# Was all birth control once considered abortifacient?



## SRoper (Oct 5, 2006)

I've been wondering if the Reformers and those that came before them considered all birth control to be abortifacient. From Calvin's Commentary on Genesis:

"The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring. The impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses' mouth, that Onan, as it were, by a violent abortion, no less cruelly than filthily cast upon the ground the offspring of his brother, torn from the maternal womb. Besides, in this way he tried, as far as he was able, to wipe out a part of the human race. If any woman ejects a foetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment, infecting the earth by his semen, in order that Tamar might not conceive a future human being as an inhabitant of the earth."

Semen, of course, does not contain seed as we comonly think of seed today (as in botany). It is not the case that semen contains the seed of a person and only needs a fertile place to grow. It needs to be combined with the ovum -- only at fertilization is it a person. Considering that the mammalian ovum was not discovered until the 19th century, I'm curious if perhaps a misunderstanding of biology influenced the Reformers views.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 5, 2006)

It is true that fertilization is required for a person to come into existence. That is why pro-lifers emphasize the point that 'life begins at conception.' 

It is also true that a full understanding of this process was lacking to the Reformers and those who preceded them. I'm not sure that even 21st century scientists can claim a full understanding of the process, however. 

While it is true that fertilization requires a component (ovum) that must be joined with the male semen, yet it is entirely proper to speak of semen as being 'seed.' The Bible itself uses the same word for seed in connection with herbs and plants in Genesis 1, the 'seed of the woman' in Genesis 3.15 (the Messiah), and the seed of Onan, which he spilled on the ground in Genesis 38, etc. Thus, it is the Bible which defines the word "seed" to include semen and the fruit or offspring thereof. The etymology of "semen" bears this out. It cannot be argued that "seed" must be divorced from "semen" on scientific grounds without doing violence to the Scriptural meaning of the word "seed." It is also a confessional term (see WCF 24.2).

Moreover, Calvin is quite right and not alone in his interpretation of this passage, and this view is not confined to pre-19th century theologians. See this link for a list of relevant quotations from church history. The issue of understanding why Onan's spilling of seed was a sin is not affected by modern scientific understanding of fertilization but is rather a theological and moral question that was answered correctly by Calvin, et al. (the entire Christian Church prior to the 1930 Lambeth Conference).

It was only in 1936 that birth control was legalized in the United States when the Comstock Law was overturned. 

And as to the question of whether "all birth control [was] once considered abortifacient" it should be noted that Calvin specifically says that spilling seed, otherwise known as Onanism, which is to say, birth control, "is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill *before he is born* the hoped-for offspring." In other words, it is not the taking of an existing life but a potential life. Contraception is "contra" (pre-fertilized) life. It is a Sixth Commandment violation as well as a Seventh Commandment violation (uncleanness).

From another thread on this subject:



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> One of the foundational reasons for marriage is for the prevention of "uncleanness." (1 Cor. 7.2, 9; WCF 24.2; WLC 138-139). What is uncleanness? Its meaning can certainly be broader than this, but it often means "self-pollution." The primary example of this in Scripture is the sin of Onan (Gen. 38).
> 
> Uncleanness or self-pollution really is a sin against both the Sixth and Seventh Commandments. Some thoughts to consider from theologians of old:
> ...



Also these resources may be helpful for further study.



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> For a few resources from the contra-contraceptive side (a minority now but which includes the entire Christian Church until the 1930's) see the following:
> 
> The Case Against Birth Control
> ...



Moreover, there are many who believe that *most* forms of birth control are in fact abortifacients.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> An additional complication is that most forms of birth contol are really abortificants, including the "pill" (a dirty little secret that the medical community will not advertise).



Birth Control and the Christian by David W. Cloud lists a number of types of birth control that are properly classified "abortifacients."

It is also worth noting that the death penalty in the Bible was prescribed for male homosexuals but not for female homosexuals.



> The following is from the book: _The Bible and Birth Control_, by Charles D. Provan , on the topics of Homosexuality and Birth Control.
> 
> REASON NUMBER FIVE
> 
> ...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 5, 2006)

> The following is from the book: The Bible and Birth Control, by Charles D. Provan , on the topics of Homosexuality and Birth Control.



Wow...that was very interesting Andrew!


----------



## SRoper (Oct 5, 2006)

Thank you for your response Andrew. I had you in mind when I started the post.



> While it is true that fertilization requires a component (ovum) that must be joined with the male semen, yet it is entirely proper to speak of semen as being 'seed.' The Bible itself uses the same word for seed in connection with herbs and plants in Genesis 1, the 'seed of the woman' in Genesis 3.15 (the Messiah), and the seed of Onan, which he spilled on the ground in Genesis 38, etc. Thus, it is the Bible which defines the word "seed" to include semen and the fruit or offspring thereof. The etymology of "semen" bears this out. It cannot be argued that "seed" must be divorced from "semen" on scientific grounds without doing violence to the Scriptural meaning of the word "seed." It is also a confessional term (see WCF 24.2).



I was only pointing out differences in word usage. Think about how scripture uses the word "star," for example. Just as we can say that Alpha Centuari has more in common with our Sun than it does with Venus, we can say that semen has more in common with pollen than it does with a plant seed.



> And as to the question of whether "all birth control [was] once considered abortifacient" it should be noted that Calvin specifically says that spilling seed, otherwise known as Onanism, which is to say, birth control, "is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." In other words, it is not the taking of an existing life but a potential life. Contraception is "contra" (pre-fertilized) life. It is a Sixth Commandment violation as well as a Seventh Commandment violation (uncleanness).



I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment. Calvin said "kill before he is _born_" not _conceived_. The way I read him, Calvin makes no distinction between the abortionist who kills a fetus and a man who kills his semen -- they both involve killing before birth. I believe we both consider a fetus "existing life."

I would find Provan's argument more convincing if scripture prescribed the death penalty for that most common voluntary act of spilling the seed: self-stimulation.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 5, 2006)

Very good Andrew. This is an issue we began dealing with a couple of years ago and were shocked. It is a woefully unaddressed and misaddressed subject today among Christians, even among otherwise sound pastors/leaders.

But you will find pressure in the most unexpected places for at least an implied pro-birth control, especially among family and even the grand parents. Especially financial arguments.

If there was one ubiquotous issue that ALL pre-1930 denominational pastors would be driven out of there pulpits for it would be this one. On THIS issue the post-1930s church is at odds with the ENTIRE pre-1930s church all the way back to Genesis 1:1.

I'm familiar with some of what you posted but you added tons more. Great info!

Ldh


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_I was only pointing out differences in word usage. Think about how scripture uses the word "star," for example. Just as we can say that Alpha Centuari has more in common with our Sun than it does with Venus, we can say that semen has more in common with pollen than it does with a plant seed.



As I mentioned, our understanding of the word “seed” should be derived from the Bible and it is very clear that the Bible means to identify “semen” with “seed.” 

Charles Provan, _The Bible and Birth Control_, p. 23:



> If a person looks up the word “seed” in the Old Testament, an interesting fact will pop up. Namely, the Hebrew word “zerah” is used of human seed in two different ways: a) semen (as in Gen. 38:9 and Lev. 15:18, 32), and b) children or people after birth (as in Gen. 46:6 and Lev. 22:13).



Provan has a whole chapter on this subject, “Seed as Semen or Children,” that is worth reading.

While it is truly said that a person’s life begins at conception, the Bible treats life as a continuum. Thus, Levi is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek while he was yet in the loins of his “father” Abraham, Heb. 7.9-10. Also Job speaks (“modestly and accurately,” says Matthew Poole) of his own personhood while he existed in his father’s semen, Job 10.10. Thus, rather than limiting our understanding of life to that narrow technical definition that commences with fertilization, theologians have historically properly understood the Bible to take a broader view of the meaning of life. Thus, theologians speak of Onan’s crime as that which involved the murder of children not yet born, including the Messiah, would have been born from Onan’s line if he had consummated the act that he began. Calvin and others understood that it was not just one child whose potential life had been extinguished but generation upon generation, even the Messiah who was to descend from Judah (“it was the more displeasing, as it was not only a check upon the multiplication of Abraham’s seed, as promised, but since the Messiah was to come from Judah,” John Gill). 

Hence, the Synod of Dort in describing Onan’s sin said that “this was even as much, as if he had (in a manner) pulled forth the fruit out of the mother’s womb, and destroyed it.” David Paraeus said, “For what is it to waste the seed other than kill the foetus and the human being that _is to be born from it_ [emphasis mine]?” William Dodd said, “The crime of Onan shows a peculiarly malignant disposition (verse 9), and it is probable, that bad as it was in itself, yet his sin was aggravated with a worse circumstance, viz. his having an eye to the suppressing of Messiah’s birth, since he should not have the honor to be numbered among his ancestors, which might provoke God to cut him off. See Universal History. Acts of self pollution were always held particularly criminal, even by heathen moralists. The Hebrew doctors looked upon them as a degree of murder.” 

Theodore Laetsch (Lutheran, 1877 – 1962) said, “Birth control by means of anticonceptuals, coitus interruptus, etc. is ruthlessly interfering with God’s method of creating a living being. Hufeland, one of the most noted physicians in Germany, 1762 – 1836, says: ‘The first question undoubtedly is, When does life begin? There can be no doubt that the act of copulation is to be regarded as the beginning of the existence of the future being and that the very first, even though invisible, germ of this being has the same claim upon the care and protection of the physician as the later, fully developed man…A human being is being murdered in its incipiency. I am not going to answer the sophistic, even Jesuitic, cavils. I appeal to sane reason and to the pure, unspoiled moral feeling of every man… The product presupposes the producing, and if it is wrong to kill the product, then it goes without saying that it is wrong to kill that which is in the process of being produced (das Werdende) in its first beginning.’ Quoted in De Valenti, Die Ehe, biblisch und aerztlich beleuchtet, page 65 f. This is undoubtedly the Scriptural view. Cf. Ps. 139:13-16; Job 10:8-11, especially v. 10 (the act of copulation described).”

If semen is not part of the life continuum, then spermicide is misnamed.



> I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment. Calvin said "kill before he is _born_" not _conceived_. The way I read him, Calvin makes no distinction between the abortionist who kills a fetus and a man who kills his semen -- they both involve killing before birth. I believe we both consider a fetus "existing life."



It would also be helpful to remember that Calvin describes the murder as pertaining to a “*future* human being,” ie., not a human being currently in existence. Also, he speaks of Onan "[wiping] out a part of the human race." This is a clear reference to generations yet unborn, which means that Calvin is not just referring to one child in the present but to many in the future.



> I would find Provan's argument more convincing if scripture prescribed the death penalty for that most common voluntary act of spilling the seed: self-stimulation.



This is one of the “works of darkness” of which “it is a shame even to speak” (Eph. 5.11-12) (Martin Luther describes Onan’s act as a “sodomitic sin”). Nevertheless, although involuntary emissions lead to ceremonial uncleanness, and Scripture testifies against uncleanness and unchastity in many ways and in many places, there is one place in Scripture given to the condemnation of voluntary spilling of seed, and it is this very passage in which Onan is expressly killed by God directly (not by men). Voluntary wasting of seed, then, is prior to the giving of the Mosaic law, clearly identified as a capital crime. As Cotton Mather indicated, the very name Onanism has been given to identify that which Jocelyn Elders and others so cavalierly promote as natural and healthy and for everyone to engage in. The example of Onan stands as a warning not just to his generation but to ours as well against treating self-stimulation or coitus interruptus lightly; rather, his death by God’s hand teaches us that it is a most heinous crime, against nature and worthy of condemnation (Rom. 1.32).


----------



## satz (Oct 6, 2006)

With great respect to those who disagree, I feel the terming of birth control to be murder is bordering on sensationalistic. Even if birth control were a sin (with which I strongly disagree) I don’t see how the bible supports the idea that it is a form of the sin of murder.

Even if the bible does use the word ‘seed’ to refer to both semen and children, I don’t see how it follows that ‘wasting’ semen is murder. Children are very obviously human beings while semen is something very different. If we are to be consistent with this idea, what about the huge amount of semen that is ‘wasted’ though sexual intercourse were no fertilization results, or though natural nocturnal emissions? Where does the bible state the idea that if it goes into the wife than the wastage is ok, but if not than that is murder? 

Charles Provan’s analysis of the Old Testament sexual offences might make for interesting reading, but in the end is simply speculation. God never states (correct me if I err) why certain sex offences were punished with death by the civil government and others were not. It is rather vain, In my humble opinion to start to speculate on ‘sterile sexual intercourse’ because the bible never categorizes those sins in that way. Any if his theory is true, what about sex between a man and his wife when the wife is already pregnant? Is that sterile? Is it condemned anywhere in the bible?

Regarding Onan, I am unconvinced that it is obvious from the passage that God slew him for wasting seed. Reading the passage, the focus seems to be on Onan’s attitude toward his brother. 



> Genesis 38:8-10 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. *And Onan knew that the seed should not be his;* and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, *lest that he should give seed to his brother.* And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.



It seems more likely to me it was Onan’s spiteful and selfish behavior that incurred God’s displeasure. Onan’s attitude could be classified as hatred, emulation, envying or any number of sins mentioned in the New Testament that cannot inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5). At the very least it is unclear whether it was the spilling of seed or his heart attitude that resulted in his death. 

Nor does the often repeated argument that since Onan’s refusal to bear a son for his brother was not a capital offence under the Law of Moses than it must have his practicing of birth control that enraged God hold much water for me. Onan was not under the civil code given to Israel. There are any number of sins that were not capital offences in Israel, or were not offences at all, that God will punish with eternity in hell. God is not bound by the civil law he gave to Israel and is free to give out harsher or lighter physical judgments on those who sin against him. Hence it is wrong to assume that it could not be Onan’s refusal to bear children for his brother that resulted in his death.

It is currently my position that birth control per se is not a sin before God. I am open to idea that one day I may be convicted that I am mistaken. I am fairly sure, however, that even if birth control may be a sin, it is certainly not the sin of murder.

[Edited on 10-6-2006 by satz]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > The following is from the book: The Bible and Birth Control, by Charles D. Provan , on the topics of Homosexuality and Birth Control.
> ...







> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Very good Andrew. This is an issue we began dealing with a couple of years ago and were shocked. It is a woefully unaddressed and misaddressed subject today among Christians, even among otherwise sound pastors/leaders.
> 
> But you will find pressure in the most unexpected places for at least an implied pro-birth control, especially among family and even the grand parents. Especially financial arguments.
> ...



Thanks for the encouraging words, brother!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 6, 2006)

I believe the idea of killing by wasting semen was in the attitude...ppl deciding that children are not welcome (even if it's just an "at this time"..."at this time, children are not welcome"). This is contrary to the attitude that God says we should have.


----------



## Cuirassier (Oct 6, 2006)

Thanks Andrew.

Am I to assume that the rhythm method and vasectomies would be viewed in the same light? The former was briefly alluded to, but I'm interested to know how these have been treated in reformed writings.

dl


----------



## justagirl89 (Oct 7, 2006)

Absolutely agree with satz on the issue.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Cuirassier_
> Thanks Andrew.
> 
> Am I to assume that the rhythm method and vasectomies would be viewed in the same light? The former was briefly alluded to, but I'm interested to know how these have been treated in reformed writings.
> ...



Hi Dan,

The Catholic Church today condones the rhythm method (since 1950), but Augustine wrote against it:



> Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion.
> 
> Source: Saint, Bishop of Hippo Augustine, Philip Schaff (Editor) (1887). A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume IV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., On the Morals of the Manichæans, Chapter 18



Natural Family Planning (NFP) in general is a technique that should be considered in light of 1 Cor. 7.3-5 (Biblical reasons for abstinence), Mal. 2.15 (one of the three major purposes of marriage is for procreation, ie., to bring forth a godly seed) and the particular motivations driving it. Observing times of fertility and acting accordingly for the purpose of procreation is a good thing. But when NFP is used in a manner contrary to the Sixth Commandment obligation to promote life or the Seventh Commandment obligation to render due benevolence, then there is a problem.

Chyrosotom wrote against sterilization which seems relevant to the subject of vasectomies:



> "[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and be impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds."
> 
> Source: Homily on Matthew 28:5



It is one thing for God to open and close the womb. It is another for men and women to attempt to play God by thwarting the natural process by unnatural means for their own purposes.

There are some additional articles on sterilization and vasectomies found on some of the links that I provided earlier including this one: Quiver Full Birth Control Articles.

[Edited on 10-7-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> With great respect to those who disagree, I feel the terming of birth control to be murder is bordering on sensationalistic. Even if birth control were a sin (with which I strongly disagree) I don’t see how the bible supports the idea that it is a form of the sin of murder.
> 
> Even if the bible does use the word ‘seed’ to refer to both semen and children, I don’t see how it follows that ‘wasting’ semen is murder. Children are very obviously human beings while semen is something very different. If we are to be consistent with this idea, what about the huge amount of semen that is ‘wasted’ though sexual intercourse were no fertilization results, or though natural nocturnal emissions? Where does the bible state the idea that if it goes into the wife than the wastage is ok, but if not than that is murder?



The term 'murder' connotates a voluntary as opposed to an involuntary violation of the Sixth Commandment. Jesus Himself says that speaking a harsh word in anger to someone makes them guilty of breaking the Sixth Commandment (Matt. 5.22). If speaking a word in anger violates the Sixth Commandment, I do not see it as "sensationalistic" to point to the destruction of man's seed, which is the means of creating life, which thereby necessarily prevents the possibility of future untold generations being born, as a violation of the same commandment, which requires us to avoid "practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any" and "whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any" (WLC 135-136).



> Charles Provan’s analysis of the Old Testament sexual offences might make for interesting reading, but in the end is simply speculation. God never states (correct me if I err) why certain sex offences were punished with death by the civil government and others were not. It is rather vain, In my humble opinion to start to speculate on ‘sterile sexual intercourse’ because the bible never categorizes those sins in that way. Any if his theory is true, what about sex between a man and his wife when the wife is already pregnant? Is that sterile? Is it condemned anywhere in the bible?



I would encourage you to read the entire book, if you have not, before passing judgment on Charles Provan's argument. 

On the subject of 'sterile sexual intercourse,' it is abundantly clear from numerous passages in Scripture that sterility is a curse, not a blessing. As I have mentioned, it is one thing for God to open and close the womb -- that is his peculiar prerogative -- but it is another for men and women to intervene and cut short the natural process to hinder or thwart the creation of life.

When a woman is pregnant and husband and wife wish to have sexual intercourse, knowing it will not produce yet another child, this is not contrary to the Sixth Commandment because there is a Seventh Commandment duty that is being performed, and there is already a baby on the way. It is within the natural order that God created (ie., desire for sexual relations within the 9 month or so period at issue, so to speak) and not contrary to nature at all. The result of this intercourse then is left to God not man. It does not violate any law (unless there are other issues involved) nor is it contrary to the argument that I (and Provan) am making.



> Regarding Onan, I am unconvinced that it is obvious from the passage that God slew him for wasting seed. Reading the passage, the focus seems to be on Onan’s attitude toward his brother.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is no question that Onan was acting selfishly. This stands as a warning to any person or couple who wants to engage in sexual relations but does not want the fruit of those relations.

However, it is not reasonable to dismiss the key distinction between Onan (who did not want to raise up seed for his brother for his own selfish reasons and was killed by God) and the man in Deuteronomy 25 (who did not want to raise up seed for his brother and is given a rather light civil punishment). That distinction is that Onan spilled his seed while the other man did not. A comparison of the punishments shows God's peculiar anger with Onan's action. All sins are worthy of spiritual death, but there are varying degrees of temporal punishments based on the heinousness of the sin. The Church has always understood God's judgment on Onan to reflect a most heinous sin. Selfishness is evil, but it is not particularly heinous. Spilling seed is a heinous abomination, for reasons already given, and we have God's judgment on Onan as the principal evidence of that as well as the insight of Hebrew and Christian teaching for thousands of years.



> It is currently my position that birth control per se is not a sin before God. I am open to idea that one day I may be convicted that I am mistaken. I am fairly sure, however, that even if birth control may be a sin, it is certainly not the sin of murder.
> 
> [Edited on 10-6-2006 by satz]



Since most if not all forms of artificial birth control are abortifacients, I hope that your position does not extend to defending those. 



> Contrary to what some doctors say, there is no such thing as a chemical contraceptive (Pill, implant) that does not cause abortion from 2-5% of the time. Although the primary function of most of these "Pills" is to prevent ovulation, they do not prevent all ovulation (people still occasionally get pregnant), so they ALL have a secondary function of irritating the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg will not be able to implant, and thus will abort. There are several other pills whose primary effect is to abort fertilized eggs; the IUD also does this as its primary function. Apparently, the body also aborts some pregnancies naturally at very early stages, without provocation, and all methods of mechanical prevention of fertilization (condom, diaphragm, Rhythm, N.F.P.) actually increase the number of these natural abortions by perpetuating the monthly menstrual cycles, which are suspended when a woman is pregnant.
> 
> Source: The Case Against Birth Control



If birth control is a sin, what commandment would it be breaking? Inherent in the very name "birth control" is the concept of "contraception" or "preventing the creation of life." This is a process which only God may lawfully and naturally make fruitful or not (see Genesis 20:18, 29:31, 30:21; 1 Samuel 1:5-6; Job 38:8; Ps. 113.9; Isaiah 66:9). To God alone belongs the issues of life and death (Deut. 32.39). What commandment deals with life? Ans.: The Sixth Commandment. Is birth control or Onanism consistent with the Sixth Commandment duty to promote life or the Seventh Commandment duty for chaste conjugal relations? No, and on this point I recognize myself to be in the minority among Christians today but within the teaching of the entire Christian Church prior to 1930. But that's ok, I'm used to being in the minority, especially on the PB. John Knox said it well.

There is a natural and lawful way to engage in sexual relations and when that is done it is for God to make fruitul the womb or not. There is a world of difference between a couple that is unfruitful due to the secret will of God (John 9.3) and a couple that takes it upon themselves to determine whether or not, in their way of thinking, they will have children and at what time they so choose.

[Edited on 10-7-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Theoretical (Oct 7, 2006)

> "[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they whotrouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and be impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds."
> 
> Source: Homily on Matthew 28:5



Now, from this passage, Homily seems to be taking this passage out of context. The "mutilation" described seems to be of Judiazing circumcizers, not sterilization, and Paul's fury at them seems to be because of this. I'm just wondering.


----------



## SRoper (Oct 7, 2006)

> Apparently, the body also aborts some pregnancies naturally at very early stages, without provocation, and all methods of mechanical prevention of fertilization (condom, diaphragm, Rhythm, N.F.P.) actually increase the number of these natural abortions by perpetuating the monthly menstrual cycles, which are suspended when a woman is pregnant.



I've read this material before. I don't want to get off track, but this is absurd. Since fertilization is less likely to occur when you are using some form of mechanical birth control (that's the whole point of using it) the couple that is using birth control will actually have fewer spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) than the couple that does not. Unless it can be shown that barrier methods impede implantation of a fertilized egg, this argument has no merit.



> Voluntary wasting of seed, then, is prior to the giving of the Mosaic law, clearly identified as a capital crime.



I disagree that it is clear. God killed most of the human race in the flood. Some that were killed were "only" guilty of Adam's first sin. Are we then to conclude that Adam's first sin is a capital offense?



> When a woman is pregnant and husband and wife wish to have sexual intercourse, knowing it will not produce yet another child, this is not contrary to the Sixth Commandment because there is a Seventh Commandment duty that is being performed, and there is already a baby on the way. It is within the natural order that God created (ie., desire for sexual relations within the 9 month or so period at issue, so to speak) and not contrary to nature at all.



This is inconsistent. The pursuit of pleasure should not supercede our sixth commandment obligations. If single people can exercise self-control for their whole pre-marital lives (which may be their entire lives), then a married couple can refrain from relations for a few months. We have no idea if the desire for sexual relations during pregnancy is within the created order. I believe Augustine (who you quoted earlier) would say it is not. According to him, pre-fallen man was not moved to have intercourse by passion but rather by reason for the begetting of children. Intercourse during pregnancy is contrary to reason.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Theoretical_
> 
> 
> > "[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they whotrouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and be impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds."
> ...



Chrysostom makes reference to Paul's statement on castration because he is dealing with those who would castrate themselves, which is an accursed thing to do.

From _Contraception: Early Church Teaching_ by William Klimon:



> St. John Chrysostom condemned contraceptors as "stand[ing]" with heretics (On Galatians 5, PG 61:668-669) and as doing the work of "murderers" (Homily 62 on Matthew 19, PG 58:599).
> 
> St. John is referring to castration. Castration is, of course, an extreme form of contraception--but it is nonetheless a form of contraception, one that has been fairly widely used during this century in population control, e.g., in India and China. In fact, sterilization is the most popular form of contraception in the world (according to the UN Population Division): 30% of contraceptors rely on female sterilization and 8% rely on male sterlization.
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> I've read this material before. I don't want to get off track, but this is absurd. Since fertilization is less likely to occur when you are using some form of mechanical birth control (that's the whole point of using it) the couple that is using birth control will actually have fewer spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) than the couple that does not. Unless it can be shown that barrier methods impede implantation of a fertilized egg, this argument has no merit.



It may be an argument that you disagree with, but it is not "absurd." Normally, about 25% of the time, from what I have heard, women in the natural course of things, will miscarry naturally, often without even realizing it. The use of a barrier method like a condom is not a guarantee that fertilization will not occur. Condoms don't always work. Coitus interruptus does not always work. Miscarriages do happen while using preventative measures. Whether the author is completely correct that natural miscarriages will take place more often amongst couples using birth control I cannot say with certainty. But they can happen. This is not an essential point to my argument, but it does highlight the fact that many birth control methods are never completely successful in acheiving their intended goal (hence the fine print on certain packages).



> I disagree that it is clear. God killed most of the human race in the flood. Some that were killed were "only" guilty of Adam's first sin. Are we then to conclude that Adam's first sin is a capital offense?



What makes you think that some who were killed by the Flood were "only" guilty of Adam's first sin? 

The fact is, Onan was killed directly by God for something heinous that he did. No one else around him (including Tamar) was punished. As Martin Luther said, Onan committed a "sodomitic" sin, and sodomy is punishable by death, unlike lesbianism. It has been clear throughout church history that this stands as an warning against Onanism.



> This is inconsistent. The pursuit of pleasure should not supercede our sixth commandment obligations. If single people can exercise self-control for their whole pre-marital lives (which may be their entire lives), then a married couple can refrain from relations for a few months. We have no idea if the desire for sexual relations during pregnancy is within the created order. I believe Augustine (who you quoted earlier) would say it is not. According to him, pre-fallen man was not moved to have intercourse by passion but rather by reason for the begetting of children. Intercourse during pregnancy is contrary to reason.



The purpose of marriage in part is to provide for the union of man and wife. There are natural God-given occasions in the course of their union when conception cannot occur (during certain times of the month, postpartum = Lactational Amenorrhea, menopause). Such times are more or less guaranteed not to produce children (at least as far as we know). The Seventh Commandment is still in effect, however, and due benevolence should rendered unless the reasons given in 1 Cor. 7.3-5 apply or their is some other providential reason. Such occasions do not constitute a violation of the Sixth Commandment because there is in fact ongoing obedience to the law of God, and the result of the union is left in God's hands, who is the author of life and death, rather than taking it upon oneself to make that determination.

[Edited on 10-7-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## SRoper (Oct 7, 2006)

> It may be an argument that you disagree with, but it is not "absurd." Normally, about 25% of the time, from what I have heard, women in the natural course of things, will miscarry naturally, often without even realizing it. The use of a barrier method like a condom is not a guarantee that fertilization will not occur. Condoms don't always work. Coitus interruptus does not always work. Miscarriages do happen while using preventative measures. Whether the author is completely correct that natural miscarriages will take place more often amongst couples using birth control I cannot say with certainty. But they can happen. This is not an essential point to my argument, but it does highlight the fact that many
> birth control methods are never completely successful in acheiving their intended goal (hence the fine print on certain packages).



I guess I will have to be more clear. The 25% figure was the one I was also going to suggest, so I'll use it.

Consider two couples that both have the 25% miscarriage rate. That is, once an egg is fertilized, 25% will not go to term and 75% will. Assume that both couples have intercourse just as frequently. One couple always uses a diaphragm, the other does not use any birth control. Then it is a simple matter to determine the probable number of miscarriages they have had; simply multiply the number of children they end up having by 1/3. This is the reason I said the argument is absurd. No one would ever think that the couple that uses birth control will have more children which is the only way that the math works out that they would have more miscarriages!



> This is not an essential point to my argument, but it does highlight the fact that many birth control methods are never completely successful in acheiving their intended goal (hence the fine print on certain packages).



It may highlight that fact, but that was not the point you were making. You were arguing that "most if not all forms of artificial birth control are abortifacients." The fact is they are not (unless, of course, we take the extended definition that is the subject of this thread). Withdrawal, NFP, condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, sponges, and sterilization are all not abortifacient. IUDs, surgical abortions, and chemical abortions are abortifacient. Female chemical contraceptions could be.



> What makes you think that some who were killed by the Flood were "only" guily of Adam's first sin?



I suppose you are right. There may have been no unborn children; everyone could have been using BC at that point!

I still think it is a stretch to say that we can infer that all voluntary spilling of the seed is punishable by death and yet think that lesbianism is not. That lesbianism is a sin that is punishable by death is a much stronger inference from Lev. 20:13 than the inference you are drawing from Gen. 38.



> The Seventh Commandment is still in effect, however, and due benevolence should rendered unless the reasons given in 1 Cor. 7.3-5 apply or their is some other providential reason.



And pregnancy can't be a "providential reason" why? You already argued via Provan that sex with a menstrous woman is a perversion. If "due benevolence" can be suspended here, why can't it be suspended during other times?


----------



## SRoper (Oct 7, 2006)

> I believe the idea of killing by wasting semen was in the attitude...ppl deciding that children are not welcome (even if it's just an "at this time"..."at this time, children are not welcome"). This is contrary to the attitude that God says we should have.



That's the issue I was driving at in my first post. Did the reformers consider wasting seed killing or hating? Right now it looks like they considered it killing since it merits the death penalty.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> I guess I will have to be more clear. The 25% figure was the one I was also going to suggest, so I'll use it.
> 
> Consider two couples that both have the 25% miscarriage rate. That is, once an egg is fertilized, 25% will not go to term and 75% will. Assume that both couples have intercourse just as frequently. One couple always uses a diaphragm, the other does not use any birth control. Then it is a simple matter to determine the probable number of miscarriages they have had; simply multiply the number of children they end up having by 1/3. This is the reason I said the argument is absurd. No one would ever think that the couple that uses birth control will have more children which is the only way that the math works out that they would have more miscarriages!



I think one factor that does not seem to be incorporated into your calculations is the fact that the 75% (roughly) of conceptions that go to term will occupy 9 months of a woman's life. Add to that 6 months or so of breastfeeding which naturally hinders conception. That 15 months approximately during which no miscarriages are possible (obviously, these are rough figures because miscarriage can occur throughout pregnancy). For each child that a woman has throughout her childbearing years, miscarriages then are not occuring during that time period; whereas, for the woman who is using birth control, 25% of the time they are occuring during the same time period. I think if the duration of pregnancy + breastfeeding is taken into account, it is reasonable to postulate that more natural miscarriages are possible for the couple using birth control than the one that is not. There are a lot of variables here, however, and this is not a hill that I am willing to die on. Math is not my forte and I didn't write that statement in the first place. My quoting of a statement does not mean I am in complete 100% agreement with it. It is submitted as a contribution to the discussion. 



> It may highlight that fact, but that was not the point you were making. You were arguing that "most if not all forms of artificial birth control are abortifacients." The fact is they are not (unless, of course, we take the extended definition that is the subject of this thread). Withdrawal, NFP, condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, sponges, and sterilization are all not abortifacient. IUDs, surgical abortions, and chemical abortions are abortifacient. Female chemical contraceptions could be.



Yes, I took the opportunity to make an additional point. I don't think that is 'against the rules' of discussion. 

I consider abortifacients to be those contraceptives which take effect after fertilization. I do think that involves *most* birth control methods or the ones that are used *most* of the time.



> _Originally posted by PuritanSailor_
> I would also add, that any abortive methods of BC should be immediately ruled out, which rulesout about 90% of them, including BC pills and patches.





> I still think it is a stretch to say that we can infer that all voluntary spilling of the seed is punishable by death and yet think that lesbianism is not. That lesbianism is a sin that is punishable by death is a much stronger inference from Lev. 20:13 than the inference you are drawing from Gen. 38.



I've never heard anyone argue before that Lev. 20.13 teaches that lesbians should be put to death. 



> And pregnancy can't be a "providential reason" why? You already argued via Provan that sex with a menstrous woman is a perversion. If "due benevolence" can be suspended here, why can't it be suspended during other times?



I did not "argue" via Provan that sex with a menstrous woman is a perversion. I quoted a section from his book which included that statement, apparently (I have not gone back to look at it). I actually don't have a definite opinion on that subject, although it seems to be unnatural and certainly was forbidden as a matter of ceremonial uncleanness. If there is a general equity that is still abiding on that restriction, which there may be, I have not come to a definitive conclusion about that in my own mind. 

As I mentioned before, pregnancy + lactating = ~15 months wherein conception is not possible (x [however many children a couple has]) means that a couple would be abstaining from sexual relations throughout most of the wife's childbearing years (not to mention menopause), if they adopted the principle that you are putting forth. 

No one that I know of from the "quiver full" movement or in church history advocates this. You may see it as an inconsistency; I see it as a straw man argument.

I think I have shown that Calvin's statement (the original focus of this thread) has definite reference in part or in whole to a generation yet unborn and unconceived, ie., the line which would produce the Messiah contrary to your original understanding. I don't imagine we will agree on the larger subject of birth control in general. Since my time is limited and I have other subjects to engage in (not to mention children to take care of), I think there is probably not much more for me to add to this thread. You raised an initial interesting question, which I trust has been answered. 

God bless, brother.

[Edited on 10-7-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## SRoper (Oct 7, 2006)

> I think one factor that does not seem to be incorporated into your calculations is the fact that the 75% (roughly) of conceptions that go to term will occupy 9 months of a woman's life. Add to that 6 months or so of breastfeeding which naturally hinders conception. That 15 months approximately during which no miscarriages are possible (obviously, these are rough figures because miscarriage can occur throughout pregnancy). For each child that a woman has throughout her childbearing years, miscarriages then are not occuring during that time period; whereas, for the woman who is using birth control, 25% of the time they are occuring during the same time period. I think if the duration of pregnancy + breastfeeding is taken into account, it is reasonable to postulate that more natural miscarriages are possible for the couple using birth control than the one that is not. There are a lot of variables here, however, and this is not a hill that I am willing to die on. Math is not my forte and I didn't write that statement in the first place. My quoting of a statement does not mean I am in complete 100% agreement with it. It is submitted as a contribution to the discussion.



Again, I don't mean to belabor such a noncentral point, but I did take that into consideration. The couple that uses BC will have fewer fertilization events, hence fewer pregnancies and miscarriages. And math is my forte -- historical theology is not!



> I consider abortifacients to be those contraceptives which take effect after fertilization. I do think that involves *most* birth control methods or the ones that are used *most* of the time.



Respectfully, I think you need to verify your facts before you make such claims. You may be right about the second point (I don't know the numbers), but the first point does not appear to be true. Even if I'm generous as to how the methods are classified I still get 50% of methods as not abortifacient (withdrawal, NPF, barrier methods, and sterilization vs. IUDs, chemical abortions, surgical abortions, and chemcial contraception). In any case, there do exist methods that are not abortifacient.



> I did not "argue" via Provan that sex with a menstrous woman is a perversion.



You are right, of course. I apologize.



> No one that I know of from the "quiver full" movement or in church history advocates this. You may see it as an inconsistency; I see it as a straw man argument.



I hope I was not using a straw man argument. I was arguing against the conclusion that scripture forbids the wasting of semen and makes the crime punishable by death. If it did, we would expect clear prohibitions of the more common forms of wasting semen: self-stimulation and relations during pregnancy.



> I think I have shown that Calvin's statement (the original focus of this thread has reference to a generation yet unborn and unconceived, ie., the line which would produce the Messiah) contrary to your original understanding. I don't imagine we will agree on the larger subject of birth control in general. Since my time is limited and I have other subjects to engage in (not to mention children to take care of), I think there is probably not much more for me to add to this thread. You raised an initial interesting question, which I trust has been answered.
> 
> God bless, brother.



Thanks for your participation, Andrew. Actually, I think we agree a great deal on the larger issue of BC even if I don't find certain lines of argument persuasive.


----------



## javacodeman (Jan 28, 2007)

I was just reading various threads and came across this one. First, I have to say that I think Onan's huge sin was his disregard for the Kinsmen Redeemer system given to the Hebrew Nation by God. This system brought about a picture of Jesus redeeming us, with no hope, to the Hebrew nation over and over again (as witnessed by Boaz and Naomi).

Second I ask, what happens to semen that is never ejaculated? It is broken down and absorbed back by the body. Is this too a sinful waste of semen? What should a man do when his wife is with child? He cannot use his semen for anything useful with her (and of course not with anyone else). His body keeps making it, but it is all wasted. Is this sinful?


----------



## Davidius (Jan 28, 2007)

javacodeman said:


> Second I ask, what happens to semen that is never ejaculated? It is broken down and absorbed back by the body. Is this too a sinful waste of semen? What should a man do when his wife is with child? He cannot use his semen for anything useful with her (and of course not with anyone else). His body keeps making it, but it is all wasted. Is this sinful?



I'm somewhat new to the BC debate but am very interested in learning more since I would like to marry young if it be God's will. If my understanding of what I've read so far is correct, I think supporters of BC would say that the point you've raised is a logical inconsistency on the side of those who say that sex must always include the possibility of conception (thus negating BC as an option) but also say that sex during pregnancy is lawful. If their original argument were true, then it seems to follow that their conclusion regarding pregnancy would be that sex would be unlawful during that time as well. Pro-BCers would say that this certain argument against BC at this point proves too much.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 29, 2007)

I also can tell you that though rare, I have known women and their "twins" that were conceived at separate times. Basically the mother is already pg with child #1, has relations during pregnancy, and gets pg with child #2...delivers both at the same time (usually causing one child to be a few weeks early, but still within normal range for a normal birth).


----------

