Contraceptive

[Ken]

This is the crux of the issue. If you believe birth control is a good idea, you have to make the case that God made a mistake in his design of sexuality, and that we can fix it.

This is not even mentioning the horrifying health effects that almost all forms of birth control have.

Is this an actual theological argument made by conservative Anabaptists? It seems nonsensical. You could say the same thing about any human activity.

If God had intended us not to be naked he would have given us clothes.
If God had intended to eat cooked food he would have designed nature to provide us with it rather than forcing us to cook our food.
If God had intended us to read and write he would have given us books, pens, paper, and printing presses.
If God had intended us to fly he would have given us wings.
If God had intended us to dive he would have given us gills.
If God had intended us to drive he would have given us cars.
If God had intended us to use domesticated animals he would have given them to us rather than forcing us to develop them through selective breeding.
If God had intended us to eat wheat, corn, or rice, he would have provide them in nature rather than requiring humans to develop those crops through centuries of selective breeding.

And so forth...

Or maybe God gave us brains to figure these things out for ourselves. Including family planning.

No, this is the argument made by the catholic church, which has significantly more intellectual horsepower behind it than...any other philosophical movement on the planet.

Your are all nonsensical and tired, but I wouldn't have expected you to understand what I was saying.

I think everyone on the board is aware that you are in love with all forms of human "progress"

That isn't actually the argument of the Catholic Church. They argue that birth control is "intrinsically evil" but only when used for birth control, which is a different argument. For example, the Catholic Church doesn't oppose the use of hormonal birth control to regulate heavy or difficult periods of unmarried women who are celibate. It doesn't argue that "this is how God made your sexuality and you should just live with it because God doesn't make mistakes"

[Josh]

Ah yes, Ken is here to lecture us on what the humana vitae actually says.

[mike]

I am increasingly tending towards the belief that all forms of birth control are wrong, other than abstinence. NFP / the Rhythm method would fall under abstinence in my opinion. And I would take no issue with people attempting those methods. Considering it requires abstinence at the least "fun" time, it's a challenge.

There are a lot of aspects of industrial society that have caused issue with fertility. I think a major concern would be not breastfeeding children longer. Breastfeeding is almost as effective as barrier birth control (I know it's not perfect, so please don't pillory me with yours stories of "I know so-and-so who got pregnant while breastfeeding). Sedentary lifestyles are another factor.

Considering children anything but a blessing really makes me sad. At almost no point in history would a sane person have wanted to delay or completely avoid having children like our society does.

I don't have a strong ethical problem with barrier methods or NFP, although the latter doesn't seem to work that well based on the little I know about it and observation of those who use it. And I think it is sad that NFP requires abstinence when a couple might best enjoy the relationship. Because of that, I would advise couples who want to prevent having children to use barrier methods rather than NFP for the sake of their relationship. Maybe they should question their motivation for wanting to prevent pregnancy in the first place. But if they feel comfortable with their intention not to risk pregnancy at that time, then use a barrier method and enjoy the relationship. I think this is better than using NFP and having a child that they would rather not have had. My wife and I have never used birth control, because we wanted children. We decided this before we were married, and have never regretted it even though there were several times when we had some fears about our approach.

[nett]

That isn't actually the argument of the Catholic Church. They argue that birth control is "intrinsically evil" but only when used for birth control, which is a different argument. For example, the Catholic Church doesn't oppose the use of hormonal birth control to regulate heavy or difficult periods of unmarried women who are celibate. It doesn't argue that "this is how God made your sexuality and you should just live with it because God doesn't make mistakes"

I'm not sure what you're responding to, this is a thread on birth control, and I've only mentioned the catholic church's stance, and my own on birth control

[Josh]

“ And I think it is sad that NFP requires abstinence when a couple might best enjoy the relationship.”

This presumes that a couple can “best enjoy” their relationship whilst actively avoiding having a baby. Having a baby is God’s plan for what happens when a couple “best enjoys their relationship”.

[mike]

“ And I think it is sad that NFP requires abstinence when a couple might best enjoy the relationship.”

This presumes that a couple can “best enjoy” their relationship whilst actively avoiding having a baby. Having a baby is God’s plan for what happens when a couple “best enjoys their relationship”.

I think it is possible in certain circumstances for a couple to best enjoy their relationship while actively avoiding having a baby. For example I have a cousin of childbearing age who is in late-stage breast cancer. How could one find fault with someone in their shoes using birth control?

[Josh]

“ And I think it is sad that NFP requires abstinence when a couple might best enjoy the relationship.”

This presumes that a couple can “best enjoy” their relationship whilst actively avoiding having a baby. Having a baby is God’s plan for what happens when a couple “best enjoys their relationship”.

I think it is possible in certain circumstances for a couple to best enjoy their relationship while actively avoiding having a baby. For example I have a cousin of childbearing age who is in late-stage breast cancer. How could one find fault with someone in their shoes using birth control?

That’s an exception that is entirely different than the most common case.

Most young Christian couples using birth control are actively avoiding having a baby for no reason other than a desire to have sexual pleasure disconnected from having a baby. Let’s stick to talking about what is normal and common.

If you want to talk about myriads of edge cases, the Catholic teaching goes into it into great deal - sort of like legislation or case law. As Anabaptists, why don’t we focus on the spirit of the law instead of the letter?

[mike]

“ And I think it is sad that NFP requires abstinence when a couple might best enjoy the relationship.”

This presumes that a couple can “best enjoy” their relationship whilst actively avoiding having a baby. Having a baby is God’s plan for what happens when a couple “best enjoys their relationship”.

I think it is possible in certain circumstances for a couple to best enjoy their relationship while actively avoiding having a baby. For example I have a cousin of childbearing age who is in late-stage breast cancer. How could one find fault with someone in their shoes using birth control?

That’s an exception that is entirely different than the most common case.

Most young Christian couples using birth control are actively avoiding having a baby for no reason other than a desire to have sexual pleasure disconnected from having a baby. Let’s stick to talking about what is normal and common.

If you want to talk about myriads of edge cases, the Catholic teaching goes into it into great deal - sort of like legislation or case law. As Anabaptists, why don’t we focus on the spirit of the law instead of the letter?

I am fine to talk about what is normal and common, and I don't disagree with you about what is normal and common in this case, but that must be done in such a way as to account for exceptions and edge cases. If you can't do that, then I think you will probably lose your audience and destroy your argument.

[Josh]

In a typical discussion like this, those who want to defend the liberal position tend to entirely focus on edge cases.

So let’s focus on the 99%, whilst acknowledging 1% of exceptions do exist. My statements so far have been directed at young couples who put off having kids for 2-5 years. That is the norm, and these things people are not doing it for “health reasons” or some other passable excuse.

[Ken]

In a typical discussion like this, those who want to defend the liberal position tend to entirely focus on edge cases.

So let’s focus on the 99%, whilst acknowledging 1% of exceptions do exist. My statements so far have been directed at young couples who put off having kids for 2-5 years. That is the norm, and these things people are not doing it for “health reasons” or some other passable excuse.

Actually no, it is the opposite.

The liberal position would be that birth control is fine to use for any reason.
It is ultra-conservatives who argue that birth control should be forbidden except for special "edge cases" and then spend time and effort trying to define what those special "edge cases" should or shouldn't be.