Birth control

[tango]

Have you ever seen the movie where they ultrasund the fetus at different points in development? Did you know that it has a heartbeat at 22 days? Or that it is perfectly formed very earlt? God calls taking of life murder and that moviie shows life so it is murder

I know a few things about unborn children. The key thing here is that in this post you included more reasoning than in your last post. Your last post simply said "the fact is it is murder" with nothing to back up your assertion. With no reasoning behind it all we've got to go on is "Bill thinks this is bad but we don't know why".

I don't consider abortion to be morally acceptable but if I'm going to say it's something that other people shouldn't do I need to be able to back up my thinking. If my wife and I decide we don't want to think about abortions we don't need any reason other than "we don't want to" or "we don't like the assistants at the clinic" or whatever else. To shift something from "something I don't want to do" to "something I don't think other people should do" I need some decent reasoning behind it. And since so much of what is presented as Scriptural objection to abortion can be shot down with just a few minutes of thought we might as well move past that early on so we can look to see how we might Scripturally support our viewpoints.

 

[Josiah]

IF someone desires to begin a thread on abortion, it would be appropriate for us to post in it about that. I think it's been awhile since we've discussed that.

I'll only say this: Right or wrong, SOME forms of birth control about about preventing fertalization - from the egg and sperm meeting up. The RCC method is about that, condoms are about that, etc. OTHERS are about STOPPING the growth of this "product" of fertlization or blocking the implantation. The later MIGHT be technically regarded as abortion, since abortion is the TERMINATION of this. Prevention of it and termination of it seems like a distinction to ME. But again, whether either is right or wrong is another issue.

 

[psalms 91]

IF someone desires to begin a thread on abortion, it would be appropriate for us to post in it about that. I think it's been awhile since we've discussed that.

I'll only say this: Right or wrong, SOME forms of birth control about about preventing fertalization - from the egg and sperm meeting up. The RCC method is about that, condoms are about that, etc. OTHERS are about STOPPING the growth of this "product" of fertlization or blocking the implantation. The later MIGHT be technically regarded as abortion, since abortion is the TERMINATION of this. Prevention of it and termination of it seems like a distinction to ME. But again, whether either is right or wrong is another issue.

I think you are right about the method but I dont think there is any debate about the right and wrong if you are a bible believing christian

 

[tango]

IF someone desires to begin a thread on abortion, it would be appropriate for us to post in it about that. I think it's been awhile since we've discussed that.

I'll only say this: Right or wrong, SOME forms of birth control about about preventing fertalization - from the egg and sperm meeting up. The RCC method is about that, condoms are about that, etc. OTHERS are about STOPPING the growth of this "product" of fertlization or blocking the implantation. The later MIGHT be technically regarded as abortion, since abortion is the TERMINATION of this. Prevention of it and termination of it seems like a distinction to ME. But again, whether either is right or wrong is another issue.

Abortion is arguably a tangential issue although since it is also arguably a means of birth control (in the sense it prevents the mother giving birth) it is at least somewhat relevant to the thread.

The point of my post that mentioned it is that so much depends on the conclusion of when life begins. Some people argue it begins at conception, others at implantation, others at birth. I've come across one or two other ideas although less frequently, including when the unborn child has a recognisable blood of its own (based on a verse in, I think, Leviticus that says the life is in the blood).

Depending on when life actually does begin (and personally I don't think Scripture is clear exactly when life can be considered to begin, especially when discussing times before the mother-to-be even knows she is pregnant) different forms of birth control may be morally equivalent to cutting our fingernails or committing murder. Since that's a pretty wide spectrum of moral equivalance I think it's important to consider the root issue before fussing over specific implications of the root issue.

If life begins at birth then abortion is morally no more significant than having our tonsils out. If life begins at conception then an IUD is arguably a murder weapon. Personally I struggle to see any moral objection to the use of barrier methods but it's clear that some disagree, and so I'd rather figure out why they disagree because it may be that I am wrong and they are right.

 

[Josiah]

Tango,

I see your point, but respectfully, it's not really to MY point. I think there is a distinction in birth control (and okay - including abortion in this as a birth control method), IMO, respecfully, I think there is a distinction between PREVENTING and DESTROYING - whether or not we are talking about a separate, homo sapiens.

Let's say I do things to PREVENT me getting a wort. Then I do things to terminate the wort. I think there's a difference there, a distinction.

I've not given my opinion on this .... I've not made ANY value judgements at all on anything..... I've ONLY said I think there's a distinction between PREVENTING conception and DESTROYING the result of such.

Perhaps we disagree, my esteemed friend. I can live with that (ESPECIALLY if you can, lol).




.

 

[tango]

Tango,

I see your point, but respectfully, it's not really to MY point. I think there is a distinction in birth control (and okay - including abortion in this as a birth control method), IMO, respecfully, I think there is a distinction between PREVENTING and DESTROYING - whether or not we are talking about a separate, homo sapiens.

Let's say I do things to PREVENT me getting a wort. Then I do things to terminate the wort. I think there's a difference there, a distinction.

I've not given my opinion on this .... I've not made ANY value judgements at all on anything..... I've ONLY said I think there's a distinction between PREVENTING conception and DESTROYING the result of such.

Perhaps we disagree, my esteemed friend. I can live with that (ESPECIALLY if you can, lol)..

Sure, I get your point about prevention and destruction. But it's not necessarily as simple as that.

If you take something like a condom it seeks to prevent conception from occurring at all by preventing the required meeting of components (trying to stay at least vaguely PG-rated here, I'm sure my meaning is clear).

On the other hand something like abortion is clearly a destructive method in that it takes an embryo or fetus that has been conceived and implanted and removes it.

What about methods like an IUD that make no attempt to prevent conception but do seek to prevent implantation? Would you consider that a prevention (in that it aims to prevent implantation) or a destruction (in that it in blocking implantation it effectively destroys the embryo)?

 

[Josiah]

Sure, I get your point about prevention and destruction. But it's not necessarily as simple as that.

If you take something like a condom it seeks to prevent conception from occurring at all by preventing the required meeting of components (trying to stay at least vaguely PG-rated here, I'm sure my meaning is clear).

On the other hand something like abortion is clearly a destructive method in that it takes an embryo or fetus that has been conceived and implanted and removes it.

What about methods like an IUD that make no attempt to prevent conception but do seek to prevent implantation? Would you consider that a prevention (in that it aims to prevent implantation) or a destruction (in that it in blocking implantation it effectively destroys the embryo)?

I'm glad you now see my point. Again, no value judgments.

An IUD is difficult. I'd not be dogmatic there. I'd TEND to lean toward the RESULT of the act happening at conception rather than implantation. My doctorate is not in this stuff.... I'm not expert..... I don't want to be dogmatic or present anything as expertise.... but I'd tend to think that perhaps preventing implantation is an action meant to destroy the results rather than prevent it. An IUD prevents developement of it, but does it PREVENT it? I don't know. My Ph.D. is in physics. But again, if something is done to prevent the egg and sperm from meeting - I think that's different than destroying WHATEVER is the result of that. Subtle, maybe..... irrelevant perhaps..... but in MY very layman opinion at the moment, I think there's a distinction. I could be wrong.

Perhaps we disagree. I can live with that too (if you can).



- Josiah

 

[tango]

I'm glad you now see my point. Again, no value judgments.

An IUD is difficult. I'd not be dogmatic there. I'd TEND to lean toward the RESULT of the act happening at conception rather than implantation. My doctorate is not in this stuff.... I'm not expert..... I don't want to be dogmatic or present anything as expertise.... but I'd tend to think that perhaps preventing implantation is an action meant to destroy the results rather than prevent it. An IUD prevents developement of it, but does it PREVENT it? I don't know. My Ph.D. is in physics. But again, if something is done to prevent the egg and sperm from meeting - I think that's different than destroying WHATEVER is the result of that. Subtle, maybe..... irrelevant perhaps..... but in MY very layman opinion at the moment, I think there's a distinction. I could be wrong.

Perhaps we disagree. I can live with that too (if you can).

- Josiah

I can live with disagreement, but isn't the point of discussion to explore possibilities and figure which is true?

I think the issue with an IUD is that it falls between your concepts of prevention and destruction. Since not every fertilised egg successfully implants into the womb it's arguable that an IUD merely shifts the balance of probability to make it less likely that an embryo will successfully implant. But those who take the view that life begins at conception might say it's morally equivalent to argue that it's acceptable to throw knives at someone since they won't necessarily cause any harm. Of course the flip side is that since not every pregnancy results in a live birth some could argue that abortion merely shifts the balance of probability towards the pregnancy not ending in a live birth.

Hence the issue isn't necessarily as simple as drawing a line in the sand and saying that one side is good and the other side is bad.

No worries about your physics, your PhD is a higher qualification than I have in anything

 

[Josiah]

I think the issue with an IUD is that it falls between your concepts of prevention and destruction.

as I posted, I think IUD is a difficult situation. I'm of the impression it's not, however, the most common form of birth control. I don't know if condoms or the RCC's new method is, but I'm not sure IUD's are.

Hence the issue isn't necessarily as simple as drawing a line in the sand and saying that one side is good and the other side is bad.

Well, in the case of ONE method. I think for most, it is.




.

 

[tango]

as I posted, I think IUD is a difficult situation. I'm of the impression it's not, however, the most common form of birth control. I don't know if condoms or the RCC's new method is, but I'm not sure IUD's are.

Sure, I don't think IUDs are a preferred method for a number of reasons.

Well, in the case of ONE method. I think for most, it is.

I assume you're referring to abortion here? I suspect most people here would agree it's morally unacceptable although I always figure it's good to be able to explain why. If someone were to ask "what's so bad about abortion?" it doesn't hurt to have an answer that's more than "it's murder" because "it's murder" on its own can be countered with "no it isn't" and both arguments have equal standing. That was the thinking behind my post about figuring when life begins and consequential moral equivalences.

 

[Josiah]

The Pope has now endorsed ARTIFICIAL birth control methods, means and devices so that couples may HAVE sex but prevent conception so that a child will not be born perhaps with a certain birth defect. Note: Explicitly, ARTIFICIAL means are now endorsed as permitted. Not just contracptive sex (the RCC has been pushing that for decades) but ARTIFICIAL means to accomplish such abundant contraceptive sex (at least in one case).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does God prohibit artificial birth control?

By example yes. Onan is one such example.

And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also. Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, "Remain a widow in your father's house, till Shelah my son grows up"—for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So Tamar went and remained in her father's house.
(Genesis 38:6-11 ESV)
​

God never clearly advocated using the internet, driving cars or wearing blue shirts with green pants on a Thursday. It's no good to regard something as prohibited because it isn't explicitly allowed. If you want to claim that something is prohibited you really need something that's either explicit or clearly related (e.g. the Bible doesn't explicitly say not to download porn from the internet but it doesn't take a genius to figure what Jesus said about adultery would apply there).

While it is true that the holy scriptures make no mention of the Internet, cars, jets, or any number of inventions that did not exist in biblical times it seems unlikely that artificial means of contraception, including abortion, did not exist in biblical times so to conclude that because the specific methods in use in our day are not explicitly mentioned in the holy scriptures then it is okay to use them is faulty logic since the story of Onan, shown above, explains that an artificial means of preventing conception (coitus interruptus being the specific artificial method mentioned in Onan's story) is wicked. Another reason why your reasoning is faulty is that if it is applied to guns, cannons, bombs, and missiles with atomic warheads then those specific methods are killing, which are not mentioned in holy scripture, would be okay but we know they are not okay and we rightly regard their use as wicked.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Pope has now endorsed ARTIFICIAL birth control methods, means and devices so that couples may HAVE sex but prevent conception so that a child will not be born perhaps with a certain birth defect. Note: Explicitly, ARTIFICIAL means are now endorsed as permitted. Not just contracptive sex (the RCC has been pushing that for decades) but ARTIFICIAL means to accomplish such abundant contraceptive sex (at least in one case).

Your claim is not true.

 

[Josiah]

Your claim is not true.

It's right from the front page of the Newspaper on the day I posted that. No one at all disputed it, until you nearly a month later (after of course, I no longer have the paper).

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

By example yes. Onan is one such example. And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also. Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, "Remain a widow in your father's house, till Shelah my son grows up"—for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So Tamar went and remained in her father's house.
(Genesis 38:6-11 ESV)

Onan HAD sex but did so in a manner which greatly lessened the likelihood of such resulting in conception. Do YOU want to HAVE sex - lots and lots of good, fun sex, no less than otherwise - but in a way that makes it contraceptive, very unlikely to result in conception, a baby, a child, LIFE? Ah..... phone your closest parish of The Roman Catholic Church! It is - by far - the largest, boldest, foremost religious teacher, adovcate and promoter of such contraptive sex in the entire world! It has classes in how to have sex in the spirit of Onan - sex done but done so as to NOT likely result in conception, a baby, LIFE.



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's right from the front page of the Newspaper

If you get doctrine from the newspaper then your theology is truly to be pitied.

on the day I posted that. No one at all disputed it, until you nearly a month later (after of course, I no longer have the paper).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Onan HAD sex ...

Why was Onan's act called wicked in the sight of Jehovah?

 

[tango]

By example yes. Onan is one such example.

And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also. Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, "Remain a widow in your father's house, till Shelah my son grows up"—for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So Tamar went and remained in her father's house.
(Genesis 38:6-11 ESV)
​

Except the issue here seems more of failing to father a child to honor his dead brother, than spilling his seed on the ground in isolation.

While it is true that the holy scriptures make no mention of the Internet, cars, jets, or any number of inventions that did not exist in biblical times it seems unlikely that artificial means of contraception, including abortion, did not exist in biblical times so to conclude that because the specific methods in use in our day are not explicitly mentioned in the holy scriptures then it is okay to use them is faulty logic since the story of Onan, shown above, explains that an artificial means of preventing conception (coitus interruptus being the specific artificial method mentioned in Onan's story) is wicked. Another reason why your reasoning is faulty is that if it is applied to guns, cannons, bombs, and missiles with atomic warheads then those specific methods are killing, which are not mentioned in holy scripture, would be okay but we know they are not okay and we rightly regard their use as wicked.

My point wasn't that we can do whatever we want if it wasn't mentioned in Scripture, it was that we need to be able to draw a parallel or a principle from Scripture. Scripture is silent on the topic of internet pornography but what Jesus had to say about adultery seems to cover it pretty well.

Honestly, if the best argument against artificial contraception is the case of Onan I think the case is pretty weak. Since Judah told Onan to raise offspring for his brother and he failed to do so, the issue was failing to raise up offspring for his brother. Had he raised some offspring and then spilled his seed on the ground we may or may not have heard anything about it. If there were some other case to make a prohibition clearer it would be easier to make the case for today but if all we have is this one example it's not clear that coitus interruptus is the problem at all. If there were a clear prohibition of such things I'd expect it to be laid out with a lot more clarity than one example such as Onan's.

 

[Josiah]

Why was Onan's act called wicked in the sight of Jehovah?

Perhaps because he had sex contraceptively? Do you want also want to have sex contracptively? Do you also want to have some great, fun sex but done in such a way so that it will be unlikely to result in conception? Contact the local parish of The Roman Catholic Church and sign up for the next session of NFP courses - the RCC is passionate about teaching you how to have sex contraceptively. The RCC is by far the world's largest, foremost, boldest religious teacher, advocate and promoter of contraceptive sex.

Your claim is not true.

Your denial is not true. http://www.examiner.com/article/pope-approves-use-of-birth-control-zika-affected-countries Yes, your "pope" recently APPROVED not only contraceptive sex but also artificial contraceptives.





A blessed Lent to you and yours.



- Josiah



.