PDA

View Full Version : The Birth Control Thread



philosophizer
October 8th, 2004, 12:15 PM
I would like to hear some of the beliefs about birth control. This is in the Exclusively Christian Theology forum because that's mainly what I'm looking for.


-I believe that abortion is murder.
-I believe that life begins at conception.
-I believe that many methods of birth control are wrong because they are actually abortificients instead of contraceptives, such as the pill, IUDs, and implants that release the same kind of birth control hormones as the pill.
-I believe that barrier methods are acceptable contraceptives.


What are some thoughts?

Sozo
October 8th, 2004, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

-I believe that barrier methods are acceptable contraceptives.

Do you mean something like a locked door?

philosophizer
October 8th, 2004, 12:33 PM
No, I mean condoms. A locked door would work very well too, but I don't consider it acceptable.

Crow
October 8th, 2004, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

I would like to hear some of the beliefs about birth control. This is in the Exclusively Christian Theology forum because that's mainly what I'm looking for.


-I believe that abortion is murder.
-I believe that life begins at conception.
-I believe that many methods of birth control are wrong because they are actually abortificients instead of contraceptives, such as the pill, IUDs, and implants that release the same kind of birth control hormones as the pill.
-I believe that barrier methods are acceptable contraceptives.


What are some thoughts?

I pretty much believe as you do. I also think that sterilization is acceptable. Once conception occurs, I believe that preventing implantation or abortion by any means is murder, but murder does not occur when conception is prevented.

Not every sperm or ovum is going to be fertilized and become a child- the majority will not be used to produce life. That's the way human fertility is designed, so it seems that God does not see these cells as being valuable in and of themselves until they join to become a human, or He would not have made them so expendable.

I personally believe that God expects us to use our God given brains, not only in this instance, but in all instances. We each know our circumstances, our abilities, assets, and strengths and failings. The church is the Body of Christ, but we each have our function, and it will not be exactly the same for each one of us. Raising children and leading them to know Christ is a very important role, but it is not the only important role within the Body.

Sozo
October 8th, 2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Crow

We each know our circumstances, our abilities, assets, and strengths and failings.

:think: ummm... more than God does?

Sozo
October 8th, 2004, 09:18 PM
I will repost my thoughts on this issue.

Please note: This post of mine is NOT a personal response to anything either philosophizer or Crow have stated.

God wants a relationship with us that is based on total dependancy.

We are to seek Him daily, moment by moment, as we pray without ceasing. God gives us a peace that passes all understanding when we go to Him in a sincere heart of faith. If God did not desire for someone to have children (which would be contrary to what is natural), then a person who seeks Him in this regard would have peace. Most people have been trained to believe that it is more natural to prevent pregnancy, and then make a decision to have children. That is a perversion of the truth. Of course, the world is known for doing that.

As I have always said, and say again, it has to do with seeking God, and not making arbitrary decisons based on one's own personal desires.

My relationship with God is closer than my relationship with my wife or children. Because of that, I have little difficulty in knowing which direction to go regarding decisions such as what we are discussing. Most Christians do not have intimacy with God, and their lives are directed by emotional responses, impressions, superstitions or earthly wisdom; none of which come from God.

We also, and most importantly have a letter from Him (the Bible) to consult on matters of great importance...

We know that God can and does open and close the womb.

"And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb"

"But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the Lord had shut up her womb."

Please also consider this...

I think we agree that the only people who should be using any type of contraceptive are those who are married, correct?

Considering that fact, and the fact that it is natural to have children, and unnatural to prevent them; plus what I have provided regarding our seeking God in such matters to do that which is unnatural, this would leave a small minority to use contraceptives.

We already know that the pill can cause an abortion, so we can rule that out as a possible product. I contend that from God's perspective of those whom he has chosen not to shut the womb on his own initiative, and from those whom He would choose to do that which is unnatural, that they would be in such a minority, that there would not be a manufacturer that would survive in such a way as to continue producing contraceptive products. In other words, if everyone was doing that which was correct in a relationship with God, there would be no such product as a contraceptive to use.


If you will carefully, and not quickly, examine what I have presented here, you will see that it is the only logical conclusion.
I know that it will offend many who either use or have used contraceptives, but it is still an honest evaluation that everyone should take into account.

The minds of most Christians are so twisted away from the things of God, and towards the wisdom of man, that they have lost the ability to see clearly regarding these issues. Instead of seeking God's will, we have been programmed to put our faith in science, and the so-called "professionals". We have got to strip away that mind-set and return to total dependancy on the One who possesses all wisdom and knowledge, and get our eyes off of ourselves.

Crow
October 8th, 2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by smothers

I believe the Bible doesn't say anything about contraception. It is a bronze-age pre-scientifc piece of literature.

And that little "nugget" does not belong in the exclusively Christian theology forum, which is why your post was deleted, smothers.

Rules of Exclusively Christian Forum (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=435816#post435816)

keypurr
October 8th, 2004, 09:42 PM
philosophizer Quote
-I believe that life begins at conception.

As food for thought, you believe that life begins a conseption, OK.

Now when does a fetus become a person?

Is it murder if it is not a person?

If life begins at conseption and you do not engage in sex, thus preventing what could be a life, is that murder?

How about the health and welfare of the mother?

This is not a cut and dry subject that most people think it is.

For the record I value Human Life, but I am not sure when it really begins. Or how to pick if the life of the mother is weigh in with that of the fetus and only one would live.

Sozo
October 8th, 2004, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by keypurr



Now when does a fetus become a person?

At conception.
Is it murder if it is not a person? There is never a time after conception that it is not a person.
If life begins at conseption and you do not engage in sex, thus preventing what could be a life, is that murder? No.
How about the health and welfare of the mother? At what point would you kill your own child to protect yourself?
This is not a cut and dry subject that most people think it is. Apparently it isn't for people who don't know what they are talking about.

keypurr
October 8th, 2004, 10:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by keypurr

Now when does a fetus become a person?

Sozo quote
At conception.

PROVE IT in scripture

keypurr quote:
How about the health and welfare of the mother?

At what point would you kill your own child to protect yourself?
I would want to protect my wife or daughters or grand daughters.

:)

Sozo, what makes up a person? Ever think about that?

:think:

Crow
October 8th, 2004, 11:13 PM
This part is a response to Sozo's post,

I agree with you that only married people should have any need to consider birth control, as unmarried people should not be having sex.

This part is my opinion in general.

If I were sterile and I were to have surgery to enable me to conceive, I do not feel that I would be contravening God's will. Nor do I think that it is wrong to use antibiotics to treat pneumonia, even though antibiotics are unnatural.

It is unnatural to take Advil for arthritis, yet many of us do so, and there is no Biblical indication that such interference with natural circumstance is wrong, and in fact evidence otherwise.

God is capable of determining human fertility, and there are instances clearly recorded where God took direct action in determining human fertility. I don't see indications that He directly acts in every case of human fertility.

It's not natural for a man to never take a wife. God created woman because He said it was not good for man to be alone, and man should have a helpmate. Yet many of God's people have chosen to remain single, despite this not being the natural order of things as God initiated them.

I don't think that the "natural" thing is necessarily the will of God in each instance. I believe that God gave us a brain and the heart to seek what is His will for us to do in a circumstance. If that means preventing conception to limit my family because I am unable to raise them as I believe He would have me raise them for whatever reason, then it is my responsibility to do so.

wholearmor
October 8th, 2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Crow
I don't think that the "natural" thing is necessarily the will of God in each instance. I believe that God gave us a brain and the heart to seek what is His will for us to do in a circumstance. If that means preventing conception to limit my family because I am unable to raise them as I believe He would have me raise them for whatever reason, then it is my responsibility to do so.

So you believe God would allow you to have more children than you feel you could raise properly?

Crow
October 8th, 2004, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by keypurr

quote:
Originally posted by keypurr

Now when does a fetus become a person?

Sozo quote
At conception.

PROVE IT in scripture

God does not list a qualification of "personhood" for humanity. Do you see any evidence in the scripture that God considers any stage of human life to be non-human? When Mary was pregnant with Jesus, we are told that John the Baptist lept in his mother's womb when she was approached by Mary. My belief is that this account was included in scripture not only to tell us of the significance of Jesus, but to show us that we are human even before we are born.

As to choosing between the life of the mother and the life of a viable fetus, that is a situation that I have never seen in 25+ years as a nurse.

I have seen ectopic pregnancies, where the fetus was unable to be saved. I have seen pregnancies where the child was delivered early but at a viable gestational age when the mother's life was at risk from eclampsia. I even know of a case where a woman dying as a result of a head injury in a car wreck was delivered by caeserian section and the child was saved. I have not seen one case where there was a choice between a woman's life and a viable fetus.

In the cases I have known where only one lived, the choice presented was not which one to save but whether to lose one or both.

Crow
October 8th, 2004, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by wholearmor

So you believe God would allow you to have more children than you feel you could raise properly?

WA, I think God set natural law into place, and so rarely contravenes natural law that when He does so it is so execptional that we consider it a miracle. I think that He makes us responsible for conducting our lives decently, and making the choices necessary to do so.

I've seen pregnant crackheads, 11 year olds, and retarded girls with severe Down's syndrome. Those people certainly had kids that they could not raise properly.

It's kind of like "would God allow the tornado hit your house if your house might fall on you and kill you?" I believe that God gives you the brains and responsibility to dig the storm cellar if you live in tornado alley, or to not conceive kids that you are unable to care for properly.

I realize that everyone is not going to be in agreement on this. We each have different ideas of what God expects of us.

wholearmor
October 9th, 2004, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Crow

WA, I think God set natural law into place, and so rarely contravenes natural law that when He does so it is so execptional that we consider it a miracle. I think that He makes us responsible for conducting our lives decently, and making the choices necessary to do so.

I've seen pregnant crackheads, 11 year olds, and retarded girls with severe Down's syndrome. Those people certainly had kids that they could not raise properly.

It's kind of like "would God allow the tornado hit your house if your house might fall on you and kill you?" I believe that God gives you the brains and responsibility to dig the storm cellar if you live in tornado alley, or to not conceive kids that you are unable to care for properly.

I realize that everyone is not going to be in agreement on this. We each have different ideas of what God expects of us.

I wasn't asking about pregnant crackheads, 11-year-olds, and retarded girls with severe Down's syndrome. I was asking about you.

Crow
October 9th, 2004, 11:13 AM
I'm not married now, WA, but if I were I could. For the majority of the time I was married, the situation was such that I could not have raised a child. I'm not going to put it on the board. Check your PMs

1PeaceMaker
October 9th, 2004, 11:54 AM
The fruit of the womb is his REWARD.

That says to me a child is different than a hurricane, even if the effects look the same in your livingroom. ;)

keypurr
October 9th, 2004, 02:12 PM
Crow,I agree that LIFE begins with conseption, but LIFE alone does not make a person. A seed is not a tree. It is a potential on a tree. I think a person is more than flesh and bones.

Food for thought.
In Genises God put breath in man AND HE BECAME A LIVING SOUL.
Does this mean that we need breath to be considered a living person? I am not qualified to answer that and I don't think you are either. That would make an interesting thread.

Gen 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1PeaceMaker
October 9th, 2004, 02:46 PM
The breath of a mother is given to her child with every heartbeat. The child breaths even as she does.

Without that breath in him, he would quickly die. He breaths, via placenta.

Poly
October 9th, 2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

The fruit of the womb is his REWARD.

That says to me a child is different than a hurricane, even if the effects look the same in your livingroom. ;)

:up: :chuckle:

beefalobilly
October 9th, 2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Crow

WA, I think God set natural law into place, and so rarely contravenes natural law that when He does so it is so execptional that we consider it a miracle. I think that He makes us responsible for conducting our lives decently, and making the choices necessary to do so.

I've seen pregnant crackheads, 11 year olds, and retarded girls with severe Down's syndrome. Those people certainly had kids that they could not raise properly.

It's kind of like "would God allow the tornado hit your house if your house might fall on you and kill you?" I believe that God gives you the brains and responsibility to dig the storm cellar if you live in tornado alley, or to not conceive kids that you are unable to care for properly.

I realize that everyone is not going to be in agreement on this. We each have different ideas of what God expects of us.

I agree, god gave us a brain for obvious reasons, if we just stopped using the reasoning ability god gave us then we'd never get anywhere or survive very long.

And I definately think there is a limit on the number of kids parents can raise and still give each one the love and support they need.

keypurr
October 9th, 2004, 06:57 PM
1peacemaker quote
The breath of a mother is given to her child with every heartbeat. The child breaths even as she does.

Without that breath in him, he would quickly die. He breaths, via placenta.

----------------------------------------------------
Good Answer :thumb:

I wonder if that is how God sees it.

Sozo
October 9th, 2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by keypurr

1peacemaker quote
The breath of a mother is given to her child with every heartbeat. The child breaths even as she does.

Without that breath in him, he would quickly die. He breaths, via placenta.

----------------------------------------------------
Good Answer :thumb:

I wonder if that is how God sees it. No, keypurr, the reality of this truth has completely escaped Him. :rolleyes:

keypurr
October 9th, 2004, 09:29 PM
Sozo it is nice to know that someone here on earth knows all of God's secrets. Enlighten us on the subject. When does a person become a living soul? Is it the breath of life? Maybe you could advice the creator to explain it to us.

Sozo
October 9th, 2004, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by keypurr

Sozo it is nice to know that someone here on earth knows all of God's secrets. God keeps secrets?
When does a person become a living soul? At conception.

keypurr
October 9th, 2004, 10:00 PM
If you really believe that it is conseption can you tell me why?

I am open minded on the subject and maybe you can swing my vote.

I am not talking about LIFE now but a PERSON. Life does begin at conseption we agree, but when is a fetus a person? Use scripture please.

Anne
October 9th, 2004, 10:33 PM
According to my Oxford dictionary a person is a 'human being' which would obviously include an unborn baby. All the physical characteristics are determined at conception. These characteristics are used to identify a person, such as the colour of the hair, shape of the face etc.

Keypurr, the onus is actually on you to prove an unborn child isn't a person. Believing an unborn child to be a person from conception has the least potential for harm. Unless you are a hundred percent certain that an unborn child is not a person it is always better to give the unborn child the benefit of any doubt.

Lighthouse
October 9th, 2004, 11:00 PM
Is it a person when it kicks, keypurr? Do you remember the story of when Mary went to tell Elizabeth of her pregnancy and John jumped in Elizabeth's womb, because he felt the presence of the Lord in Mary's womb?

Anne
October 10th, 2004, 01:56 AM
Depending on how long it would have taken Mary to travel to her cousin, Elizabeth, Jesus could have been just a few days old (after conception). That means that John jumped in Elizabeth's womb recognizing the person of Jesus in Mary's womb.

Lighthouse
October 10th, 2004, 02:11 AM
That's what I said, Anne.

Sozo
October 10th, 2004, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by keypurr

Life does begin at conseption we agree, but when is a fetus a person? Is it a frog?

keypurr
October 10th, 2004, 10:14 AM
Your stupidly is showing again Sozo. I asked a serious question and you make pun of it. If you are as gifted as you think, answer the question. If you can't, just say so. It is OK to be dumb as long as your nice.

Lovejoy
October 10th, 2004, 10:22 AM
Every year researchers find new means of evaluating the responsiveness of the conceptus in the womb. And every year they are amazed at how truly aware they are. So aware, in fact, that it almost seems as if they came equipped with that awareness, and their development is simply to gain the means to express it. Frankly, they are always a person, just not always one that can tell us so.

I just spent several hours researching this thing about birth control pills causing abortions. I knew that happened with low dose, but had no idea that everything is low dose now! How come no one ever tells me anything? I truly had no idea. My wife tossed her patch out as soon as I told her. The OB/gyn never said anything, and it is not on the paperwork that came with the patch! However, it is on the web site for the patch. What is up with that! To heck with it. We are just going to have to have kids...

elohiym
October 10th, 2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

To heck with it. We are just going to have to have kids... :up:

elohiym
October 10th, 2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by keypurr

I am not talking about LIFE now but a PERSON. Life does begin at conseption we agree, but when is a fetus a person? Use scripture please. Would it be fair to state that life begins when God knows you? I think so.

Therefore, life begins before conception based on this scripture:
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:5My feeling is that we should not attempt to thwart God's will for us to have children by using any birth-control, as it is futile to do so. Onan comes to mind. Furthermore, God is able to provide everything he needs to care for my family no matter how large he makes it.

Sozo
October 10th, 2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by keypurr

Your stupidly is showing again Sozo. I asked a serious question and you make pun of it. It was a stupid question, so it deserved a stupid answer.

There is no time that it is not a person after conception.

keypurr
October 10th, 2004, 03:10 PM
El quote
My feeling is that we should not attempt to thwart God's will for us to have children by using any birth-control, as it is futile to do so.


We agree about 95%, I would condone birth control if the health of either Mother or Baby was involved.

The point I am trying to make is Life does not really complete the defination of a person. When it becomes a living soul it developes a personality and completes into a person. I guess Sozo didn't get what I was looking for. My wife and I have suffered a lose during pregnancy many ytears ago and we often wonder what he/she would be doing now at about age 40. I would like to think that this life did not suffer at the time. However because of this I have often wondered when a fetus really becomes a human being, not just a life or promise of life. Thanks for your help Sozo.

firechyld
October 11th, 2004, 12:50 AM
Every year researchers find new means of evaluating the responsiveness of the conceptus in the womb. And every year they are amazed at how truly aware they are. So aware, in fact, that it almost seems as if they came equipped with that awareness, and their development is simply to gain the means to express it. Frankly, they are always a person, just not always one that can tell us so.

I just spent several hours researching this thing about birth control pills causing abortions. I knew that happened with low dose, but had no idea that everything is low dose now! How come no one ever tells me anything? I truly had no idea. My wife tossed her patch out as soon as I told her. The OB/gyn never said anything, and it is not on the paperwork that came with the patch! However, it is on the web site for the patch. What is up with that! To heck with it. We are just going to have to have kids...


That's interesting... we still have the triple-dose thingummies over here. The ones that prevent ovulation, although they aren't foolproof. I guess it comes down to whether or not you're prepared to take that risk.

Yes, yes, I know this is the exclusively Christian board, but I had a quick question for those who believe contraception is acceptable if it's not an "abortifacent": If a chemical contraceptive was invented that most definitely would work by preventing ovulation, rather than by preventing implantation of a potentially fertilised egg, would you be for it?

Following on from that, what are your views of the developments towards a male contraceptive pill? I would imagine that, since many Christians are avoiding female contraceptive pills because they can cause an abortion, there would be a bigger Christian prescence behind the development of this technology. In my research, however, I haven't discovered this to be the case. Thoughts?

Lighthouse
October 11th, 2004, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by keypurr

Your stupidly is showing again Sozo. I asked a serious question and you make pun of it. If you are as gifted as you think, answer the question. If you can't, just say so. It is OK to be dumb as long as your nice.
:shut:

philosophizer
October 11th, 2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Crow

I pretty much believe as you do. I also think that sterilization is acceptable.
Yeah, I forgot to add that one.



I personally believe that God expects us to use our God given brains, not only in this instance, but in all instances. We each know our circumstances, our abilities, assets, and strengths and failings. The church is the Body of Christ, but we each have our function, and it will not be exactly the same for each one of us. Raising children and leading them to know Christ is a very important role, but it is not the only important role within the Body.
I agree.

philosophizer
October 11th, 2004, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by keypurr

philosophizer Quote
-I believe that life begins at conception.

As food for thought, you believe that life begins a conseption, OK.

Now when does a fetus become a person?
That's a false distiction. There's no reason not to call a developing human being a person at any stage of development. That is an argument manufactured by abortion proponents. And it is an argument pulled out of thin air.

But if you want to make that argument, first explain why someone would want to make the distiction between a developing human being and a "person."




Is it murder if it is not a person?

You mean like if it's a tree stump or a rock? Yeah, that wouldn't be murder.

Why would we want to call it anything other than a person?



How about the health and welfare of the mother?
But why would this question even matter if it were not a person? Isn't that the real reason for wanting to reject that title? To make other questions "easier"?

philosophizer
October 11th, 2004, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by wholearmor

So you believe God would allow you to have more children than you feel you could raise properly?


I know this woman. She has several children and has homeschooled since the first. Now, she's very smart, and should be able to handle that task easily. And she should be smart enough to handle her time and her money too. But she's also lazy, selfish, and has a very bad temper.

Her kids are very smart too, but they still suffer from her laziness. They don't receive the attention in their schoolwork that they should be getting.

I heard her say once that she always knew that for whatever areas she was lacking in bringing up her kids, God would supplement.

I heard that and thought: NO! That's just an excuse for neglect. That's not the right attitude for parents to have --especially homeschooling parents. If there's an area you're lacking in, you should get off your butt and get better at it, or else look elsewhere for ways to supplement it yourself. God provides, and we certainly must rely on that. But we can't exchange that provision for responsibility.

A parent cannot just abandon their responsibility to rely on God's provision. There's a quote from the movie "The Last Samuri" that goes something like this:
-"You believe a man can change his destiny?"
-"I think a man does what he can until his destiny is revealed."

Getting to my point-- I think that relying on God's provision and accepting our own responsibility are two separate, but interwoven things. We must rely on God and what he provides for us, but also remember that we are part of the means of that provision. We can't be lax and irresponsible. God gave us brains to think and to act and to take responsibility for ourselves within the context of relying on His provision.

1PeaceMaker
October 11th, 2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer

I know this woman. She has several children and has homeschooled since the first. Now, she's very smart, and should be able to handle that task easily. And she should be smart enough to handle her time and her money too. But she's also lazy, selfish, and has a very bad temper.

Her kids are very smart too, but they still suffer from her laziness. They don't receive the attention in their schoolwork that they should be getting.

I heard her say once that she always knew that for whatever areas she was lacking in bringing up her kids, God would supplement.

I heard that and thought: NO! That's just an excuse for neglect. That's not the right attitude for parents to have --especially homeschooling parents. If there's an area you're lacking in, you should get off your butt and get better at it, or else look elsewhere for ways to supplement it yourself. God provides, and we certainly must rely on that. But we can't exchange that provision for responsibility.

A parent cannot just abandon their responsibility to rely on God's provision. There's a quote from the movie "The Last Samuri" that goes something like this:
-"You believe a man can change his destiny?"
-"I think a man does what he can until his destiny is revealed."

Getting to my point-- I think that relying on God's provision and accepting our own responsibility are two separate, but interwoven things. We must rely on God and what he provides for us, but also remember that we are part of the means of that provision. We can't be lax and irresponsible. God gave us brains to think and to act and to take responsibility for ourselves within the context of relying on His provision.

So what you are saying is God in his wisdom never creates a child that shouldn't be here, but we can be unjust to our treasures that God bestows.

True, and I am glad my mother and father had me, no matter how bad they might have been, when it came to parenting.

God did make up for it. He had me in his hands the whole time! :)

keypurr
October 11th, 2004, 10:53 AM
philosophizer quote
But if you want to make that argument, first explain why someone would want to make the distiction between a developing human being and a "person."
---------------------------------------------------
My friend I am not making an argument mearly asking a question. If you read my last post you might have an idea why I asked.

I don't see things as black or white. A seed is not a tree. When does it become a tree? The human body is very complex. There are no simple answers.

philosophizer
October 11th, 2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by keypurr

I don't see things as black or white. A seed is not a tree. When does it become a tree?
Once a seed has separated from the tree and begins to grow on its own, is it still a seed?



The human body is very complex.
Yup.



There are no simple answers.
Why not? Because the body is complex? Nonsense.

The simple answer to "do I have fingers" is "yes." But where to my fingers start and the rest of my hand end? You can complicate anything by drowning yourself in arbitrary details. But that doesn't mean that there are no simple answers. Only that you can't see them while your drowning.

keypurr
October 11th, 2004, 11:33 AM
Once a seed has separated from the tree and begins to grow on its own, is it still a seed?


Using your example, than you must think ababy becomes a person when seperated from its mother. See now what I am trying to discuss. Life does begin at consecption but is that when a PERSON starts?
:confused:

I am way past the age where my wife and I think about having an abortion or use birth control, so I do not have a personel stake in these things. But I don wonder how people can paint such a simple picture of life and be so involved that they shoot thoes who disagree.

1PeaceMaker
October 11th, 2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer
The simple answer to "do I have fingers" is "yes." But where to my fingers start and the rest of my hand end? You can complicate anything by drowning yourself in arbitrary details. But that doesn't mean that there are no simple answers. Only that you can't see them while your drowning.

Super post! :thumb:

BTW, If the child did not have the breath of God from the beginning, then it's cells would be anarobic(sp?), and there are cells in the body like that. They are called cancer cells. They die in the presence of the breath of God. Seriously. They can't take a normal amount of oxygen.

philosophizer
October 11th, 2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by keypurr

Using your example, than you must think ababy becomes a person when seperated from its mother. See now what I am trying to discuss. Life does begin at consecption but is that when a PERSON starts?
:confused:
:doh: Look. This discussion is only now getting complicated because we are staying too strict to an analogy between humans and trees, which have obvious differences in their reproductive processes. Let's not confuse ourselves needlessly. Let's compare these two processes in a reasonable fashion.

When a tree ends up with a fertilized seed, the seed drops off the tree, plants itself in the ground, and begins to grow. It grows a root system down into the ground to attain nutrients and water for further growth. Then it begins to sprout above the soil and grow upwards.

At what point can it be called a tree? Who cares? We have terms like seed, seedling, and sapling to describe different stages. But are those stages real? No, they're just descriptions for arbitrary parts of a process. Who cares when it "becomes" any of those things? Is it anything other than Oak, Elm, or Maple the whole time?


In Human reproduction, the sperm and egg meet and fertilize. The zygote implants and begin to grow. There are developmental terms like zygote, embryo, and fetus. But those are just words that describe parts of a process. They are arbitrary. Who cares when it "becomes a person"? Person is just a word too. Who cares when it has never been anything other than a growing human being?


You see? It only gets complicated if you want it to be. It's only when you tie yourself up in tons of arbitrary details that you become unsure of whether or not a growing unborn baby is a human being.



I am way past the age where my wife and I think about having an abortion or use birth control, so I do not have a personel stake in these things. But I don wonder how people can paint such a simple picture of life and be so involved that they shoot thoes who disagree.
Yup. Murder is wrong.

Sozo
October 11th, 2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

God gave us brains to think and to act and to take responsibility for ourselves within the context of relying on His provision.

Sorry, but I really hate that way of "thinking".

God gave us brains to respond in total dependency upon Him through the Spirit, not to make independent choices based on our circumstances, emotions, personalities, etc. "Responsibilty" is just that, it is us responding to His ability. We should never be initiators, but always responders. This is what true faith is, it is a responder to who God is and what He says. Faith is not an initiator. Birth control is an initiation on our part to go against what God has already initiated by natural means. It is an independent decision, based on leaning on one's own understanding, and contrary to what God has already said.

Sozo
October 11th, 2004, 02:19 PM
About my previous post, phil, please don't take it as a personal attack, it is not. I just believe that in all things God must know better, than we could ever hope to comprehend, how we should respond. Even if it is His will that an individual should not have children, it must be the result of a decision on our part through utmost humilty, fervent prayer, and the fear of the Lord, and not because of how we see and reason through it.

philosophizer
October 11th, 2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

About my previous post, phil, please don't take it as a personal attack

Don't worry. I don't. :)

keypurr
October 11th, 2004, 09:35 PM
Sozo, sometimes you make a lot of sense, this is one of them.
God Bless

firechyld
October 12th, 2004, 12:58 AM
Oh, come on.... male birth control pill? Anyone?

I was really looking forward to hearing your collective points of view on this one. :(

philosophizer
October 12th, 2004, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Oh, come on.... male birth control pill? Anyone?

I was really looking forward to hearing your collective points of view on this one. :(

I've heard about that, but I haven't heard a lot about how it would work. It seems like it would be a lot harder to prevent sperm formation or release than to prevent ovulation. You'd be dealing with millions of cells instead of just one. So, I guess I'd have to look into it a little more to give my opinion. But if the science methodology was sound and unharmful, I would have no problem with it.

Do you have any links or info?

keypurr
October 12th, 2004, 09:14 PM
I think birth control is a private matter and since a life is not involved it should not be judged by us who only have a limited understanding anyway.

Lovejoy
October 12th, 2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Oh, come on.... male birth control pill? Anyone?

I was really looking forward to hearing your collective points of view on this one. :(

I don't know. The mechanism of spermatogenesis is so complex! The hormonal positive feedback loop that drives it is harder to interupt than ovulation. Philo is right, in that a single ovulation is nothing compared to the billions of sperm in a man. And, we make them and can release them whenever. Womens eggs are virtually set at birth, but men just keep on going.

If it can be done, it is much less likely to cause some kind of abortive problems. However, I would be curious to see the impact of delayed production of sperm on its genetic viability. I will look up some of the new developments and check back.

Lighthouse
October 15th, 2004, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by keypurr

I think birth control is a private matter and since a life is not involved it should not be judged by us who only have a limited understanding anyway.
What about wehn a life is involved? Most birth control pills, if not all of them, are designed to detach an already fertilized egg from the womb wall. That is the interruption of a life. An innocent one, at that. That is wrong!

keypurr
October 15th, 2004, 08:12 PM
What about wehn a life is involved? Most birth control pills, if not all of them, are designed to detach an already fertilized egg from the womb wall. That is the interruption of a life. An innocent one, at that. That is wrong!

How would one know if there is a fertilized egg waiting? You cannot assume that there is one there everytime you wnat to make love. Birth control is a lot better than abortion.

Turbo
October 15th, 2004, 08:31 PM
keypurr, some forms of birth control can cause abortions.

lighthouse is referring to some birth control products (such as the pill, the rod, and the patch) that are designed to prevent ovulation, but sometimes fail. And when they do and an egg is fertilized, these products prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. (IUDs also cause abortions.)

If this is news to you, I recommend reading Birth Control v. Pro-Life (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9307) and the links provided in that thread.

Sadly, most people do not know that these products sometimes act as abortifacients. But from time to time we bring it up here on TOL. Last year, tdkay and his wife ceased using "the rod" upon learning about this risk. If you read this thread, you saw that Lovejoy's wife stopped using "the patch" based on what he learned here. And I pray that if you have been using any of these products, that you will research the risks and cease using them.

Delmar
October 15th, 2004, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Oh, come on.... male birth control pill? Anyone?

I was really looking forward to hearing your collective points of view on this one. :( I heard about that. You put it in his shoe.

Sozo
October 15th, 2004, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Oh, come on.... male birth control pill? Anyone?

It's very effective...

Here's how it works:

You both get into your pajamas, put on some soft music, have a glass of wine, and then...





...your wife puts on a Hillary Clinton mask?

keypurr
October 15th, 2004, 09:07 PM
from Turbo Sadly, most people do not know that these products sometimes act as abortifacients. But from time to time we bring it up here on TOL. Last year, tdkay and his wife ceased using "the rod" upon learning about this risk. If you read this thread, you saw that Lovejoy's wife stopped using "the patch" based on what he learned here. And I pray that if you have been using any of these products, that you will research the risks and cease using them.

At my age (69), I am out of touch with birth control. Thanks for the information. However I think most people on birth control do not intentionaly perform abortion. They do have a right to be reasonable in planning their families. I think God would look at the intent of the heart when judging them.

Turbo
October 15th, 2004, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by keypurr

However I think most people on birth control do not intentionaly perform abortion.All the more reason why we should get the word out so that people know the risk.


They do have a right to be reasonable in planning their families.There are plenty of alternatives that do not risk killing an unborn child.


I think God would look at the intent of the heart when judging them. If someone would not want to risk killing children, then they ought to be told about the risks of these products.

We are to hold back those stumbling to the slaughter, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. And I know that if I were doing something that could result in killing my child, I would want to know about it rather than remain ignorant.

keypurr
October 16th, 2004, 08:30 PM
No argument here my friend.

Turbo
October 16th, 2004, 09:18 PM
:cool:

Lovejoy
October 16th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Bleah. Good advice, moral clarity, peace between brothers on an issue. Boring!









Thank God for boring...

firechyld
October 28th, 2004, 12:06 AM
I had an argument the other day with someone on another board regarding the birth control/abortion thing.

As I've explained on another thread, I've been on one of the "combined pills" from a very early age for medical reasons. It's one of those pills that are designed to prevent ovulation, but that change the uterine lining as well. If an egg IS produced and fertilised, it is unable to implant.

The individual I was talking to insisted that I was committing some sort of sin simply by taking the pill... even though I am not on it for reasons of birth control, and even though I use condoms anyway. His argument was that IF the pill failed to work AND the condom broke, a fertilised egg could be rejected and I would hence have technically aborted a foetus.

Does anyone else think this is going a little too far? The odds of both those things happening at the same time are astronomical.

Sozo
October 28th, 2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I had an argument the other day with someone on another board regarding the birth control/abortion thing.

As I've explained on another thread, I've been on one of the "combined pills" from a very early age for medical reasons. It's one of those pills that are designed to prevent ovulation, but that change the uterine lining as well. If an egg IS produced and fertilised, it is unable to implant.

The individual I was talking to insisted that I was committing some sort of sin simply by taking the pill... even though I am not on it for reasons of birth control, and even though I use condoms anyway. His argument was that IF the pill failed to work AND the condom broke, a fertilised egg could be rejected and I would hence have technically aborted a foetus.

Does anyone else think this is going a little too far? The odds of both those things happening at the same time are astronomical.

Perhaps you might want to start with the fornication issue first.



:sigh:

firechyld
October 28th, 2004, 12:22 AM
That's not the purpose of this thread.

If it really bothers you that much, then consider the question in the context of my marriage.

While I was married, I was on the combined pill and using condoms. Refer to previous post for the rest of my point.

Lighthouse
October 28th, 2004, 03:31 AM
Sozo-
I love you, man!

keypurr
October 28th, 2004, 02:17 PM
firechyld, I don't judge you.

I only worry about my own sins.

I think you know in your heart what is right and wrong. You do not need us to tell you.

firechyld
November 3rd, 2004, 12:37 AM
firechyld, I don't judge you.

I only worry about my own sins.

I think you know in your heart what is right and wrong. You do not need us to tell you.


Thanks, doll. I appreciate the sentiment.

keypurr
November 3rd, 2004, 12:30 PM
Wow, I haven't been called doll before. Does that make me an empty headed plaything at my age.

Lucky
November 3rd, 2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by keypurr

I only worry about my own sins.
You only worry about where you're going... kind of selfish, don't you think? Or maybe apathetic would be a better word.

keypurr
November 3rd, 2004, 10:15 PM
Lucky, I never thought of it that way. You may be right. Now ya got my mind in gear. Hope it is not reverse.

keypurr
November 3rd, 2004, 10:16 PM
OK, I will worry about everyones sins. Now the rest of you can relax and stop judging people.

1PeaceMaker
November 4th, 2004, 09:56 AM
:chuckle:

firechyld
November 5th, 2004, 01:18 AM
Wow, I haven't been called doll before. Does that make me an empty headed plaything at my age.

Nah, it's just my generic reference for people. Some people use "dude" or "man". *shrug*

And the sentiment I thanked you for was the polite concern you expressed, even while telling me that you weren't judging me. It's clear you were expressing something nice, without either condemning or condoning. Thank you. :)