Birth control

[Ruth]

I think using birth control is okay and I don't agree with the church on it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think using birth control is okay and I don't agree with the church on it.

What does your denomination teach about it?

 

[tango]

That's a little bit difficult to define but the purpose of sex within marriage is (at least in part) procreation and that is why the holy scriptures say that "the two shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6) because they not only become one by sexual congress but also produce one flesh made of their two bodies (their children being the one flesh produced). Sex is also enjoyable and that also is a purpose for sex within marriage. So when a married couple no longer want any more children then they must mutually agree to abstain from sexual congress either altogether or at times when procreation is likely to be the outcome. However, sex always carries within it the possibility of conceiving a child unless artificial means are used to prevent that from happening. It is the decision to rob sex of one of its God given purposes that is the root the many kinds of sin relating to sex. Promiscuity certainly has increased since "the pill" was created and when reliable condoms and safe surgical vasectomy became possible promiscuity was somewhat boosted thereby.

I won't argue that promiscuity has increased since contraception was readily available but that really has nothing to do with a married couple who, for whatever reason, decide that having more children would be inappropriate. Abstaining from sexual congress for the long term seems to go against what Paul wrote in 1Co 7.

 

[Ruth]

What does your denomination teach about it?

I don't have a denomination at this time. I rely on my knowledge of Christ's teachings.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I won't argue that promiscuity has increased since contraception was readily available but that really has nothing to do with a married couple who, for whatever reason, decide that having more children would be inappropriate. Abstaining from sexual congress for the long term seems to go against what Paul wrote in 1Co 7.

That's why abstaining is for a period that is sufficient to avoid period of fertility and thus be less likely to have additional children.

 

[psalms 91]

That's why abstaining is for a period that is sufficient to avoid period of fertility and thus be less likely to have additional children.

And many who foll.owed this method ended up with many children

 

[MoreCoffee]

And many who followed this method ended up with many children

Have any statistics to back your claim? The quote that I included from its advocates says they have 99% to 100% effectiveness ...

 

[Josiah]

It is both silly and absurd for a CATHOLIC (of all people!) to protest birth control and contraceptive sex when the RC Denomination is BY FAR the largest, boldest, religious advocate, promoter and teacher of such in the entire world! The only one that actually conducts extensive classes in such often right there at the parish center of its owned and operated churches.

Wanna have lots of good fun sex - but avoid the conception, the child, the baby, the LIFE? Contact your nearest parish owned and operated by the RC Denomination. They are thrilled and passionate about teaching you how to do that!



.

 

[psalms 91]

Have an statistics to back your claim? The quote that I included from its advocates says they have 99% to 100% effectiveness ...

Oh yeah the ryhtem method is so effective, ask a doctor about thator any study thats not RCC and see what that says

 

[Josiah]

Oh yeah the ryhtem method is so effective, ask a doctor about thator any study thats not RCC and see what that says

All Birth Control methods are methods for birth control. They are methods to enable couples to HAVE sex albeit CONTRACEPTIVELY, to HAVE lots of good, fun sex WITHOUT the conception, the baby, the LIFE.

By far, the largest, foremost, boldest religious advocate, teacher and promoter of contraceptive sex is the RC Denomination. None other even comes close.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Have an statistics to back your claim? The quote that I included from its advocates says they have 99% to 100% effectiveness ...

Oh yeah the ryhtem method is so effective, ask a doctor about thator any study thats not RCC and see what that says

You don't have any statistics do you?

 

[Josiah]

You don't have any statistics do you?

No birth control method - including the new one the RCC promotes and teaches - is 100% effective at empowering couples to HAVE sex but making it unlikely conception will result (a baby, a child, LIFE).

But relative effectiveness in this aside, all Birth Control methods are methods for birth control. They are methods to enable couples to HAVE sex albeit CONTRACEPTIVELY, to HAVE lots of good, fun sex while LESSENING the odds of such resulting in conception, a baby, LIFE.

Of course, the RC Denomination is BY FAR the world's largest, foremost, boldest religious advocate, promoter and teacher of contraceptive sex.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

No birth control method - including the new one the RCC promotes and teaches - is 100% effective ...

Seems to me that neutering would be 100% effective.

 

[tango]

That's why abstaining is for a period that is sufficient to avoid period of fertility and thus be less likely to have additional children.

... which is all well and good, but let me give you a real-life example (this is a couple I know very well)

The couple are in their early 30s, have two children and live in a two bedroom apartment. The two bedroom apartment is the largest they can afford. Bringing a third child into the world would create all sorts of problems, on top of the fact that sooner or later their children (one boy, one girl) will need separate bedrooms.

Since the wife probably has at least 10 fertile years ahead of her do you consider that abstaining from sex for a decade or more is an acceptable solution, when there are other means available to prevent any further children?

If there's something in Scripture that teaches against contraception by all means point it out, if it's a tradition accepted by a small number of denominations then I'd like to know where it came from and whether it's relevant today.

 

[tango]

Seems to me that neutering would be 100% effective.

In theory but I believe there are rare cases when a vasectomy is unsuccessful. I recall reading a case a while back of a man who was on the verge of divorcing his wife because she became pregnant some months after he had a vasectomy, so he concluded (not entirely unreasonably) that she had been with someone else. She insisted she had not. It turned out his operation hadn't been successful so he was still fertile, albeit less than before.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In theory but I believe there are rare cases when a vasectomy is unsuccessful. I recall reading a case a while back of a man who was on the verge of divorcing his wife because she became pregnant some months after he had a vasectomy, so he concluded (not entirely unreasonably) that she had been with someone else. She insisted she had not. It turned out his operation hadn't been successful so he was still fertile, albeit less than before.

neutering is not the same thing as vasectomy.

 

[tango]

neutering is not the same thing as vasectomy.

If you're talking about having the testicles removed completely that would potentially cause other issues related to the loss of testosterone.

If that's what you're talking about, are you saying that it's acceptable to have surgery to prevent further conceptions but not acceptable to use a condom? I must admit that seems rather strange to me. If that is your position can you point to Scriptural support for it?

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you're talking about having the testicles removed completely that would potentially cause other issues related to the loss of testosterone.

If that's what you're talking about, are you saying that it's acceptable to have surgery to prevent further conceptions but not acceptable to use a condom? I must admit that seems rather strange to me. If that is your position can you point to Scriptural support for it?

You appear to be a bit fixated on males.

 

[Josiah]

Seems to me that neutering would be 100% effective.

Birth Control methods are all designed to enable to couple to still have lots of fun sex but without a birth likely resulting, without conception likely resulting without a baby likely resulting, without a life likely resulting. All the sex, none of the conception. Contraceptive sex.

Yes, different forms of birth control have different levels of effectiveness. But again, the point in all the various techniques is to enable the couple to HAVE sex albeit CONTRACEPTIVELY, the continue to have lots of good, fun sex but without the conception, the baby, the child, the LIFE. Yes, some more effective at accomplishing that.

The RC Denomination is - by far - the largest, boldest, foremost religious advocate, promoter and teacher of contraceptive sex in the entire world. Wanna have lots of good, fun sex? But don't want conception to result? Don't want the baby?
Don't want the child? Don't want LIFE to result from all that fun sex? Okay..... contact the local parish owned and operated by the RC Denomination; it is passionate about teaching you how to accomplish that. It offers classes in how to accomplish that, often right there at the parish center! These birth control classes may be expensive but scholarships are usually available.



-Josiah

 

[tango]

You appear to be a bit fixated on males.

Simply because removing the testicles is a lot less invasive than removing the ovaries.

But let's stick to the more pressing issue - are you saying it's acceptable to have surgery to remove the ovaries as a means of preventing further conception but not acceptable to use a condom?