# Is there birth control method that would be morally correct ?



## Mayflower (Oct 19, 2006)

After reading the discussion "Question About 'The Pill', i like to know if there is a birth control method that would be morally correct like Condoms ?

I hope to read some views or information !


----------



## Kevin (Oct 19, 2006)

I think the issue is conception, so does it prevent (contra) conception. I think this is the only 'safe' position for a christian.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 19, 2006)

I thought we just had a thread on this (separate from the pill thread)?


----------



## Mayflower (Oct 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I thought we just had a thread on this (separate from the pill thread)?



Can you show me the link ?


----------



## SRoper (Oct 19, 2006)

Are you talking about the one I started about the position of the Reformers?

Was all birth control once considered abortifacient?

I'm not sure that will answer your question, but we discuss the historic position that any intentional wasting of semen is immoral. If true, this would render all BC immoral.

Barrier methods such as condoms and diaphrams will not cause abortions, but some object to them because they are merely a more a sophisticated way of spilling semen. A smaller minority will object to Natural Family Planning on similar grounds.


----------



## JOwen (Oct 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> Are you talking about the one I started about the position of the Reformers?
> 
> Was all birth control once considered abortifacient?
> ...



If this were true, then sex for intimacy's sake when the wife is not capable of conceiving would also be sin. So would having sex while pregnant. In both these cases seed is wasted.

This coming from a father of 8!


----------



## SRoper (Oct 19, 2006)

I made a similar point on the other thread. I think there are better arguments for the no BC position.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 20, 2006)

JOwen said:


> If this were true, then sex for intimacy's sake when the wife is not capable of conceiving would also be sin. So would having sex while pregnant. In both these cases seed is wasted.
> 
> This coming from a father of 8!



Sex for intimacy's sake, even when it is known that conception is not possible (such as during pregnancy or while the wife is breast-feeding or during menopause, etc.) as I have argued many times previously, including on that thread already cited, is not "intentionally wasting seed." It is following the natural course (in keeping with the seventh commandment) and leaving the possibility of conception to God. Birth control of the barrier type, for example, is designed to allow for seed to be spilled but to do so unnaturally so that conception will be prevented rather than leaving it to God to open and close the womb.


----------



## JOwen (Oct 20, 2006)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Sex for intimacy's sake, even when it is known that conception is not possible (such as during pregnancy or while the wife is breast-feeding or during menopause, etc.) as I have argued many times previously, including on that thread already cited, is not "intentionally wasting seed." It is following the natural course (in keeping with the seventh commandment) and leaving the possibility of conception to God.



This does not follow. How can one leave the posibillity of conception up to God when the wife is not producing an egg? Can a pregnant woman get pregnant? Seems He's already eliminated the posibillity.



> Birth control of the barrier type, for example, is designed to allow for seed to be spilled but to do so unnaturally so that conception will be prevented rather than leaving it to God to open and close the womb.




If seed spilling is _in itself_ a sin, then sex for intimacy's sake, with no possibility of conception is a sin. Simple as that. I do not however believe this to be the case. 

Could you give me the link where you argue that sex during pregnancy or while the wife is breast-feeding or during menopause is not wasting seed. I'd like to see your reasoning, especially knowing that the seed is not going to be used for reproduction. Seems like a distinction without difference to me.

JL

Father of 8


----------



## Kevin (Oct 20, 2006)

I thinnk you are correct in this one Jowen. The views expressed above about pregnancy etc. are inconsistent. 

Sometimes when I listen to this debate I start to wonder if fertility is the object of some christians worship.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 20, 2006)

JOwen said:


> This does not follow. How can one leave the posibillity of conception up to God when the wife is not producing an egg? Can a pregnant woman get pregnant? Seems He's already eliminated the posibillity.



The fact of the matter is that a woman is normally only fertile for about 5 days out of every cycle and therefore is unfertile the rest of the time. That means conception is not possible most of the time. Those who keep track of fertility know this. There is only a small window of "opportunity" for conception each month. It does not follow, however, that sex during the rest of the month is "intentionally wasting seed," although this too is within God's providential government. 

"Intentionally wasting seed" is the crime of Onanism (coitus interruptus, unchastity, self abuse, abuse of the marriage bed) -- that is, ejaculation designed to take place in such an unnatural way that conception is thwarted by man and not left to God to grant success to the natural course or not. That is the sense in which Onan's sin is understood historically by theologians. 



> Could you give me the link where you argue that sex during pregnancy or while the wife is breast-feeding or during menopause is not wasting seed. I'd like to see your reasoning, especially knowing that the seed is not going to be used for reproduction. Seems like a distinction without difference to me.
> 
> JL
> 
> Father of 8



You can read the link that was already cited in this thread. Wasting seed = coitus interruptus, unnatural ejaculation designed to avoid conception. It is not wasting seed to have sex when the wife is unfertile per se; it is only wasting seed when this is done deliberately to "pour seed" outside the normal process. 

The difference between sex with an unfertile wife (which includes most woman most of the time, speaking of the majority of the cycle, pregnancy, lactating, menopause, etc.) when one may reasonably assume that conception will not result (but nevertheless is done within the natural process) and spilling or wasting seed in an effort to avoid conception has to do with method of ejaculation (ie, within the natural process or without), goal or purpose, and whether one is trying to deliberately or intentionally trying to prevent pregnancy rather than leaving it to God to bless with conception or not. 

My sole purpose in posting on this thread (on a subject which has been discussed so very often before) is to clarify the phrase "intentionally wasting seed" so that it is not misunderstood or misrepresented to forestall the inevitable straw man arguments which usually follow in support of birth control. The term is usually associated with Onan and it is most helpful to read what godly divines have understood about that phrase from reading their comments on Gen. 38.8-10, many of which can be found in a helpful little book by Charles D. Provan called _The Bible and Birth Control_. William Jenkyn's commentary on Jude has a helpful discussion of this point as well which relates to Onanism. Martin Luther says of Onan that he "must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive." To spill or waste seed, then, is to go outside the natural order to prevent conception. It is not consistent with the proper usage of the term to interpret "intentionally wasting seed" to mean natural sex with an unfertile woman.


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 20, 2006)

I know well the position of the Reformers, etc. on Onanism. I also know that they had a faulty biological understanding of what conception was.

But, wasn't the heart of Onan's sin his wanton refusal to raise up offspring for his brother? Thus, it wasn't a condition of his wanting to time children, or limit the number of children, but his prevention of having any (purposeful childlessness?).

If the believer is supposed to have all the children he or she can possibly have, then isn't it a crime not to have intercourse during a woman's fertile period every month?

Donning flak jacket.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 20, 2006)

God laid the groundwork and he doesn't contradict himself. You are not supposed to have sex during her "uncleaness" (menses). You are not to deprive eachother. Children are a blessing and to be sought after.

Using a barrier method or withdrawal is just that...you are withholding part of yourself (and more than just seed) from your spouse. Barrier methods are considered 'protection'. Protection from what? Children? (oh, the horrors, can't stand the thought of one of THOSE coming along!) Your spouse? (Uh, this is supposed to be the one person you are to be closest to, not trying to 'protect' yourself from their intimacy).

To use NFP you are depriving your spouse, which in the end is never good. Especially when God created us to desire eachother more during that specified window of time.

Sterilization...not good. Don't break what is already working perfectly...sometimes it breaks more than what you want it to break.


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 20, 2006)

Colleen,

So the ceremonial law is still in force? Can women worship during menstruation, then? 

Is the levirate/kinsman redeemer law still in force then, too?

Just because the world uses the word "protection," doesn't nullify the concept that God gave us the right to make certain decisions. Jesus said (albeit incidental to his larger point) that children are born "of a husband's will." 

Don't get me wrong --I believe that believers ought to have a lot more children than they do, on average. And, as those who would desire more children, but have yet to be blessed, I know something of the sting of wanting and waiting.

Yet, I also know that, because of the effects of the fall, the female body is not as hospitable for children after a certain age. Is God sovereign over that? Of course he is. But, birth control does not thwart his sovereignty. It drives me crazy when I hear Christians say that, in deciding not to use birth control, they are "letting God be sovereign." Please. We don't let God be sovereign. GOd is sovereign, and yet this does not overrule secondary causes (though he can), contigencies, or natural law.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 20, 2006)




----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 20, 2006)

It's amazing how long myths last. It's also amazing that MANY of the women who are having children now are "pass a certain age"...and having normal pregnancies and normal babes. Really, pregnancy in itself is dangerous...whether you are 15, 20, 35, or 48. Let's see, I have a healthy pregnancy everyother time...and an unhealthy pregnancy everyother time. If I had quit after the first 'unhealthy' pregnancy...well...I'd be shy about 5 blessings. (You'd also be amazed at how many of the pregnancy issues have to do with what a woman puts in or on her body and the kind of health care she receives...or complications caused by methods or drugs used during previous pregnancies).

You're right, BC doesn't thwart sovereignty...but you will pay the unintended consequences...and those consequences are great (btdt). Just because you can doesn't mean it's beneficial....in fact, the complete opposite.


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 20, 2006)

Interesting, LadyFlynt, that you sidestepped the question about the ceremonial law and its abolition.

I have no problem with Christians who have a moral conviction about not using birth control. I do have a problem with it impinging on the liberty of other Christians, when there are no explicit commands given that believers MUST have as many children as they can. 

This is an adiaphoral, Christian liberty issue, and it arises when we confuse the moral and ceremonial law. One would be hard-pressed to find this spelled out in the moral law, or anywhere even spoken of in the NEw Testament.

In fact, I think Paul's encouragement of singleness, and Jesus' comment about how dreadful some things in the coming age for pregnant and nursing mothers argue against generalizing your conviction for all Christians.

And, again, I think Christians ought to have large families. But, it is more of a wisdom than a command issue.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 20, 2006)

If it were based upon finances etc...then I wouldn't have the blessings I have now. God created them and provided for them. If one were to wait till they could financially have children...then you would wait till "past that certain age". Oh, and there's no guarentee at any time that you won't lose everything the next day (my, I remember hubby losing his job the day we found out we were expecting #1).

I didn't side step anything...I commented...you can, doesn't make it beneficial. You can eat pork, doesn't make it beneficial. On top of that, I don't considered marital sex or conception of children a ceremonial law...I believe it was part of the creation ordinance "Go forth and multiply".


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 20, 2006)

Lady,

I did not say Christians should base the decision to have children on finances, etc. I do believe Christians ought to step out in faith and have more children than they think they could "afford."

But, these are emotive, and not exegetical, arguments. To make something binding on all Christians at all times everywhere you need to have explicit exegetical command, not mere example, and certainly not emotive arguments.

Be fruitful and multiply does not say be fruitful and have as many children as you can. Technically, I guess, multiplying would mean replacing yourself, plus 1. 

Somehow, I don't think the point of the ceremonial law was to be beneficial, not binding. Not to Uzzah, at least. The clear point of Genesis 38 was that Onan failed to fulfill his levirate responsibility. The text clearly states that (v9).


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 20, 2006)

Leaving yourself open to whatever may in regards to conception is NOT "having as many children as you can". To HAMCAYC would require the Duggar method (wean ASAP, six months, and NFP for conception dates). To simply disregard birth control and birth attempts is to be open to God.

God made our bodies a certain way. Ppl assume that no BC means instantaneous conception...only in the few fertile turtles out there. The entire view of conception is a miracle...from a week one cell item, most of which are deformed, to a hostile environment, to the chance of ovulation (and not all women ovulate on day 14 or have 28 day cycles), blocked tubes, making it to the right tube, the chance of a deformed egg, the chance of chemicals a woman has placed in her body (other than BC) that affect pH balance and making implantation next to impossible, the rate of miscarriage (1 out 4) etc.

For some ppl, simply being open has only produced 2-3 children. Especially if you add a natural breastfeeding relationship (which can spread children between 18mos to 3 or 4yrs).

God created us this way for a reason...no we weren't created to just pop them out every nine months. We were created for a child, a nurturing relationship that heals the body, then another child...if conception even happens. For those ppl that can't have children, they have found their role useful in other ways...Adam and Andrea have had more children than I could imagine (and done a great job)...I seen families adopt...or be open to any the Lord send them both naturally and via adoption. It simply means not closing off possiblilities.

(Creation ordinance is not emotive...it's showing how created and His purpose. Nowhere can you pull a 2.5kids and stop from it...it's a go forth, do what is natural - being with your spouse - and raising up the childrent that might naturally follow).


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Oct 20, 2006)

Tts 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 20, 2006)

Blueridge, 

I don't think that applies here, In my humble opinion.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 20, 2006)

I agree...I don't believe that applies here. It's not a foolish question...it's foolish NOT to question it.


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 20, 2006)

Wow, this is almost Wilsonesque. Lady, you sure are gifted at shifting the terms of the debate.

First, the debate is focused on Onan. A quick look at Genesis 38 shows that the point of the Onan account is his failure to uphold the levirate law.

Then, the debate shifts, and the assertion is made that the ceremonial laws (ie no Onan-ism) are still beneficial though not binding. The question is then asked (and ignored) whether women can or ought to worship while menstruating (the point being that the ceremonial laws were not merely beneficial, but binding. They are now fulfilled and abolished in Christ.).

Then, we are at the creation ordinance. Okay, I am willing to play on your turf. Does the creation ordinance forbid birth control? Explicitly? Please quote. 

Nobody here is arguing that believers ought only have 2.5 children, or ever be closed to the possibility of more. What is being argued is that this is an area of Christian liberty, not bound consciences.

WHat about those who heed Paul's call to singleness as preferable --are they sinning because they aren't fruitful and multiplying?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 20, 2006)

KenPierce said:


> Wow, this is almost Wilsonesque. Lady, you sure are gifted at shifting the terms of the debate.


Yes, I probably do break the rules of debate as I am unaware of what they are...sorry, I didn't take debate in college...yet!



> First, the debate is focused on Onan. A quick look at Genesis 38 shows that the point of the Onan account is his failure to uphold the levirate law.


Actually, I believe it was on whether or not there was any morally acceptable form of birth control...yep, just looked at the title of the thread...sho nuf!



> Then, the debate shifts, and the assertion is made that the ceremonial laws (ie no Onan-ism) are still beneficial though not binding. The question is then asked (and ignored) whether women can or ought to worship while menstruating (the point being that the ceremonial laws were not merely beneficial, but binding. They are now fulfilled and abolished in Christ.).


Sorry, I thought the important part of your point was 'are ceremonial laws still intact?'...which I answered...your specific point of women's menses and worship being merely an example. Again...yes, but not always beneficial.



> Then, we are at the creation ordinance. Okay, I am willing to play on your turf. Does the creation ordinance forbid birth control? Explicitly? Please quote.


My turf? I have a turf?! Oh, cool!  

Actually, just because the ordinance doesn't come out and say it's forbidden, doesn't make it acceptable either. The ordinance does state that which is supposed happen and be viewed as good (and it's not BC).



> Nobody here is arguing that believers ought only have 2.5 children, or ever be closed to the possibility of more. What is being argued is that this is an area of Christian liberty, not bound consciences.


That is a matter of opinion...and depends upon how you view scripture.



> WHat about those who heed Paul's call to singleness as preferable --are they sinning because they aren't fruitful and multiplying?



You're not dealing with a married person, thus a whole new ball game. Apparently it IS acceptable (and expected) that there will be some single ppl. And due to being single, they are expected to be chaste, thus no children.


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 20, 2006)

We've probably 

But, dear Lady, I do need to point out that if you say "It's a matter of opinion," you have yourself put it in the adiaphoral realm.

For instance, we would never say the Trinity or Sola Fide are matters of opinion, would we? Of course not.

So, by definition, it is a wisdom, and not a law, issue.

I win I win I win  !!!!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 20, 2006)

Darn! You're right...it's not a matter of opinion...a matter of difference? As I stated, it depends upon how you view scripture.

Don't you love those dead horses?!


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 20, 2006)

Hmm --difference and opinion --not sure there's a difference between difference and opinion.

All we must say is that there is room in the church of God for differences on some matters --matters of conscience.

For instance, I think the decision between home school and Christian school is a matter of indifference. I think courtship or a very closely monitored dating scenario is a matter of wisdom/indifference. I think whether or not to have a TV is a matter of wisdom/indifference.

I have a lot of opinions I think are grounded in the word, but about which Reformed Christians disagree. These are prudential, and not law, matters.

There, the horse is officially dead! ;-)


----------



## Kevin (Oct 20, 2006)

Thanks, Pastor Ken & LadyFlint I found this very helpful.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 20, 2006)

If I might offer some thought. God opens and closes the womb is not usurped by modern science thinking it “better” understands conception than the reformers of old or any other piece of modern scientific knowledge for this matter, and I’m a scientist whose definitely not anti-science. Such arguments are also GROSS misunderstandings about what science is and can do. Fundamentally science just measures phenomena and attempts to formulate an understanding upon what it measures. As history advances the measurements become more fine tuned but they no more really explain causality than they did 1000 years ago. In short it matters very little whether the reformers understood that if fluid seed which I can see with naked eye goes into a its appropriate place that this is the occasion for conception OR if I can now view it with an electron microscope to get a “closer view” and see individual sperm at work. The mystery of conception is still the same one just sees the inner workings more fine tuned than the other. Why DNA works at all is still beyond science.

However, if God opens and closes the womb and God calls children a blessing then it is so. If God commands thus to multiply and be fruitful over which HE alone is sovereign, the opening/closing of the womb, then it lies not in the hands of man at the end of the day. While man can prevent life, kill, man cannot cause life. The sovereignty of God does not lie in our letting the event occur whereby conception takes place or preventing it, it lies in His own ability to cause life to come into being and be sustained. To miss this is to be both ignorant of Scripture AND Science. A doctor can operate and cut out a tumor mass, the doctor can set forth healing conditions with medicines and so forth. But what no doctor or scientist can do is to cause the cell to heal and reproduce more life. The fallacy of modern evolution type thinking which thinks it explains life has so infiltrated church thought that many forget this... the fact that life and the laws of physics function AT ALL is within the sovereignty of God and still a complete mystery to all fields of science. It is the constant “brick wall” science runs into no matter how ‘fine tuned’ it becomes. In short we do not understand as much as we think we understand than men of old.

I can plant corn seeds in a field but I cannot bring forth the germination or increase thereof no more than a physician can cause healing, only God can. Likewise I can choose not to plant and true no fruit will come forth. Similarly, one can have the situation of copulation whereby seed and egg can meet, but one cannot cause conception to occur. This lies in the hands of God whether by secondary control through what modern science very limitedly knows OR by simply not allowing conception to occur if all conditions are perfect. Also, one can practice birth control whereby it cannot happen. Birth control by its very definition is a willful active decision on the part of a person to not allow conception to occur. 

L


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 20, 2006)

Larry,

I have the privilege of pastoring your pastor's mother. Please send John greetings from Draper's Valley.

Your words are well heeded, certainly. Believe me, I have no use for modern scientism that goes beyond observation (and, in the case of medicine as well as other sciences, work towards amelioration) to speculate about causation and morality. On this we can surely agree. The "Great" Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins has published yet another book (greatly touted by Watson and Crick among others) on how science has, yet again, disproved God. As Schaeffer once said, such is beyond the purview of science.

To come at this from another angle, I think we do need to be teaching Christians what it means to be good stewards of their families, and on the blessings copious amounts of children can be. I think there we all can find common ground.


----------



## gwine (Oct 21, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> For some ppl, simply being open has only produced 2-3 children. Especially if you add a natural breastfeeding relationship (which can spread children between 18mos to 3 or 4yrs).



I can assure you that natural breastfeeding does not necessarily spread children out to 18 months-3 years. Our two boys were 1 year and 2 weeks apart.

Of course, your mileage may vary. Past performance is no indication of future performance.


----------



## satz (Oct 21, 2006)

If marriage, one of the greatest blessings in the bible can be restrained either to chose to serve the Lord or because of 'present distress' (1 Cor 7:26), why wouldn't the same principle apply to children?

And if Paul later says 'I would have you without carefulness' (v32), and applies that phrase not only to worldly associations but to marriage itself, why would the same not apply to childbirth? We are not talking about forgoing to children in order to chase some materialistic dream, but i do think there are certain situations where a christian couple is prudent to at least prospone additional children for the time being.

Where does the idea come from that any sexual act a couple engages in must have the potential for conception? Even keeping in mind the exceptions (pregnancy etc) that Andrew pointed out above, i do not see where the bible expresses such a rule. (Which means yes, i disagree with the traditional interpretation of Gen 38).


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 21, 2006)

gwine said:


> I can assure you that natural breastfeeding does not necessarily spread children out to 18 months-3 years. Our two boys were 1 year and 2 weeks apart.
> 
> Of course, your mileage may vary. Past performance is no indication of future performance.



As I said...the minimum NORM is 18mos. Also, if you only have two children, your mileage could change. Mine differ between 18mos and 27mos (because of a loss than a new pregnancy I actually have a stretch to almost 3yrs). Also, how often you nurse and if you nurse throughout or at least a couple of times a night impact.


----------



## SRoper (Oct 21, 2006)

"If marriage, one of the greatest blessings in the bible can be restrained either to chose to serve the Lord or because of 'present distress' (1 Cor 7:26), why wouldn't the same principle apply to children?"

Scripture calls both marriage and singleness good, so I don't think the comparison is works. Barrenness is always a curse, and God can use secondary causes to place this curse on people. It's interesting that the same people who say it is good to be barren are themselves suicidal (Luke 23:29,30).


----------

