MennoNet.com

Often the debate isn't about barriers but rather about the intrauterine devices specifically the copper IUD as the hormonal ones generally are not accepted due to side effects and similar belief to a yes to the question below.
This is a question form for this but I'm kind of fine with this going off a little if its pertaining to contraceptive use.

If the IUD fails to prevent fertilization of the egg is it sinful? Explain your reasoning for yes or no. If your answer is no, at what point would it become sinful to you to end the merged life? For reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_emb ... enesis.svg Following that is this http://embryo.soad.umich.edu/carnStages ... age13.html

This last picture would not be possible without killing of human embryos and while I appreciate the science and the point it makes I disagree with what was done which fairly clearly states my position.
Going on to fetal development stages, any mother would be familiar with those and I suspect the arguments lie with these first two main stages of the pre-implant blastopore and the Carnegie Stages. For simplicity I suggest the stages are broken up as this: Fertilization, Implantation, Embryo, Fetus, and baby and sub divided if you so chose.
I have suspected that some in the conservative circles see no problem with using IUD's and generally it seems like there is a strong hesitancy to discuss these issues with authority. Possibly due to ignorance or not wanting to kick an anthill. While a few fringe groups adopted a quiverfull belief I'm not wishing to venture into that.
I'm specifically looking for opinions from those who would belong or attend the more conservative ends by Ernie's descriptions. I couldn't remember where I stuck my copy of who fits into which category, but it gets posted often enough and I would be looking at moderate to ultra which would leave groups like BMA out if I recall his chart.
I request that others save any comments until a few have responded from the conservative side or at least 48 hours before a free-for-all.

My wife grew up with the understanding that birth control was wrong, however there was leniency for using the rhythm method. Not sure why one was okay and the other was not.... never heard much over the pulpit.

Not to steal anyone's thunder but what stand would we take on women having tubes tied or men getting "snipped"?

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:49 am My wife grew up with the understanding that birth control was wrong, however there was leniency for using the rhythm method. Not sure why one was okay and the other was not.... never heard much over the pulpit.

Not to steal anyone's thunder but what stand would we take on women having tubes tied or men getting "snipped"?

having been on both sides of that... I have no judgement on what some man choses to do as long as it is mutual and prayerfully considered. Now I strongly would discourage the woman from tube tying. Carries much more risk and is much more invasive compared to a 8 minute surgery (my record in the Navy) I happen to know a surgeon who specialized in reversals and while he is a jerk, he's cheap and his numbers speak for himself, but the surgeon I worked with in the Navy did it so it couldn't be reversed and I believe based on my understanding it would be very complex to reverse if it was even possible. There are at least 5 different methods that are used and are generally very safe. The woman's options for surgical sterilization are not nearly as safe and based on other options available I would say its terribly selfish for a male to insist on the woman getting the surgery.
I think the ethics of intentionally preventing children go into the quiverfull arguments and while I do not have a stance on it, I can respect both camps.

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:49 am My wife grew up with the understanding that birth control was wrong, however there was leniency for using the rhythm method. Not sure why one was okay and the other was not.... never heard much over the pulpit.

Not to steal anyone's thunder but what stand would we take on women having tubes tied or men getting "snipped"?

This is a controversial issue. There is a big difference between contraception that disallows a newly formed fetus from attaching to the uterine wall, such as an IUD or the birth control pill. Two methods I definitely would be opposed to. Barrier methods such as condoms and diaphragms prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place. And the rhythm method would do the same.

In the past there were situations when no birth control was used, the mothers would be having babies 12 to 18 months apart year after year and were overwhelmed, some having "nervous breakdowns". Is it wrong for a couple to space their children so the mother's body can recuperate and she can enjoy her little ones in their baby years? They can still have a large family even if spacing the children. And is it wrong for a couple who has a large family and the woman is in her late forties, for using some kind of barrier method of birth control.

If a contraceptive simply prevents the fertilization of the egg I would not consider it abortion and thus inherently sinful. Intentional termination of a fertilized egg is abortion and thus sinful. If there is the possibility of this happening with a particular contraceptive method, I would view that method as ethically wrong.

I have issues with contraception/family planning other than whether or not the method is technically abortion or not, but that may be a discussion for another thread.

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:49 am My wife grew up with the understanding that birth control was wrong, however there was leniency for using the rhythm method. Not sure why one was okay and the other was not.... never heard much over the pulpit.

Not to steal anyone's thunder but what stand would we take on women having tubes tied or men getting "snipped"?

I don't have an ethical issue with either, because they do not terminate a human life. However, it is a momentous decision and other factors enter in, such as what the reasons are for wanting to prevent pregnancy. Many years ago I remember my dad helping a family financially who wanted to reverse such a surgery so they could have more children.

This enters into the topic of why people are so determined to prevent having children. It is a topic that is not often addressed, and I think it matters for Christians. We live in the most prosperous society in history with better healthcare and more conveniences and luxuries than anyone else in history, broadly speaking, yet as a society we are having fewer and fewer children. Christians included. Yes, there are always the individual health stories and financial stories, but I am not talking about individual families so much as society broadly. It is a question that I have found interesting for many years.

I was shocked to learn how many men in conservative settings opt to get snipped. Now if woman's health is in danger, I can understand the procedure. I know of several situations where a couple had one child and were told she couldn't conceive any more. Ten years later... surprise

mike wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 9:22 am I don't have an ethical issue with either, because they do not terminate a human life. However, it is a momentous decision and other factors enter in, such as what the reasons are for wanting to prevent pregnancy. Many years ago I remember my dad helping a family financially who wanted to reverse such a surgery so they could have more children.

This enters into the topic of why people are so determined to prevent having children. It is a topic that is not often addressed, and I think it matters for Christians. We live in the most prosperous society in history with better healthcare and more conveniences and luxuries than anyone else in history, broadly speaking, yet as a society we are having fewer and fewer children. Christians included. Yes, there are always the individual health stories and financial stories, but I am not talking about individual families so much as society broadly. It is a question that I have found interesting for many years.

If you ever run across someone needing that sort of thing again, I know a cheap place, about 3k in the states.
Its interesting to me that the poor often have more children then the rich and often a poor person doesn't make a choice of if they can afford another child or not, they simply have another child and figure it out. Too often the wealthy decide they can't afford it and that is interesting.

If you think that it is "OK" to purposely limit the size of your family, what would be the acceptable reasons?
Such as (but add others):
your age, or that of your spouse.
your declining health, or that of your spouse.
Financial considerations, whether related to house size, resulting need for a much larger vehicle, etc.
Warnings from a medical profession regarding probable complications leading to the death of the mother.
Already have a child with special needs that will require constant care for their entire life.
The quiver is already full. (I'm thinking as a pioneer missionary on this one - our only way to get to the village was with a Cessna 206, meaning a total of 6 seats, one of which is for the pilot. So going beyond 3 children automatically doubles the cost of every trip, greatly increasing ministry costs, unless the older children are left behind with other families, or sent to boarding school. We never considered doing that, would you? Full disclosure: we have 3 surviving children, our 1st, 2nd, & 4th.)

(The thinking about non-abortive birth control really comes down to a person's belief regarding the purpose of marital intimacy.)

[I'm leaving out motivations such as:
"We should only 'replace ourselves', thus no more than two children."
"We want to limit our carbon footprint."
etc.]

Grace wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 9:11 am

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:49 am My wife grew up with the understanding that birth control was wrong, however there was leniency for using the rhythm method. Not sure why one was okay and the other was not.... never heard much over the pulpit.

Not to steal anyone's thunder but what stand would we take on women having tubes tied or men getting "snipped"?

This is a controversial issue. There is a big difference between contraception that disallows a newly formed fetus from attaching to the uterine wall, such as an IUD or the birth control pill. Two methods I definitely would be opposed to. Barrier methods such as condoms and diaphragms prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place. And the rhythm method would do the same.

In the past there were situations when no birth control was used, the mothers would be having babies 12 to 18 months apart year after year and were overwhelmed, some having "nervous breakdowns". Is it wrong for a couple to space their children so the mother's body can recuperate and she can enjoy her little ones in their baby years? They can still have a large family even if spacing the children. And is it wrong for a couple who has a large family and the woman is in her late forties, for using some kind of barrier method of birth control.

Women still have as many “nervous breakdowns” today; mental health has not improved in the last 100 years.

If God intended for people to have sex without the possibility of children, he would have designed our bodies that way. He didn’t. The modern culture is full of lies such as that sex is something you should do for your own pleasure. It isn’t.