The arguements in contraception

[Lord Saru]

Contraception is something that has always been discouraged by the church for obvious reasons. I completed my residency in OBG in a church sponsored medical college where we never prescribe OCPs for contraception.

While having a discussion with one of you resident muslim doctor, he pointed out that nature itself provides for contraception. However, natural methods have bery less efficiency and hence, why not use a better method? Its not circumventing the laws of the nature at all.

 

[Josiah]

IMO,

Here's an area where people like to play word games..... to evade the issues at hand.

"Contra" (Against, to hinder) "Contraception" simply means a working against or a hinderance of conception. A practice or tool that lessens the chances of any specific sharing of intimacy results in conception.


While abstinence qualifies as contraception, it's passive (something NOT done) and thus usually isn't so considered. But when intercourse is PURPOSELY "re-directed" or "re-scheduled" that is active and thus IMO is contraception. It may be "natural" since no chemical or barrier is involved but the sole purpose of such re-scheduling or re-directing is to COUNTER CONCEPTION, to HAVE sex but do so in a way that lessens the likihood of conception (the definition of contraception). Withdrawal or the "timing" approach of modern Catholicism are examples of such contraception.


Yes, it SEEMS LIKELY that for many centuries, Christians were opposed to any practice that would hinder conception, anything that would lessen the likeihood that a sharing of intimacy would result in conception. Withdrawal was condemned. The Catholic Church reversed itself in the mid 1960's to quite forcefully embrace contraception, to insist that (for proper reasons) a couple MAY have sex - even lots of sex, perhaps MORE sex than otherwise - but do so in a way that lessens the changes of each such sharing being conceptive. Today, I know of no denomination that promotes contraceptive sex as much as the Catholic Church does. At times, it even mandates classes in how to do this! But it will stress, this is NATURAL contraception since no chemicals or barriers are used (morally, I think it's an irrelevant distinction; the purpose, the attitude, the result is the same).


IMO, sex is a very adult thing.... and mandates responsibility. Morally, emotionally, physically. I think it can be argued that in some cases, a couple having a child may not be responsible. Perhaps for medical reasons, but maybe for financial or other reasons. Or maybe because 7.7 billion people on the planet stretches the God-given mandate that we be good stewards of the Earth. It may be irresponsible to have 21 kids. But does that mean ERGO it is forbidden for this loving married couple to have sex? Doesn't the Bible say some things about the importance of sex and that normally it is not to be withheld among married couples? And we know from history that contraception has been widely practiced for as long as we know and in every culture and age (usually using withdrawal). We CAN argue if a particular METHOD is godly, but I'm not sure there is clear evidence that the Bible forbids contraception per se.




.

 

[tango]

Contraception is something that has always been discouraged by the church for obvious reasons. I completed my residency in OBG in a church sponsored medical college where we never prescribe OCPs for contraception.

Always been discouraged? Obvious reasons? You might have to enlighten me there, I'm not seeing "the church" universally discouraging it, nor am I seeing anything obvious regarding the reasons.

While having a discussion with one of you resident muslim doctor, he pointed out that nature itself provides for contraception. However, natural methods have bery less efficiency and hence, why not use a better method? Its not circumventing the laws of the nature at all.

I guess the methods of contraception that one might consider acceptable would depend, in part at least, on beliefs relating to when the unborn counts as a human. If you believe that life begins at conception and that a zygote has a soul then something like an IUD must logically be considered a murder weapon. At the same time if you believe this then life gets hard because it becomes impossible to know whether a zygote failed to implant for natural reasons, so the loss of life cannot be properly noted and mourned. In theory if you believe life begins at birth and a fetus doesn't count as a human there's no logical reason to oppose abortion as a means of birth control, even though it doesn't count as "contraception" for the reasons Josiah listed above.