-brain functions. [I personally could not believe how many words she used were exactly those used by people we call mystics. Words like: ‘in’, ‘one’ ….]
FREEDOM – a different way to ‘see’
In my post on intimacy, I spoke of ‘one-ness’. Now consider ‘one-ness’ with another limited being like yourself. You become more than one. in fact ‘two become one’. In fact you grow into another and the small ‘you’ becomes a much larger ‘we’.
[The ‘we’ is even larger with children. I used to write this mathematically as: IT is NOT 1 person +(plus) 1 person = 1 marriage; but rather … 1 person X(times) 1 person = 1 marriage. 1-person + 1-person = 1 COUPLE (Not 1 marriage). Marriage is a X and Not a + .
Two things: a) this requires the whole person being involved. If say, the persons involved are 1/2 committed, they will have much less of a marriage, even though ‘complete as a COUPLE’. [[ 1/2-person x 1/2-person = 1/4 marriage]]; b) children are NOT simply add-on’s to their parents, but an integral part of this new ‘one’ …. [1-person X 1-person =1-MARRIAGE X 1-child = 1-FAMILY X 1-child = 1-LARGER FAMILY ] …. THE CHILD ALSO INVESTS 100% OF HIMSELF IN HIS/HER FAMILY. THEY ‘ARE’ THEIR BROTHERS/SISTERS. [This perhaps is the ‘root’ of the alienation we feel from ourselves … our humanity.] ]
Now we get to the ‘third’ problem of limitation and freedom. I was asked how a married (or committed) person was ‘more free’ than being uncommitted. A married person becomes more free because he has extended himself ‘into another being’ … is a larger ONE. A person committed IN God is more free, because he is ONE IN an unlimited being. [ If God extends Himself to the person, this person becomes liberated (baronness Dougherty ‘Poustinea’]
I sure hope all this makes sense.
In the case of our third child, we prayed a lot about it and sought God’s guidance. I got a major talking to from the Holy Spirit. So when we seek His will for our lives in this way, I know God can work wonders, again, despite us.
John McD – I don’t have much of a problem with what you are saying…I am just not sure where you are going with it? I don’t think any moral imperatives flow from what you are talking about (and that is ok – moral imperatives are only part of the the end and be all). How does what you are saying relate to what Jill was talking about and the posters. Unfortunately, I think you will have to make the connections more explicit so that I may follow what you are talking about.
WIth respect to free will or freedom are suggesting that there needs to be connection to the brain that can measured in order to believe/acknowledge that it exists?
* I mean, thank you, Lrning! =)
(Sorry. I’m a fan of ninek’s comments as well).
Tyler, every memory, in picture-like detail can be stimulated by a small electric charge to the brain – every one. There is almost nothing – our religious sense too, can be stimulated by a strong magnetic field – that does not have a correlation (not duplication) brain-center.
Jill talked of freedom and I was wondering if the way we use it should be rightly lost. And perhaps replaced with something akin to what I’ve written above. Maybe, the shift would be more to the ‘natural’ world and less of the frenzy/death that abortion embraces. [Abortion is death and I object to it having any other depiction like a living flowereven a weed.]
Here is an excellent argument for why contraception is harmful based on natural law:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/02/why-contraception-is-a-bad-idea-1-natural-law.html
It also has pictures to satisfy my ADD reading habits…
John, as a Catholic/Christian (former?) I am not sure why you would be surprised that there is like between our perception of freedom and our brains. The Church has always taught that the mind and body are linked, and recognized that humans are bodily creatures. Christian believe in a bodily resurrection, the glorification of the body. Our freedom is true, but is limited because of capabilities. God is the only being that is truly free. We are free to the extent we reside and cooperate with His will. Our perception of our participation in His freedom may be limited and obscured but His freedom is nonetheless true and awesome and beyond our comprehension. Our freedom participates in the Cross, when we deny ourselves and merge our wills with His (when we perform the multiplication). Catholicism and Christianity believe Grace even precedes our earthly freedom. But as you mentioned, all of this is just words grasping at a huge concept.
John, but why do those electrical charges occur internally? By whose compulsion do they occur? Who stimulates our religious sense when the strong magnetic field is not there? Even more importantly, why is there a religious sense to be stimulated in the first place?
John @ 12:25.
This is what Jill Taylor (that John refers to) says about Oprah, “She is a wonder of a human being and has been a tremendous blessing to our mental health. I am forever indebted to her for her kindness.” Taylor was also in TIME magazine, nominated for one of the Most Influential People in the World.
The problem with all the talk of negative/positive energies is the person can say whatever they want and it doesn’t necessarily make it true. This is why there is much trouble with feeling that someone is like a mystic just because they at times act (talk, behave) like one.
Example of misusing energy talk: My son has always been a starter on his winter/summer basketball teams. He worked hard all summer at basketball playing club team and attending camps. He has a new coach this year. He now sits on the bench all but a couple minutes per game. If he makes one mistake, he is immediately pulled although there are starters who are allowed to play most of the game after making bigger mistakes more often.
Parents have come up to me and my husband wondering what is going on. My son met with his coach recently and asked what he could do differently or work on to earn more floor time. My son also pointed out that he is immediately pulled after a mistake and not put back in while others stay in most of the game. The coach hemmed and hawed and said that the starters made mistakes because they weren’t warmed up yet. My son mentioned he was never even given the chance to get warmed up. This coach told my son he could “feel negative energy from him” and that’s why he wasn’t playing him. What a crock.
What this coach chooses not to see is the negative energy from himself and from three starters (who have parents with big names in the community) towards my son. My son has held his head high and reacted in nothing but kindness to his teammates and coach. These kids learn real fast how to play the ostracizing game and make themselves seem like the positive ones. My son (and others who have come to us asking why he’s not playing) can see the baloney that is going on.
The two Big Os (Oprah and Obama) have this game down too. Some of us can see through their baloney as well. Call it negative energy if you want.
How is family planning problematic? Considering whether or not to conceive is NOT the same as taking an already conceived child and killing that child.
I for one am not going to waste tears over eggs and sperm. I do shed tears for children who are conceived and then killed.
Not everyone is cut out to have 20 kids Duggar style. Not everyone has loads of money to feed and clothe huge families. This is just fact. Killing children because you don’t have lots of money is immoral. Not conceiving children because you don’t have enough money? How is that wrong? I just don’t see it.
There’s a neurological answer to that, Tyler, but I don’t have the understanding of the biophysics to explain it. I lent it out, but I had a book called “Zen and the Brain” which might shed light on the subject.
There is a part of the brain that grows and develops during and after religious activity such as praying or chanting. There is brain activity and measurable physiological changes (blood pressure, hormones, etc.) that occur during praying or chanting, whether you are a Buddhist monk or a Catholic nun. I wish I could regale you with an articulate response, but the evidence is out there.
Final related note: Over one thousand years ago, a Buddhist monk could have told a follower: everything is vibrating with energy. What appears to be a rock is not a solid rock, but is vibrating at the frequency of rock. You cannot put your hand through it, but that does not mean that rock is really solid.
Fast forward to present day: Is a rock really solid? Or, does it rather have the properties of a solid, and is it in fact a collection of molecules, themselves a collection of atoms, themselves made of components which are in motion, which are as our Buddhist monk said, vibrating?
Could the Buddhist monk prove to a modern physicist that he was right? He didn’t have the proof nor the vocabulary. But. The monk was right. Follow that line to it’s logical conclusion…
Gotta sign off for now. Y’all make very interesting threads!!
Ninek, thanks but I am not really interested in those type of questions. I think they are important from scientific perspective but not a religious perspective. John McD may be interested though.
I already know there is a link between the external world and the brain and our freedom. When I see a red light I know that means to stop my vehicle. When am I sick I don’t think as well as when I am healthy. When I drink alcohol (on the rare occassions) my thinking is not as clear or as fast. All of these events effect my perception of freedom and my real freedom. But my freedom is not true freedom, never was, and never will be.
Ninek, any material solution to the “answer” for freedom will always create more questions. There is always an infinite regress of questions to material solutions.
Could the Buddhist monk prove to a modern physicist that he was right?
This would be like me trying to prove to the Big Os that abortion is wrong but not because I don’t have the proof or vocabulary.
John McD
What do you think of Jill Taylor’s TED talk?
Sydney M says:
How is family planning problematic?
Not everyone has loads of money to feed and clothe huge families.
I don’t know if family planning is problematic, but I can certainly see how it could be. If God had 6 children planned for me and I spent years using contraception because my husband and I were deciding for ourselves how many children we could handle so we only had 4 children, we’re missing out on 2 children God had willed for us. Could God have made me become pregnant despite contraception? Of course. But God allows us to use our free will however we wish, including to be uncooperative with His will.
Interesting that you mention feeding and clothing a large family. That was exactly what I was referencing in my post at 9:39am. God tells us not to worry about food and clothes.
““Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat [or drink], or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they?”
“So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’ All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides. Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.”
I think it is “anti-baby” to have babies if you can’t adequately care for them. Not every female is able to be a good mother.
Mods, I have a comment awaiting moderation. Not sure why, I have no links in it.
We’ll never be rid of abortion as a nation until we see a radical change in people’s ideas about contraception. Contraception creates the conditions under which abortion thrives.
The democrats seem to know this very well. Why can’t pro-lifers understand this?
Which is it women on contraception?
1) You prefer to be in denial cause you can’t stand to face that they are conceiving and flushing pregnancies.
2) You deny breakaway ovulation even exists?
So simple and yet all I hear in response is <crickets>
Because a TON of us contracept and would NEVER have an abortion. That’s why.
xalisae,
First off let me say how much I admire you having the fortitude to address this. It is a statistical probability that women on contraception are conceiving on an annual basis while they are birth control. It is also a fact that BC disrupts the menstrual cycle of women who take it. Disruption of the menstrual cycle makes the woman’s body hostile to the embryo. Why are you comfortable with that occuring inside of you on an annual basis?
“Considering whether or not to conceive is NOT the same as taking an already conceived child and killing that child.”
And no one is saying it is so can we please stop with that. The most people are saying is that contraception use is immoral, which is not even the real point of these posters. The point in this case is that contraception has led MANY down this path of thinking and has eased acceptance of abortion b/c it has changed the way we view sex as a society. Bravo to those who have avoided going down this path and drawn the line. I’m glad to have you on our side fighting for the unborn.
Why are you comfortable with that occuring inside of you on an annual basis?
Because I don’t think it is. Because I’ve conceived successfully while taking contraception, so I can’t have been THAT hostile to embryos. Same with my sister-in-law. Same with my mom. Same with my aunts. My personal experience, combined with some things I’ve read from the AAPLOG, combined with the hand-wringing over the supposed amorality of contraception in general and the hostile attitude blatantly displayed towards non-procreative sex due to your own biases…kinda tells me all I need to know.
The fact that you all got pregnant while on BC is a testament to just how often breakaway ovulation occurs. The fact that only one of those breakaway ovulations resulted in success means your BC also caused your body to flushed multiple embryos that would have become pregnancies. Getting pregnant once during years of sex is proof that your BC is acting to prevent implantation. It is science. The morning after pill can be your BC in higher doses and that is how it aborts.
The fact that only one of those breakaway ovulations resulted in success means your BC also caused your body to flushed multiple embryos that would have become pregnancies.
Prove it. When you can prove it, I’ll believe you.
“all those years”? Really? Try “those two months” that I was on birth control. If you MUST KNOW, my ex-husband and I were having unprotected sex regularly, and I wasn’t using birth control, either. There are still FIVE YEARS between my oldest and my youngest. I didn’t actually conceive until I started taking birth control temporarily then quit. YOU LOSE. GOOD DAY, SIR.
So, as far as I’m concerned, Mr. Sciency-McProofy, it’s six in one, a half-dozen in the other, and you can go on and on about the hypothetical murders I’ve taken part in-your opinion doesn’t really matter to me.
“How is family planning problematic?”
Sydney M – I am not definitively saying it’s wrong, but I think NFP has some of the same “problems” in principal as barrier methods. Jill said she has not heard a single reason given for using contraceptives that is not also given for abortion. I would extend that to NFP as well. In other words, if contraceptives reflect the mindset that we are not wholeheartedly receptive to children at a particular time, this must apply to all family planning.
The issue I have is exactly as Lrning put it. If we are completely trusting in God to provide and believe God is the giver of all life and blesses us with children, why would we say “no thank you,” either by using condoms or by abstaining from sex during fertile times? It shows how far we have fallen from how God intended it to be. I believe that includes just about every one of us who’s ever visited this site.
I take the approach of prayerful consideration – openness to God’s plan for children as He reveals it to us. My third child is evidence that God can put His plan on our hearts and conspire together many details of our life to bless us if we pray about it.
You have always shown to be a very logical person xalisae. BC disrupts a woman’s menstrual cycle so it disrupts a woman’s body preparing for pregnancy. I know that in the past you have gone on the record stating that BC needs to stay separated from the pro-life movement. I understand peoples concern that we could alienate pro-life people from our cause if we let the two mingle’ but I do not share that opinion. In all my history on this board there has been only one woman who has acknowledged this for what it is. That is Sydney. She actually made a lifestyle change, a change in her BC method, in order to avoid the problem of breakaway ovulation and flushing embryos. Peace be with you xalisae. I mean you no judgement or hurt. Like I said previously. I admire your fortitude in being willing to even address this subject/issue. But I find it somewhat incredible how few pro-life women are willing to follow Sydney’s example and admit the obvious.
it doesn’t disrupt a woman’s body preparing for pregnancy. It tricks a woman’s body into thinking that she is already pregnant. That’s why the primary mode of operation is listed as preventing ovulation. You don’t ovulate when you’re pregnant (usually).
I’m not a big fan of hormonal birth control. There’s a reason I’ve only taken it for maybe 3 months cumulatively over the course of my life. I can’t endure female hormones. They make me go CRAZY and they make me super-sick. I was sick as a bleedin’ dog when I was pregnant with my daughter, and I just hate feeling that way. I don’t take hormonal birth control, and I won’t ever take it again. Hopefully, when my tubes are untied (soon), we’ll have our two quickly, then he’ll be getting the snip ASAP.
But, I respect the rights of others. I respect the rights of other women who DO use birth control for whatever reason, to use it. My mom uses it for her endometriosis, and has for quite some time. I have other family members who use it for responsible spacing of their children. I don’t care what other people want to do in their bedrooms, or how they want to do it. And just because hormonal birth control isn’t right for me, doesn’t mean I’m going to crusade against it, because in my personal life, there’s been nothing that indicates it does anything besides prevent ovulation, and I’ve seen at least one study which backs this up. Hypothesis -> theory -> law.
tantumblogo- YES to your comment.
We’ll never be rid of abortion as a nation until we see a radical change in people’s ideas about contraception. Contraception creates the conditions under which abortion thrives.
The democrats seem to know this very well. Why can’t pro-lifers understand this?
Many, many prolifers are in denial, and Jill is gently nudging us to look at the situation. Friends, be not afraid to examine this!
X,
This is confusing
there’s been nothing that indicates it does anything besides prevent ovulation
Except when it doesn’t prevent ovulation? Because you also said
I’ve conceived successfully while taking contraception, so I can’t have been THAT hostile to embryos. Same with my sister-in-law. Same with my mom. Same with my aunts.
If someone using (fake)hormonal bc can get pregnant and keep the baby, why can’t someone using the same chemical agents get pregnant and lose the baby?
I get that you defend people’s rights, etc. I don’t get the contradictory statements. Sounds like denial.
Not denial. Complications like typical use vs. optimal use are what come into play here. I’m sure my birth control failed because my cycles are and always have been erratic and I have other problems going on. Others experience failure due to typical use patterns. But this article goes into that and explains better than I ever could:
http://drclintonb.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/the-myths-of-breakthrough-ovulation-its-purported-abortion
I’m sure my birth control failed because my cycles are and always have been erratic and I have other problems going on.
After two major surgeries and nine years of diagnosed endo, I get the erratic cycles and health problems thing. I hear ya.
Optimal use or typical use, a baby was still conceived while using chemical bc. Happens a lot, as you know. Sometimes the baby stays and gets to live, like your little girl, iirc. (yeah!) Sometimes the baby stays and dies naturally, via miscarriage. Sometimes the baby lives a while and dies via surgical abortion. Other times, chances are the little life can’t implant in an undernourished endometrium, caused by effects of chemical bc. I don’t think three months use would cause an early abortion, but who knows.
Thanks for the link. I’m hesitant to take the word of bc providers who profit from bc sales, but I’ll look at it.
CT, if you read the beginning of this thread i and others who use contraception were accused of this very thing. That what we were doing proved us to be harlots who didn’t love our spouses and we had the abortion mindset. It says our using contraception is the source of all the world’s woes right there in this ridiculous poster up above!
X, one of the reasons I stopped using the pill was because it says right there in the package insert that it can cause early abortion. The pill makers admit this! How often does it happen? Who knows? I myself conceived my 6 year old while on Yaz. But once I found out I could abort a baby I refused to take it any longer. I also just think it is plain unhealthy but if that was the only reason I probably wouldn’t hate the pill as much.
I do believe that link is from a doctor in a country where birth control is illegal.
The gist is, the hormone that makes you ovulate has an effect on the endometrium, too. If the amount of the hormone in your body (due to irregularities, non-optimal pill use, etc.) is sufficient to let you ovulate, then it is sufficient to let the embryo implant, also, since the same hormone that controls ovulation ALSO controls thickening of the endometrium.
I know this is primarily a difference of opinion in regulating controllable factors in a potential miscarriage. You think you should if you can, I have a more “Let the chips fall where they may.” kind of attitude. But that’s just because I know there are sooooo many things that can also prevent an embryo from implanting, it mystifies me why you guys would be SOLELY hung up on hormonal birth control. Why not a huge push to make sure every sexually-active and potentially fertile woman has folic acid in her diet? Why not crusade against caffeine? Or obesity? Or being under weight? Or an awareness campaign about stress-relieving tips? Or how to avoid contracting or spreading the flu? Because all those things can prevent implantation, too. But, the only one I see any qualms with on the regular here is birth control, and it makes me think there might be an ulterior motive, since the birth control pill is the only one that has anything to do with sex. And you guys just spent more than a whole weekend basically talking about how bad that is.
As an aside, dandelions are edible, and highly nutritious.
http://urbanharvestproject.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/dandelions-common-yard-weed-or-valuable-herb/
“CT, if you read the beginning of this thread i and others who use contraception were accused of this very thing. That what we were doing proved us to be harlots who didn’t love our spouses and we had the abortion mindset.”
I actually did read it and no, you weren’t. I just re-read all the posts before you first posted to confirm. It’s always the same thing on this subject. To say that contraception has caused devastating social problems and dramatically altered the way society views sex and abortion does not translate to: everyone who uses contraception must support abortion, is a slut, and PERSONALLY experiences every negative societal effect that contraception can have. To say that contraception is immoral is not to say that YOU are immoral, that your marriage is a sham, that you don’t love your spouse in the way you believe is best, or that it is the same kind of sin as committing an abortion. It’s just not being said. You are reading into it that lack of support for your choices is a judgment about your person rather than your action. If you think contraception is such a great benefit individually and to society, you’re free to defend its virtues. But stop accusing people who disagree with you of attacks they are not making.
It would seem that the best consensus we have on this thread is that dandelions are underrated.
One man’s pest vegetation is another man’s healing herb or healthy dinner.
xalisae, it is common sense. The hormones disrupt ovulation and menstruation. Fine. You are ok with that. But you are not helping ANYBODY by denying the facts. What you support is women taking drugs that cause embryo’s (living human beings) to abort.
re-asserting your prior theory when I gave you my factually-sound reasons for supporting what I do doesn’t help anyone, either. Least of all, our cause.
I’d rather talk about dandelions at this point.
“I’d rather talk about dandelions at this point.”
Me to! Now if only I actually had anything to say about them…